Post by erol_otus on Nov 16, 2006 21:31:20 GMT -5
12 Monkeys: a Review
I look forward to Terry Gilliam’s films. They’re like a safety net for me. When I go to rent a movie, only to realize I’ve exhausted every viable option from Kubrick or Scorcese, Gilliam’s there. When I’m not really in the mood for a foreign film, Gilliam’s there. He isn’t my favorite director and some of his movies, while interesting, fall victim to drawn out sequences that cause boredom or shoddy camera work. While It might be annoying when he puts the camera at a ridiculous angle, his movies never really disappoint me. Whether it’s the nostalgic feeling I get while watching The Holy Grail, the youthful feeling I get while watching Time Bandits, the disoriented feeling I get while watching Fear and Loathing or the feeling that all hope is lost I get while watching Brazil, Gilliam’s movies instill primal emotions within me. While not up to par technically, the films contain concepts that seem to never age and appreciate with multiple viewings.
And so, time came once again for some Gilliam. I went to Blockbuster aware that I had my fill of Kubrick after viewing Full Metal Jacket the prior week. The same went for Scorcese, after a condensing as many Scorcese flicks possible into the past two weeks. Finally, I wasn’t really in the mood for a foreign film after recently watching “Ping Pong” and “City of God.” Wanting a break from studying my favorite film makers or exploring other cultures, I fell back on an old favorite, Terry Gilliam. Having never seen 12 Monkeys, despite it’s numerous runs on television, I was anxious to check it out and ended up renting it. I’m glad I did.
I’m not going to write a summary because it is both tedious and unnecessary, instead I will refer the wikipedia page, if anyone wishes to read a summary: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Monkeys
As previously mentioned, Terry Gilliam’s technical skills don’t impress me. But, 12 Monkeys features some of his better camera work. Some of the shots are poor and some of the angles could use some work, but it never takes away from the atmosphere. That is basically the only problem I can find in this film and it is a very shallow complaint. 12 Monkeys is by no means a perfect film (but then, what is?), but it refrains from being problematic.
My favorite part about the movie is the artistic direction. The sets are some of the best I’ve ever seen. When Cole first steps out on Earth into a barren downtown area covered in snow, presumably uninhabited, it is epic. The large bear that sneaks up on Cole and the lion on the rooftop are added touches that add a sense of uncertainty. It is especially overwhelming considering every previous scene took part in a dense, underground lair. The next great artistic stride is when Cole is sent to a mental institution after getting sent to the past. The subtlety is key here. Not everything is laid out for you as is the case with most big-budget action or sci-fi films. The mental institution gives the viewer a sense of confusion and confinement, similar to what the character would likely be feeling. When Cole tries to escape, he is hopelessly lost and the editing is done in such a way that it seems to give the viewer the same sense of being lost. Where the movie really shines is when Cole is questioned by a group of authority figures in the year 2035. There is a large, circular probe outfitted with numerous television screens that they use to question him. It is a truly ominous prop and it’s value to the mood of the movie should not be overlooked. The only set that disappoints is when Cole is accidentally sent to World War 1. It looks like it was shot in a Hollywood basement, but the costumes more than make up for it. The fast-pace nature of the scene also makes up for the set and it turns out that it becomes one of the more memorable scenes in the entire film (and is the easiest to identify as being made by Gilliam).
So, a definite mood is established and the artistic direction is creative, but that would all be moot without a meaningful story. At the core of the film, I feel it’s main message is about psychology. As society progresses, we find ourselves claiming to know more and more things as fact. Anything that seems improbable is shot down and scoffed at. People are misjudged and institutionalized when they make claims that are too extremely divergent from the collective ideas of the rest of society. While we continue to favor science over classic religions, science becomes religion. If classic religions exaggerate the supernatural to an absurd amount, sciences and psychology devalue the supernatural to an absurd amount. Even the main character, Cole, who is really from the future, begins to believe that it can’t be true after the continual insistence of Dr. Kathryn Railly, a psychologist. Even when presented with facts that he is indeed from the future, he still falls on dogmatism created by psychology and remains in disbelief.
On a final note, I will discuss the acting. All performances are solid, but the only one that really shines is Brad Pitt as the mentally ill Jeffrey Goines. Pitt does a great job capturing the lunacy in the character. Willis (as Cole) shows some strength throughout the movie, but at some points it seems as though he is overacting. While many film critics might not appreciate that, I think that it only makes his character seem more bad ass. Madeleine Stowe (as Railly) does a satisfactory job, but again, nothing spectacular.
There is much more to be said about this movie that I didn’t even touch on in this review. Existential questions about the human condition are probably most prominent, but I’m sick of writing this film. The only other thing that still lingers in my mind is about continuity issues with all of the time-travel involved, but these can be easily overlooked and instead the main themes should be favored over nit-picking. Overall, I enjoyed this movie, and that’s what’s most important.
Final Score: 8/10
Worth a rent, worth a second viewing, likely warrants a purchase.