|
|
|
|
7.1
/ 10
- Overall Rating
|
Sign up to add this to your collection
|
Sign up to add this to your favorites
|
|
Time for the choo-choo train of hate mail to come tumbling my way...
You either love Terry Gilliam or you hate him. I am part of that select group that appreciates some of his work, to an extent, but loathes the majority of it. I don't think I have ever 'absolutely loved' a Terry Gilliam film. I find a lot to admire about "Brazil" and a lot to admire about "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen". I find moments of wonder in "Time Bandits" and moments of sheer genius in "The Fisher King". But, for the most part, I think Terry Gilliam is one of those directors who is more concerned with visuals than story. As I said, I can find something to like in almost every Terry Gilliam film. "Tideland" was an exception. Unfortunately, so is "12 Monkeys".
I remember seeing this film in theatres when it was first released -- back when I had a huge crush on Brad Pitt. I remember hating it then. I recently gave it another chance. I hated it just as much, if not more. I understand what Gilliam was trying to go for -- I just think he failed miserably every step of the way. The story is all over the place, and though I understood every step and every jump -- it wasn't that interesting. I almost fell asleep during the film the second time around. I kept waiting for this one scene...this one redeeming moment when I could smile and say to myself -- "Now, that's what everyone sees in him!" That moment never came.
As for performances, boy are they a mixed bag. Bruce Willis is doing what Bruce Willis always does. He has no range and no emotional connection with the character. He furrows his brow occasionally and that is supposed to account for the summation of his acting. He would go on to turn in some quality performances, but back when he was doing crap like "12 Monkeys", he was strictly one note. Brad Pitt is over-the-top and erratic as ever, and I suppose he turns in a good performance, but I just thought his character was too annoying to be appreciated for much more than foliage. And, poor, poor Madeline Stowe. She doesn't make many films these days for a reason. She is bland, cardboard and just about as lifeless as Corey Haim's bank account.
And I know what most people will say -- "But what about the visuals!" Who gives a rat's ass?! Just because a turd looks pretty, that doesn't mean I want to stick it in my mouth. Gilliam always has interesting visuals in his films. The problem is that he doesn't know why they are there or how to tie them in to the story. I suppose his best attempt was with "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", but I didn't care for that film either. I want to see a director who is comfortable enough with himself to let the story do what it's supposed to do and build the visuals around it. Gilliam builds the visuals first and then worries about the story. Films don't work well that way. When they do work well, you're Tim Burton. When they don't, you're Terry Gilliam.
In summation, "12 Monkeys" is just another Terry Gilliam flick that is all flash and no cash. Just because a rainbow looks pretty, that doesn't mean there's a pot of gold at the end of it.
4/10.
|
|
#1:
Crispy
- added 06/01/2008, 04:58 AM
I want to bitch and everything, but a review that
uses the line 'Just because a turd looks pretty,
that doesn't mean I want to stick it in my
mouth" is just...wow.
|
|
#2:
Ginose
- added 06/01/2008, 05:54 AM
I cannot even begin to explain all the things I
disagree with, but I'll just leave my socre of
8.3/10 and let it sit... I[m too exaughsted to
disect a review, right now...
|
|
#3:
bluemeanie
- added 06/01/2008, 06:16 PM
Excuse me, but I thought that analogy was an
appropriate one. And I am glad you are too
exhausted to dissect. There is nothing to
dissect. I disliked the film. You obviously
liked it. End of story.
|
|
|
#4:
Crispy
- added 06/01/2008, 06:29 PM
End of nothing. You're just on the 'It's Cool to
Hate This Movie' bandwagon.
|
|
|
#5:
bluemeanie
- added 06/02/2008, 01:39 AM
Nice attempt to use my own terminology against
me. Too bad I'm in the minority on this one, so
it doesn't apply.
|
|
|
#6:
Crispy
- added 06/02/2008, 01:51 AM
You're kidding me? You really missed the sarcasm
in that? Even after the big The Life Aquatic thing
you thought was so hilarious. C'mon man, we expect
better of you than that.
|
|
|
#7:
bluemeanie
- added 06/02/2008, 10:21 AM
I didn't miss the sarcasm. I replied
sarcastically. We need some sort of English to
Sarcasm translator on here.
|
|
|
#8:
Crispy
- added 06/02/2008, 11:09 AM
Apparently your sarcasm is a bit dryer than what
I'm accustomed to. It's like sarcasm dialects
haha.
|
|
#9:
Tristan
- added 06/02/2008, 11:53 AM
That like drier?
|
|
|
#10:
Crispy
- added 06/02/2008, 11:56 AM
Don't be forcing your Canadian shenanigans on me.
Down here, we think Y is good enough to handle
both consonant and vowel duties. It's time you cut
the apron straps and stop babying it.
|
|
#11:
Edd
- added 06/03/2008, 02:05 PM
I agree with Billy. Brad Pitt's acting is just
terrible, and the entire film has been done before
in different degrees. 3/10
|
|
#12:
Chad
- added 01/22/2009, 09:09 PM
I'm sort of in the middle on this one. I think
it's a little better than what the review let on,
but it certainly doesn't deserve to rank at #187
on iMDB's top movies page. I liked the storyline
to an extent though, so I think a 6/10 sounds
about right.
|
|
#13:
Lucid Dreams
- added 11/07/2010, 09:15 PM
Just like Chad I'm in the middle with this one.
When I saw it I thought it was alright, but I
doubt I will watch it again. 6/10
|
|
