When I saw "12 Monkeys" in the theaters, I thought to myself, "This is one of the greatest films of the past ten years." Despite working with a script written by others and under some stringent studio restrictions, Terry Gilliam more than managed to infuse the story with his trademark approach to movie-making.I had some reservations going in about the choice of Brad Pitt to play the role of a mentally unbalanced eco-terroist, but Pitt did a marvelous job and really made the character his own. (Viewers who like Pitt in "12 Monkeys" would probably do well to check out his performance in "Fight Club". Tyler Durden is what Jeffery Goins could be if he were less manic.) Bruce Willis and Madeline Stowe also turn in terrific performances, especially Willis for whom this was one of his first non-action films. Fans of the old "Batman" TV show will be amused to see Frank Gorshin (the Riddler) as the chief psychiatrist at the mental institution were much of the early part of the film takes place. Christopher Plummer is not given much screen time, but he does an excellent job with what little he has.
As for the story itself, even though many people try to claim that it is about the line between sanity and madness(in the vein of Gilliam's "The Fisher King"), I just do not see it as such. I never doubted Cole's sanity, the future world was too real to make me think that it was a figment of Cole's imagination. And if one did have that impression at first, there was too much revealed early in the film to sustain that belief. I prefer to view the story as an extremely intricate "whodunit", where the viewer actually receives most of the information relevant to the conclusion by about half-way through the film, but in such a jumbled and contradictory manner that the true outcome remains obscure until the last 15 minutes. But of course, this being a Gilliam picture, even after the conclusion is revealed, a final twist is thrown to the viewer. (Note: to appreciate the twist, pay attention to the future scientists. I've known some people who didn't watch closely and they didn't understand the twist as a result.)
Setting aside the film, and considering the DVD, Universal did an excellent job with this release. The documentary "The Hamster Factor" offers some great insights into both "12 Monkeys" and the movie industry in general. And the commentary track with Gilliam and the producer is very good for understanding the process of movie-making, as well as how specific scenes were set up. My only disappointment came with the "Production Notes" feature. If you watch the documentary and listen to the commentary track, the production notes really just repeat what you've previously learned.
Another important thing to note is to buy the DVD, but not the DTS one. The non-DTS version has an insightful long documentary on the making of the film, the DTS version does not have this. Plus the Dolby Digital sound is excellent in itself.
Most Highly Reccomended.12 Monkeys is a convoluted tale of time travel, insanity, apocalypse, and who-done-it, with some romance thrown in. What I enjoyed most about it was the twisting and ambiguous path it followed, which was fresh and well thought out, to a point.
Bruce Willis plays Cole, a prisoner in a post-apocalyptic future recruited to do some dangerous time-travel work in the past for a group of very odd scientists. The goal of the work only becomes apparent later, and by then there is confusion about whether Cole is really on the mission he thinks he is or is just deluded. Brad Pitt has a major supporting role hamming it up as another who may or may not be insane.
Ultimately, while I don't think the film does full justice to its premises and possibilities, it does well enough to be entertaining and thought provoking. Director Terry Gilliam's surrealism adds much. The acting is very good on the whole, itself rather surreal in some of the supporting roles. There is some violence showing how disturbed Willis's character is, not bad for an R-rated movie. It's definitely worth seeing to judge for yourself what it's really about.
I want to comment on the things you think about after the film is over, to see how well it holds up. I'll have to go into details you may not want to know about if you haven't seen the film yet, thus the spoiler alert. If you'd like to know what my general conclusions are, without any spoilers, just skip to the last couple paragraphs headed "In Sum."
*SPOILER ALERT*
Madness
There are many points designed to suggest that parts of the film are delusions, but they're balanced by points seeming to show the opposite. There is the over-the-top strangeness of the future (the video ball, serenading scientists, etc.), the obvious parallels between the psych ward and the future prison (similar panels of doctors/scientists, the two guards, etc), the voice that calls Cole "Bob" (moving around as if in his head, though it seems to belong to the wino too), the music in the ruined department store (apparently a premonition (or something) of the time Cole is there in 1996), the lion and bear (again paralleled in 1996, unlikely denizens of a wintry abandoned Philadelphia).
But then Cole's disappearances, the French that Cole himself doesn't understand in WWI (yes, it's real French), the photo of Cole from WWI (though nearly impossibly convenient), the WWI bullet, Cole's knowledge of the boy in the well prank, all seem to settle things conclusively against delusion. That is, unless we're to imagine that not only the future but the whole film is delusions, of Cole (or Bob) and/or Railly, in line with her own fears and the comment by the virus culprit (Morse) that Railly might be succumbing to her Cassandra syndrome. Confusing? That's what Gilliam was aiming for.
In a way, the view that the whole film is largely delusion seems the most coherent overall interpretation, in that it can explain away all failures of logic. But it has trouble explaining how good the logic is. The film, strange and muddled as it is, really does seem far too lucid and coherent to be primarily be a string of delusions.
The End, Time Travel
The ending has stirred much debate. The woman sitting next to the culprit on the plane is one of the scientists from the future. She is presumably there to do exactly what Cole said the scientists planned to do, gather a sample of the virus from before it mutated. According to Cole, the scientists didn't send him to change the past, which he says is impossible. He was sent to gather information, which he did. We must assume that the sample is gathered and that this enables humanity in the future to return to the surface of the planet. It doesn't help the 5 billion killed.
That appears to be the basic sense of the ending, but it has its own loose ends. Why was Cole given the gun, if not to try to change the past? (Jose's line that it's too bad they didn't get the information sooner makes no sense to me in the context of time travel.) The scientist introduces herself on the plane saying, "I'm in insurance," which is a great line if she's a backup for Cole, in case he fails to stop the spread of the virus. But that too implies he could have changed the past. Even getting a sample of the virus seems to change the past. Trying to figure out the point of all of this is further complicated by the the fact that we are shown the virus being released by the culprit when it was being inspected at the airport. By the time Cole tried to shoot him it was already too late. This adds to the pathos, and the confusion.
Some views of time travel allow the past (and future) to change. It could work this way. Young Cole goes to the airport, there is no shooting, he survives the virus, and is eventually sent back, where he is shot, witnessed by young Cole, who survives the virus and is eventually sent back, where he remembers the shooting and gets shot (the scene we see near the end of the film). This would allow one more twist in the film, one suspected by some optimistic viewers. Railly, recognizing the boy Cole, would tell the boy to remember that the culprit wasn't the 12 monkeys gang but Dr. Goine's assistant. Then Cole could conceivably grow up and loop back one more time, this time preventing the virus from ever being released, and getting the girl. There is no hint of this, however. Had the filmmakers wanted to hint at the possibility, they easily could have (by having Railly whisper something in the boy Cole's ear, for example).
In Sum
All in all, the film is stimulating and fun but ultimately more frustrating than it might have been. I like a film that provokes thought, but I tend to prefer one that rewards it with additional insights and clarity. That only goes so far here, and then things seem impossible, muddled or otherwise unsatisfying. There is a certain postmodern sensibility that prefers just this kind of lack of clarity and incomplete logic. I don't know if that was intended here or just came about accidentally (I suspect some of each), but if that sensibility is your thing, you should love this film.
The DVD anamorphic video and 5.1 audio quality are fine. There is commentary track with director Gilliam and producer Charles Roven, and a full-length making-of documentary. Both are interesting and worth the time, but don't expect answers to the puzzles the film leaves, other than a hint or two expressed as personal opinion.
Read Best Reviews of 12 Monkeys (1995) Here
If you're a fan of 12 Monkeys, the blu-ray version is absolutely the best version to own. Calling it "not blu-ray quality" is humorous and also shows ignorance. That reviewer knows little about how this movie is supposed to look. Not every blu-ray is "supposed" to look like Crank or Pirates of the Caribbean. He probably thought the Godfather looked bad on blu-ray, too. 12 Monkeys looks exactly how it should on blu-ray and probably the best it will ever look.Also, what most casual blu-ray fans/reviewers never mention is the lossless audio I'm guessing because they don't even know what that is, and they're the same people that thought forever they were watching HD because they owned an HDTV, or the people that think they're getting a deal by spending only $70 on an HDMI cable on sale at Best Buy. The DTS-HD MA 5.1 track is a huge step up over whatever lossy track the DVD and HD DVD offered.
Don't hesistate to grab this. It's reasonably priced with a well-done transfer and great audio strong use of surround sound and a crystal clear lossless track.
Want 12 Monkeys (1995) Discount?
12 Monkeys has an unusual pedigree. It was inspired by Chris Marker's brilliant short film Le Jete; written by David Peeples and his spouse (co-screenwriter of Blade Runner, writer of The Unforgiven and Solider); stars Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt and Madeline Stowe and directed by Monty Python's Terry Gilliam. It was also released by the very same studio that tried to butcher his masterpiece Brazil during the 80's. Who'd have thunk?The plot is fairly straight forward for a Gilliam directed film: Bruce Willis is a convict sent back in time to find information on a deadly virus that destroys much of humanity. The survivors have to move underground (somewhat like in The Time Machine).This virus also insinuates itself into the environment making it impossible for humanity to return to the surface. Willis is to report whatever he finds out before returning home. For doing all this he'll receive a pardon. They want to find information on the 12 Monkeys the terrorist group that took responsibility for the attack and prevent it from occurring.
Willis meets a therapist played by Madeline Stowe when he's taken to a mental institution in our world. It's clear that he's disturbed but is that due to the travel through time? Did his fragmented mind make up the entire story? Stowe has to deal with all of this when she is kidnapped later in the film. Willis has fallen in love with her and tries to convince her his tale is true. Now they're on the run from the police and must find out who is behind the 12 Monkeys and where they have the virus.
The performances are sharp. Willis is particularly good at playing the sad sack time traveler condemned to wonder if he is insane or truly on a hero's mission. Stowe plays the therapist well and injects humanity into a role that could have been routine in the wrong hands. Brad Pitt plays his most bizarre and interesting role yet. I don't recall if he was nominated for an Academy Award but he should have been.
Gilliam's direction is self assured and powerful. He manages to blur the real and imagined in such a way that we're not certain about Willis' sanity. This interesting group of talented artists have created a terrific movie. It's not for everyone though as Gilliam's dark view of humanity and his use of satire might not appeal to everyone. Gilliam and the writers have managed to make an interesting short into a full bodied motion picture.
Save 40% Off
No comments:
Post a Comment