input: I am from Sweden and i have just seen this movie and the thing is that i thought it was okay. I have seen many bad comments about it but you must remember that a lot of people that watch this two parts miniseries are located all over the world and not just in USA. Also remember that not everyone has ever heard of the film made in the 60:s and maybe not in the events(murders). And even more...that it can be hard to find the original movie and if so there always be people around that doesn't like black/white films. This one feels fresh and in color and will find its public. Its 12 years old now but i just saw it for the first time. I will try to find the first one if i can to compare them but i haven't seen it anywhere in Sweden. Ofcorse there is internet but not for anyone in the world. The thing here is that this is mostly part of an American crime-history and was big in the 50-60:s in just USA but in rest of the world it just past by i guess. Well it was told about for some time but 40 years later it will fade away in for example Europa cause time goes by. We had our own problems and crimes so if someone will do a remake of the film and put it back in some light again its not a bad idea at all. A new generation can take part of this horrible story and even the film about Capote that was released just a few years ago witch was a pretty good film too i think. It will boost interest to the events that took place some 50 years ago and maybe stop it to fall in sleep. It started me up and now i am looking for the Robert Blake-version so it wasn't that bad...huh? This are my opinions. Some people will of course disagree but hey...its okay. Sometimes there will be okay with remakes on old films. Its not every time the old ones are that good. The film-making techniques has developed a lot and scenes can be made more realistic if they want today. Its always a question of money of course. There has been so many movies that were made in the "good old days" but there were also money missing, bad directors etc, and they remakes them today (50 years later) and suddenly they are okay to watch. My friend got this box of old classic horror-movies and s/f and i cant say i was impressed of the so called good old days. Most of them you cold put in the trashcan directly. They were so bad that we just sat there like zombies...could not move...like brain-dead. I cant recommend them to anyone. Some of them i have seen remakes of and i remember liking them...but not the originals. They were just painful awful. This is like the old story of who was the best Bond...Moore or Connery...I think if you see Roger Moore first you maybe find him the one to trust or like... Thanks for me and i am sorry for my English, thats not so good. /Lars from Sweden

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I went to see this movie simply to see what all the hype is about, and I was as disappointed as surprised about how it got 6(?) Oscars and 7.9 rating on IMDb as of today.

Kathryn Bigelow should be the luckiest director ever to win the best picture and best direction Oscar for this sort of a really really bad movie and I wonder why? Did the totally unrealistic 'cowboy' bomb disposal-man storyline mean anything to somebody that I failed see? Why did I keep getting the mental image that this movie was a remake of some old bad Western movie about a cowboy doing 'brave deeds' in the Wild Wild West infected with 'evil' Red Indians; but just that it was set in a different background this time? Was it given the Oscars because the director being ex of James Cameron, and made it a nice underdog (gossipy) story for day time TV shows to munch on? Or was it some sort of Emperor's Clothes syndrome - where most people realized it was junk but just couldn't say so because others didn't seem to be saying it out aloud?

And finally what was with that sniper scene where they showed the shell casing dropping in high-resolution-super-slow-mo as if to convey a 'deep message' or something? Something in the lines of 'EOD guys make good snipers all of a sudden and they will get the filthy terrorists all the time'? Was it just me who felt like there were so many bits and pieces here and there in the movie squeezed in for no apparent reason? And you can get the Oscars for editing and directing for that??

If you haven't seen this yet, don't waste your money on tickets. Wait till they run it on TV in a few years. You are not going to miss much.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: A great addition to anyone's collection.

12 monkeys is a movie you don't see every day. It has excellent actors to go with a excellent story. This is not a normal role for Bruce Willis but he holds the role like he holds John McClane.

The virus-kills everyone on earth and leaves a few hundred survivors story is not a new one but the story takes a fresh new direction on it.

A man(Bruce)is sent back in time to get information on a virus which has wiped out most of man kind.

The actors in this were awesome. I must give a mention to Brad Pitt who was hilarious as the mental patient James Cole(Bruce) meets in a mental hospital.

The director did an amazing job on bringing us a disturbing picture of a future devastated by a man-made virus.

The animals seen in the virus world made it feel like they run the world when humans are driven into underground facilities.

This movie was excellent and must see and also its a must own.

I very much highly recommend it.

10/10

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Just finished watching this movie for maybe the 7th or 8th time, picked it up one night previously viewed at Blockbuster and absolutely loved it, I've shown it to 4 people so far and they have enjoyed it as well. Avoid of all the Hollywood glamour, special effects and stress on the "shock factor", this independent film by Paul F. Ryan hits the nail on the head in dealing with the after affects of traumatic situations. Taking place after a high school shooting, two characters Alicia (Busy Philipps) and Deanna (Erika Christensen) form an unlikely bond. Alicia, the girl with the stone heart, the Goth who has a pessimistic attitude to life assists Deanna to overcome the issues of life and death and living in the aftermath. Meanwhile Deanna attempts to help Alicia to see some of the softness and light in the world again. Not stressing on the shocking event of the shooting, but on the interpersonal relationships amongst those who survived it sets this movie apart. Despite its low-budget and short filming time, this movie is far from cheesy. Ryan pays respect to a situation he has never endured and attempts to delve into the human psyche. With an amazing up and coming actress, Philipps, adds the necessary dramatics to the dialogue and overall feel for the film and Christensen helps to balance out the "doom and gloom" feeling this movie may have. Overall, I recommend this movie and if you enjoy the topic of school aggression and violence and learning more about it, I also suggest the documentary "It's a Girls World" put out by CBC in 2004, which deals with the topic of social bullying, comparing and contrasting two groups of girls one in Montreal, Quebec and the other in Victoria, British Columbia, the group of friends and acquaintances of Dawn Marie Wellesley a 14 year old girl who killed herself after being brutally bullied.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive