ThiefHott Too much of everything

Wordiezett So much average

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

MartinHafer The French/Romanian writer Eugène Ionesco wrote this VERY strange story for The Theatre of the Absurd. Now if you are the sort of person who likes their stories very literal (or semi-comprehensible), you will most likely have no interest in this film. In fact, MOST people would probably have no interest in this movie!! Despite this, it was a reasonable hit on Broadway--running for 240 performances (very good back in the 60s) and earning Zero Mostel the Tony.There are other films that are absurdist and most often they are French (such as "Buffet Froid"). The trademark of these stories are bizarre situations but even more bizarre are the reactions or lack of serious reactions by the actors. Here in "Rhinoceros", people inexplicably start turning into rhinos!! It's totally weird. But weirder still is that folks aren't all that upset about it and although they react, it's completely out of proportion. While there SHOULD be panic and terror, folks take it very much in stride. Other really odd bits are the dream sequence 2/3 of the way through film where Karen Black in orange crepe dances about with Mostel (who at this point has already turned into a rhino but he's not a rhino in the dream)--while Gene Wilder looks on from inside a cage marked 'Human'. You may be tempted to keep watching--just so something is eventually revealed that makes it all make sense. But this is NOT something you very important in truly absurdist films--as they WANT to provoke the audience and confuse them. Some have interpreted all this craziness as a reaction against Fascism, Communism, conformity, modern life or WWII or whatever. I doubt if this was the intention...who knows.The bottom line is that even if you are a huge fan of the Mostel/Wilder combination (they were BRILLIANT in "The Producers"), this still probably will be a very tough movie to like. I am not saying it isn't without merit (a bit of the comedy is funny--such as when Mostel tells his friend to take in some culture--such as seeing a Eugène Ionesco play--and he's the guy who wrote "Rhinoceros"!). For me, it was very hard going even if it was, in an odd way, well written and acted.

classicsoncall The absurdist nature of the film doesn't hide the basic premise of the story - conformity to a herd mentality is to be resisted at all times if one is determined to remain an individual. The rampage of the rhinoceros(es)/rhinocerii(??) may serve to distract the disengaged viewer, but if you're paying attention, you'll get it pretty clearly. Even Stanley (Gene Wilder), seemingly immune to rhinocerization, in a way falls victim to his own brand of conformity - getting drunk on weekends to escape the fact that he 'can't get used to life'.My question would be - where did Zero Mostel get the energy to pull off that rhinoceros transformation? That was a pretty challenging and inspired piece of work. Can you just picture him over at the Bronx Zoo rhino pit evaluating the huge animal's every movement and idiosyncrasy? They were all incorporated into that magnificent characterization that had to go on for a significant portion of the story. It seemed that even Wilder was entranced by the performance.As for Karen Black, I wonder whose idea it was for her to wear that front slit skirt to distract the audience? Herd mentality at work, right? It worked on me, along with those long, leggy shots in every imaginable contorted position. It's too bad she became a rhinoceros too, she had such promise.I had never heard of this movie before until spying the title on one of the cable channels today. The story description hooked me right off, leading me to schedule my day so I could catch it. I guess that could be a submission of sorts as well, but it was worth it to catch the principals in their prime in the sort of inspired lunacy that was considered their trademark.

PeteRFNY1 I first saw 'Rhinoceros' as part of a high school film class, many moons ago. I will freely admit that I am not in love with the absurdity genre, and Ionesco's take on perceived "overreaction" to the threats of Naziism are brimming with equally absurdity naiveté (although, some people seem to think that Ionesco's point was to show how the very real threats around us can make us become irrational with fear - you decide). Regardless, people had GOOD reason to be fearful of the threats before them during and after WWII, be they paranoiac or not (typical of the Eurpoean view, as we see with the pooh-poohing of the real threats of radical fundamentalism today, and even in certain film reviews!).All this is neither here nor there: whatever bourgeois-Euro-tint that may have been present in the original play are neutered by director Tom O'Horgan's Americanization of the subject matter. Subtle social commentary is lost in the translation, and the result is a confused, hard-to-follow exercise in absurd-ism gone haywire.I have encountered many people that LOVE this film, although the concept of that is beyond me. I found this film an absolute CHORE to sit through (being not a fan of absurd-ism to begin with, this piece of work did not help change my opinion on the matter). Over the years, it has become a punchline of sorts among associates of mine when describing the only film available for rental upon our turns in Purgatory (that, and endless re-runs of the Jerry Springer show on Purgatory TV).While the true meaning of the original play may be in the eye of the beholder, messages cannot mask a bad film, and this (unfortunately, as one who loves the work of both Mostel and Wilder) is a bad film with a capital 'B'.

Jonathon Dabell The Theatre-Of-The-Absurd was a style of experimental play-scripting that was practised in the '50s and '60s by playwrights like Samuel Beckett, Arthur Adamov, Jean Genet and Eugene Ionesco. When first devised, the Theatre-Of-The-Absurd movement was rather unpopular because audiences were left bewildered by the intentionally illogical and plot less story lines. A particular rule of absurdist plays is that they have no dramatic conflict, instead dealing with logically impossible situations and having the characters speak about irrational things as if they are perfectly rational. Also, the main character in an absurdist play is usually significantly out of key with everyone and everything around him. Eugene Ionesco's "Rhinoceros" is one of the most famous of all the absurd plays. This film version is set in urban America and is a deliberately subversive, surreal experience with strong comic performances. It is not, however, as multi-layered as the original play (which was set in France and had strong political and historical connotations about the Nazi occupation). This presentation of Rhinoceros is mainly a story about conformity and, in particular, those rare few who refuse to conform.Depressed, bored accountant Stanley (Gene Wilder) spends his week-days crunching numbers and his weekends drinking himself into a haze. His friend John (Zero Mostel) disapproves, but still meets Stanley every Sunday lunchtime to talk to him about the error of his ways. One particular Sunday, their lunch is interrupted when a stampeding rhinoceros charges down the street outside the restaurant. Soon, more and more rhinoceroses are sighted in town and Stanley gradually begins to realise that the entire population is turning into these huge pachyderms. More alarming still is that everyone that Stanley counts on to "remain" human seems to be switching to rhinoceros form too - his work colleagues (Joe Silver, Robert Weil, Percy Rodriguez), his dream girl Daisy (Karen Black), and even his best friend John. Stanley is determined not to conform, but as the human numbers dwindle and the rhinoceros population soars, will he be able to resist?One of the main problems with this film version of Rhinoceros is that it doesn't use the possibilities of film to "open-up" the constraints of its stage-bound play origins. For instance, during the scene where Mostel's character transforms into a rhinoceros, Wilder keeps commenting on the bump appearing on his forehead and the greyness of his skin, but there's no bump or greyness visible. Here was an opportunity to use the visual advantages that film has over the theatre stage, but it remains an unused opportunity. In fact, at all points the film refuses to become cinematic and constantly has a feel of "filmed theatre" about it. However, in other ways Rhinoceros is quite well done and credit needs to be given where it is due (Maltin rated this film BOMB, which shows how wide of the mark Maltin is prone to be). Wilder and Mostel interact brilliantly, relishing the play's enigmatic and often self-contradictory dialogue. Mostel's transformation sequence - done without make-up or visual effects, as noted earlier - is almost compensated by the sheer outrageous energy that Mostel invests in it. And, by removing the historical and political subtext of the original play, I think they've actually made it more timeless by focusing more on the themes of conformity (after all, don't we all relate to how it feels to spend our lives conforming, losing more and more of the animal-like freedom that was a characteristic of primitive man?) Transforming into a rhinoceros could be viewed as a metaphor for any type of conformity - doing drugs because all your peers do them; being promiscuous because it's the norm; voting for a particular political party because everyone else on your street is in favour of that party; etc.Not a complete success, then, but definitely a worthwhile and thought-provoking piece of cinema.