Rhinoceros Eyes

Having just seen Rhinoceros Eyes, I want to tell fans of indie drama and horror to run, not walk to see this film if it comes anywhere near your town!

The film is a coming of age story about Chep (Michael Pitt), a reclusive young man with an unfortunate past, living in a prop shop...and in a fantasy world fueled by cinema and the props he surrounds himself with. Supporting characters include his boss (Matt Servitto of Sopranos fame), his love interest, and "the cop". Interesting characters float in and out of the story in a way that never fails to entertain and disturb.

I was reminded of films like Donnie Darko, and Repulsion; but Rhinoceros Eyes is its own entity. It is a creepy and frightening as it is funny and quirky. This film has some excellent camera work, and plenty of the symbolism indie film fans love to talk about afterwards. While the FX are reminicent of 70's childrens shows, this film is chilling, disturbing and fascinating all at once.

Maybe I should say it again, See This Film!

I wasn't sure what to expect when I finally sat down in the theatre for a screening of Aaron Woodley's directorial debut, Rhinoceros Eyes. Of course, the motivating factor behind me trying so damn hard to see this film was of course the fact that two of my favourite actors (Gale Harold as Detective Phil Barbara, and Michael Pitt as Chep) had big roles. Oh, and I was pretty impressed by the fact that Woodley is the nephew of the always fabulous Canadian director David Cronenberg (Crash, eXistenZ, Spider). I was almost certain I'd be in for something.not quite normal.

I found myself totally engaged in the story throughout. The irony of that fact that it was a film about a kid living in a movie prop house pretty much intrigued me right away. Of course without great character development and interaction the film would start to lose me; however, that never happened.

The film was essentially a well thought out mixture of comedy and horror. Woodley's satirical version of a common thriller worked well, since the audience seemed to be laughing at all the appropriate cues - a random naked man running across the screen and knocking over Pitt's character, the irony of Detective Barbara fawning over an old movie prop when the evidence of the crime he is investigating is right in front of him, the awkwardness of Chep and his ongoing murmuring to himself.the list goes on.

Michael Pitt delivered an astounding performance as the self-loathing orphan Chep- the boy who lived in a movie prop house- a reclusive character with little to no social skills, who embarks on a journey to find love by committing a streak of ridiculous crimes to please his love interest (Paige Turco as Fran).

As an art director, Fran is obsessed with the authenticity of her props. Enamored by her, Chep is willing to do whatever it takes to get these authentic props for her. On a side-note, I couldn't help but laugh at the fact that Fran's obsession with authenticity in her props completely conflicts with her working in an industry where everything is fabricated or fake.

Chep continues to succeed in finding Fran her props, even though Detective Barbara appears to be hot on his trails. Gale Harold manages to pull off the imprudent character of Detective Phil Barbara seamlessly. His performance was both engaging and funny, as he used facial expression, body language and tone of voice to make the audience believe in the hilarity of his character. Oh and his little dance number near the end kept a wide smile glued on my face.

Small things I should mention - the fact that the film was shot entirely on High-Definition Digital Video, a format that hasn't evolved into the rich qualities of 35mm film yet. Woodley manages to pull off rich colours and tons of shadowy scenes loaded with contrast, even with the limitations of the format. Also, instead of adding in CGI characters to represent Chep's delusions, stop-motion animation was used, which gave them a more authentic feel. The weird characters created by Chep's mind that came to life actually looked like they were made from real objects. not a computerized creation.

I found that near the end of the film, it started to become difficult to decipher whether or not we were trapped inside the fantastical mind of Chep, or if we were witnessing what was actually happening. Also, there were some unanswered holes in the plot.which left it all open for me interpret. Which, I did.

But I'm not letting on what I personally gathered from the film, I strongly suggest you try and see it yourself.

I was looking forward to this feature, and I took time off work, headed out and fought traffic to get to see it on the big screen at Madstone-- as in Madstone Theaters, the exhibition arm of Madstone Films, which was responsible for Rhinoceros Eyes.

After watching it I came back and reread the comments and looked at the user votes again. Somehow these people must have seen a different item than the Rhinoceros Eyes I saw-- even though the cast and crew lists matched, the comments didn't jibe with what I saw. The clarity, content, and tonal range of the image was pathetic; what could have been an astounding set was crunched by some capture method or seriously degraded in post and turned into. . . into this, whatever it was. The lighting may have been some of the worst I have seen on a large screen, but even so, the image on the screen far outshone the story. At least, they called it a story, even though it was missing major elements, didn't really make sense, lacked continuity, refused to actually go anywhere, or come to a conclusion. One of the supporting characters seems to be smoking a lot of weed during this production; perhaps he was not the only one.

Maybe, just maybe we have a new generation of video only kids who don't know colors, or contrast ranges, the importance of a storyline-- a plot-- or any of the other things that make up a modern "movie." That is the only reason I can see anyone allowing the public to see this; the makers just don't know better.

This hurt. It comes off as a couple of kids, a camcorder, a great location, lousy lighting, half a story, and some actors who really, really tried.

The actors have my most profound sympathy. .

I took time out from university and work and made a special journey to see this movie. I chose it as it had Gale Harold in the cast. I went to the movie expecting it to be boring when Gale Harold was not on the screen. This aside I was pleasantly surprised, the acting talent put in by lead character Michael Pitt definitely kept my interest. The shyness bordering on mental health issues this character explores showed real growth through the film, as he dealt with each character through the story. This film to me has that quirky feeling about it like Edward scissorhands or Fried GreenTomatoes. I felt it did round out nicely. I think its worth a look Cheers Chris

This movie is a definite psychological thriller. You really have to think about it. I just recently finished watching it and I thought that Michael Pitt's performance was classic. He did such a good job. Gale Harold as well made an amazing performance. Who knew that boy could dance? Although it's definitely a thinker and it's like you have to be in a certain mood to watch it, it's definitely worth the money. There's really not anything like it out there. One of a kind. The timing and the camera angles were perfect. It was clear and sharp. If you like thriller and suspense movies then this is one for you. It gets you to the point of confusion and wonder. Almost like as if you need to pay close attention or you'll miss it. I loved it and I think you will too.