IN: Review: This movie is even a big step down form the typical fare dished out by Bollywood. The performances were horrible. Even Boman Irani, who always manages to shine, goes completely OTT as the villain. The soundtrack is not memorable either. And in spite trying hard, the female leads don't manage to be "sexy". Vivek Oberoi is capable of far better projects while Fardeen Khan seems to be stuck in similar fare for the time being. But this monstrosity is even beneath his limited capabilities as an actor. Esha Deol and Amrita Rao are horrible in badly written cliche roles. It's high time for Indra Kumar to hang up his directorial hat. Hope he never directs another eyesore like this. Future of Hindi movies are in better hands now. To sum it up, stay far away from waste of celluloid.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: 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.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Though I liked On the Town better I really liked it. I'm a new comer when it comes to Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly. Though I had heard of them I had never seen anything with them in it until recently. The first one I saw was Singin in the Rain that made me a fan of Gene's. I think that is better too. But I thought that this movie was good and like all movies there are some parts that are better than others but in my book it's an awesome movie and I love it. Frank and Gene make a good team. I have yet to see them together in Take me out to the Ballgame. But I'm sticking to my guns bu saying that I really enjoyed it, and that I love it!
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: The only reason I watched the movie till the end was the "hope" to see something interesting. The movie is really bad and the performance of the girl it is really, really bad, honestly, I am not a movie critic neither an expert but you just need common sense to notice that this work it is incredibly bad.

The first thing that came to my mind as soon as she started to talk was: "She has an affair with Willem Dafoe and he accepted to help her with the screenplay and appear in her movie since she is the brilliant director"... surprise, surprise, next day after I watched the film I found out on internet that Giada Colagrande is his wife. Awful story and terrible performance.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative