MovieChat Forums > Twelve Monkeys (1996) Discussion > Is this just the 90's?

Is this just the 90's?

posted 10 years ago by Pr1ceisright
25 replies | jump to latest

I'm working my way through the top 250 and finally came to this movie. Was this considered good in the 90's? I really don't get how the sets/costumes and sub par acting (minor characters and especially the extras had my cringing, looking at you future scientists) and unrealistic actions (24 hr motel scene, a disturbance and the first reaction is to call the cops, then 8 cops are there in 30 secs or not shutting an airport down after a shooting, even pre 9/11) are suppose to be believable and enjoyable. Am I just missing something or was this just how 90's movie were made? Born in 1989 so my 90's is a bit hazy.

PS What's with the dutch angles?

[–] cassbtt 10 years ago

or not shutting an airport down after a shooting

I'll let others speak to the other concerns, but this is a movie, and timelines are scrunched up. The final scene in the jet may have been 12 hours later. And the lady did say "...even shootings in airports", so it's not like it wasn't acknowledged.

Yes, it still presumes any luggage zone videotape didn't show the yellow-jacketed red-haired pony-tailed guy as "suspicious", especially with witnesses there, and fleeing the scene, etc.

But I'd still let it go.

[–] Interlepos (1817) 2 years ago

>> this is a movie, and timelines are scrunched up. The final scene in the jet may have been 12 hours later.

No, he was out of breath and sweating when he sat down.

[–] Fetus_Sale 10 years ago

Was this considered good in the 90's

Yes. It still is.

I really don't get how the sets/costumes and sub par acting (minor characters and especially the extras had my cringing, looking at you future scientists) and unrealistic actions (24 hr motel scene, a disturbance and the first reaction is to call the cops, then 8 cops are there in 30 secs or not shutting an airport down after a shooting, even pre 9/11) are suppose to be believable and enjoyable. Am I just missing something or was this just how 90's movie were made? Born in 1989 so my 90's is a bit hazy.

This is all more of a reflection of Terry Gilliam than a unified way of making movies for an entire decade, which has never existed. Gilliam isn't really after realism. Performances tend to be weird. He's in the Lynch/Kubrick mold of, "Who cares if this performance is true? It's interesting." His set designs and motivation for characters follow the same point of view. There is a lot of surrealism in his best stuff.

[–] RoidDroidVoid 10 years ago

Though, for the most part, that is how we dressed in the 90's.

:)

This entire discussion is just an attempt to make me feel old.

Now, the next time they send me back, I'll have to track down the OP and prevent him from making his post. That should preserve my youthful self-image. At least until someone else makes a post of this nature then I have to start all over. This is truly exhausting. It's making me feel old. Damn...

[–] cassbtt 10 years ago

Odd, when I watch 12M I figure the only thing really wrong about the 90s scenes are the big old tube-type televisions.

Even the cars aren't that bad. In the movie, we don't see anything newer than 1995, but I still see some of those older cars around the streets nowadays. The Jeep was a fine model that went on for a few years after that.

Things like fashion and hairstyles don't matter much to me. Cole's bald look may have spurred that whole look, actually. And hobos in the slums; well, that was definitely a much-used Gilliamism. I almost expected Robin Williams in "Fisher King" gear, to jump out in those scenes.

I mean, it's a fantasy sci-fi; you're supposed to suspend your "fact radar" a little bit.

My old 12 Monkeys links page:
http://www.catconsulting.ca/tempesta-tormenta

[–] sd-106 8 years ago

Bruce Willis was definitely one of the major players in bringing the bald look mainstream,

[–] MaximRecoil (4836) 7 years ago

"Odd, when I watch 12M I figure the only thing really wrong about the 90s scenes are the big old tube-type televisions."

What are you talking about? Nearly everyone had a CRT TV in the 1990s. Digital displays existed in the '90s but they were small, expensive for their size, and had horrible picture quality. They didn't start to become mainstream until the early 2000s, and they didn't outsell CRTs until 2007.

"Even the cars aren't that bad. In the movie, we don't see anything newer than 1995, but I still see some of those older cars around the streets nowadays. The Jeep was a fine model that went on for a few years after that."

Of course there was nothing newer than 1995; the movie was released in 1995. That's not a problem, considering the latest year of the past that we see is 1996. There were plenty of 1996 models which looked the same as their 1995 counterparts anyway.

[–] Tree_Woman 10 years ago

LOL! I agree, it is exhausting and now I feel old, too. Maybe next time they send me back, I will pull out my teeth and just be done with it.

"You're so analytical! Sometimes you just have to let art... flow... over you." The Big Chill

[–] Hermies_Purrbuckets 9 years ago

Sorry, you were born way too late to understand anything. Don't bother trying.

[–] mickmaxy 9 years ago

Exactly. All very stupid questions which I considered trying to answer but that would be like describing colours to a blind man. About the only hint I can give is... Terry Gilliam

[–] mrpinbert 9 years ago

I just finished watching it for the first time, I was born in 1994. I thought it was really good. I am still letting it sink in but it is definitely either an 8 or a 9 for me. I hadn't noticed any of your complaints. I didn't think the costumes were that noteworthy, the sets are pretty good but nothing outstanding. I thought the acting from the minor characters and extras was perfectly serviceable. The three stars were all pretty with especially Pitt giving an entertaining performance.

I didn't notice what you mentioned about the cops being early, since I was completely wrapped up into the story. Also I just don't think minor details like that are of considerable importance to make a good film.

How do we know that the airport was not shut down shortly after, all we saw was the shooting.

The dutch angles were really effective, I only realized they were there now that you mention it. But they really did sell the feeling of unease.

Personally I just don't see how that thing about the cops or the airport could take away so much of your enjoyment. (well the airport thing maybe although it seems unclear to me what happens after the shooting).

Anyway those are just my thoughts, too bad you didn't like it as much as I did.

If you save the world, We can do it in the *beep*
My top 100 http://www.imdb.com/li

[–] KesMonkey 9 years ago

"Was this considered good in the 90's?"

Just like today, some people liked it, some people didn't. The 8.1 rating here suggests that most did.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mercader79 8 years ago

Stsr Wars is NOT. Sci Fi.

Yes, it is!
The rest is true.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cassbtt 8 years ago

re: Star Wars, yeah, I always liked that growling roar as the ships zoomed through the vacuum of space. Really real, ya' know?

[–] Mercader79 8 years ago

Except for all the high levels of technology in it? All the extra terrestrial life?
What films are science fiction then in your eyes?
I've never heard of the "space action" genre. It sounds like a category you've made up to cover a branch of science fiction.
Gone With The Wind contains historical inaccuracies.That doesn't mean it isn't a historical drama.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mercader79 8 years ago

I.e. science fiction.
Which films are science fiction if Star Wars isn't?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mercader79 8 years ago

Just those? Which ones are not, in your world? Alien? 2001? The Matrix? Blade Runner?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] greg-233 8 years ago

When people say a film "is not sci-fi", they really mean to say a film "is not sci-fi in my opinion." There was once a similarly-themed thread (where Star Wars got mentioned) on the IMDb Science Fiction board. It went on for pages and pages...

I'll just quote Brian Aldiss: "Science fiction is no more written for scientists than ghost stories are written for ghosts."

[–] Mercader79 8 years ago

I find this snobbery towards science fiction unappealingn. Alien is horror but is clearly science fiction too. Star Wars is clearly sci fi too. Why pretend otherwise?

[–] greg-233 8 years ago

"Alien is horror but is clearly science fiction too. Star Wars is clearly sci fi too. Why pretend otherwise?"

Because people find it fun to argue? 

Star Wars is generally regarded as "space opera", one of the many subgenres or "templates" of science fiction. The glossary in The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Science Fiction defines space opera as:

large-scale, fast-moving sf that emphasizes action-adventure rather than making any particular sense. Examples: E.E. Smith's Lensman books and Star Wars.

Obviously, there can be a crossover of genres, as Alien can be classed as both SF and horror. Same with The Fly.