I, Robot (2004)

Title: I, Robot
Director: Alex Proyas
Genre: Sci-Fi/Action
Highs: Interesting not so distant future look.
Lows: Nothing new here to see.
RhynoBot Grade: B

"AH, HELL NO!" That there is a Fresh Prince staple and is only a matter of time before he spouts those words just like Arnie's, "I'll be back". I wish I could say I loved this movie but I can't. Don't get me wrong it is very entertaining, lots of thrills, lots of action, and Will Smith is great at playing the cop on the edge. But what I find disappointing is that there isn't anything here that we haven't seen already a million times. It basically follows the standard Hollywood cop movie formula: friend of cop gets killed, no one but said cop believes it was a homicide, cop sets off to find killed against departments wishes, cop tracks down killer but wait there's a twist - it's not who the cop thinks it is after all. Standard fair with some cool futuristic technology inserted. The movie actually reminded me a lot of Minority Report in the style and imagery, not a bad thing since that movie had loads of style, probably the best thing about it. The most interesting aspect of the movie is the use of Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotic", essentially: 1. Robot may not harm humans, 2. Robot must obey all orders by human, 3. Robot must protect own existence. This is the basic premise for the movie, moreover, what happens when these laws are in conflict with each other. I will not proclaim to be an Asimov expert, since I have never read any of his work, but it would seem prudent to provide sufficient information regarding the man's theories of robotics and artificial intelligence if you are going to make it the central theme for your movie. I feel director Alex Proyas falls short here. His respect for Asimov is obvious but his implementation is lacking in that the theory takes a backseat to the explosions. Ultimately I blame the studio, god forbid they release an intelligent movie that makes people think. One final complaint - if you are going to put a scene in a movie with a woman showering, of which the only reason to do so is to show the woman naked, then for god's sake you better show her naked. That scene was completely pointless and irritating. I digress. Despite it's obvious limitations I was entertained by the action, the technology, and of course Will Smith.

This is an good eye candy movie, you should see it.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Title: The Maltese Falcon
Director: John Huston
Genre: Classic
Highs: I now understand more Looney Toons jokes.
Lows: Acting was sub-par.
RhynoBot Grade: C+

This movie is the first in a series of movies I will be watching that are always listed on movie enthusiast's Top 100 lists as I attempt to figure out what exactly makes these movies so "great".

Well I watched this movie because it is currently listed as #23 by the American Film Institute's (AFI) 100 Greatest American Movies list. http://www.filmsite.org/afi100filmsA.html

However, I don't get it, this movie is in the top 25 greatest American movies? I personally have seen 25 better movies in the past 10 years compared to this one. In all fairness I wouldn't consider this movie a bad movie since it is entertaining for the most part but what I have trouble swallowing is the regard this movie has as a great American movie. OK, OK, I am aware that you cannot hold classic movies to the same standards as current movies, due to increase budgets and advancements in technology, etc. but still in my mind in order to be named "greatest" there is a minimum set of timeless criteria that makes a movie great. The most important of the criteria is acting ability, which is where this movie and many others like it made in the 1940's fail miserably as many of the actors of the time were trying to crossover from the over dramatized silent pictures into talkies. Luckily this movie isn't a complete disaster since Humphrey Bogart and Peter Lorre are undeniable the best actors in this movie and hold up pretty well over the test of time but everyone else are quite forgettable and often times annoying. The story is interesting enough filled with a little bit of intrigue, back stabbing, and double-cross but constantly has abrupt edits that make the movie not flow as well as it should.

Anyway, I can see why some people really like this movie especially with Bogart cast in a perfect role for his talents, on the edge, tough guy, private detective, but top 100 greatest American movie??? I say no. Maybe it has to do with a distinct lack of sophistication that movie made today have or my own personal bias (which is more likely) against movies from this era but it will be interesting to see as I move my way up the AFI 100 list if my opinion improves as I get closer to the #1 movie "Citizen Kane". Stay tuned.

This is an OK movie, it's worth a look.

Kung Fu Hustle (2004)

Title: Kung Fu Hustle
Director: Steven Chow
Genre: Foreign
Highs: Very entertaining action sequences.
Lows: Not as light hearted and funny as expected.
RhynoBot Grade: B-

Kung Fu Hustle is Steven Chow's second entry into the American movie market, his first being the very funny and entertaining "Sholin Soccer". This movie doesn't quite match the charm and light heartedness of Sholin Soccer but did however meet my expectation for entertainment value. The movie starts out very dark. We immediately see a handful of people get chopped down, literally, by the psychotic axe gang. The heavy death theme continues throughout the movie but the entertainment value soon improves with the appearance of Steven Chow and his exact same cast of characters (meaning actors) that made Sholin Soccer so hilarious. Chow by far single handedly makes this movie work. His knack for physical comedy and stage presence is right up there with some of the best American physical comics including Jerry Lewis, Jim Carrey, and John Ritter. The movie has kind of a wacky Loony Toons meets Kung Fu kind of feel to it which works well is some areas but really gets old in other areas. The movie does have some tender moments between Chow and the deaf/dumb girl that he tried to protect as a child with his newly acquired empty palm sholin moves he studied from a pamphlet sold to him by an old beggar. The moves didn't work for him as a kid and he got his ass kicked but it just so happens to turn out the beggar sold the pamphlet to the right person since Chow's character ultimately turns out to be to chosen one - a great sholin master.

Anyway, the movie is fun at times, grim at others but is good entertainment and can be enjoyed by a wide variety of Marshall Arts enthusiast's but is definitely not for everyone. If you haven't seen Sholin Soccer, see that instead, it has more universal appeal.

This is a good movie but not for everyone, watcher beware.

Porco Rosso (1992)

Title: Porco Rosso
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Genre: Anime
Highs: Exquisite attention to detail.
Lows: None
RhynoBot Grade: A

Another Miyazaki film and for the first time before I watched the movie I thought I wasn't going to like one of his films based on what I knew of the story, but I was wrong. Once again I found myself fully engaged in this movie and completely amazed by Miyazaki's attention to the smallest of details to bring realism to this animated film.

The plot of this film is a little strange and sounds absurd at first which is why I thought I wasn't going to like this movie. Basically, an ace seaplane fighter pilot for the Italian Air Force finds work as a mercenary taking down sea pirates in post WWI era, oh and he happens to be a pig (literally not metaphorically). We learn later that he wasn't always a pig but was in fact once human and was transformed after an emotional experience following a dogfight with the German's where he witnessed his best friend and fellow fighter pilots get shot out of the sky. He was the only survivor on both sides of the fight and from that point on he was transformed. Regardless, you soon forget about him being a pig as the action in the movie steps up almost immediately.

This being one of Miyazaki's later films you can see the influence of his earlier work in this movie. The Sea Pirates are very similar looking and in character to the pirates in "Castle in the Sky". The 17 year old girl engineer that re-builds Porco Rosso's seaplane has a very similar look and character to Nausicca from "Nausicca of the Valley of the Wind". And the little school girls Porco rescues from the Sea Pirates in the beginning of the movie are all 100% just like Mei from "My Neighbor Totoro". Normally it would bother me to see such strong resemblance of look and character from other movies but Miyazaki really makes it work. He obviously in a man that know how to please an audience and he proves it by taking some of the best elements of his previous films and using them again here, but changed enough to not make it unbearable.

Aside from great character development and a fantastic story, one thing Miyazaki always brings to the table is exquisite attention to even the smallest detail. For example, Porco flies a metallic skin seaplane painted a shiny crimson color, in certain scenes and angles you can glimpse Porco's reflection on the metallic structure just like you would in real life. Most animators would not bother to add such fine detail that most people would not even notice. In addition, all of the environmental scenes, Porco flying over the ocean, small islands in the Mediterranean, Seagulls flying, etc., all have such a rich level of detail and realism that you easily forget you are watching animation.

So Miyazaki does it again. Of all his films I would rank this movie behind Totoro, Nausicca, Castle, Spirited Away, and Mononoke but still far exceeds my expectations and far surpasses anything out there right now (barring Pixar) in animation.

This is another great Miyazaki film, you should see it.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

Title: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Director: Garth Jennings
Genre: Sci-Fi/Comedy
Highs: None
Lows: For as memorable as the novel is this film is very forgettable.
RhynoBot Grade: D

Oh lordy, lordy, lordy. How could this movie be so bad when the source material is soooo good??? Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" has an interesting history. It started as a radio serial in Britain, was then written as a bestselling novel, then was made into a British mini-series, and now finally has made it's way to Hollywood as a feature film. I actually, finally read the novel last summer while I was on vacation. I actually had low expectations, I had heard of the book for several years before but avoided it since I had always regarded it as some nerdy owner's manual or something. Well for the most part I was right but me being a nerd myself I loved the book and found myself laughing out loud several times a chapter (again with the British humor). Not so with this new movie adaptation of the book, I don't think I actually laughed once. It was like watching a shadow of what the book was all about. Certain elements were there like the Earth being blown up and Ford explaining about his field research for new editions of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the galaxies bestselling guide book, but there was no soul. Everything looked pretty but everything that made the book so fun and hilarious was white washed turning a very memorable book into a very forgetful movie. To me that's just a shame since this had the potential of being really great if someone cared enough to do it right.

My suggestion would be to forget this movie exists (which I have already done), pick-up a copy for the book, put on your thinking cap, flip on the improbability drive, and let the nerdiness flow because it's a great ride.

This movie is crap, don't waste your time.

Wallace and Grommet in Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)

Title: Wallace and Grommet in Curse of the Were-Rabbit
Director: Steve Box & Nick Park
Genre: Children & Family
Highs: The rabbits floating in the vacuum system.
Lows: None.
RhynoBot Grade: A

I have been a big fan of Wallace, Grommet, and Nick Park for several years now. My first experience with Wallace and Grommet was a short called "A Grand Day Out" back about ten years ago on a PBS special about Nick Park. Since then I have come to love everything Wallace and Grommet have starred in from "The Wrong Trousers" to "A Close Shave" and now their first feature length film Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

Maybe it's my love of British comedy or the fact that the claymation process takes five years to produce a feature length film but I am always amazed at the quality of the animation and the fullness of the story that Nick Park is able to produce. Five years is a long time to commit to a project. You can't spend that much time doing something and not infuse your love and passion for your work into the film. I think this is why Wallace and Grommet films are so easily accepted and enjoyed by such a wide range of people because the people that create the film put so much of themselves into it that it is just a warm and comfortable experience.

This is a great story. Wallace is up to his old inventor tricks again and through a string of events inadvertently creates a monster - the Were-Rabbit - that is terrorizing the town right before the annual large vegetable contest. Wallace and Grommet set out hot on the tail of the Were-Rabbit (get it, hot on the tail, ha, ha) to solve the case and undo the damage that Wallace has created. Of course Grommet being Wallace's trusty hound companion once again saves Wallace from most certain death with his unique ability to use common sense, of which Wallace seems to have none. This is such a fun and hilarious adventure, it cannot be missed.

This is a great movie, you should see it and all the Wallace and Grommet shorts.

Pom Poko (1994)

Title: Pom Poko
Director: Isao Takahata
Genre: Anime
Highs: A little nut sack transformation action.
Lows: Really need an understanding of Japanese culture to appreciate the movie.
RhynoBot Grade: C+

Well here's another Japanese anime movie but this time not a Hayao Miyazaki film, although he is credited as a producer for Pom Poko. This story centers around the post-WWII expansion and modernization of Japan, specifically the housing development boom and consequently the consumption of the forest area surrounding Tokyo. The story is told from the perspective of the forest creatures, in this case a clan of raccoons. I guess in Japanese mythology raccoons and foxes have a unique ability to transform into any shape they choose, even human form. This myth is the central focus of the movie as a particular clan of raccoons try to permanently stop the humans from destroying their forest and building housing structures and shopping malls.

The raccoons start off small, transforming themselves into pots and statues but as their skills improve they start taking human form to do reconnaissance and find food in the metropolitan areas of Tokyo. The raccoon clan is depicted as an old samurai clan representing the old ways fighting against the new era and not having much success. They have a few victories here and there but success is short lived since the workers that they manage to scare off eventually get replaced with new workers and construction continues. They send out messenger to recruit the help of the ancient shape-shifting masters. The masters finally arrive and the raccoons put on what they think is the final battle to drive back the humans in the form of a goblin parade down the streets of Tokyo. (This was by far the coolest part of the movie.) But their efforts were wasted since the humans enjoyed the "traditional" show never really being scared off at all. Inevitably the raccoons give way to modernization. Those that could shape shift transformed into humans and worked and lived among them in Tokyo. The others found other means of survival within the confines of the now sprawling city.

This story is very much infused with Japanese culture and mythology which was enjoyable to observe but I felt as though the meaning and significance was lost on me. However, having watched so many samurai movies I was able to appreciate the clash of the old ways (being the samurai way) verses the new era. There are some very entertaining elements to this movie, like the raccoon's fixation with transforming their nut sacks (testicles) into different things. But for the most part I think you need to have studied Japanese history and culture or be Japanese yourself in order to truly appreciate this movie. Me not being Japanese, the significance was mostly lost on me.

This is an entertaining movie but not for everyone, you can skip it.

Broken Flowers (2005)

Title: Broken Flowers
Director: Jim Jarmusch
Genre: Comedy? I guess???
Highs: None really.
Lows: More depressing then funny.
RhynoBot Grade: D+

Netflix list this movie as a comedy but I didn't find any part of the movie funny at all, not a single laugh. I don't really know how to categorize this movie. It's not a drama, nothing dramatic happens. It's not an action/adventure, in fact it is the antithesis of action since Bill Murray's character sits around depressed through 98% of the movie. I think this movie has strived to achieve such great lows that it is in a genre all alone, we'll call it a hang-man because that is exactly what you feel like doing to yourself as you watch this movie.

The premise of is Bill Murray's character in his younger days was a love'em and leave'em kind of guy with the ladies. We see him later in life as a vacant shell of a man with yet another failed relationship. He receives an unmarked letter in the mail from a former lover claiming that 20 years ago she bore his son and he is now on his way to come find him. Murray's neighbor who fancies himself an amateur private detective convinces Murray to go on a road trip to seek out the potential author of the letter by visiting five women he was know to have been involved with at the time. Hilarity ensues right, wrong! This turns out to be one calamity after another and never comes to any conclusion, just speculation. The movie closes with us not knowing any more information then when we started. Does he really have a son? Was the letter really written by one of the women he visited? Will he continue to look for his potential son? Well we'll never know since the movie ends abruptly with no resolution.

OK, we know Bill Murray excels at the blank faced melancholy emotionless stick but there has to be a payoff at some point. Utilize his sharp wit and hilarious sense of humor at some point to make it worth watching for the viewer. That payoff never came in Broken Flowers. This movie has a similar feel to it as "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" but by comparison Aquatic may as well have been "Animal House" on the hilarity scale (if you have not seen Life Aquatic it is not very funny).

This movie is depressing and pointless, avoid it.

My Neighbor Totoro (1988)

Title: My Neighbor Totoro (English language)
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Genre: Anime
Highs: Simple fun fantasy.
Lows: Tim Daly is horrible as the voice of the father.
RhynoBot Grade: A

Let me just start by saying I LOVE THIS MOVIE! I know I have said this numerous times about Hayao Miyazaki but he is a genius. His perfect blend of visuals, creativity, strong character development, engaging story, and heartfelt emotion is all woven into a delightful fun fantasy that is My Neighbor Totoro. From what I understand the character Totoro is as big in Japan as Mickey Mouse is here in the US. Large plush toys of the strange raccoon/mouse/sloth forest spirit creature that is Totoro are still hot items for sale in Japan although the movie was released there almost 20 years ago.

This story looks like it takes place during the turn of the 20th century Japan, certainly pre-WWII. Satsuki (voiced my Elle Fanning) and Mei (voiced by my nemesis Dakota Fanning) are sisters that move into an old house in the country. The two girls initially live with just their father (horribly voice acted by Tim Daly in the English language version). We learn later on in the story that their mother is sick with some unknown illness and is residing in a hospital at the nearest city, which is where their father also works as a professor. Nearby is a forest with a huge tree at the center. Satsuki (about 7 years old) and Mei (about 4 years old) soon discover this is no ordinary forest but is the home of a tree spirit named Totoro with whom they become friends and share adventures. I will not tell you more than that since any more of a description would spoil your enjoyment of this story. I will say that the characters Satsuki and Mei are two very charming little girls. Satsuki being the old of the two often times finds herself in the situation of having to look after Mei. Mei is a precocious 4 year old with an adventurous spirit and strong will. There are many scenes in this movie where Mei reminds me very much of how my wife would have been as a little girl. In fact there is one scene in particular where Mei is clinging to an ear of corn and won't let go that reminded me so much of my wife I had to laugh.

At the very heart of this movie is a fun up lifting spirit with some true emotion. After watching this movie I have come to the realization that Miyazaki has a central theme expressed in all his movies. That central theme is undeniably love. Love for family, love for nature, love for country, and love for acceptance and tolerance of those that are different. All of the Miyazaki movie I have seen so far (Totoro, Mononke, Spirited Away, Nausicaa, Castle) embody his a message of love and acceptance. There are certainly worse things to focus your life’s work on but certainly not too many better things. So in the spirit of Miyazaki - I LOVE THIS MOVIE.

This is another great Miyazaki movie, my favorite so far, you should see it.

Serenity (2005)

Title: Serenity
Director: Joss Whedon
Genre: Sci-Fi/Action
Highs:
Lows:
RhynoBot Grade: C+

When this movie came out in the theater I was so excited to see. The thought being, finally a good Sci-Fi movie. Plus everyone that saw Serenity in the theater just raved about how great it was. I bought it hook line and sinker, so my expectations were really high. Big mistake! Maybe it looses something in the translation from big screen to small screen or maybe the people that were raving about the movie were bigger fans of the TV series "Firefly" then I realized but to me this was nothing more then a bigger budget Sci-Fi Channel movie. The special effect were nothing special, I have seen the equivalent on Sci-Fi channels TV series "Battlestar Galactica". Character development was non-existent, I assume this is because the movie was written and produced for the numerous fans of the TV show, but that leaves the rest of us out in the cold that have never seen the series. The story was a little weak as well, kind of a cross between "The Minority Report", with the whole psychic girl thing, and "Resident Evil", with the whole corporation creating cannibalistic zombie type creatures.

The concept for the movie has merit but to me it seemed like a TV show. Now that really begs the question, would I still have the same opinion if I didn't know about the TV show Firefly prior to seeing the movie? That we will never know for sure but I have seen enough TV turned movies (Star Trek: TNG, X-Files, etc.) to recognize one when I see it so I suspect it would still stink of TV even if I didn't know.

So, I am still looking for that ever elusive smart, creative, Sci-Fi Action movie. I'm not sure it will ever happen until someone starts making movies from Arthur C. Clarke novels. Come on Morgan Freeman it's time to get "Rendezvous With Rama" under production!!! (He owns the rights from what I have read and would be perfect for the lead role.)

This is a mediocre movie, you can skip it.

March of the Penguins (2005)

Title: March of the Penguins
Director: Luc Jacquet
Genre: Documentary
Highs: They are sooo cute!!!
Lows: None
RhynoBot Grade: A

This is truly an amazing film and confirms my wifes long standing opinion that the French are out of their freaking minds. Seeing this on DVD gave me an advantage over seeing it in the theater in the sense that I got to watch the original French documentary as well that was included in the special features. Man these French guys that filmed the movie are crazy for wanting to live out in those conditions. But I have to say I appreciate there effort because I learned a lot about the nature of these rugged birds that I never would have know if it were not for there efforts.

The movie is bitter/sweet like all things in nature. On one hand you will be amazed at how nature has created a near perfect system for these birds. They instinctually know where to go and when to go, they have a strong mating drive, and they are able to identify who their mate is even after long absences. Plus the little baby penguins are so cute and fluffy. But on the other hand nature is untamed and unemotional. The weather system in Antartica is so sever that several of the adults and many of the eggs and young do not survive which is difficult for us emotional beings to watch. The most difficult aspect of watching another species deal with the loss of their young, whether it is in egg form or the cute fluffy form, is the similarity to how we as humans deal with similar tragedy. Turns out we are not completely dissimilar - like us some are able to cope with the loss and move on, whereas others cannot and turn to drastic measures like trying to steal your neighbors young. For this reason it is difficult to not put yourself in the penguins shoes (or webbed feet I should say) and feel a tinge of sadness for their loss. But Darwin prevails, only the strong are meant to survive and they do, completing the circle of life for generations to come.

The cinematography in this movie is absolutely amazing. The accessibility of the film crew to immerse themselves into the pod of penguins, in my mind, was unprecedented. Not to mention the underwater footage - WOW. I have no idea how they were able to get that footage, I seriously doubt one of the French cameramen went down into that freezing water to get it. Although we are talking about the crazy ass French so I guess it's a possibility. One final note worth mentioning - casting Morgan Freeman as the narrator was an excellent idea. Freeman has such a nature tone for narration, I can listen to the man speak all day. The movie is rated G but there will be some tough questions from really young children that you will need to be prepared to answer like, Why did the babies die? This is a good movie for kids but make sure they are at an age that can handle the concept of life and death, and that you are ready to tackle the issue in a straight forward manor.

This is an excellent movie, you should see it.