What was the point of that?

Rating: 1/10 (30 October 2008)

I love weird sci-fi movies. I love plot lines that make no sense, and scenes that take insane amounts of imagination to even comprehend. Unfortunately, being someone born and raised on Twilight Zone episodes and old 50's and 60's sci-fi movies, I think I've seen every sci-fi plot that has ever been used. Maybe that's why I found 12 Monkeys just downright predictable in every way. And I'm sure if you're like me, and you've seen most of what the genre has to offer, this isn't going to thrill you or make you think any more than a children's cartoon with a space ship episode.
Good:

12 Monkeys had quality. It took it's time to make everything it did and said believable to watch. That is something that is missing in a lot of newer sci-fi movies, and it's refreshing to see it here.

Some neat images. Nothing groundbreaking or genre-defining, but there is a lot of sci-fi imagery that is pretty cool to see on film.

Bad:

The acting isn't completely horrid, but it's so over-the-top and sometimes and sometimes downright cliché that I couldn't help but smirk at most of it. Bruce Wills acts like a complete retard in some scenes, and a macho action hero in others. Brad Pit is ridicules.

Cheese. I'm sorry, but the camera angles are pure and utter cheese. I assume it's meant to be childish purposely, but with a movie like this, it just takes away the ability to even care about anything. Likewise, the music is horrible. I can understand the monkey theme song, fine. But was it really necessary to have cartoony classical music to boot it? Come on now. Also, there is an unnecessary amount of male rear nudity that, once again, takes away any seriousness. You put a guy's butt in a serious movie and it's always a way for the audience to ask: "Wait, is this American Pie?"

Typical:

The story has been used so many times in so many different movies/books, what was the point? I guess this is the first time the screwed-up-time-travel plot hit the mainstream big-screen, but it has been used in so much more things before it, it's almost like a slap in the face when you get to the heavily clichéd and predictable ending. There are a few points of semi-originality scattered throughout, but what makes the difference? Go watch two random episodes of The Twilight Zone (from the 60's, might I add) and I can guarantee one will make you think: "Hey, wasn't that also the plot from 12 Monkeys?" I don't know how anyone can find this confusing; it's just run-of-the-mill. Average at best.

The romance spin was so cliché I found myself wondering if it's even possible to have an American movie without a romantic subplot. Ben Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation says it best: "What if in some parallel universe every movie had to have a subplot where people square danced? That would be absurd, right? It's no different than EVERY last American movie having a random romantic subplot. It's absurd and pointless."

The slow pace builds quality, as I said, but that's also a major problem: 12 Monkeys is slow. I fell asleep during the middle and had to finish it the next day. The majority of the movie is boring talking scene that say things you figured out from the first trailer.

Overall: Really, was it necessary to make this movie? Sure, it had some quality and maybe it was a little out of the ordinary back in 1995, but those are the only two reasons 12 Monkeys didn't get a 1/10 from me.
If you consider yourself a true sci-fi fan, there is no reason to watch this. If you're just an average joe, you'll be bored out of your mind. So, really, why all the positive reviews? I just don't get it.
1/10