During the film 12 Monkeys, one thing that struck me was the fact that the protagonist James Cole (Bruce Willis) was constantly being sent from the future into the past. This provided interesting circumstances for Cole, as he was many times called crazy when he tried to explain to people what he was trying to do (stop a deadly virus from being released to wipe out all of mankind). It was not determined what year the "present" was set in, but according to wikipedia he was sent to the year 1996 from the year 2035. Obviously there are a lot of things Terry Gilliam could do with the aspect of time travel, but one scene near the beginning of the film stuck out to me; it was the scene where Cole is accidentally sent back to 1990 instead of 1996. He is arguing with a bunch of mental health doctors (in 1990) that 1996 is the past, while they call him crazy, insisting that 1996 is the future. Cole persists, and keeps arguing that even 1990, the supposed "present year" is also the past as well. The conversation ends up going nowhere, as Cole is taken back to the psych ward area of the mental hospital he was then in.
It seems as though a lot of things went unexplained or unfinished, such as that conversation Daniel mentioned. As far the whole time travel aspect of the film, personally I found it difficult to follow, while in my flummoxed state Gilliam took advantage of my curiosity and desire to understand what was going and this is what ultimately kept me interested. I also noticed that the virus was a MacGuffin. It made no difference what it was, it could have easily been nuclear war that Cole was trying to prevent. My favorite scene in the movie was towards the end in the airport. When we see some lady tell her son "come on James." That scene blew my mind because it tied the beginning scene (starting with a close up on the kids eye, the movie also ended this way) with the ending. We learned that young James witnesses his future self die... didn't see that one coming. Daniel would you care to explain why that scene stuck out to you?
I thought it was interesting how Terry Gilliam never specifically established a year when Bruce Willis’s character came from. Daniel said that he came from 2035, but I never remembered hearing that and the fact that you had to look it up on Wikipedia is proof that he didn’t explicitly state it. I feel as if Gilliam is trying to say something like time isn’t constant and the idea of the present doesn’t actually exist. I also noticed during the movie that James Cole kept saying that he wasn’t sent back to try to prevent the event from happening but simply to gather information. The deterministic nature of the movie made it slightly depressing, and the idea that people don’t have control of their lives and free will doesn’t exist was generally shown through the protagonist.
I thought that the film 12 Monkeys was really hard to follow and i didn't like it. The thing that I noticed throughout the whole movie was how the camera gets awkwardly close to the main character Cole and also that when the camera is that close its tilted off to the sides and moving around. This was the scene/s where Cole was in the mental hospital. Everything was white and the camera was at that slanted position clearly trying to show the viewers that everything is "off" in Cole's world. Thats what stuck out to me... haha I don't really have anything else. Did any of you guys like that movie?
First of all, nice use of the word flummoxed, it is clear that you completed the junior-year course AL with flying colors. The conversation stuck out for two main reasons. The first, was that Cole, who did not seem insane at all to me, was being mistaken for a brain-damaged patient. The second reason why it stood out to me was that it seemed like the root of the rest of the time travelling that was done in the film. For example, as 12 Monkeys closes, the viewer learns that James Cole as a kid witnesses James Cole as an adult being shot to death. I realized that I did not even fully understand that until this afternoon, almost a day after I had watched the film. I did enjoy the film, however. I have definitely seen some weird movies, probably the most recent one being "The Men Who Stare At Goats." I didn't like it that much, but considering the fact that i payed $3 dollars to see it in Hopkins, in retrospect it was an alright movie. I believe that 12 Monkeys was a well-made film, and although it was probably quite futuristic for its time, I thought it was easy enough to stay engaged and follow the plot.
Flummoxed is such an archaic word, can we please move forward Daniel?
The fact that the film started and ended with a close up on young James Cole’s face, which I thought was interesting but I had to go back and make sure of. The canted camera angle definitely indicated that Cole’s life was out of sorts and the appearance of animals during the film also supported that idea. They represented the wild and how humans like Cole didn’t have control. The movie jumped around quite a few times and I would have to rewind it just to try to get a better grasp on what exactly was going on.
Do you guys think there was any importance to the Hitchcock references during the film or do you think Gilliam is just a fan and wanted to include him?
Daniel how did you find that easy to follow? The beginning was so all over the place and I thought that even though Cole was more sane then the other mental patience, at first i didn't find him to be sane at all. I mean of course by the end he seems a little bit more sane but he still was time traveling.. *cough
I thought the movie was also well made. For me i think the plot and the futuristic aspects to the movie made me less interested.
Also I have to just say when I signed up for a Brad Pitt movie night i was expecting the young attractive Brad Pitt! Not crazy, insane Brad Pitt with a huge left eye that was kinda red...
According to MR. K there is no connection between Gilliam and Hitchcock. I did find it cool that we are in the Hitchcock unit and there was a reference to him. One thing I'm still confused about is Cole's backstory. How did he end up being the one who had to go back in time? Why was he tied town every time he was in the "present"? I also found it interesting when Cole said that he went back in time to learn about the virus or whatever and not to stop it. It seems to me that that's the reason you go back in time, to stop things from happening. As I said before the movie was kind of hard to follow, however it could have just been that I was distracted...maybe.
Well I think since the whole movie is kind of ambiguous in lots of parts to start with, the "Where" and "Why" of James Cole is less important than the "What." In the film, the "What" is him going back in time to stop the supposed Army of the 12 Monkeys, and then stop the virus from being released. James Cole is a mechanism and symbol of hope for the human race. As he travels from 2035 back to the 1990s, it is clear that he is not like the people who are employing him. I think that basically he is a representation of humanity's last chance at survival. And yes, a lot of the movie is confusing, at least at first glance. Some scenes really do require a lot of digging deeper to find their meaning. But since we will be watching 2 more Terry Gilliam movies, I think we should just get pumped for some more EXTREME CONFUSION! EXTREME KAYAKING BRO!
So what were people's thoughts on the film? It was extremely difficult for me to understand what the hell was going on at any given moment in it... Theo and I ended up looking up the film on Wikipedia about 1/5 of the way through, just to figure out where it was going. That being said, the supposed goal of the viewer while watching, apparently was to determine what was real and what was hallucinated for the protagonist Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp). I thought the film did a great job of portraying that aspect, considering that I was saying to myself, "What is even going on here," while watching. Another aspect that I would have expected myself to like was the fact that the film had actors Johnny Depp, Toby Maguire, and even a brief appearance by Gregory Itzin, who occasionally appears in the television show "24." This didn't really make the film any better in my mind though. Even though we referred to Raoul as "Johnny Depp" or "Jack Sparrow," Depp played the part of a tripped out, messed up gambler in Las Vegas so well that it didn't really matter that it was him playing the part. What I am saying is that although moviegoers generally will like almost any movie Johnny Depp is in, because of his star role in "Pirates of the Caribbean," this was not the case for the psychedelic film "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas."
I actually kind of liked "12 Monkeys," but I didn't really like "Fear and Loathing."
And also, unrelated to the above paragraphs, the film did not end and begin with the same scene, however it did play part of the ending scene near the middle of the film. Beginning and ending with more or less the same scene has been known to be a trademark of Terry Gilliam, and 12 Monkeys did that exactly, I think it showed parts of the scene throughout the film as well.
Um i'm not really sure where to start with this movie either. I still haven't figured out what was going on throughout the whole movie. I think the only thing that I got was that the main character Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp's character) was high throughout the whole movie. I don't understand the significance of all the people who showed up throughout the film, like toby Maguire's character and the man that Captain Jack was traveling with. The guy who was with him also had a serious drug problem but I have no idea what his relation to Captain Jack was except that he showed up and screwed him over every chance he had.
The thing that I did notice was how in both the movies that we have seen Terry Gilliam uses this one shot. He gets really close to one of the characters face and tilts the camera a little bit showing that the character is slightly off mentally. In 12 monkeys he used it for the character played by Brad Pitt who was insane, this camera angle helped him portray that "crazyness" better. In Fear and Loathing Gilliam used this angle on Captain Jack showing how out of sorts he was and also how incredibly high he was.
I think we can all agree that this movie made little to no sense. However after doing a little bit of excavating I realized that maybe that was the whole point of the movie. I mean Captain Jack was high the entire movie and lived off several maxed out credit cards out of a couple expensive hotels. He had no plans for the future. Also I believe Wikipedia said something about Captain Jack searching for the "American Dream" or something along those lines, to a certain extent he might be. It's all subjective of course but maybe for him that was the American Dream, he was living in the moment without a care in the world. (Although it was probably just the drugs.)
I think that guy who is clearly not a cop that was always around when Captain Jack was high is just a hallucination, much like Tyler is in Fight Club. Thats the only explanation I can come up with. He's never around when Captain Jack is sober and always seems to show up where he doesn't belong. For instance in second hotel he goes to. The weird guys is already in the room he just rented.
As for Spider-man, no amount of excavating can shed light on his purpose. Unless of course you had a certain someone from Spanish who is adept at digging to help you.
I would have to agree with all of you that this film was incredibly hard to follow and by the end we had almost given up trying to comprehend what was going on. I also noticed how Gilliam showed part of the ending in the middle of the film. It is an interesting technique employed by Gilliam to confuse the viewer while still bringing it together in the end. He successfully did so in "12 Monkeys" but not so much in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".
Gilliam also seems to enjoy insane characters in his films. Whether they're high out of their minds on drugs, or in a psych ward, they still add an interesting element to his films. Gilliam will show them bouncing off the walls, but when they're talking or sitting still, he will use the technique Erin referred to how Gilliam has canted close ups on their faces so you can see the crazy look in their eyes.
As for Theo, my only idea as to get Spider-Man out of the hole would be to assume that his role is unimportant to the plot development of the film. He may only be there so that Sparrow and his friend Gonzo can explain their reason for being in Las Vegas with such a large supply of drugs. The reason why Sparrow panics near the end when he sees Spider-Man again is because he isn’t thinking clearly and thinks Spider-Man is with the police and will catch them for everything they have done.
Gilliam has an interesting style that I have not enjoyed all that much up to this point. But I can confidently say 12 Monkeys was better than Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
I agree with everything everyone has said about Fear and Loathing so far... However, I would like to compare this film to another film I watched not too long ago, "The Men Who Stare at Goats," directed by Grant Heslov. Both films are based on a preceding novel, and also both have sort of a mismatched story line that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I guess "The Men Who Stare at Goats" kind of had a plot, considering George Clooney and Ewan McGregor's characters Lyn Cassady and Bob Wilton were trying to uncover the secret behind the military experimenting with killing goats by intense staring... I did not like the film that much, but the fact that George Clooney was in it and also the fact that I paid 3 dollars to see it in Hopkins caused me to think it wasn't all that bad. This was similar to my viewing experience of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," except for the fact that Johnny Depp's casting as the protagonist and the fact that I watched it for free failed to make me have many positive feelings towards it. I guess what I am trying to say is that there are probably more films than we know of that are constructed in such a way. Some are taken farther than others, meaning that some will be more difficult to follow or enjoy. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one of those films that has been altered so much that it is hard for an average viewer to fully understand and enjoy the plotline and story.
Personally I didn't notice the canted angle shots on the protagonist in either movie. That's not to say it isn't there I just wasn't looking for it. I'll be looking for it as well as other reoccurring themes in Gilliam's films (maybe). One thing I have noticed is that Gilliam likes to make his movies confusing as hell. Thanks Ben for helping Spider-man out of the hole. I still can't quite wrap my head around it though, Jack Sparrow thought he was a cop or would expose him? Hopefully the next movie we watch won't be as confusing. But all I can do is hope, Gilliam is a pretty weird guy so it's not looking too good.
ok so im starting to wonder if Terry Gilliam in the one thats on acid... I don't understand how you could think of the type of movies that he does while being completely sober!! I've decided its not possible! moving on...
Theo I am right about the slanted camera angle it happens through out the whole movie and how do you not notice that?? Its a really awkward and different. Now I'm questioning if you're on acid... hmmm...
Ben you're not on acid! (you agreed with me!)
and as for Daniel you said too much and I have never seen "the men who stare at goats" so you lost me.
Anyway to sum it all up I didn't really like that movie and now I'm hoping for a chick flick of some sort without any hard core druggies or men who travel back in time to find out why animals took over the world.
Ok so out of all the three movies we watched "The Brothers Grimm" was by far my favorite! I liked that there was a plot to this one and it wasn't just one big acid trip. Also, I have to address this because you all will say something... Yes I did like this movie and yes Heath Ledger and Matt Damon were in it!! They made this movie pretty good i must say but that is not the only reason why i liked this movie!!! There were a couple things that I noticed throughout the movie that i thought were cool. First Gilliam didn't use his normal way of dealing with close ups. Instead of having a close up then turning the camera around the characters face, in this movie he just had this character enter the from a weird angle making him look crazy. This way of doing those crazy close ups was a lot better to see. Also he did this thing where he only had sunlight in the end of the movie which i thought was kind of cool. Throughout the rest of the movie the background colors were very dark and when everything gets solved in the end the color is natural sunlight.
I’d say “The Brothers Grimm” was better than the other films we watched but it didn’t have the same Gilliam stamp. It was far more predictable and I felt like he didn’t get to add as much of his own style. Because this was more of a fairy tale type of film, it had to end happily unlike his other films such as “12 Monkeys”.
Erin you shouldn’t let the actors be the deciding factor if you enjoy the movie or not, and we're going to have a discussion about your commitment to this group.
Unlike his other films, the main characters in “The Brothers Grimm” are closer together, they may not be the best of friends but they are brothers (duh) and they are able to reconcile in the end. This was a nice change in my opinion, compared to usual Gilliam frenzy where the characters are either mentally crazy or drug induced out of their minds. I thought Angelika was underdeveloped compared to her important role. She didn’t have much dialogue and by the end I didn’t know who ended up with whom. Jacob Grimm had to kiss Angelika because of true love, but then she also kissed Wilhelm to “save” him.
The unresolved ending didn’t ruin it for me because it was still enjoyable overall, just a question for the rest of you, why do you think Gilliam made this film so much different than his previous works like “12 Monkeys” and “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”?
Yeah ben, erin's committment to the group has definitely been 98%and that's really embarassing...
And what is this talk about watching "The Brothers Grimm?" Theo, ben and I made an executive decision to watch "Brazil" that day because it looked a lot more like classic Terry Gilliam. But ben that was very nice of you to watch The Brothers Grimm just for this purpose, I guess...so I decided to do that too so I would be able to comment here.
I agree that "The Brothers Grimm" was unconventional, to say the least, for a Gilliam film. I enjoyed it, however, probably because of the fact that I could follow the plot this time. It helped that it was based off of stories that I knew, but that was not the deciding factor. For example, I enjoyed 12 Monkeys probably the most in my whole group, despite its confusing plot.
Probably the most "classic Gilliam" sequences occured near the end of the film, when the Jake (Heath Ledger) and Will (Matt Damon) were fighting the fabled queen, (who could have been a messed up version of sleeping beauty). The trick she used to lure people in was the mirror, from sleeping beauty. And although the queen was very decrepid and ugly, with nails a foot long, when one looked at her through the mirror she looked like a fairly attractive queen. What's more is that she would use her power to make the viewer of the mirror think that she was getting close to them and seducing them, but really only luring them into her death traps.
Like erin, this was also my favorite movie that we watched. That is not saying much however because the other two we watched were awful. I think I like this movie the best was because it had plot (something Fear and Loathing lacked) and I could actually follow the plot (something 12 Monkeys lacked.)
That being said, it wasn't a classic Gilliam film but then again how could I expect his style to remain the same after nearly a decade after the other two movies. I do like that he stayed true to his like of odder and possibly more challenging movies.
Also it kind of was a big acid trip, like a directed acid trip. Yes it had plot but did you miss the part where that guy turned into a wolf or the trees killing people?
One think that did surprise me was the fact that none of his movies that we watched were funny. The only reason I mention this is because he was part of Monty Python's Flying Circus so one might expect to have a bit of comedy, really comedy, not WTF comedy as in Fear and Loathing.
Finally David Webb is a bro so anything he's in is good.
In all seriousness, the "David Webb is a bro" is a good point. I enjoy almost any movie Matt Damon is in, because I associate him with Jason Bourne/David Webb. In addition to that, the man who plays Elizabeth's father (Jonathan Pryce) in Pirates of the Caribbean, plays a French man in The Brothers Grimm. Since we were able to recognize and associate actors such as Matt Damon, Jonathan Price, and also Heath Ledger with other films we enjoyed, that also enhanced the plot. However, as Fear and Loathing proved, that alone cannot make a movie. In this movie, however it was alright. Ben, Theo, and I agreed that Angelika sounded and partially looked a lot like Keira Knightly did as Elizabeth in POTC. I'm sure Erin probably would have agreed too, but she couldn't make it that day... .... ....... We had our own little counterstory line going as we watched it. It was a good time, bro. In conclusion, I enjoyed 12 Monkeys and The Brothers Grimm a lot more than I did for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I think a style like Gilliam's can many times be a hit or miss on such films. For tonight though, I will leave you all with one quote. "A rising tide raises all ships."
I thought Theo brought up an interesting point saying Gilliam doesn’t have much comedy in his movies, I know they weren’t exactly meant for that genre but I enjoy some comedy in films to help lighten the mood. It seems like Gilliam likes to skip around in his plots quite a bit, he has medieval times, end of the world movies, fairy tales and… well whatever the hell happened in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I like the way you put it Theo, he uses a lot of WTF comedy. I know it isn’t all about the actors but his cast was pretty stacked for The Brothers Grimm and they definitely helped this movie be successful. Each actor brings their own talents to the table and they worked together pretty well. The banter between Damon and Ledger throughout the movie was pretty enjoyable, but I didn’t understand the whole magic bean thing that Damon kept on commenting about. I don’t think Gilliam really sets up his stories that well, I always find myself asking why people are saying what they are or what the relevance of certain key objects or ideas are.
Gilliam is a unique director and even though he isn’t my favorite I can definitely see why some people might enjoy his films.
Ok all of you i'm sorry I vouldn't make it! Its really not that big of a deal!! and daniel she did not look kiera knightly at all! You need to explain a little on that one. We all have been saying that this is not one of the typical Terri Gilliam films but personally I didn't really want to watch on of his other traditional Gilliam films. Even thought "the Brothers Grimm" was REALLY predictable i appreciated the brake from the traditional acid trip. Also I am still very convinced that he must of been on acid and/or drunk when he decided to write his other movies... they are so out there and wierd I don't know how someone sober could just come up with those stories!! To wrap it up i'm not really a fan of Terri Gilliam but it was a good experience to see what kind of movies he makes.
After watching all three of gilliam's I can say with concidence that I do not like artistic work of gilliam and would not recommend his more classical film such as 12 monkeys. Brothers Grimm is the only non-comedy exception, for me it wasn't really a great movie but it was very entertaining. As Ben said the actors aren't e eryhing and shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether a film is good or not however having David Webb and the joker in one movie was definetely a plus. Also the added talents of elizebeth's dad and an elizebeth's look a like. Sorry erin but it's 3:1 that angelika does look like elizebeth. Even though I don't really like his movies I do believe he is an auteur (that is sups tots not spelled right) for his motifs throughout his films and his strange choice of movies he accepts and how he exentuates the oddities in these films mostly through camera angles.
This is my seventh year teaching film, and ninth overall. I got my B.A. in journalism in 1998 from the University of Minnesota, then worked as a sports writer at The Star Tribune for awhile. I eventually went back to the U for my master's degree in English education, and started teaching in 2001.
I live in Minneapolis with Susan (wife, works at General Mills), Jack (son, born in August '08), and Gunnar (dog, a PBGV -- look it up).
24 comments:
12 Monkeys- Terry Gilliam
During the film 12 Monkeys, one thing that struck me was the fact that the protagonist James Cole (Bruce Willis) was constantly being sent from the future into the past. This provided interesting circumstances for Cole, as he was many times called crazy when he tried to explain to people what he was trying to do (stop a deadly virus from being released to wipe out all of mankind). It was not determined what year the "present" was set in, but according to wikipedia he was sent to the year 1996 from the year 2035. Obviously there are a lot of things Terry Gilliam could do with the aspect of time travel, but one scene near the beginning of the film stuck out to me; it was the scene where Cole is accidentally sent back to 1990 instead of 1996. He is arguing with a bunch of mental health doctors (in 1990) that 1996 is the past, while they call him crazy, insisting that 1996 is the future. Cole persists, and keeps arguing that even 1990, the supposed "present year" is also the past as well. The conversation ends up going nowhere, as Cole is taken back to the psych ward area of the mental hospital he was then in.
It seems as though a lot of things went unexplained or unfinished, such as that conversation Daniel mentioned. As far the whole time travel aspect of the film, personally I found it difficult to follow, while in my flummoxed state Gilliam took advantage of my curiosity and desire to understand what was going and this is what ultimately kept me interested. I also noticed that the virus was a MacGuffin. It made no difference what it was, it could have easily been nuclear war that Cole was trying to prevent. My favorite scene in the movie was towards the end in the airport. When we see some lady tell her son "come on James." That scene blew my mind because it tied the beginning scene (starting with a close up on the kids eye, the movie also ended this way) with the ending. We learned that young James witnesses his future self die... didn't see that one coming. Daniel would you care to explain why that scene stuck out to you?
I thought it was interesting how Terry Gilliam never specifically established a year when Bruce Willis’s character came from. Daniel said that he came from 2035, but I never remembered hearing that and the fact that you had to look it up on Wikipedia is proof that he didn’t explicitly state it. I feel as if Gilliam is trying to say something like time isn’t constant and the idea of the present doesn’t actually exist. I also noticed during the movie that James Cole kept saying that he wasn’t sent back to try to prevent the event from happening but simply to gather information. The deterministic nature of the movie made it slightly depressing, and the idea that people don’t have control of their lives and free will doesn’t exist was generally shown through the protagonist.
I actually have no words for this movie....
I thought that the film 12 Monkeys was really hard to follow and i didn't like it. The thing that I noticed throughout the whole movie was how the camera gets awkwardly close to the main character Cole and also that when the camera is that close its tilted off to the sides and moving around. This was the scene/s where Cole was in the mental hospital. Everything was white and the camera was at that slanted position clearly trying to show the viewers that everything is "off" in Cole's world. Thats what stuck out to me... haha I don't really have anything else. Did any of you guys like that movie?
First of all, nice use of the word flummoxed, it is clear that you completed the junior-year course AL with flying colors. The conversation stuck out for two main reasons. The first, was that Cole, who did not seem insane at all to me, was being mistaken for a brain-damaged patient. The second reason why it stood out to me was that it seemed like the root of the rest of the time travelling that was done in the film. For example, as 12 Monkeys closes, the viewer learns that James Cole as a kid witnesses James Cole as an adult being shot to death. I realized that I did not even fully understand that until this afternoon, almost a day after I had watched the film.
I did enjoy the film, however. I have definitely seen some weird movies, probably the most recent one being "The Men Who Stare At Goats." I didn't like it that much, but considering the fact that i payed $3 dollars to see it in Hopkins, in retrospect it was an alright movie. I believe that 12 Monkeys was a well-made film, and although it was probably quite futuristic for its time, I thought it was easy enough to stay engaged and follow the plot.
Flummoxed is such an archaic word, can we please move forward Daniel?
The fact that the film started and ended with a close up on young James Cole’s face, which I thought was interesting but I had to go back and make sure of. The canted camera angle definitely indicated that Cole’s life was out of sorts and the appearance of animals during the film also supported that idea. They represented the wild and how humans like Cole didn’t have control. The movie jumped around quite a few times and I would have to rewind it just to try to get a better grasp on what exactly was going on.
Do you guys think there was any importance to the Hitchcock references during the film or do you think Gilliam is just a fan and wanted to include him?
What Hitchcock reference?
Daniel how did you find that easy to follow? The beginning was so all over the place and I thought that even though Cole was more sane then the other mental patience, at first i didn't find him to be sane at all. I mean of course by the end he seems a little bit more sane but he still was time traveling.. *cough
I thought the movie was also well made. For me i think the plot and the futuristic aspects to the movie made me less interested.
Also I have to just say when I signed up for a Brad Pitt movie night i was expecting the young attractive Brad Pitt! Not crazy, insane Brad Pitt with a huge left eye that was kinda red...
According to MR. K there is no connection between Gilliam and Hitchcock. I did find it cool that we are in the Hitchcock unit and there was a reference to him.
One thing I'm still confused about is Cole's backstory. How did he end up being the one who had to go back in time? Why was he tied town every time he was in the "present"?
I also found it interesting when Cole said that he went back in time to learn about the virus or whatever and not to stop it. It seems to me that that's the reason you go back in time, to stop things from happening.
As I said before the movie was kind of hard to follow, however it could have just been that I was distracted...maybe.
Well I think since the whole movie is kind of ambiguous in lots of parts to start with, the "Where" and "Why" of James Cole is less important than the "What." In the film, the "What" is him going back in time to stop the supposed Army of the 12 Monkeys, and then stop the virus from being released. James Cole is a mechanism and symbol of hope for the human race. As he travels from 2035 back to the 1990s, it is clear that he is not like the people who are employing him. I think that basically he is a representation of humanity's last chance at survival.
And yes, a lot of the movie is confusing, at least at first glance. Some scenes really do require a lot of digging deeper to find their meaning. But since we will be watching 2 more Terry Gilliam movies, I think we should just get pumped for some more EXTREME CONFUSION! EXTREME KAYAKING BRO!
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)
So what were people's thoughts on the film? It was extremely difficult for me to understand what the hell was going on at any given moment in it... Theo and I ended up looking up the film on Wikipedia about 1/5 of the way through, just to figure out where it was going. That being said, the supposed goal of the viewer while watching, apparently was to determine what was real and what was hallucinated for the protagonist Raoul Duke (Johnny Depp). I thought the film did a great job of portraying that aspect, considering that I was saying to myself, "What is even going on here," while watching.
Another aspect that I would have expected myself to like was the fact that the film had actors Johnny Depp, Toby Maguire, and even a brief appearance by Gregory Itzin, who occasionally appears in the television show "24." This didn't really make the film any better in my mind though. Even though we referred to Raoul as "Johnny Depp" or "Jack Sparrow," Depp played the part of a tripped out, messed up gambler in Las Vegas so well that it didn't really matter that it was him playing the part. What I am saying is that although moviegoers generally will like almost any movie Johnny Depp is in, because of his star role in "Pirates of the Caribbean," this was not the case for the psychedelic film "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas."
I actually kind of liked "12 Monkeys," but I didn't really like "Fear and Loathing."
And also, unrelated to the above paragraphs, the film did not end and begin with the same scene, however it did play part of the ending scene near the middle of the film. Beginning and ending with more or less the same scene has been known to be a trademark of Terry Gilliam, and 12 Monkeys did that exactly, I think it showed parts of the scene throughout the film as well.
Fear and loathing in Las Vegas (1998)
Um i'm not really sure where to start with this movie either. I still haven't figured out what was going on throughout the whole movie. I think the only thing that I got was that the main character Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp's character) was high throughout the whole movie. I don't understand the significance of all the people who showed up throughout the film, like toby Maguire's character and the man that Captain Jack was traveling with. The guy who was with him also had a serious drug problem but I have no idea what his relation to Captain Jack was except that he showed up and screwed him over every chance he had.
The thing that I did notice was how in both the movies that we have seen Terry Gilliam uses this one shot. He gets really close to one of the characters face and tilts the camera a little bit showing that the character is slightly off mentally. In 12 monkeys he used it for the character played by Brad Pitt who was insane, this camera angle helped him portray that "crazyness" better. In Fear and Loathing Gilliam used this angle on Captain Jack showing how out of sorts he was and also how incredibly high he was.
I think we can all agree that this movie made little to no sense. However after doing a little bit of excavating I realized that maybe that was the whole point of the movie. I mean Captain Jack was high the entire movie and lived off several maxed out credit cards out of a couple expensive hotels. He had no plans for the future. Also I believe Wikipedia said something about Captain Jack searching for the "American Dream" or something along those lines, to a certain extent he might be. It's all subjective of course but maybe for him that was the American Dream, he was living in the moment without a care in the world. (Although it was probably just the drugs.)
I think that guy who is clearly not a cop that was always around when Captain Jack was high is just a hallucination, much like Tyler is in Fight Club. Thats the only explanation I can come up with. He's never around when Captain Jack is sober and always seems to show up where he doesn't belong. For instance in second hotel he goes to. The weird guys is already in the room he just rented.
As for Spider-man, no amount of excavating can shed light on his purpose. Unless of course you had a certain someone from Spanish who is adept at digging to help you.
I would have to agree with all of you that this film was incredibly hard to follow and by the end we had almost given up trying to comprehend what was going on. I also noticed how Gilliam showed part of the ending in the middle of the film. It is an interesting technique employed by Gilliam to confuse the viewer while still bringing it together in the end. He successfully did so in "12 Monkeys" but not so much in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".
Gilliam also seems to enjoy insane characters in his films. Whether they're high out of their minds on drugs, or in a psych ward, they still add an interesting element to his films. Gilliam will show them bouncing off the walls, but when they're talking or sitting still, he will use the technique Erin referred to how Gilliam has canted close ups on their faces so you can see the crazy look in their eyes.
As for Theo, my only idea as to get Spider-Man out of the hole would be to assume that his role is unimportant to the plot development of the film. He may only be there so that Sparrow and his friend Gonzo can explain their reason for being in Las Vegas with such a large supply of drugs. The reason why Sparrow panics near the end when he sees Spider-Man again is because he isn’t thinking clearly and thinks Spider-Man is with the police and will catch them for everything they have done.
Gilliam has an interesting style that I have not enjoyed all that much up to this point. But I can confidently say 12 Monkeys was better than Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.
I agree with everything everyone has said about Fear and Loathing so far...
However, I would like to compare this film to another film I watched not too long ago, "The Men Who Stare at Goats," directed by Grant Heslov. Both films are based on a preceding novel, and also both have sort of a mismatched story line that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I guess "The Men Who Stare at Goats" kind of had a plot, considering George Clooney and Ewan McGregor's characters Lyn Cassady and Bob Wilton were trying to uncover the secret behind the military experimenting with killing goats by intense staring...
I did not like the film that much, but the fact that George Clooney was in it and also the fact that I paid 3 dollars to see it in Hopkins caused me to think it wasn't all that bad. This was similar to my viewing experience of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," except for the fact that Johnny Depp's casting as the protagonist and the fact that I watched it for free failed to make me have many positive feelings towards it.
I guess what I am trying to say is that there are probably more films than we know of that are constructed in such a way. Some are taken farther than others, meaning that some will be more difficult to follow or enjoy. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is one of those films that has been altered so much that it is hard for an average viewer to fully understand and enjoy the plotline and story.
Personally I didn't notice the canted angle shots on the protagonist in either movie. That's not to say it isn't there I just wasn't looking for it. I'll be looking for it as well as other reoccurring themes in Gilliam's films (maybe). One thing I have noticed is that Gilliam likes to make his movies confusing as hell.
Thanks Ben for helping Spider-man out of the hole. I still can't quite wrap my head around it though, Jack Sparrow thought he was a cop or would expose him?
Hopefully the next movie we watch won't be as confusing. But all I can do is hope, Gilliam is a pretty weird guy so it's not looking too good.
ok so im starting to wonder if Terry Gilliam in the one thats on acid...
I don't understand how you could think of the type of movies that he does while being completely sober!! I've decided its not possible! moving on...
Theo I am right about the slanted camera angle it happens through out the whole movie and how do you not notice that?? Its a really awkward and different. Now I'm questioning if you're on acid...
hmmm...
Ben you're not on acid! (you agreed with me!)
and as for Daniel you said too much and I have never seen "the men who stare at goats" so you lost me.
Anyway to sum it all up I didn't really like that movie and now I'm hoping for a chick flick of some sort without any hard core druggies or men who travel back in time to find out why animals took over the world.
Ok so out of all the three movies we watched "The Brothers Grimm" was by far my favorite! I liked that there was a plot to this one and it wasn't just one big acid trip.
Also, I have to address this because you all will say something...
Yes I did like this movie and yes Heath Ledger and Matt Damon were in it!! They made this movie pretty good i must say but that is not the only reason why i liked this movie!!!
There were a couple things that I noticed throughout the movie that i thought were cool. First Gilliam didn't use his normal way of dealing with close ups. Instead of having a close up then turning the camera around the characters face, in this movie he just had this character enter the from a weird angle making him look crazy. This way of doing those crazy close ups was a lot better to see. Also he did this thing where he only had sunlight in the end of the movie which i thought was kind of cool. Throughout the rest of the movie the background colors were very dark and when everything gets solved in the end the color is natural sunlight.
I’d say “The Brothers Grimm” was better than the other films we watched but it didn’t have the same Gilliam stamp. It was far more predictable and I felt like he didn’t get to add as much of his own style. Because this was more of a fairy tale type of film, it had to end happily unlike his other films such as “12 Monkeys”.
Erin you shouldn’t let the actors be the deciding factor if you enjoy the movie or not, and we're going to have a discussion about your commitment to this group.
Unlike his other films, the main characters in “The Brothers Grimm” are closer together, they may not be the best of friends but they are brothers (duh) and they are able to reconcile in the end. This was a nice change in my opinion, compared to usual Gilliam frenzy where the characters are either mentally crazy or drug induced out of their minds.
I thought Angelika was underdeveloped compared to her important role. She didn’t have much dialogue and by the end I didn’t know who ended up with whom. Jacob Grimm had to kiss Angelika because of true love, but then she also kissed Wilhelm to “save” him.
The unresolved ending didn’t ruin it for me because it was still enjoyable overall, just a question for the rest of you, why do you think Gilliam made this film so much different than his previous works like “12 Monkeys” and “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”?
Yeah ben, erin's committment to the group has definitely been 98%and that's really embarassing...
And what is this talk about watching "The Brothers Grimm?" Theo, ben and I made an executive decision to watch "Brazil" that day because it looked a lot more like classic Terry Gilliam. But ben that was very nice of you to watch The Brothers Grimm just for this purpose, I guess...so I decided to do that too so I would be able to comment here.
I agree that "The Brothers Grimm" was unconventional, to say the least, for a Gilliam film. I enjoyed it, however, probably because of the fact that I could follow the plot this time. It helped that it was based off of stories that I knew, but that was not the deciding factor. For example, I enjoyed 12 Monkeys probably the most in my whole group, despite its confusing plot.
Probably the most "classic Gilliam" sequences occured near the end of the film, when the Jake (Heath Ledger) and Will (Matt Damon) were fighting the fabled queen, (who could have been a messed up version of sleeping beauty). The trick she used to lure people in was the mirror, from sleeping beauty. And although the queen was very decrepid and ugly, with nails a foot long, when one looked at her through the mirror she looked like a fairly attractive queen. What's more is that she would use her power to make the viewer of the mirror think that she was getting close to them and seducing them, but really only luring them into her death traps.
Like erin, this was also my favorite movie that we watched. That is not saying much however because the other two we watched were awful. I think I like this movie the best was because it had plot (something Fear and Loathing lacked) and I could actually follow the plot (something 12 Monkeys lacked.)
That being said, it wasn't a classic Gilliam film but then again how could I expect his style to remain the same after nearly a decade after the other two movies. I do like that he stayed true to his like of odder and possibly more challenging movies.
Also it kind of was a big acid trip, like a directed acid trip. Yes it had plot but did you miss the part where that guy turned into a wolf or the trees killing people?
One think that did surprise me was the fact that none of his movies that we watched were funny. The only reason I mention this is because he was part of Monty Python's Flying Circus so one might expect to have a bit of comedy, really comedy, not WTF comedy as in Fear and Loathing.
Finally David Webb is a bro so anything he's in is good.
In all seriousness, the "David Webb is a bro" is a good point. I enjoy almost any movie Matt Damon is in, because I associate him with Jason Bourne/David Webb. In addition to that, the man who plays Elizabeth's father (Jonathan Pryce) in Pirates of the Caribbean, plays a French man in The Brothers Grimm. Since we were able to recognize and associate actors such as Matt Damon, Jonathan Price, and also Heath Ledger with other films we enjoyed, that also enhanced the plot. However, as Fear and Loathing proved, that alone cannot make a movie. In this movie, however it was alright. Ben, Theo, and I agreed that Angelika sounded and partially looked a lot like Keira Knightly did as Elizabeth in POTC. I'm sure Erin probably would have agreed too, but she couldn't make it that day... .... ....... We had our own little counterstory line going as we watched it. It was a good time, bro.
In conclusion, I enjoyed 12 Monkeys and The Brothers Grimm a lot more than I did for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I think a style like Gilliam's can many times be a hit or miss on such films.
For tonight though, I will leave you all with one quote. "A rising tide raises all ships."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzzQh04kNHY&fmt=18
I thought Theo brought up an interesting point saying Gilliam doesn’t have much comedy in his movies, I know they weren’t exactly meant for that genre but I enjoy some comedy in films to help lighten the mood. It seems like Gilliam likes to skip around in his plots quite a bit, he has medieval times, end of the world movies, fairy tales and… well whatever the hell happened in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I like the way you put it Theo, he uses a lot of WTF comedy.
I know it isn’t all about the actors but his cast was pretty stacked for The Brothers Grimm and they definitely helped this movie be successful. Each actor brings their own talents to the table and they worked together pretty well. The banter between Damon and Ledger throughout the movie was pretty enjoyable, but I didn’t understand the whole magic bean thing that Damon kept on commenting about. I don’t think Gilliam really sets up his stories that well, I always find myself asking why people are saying what they are or what the relevance of certain key objects or ideas are.
Gilliam is a unique director and even though he isn’t my favorite I can definitely see why some people might enjoy his films.
Ok all of you i'm sorry I vouldn't make it! Its really not that big of a deal!!
and daniel she did not look kiera knightly at all! You need to explain a little on that one.
We all have been saying that this is not one of the typical Terri Gilliam films but personally I didn't really want to watch on of his other traditional Gilliam films. Even thought "the Brothers Grimm" was REALLY predictable i appreciated the brake from the traditional acid trip.
Also I am still very convinced that he must of been on acid and/or drunk when he decided to write his other movies... they are so out there and wierd I don't know how someone sober could just come up with those stories!!
To wrap it up i'm not really a fan of Terri Gilliam but it was a good experience to see what kind of movies he makes.
After watching all three of gilliam's I can say with concidence that I do not like artistic work of gilliam and would not recommend his more classical film such as 12 monkeys. Brothers Grimm is the only non-comedy exception, for me it wasn't really a great movie but it was very entertaining. As Ben said the actors aren't e eryhing and shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether a film is good or not however having David Webb and the joker in one movie was definetely a plus. Also the added talents of elizebeth's dad and an elizebeth's look a like. Sorry erin but it's 3:1 that angelika does look like elizebeth. Even though I don't really like his movies I do believe he is an auteur (that is sups tots not spelled right) for his motifs throughout his films and his strange choice of movies he accepts and how he exentuates the oddities in these films mostly through camera angles.
Post a Comment