<Spoiler Review>
I'm definitely a fan of Terry Gilliam. Time Bandits, Brazil, Münchausen, Fisher King... all classics. For some reason, however, I never got around to watching Twelve Monkeys until now. I think part of it was the pitch: Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt in a mental institution. Just didn't excite me. Even when it arrived from Netflix, it sat for about two months before I signed and loaded it up.
So, now that I've seen it? I liked it, but didn't love it. I thought the performances were excellent, the visuals Gilliamesque, the plotting tight, and the treatment of a time loop unusually smart. So why aren't I raving about this film?
As is so often the case, a big problem lies in the pacing of the film. It felt like it was about 15-20 minutes longer than it needed to be. It dragged where it should have been pulse quickening... and ironically, it lacked mystery.
Much was made about the film's ambiguity. Was he really a time traveler from a post-apocalyptic wasteland or was he a schizophrenic with delusions? This could have made for some real tension, and the uncertainty could have made the film incredibly compelling... but Gilliam starts of the film with a long sequence set in 2035, firmly establishing the reality of it before we jump to 1990. For the audience, or at least for me, there was never a doubt as to what was real and what wasn't. Even down to the prison bar code tattoos on his scalp, the details were there to make it very clear to the audience that James Cole's (Bruce Willis) reality was exactly as it was portrayed on the screen. When Cole begins to doubt that reality, it doesn't shake our faith in our perception of the character or the situation, but it becomes a somewhat sad plot device allowing us to chuckle at the reversal of positions between the two protagonists.
The thing is, it could have been easily fixed by never showing 2035. If our only experience was of 1990 and then 1996, we would have been in the position of Dr. Railly (Madeline Stowe). As the audience, we would have had more of an open mind about things, but we would have had doubt... which is a thing I never had while watching the movie.
Granted, if Gilliam had done that then we would have had K-Pax, only eight years early. It wouldn't have looked like a Gilliam feel or had any of his trademark visual panache. It would have been a more interesting film though.
Even the reveal of Cole's dreams was something that I felt certain of the second that Cole recognized Railly as the woman in his recurring nightmare. It was merely a question of when and why would she change her hair color.
What did work was the misdirection over how the viral outbreak got started. This was excellently done and I didn't even begin to suspect until the airport sequence. Even when the Army of the Twelve Monkeys released the zoo animals, I thought it was the source of the outbreak. After all, we were repeatedly told that the virus had mutated, and we know that viruses can, and do, make the jump from birds to humans.
What also worked was the unflinching acceptance of the time loop. Cole never tries to change the course of history until the end, and only then because he is pushed to do it from all sides. The hero does not save the day, but he accomplishes his mission. The film ends with the doom of humankind and the beginnings of a future of bleak desolation. Cole will grow up in a world of savagery and desperation, become a violent criminal, and in an attempt to provide answers for the future, become the catalyst for the viral outbreak itself.
After all, if Cole hadn't been sent back, then he wouldn't have met Jeffrey (Brad Pitt), Jeffrey wouldn't have formed the Army of the Twelve Monkeys, Dr. Reilly wouldn't have become convinced of the dangers and reached Dr. Goines (Christopher Plummer), who wouldn't have removed himself from security protocols, and Dr. Peters would have never had unrestricted access to the virus. Cole ensures his own future and dooms the human race.
Other directors might have changed the ending. Allowed Cole to stop the virus... maybe dying in the process, but saving humankind. I deeply respect Gilliam for not taking that route.
All that said, I really do like the film. I just don't love it. It's too self-indulgent, and that self-indulgence lessens the film. It's not a bad film, not at all. It's just not as great as it could have been... and that's a shame.
