but the film is still very good.
Let's talk about the actors first.
First of all, I highly praised Brad Pitt's performance. Reminiscent of his performance in "Fighting Club", I feel that his performance of the "normal madman" is too much. But it was because of this that I didn't impress me very much in "Seven", but that kind of image of a neurotic young policeman is also good. Pitt's performance in this movie is really a big thing. The kind of obvious neurosis he showed, but it always makes people feel not so confused and partly sober. Maybe this is what a normal madman sometimes looks like...
Bruce Willis's performance is also very impressive. The role he played this time is a bit wretched...a prisoner who has been detained for an unknown number of years...I am afraid there is no way to deal with it normally. I remember when he first returned to 1990, his mouth was still drooling, a wretched image that was completely unsuitable for him. The action is almost a habitual curl, which is an extremely appropriate expression of prison life and inadaptability to the outside world. When I went back to 1996 for the second time (I was sent poorly to receive a crucial antique bullet in 1914...), it was much better, although when I was in the car, I still felt That kind of critical neuroticism. When he came back for the last time, he no longer believed in himself, and the human image was already visible...Although there was still a slight curl (this is what makes people feel real), but the process is just It can represent the changing process of James' thinking. The other is that when he no longer believes in himself, his helpless look in his eyes is very moving.
Relatively speaking, Madeleine Stowe's performance was not very impressive. What I remember was when James returned to sit in her car for the second time in 1996, her tearful driving expression showed that on the one hand, she was affected. Scared, on the other hand, I don't know how I will be affected, but I can feel a little understanding of James' behavior. The only other thing that impressed was the inexplicable relief she showed when she smiled at little James at the end. But it feels more to express the director's intentions.
Let's talk about the plot again.
It's another time-tunnel film. The earliest I saw this kind of film was "Back To the Future" (hereinafter referred to as "BTF"). The video tapes I watched at the time were only 1 and 2, and I haven't seen 3 until now. As the earliest time tunnel film, there is nothing wrong with theoretical knowledge. I just read Imdb's message board, and some people suggested that those who don't understand the logic should check "BTF" to make up a supplementary lesson. In this regard, "BTF" is a well-deserved classic. ("BTF" Imdb score 8.0......hoho)
After discussing with the teacher of film history, I found that this time tunnel is quite different from "BTF". The time tunnel structure of "BTF" is many-to-many. Simply put, if the influence of the future is exerted on the present, then a new future will be generated corresponding to the new present (rather than changing the future corresponding to the original present). This is how the future can be explained in the second part. It was very clear when it had an impact on the present, and it is recommended to check it unclearly. So if the impact is eliminated when it occurs, then the degree of future changes can be ignored.
But "Twelve Monkeys" is not like this. Clue at the end of the film clearly hinted that this is a cycle and a line. In other words, it is impossible for those scientists to change what has happened, so they did not go back to the past to try to prevent things from happening (although Bruce still did it), but tried their best to change the present. Because they know that even if they affect the past, they cannot change the present, because their past is determined. There is no multi-line relationship here. For Bruce, this is a cycle. He will go back to the past from the future. When he meets Pitt, Pitt will create "Twelve Monkeys", and Bruce will be killed in 1996, but he will continue to experience the future when he was a child. Continue to go back to the past... The things he experienced have been decided long ago, but they are in the future. But the future is determined by the past... This has become a paradox of whether there is an egg or a chicken first... (The logic here has to turn me faint)
Another highlight of this film is that the time-tunnel-type film is relatively new, but it is easy to make it uninnovative and old-fashioned. Back then, "BTF" was unique, but later there were a lot of movies that followed the trend. I watched a lot of jokes on TV. If it was a cross-age romance, or a mixture of the two, it was really nothing new. , Also very boring. But for Imdb ranking 192, I think "Twelve Monkeys" will naturally not be that old-fashioned. The main line is still inseparable from the multi-line and multi-ending system of the time tunnel (I don't know if it is because Einstein thinks this is the case or is a legacy of "BTF"). But the presentation of the story is very intriguing. On the one hand, setting the future environment in such a painful place underground will give people a very depressing environment and want to break free of this restraint. At that time, the land was icy and snowy, and I felt back to the Ice age (there are even fur animals...). It is a more orthodox theory of historical regression + doomsday feelings... People are like this now... On the other hand, the current environment (even though we seem to be uncomfortable...) James’ perspective is shown in front of us, coupled with Bruce Wills’ acting skills, which appropriately reflects an environmental theme (environmental theme...? Recently this is very popular, although this is a film nearly ten years ago. ..... 1997's "Monster Princess" is also an environmental theme. But this one here seems to be obviously a cover...).
Until the end, the clue that appeared countless times (James’ dream) was truly reflected, but in fact, if you are smart, you should know the ending in the middle (...I didn’t guess that James was shot. , I'm not smart enough to say...). Many SF plots completely drag the audience away, so we don't even have a chance to catch our breath. From the detail point of view, countless hints echoed before and after...there are countless, so this film is indeed well-structured. There are various metaphors scattered in the film...I am sensitive, I can feel different things, and I can know what is possible, but I still can’t keep up with the rhythm of thinking. . For example, in just a few minutes of watching a movie with two people, there are at least five sentences that can be seen at a glance...I haven't waited for me to think about the next sentence... ...Only to shout that the amount of information is too big
The actor's lines are also extremely meticulous, and a lot of philosophical things can be found in many lines (it is undoubtedly the embodiment of the personal consciousness of director Terry Gilliam...) There is very little nonsense... Then there is the use of the lens, especially in the interrogation room of the prison. The setting and shooting method of the video ball is really letting people...I have limited understanding and I can't figure out what Gilliam wants to express. ..... Maybe you will get something when you rewatch it. There are also a lot of psychological descriptions and psychological dialogues in the film, and sometimes it is completely impossible to understand (I fully believe in my understanding, so it should be the reason for the lack of time...), watch it again It was also worth seeing at the time. It is necessary to mention the prophetic person, but I cannot propose anything new. What the person said is so profound... And after looking at it over and over again, there is no logic that can explain what that guy is... It seems that this is a focus of the review, there is time That's it!
One last little question: how did the woman who was smashed...what is the director's intention? Still want to fool the audience?
View more about 12 Monkeys reviews
