Louis Sachar's compelling children's classic is about as Disney as Freddy Krueger. It's got murder, racism, facial disfigurement and killer lizards.

Tightly plotted, it's a multi-layered, interlinking story that spans history to reveal Stanley's own heritage and the secret behind the holes. It races from Latvia's lush greenness to the pock-marked Camp Green Lake (hint: there's no lake and no green).

Disney's first success is re-creating the novel's environments so convincingly - the set design is superb and without gloss. The other plus is in the casting. Rising star Shia LaBeouf (Charlie's Angels 2, Project Greenlight) might not be the fat boy of the book, but his attitude is right and he's far from the usual clean-cut hero. The rest of the cast is filled out equally well, from Patricia Arquette as the Frontier school marm-turned-bank robber to Henry Winkler as Stanley's dad. The downside is the pop soundtrack - pure marketing department - and having the sentiment turned up to full volume at the end.


Holes (2003, Dir Andrew Davis)

When Stanley Yelnats IV is wrongfully convicted of stealing, he is sent to 'Camp Green Lake'. At this camp, the Warden, and her two henchman, Mr. Sir and Dr. Pendanski command the campmates to dig holes after hole after hole. But for what reason? Stanley plans to find out.

I never really had any intention in watching 'Holes', and i must admit, i only really watched the film, because i'm such a fan of Shia LaBeouf, but even if you are not a fan of him, then it doesn't matter. 'Holes' is one of those Disney film that the whole family can enjoy. The story is lovely written and incorporates a wonderful idea of including flashbacks to the past. These are not distracting and really gives a great back story. All the cast are great. The young stars act well and the addition of Jon Voight and Sigourney Weaver are a joy. Shia LaBeouf shows that even at 17, he can act without any flaws. This is one Disney film, you definitely would enjoy as a family.

"I learn from failure." - Stanley Yelnats III (Henry Winkler)


This film is an entertaining, fun and quality film. The film very cleverly follows the guidelines if the book, and tries to stick to the exact lines. The actors are all suitable, and you would expect them to be the part. They use some famous actors which give a great effect on the film. The graphics is a bit dodgy in some parts, and there are quite a few mistakes throughout the film. There is no such thing as a Yellow Spotted Lizard, for example. The camp is not as gruesome as explained in the book, and they tend not to show the goings on in the camp as much as the book. All of his group are mentioned a lot in the book, but are not in the film. Overall, a great film for a rainy afternoon


Holes is an awesome movie. I love it a lot and it's one of my favorite films. It's one of the few flicks produced by Disney that isn't cheesy. Holes is generally a very cool motion picture. I wish Disney would make more pictures like it. Holes is indeed a rare breed of Disney flicker shows that is cool. Don't get the wrong idea, I don't mean to bad mouth Disney but most of it's stuff is aimed towards kids and THAT'S OKAY. Children deserve to have their entertainment too. But Disney has been guilty of trying to appeal to the teen audience and they usually fail. But not with Holes. It's the type of movie anyone of any age can watch and enjoy and not once think it's corny. Really, it's the kind of movie that even a lot of young hoods might enjoy since there are characters in it that they can relate to.

Holes does a good job of being a mix of good family entertainment but not being too cheesy and living a little on the edge. I hope Disney takes more risks and makes more edgy flicks like this.


More than just a "kids' movie", "Holes" looks at how past incidents still affect us today, whether we know about them or not. When teenager Stanley Yelnats III (Shia LeBoeuf) gets sent to a prison camp where he is forced to dig all day long, he discovers a number of things about the camp, and his personal connection to it. Through flashbacks, we learn that a number of things are closer than we realize (you'll understand this better when you see the movie). LeBoeuf does a pretty good job, as do the other cast members: Sigourney Weaver, Jon Voight, Tim Blake Nelson, Henry Winkler, Patricia Arquette, and Eartha Kitt. A very interesting movie.


I found about the movie "Holes" by hearing from people that it wasn't typical Disney, that both kids and adults both got into the story. Folks, let me tell you I wasn't disappointed. "Holes" is based on the novel by Louis Sachar and follows the adventure of Stanley Yelnats, a boy who gets sent to a strange juvenile detention camp out in the desert. He befriends a boy nicknamed Zero and together they set out on adventure that changes their lives. It was a very interesting, unique, different and funny story. I didn't know quite what to expect when I watched it. It was interesting to see the story come together like pieces of a puzzle. The boys who played the juvenile delinquents were all very funny and Jon Voight was just hilarious as Mr. Sir. Now that I've seen the movie, I have to read the book. Most recommended!


My wife is a teacher and she is very familiar with the story, having read it to several of her classes. It never sounded all that interesting to me, though, and I bought the DVD figuring this would be a movie that wouldn't really be up my alley.

The first half of the movie has a lot of set-up and I found myself thinking that I was right. It starts off a bit slow and I have to admit that I was a little bit bored - but curious enough to stay with it. Boy, am I glad I did because this ended up being a very satisfying and rewarding movie. I would most certainly watch this again!

The casting was very good. Since I haven't read the book, I can't vouch for accuracy, but I have to say that Jon Voight was truly delightful. You liked the characters you were supposed to like, hated the ones you were supposed to hate, and laughed at the ones that were supposed to be funny.

I can see how some folks might not like this movie. It is tedious at times, especially in the beginning. All the flashbacks can be distracting (though they are essential to the story). Once the story starts to come together at the end, though, I think you're paid back in spades for your patience. When all is said and done, I think this is a very good movie - 8/10.


'Holes' was a GREAT movie. Disney made the right choice. Every person who I have talked to about it said they LOVED it. Everyone casted was fit for the part they had, and Shia Labeouf really has a future with acting. Sigourney Weaver was perfect for The Warden, she was exactly how I imagined her. everyone who hasn't seen it I recommend it and I guarantee you will 'Dig It'.


I read Holes in 5th grade so when I heard they were doing a movie I was ecstatic! Of course, being my busy self, I didn't get chance to see the movie in theaters. Holes was at the drive-in just out of town but, alas, We were just too busy. I was surprised to hear that all my friends had seen it and not one of them had invited me! They all said it was good but I've read great books that have made crappy movies so I was definately worried.

Suddenly the perfect opportunity to see it came. It was out that week and my parents were going on a cruise and I was left to babysit. My sister, who is 9, and I watched it and absolutely loved it! I then took it to the other people I was babysitting's house and their kids, 9 and 4, liked it too. Even my parents loved it and they're deffinately movie critics. Overall, I recommend this movie is for anyone who understands family morale and and loves a hilarious cast! This movie should be on your top 5 "to See" list!!!!


What a GREAT movie! This is so reminiscent of the wonderful Disney classic family movies of the 60's and the 70's. I was so pleasantly surprised, after the past 20 years of absolute detritus Disney's live productions crews have churned out.

This movie is an absolute joy. The child stars were just that; professional, quality actors. I am most impressed with the quality of this movie.

Sigourney Weaver was a total sycophantic *insert hyperbole here* running a prison camp for wayward boys. Siobhan Fallon was wonderful as the star's mother.

I won't recant the story here as there is little point in doing that yet again, but the story is wonderful, the direction was extraordinary and the acting quality was superb! This work reminds you what it's like to be a child, without going all sugary or being too grim. The deleted scenes featured on the DVD version were truly best left deleted. They were too harsh for this movie and would have taken so much from it. While the abuse was hinted in the finished product, it was not outright shown beyond a certain extent. It was best that way.

This was an absolutely delightful movie to watch.

It gets a 9/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Holes is a wonderful film to see. It has good messages in in, such as: be a good friend, never give up, etc. I highly recommend it to anyone. I still say the book is better than the movie, but the movie gives the book a run for its money. Also, Khleo Thomas plays Zero. That really adds to it!!!! Lol!!!


This movie is one I strongly recommend. It's about a boy, Stanley Yelnats (Shia LeBeouf) who is wrongly convicted of a crime and sent to Camp Green Lake, a boys' detention center. There, he is forced to dig holes 5 feet deep and 5 feet in diamiter. While there, he meets the other boys of the camp (Zero, Magnet, Armpit, Squid, x-Ray, and ZigZag). All of them are digging, not to 'build charactor', but to find outlaw Kate Barlow's treasure. Throughout the movie (and book) Stanley learns more about the past, more about himself, and more about digging holes. I give this movie a 9.5, because, I am very picky when it comes to books to movies, (I want the movie to follow the book EXACTLY). But, still it did real well.


I found the storyline in this movie to be very interesting. Best of all it left out the usual sex and violence (they're getting old) inserted in many movies. The movie was well done in its flashbacks to days gone by in that area of the Southwest. The acting was also superb.


You got to go and dig those holes. Holes only leaves troble, which makes a movie so good. Disney has done it again.Shia LaBeouf should be nominated for Best Actor for his performance as Stanley Yelnats. He has alredy won the Daytime Emmy for Best Actor in a Comedy Series (Even Stevens). Holes is one of the best movies in 2003.


This movie had a great ensemble of adult actors along with a cast of youthful actors that are going to be in movies for a long while if there is any justice. The directing and editing was great. I may look up the book that this was adapted from, it must have been great. (I liked it.) Sigourney Weaver, Jon Voight, and Tim Blake Nelson were a blast to watch! Henry Winkler and Nathan Davis were not seen enough, but were fun when they were onscreen. The kids at the camp couldn't have been better. (as I said, I liked it!)


I have seen the movie Holes and say that it has to be the best movie all year long. It brings out the child in everyone. I mean who would come up with the idea of having troublesome boys dig holes as their punishment? Louis Sachar thats who. Although the movie was different from the book it was still very good. For example Caveman/Stanley was supposed to be the biggest one there. Weight wise and height wise but ZigZag/Ricky was taller and Armpit/Theodore was bigger. Also X-Ray/Rex was supposed to be one of the smallest boys but wasn't. The only thing that I didn't like about the movie was that the flashbacks were rather persuasive and long. I would have rather seen more of the present than past but thats just my opinion. I especially like the work of the boys though. Like Squid/Alan who was played by Jake M.Smith was supposed to be a moody and tough kid. Jake M.Smith performed just that and did a great job at it as did almost all of the actors in Holes. So I would say if you havent seen Holes yet then you should definatly see it when it comes out again or you'll be missing out on a whole lotta fun.


"Holes" is my all-time favorite movie! So far I have seen this movie three times in theaters and am looking forward to purchasing it on DVD this upcoming September. I read the book after seeing the movie and was amazed at how alike the book and movie were. The director of this film did an excellent job of re-creating the book into movie form. Also, all of the actors selected to play the roles did wonderful playing their characters, especially Max Kasch as ZigZag. Props to all those involved in making this movie, it was a real success! 10 out of 10 stars, I definitely recommend it for everyone to see!


Holes, originally a novel by Louis Sachar, was successfully transformed into an entertaining and well-made film. Starring Sigourney Weaver as the warden, Shia Labeouf as Stanley, and Khleo Thomas as Zero, the roles were very well casted, and the actors portrayed their roles well.

The film had inter-weaving storylines that all led up to the end. The main storyline is about Stanley Yelnats and his punishment of spending a year and a half at Camp Greenlake. The second storyline is about Sam and Kate Barlow. This plot deals with racism and it is the more deep storyline to the movie. The third is about Elya Yelnats and Madame Zeroni, which explains the 100-year curse on the Yelnats family. In my opinion, these storylines were weaved together very well.

Contrary to many people's beliefs, I think that you do not have to have read the book to understand the movie. The film is reasonably easy to understand.

The acting in the film was well done, especially Shia Labeouf (Stanley), Khleo Thomas (Zero), Sigourney Weaver (the warden), and Jon Voight (Mr. Sir). The other members of D-Tent, Jake Smith (Squid), Max Kasch (Zig-Zag), Miguel Castro (Magnet), Byron Cotton (Armpit), and Brenden Jefferson (X-Ray), enhanced the comic relief of the movie. However, the best parts were with Zero and Stanley, who made a great team together.

Although Holes is a Disney movie, it deals with some serious issues such as racism, shootings, and violence. The film's dramatization at some points is very well done.

I would suggest this movie to people of all ages, whether they have read the book or not. You shouldn't miss it.


Since Siskel's death and Ebert's absence the show has been left in the incapable hands of Richard Roeper. Roeper is not a film critic he just criticizes anything he doesn't like personally i.e. films with country music get panned because "I don't like country music!" and children's movies get a standard "Don't see it now, wait until it comes out on DVD and rent it for your kids!" Roeper may well be an idiot savant, but in some other field. The weekly guests 'sitting-in' for Ebert fare better, but who wants to pick a daisy in the midst of a cow pat? All that said, it IS the only show in town and that alone makes it worth watching. As for Roger Ebert, if Stephen Hawking can talk, so can you! It's your mind and thoughts we long for. Do whatever is necessary to get that usurper off his self-declared throne.


20 out of 10 This is a truly wonderful story about a wartime evacuee and a curmudgeonly carpenter Tom Oakley. The boy (William Beech) is billeted with Tom and it is immediately apparent that he has serious issues when he wets his bed on the first night. William is illiterate and frightened but somehow the two find solace in each others loneliness. It transpires that William has a talent as an artist and we see Tom's talent as a choirmaster in an amusing rendition of Jerusalem. William is befriended by Zacharias Wrench, a young Jewish lad also from London and along with both Tom and Zacharias, he finally learns to read and write and to feel a part of this small close knit community. Just as he is settling down, William is recalled back to London by his mother, and it is here we see why he is so screwed up. His mother is clearly mentally sick and when Tom doesn't hear from William, he travels to London to look for him. He finally finds him holding his dead baby sister where he has been tied up in a cellar. After a period in hospital, Tom realises he must kidnap him and take him home with him. The climax is a bitter-sweet ending when William is told he is to be adopted by Tom, while at the same time, learning his best friend Zacharias has been killed in an air raid in London. For me, one of the most moving scenes was when Tom was talking to a official from the Home Office.

I love 'im, an' for what it's worth, I think he loves me too'.

It just doesn't get better that that does it?


John Thaw, of Inspector Morse fame, plays old Tom Oakley in this movie. Tom lives in a tiny English village during 1939 and the start of the Second World War. A bit of a recluse, Tom has not yet recovered from the death of his wife and son while he was serving during the First World War. If you can imagine Inspector Morse old and retired, twice as crochety as when he was a policeman, then you've got Tom Oakley's character.

Yet this heart of flint is about to melt. London children are evacuated in advance of the blitz. Young William (Willie) Beech is billeted with the protesting Tom. Willie is played to good effect by Nick Robinson.

This boy is in need of care with a capital C. Behind in school, still wetting the bed, and unable to read are the smallest of his problems. He comes from a horrific background in London, with a mother who cannot cope, to put it mildly.

Slowly, yet steadily, man and boy warm to each other. Tom discovers again his ability to love and care. And the boy learns to accept this love and caring. See Tom and Willie building a bomb shelter at the end of their garden. See Willie's joy at what is probably his first ever birthday party thrown by Tom.

Not to give away the ending, but Willie is adopted by Tom after much struggle, and the pair begin a new life much richer for their mutual love.

In this movie, Thaw and Robinson are following in a long line of movies where man meets boy and develop a mutual love. See the late Dirk Bogarde and Jon Whiteley in "Spanish Gardener". Or Clark Gable and Carlo Angeletti in "It Started in Naples". Or Robert Ulrich and Kenny Vadas in "Captains Courageous". Or Mel Gibson and Nick Stahl in "Man Without a Face".

Two points of interest. This is the only appearance of Thaw that I know of where he sings. Only a verse of a hymn, New Jerusalem, but he does sing.

Second, young Robinson also starred in a second movie featuring "Tom" in the title, "Tom's Midnight Garden", which is based on a classic children's novel.


If John Thaw had never played "Morse", "Kavanagh", or starred in "The Sweeney" and other productions, he'd be remembered for this wonderfully unforgettable performance in "Goodnight Mr Tom".

Superbly supported by an equally tremendous performance by his co-star (young Nick Robinson in his first role), and an unobtrusive cast, this adaptation of Michelle Magorian's charming novel is a fitting memorial to his art.

When I read this story of an old widowed Norfolk countryman having to accommodate a young boy from London before and during the Blitz, I found a rather obvious time-line error in it, and credit must go to the makers of this film for rectifying this error. They also must be applauded for not over-sentimentalising the tale, and preventing what could have been turned, quite easily, into a mushy mess.

If you keep a CD or video library then this feel-good made for TV movie is an absolute must inclusion.


The plot of GOODNIGHT MR TOM on paper makes it seem we are in for a large dose of maudlin,sickly sentiment.But,talented director Jack Gold is an expert on touching the emotions in the right manner,and it emerges instead as a compelling,deeply moving wartime drama with excellent production and lead performances.One of the best,if not the best TV movies of the 1990's which possibly would've had even greater success if it had been released in the cinemas.

The evacuation of children to countryside towns and villages in World War II was of course a common practice,but in the case of the young boy here was doubly important because of a wretched home life in the UK's capital.The horrors of war on the home front are not drifted over though,and the construction of the film until it's throat-lumping,misty-eyed ending leaves us with a sense of optimism despite what has happened before.It is almost(but not quite)worthy of comparison with the finale to IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE(1946).All in all,a modern classic.


I saw the movie before I read the Michelle Magorian book and I enjoyed both. The movie, more than the book, made me come close to tears on several occasions. This film touches the deepest points of the human soul and never lets go. I encourage as many people to watch this masterpiece as much and as soon as possible. I give it ten stars.


This has to be one of the most beautiful, moving, thought provoking films around. It's good family entertainment and at the same time makes you think very hard about the issues involved. Every time I see the "ghost of Zac riding the bike through the puddle at the end I can't help but cry my eyes out. John Thaw's performance is so touching and it is a shame he is no longer with us. Gone but not forgotten. A outstanding film. Full marks.


John Thaw is a an excellent actor. I have to admit that I was impressed by his range in the role of a crusty old curmudgeon who reluctantly agrees to take in an evacuee from the streets of London (WWII time era).

That being said, the film is also excellent. A very moving story with a satisfying ending. Some of the characters are a little underdeveloped (the school teacher in particular), but none of them are essential to the plot. Basically, the story is about the old man and the boy, and the film needs little else.


Absolute masterpiece of a film! Goodnight Mr.Tom has swiftly become one of my favourite films of all time. Nobody should miss out on seeing this film, it's just too good! Mr.Tom is perfectly portrayed by John Thaw as the harsh old man who becomes a soft father-figure when William Beech(Nick Robinson) is sent to him for evacuation, almost like 'The town mouse and the country mouse'. A truly heart wrenching film. The director knew exactly how to turn book into film and he has done so extremely well. The film was so excellently shot that the emotions of the characters and what was happening made the audience feel a range of emotions from love to fear, and these emotions could turn on a six-pence. Set in a time of turmoil during World War Two, this film also shows the difference between the cities and the countryside, they are almost like different countries. An absolute must see, those who don't are missing out on a truly amazing and brilliant film.


A heartwarming film. The usual superb acting by John Thaw, who passed over recently. A man who was always so unassuming. He was one of Englands top 10 actors certainly of my time.

He can be remembered for his famous role of Inspector Morse. As Jack Regan in the 1970's hit TV series 'the Sweeney and as a barrister in Kavanah QC. A must see for all the family and a great DVD for my collection. The filming will bring back a few memories for people who remember wartime Britain and certainly those who were evacuated out of London to escape the German bombings. The interaction between the two main characters.Tom and the boy William was really well acted and true to the book by Michelle Magorian.


This made-for-TV film is a brilliant one. This is probably the best and favourite role by BAFTA winning John Thaw (Kavanagh Q.C. and Inspector Morse). Tom Oakley (Thaw) widowed man has lived in a village alone for a while since his wife and son died, and now he has been landed with an evacuee called Willaim Beech (Nick Robinson). As he gets to know this child he starts to develop a friendship. Until Willaim's Mum (Annabelle Apsion) wants him back. After Tom gets worried about William not contacting him he goes to London to find him. In the end Willaim gets his home with a loving family (or Dad). Set during the Second World War this is an excellent film. It was nominated the BAFTA Lew Grade Award, and it won the National Television Award for Most Popular Drama. John Thaw was number 3 on TV's 50 Greatest Stars. Very good!


Well, when before I saw this film I really wasn't sure whether it would be my cup of tea...how wrong I was! I thought that this was one of the best films I've watched for a very long time, a real family classic. The story of a young evacuee and his new 'foster' dad, this film ticks all the boxes. I've not read the book (maybe that's a good thing & meant I enjoyed the film more) but with regards to the story, I really can't think of any bad points, hence scoring it 10 out of 10 (and I hardly ever think anything warrants top marks!). By the time William proclaimed 'I CAN RIDE MY BIKE, DAD!' I was sobbing my heart out (anyone who's seen it will understand, I'm sure). Really heartwarming, and definitely recommended.


This film has been on my wish list for ten years and I only recently found it on DVD when my partner's grandson was given it. He watched it at and was thrilled to learn that it was about my generation - born in 1930 and evacuated in 1939 and he wanted to know more about it - and me. Luckily I borrowed it from him and watched it on my own and I cried all through it. Not only did it capture the emotions, the class distinction, the hardship and the warmth of human relationships of those years (as well as the cruelties (spoken and unspoken); but it was accurate! I am also a bit of an anorak when it comes to ARP uniforms, ambulances (LCC) in the right colour (white) and all the impedimenta of the management of bomb sites and the work of the Heavy Rescue Brigades. I couldn't fault any of this from my memories, and the sandbagged Anderson shelter and the WVS canteens brought it all back. The difference between the relatively unspoiled life in the village and war-torn London was also sharply presented I re-lived 1939/40 and my own evacuation from London with this production! I know Jack Gold's work, of course, and one would expect no more from him than this meticulous detail; but it went far beyond the accurate representation of the facts and touched deep chords about human responses and the only half-uttered value judgements of those years. It was certainly one of the great high spots in John Thaw's acting career and of Gold's direction and deserves to be better known. It is a magnificent film and I have already ordered a couple of copies to send to friends.


This is arguably John Thaw's finest performance where he successfully shakes off any traits of his Inspector Morse character and brings a perfect adaptation of Tom from the pages of the book to the TV screen. This is a well made production which maintains its family viewing vibe despite some very mature themes like the outbreak of the second world war and the physical abuse suffered by the child.

However it is the relationship between Tom and young Willie that is the heart and soul of this story. It is touching and beautiful to see this bond between the young boy evacuated from London and the grumpy old man he is left with develop - a real grandfather/grandson connection.

It is a pity that this story wasn't made with a bigger budget with a more established director as it belongs on the big screen, not shown once or twice every ten years on a Sunday afternoon. Given the right guidance, John Thaw would be celebrated the world over and bestowed with many awards for his brilliant performance in this movie. A great actor and a great role that should have been honored more than it was at the time.


Marvelous film again dealing with the trials and tribulations of World War 11 England. What makes this film so good is the touching of the human element.This film is definitely in the tradition of such British line classics such as "Mrs. Miniver" and "Hope and Glory." As is the case with this film, we see the desperation of people in the time of war.

The performances are outstanding here especially by the embittered John Thaw, who is assigned a child who has been evacuated from the London bombing.

We soon see why this child wets his bed. He comes from a lunatic mother who has abused him terribly.

The old man takes to the child and brings happiness into his sad life. When the child is returned to his mother, the old man goes to London and seeks him out only to find tragedy. He literally kidnaps the boy and is able to convince a higher up that the child is better off with him than being in a boy's home.

The picture is so good because it deals and builds on endearing relationships.


This movie resonated with me on two levels. As a kid I was evacuated from London and planted on unwilling hosts in a country village. While I escaped the bombing and had experiences which produced treasured memories (for example hearing a nightingale sing one dark night for the very first time) and enjoying a life I never could have had in London, I missed my family and worried about them. Tom is an old man whose wife and child have both died and who lives alone in a small country village.As an old man who is now without a wife whose kids have gotten married and live far away in another province, I am again sometime lonely. The boy's mother is a religious fanatic with very odd ideas of raising a child. Since a deep affection has grown between old Tom Oakley and this young lad, Tom goes in search of him and finally rescues him from very odd and dangerous circumstances. At the end of the story there is great tension since due to some bureaucratic ruling it seems that the child is going to lose someone who has developed a loving relationship with him.


Goodnight Mister Tom is so beautifully filmed and beautifully realised. It isn't completely faithful to the book, but does it have to be? No, not at all. John Thaw is mesmerising as Tom Oakley. His transformation from gruff to caring was so well realised, making it more believable than Scrooge in Christmas Carol. After Inspector Morse, this is Thaw's finest hour. He was matched earnestly by a young Nick Robinson, who gave a thoroughly convincing portrayal of an evacuee traumatised by the abusive relationship with his mother. The script and music made it worth the buy, and you also see Thaw playing the organ. Amazing! The most moving scene, was Willie finding out about Zak's death, and then Tom telling him about his deceased family who died of scarlatina. Buy this, you'll love it! 10/10 Bethany Cox


Quite a heartwarming little film and not just for the kids. John Thaw is brilliant as always (without any hint of Inspector Morse about him). The boy playing William did a good job as well though I didn't find him convincing in every scene. I loved the whole feel of the small village and the slower pace of life in those times. I also felt the scenes in London where historically accurate, as far as I could tell.

It strongly reminded me of a Scandinavian film I saw a couple of years ago called Mother of Mine. That film featured a boy being evacuated from Finland to Sweden during WW II. The wife of the family taking him in asked for a girl because (as it turns out)she lost her daughter. Getting a boy instead she completely ignores him. The fact that the boy speaks Finnish complicates matters even further. I highly recommend that film to anyone who enjoyed Goodnight Mr. Tom, it has the same feel to it.


Sometimes I watch a movie and am really impressed by it  and still it is not easy to explain why I liked it that much. This is mostly true for the uncommon movies  the ones one can hardly compare with the rest out there. Goodnight Mister Tom is one of these special movies. There is a lot of emotion in that movie  and the acting was so good that while watching the movie, I was crying and laughing as the story went on. The young Nick Robinson  is a young boy (William) evacuated from London because of the air strikes there during the Second World War. Mr. Tom played by John Thaw is an old man leaving in the village the evacuated children were send to.

At first Tom refuses to take any responsibilities - such as taking care for a troubled young lad  but accepts since he is left without a choice. During the stay Mr. Tom discovers how horrible the life has been for the William  alongside his luggage his mom sent a belt and written instructions to the host of her son  not to hesitate to use it. This belt is berried in the field  never to be used in such a brutal manner. Mr. Tom provides a real home for William, and the boy is happy with his new life, he goes to school, makes new friends and discovers hidden talents. All of the sudden a letter William is called home in London with a letter mentioning that she is not feeling welland it starts all over again  only this time it gets much worse There are many feelings you can sense in this movie  love, fear, sadness, happiness, pain, hope  and much more. Goodnight Mr. Tom is another masterpiece of the British cinema comparable only with others such as Dear Frankie and Billy Elliot  if one is to compare. I have truly enjoyed watching it and highly recommend it. Before finishing this review I would also like to mention the great performance of Thomas Orange in the role of Zac  reminded me of a friend of mine from my own childhood ( :


In the immediate aftermath following World War II, sound minds in Hollywood tried to distance themselves from the mindless flag-waving that is a natural ingredient in a war effort. "Best Years of Our Lives' and even 'Gentleman's Agreement' investigated the way Americans looked at themselves in the wake of the war, but Delmer Daves' "Pride of the Marines" beat them to it.

The film is about Philadelphia smart alec John Garfield who goes to war as a marine and after a nightmarish evening in a foxhole, with Japanese soldiers eerily crying out at him and his buddies "Mariiines, tonight you die!", he is blinded by a hand-grenade, and dumps his girlfriend back home rather than have to depend on her after coming home.

Delmer Daves is uncompromising in his depiction on these men who are brave, as it were, almost by coincidence. They are there, in the foxhole, and when shot at, they react. So much for heroism, but they get the job done. And then comes the self-pity, the dark, gloomy sense of humor. Garfield is in angry denial of his blindness and the film makes no excuses, "There's no free candy for anyone in this world", as his buddy tells him. The same guy, a Jew, played by Dane Clark, reminds him, "In a war somebody gets it, and you're it. Everybody's got problems! When I get back, some guys won't hire me, because my name is Diamond".

Great movies are made with guts like these, and if the first half hour of 'Pride of the Marines' fails to rise to the occasion completely, from then on it evolves into a true work of art. You weep, and you ponder, you ache and you hope against hope. Well, simply: art.


I hadn't seen this film in probably 35 years, so when I recently noticed that it was going to be on television (cable) again for the first time in a very long time (it is not available on video), I made sure I didn't miss it. And unlike so many other films that seem to lose their luster when finally viewed again, I found the visual images from the "Pride of the Marines" were as vivid and effective as I first remembered. What makes this movie so special, anyway?

Everything. Based on the true story of Al Schmid and his fellow Marine machine gun crew's ordeal at the Battle of the Tenaru River on Guadalcanal in November, 1942, the screenplay stays 95% true to the book upon which it was based, "Al Schmid, Marine" by Roger Butterfield, varying only enough to meet the time constrains of a motion picture. This is not a typical "war movie" where the action is central, and indeed the war scene is a brief 10 minutes or so in the middle of the film. But it is a memorable 10 minutes, filmed in the lowest light possible to depict a night battle, and is devoid of the mock heroics or falseness that usually plagues the genre. In a way probably ahead of its time, the natural drama of what happened there was more than sufficient to convey to the audience the stark, ugly, brutal nature of battle, and probably shocked audiences when it was seen right after the war. This film isn't about "glorifying" war; I can't imagine anyone seeing that battle scene and WANTING to enlist in the service. Not right away, anyway.

What this film really concerns is the aftermath of battle, and how damaged men can learn to re-claim their lives. There's an excellent hospital scene where a dozen men discuss this, and I feel that's another reason why the film was so so well received--it was exceptionally well-written. There's a "dream" sequence done in inverse (negative film) that seems almost experimental, and the acting is strong, too, led by John Garfield. Garfield was perfect for the role because his natural temperament and Schmid's were nearly the same, and Garfield met Schmid and even lived with him for a while to learn as much as he could about the man and his role. Actors don't do that much anymore, but added to the equation, it's just another reason why this movie succeeds in telling such a difficult, unattractive story.


Most war films made in the US during WWII were great fun to watch but suffered from severe gaps in realism because they were being produced more for propaganda value to raise the spirits at home than anything else. I am not knocking these films as many of them are still very watchable. However, because they so often lack realism they are prevented from being truly great films. A perfect example was the John Garfield film Air Force--in which a B-17 nearly single-handedly takes out half the Japanese air force! However, Pride Of The Marines is a welcome departure--scoring high marks for portraying a true story in a reasonably accurate manner. When I first saw this film, I thought it was NOT a true story as it seemed way too improbable to be true. However, after researching further I found that it was in fact rather true to the amazing story of two men who did so much to earn the Medal of Honor. This is one case where real life seemed too incredible to be true!


My father, Dr. Gordon Warner (ret. Major, US Marine Corps), was in Guadalcanal and lost his leg to the Japanese, and also received the Navy Cross. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that my father was the technical adviser of this film and I am hoping that he had an impact on the film in making it resemble how it really was back then, as I read in various comments written by the viewers of this film that it seemed like real-life. My father is a fanatic of facts and figures, and always wanted things to be seen as they were so I would like to believe he had something to do with that.

He currently lives in Okinawa, Japan, married to my mother for over 40 years (ironically, she's Japanese), and a few years ago was awarded one of the highest commendations from the Emperor of Japan for his contribution and activities of bringing back Kendo and Iaido to Japan since McArthur banned them after WWII.

My father was once a marine but I know that once you are a marine, you're always a marine. And that is exactly what he is and I love and respect him very much.

I would love to be able to watch this film if anyone will have a copy of it. And I'd love to give it to my father for his 94th birthday this year!


This is a great film Classic from the 40's and well produced. There are very dramatic scenes in this film with John Garfield,(Al Schmid),"Force of Evil",'48 and Dane Clark,(Lee Diamond),"Last Rites",'88, fighting the Japs during WWII being completely surrounded and with only one machine-gun. When Al Schmid was able to go home after being wounded with a horrible injury, his problems just started to begin with his family and engaged girl friend. Dane Clark gave an outstanding supporting role as Lee Diamond, who did everything to help his buddy Al get his life together again. There is never a complete victory to War and lets not forget all the Brave Wounded Military personnel in Veterans Hospitals from All the Wars and our present Iraq Vets!


This movie is a fantastic movie. Everything about it in my opinion was top notch from the acting to the directing. I know Mr. Garfield was blacklisted in the 1950's but the majority of his other films are on video if not DVD. That being the case,why isn't this one? A friend recorded it off of TCM for me but to have it on DVD would be great. For special features they could have say a Marine historian talk about the battle and if Mr. Schmid's wife or son are still alive they could be interviewed as well. Anyway this is a great movie and I highly recommend it.If it ever is put out hopefully it won't be colorized. Colorizing it would in my opinion just ruin the whole effect of the film. The battle scene was quite realistic as far as a 1945,film would go. Mr. Garfield did a superb job of portraying Mr. Schmid. Some actors might have been tempted to overact the part of Mr.Schmid's disability but I feel he got it just right. I sincerely hope they come out with this movie on DVD someday as a tribute to the courage of Al Schmid and all the other marines who sacrificed so much for us in World War Two.


No one would argue that this 1945 war film was a masterpiece. (How could any 1945 war film be a masterpiece?) And yet this is an extremely effective telling of a true story, that of Al Schmidt, blinded on Guadalcanal, as played by John Garfield, who spent days wearing a blindfold to capture the nuances of a blind person's actions. Robert Leckie, in "Helmet for My Pillow",denigrates Schmidt's popularity in favor of his foxhole mate, who was killed, writing that "the country must have needed live heroes."

Well, I suppose the country did. And they had one here. There is a single combat scene in the movie, bound to the studio lot, lasting only ten minutes or so, and occurring less than halfway through the film instead of being saved for the climax, but it is the scariest and most realistic depiction of men under fire that I can remember having seen on screen, including those in "Saving Private Ryan". Men yell with fear, scream at each other and at the enemy, and bleed and die, without the aid of color, stereophonic sound, squibs, or gore.

Simply from a technological point of view, the film is outstanding. It isn't just that we learn how complicated a mechanism a .30 caliber, water-cooled Browning machine gun is, or that it must be fired in bursts of only a few rounds, or that it isn't waved around like a fire hose, as in so many other war movies. The technical precision adds to the scene's riveting quality. The need to stick to short bursts is horrifying when dozens of shrieking enemies are pouring across a creek fifty feet away with the sole aim of exterminating you and your two isolated comrades confined to a small gun emplacement.

The performances are solid, if not bravura, including those of the ubiquitous 1940s support, John Ridgeley, and a radiant, youthful Eleanor Parker. The framing love story is spare, but it works, and ultimately is quite moving. A striking dream sequence is included. It's not Bunuel, but for a routine 1945 film, it stands out as original and effective.

Albert Maltz may have overwritten the script, or it may have been altered by someone else. It could have used the kind of pruning that might have introduced some much needed ambiguity. Still, there are odd verbal punctuations that have a surprising impact on the viewer -- "Why don't God strike me dead?" And, "In the eyes, Lee. Get 'em in the eyes!" Depths of anguish in a few corny words. And a surprising amount of bitterness expressed by wounded veterans in a 1945 war film.

Notes that might seem false to a contemporary viewer but perhaps shouldn't: the dated vernacular which it's difficult to believe many of today's kids could think was actually ever spoken -- "private gab," "dope", "drip," "Gee," "you dumb coot," "dame," "a swell guy," and "feeling sorry for yourself." Let us consider the historical context and be kind in our judgments. At the time, some of this goofy lingo was at the cutting edge.

Real weak points? The wounded veterans get together and argue with each other about how much of a collective future they have and the argument is oversimply resolved with a conclusion along the lines of, "Just because you have a silver plate in your head doesn't mean people will think you're a bad person." There are sometimes voice overs and silent prayers that are both unnecessary and downright unimaginative. "Please, God, let him return to me," and that sort of thing.

Well, the film makers were operating within the constraints of their times. Maybe that's why the final fade is on a shot of Independence Hall and the inspiring strains of "America the Beautiful" swell in the back.

None of this can undo the film's virtues, which are considerable, particularly the impact of that horrifying combat scene. It's not on television that often. If you have a chance, by all means catch it.


A wonderful and gritty war film that focuses on the inner torment of blinded marine Al Schmid. Although it is tough and unpleasant it IS in the end heroic - Schmid's triumph over disability and depression. The battle scene was superb. But one bone to pick. No matter how many .50 bullets they fired I never saw any water or dirt being kicked up by the impacts! It hurt the realism, but I can live with it. Fine performance by Eleanor Parker, again, as his girl friend.


Definitely at the top five of best John Garfield movies has to be Pride of the Marines. It's the true story of Marine private Al Schmid who at the cost of his own sight, while wounded held off a horde of storming Japanese on Guadalcanal.

The story nicely segments in three parts, Al Schmid's home life where he's a simple working stiff who's just getting serious with a woman and who likes nothing better than his bowling night. Pearl Harbor is bombed and he's off to war as millions of others were.

The second part is at Guadalcanal and we see part of the action where he's in an isolated machine gun nest, holding off Japanese troops. His action prevented Marine positions from being overrun, but a grenade does in his eyesight.

And of course the third part is his painful adjustment to civilian life and to reassure himself that people aren't just caring for him out of pity, most of all that girl he was seeing Eleanor Parker.

This film was broadcast on TCM on John Garfield's 95th birthday and there was a documentary on Garfield hosted by his daughter. One of the people interviewed said that Garfield was the actor most believable in working class roles in having and holding a union card.

In that respect he was lucky in that he did land with Warner Brothers in Hollywood. Though he kept getting typecast in gangster roles in the tradition of that studio, Garfield was terrific in these parts because of his background, because he came from the kind of life Al Schmid had, with the exception of Garfield's Jewish background.

In that respect he was perfect to play the part of a working class hero like Al Schmid who accepted the responsibility of defending his country. No super heroics here, just a guy who'd rather have been back in Philadelphia, but doing a job that had to be done.

It's a great part for Garfield. It's a film one shouldn't miss. I do wonder though whatever happened to the real Al Schmid.


Being from the Philadelphia suburbs and extremely interested in local history, this film provides an excellent vintage view of Philadelphia in the 1940s. There are scenes of downtown, a train station that no longer exists, 30th Street Station--which still does exist, as well as scenes from the Northeast part of the city. Good shots of the old row-homes as they appeared then. The movie gets a bit "chatty" at times - causing the viewer to briefly lose interest...but the overall storyline is solid and very moving. Anyone who enjoyed this movie should also try to see the film "Bright Victory", also with local footage of the Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, PA - and scenes from downtown Phoenixville. The Army Hospital has since become a college campus. Neither of these films are out on any format and I can't imagine why. I have them both on VHS from home recording, as shown on TCM in recent years. I highly recommend them to any other history buffs out there from my area!


A very good wartime movie showing the effects of war on a hometown boy who looses his eyesight on Guadalcanal and must come home and re-adjust himself with the help of family and friends. An excellent cast of actor's helps make this movie very entertaining. Eleanor Parker's role as the girlfriend was worthy of an Oscar nomination. She has such an innocence to her in this movie. Ann Doran role was equally satisfying as was all of her small supporting roles. I especially like the hometown aura of pre-war Phildelphia. The hunting scene is very good. Of course the war scene on Guadalcanal truly showed the horror faced by our soldiers during this epic battle. A well deserving film and one that should not be forgotten


***SPOILERS*** On of the first WWII movies coming out of Hollywood that shows how the war effected those GI's, or in this case US Marines, who fought in it.

21 year old Al Schmid, John Garfield, was just starting to live with a well paying job-earning some $40.00 a week-at the local steel mill and girl Ruth Hartley, Elenore Parker, whom he was about to marry when the Japs spoiled everything for him, and millions of likewise young Americans, by attacking the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. Doing his duty as an American citizen Al immediately joined the US Marine Corps hoping to get back at the Japs knowing, correctly as it was to turn out, that the Marines would be the first American combat units to get a crack at them.

Al finally got his chance when his unit, the 1st Marine Division, landed on August 7, 1942 at Guadalcanal in the far flung Solomon Islands to engage the Japanese who were were in control of it. It was during the battle of the Ilu River that Al almost single handed stopped a massive Japanese Banzai attack holding off, with his machine gun, wave after wave of suicide attacks by the determined Japs until help, or reinforcements, finally arrived. It was during the bloody fighting Al was hit in the face by a Jap grenade that ended up blinding him.

Now back in the states convalescing at a naval hospital Al is faced with something far more harder to overcome then battling a battalion size attack of Japanese or German soldiers. He's faced with a future where he'll never see again and having to depend on others to look after, or for, him!

We get to see in the film "Pride of the Marines" Al battle himself far harder then he did the Japanese troops on Guadalcanal in just coming to terms with his disability. Not wanting anyone, especially his girlfriend Ruth, to feel sorry for him Al in fact is the one who feels sorry for himself more then anyone else in the movie. It's with the help of Navy Nurse Virginia Pfeiffer, Rosemary DeCamp, and Ruth together with his US Marine buddy Lee Diamond, Dane Clark, that in the end gives Al the courage to face his blindness with the same strength that he faced wave after wave of Japanese troops on Gudalcanal. A courage Al thought he lost back in that God-forsaken island hell in the South Pacific.

Based on the true story of US Marine Sergeant Albert Schmid "Pride of the Marines" showed what we were to expect from the tens of thousands of wounded US Servicemen coming back from the war. We get to see how it in many ways was far more difficult for those fighting the war to adjust to a peacetime America when they left something, like in the case of Al Schmid, behind on the battlefield. Al's battle with his personal demons was a lot harder then the Japanese that he fought in that they were part of him and thus had to fight himself in order to overcome and eventually defeat them. Despite the help that he got from both Nurse Virginia and his girlfriend Ruth as well as his Navy doctor-who has a striking resemblance to actor Gregory Peck-it still was up to Al to overcome the fears that he faced. Fears which he and only he had to both battle and overcome, like he was told by everyone in the movie, all by himself.


John Garfield plays a Marine who is blinded by a grenade while fighting on Guadalcanal and who has to learn to live with his disability. He has all the stereotypical notions about blindness, and is sure he'll be a burden to everyone. The hospital staff and his fellow wounded Marines can't get through to him. Neither can his girl back home played by Eleanor Parker. He's stubborn and blinded by his own fears, self pity, and prejudices. It's a complex role that Garfield carries off memorably in a great performance that keeps one watching in spite of the ever present syrupy melodrama. The best scenes are on Guadalcanal, where he's in a machine gun nest trying to fend off the advancing Japanese soldiers in a hellish looking night time battle, and later a dream sequence in the hospital where he sees himself walking down a train platform with a white cane, dark glasses, and holding out a tin cup, all the while his girlfriend walks backward away from the camera.


First off, let's start with the negative points: 1) There are HUGE, gaping wholes in the story line and questions that are raised that will get no where near being answered; 2) The movie is not for all people, so impolite viewers will get restless and start yapping during the movie.

Point two above is important because the movie is very quiet. In an older type theater (like the one I went to), you can hear the reel going through the projector at times. I loved that. The movie does not keep you busy with music, nor effects: it lets you reflect upon what is happening.

There is a lack of rhythm that generates an atmosphere that is fascinating an utterly enjoyable. The same kind of atmosphere generated by Stanley Kubrick in Eyes Wide Shut. Not for all people.

I would highly recommend it to fans of cinema, as the cinematographic work is amazing. Those that base their appreciation of a movie solely on the story will be utterly disappointed. It's the kind of story that you have to make up the links in your mind afterwards. (My version of it is pretty darn cool, but probably quite off-track!) If you do go catch the movie, there is one very cool part: when the two cops are talking to each other on their cell phones. An ultra-cool sound effect that really puts you in the moment. Hats off to the person that thought of doing this.


You like to solve mysteries? You like complex narrations? This is for you. Brilliant, clever movie by Francis Leclerc(son of a legendary french Canadian signer Felix Leclerc). Flashy photo and clever editing is the word of Leclerc, strongly helped by Roy Dupuis who's dythirambic in the lead role.

The plot is about Alexandre Tourneur, veterinary in his 40's who just woke up from a coma after being unplugged by somebody unknown. Tourneur is struggling to remember who hit him as he was ending a deer's sufferings on the road. Throughout the struggling, he has weird behavior and it seems like something took over him.

Not spooky, but very mysterious and well played movie. I have my hypothesis on the ending(I think the Indian caused the accident) but this ending was open to any explanations.

I strongly recommend it 9.5/10


You can call it a mystery, perhaps a small thriller, or an intelligent film.

The story takes you through the life of one person who has lost his life and is looking to regain it.

I have to say I was quite surprised that I truly did enjoy this film. It is not usually the genre I care for however the characters quickly became people to me and I wanted to know what they were about and what was going to happen to them.

Just like many french films over English made, we are able to learn much more about the character and the affect of their surroundings on their person. This film is character driven and will not disappoint!


Director/writer Andrés Waissbluth worked seven years to complete this two hour film about the crime underground in Santiago, Chile, and perhaps that is one of the reasons the resultant film seems episodic and in need of editing. OR, maybe this is the technique of a director who shows a fine sense of film noir storytelling.

Two brothers - Silvio the elder (Néstor Cantillana) and Victor the younger (Juan Pablo Miranda) - have moved to Santiago from their home in Temuco after their parents' death and Silvio works to support Victor's education. On Victor's seventeenth birthday Silvio takes the virgin out to the clubs where he encourages Victor to lose his virginity with one of the club's stripper/prostitutes. In a tender scene Victor must face his nascent impotency while Silvio is out on the club floor impressing the 'owners' with his potential for hire.

Silvio goes to work for the 'gang' as a bodyguard/henchman and makes good money to support Victor's schooling. But Victor has eyes for one of the dancers at the club named Gracia (Antonella Ríos) and begins to woo her, dropping out of school incurring Silvio's angry disappointment. Gracia just happens to be the squeeze of the club gang's leader Don Pascual (Alejandro Trejo) who is Silvio's boss! Gracia is the glue that holds this tale together as she is the paramour of Victor, Silvio, and Don Pascual and the consequences of this bizarre ménage a trois has deadly results. Through a means of re-telling the story through the eyes of Victor, Silvio, and Gracia we grow to understand the vulnerabilities and the cracks in each character that allow for the downfall that results.

Sound like a Chilean Pulp Fiction? Well, it is and it is filmed in a brutally colorful, dark manner that includes a lot of frontal nudity (both female and male) and provocative sexual encounters. But in the end the sensual aspect of the director's vision is what drives this film, playing on the debutante virginal psyche against the hardcore professional sex worker with success. The cast is fairly strong, especially Antonella Ríos in the demanding role of Gracia. There are enough twists and turns and replays of incidents you think you understood the first viewing but that change dramatically in impact when told through the eyes of a different character. Bordering on two hours, some judicious editing would have helped the impact of the film. In Spanish with English subtitles. Recommended for those who like the edgy film noir style and the art of South American cinema. Grady Harp


An intriguingly bold film weaves the seemingly effortless camerawork with some superb casting and an explosive soundtrack to plot the damaging effects of the crime and corruption of the Santiago underworld on 2 naive young brothers from the southern city of Temuco.

Film debutant Daniella Rios is the seductive erotic dancer Gracia, working in the nightclub owned by the face of the new mini-wave in Chilean film production, Alejandro Trejo. The elder brother, played maturely by Nestor Cantillana, is easily convinced to become Trejo's lead henchman, after a night at the stripclub to celebrate younger brother Victor's (Juan Pablo Miranda) seventeenth birthday. From the establishing shot of this opening scene, the film explodes into neo-noir exploration of everything the outside world doesn't usually expect to see in this country so stereotypically conservative and catholic.

Gracia's charms of seduction attract the three men like bees to honey, although the circular narrative of the three-way fantasy romance revolves around the linear portrayal of major international drug deals between Trejo's men and the 'Gringo', Eduardo Barril. Power relations become a vital theme, as society's outsiders merge in a mini-family. The prostitute holds an exotic spell over all the chilean men in the film, emerging from her ambiguous position in the periphery of society, and is seen as holding the key to all three men's futures. The relationships between Trejo and Cantillana become important, as the boys' parents are conspicious by their absence (one assumes they still live in Temuco). Therefore it is Trejo, el padrino, who 'adopts' Cantillana, and effectively 'makes him' as a man in the city. Miranda rapidly becomes the desperate outsider, as his dependency on his 'father figure', Cantillana, becomes increasingly strained by jealousy over the beautiful Gracia. However, Miranda remains trapped by the constraint of still being in school - he is dependent on Cantillana, who is dependent on Trejo, for the money to survive. Trejo, in turn, is under the thumb of the 'Gringo', and his wealth has been accumulated through drug deals and well as his strip clubs. The figure of Gracia acts as a time bomb viewed as a beautiful firework, she wraps a web of beauty inside the patriarchy but the strain can only lead to one climax.

As the tensions of these power relations come to head, Gracia remains ambiguously elusive. The viewer is never sure which male figure she will commit to. The film concludes tragically and explosively in a shoot out which realigns power relations and erases half the major male protanganists. The final shot of Miranda's beaten face speeding down the PanAmericano highway is despairingly powerful. The boy has been sucked in by the lure of the city's underworld, yet has lost his only visible family, and his woman, who is his only friend in the film. He has nothing. The overriding metaphors are bold and brave. This is a gangster film in Chile. The notions of family, no sex before marriage etc, are abolished, and instead the harsh realities of the other side of Santiago's coin are displayed in all their savage glory. Trejo beats Rios brutally, Rios and Miranda make love in a cinema reel room - a whore having sex with a minor she barely knows. The 'gringos' are seen to have a financial hold over this small Latin American nation, but not through the copper mines, through the illegal path of drugs.

Waissbluth's triumph is in his presentation of this dark underworld, which raises so many social questions, more perhaps than the record-breakingly successful Sexo Con Amor, within a slick, smooth firecracker of a film, which place this film firmly alongside Sexo Con Amor, Taxi Para Tres, and El chacotero Sentimental, as cinematic evidence that Chile is well and truly artistically alive and kicking in the post-transition period 15 years after the censorship of the Military Regime.


Los Debutantes is the story of two orphaned brothers who have moved to Santiago from the South after their mother dies. The confident and streetwise Silvio, the elder brother, gets a job working for a sleazy strip club's owner after taking the naive Victor there for his 17th birthday.

As Silvio blossoms under his boss's tutelage, both brothers get involved with the owner's sexy and manipulative mistress, Gracia. As the film unfolds, characters are redefined as we begin to see the subtle and overt ways that each one manipulates the next.

The film is well made, with good cinematography and fast pacing. It's also pretty sexy, with a lot of nudity and some fairly explicit sex scenes. It uses the now-popular technique of layering different scenes from different points of view, out of chronological sequence. Many people hate movies like this because they don't understand what's going on - Memento, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and many other good films use this device. The plot itself is really nothing new, there are elements of Body Heat, Pulp Fiction, and many other good film noir.

As the different layers are revealed, our understandings of the characters and their motivations evolve. While the plot may be somewhat cliché, it is also clever and entertaining.

I would call it an enjoyable movie, worth watching, but nothing memorable. I haven't seen many films from Chile, and it's always interesting to see film noir from other countries. Other than that, rent it if it's available but don't lose any sleep if it isn't.


I was pretty surprised with this flick. Even though their budjet was obviously lacking still you have to be impressed that this movie took 7 years to make and still turned out good. The acting was pretty impressive and the story really captivated me. My only complaint would be that the ending really was a little too abrupt for my taste. But hey if your audience is left wanting more then this movie has succeeded.

I would really recommend anyone in Hollywood to look up Antonella Ríos who is an excellent Spanish talent (something hard to find now days with all the bad novela over acting). Antonella Ríos truly is a star on the rise.


Other reviewers here seem to think this is an awful film. That's simply not true and a little unfair.

The acting is of a good quality and the direction moves on with a decent fluidity. I don't think there's anything wrong with the Tarantino-esquire way of interlocking stories together. Perhaps its just a new tool for directors to try. I thought it made the film much more interesting. Perhaps a few elements of the script need tightening, but that's about the only fault I can find. Nestor Cantillana gives a great performance as Sylvio, also Antonella Rios is stunning and worth the price of admission alone.


Contrary to popular belief, this title , to me at least, is not so very bad. In fact. I regard it as a favoured film of all time. The welding of stories wasn't structured too well when you consider the differences between the series, however despite all this, you can watch it quite happily. For a feature film of its day, the scenes are well proportioned and the characters remain consistently believable.

The sound/audio track is a personal favourite of mine. Nearly everything has a correct sound effect and many of the voices suit the characters much better than their, now badly cast US dub, counterparts. The sync is perfect in every shot. I had a few issues with the casting for the 'alien' voices (please forgive the crude naming, it has been a while since i've seen it). Otherwise however, the cast seemed perfectly balanced. I feel and believe in the characters of this movie. Dubs are often a subject i rarely agree with from so long ago. I loved the OSD's from back then but the castings often let series down.

At this point i would like to add that this was one of the first anime i saw in my life. It has historical value to me, but even after seeing the original Megazone 23 it remained stronger and more watched in my collection.

To my knowledge the title only ever made it to the US in Texas. Personally i think its a big shame. Had the correct audience been subject to it, i think Robotech the Movie would have been accepted and not tarnished over the years. I am involved with anime each day of my life and everyone i have shown this movie thought it was a nicely put together title.

Watching the film after its separate components will allow the viewer to notice the evident plot holes between shows. However, without seeing the originals, a viewer wouldn't really notice. Since the animation is identical in style, there was no reason to question it back in its day. The UK had very limited access to anime. Laser discs were the most productive media. Personally i like the way Carl had the balls to at least push the genre. I mean Harmony wasn't going to put up the cash for the series to get publicised.

Despite the few picky faults people have had with this film, The eighties feel of it keeps me in love. If you watch Megazone 23 now, to its original Japanese audio, or the new dub, i believe you will be greatly disappointed with the OSD. Cast your minds back to the original Bubblegum Crisis Dub soundtrack and imagine new eighties audio to E.V.E.

Saying all this. This film's popularity nowadays is most likely down to its rarity on the open market. Personally, it spawned a collection for me. I'm now scouring the world for merchandise from the three components that made it up and if i ever get to meet Carl Macek, ill shake his hand for the effort, and buy him a pint or a crate for getting me into anime.


I saw his movie in Dallas, Texas when it came out in 1986. I remember them giving out prizes for showing up to see the movie. After seeing the movie I can see why. The movie was not bad, nor was it great. The problem with this movie was that it tried to tell a side story. They created a new story, new characters and tried to wrap it around the Masters Saga. My biggest complaint is that the plot is about a second wave of Robotech Masters attacking the Earth. They even used the same scenes from the Master Saga but with different dialogue. As a kid, I loved the movie. But unfortunately I haven't seen it as an adult and can't give a better review. Looking back I was disappointed but now I would love to see the movie and re-evaluate my stance on it. That being said, will someone please release this movie for the whole world to judge? I love Robotech and can't wait for The Shadows Chronicles.


Terry Gilliam's fantastic, twisted story of a virus destroying all but a handful of people across the Earth and forcing them to move underground and the man sent back in time to gather information about it is a fantastic, dizzying, and highly stylized film that boasts Bruce Willis' best performance ever.

What sets 12 Monkeys apart from most time-travel sci-fi movies is that Bruce Willis character actually deals with what the psychological effects of time-travel, that is, not knowing what reality is actual reality: the place that the time-traveler comes from or goes to. Also, the film recognizes that things that have past cannot be altered and that the prevention of a cataclysmic event, in this case the release of said virus, cannot be stopped or changed. As Willis asserts "It's already happened," while he's in a mental hospital, the major dilemma the film trudges into is not a trite, overdone plot to save the world; instead it's Willis' inner struggle to simply survive himself. It's a fresh, innovative concept, and it works beautifully thanks to a tautly written script by Peoples and Gilliam's unique brand of dementia.

Besides this, 12 Monkey's storytelling is totally non-linear and instead opts to distort and bend the way the story is told skillfully incorporating a bevy of different time sequences: flashbacks, dreams, memories, the present, the past, the future, and even a scene that is lifted out of Hitchcock's Vertigo. All serve to envelop the viewer into its disturbing cacophony of madness and futility.

Visually, Gilliam is a master of desolate umbrage and shadow rivalling Tim Burton in his strikingly despondent scenery and imagery. With cold, wide, and immersing cinematography, Gilliam plunges into the colorless surroundings and darkness of his characters. The scenes are often bathed in a strangely antiseptic, dead white and help serve as a contrast to the often veering-on-madness characters.

Performance-wise, Brad Pitt steals most scenes, filling them with a patented loony, off-the-wall performance that deservedly garnered him an Oscar nomination. As mentioned, Bruce Willis gives the best performance of his career, not reverting to his heroic cliches and cardboard hero and instead portraying Cole as a simple, poignant, tragic everyman. Equally good is Madeline Stowe as Willis' psychologist. She holds her own, injecting her character with both wild energy and strength as she collapses under the weight of what she comes to believe is a false 'religion.'

Gilliam's expert, overwhelming, and complex handling of what could have been a routine action/sci-fi film makes 12 Monkeys a compelling vision of a nightmarish, futuristic landscape. Its rich, well-thought out, intricate storyline along with bravura performances from the entire cast and its brooding, bleak cinematography make it a masterpiece of madness. Ranking in my top 10 of all time, 12 Monkeys is a darkly lavish spectacle of a film brimming with brilliance.

10 out of 10


"Twelve monkeys"'s got all the elements to become Terry Gilliam's masterpiece. An outstanding screenplay, a sustained rhythm, clever sometimes ironic dialogs. Moreover, he had a good nose about the cast. "Twelve monkeys" is also the first movie where Bruce Willis stands back from the kind of character he used to play in his previous movies. Here, a jaded and hopeless character which you could nickname a prisoner took over from a fearless and invincible hero (as it was the case in "Die hard"). No matter how he tries, he's a prisoner of the time. The movie contains a very thrilling end too. It's got a real dramatic power. But this terrific movie is also a reflection about man, the dangers he dreads (notably, the ones that could cause the end of the world and here, these are virus that can create illnesses). No matter how long it will take, "twelve monkeys" will be estimated at its true value: one of the masterpieces made in the nineties.


Just kidding, I rented 12 Monkeys the other day because I am a huge Bruce Willis fan and I heard some things about the film. Some good and some bad, but it was one of those films you had to pay attention to every second, so I was a bit worried. Just because I felt like for a minute if this was going to be one of those films that I had to watch several times to get. But I watched it last night and I was really impressed, this movie had everything in it: action, drama, sci-fi, history, dark humor, and even a little romance. The actors all did a terrific job, I give a lot of credit to Bruce, during his scene in the car with his psychiatrist, he really got to me. But Brad Pitt, I'm just amazed with how much of a great job he did. He didn't over do his character, who was crazy, and just made it work and was extremely believable. The story was just scary, but very good and a wake up call.

James Cole is a man in the future where a virus broke out in the past and killed 5 billion people and only 1% of the population survived including him. Animals are now ruling the ground above while the humans are down below, but scientists send James to the past of 1990(really meaning to send him to '96), to find out about information of the virus. James gets put into a mental institution meeting his new psychiatrist, Dr. Kathryn Raily and another mental patient, Jeffrey Goines. He tells them the future, of course no one believes him, he goes back to the future. But the scientists send him back to the correct year to where the doctor is kidnapped by James, but he tells her more, and believes him. Now they are set on trying to prevent the virus from ever happening.

12 Monkeys was an incredible film. Like I said the story was so scary just because it's not at all hard to believe that we are not far from that happening. But the whole movie was just great, the cast, the sets, just the whole picture was a great one. It had a Terminator type of feel to it where we might loose something precious one day, ourselves if we don't listen to others. What is right and what is wrong? Who knows? But I would highly recommend 12 Monkeys, it's a great movie that if you give it the proper chance, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

9/10


I had the privilege of seeing this film at a preview screening years ago, and outside the theater I was confronted by a camera crew from a local TV station looking for comments on the film. At the time, the only words that escaped my mouth were "Awesome. Just awesome." I like to think I can articulate myself a little better than that, but at the time I was somewhat incapable of doing so.

The story is intriguing and thought provoking, and the acting is first rate from all the principals. This film was the first one that Terry Gilliam directed that he didn't have a hand in the writing credit for. Back with Universal after his long, arduous battle with them over "Brazil", Terry had achieved what he wanted most; the "final cut". Terry is a master craftsman, and each shot is like a beautifully conceived painting that has been constructed carefully with determination and conviction. It is only justice that such an individual should be unfettered in his attempts to convey a concept. Unfortunately, limitations still exist in such arrangements.

The Universal Collector's Edition DVD of this film is simply amazing, although most of the bonus features aren't listed on the box. It contains among other things, a director/producer audio commentary and an informative and extremely interesting 90 minute documentary on the making of the film called "The Hamster Factor and Other Tales of 12 Monkeys". It tells of some of the creative pitfalls in filmmaking, including a test of mettle when preview screenings tested poorly, striking the team with feelings of self-doubt and despair. Fortunately, for all of us, they decided to change very little about the film and released it to an enormous success.


Terry Gilliam's stunning feature-length adaptation of Chris Marker's short film LA JETEE is full of mind-bending surprises, yet still touches your heart thanks to the superb cast. Gilliam's flair for the phantasmagorical works with the script by David and Janet Peoples to play with your head as much as it does with poor James Cole (Willis at his most Steve McQueen-like -- better than McQueen, even!), a time-traveling convict from the future who literally doesn't know whether he's coming or going as a team of scientists keeps sending him back to the wrong eras while trying to prevent a 1995 plague that's deadly to humans but harmless to animals. Willis, the justifiably Oscar-nominated Brad Pitt, and Madeline Stowe as a well-meaning psychiatrist give some of the best performances of their careers. Even Paul Buckmaster's tango-style score is haunting. This one's a don't-miss!


Stories about the possibility of a post-apocalyptic future have been around for ages, since the very creation of science-fiction as a genre per se. The fact that today's society is responsible for what may become of the future in the near tomorrow, and that our own abuses and refusals to see what is right before out eyes are at the very center of all of these stories, whether they are good or bad.

Terry Gilliam of course is a natural for this kind of film. He gives the movie a decadent feel throughout, showing a society run ragged by its own excesses and bringing forth the a sense of imminent tragedy despite having moments of comedy. His world, the world in which TWELVE MONKEYS transpires, is a place where the mad run wild, where cities are collapsing in filth and neglect, where everything reeks of foreboding despite the luminosity of the opening sequence, where madness looms at every corner. This is a very dark movie, but his very best, most linear (despite the plot twists which hold up under examination), and one which gets better with repeated viewings.

A tragic event in which a deadly virus was unleashed onto humanity in 1996 and thus led to the extermination of Life On The Planet As We Have Known It leads to scientists of the future to try and make amends to change humanity's fate on the Earth by employing renegade citizens -- the scum of the Earth -- as guinea pigs to go back in time, among them one James Cole (underplayed to great effect by Bruce Willis). Cole could be any person. We don't know anything about him, but in a way, that doesn't matter since he is little more than one of many expendable volunteers and hints of his character sneak in later as he gets closer to fulfilling his mission. What we do know is that he is a man who dreams, and his dreams may have been reality: he may have already been at the scene of the Event of 1996.

It's this constant sense of deja vu that keeps popping up throughout the movie. When taken to a mental ward by mistake in 1990 he meets Jeffrey Goines (spastically played by Brad Pitt, Oscar-nominated here) who frantically spews forth talk about doom and destruction, and later Cole believes he has seen Goines in his recurring dream as a man pushing a boy aside while escaping... what? He doesn't know. Later he meets a psychologist, Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe), and one of her first reactions to him is that he's insane, and that she's seen him before. This becomes a running notion throughout her participation in this story from passive/resistant to active and even slightly crazy believer that Something Terrible is coming This Way, especially when she meets him six years later: she has seen Cole before. At the same time, Cole continues talking about a dream he keeps having in which she also plays a part as a blonde woman running down the aisle, screaming for help, after shots have rung out and a particular red-headed man in a ponytail (Jeffrey Goines?) has apparently escaped, not before pushing the little boy who is an innocent bystander. The questions arise: have these events happened? Are they going to happen? Who is really a part of this, or better yet -- is everyone, down to the smallest player, a part of a Greater Plot? Or is this all some trick in the fabric of time in which Time in itself is one huge conveyor belt showing repetitions of fragments of events that slide by over and over again?

These questions are formulated in a masterful sequence which includes key scenes of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece VERTIGO in which Madeleine Elster/Judy Barton mourns her own brief existence ("You took no notice," she says, as Cole and Railly watch from their seats in the movie theatre they are hiding in). Snippets of dialog from VERTIGO form a foil to the dialog between Railly and Cole and later, when Cole awakens from having apparently dozed off in the theatre and goes looking for Railly, he comes face-to-face with her in disguise (looking almost exactly like Eva Maria Saint from NORTH BY NORTHWEST) as the swelling Bernard Herrmann score plays the emergence of Judy Barton, dressed as Madeleine Elster. It's a fascinating sequence, more so because of the most improbable occurrence of the names of the actors in both films: Madeleine Stowe plays Kathryn Railly who dons a blond wig and grey trench-coat and calls herself "Judy Simmons" while helping an "insane" man named James Cole; James Stewart plays a detective who tries to help "insane" Madeleine Elster who will later re-appear not once, but twice, first as brunette Judy Barton, and later, as Madeleine. Action and re-enaction, play and re-play.


With 'Twelve Monkeys' you need to pay attention, but if you do that you probably find a lot to appreciate. I know I did. The story is interesting and deals with time traveling. A virus killed a lot of people back in 1997 and a guy named Cole (Bruce Willis) is send back to 1990 and 1996 to find a cure for the virus. In 1990 he is arrested and put in a mental hospital. There he meets Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt), who probably has something to do with the virus. He also meets psychiatrist Dr. Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe) who doesn't believe him in 1990. When Cole disappears from the mental hospital while he is chained and locked in a room and re-appears in 1996 Kathryn starts believing Cole's stories.

The movie constantly plays with time. Cole makes a phone call and leaves a message in 1996, it is picked up in the future and "they" send someone. For Cole that someone appears only seconds after the phone call. Things like this happen throughout the movie and therefore you must keep attention. You could ask some questions but since you can't have an answer yourself it is better to agree with the movie.

'Twelve Monkeys' works as sci-fi, with some great images and a dark atmosphere, and it works as a thriller. You are never certain of what will happen next and that helps the movie. May be it has some flaws in the story, but since it is about a fictional thing like time traveling, you should accept what the movie tells us and just try to enjoy. That was the easy part for me.


There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about an exchange between Bruce Willis and Terry Gilliam at the start of Twelve Monkeys. Gilliam (allegedly) produced a long list (think about the aircraft one from the Fifth Element) and handed it to Butch Bruce. It was entitled "Things Bruce Willis Does When He Acts". It ended with a simple message saying: "please don't do any of the above in my movie".

There is a fact about this movie (definitely true). Gilliam didn't have a hand in the writing.

I would contend that these two factors played a huge role in creating the extraordinary (if not commercial) success that is The Twelve Monkeys.

Visually, the Twelve Monkeys is all that we have rightly come to expect from a Gilliam film. It is also full of Gilliamesque surrealism and general (but magnificent) strangeness. Gilliam delights in wrong-footing his audience. Although the ending of the Twelve Monkeys will surprise no one who has sat through the first real, Gilliam borrows heavily from Kafka in the clockwork, bureaucratic relentless movement of the characters towards their fate. It is this journey, and the character developments they undergo, which unsettles.

I love Gilliam films (Brazil, in particular). But they do all tend to suffer from the same weakness. He seems to have so many ideas, and so much enthusiasm, that his films almost invariably end up as a tangled mess (Brazil, in particular). I still maintain that Brazil is Gilliam's tour de force, but there's no denying that The Twelve Monkey's is a breath of fresh air in the tight-plotting department. Style, substance and form seem to merge in a way not usually seen from the ex-Python.

Whatever the truth of the rumour above, Gilliam also manages to get a first rate (and very atypical) performance out of the bald one. Bruce is excellent in this film, as are all the cast, particularly a suitably bonkers - and very scary - Brad Pitt.

It's been over a decade since this film was released. When I watched it again, I realised that it hadn't really aged. I had changed, of course. And this made me look at the film with fresh eyes. This seems to me to be a fitting tribute to a film that, partly at least, is about reflections in mirrors, altered perspectives and the absurd one-way journey through time that we all make. A first rate film. 8/10.


The big problem is where to begin as this movie needs your attention the forthcoming two hours and you better not miss some minutes for getting a coke as there is a danger you can't follow. But good there is also a pause-button. Bruce Willis must travel into a timemachine to find out some antivirus for a virus that made animals rule over the world in 1996. Thanks to some mistakes he first ends up in 1990, then in the First World War and how messed up it all might look like, Terry Gilliam comes up with what must be one of the most intelligent scripts ever. This ex-Monty Phyton man knows exactly how genius SF-stories has to be told like and his choice of cast couldn't have been any better, there is the lunatic Brad Pitt (his performance in the asylum is memorable) and a superb Bruce Willis who proves he is more than some Schwarzenegger-wanna be. It's a movie you can watch over and over again as the script is so weird and complicated (and yet you can follow) that every view gives you other surprises. One of my big favourites.


A linear travel within a non-linear structure. It's a fact that time, in 12 monkeys, flows in this come-and-go between present, future and past. However, the movie's linearity can't be avoided: it's the very work of the projector, the unfolding of the narrative.

What we can see underlying the temporal theme is a reflection on the inevitability of our actions. The world of this Terry Gilliam film is a world with little space for free-will.

Right from the beginning we are informed about a schizophrenic's prophecy, according to which a plague would rule the Earth in 1997, forcing the few survivors to live underground - the only place not affected by the virus.

Cole's (Willis) mission is clear: return to the mid 90's to investigate whatever and whoever is related to the release of the virus. There's no way to change the past: all that can be done is gather information that can help the scientists of the present (that, for us viewers, is the future) find the cure. Not to change what happened (the past is inevitable), but make the present better.

In his "returns" in time, Cole gradually comes near a striking dilemma: his life in the past is better than his life in the present.

The latter is dark and dehumanizing, controlled by totalitarian scientists that elect "volunteers" (this word is incisively ironic) to embark on the journeys to the past.

The scientists have not yet reached the highest level of achievements in time travel, and Cole ends up on wrong dates - this will, later in the plot, work as a proof of his sanity for the psychiatrist Kathryn (Stowe).

We can see, through the evolution of the story, that linearity and non-linearity interlace in a circular temporality.

There is more than one moment in which the scene that is the first and ends up being almost the last - and certainly the climactic - appears. It modifies itself, according to the evocation of Cole's memories, that come up in his dreams.

In an airport, a man is shot dead while running, armed, toward someone else. A blonde woman runs after the murdered one.

This is the scene that connects the past (in which Cole is a kid that visits the airport with his parents), the present (the time of the narrative) and the future (adult Cole) Throughout the narrative, Cole has the feeling of having already lived the reality he is experiencing now. His prophetic dreams are the proof that it is impossible to escape or avoid what happened. The agents that shoot him stop him from killing the mad scientist, doctor Peters (Morse), that is the responsible for the dissemination of the disease.

What was can't be changed. And, in Cole's case, what was is what will be. Eternally.

A film not quite well understood for many. To me, nothing less than a masterpiece.

Other good movies with similar theme: The Back to the future trilogy (that has another angle regarding the "mad scientist" character, and although it shares the atmosphere of decay - particularly in the second film -, it is way more optimistic than Gilliam's work, that is an odd Hollywood picture).

In another register, there is "Wild strawberries", one of Bergman's masterpieces, that involves a striking and enlightening travel to the past through dreams and reminiscences.

I've never watched "La Jetée", but only because I can't find it.


Without a doubt, 12 MONKEYS is one of the best films of the Sci-fi genre and director Terry Gilliam is no stranger at pulling off such cinematic originality. An apocalyptic film that holds you completely spellbound, 12 MONKEYS never lets up and has you guessing all the way throughout. Excellent use of Philadelphia locales and netherworld sets create a gothic sense of tragedy and two people caught in time at the wrong place.

Bruce Willis escapes his macho image and portrays a true loony who happens to be right about all that will happen. He is actually sane, but the people of the future (or present if you will) distort this guy's head so bad through time travel, no wonder he unravels. He gets sent to World War I just after beng sent to the wrong year to find out how the Army of the Twelve Monkeys pulls off the annihilation of civilization as we know it. They finally get it right and in what is truly a remarkable screenplay to match the performance, we get to see Willis, Madeleine Stowe and an ominous Brad Pitt cross-referenced over the course of 6 years.

Stowe is sensual and solid as the risk-taking shrink who slowly starts to realize that Willis may not be as cracked up as he seems. A captivating element of the relationship between her and Willis is their sense of "seeing" each other before, in another place or time. 12 MONKEYS is essentially about time and the madness the futuristic people immerse into it and the times of the present, when killers and a psychotic genius can alter the world.

The brooding city of Philadelphia is a dark and gothic backdrop for Willis' plight to complete his mission which is, against all usual Hollywood stereotype, NOT to save the world. He is gathering information. The film plays tricks on the viewer as well, placing Willis in a new setting at the drop of a pin. This must have been an extremely difficult picture to make but Gilliam seems to be the master of hard-boiled movie making. He even drops in some humor reminiscent of other great works like TIME BANDITS, and BRAZIL. The screen is this man's canvas and he knows how to paint a sometimes terrifying picture of the world and its possible future within the mainstream atmosphere of big-budget films. If you want sincere madness and ironic tragedy, see 12 MONKEYS.

RATING: 9 of 10


Terry Gilliam's and David Peoples' teamed up to create one of the most intelligent and creative science fiction movies of the '90's. People's proved a screenplay with bizarre twists and fantastic ideas about the nature of time  I especially love the idea one can't change the past; it's a nice counterpoint to so many time-travelling movies which say otherwise  biological holocausts and the thin line between sanity and madness. Gilliam visualized his ideas with unique quirkiness, perfection and originality.

The story itself is engaging: one man, James Cole (played by Bruce Willis in a heart-warming performance) travels several decades to the past to retrieve information about a virus that's wiped out mankind and left only a few survivors alive living underground: with the information he'll collect, scientists hope to find a cure so everyone in the future can return to the surface. But because their time-travelling technology isn't perfect, he ends up being sent towards different other pasts and complicating things. And from that a brilliant science fiction thriller with shades of film noir ensues as the multiple pieces of a huge jigsaw start fitting together to form a bizarre narrative involving animal right activists, end of the millennium paranoia, biological weapons, the perception of reality, and the definition of sanity. With such a complex movie, it was easy for Gilliam and Peoples to create a mess, but instead Twelve Monkeys is a thought-provoking narrative which will please those who like to be challenged and have patience to appreciate some crazy ideas.

I watched this movie once around 10 years ago. It marked me a lot: I remember still thinking about many days after-wards; for my young mind this seemed quite mind-blowing and it was one of the first movies to make me appreciate cinema as something serious and important. I've re-watched this movie a few days ago on DVD and it's better than I remembered it. Brad Pitt still steals all the scenes he's in, playing Jeffrey Goines  almost a prelude to his Tyler Durden character in Fight Club  a rich kid with some anarchist/non-conformist ideas who's also crazy and, according to Cole, perhaps responsible for the virus. The scenes between Jeffrey and Cole in the madhouse are the best in the movie, Pitt's eyes, voice and quirky mannerisms convince you he's really a crazy guy locked in a warped logic only he understands. Pitt's Oscar nomination was well deserved! Surprising was also Bruce Willis' performance: his I didn't remember very well, but it's beautiful and full of sensibility; he plays a man who spent almost all his life underground, and when he comes to the past you'll share his childish fascination with something as simple as breathing the fresh air of the morning or watching the sun go up. Cole is a rather ambiguous character, Peoples' tried to imbue some darkness in him, and he does other disturbing things to other people and to himself: the scene where he removes his own teeth reveals how far his dementia has gone unchecked. Ironically Cole didn't start as a crazy character, but when he starts warning everyone about the end of the world, he's considered mad and convinced it's all in his mind, until he arrives at a point when he can't distinguish past from future, reality from fiction. Willis spends a lot of time looking confused and insecure, and it works perfectly. One of the fun twists in the narrative is when Cole's shrink, Dr. Kathryn Railly, finds undeniable proof he's really from the future and now has to convince him again of his mission to save the world. The screenplay is full with weird twists like this and it keeps the movie in a fast pace. Their relationship is also well-handed, although perhaps a bit compressed for time's sake. But I enjoyed watching Cole and Railly falling in love and trying to escape the authority of the future to live a peaceful life in the past. But then things end in a tragic/bittersweet climax at an airport, wrapping all the pieces together, which will blow many minds away.

There are two great endings in this movie, a twist in the sense of Se7en or Fight Club, and a more intimate ending where Railly is crouching next to Cole who's just been shot and looking around for a younger James Cole who's witnessing his future self die; the two share a brief look, and she smiles at him. The twist is brilliant, but I prefer this ending for emotional impact. Madeleine Stowe is very good playing Dr. Railly, she drew many different emotions from me in her performance. The movie is filled with a sense of fatalism with the idea the past can't be changed: this movie shows that in a terrifying way. It reminds me of Chinatown in that sense, the way Jake Gittes messes everything up the more he tries to help. Railly's character shares that fatalism, the more she tries to help Cole  first dealing with his 'madness' then helping him in his mission  the more they're sucked into tragedy.

The twist ends with a hopeful note, though, with the feeling Cole's mission hasn't been in vain. Twelve Monkeys is a great movie to watch if one wants to be entertained; it's not supposed to be art, although it's more artists than many artistic movies. It's an unpretentious movie where all elements, from music to editing to costume design, etc., came together beautifully to produce a modern cinema masterpiece.