An example of a movie review. positive.

A: 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 Jetee", but only because I can't find it.

An example of a movie review. positive.

A: One of my favorite movies to date starts as an adventure through the wild side of a team of four men from Atlanta. The idea of living the Chulawasse river before it's turned into a lake comes from Burt Reynold's Lewis, who unconsciously drowns his fellas into their worst nightmare. But if the first half of the film appears rather like an action movie, the second half carries the viewer into a totally different story, with our men forced to make a decision that (they know) will change their lives forever. In very bad ways. At the end of the movie, each person is gonna be forced to deal with the scars of what had just to be a quite week-end on the river but muted into a fight for survival. The movie (except some pretty evident goofs) is very well directed and beautifully shot into a paradise of nature that steals your breath. The photography is excellent as well. Voight, Reynolds, Cox and Beatty are all excellent in showing how a single event can ruin in different ways four different lives only tied to the same mistake.

An example of a movie review. positive.

A:
I really enjoyed this film. All aspects of the film were top notch including the most important, for me anyway, the screenplay and the acting. This is definitely one of Richard Widmark's strongest roles. He is totally convincing in his performance. Just out of curiosity, imagine how Humphrey Bogart or Robert Mitchum might have tackled this role. This is my first exposure to Jean Peter's work that I can remember. She impressed so much here that I will definitely be on the lookout for her other work. Thelma Ritter, in an unglamourous role, deserved the Oscar nomination she received for playing the informant. This film works on every level. The black and white photography is perfectly appropriate and the story hooks the viewer right from the beginning. Widmark and Peters have great chemistry in their difficult romance. Strongly recommended, 9/10.