12 Monkeys (1995)

This is what happens when you let an eclectic filmmaker fully realize his vision for a project that inspires him. Daring, jarring, and unsettling as it is, there is a strange beauty in 12 Monkeys that is hard to pin down. It features excellent performances by Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt and makes up for a lack of flashy sci-fi effects by being chock full of nerdy, intellectual talking points.

In the year 2038, inmate James Cole (Bruce Willis) is offered a chance at parole. In exchange for his freedom, he must help subject himself to crude time travel technology and help government scientists research the outbreak of a virus that decimated the world’s population and sent all survivors underground to avoid contamination. While in the past, Cole teams up with a psychiatrist (Madeline Stowe) and attempts to shed light on Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt) and his Army of the Twelve Monkeys, the group believed responsible for the virus’s release in 1996.

For me, it all starts with the story. If a film doesn’t have anything original to say or a unique spin on a concept or idea we’ve seen before, then it is already running behind. Hard core sci-fi nerds know that this film takes the same premise as French short film called Le Jetée but adds additional details and conflicts to bring it to full feature length. Audiences must digest issues like causality, mental instability, and radical environmentalism.

One thing viewers don’t get much time to think about is time travel itself. Tackling this subject is no easy task but the filmmakers treat it with care and respect. I appreciate the lack of a technological explanation. Being told that time travel exists and being forced to just go with it help to suspend disbelief. Sure, we inevitably ask ‘how?’ but I would much rather wonder about how it’s done than to mentally dissect and judge the acceptability of the filmmakers’ explanation of how it’s done. It’s more sleight of hand than movie magic but it’s effective all the same.

And really, 12 Monkeys is not a film about time travel. Time travel, though vital to the story, is just a tool used to tell the tale of a troubled man trying to earn his freedom by saving the world. Bruce Willis nails his role as a tormented lab rat. The world Cole returns to is both foreign and familiar. Cole has been in prison and surrounded by enough post-outbreak technology for enough time to find the world of his childhood memories confusing and alarming at times. Though my own acting experience is quite limited, I know that confusion is a very difficult emotion to convincingly portray; it is easy to overdo and under-do and audiences can typically spot when you’re doing it wrong.

The other standout performance in this film is Brad Pitt’s unstable and unhinged Jeffrey Goines. I don’t know where he pulled from to bring this character to life but it is nothing short of amazing. The physicality of Goines mannerisms, from his spastic outbursts down to his wild and contorted stare, is enough to make you feel tired just watching it. Madeline Stowe is stuck with the weakest of the three main characters but she carries her weight well enough. She conveys a different but equally effective form of confusion as she tries to figure out who Cole is and what he’s dragging her into.

Even more interesting is that director Terry Gilliam manages to share Cole’s sense of confusion with the audience. Through a number of tricks with lighting, camera angle, and his choice of camera and lens to take the shot, Gilliam finds clever and subtle ways to make the familiar feel bizarre. It disorients us slightly and helps increase our empathy for Cole. Gilliam also uses restraint in keeping the future looking just futuristic enough yet composed of technology left over from the pre-virus era. Some of the future set decorations don’t quite fit or even seem too strange but the overall effect works well.

I will always have a soft spot for intelligent cinema, especially intelligent sci-fi. This film is abundant with talking points but it isn’t too smart for its own good. Some filmmakers go overboard in an attempt to make themselves look intellectually superior (Matrix Reloaded anybody?) but you can watch 12 Monkeys at face value and still enjoy the ride. That comes from a careful mix of indulgence and restraint that is a real gift to cinema when balanced just right.

12 Monkeys is depressing yet hopeful, convoluted yet captivating. The fantasy of time travel mixes with the realities of dissidence and terrorism in ways that entertain but also hit close to home. This is a film that is watchable in its own right and worth repeat viewings simply for the thrill of seeing how it unfolds. It is also the kind of film that could launch you into a night-long conversation about all kinds of heady topics. The choice is yours. Either way, it is entirely worth it.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

At their worst, comedic troupe Monty Python was still able to draw awkward chuckles. At their best, they were capable of the kind of unparalleled comedic genius that fills this film from start to finish. While there are those who frown upon Monty Python’s silly antics and those who simply do not get dry, British humor, I believe that it is impossible for a sane and living person to watch this film and not laugh at least one time.

There is very little that I can say about this film that hasn’t already been said. Monty Python were masters of just about everything to do with comedy- timing, sight gags, wit, play on words and use of props. Every ounce of their creative brilliance is on display in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Most amazingly is the fact that this film, with all its memorable scenes, quotes and gags, is only an hour and a half long.

That’s right- the Black Knight, the French, the Three-Headed Knight, the Keeper of the Bridge of Death, the Knights Who Say Ni and the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog come at you faster than most films that pass for comedies these days. To me, this makes the film even more impressive. To dissect and depict as much of the Arthurian legend as they do and craft such an epic adventure tale with such inherent silliness boggles my mind. I could have sworn the film was two hours long but I stand corrected.

I first watched this film as a part of a high school English class. We read parts of the Arthur legend and watched this film at the end of the unit. My teacher claimed that Monty Python actually treated the Arthurian legend source material quite well (all silliness aside of course) and that they didn’t give into any of the romanticism that has plagued films about Arthur and Camelot ever since.

Graham Chapman is delightful as the serious-minded King Arthur. He presents a very earnest character who genuinely seeks to fulfill the epic task that has been given to him by God. He just happens to be surrounded by and encounters a bunch of nitwits. The rest of the Python players fill in nicely as Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table, lending their own comedic specialties to their diverse characters. In true Python fashion, all the lads don multiple costumes and portray nearly all of the notable supporting characters. The bond these men shared from working on their television show for three years prior to the making of this film enhances their on-screen chemistry in ways that no casting director-selected set of funny men ever will.

I simply have to stop here. There’s just nothing I can say to do justice to this film. It is one of the most popular, quotable and beloved films of all time. Monty Python and the Holy Grail is by far one of the funniest films ever made. Watch and enjoy (but watch out for bunnies).

RATING: 4.5 out of 5

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Johnny Depp fans, drug users, and existentialists alike have been raving about this movie ever since it came out. There was some serious buzz generated around it when I was in high school, and everyone seemed to imply that A) it is a must see movie and B) it will change your life.

It’s not, and it won’t. Unless of course you happen to be a Johnny Depp fan, a drug user or an existentialist.

Maybe it fell victim to nearly a decade’s worth of hype, but I was disappointed with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Johnny Depp really creates his character with vivid, almost disturbing, realism. His commitment to the character is the strong point of the film. The story has its moments of strengths, but grows tiresome at the end. Depp plays real-life “writer” Hunter S. Thompson as he wanders through the wastelands of America to cover some story for a newspaper or magazine (I don’t honestly recall which). To help cope with his assignment, he and his partner have a case full of narcotics, a veritable who’s who of psychoactive substances.

They shoot up, get high, wander around, and barely remember to cover their assignment. The film reaches a breaking point in which the two become so hopelessly strung out on drugs that they don’t remember what’s happened for some period of time, which is probably a good thing. The film shows how drugs distort and ultimately destroy one’s mind, and yet, while Depp’s character sobers up and seems like he’s getting off the horse, he’s reassigned and restocks his stash for another merry adventure in semi-unconsciousness. Roll credits. The End.

The film doesn’t try to validate the irresponsible abuse of drugs, but it also certainly doesn’t attempt to tell its audience to steer clear of them. It’s a semi-biographical movie about a quasi-remembered trip. The final half hour plods along with uncertainty as to whether Depp’s character is going to resolve this mess and whether there needed to be an additional 30 minutes to the story.

The movie doesn’t have a statement to make, it doesn’t stand for anything, and there’s not much plot progression outside of a couple of strung out junkies. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is simply there to be there, which it does quite well.

RATING: 3 out of 5