Conference bookie::movies

    Sci-fi flick starring Bruce Willis, Madelaine Stowe, Brad Pitt, 
    also Christopher Plummer.  Willis is sent back in time (unwillingly) 
    to 1990 and 1996, to find out how a deadly virus was unleashed and 
    who was responsible, so that the people in the future (where he curently
    resides) can know what had wiped out most of the human race and sent 
    the ones that were left to live underground... Eventually, clues point 
    to a radical group calling themselves 12 Monkeys but there is more 
    to it than that......I saw it ..I liked it...but am a bit unclear 
    about a few segments in the film.....the performances from Willis,
    Stowe and Pitt were excellent..
    

    Brad Pitt was really good, as were Bruce Willis and Madelaine Stowe.  I
    didn't like Christopher Plummer in that role, he seemed 'wrong'.  (That
    and the lame southern accent he had.)
    
    It had a Terry Gilliam feel to the visuals and story too.
    
    About the only point I'm confused by is
    (Possible spoiler, so I'll hide it!)
    
    The Dr. said that she knew John Cole from before.  How?
    
    I'm sure that she didn't travel in time (She seemed oblivious to the
    disaster that would happen)  and the first contact that we know about
    between them was 1990.  How can she remember someone she hadn't meet
    yet?  I don't think the WWI picture would be enough to trigger a
    'memory' of him.
    
    Time travel makes my head hurt when I try to figure it out.
    
    Rob

    You think you were confused!! i was floating in space on a few of
    these      spoiler coming 
    
    At the end when they show the little boy witnessing the shooting etc
    tht was supposed to be Willis as a child (i thot) but how can THAT
    be if he was the one getting shot in real-time???!!
    I have a headache...the acting was excellent but I just read another
    review saying the  story could have been written a little less
    manic....so that us slow people can enjoy it too
    what did you think of the ending???  never mind the other 3
    blank spots in the movie I couldn't cohesively put together...

    Spoilers:
    
    
    The boy was Bruce Willis as a child - the boy was from the current time
    period 1996 - Willis himself was from the future - apparently if you
    travel back in time you can meet a younger version of yourself.
    
    The ending made me think for a minute or two - it was the only part of
    the movie that wasn't immediately obvious.  I had to decide what the
    meaning  of the woman scientist from the future sitting next to the guy
    on the plane with the viruses meant - was she there to stop him, just
    to collect the virus, or was she a younger version of the woman in the
    future.  I finally decided that she was there from the future just to
    collect the virus - they had said earlier in the film that once Willis
    located the virus they would send a scientist back to collect a
    specimen.  The guy had already exposed the security guard to the virus
    so it  was probably too late to stop it.  At least this ishow I
    interpreted the ending.
    
    Regarding Madeleine Stow's comment that Willis seemed familiar - I
    don't think this was a big deal  - it could have been the picture or
    just a sense of deja vu.
    

    I thought this movie was excellent - although like most other time
    travel movies, I think I miss some of the plot while trying to figure
    out the logistics of the time line.
    
    Spoiler:
    
    
    
    Like the others, I don't think there was anything more than the WWI
    picture that made the Madeline Stowe character think she knew Willis.
    
    The parts where characters go back in time and see their younger
    versions always mess me up.  Terminator was another movie where I
    couldn't quite understand whether the Michael Beihn character was
    actually his own father - ie- is the baby that Linda Hamilton's
    character is pregnant with at the end of the movie the same person 
    as Michael Beihn's future character? (John something I think)

    
    
    
    re Terminator 
    
    no the child that Linda Hamilton has is not Michael Biehn. They
    actually show John Connor in Terminator 2.
    
    But the fact that Michael Biehn is sent back in time by his own son
    to save Sarah and conceive the same son. Boggles the mind and
    brings into question the theory of Linear Time.
    
    Chris
    :)

    back the the current movie
    I don't think the scientist on the plane with the perpetrator meant
    anything...I didn't get the impression that she came back and was
    going to stop him  just by the dialog she was saying....
    no inflections in the voice to let you know that She knew who
    he Really was......arghgh.....in "Timecop"  Van Damme also
    was in the same time and place as his previous self in the Mall
    scene....

    
    ahem. spolier warnings, please, people?
    
    that said, here's a spolier warning  :)
    
    	
    
    
    Bruce willis may have been pardoned, but they expected him to be coming
    back. He ripped out his teeth to prevent them from tracing him. And
    it's irrelevant anyway, since he died before the woman got on the plane
    (and they knew this, since Willis' friend would have returned with this
    news.)
    
    I agree. She was on the plane to collect the virus only. The virus had
    already been released at the security checkpoint.
    

This topic used to be titled "Under the Hula Moon & 12 Monkeys," but now it is
The Official "12 Monkeys" topic.  I moved notes 6009.0 - .8 here; they are now 
6006.1 - .9.

If someone wants to start an official topic for "Under the Hula Moon," feel free.

Please avoid creating topics that discuss more than one movie (unless it's a broader
subject than the movies themselves).  "Combined movie" topics make it hard to keep 
discussions focused on a movie, hard to *follow* a discussion on one movie, and 
hard to find information about a movie later.

Thanks.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic ("12 Monkeys"). :-)

-- Nina, with moderator hat on  

    Nina, you're right. Mea culpa!
    
    Regarding 12 Monkeys, doesn't the number of questions here (time travel
    or no time travel) support the fact that the movie was convoluted and 
    poorly edited? Did everyone here love the movie despite this? An
    example of poor editing: 
    
     A scene in the car where she's driving and he's sitting in the back.
    That went on for what seemed like an eternity with little dialog or
    action. 
    
    Some in the audience, including me, laughed at certain scenes where
    Madeline Stowe did or said stuff that was off the wall a bit. And these
    scenes weren't all supposed to be funny. The laughter was the audience
    saying "we don't buy this".

    
    I haven't seen a time travel movie yet that doesn't raise questions. I
    thought this one was well done, as the time travel isn't a HUGE issue
    (unlike some other time/mindgame movies.)
    
    Basically, no time travel movie can consistently answer the question -
    What happens if you go back in time and visit yourself?
    

>>    Basically, no time travel movie can consistently answer the question -
>>    What happens if you go back in time and visit yourself?
    
    It depends on whether your past self sees (and recognizes) the future
    counterpart.
    
    	If one doesn't see the future self, no problem.
    	If one sees future self and doesn't recognize the alter-ego, no
    		problem; it's just like meeting any other stranger once.
    	If future self sees past self, but past-self not involved, no
    		problem.
    
    	Only potential for problem are from the potential for paradox.
    		If younger self meets older self, the older self should
    			have known this was going to happen.
    		If older self goes back and changes younger self's world,
    			then would it have been necessary for older self to
    			go back, but if he didn't who made the changes?
    
    	Now if your question is whether two selves can coexist AT ALL, you
    		either have to accept that they could; otherwise time	
    		travel could never happen at all (and the whole discussion
    		is moot).
    
    		If you are claiming that one body cannot be in two places
    		at the same time, time travel is therefor ruled impossible 
    		since if I were to go back 100 years before I was born,
    		then while I may not yet exist as a sentient being, every
    		single atom that will make up my body, at any given time,
    		has existed since the dawn of creation.
    
    tom
    (who spends a lot of time thinking about these things)

    
    Actually, my point was that there are many ways this can be
    interpreted, and movie A generally has a different interpretation than
    movie B. :)
    
    So, there are always going to be some people who don't like a specific
    movie's interpretation of some of the paradoxes of time travel.
    
    To enjoy a time travel movie, you either have to:
    
    a) find one that uses the same assumptions that you do or
    b) just accept it & go with the flow.
    
    If you decide that the movie's interpretation is incorrect and you let
    it bother you, you're going to have a tough time enjoying the movie.

    Film editing, dialog, plot development, and other basics of good movie
    making have nothing to do with time travel.

    
    >Film editing, dialog, plot development, and other basics of good movie
        making have nothing to do with time travel.
    
    I completely agree.
    
    It's interesting, though - I remember the scene you're talking about,
    and I liked it.  Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

    And you know what? I'm really not Mr. Critical. I'm a big Die
    Hard/Bruce Willis fan plus I love good sci-fi. So after seeing the
    previews, I was prepared to, and looking forward to, liking this movie.
    I *wanted* to like it. Just didn't pull together coherently enough for
    me, plus Willis was curiously one-dimensional throughout, playing this 
    semi-lucid character. You kept waiting for him to clear his head 
    occasionally and do or say something decisive and dramatic - which is
    the personna he's developed in previous movies. This failure of either
    him or the script kept his character mired at this one level. 
    
    - Bob

    
    check out the newsgroups on this film ie; rec.arts.movies.current
    never seen so much discussion for any movie.
    
    it's an odd film, but i liked it.
    
    Dave
    
    

>    it's an odd film, but i liked it.
    
    Ditto. I thought it had an interesting plot and I enjoyed the
    performances of the leads. The eccentric set design made the "future"
    look just a little bit too fantastic, but I liked the whole mood of the
    movie. Not your standard sci-fi adventure flick at all.
    
    Thumbs up.
    
    John

    
    I was annoyed by the set design. I've seen Brazil several times, so I
    felt very much "Been there, seen that." The set does a good job of
    showing what can happen to an unfettered bureaucracy, but I didn't
    think it fit in well with this movie. It really looked to me like
    chunks of the set were recycled directly from the set of Brazil.
    
    But yes, also thumbs up.
    

  "  It really looked to me like                                          
        chunks of the set were recycled directly from the set of Brazil."
   There WERE recycled "Brazil" locations.  Some big disused power station
    or something that Terry G. used on "Brazil" was used again for this.
    
    Chris

    I thought this was a spectacular success, from the script to the
    special effects to the acting.  Yes, Brad Pitt was terrific, but IMO
    Bruce Willis had by far the more difficult role, and he was absolutely
    magnificent.  Unlike a few noters back, I did not wait for him to snap
    out of his semi-confused state.  That's exactly what he should have
    been portraying, and the more information he received, the more
    confused he became, questioning his own sanity.  It's tough not to look
    one-dimensional when you're not sure if you are insane, and there are
    no clear answers forthcoming.  Madeline Stowe also turned in an excellent
    performance.
    
    As for the ending, it was perfect (unlike many movies that sell out
    their premise and 90 minutes of story for 10 minutes of incredulity).
    This movie ended the only way it could have, and thank goodness for
    that!
    
    NAZZ

    Getting back to the subject of time travel....
    
    If time travel were really possible and in fact, did occur one day in
    the future, then there would be a constant invasion into the present by
    future travellers.
    
    Theoretically, I believe it may be possible to travel into the future,
    but not into the past as the past dies every nano second, irretrievably
    lost as what is existence but a manifestation of a form of energy. At
    the atomic level, it has been proved time and again, that there is no
    real "physical" matter but largely empty space, maybe an invisible form
    of energy which has not yet been understood. 
    
    However, for travel into the future, all you need to do is approach the
    speed of light , you need not pass it, and you would reach several
    decades ahead into the future and will probably be younger than your
    own children as your internal biological clock would tick at the same
    rate, so that what is a year for is in reality 8 or 10 years for the
    others on earth. This can be explained very simply. The Earth and the
    Sun travel around the galaxy at a pre-determined speed, which
    determines Earth time. The distance the Earth travels to reach from
    Point X to Y in the galaxy may take say, 50 years. This may be
    represented by : Time (50 yrs) = Distance (X to Y)
    				     ----------
				     Speed of solar system
    
    According to relativistic theories, if you exceed the above speed and
    possibly travel at 1/3 the speed of light or even faster, you would be
    automatically covering the same distance traversed by the Earth in a
    lesser time [ Your time of 10 yrs ]. So, while you've aged only 10
    years aboard your spaceship traversing the same distance, everyone on
    Earth has traversed the same distance in 50 years!.
    
    So, theoretically you can go into everyone else's future but not your
    own, which has passed its time on the spaceship. However, how do you
    go into everyone's past, including your own ? It's an absolutely 
    ridiculous idea and unless someone has some explanation, it is not
    science fiction but pure and simple fantasy, with no science...
    

    
    	Ummm, suppose you orbit around the sun at the speed of light, and
    	the Earth is travelling around the sun at 1/2 that speed.  Doesn't
    	that just mean that you will get around the sun twice as fast as the
    	Earth will?
    

    
    Time warps (as does length) according to sqr (1 - x^2/c^2) where x is
    your speed and c is the speed of light. So you can see it's always
    warping, but starting somewhere around .3c you can begin to notice.
    
    And if you were going .99c around the sun and the earth was doing .5c,
    your time would almost stand still compared to time on earth.
    

    FWIW, Steven Hawkings (sp?) once speculated about time reversal.  He
    was certain that it was possible and had worked a lot of it out in his
    head.  But, it couldn't be verified.  Further, no matter what
    approaches were tried, his colleagues couldn't get the formulas to work 
    out.  Turned out that he had not figured in the entropy of the universe 
    (always increasing).  If one assumes that the entropy of the univers can 
    decrease, then (theoretically) time reversal is possible.  But, of the 
    difficult issues to get around, the ever-increasing entropy of the 
    universe may be one of the toughest ones to get around.  However, since 
    most folks don't even have the foggiest notion of what entropy is, 
    Hollywood is free to speculate wildly ...  :^)
    
    Steve        

    re: -1..
    
    The only other possibility is the theory of infinite dimensions where
    it is argued, nothing is really lost but is captured in another
    dimension creating infinite possibilities with every action. However,
    under this scenario, there is no way that time travel would permit one
    to remain with the same reality but would in fact, with every travel,
    either in the future or the past, would create a whole new reality and
    universe for that dimension. It is a mind boggling concept and perhaps
    was used as a basis for Back to the Future, where both the past and the
    future are altered for that particular individual by time travel.
    However, no one has ever speculated as to how time travel could
    actually occur.... slingshot through a black hole ?? who knows...
    12 Monkeys is based on concepts from reading Superman comics possibly..
    Supes could go forwards or backwards in time at will, just by adjusting
    his speed to whatever time he wanted to go to... 

    
    Saw this last night.
    
    	Really liked Brad Pitt's performance. Convinced me he was crazy.
    Hard to watch Bruce Willis being that out of it, but that was the way
    the part had to be played. 
    
    	I was also glad that the movie ended as it did, true to its
    premise. 
    
    ed

  I saw this last week and really liked it.  I was concerned that Gilliam would
  have gone too far into one of his darker moods on this one, but the movie
  played out perfectly.  Brad Pitt was phenomenal to watch, and Bruce Willis
  gets top honours for his excellent acting job.  I don't know why someone
  would have seen him in his past "Die Hard" roles during this film, Willis did
  a fantastic job of staying in character to the point where I never would have
  even thought about any of his past roles.  He was perfect here.  Madelaine
  Stowe was OK too, though her performance didn't really stand out much.  It
  was very nice to see Christopher Plummer in film again.  I wish they could
  have given him a much larger role to play however, he deserves it.  Perhaps
  these bit parts will put him back into fashion again.

  I loved the concluding "Me? I'm in insurance" line.

  This wasn't a potential film of the year nominee, but I did enjoy the viewing
  though.  Brad Pitt was spell-binding, it's hard to imagine that he's not
  crazy in real life now too.  :-)

  -Erik

	Another big thumbs up here.  This film was "awesome".  Obviously
	it's not going to be everybodies cup of tea.

	This film ranks right up there with The Terminiator saga in
	terms of quality of the time travel universe.  In the editing
	department, I also give high ranks putting it up there with
	a similiar style to "Pulp Fiction" (ie. anyone who was confused
	by the way that story un-folded, will be confused by this film).

	Bruce Willis did indeed pull off another spectacular performance,
	as has been noted, he stayed in character (of course the director
	has to be given credit for this too).  His characters personality
	made lots of sense, given the conditions of his existence in the
	future, and what he had obviously gone through earlier in life
	really did a number on the character.

	I do wish to thank my fellow noters very much for the info about
	the very final scene.  I'm very bad with faces and totally missed
	who else was on the plane, which actually gives the film a kinda
	happy ending.

	In regards to time travel in real life, I too believe in only
	uni-directional time travel (ie. to us what we percieve as going
	into the "future", though it's possible we move in the opposite
	direction, it doesn't matter, the point is we're all moving in
	the same direction in what is called the 4th dimension).

	In regards to Einstiens relativity, I seem to recall at least
	one experiment which claims to of actually observed it using
	Jet plane(s) and two atomic clocks or something, but this is
	going back several years.

	There is another way to time travel (again only into the future :-)
	however than traveling at super speeds, and that's slowing the
	biological process down of the to be time traveller.  The news
	recently had a story about a woman whom the only way they could
	operate on some kind of thing on her brain was to stop her heart
	and other biological processes (by slowly cooling her blood).
	In essense she was in "suspended animation" (or as in Start
	Trek they would call it "stasis" :-) for an hour or so.  I've
	also read or heard about experiments with mice and dogs that
	they've basically "frozen" (in this case they've actually replaced
	the blood or added some kinda of anti-freeze too, since otherwise
	the water in your body would crystalize, which damages tissue
	[probably like frost bite]) for longer periods of time.

	I just heard on CNN HN that this film will be edited to remove
	a scene that a Federal court has just ruled infringes on the
	copyright of some artist because the scene looks too much like
	one of that artists' paintings.  The artist sued after seeing
	the film, and hence the scene.

	I'm not sure if the film, which is still in theatrical release,
	will be pulled immediatly or what ..... (anyone have more info,
	CNN HN doesn't go into much detail ...)

    
    I wonder if Norman Rockwell ever sued the Beaver...

    
    
    My partner and I just saw this movie. I really liked it.
    I just have one question with regards to the kid in the airport.
    
    
    spoiler alert
    
    
    
    
    If Willis is travelling back from 1997 (which he says) and only a year
    to 1996 ( which he says ), then how can the kid in the airport be him 
    unless he has travelled back from the year 2020 or so??
    
    The kid has got to be around 10 or so...and Willis is looking 40 ish!
    
    The kid will not be the same age as Willis' character for a good long
    time.
    
    
    re Madeleine Stowe's character
    
    She said she remebered Willis' character as he was dressed in the
    airport which means she had been there before in the same way that
    the kid ( Willis ) remembered her in her outfit at the airport.
    
    It could be just coincidence but then again...it could be unexplained
    stuff that ended up on the editing room floor. She did say she had a
    feeling she had met him before and she did say this a few times.
    
    Has anyone read the book? Does it clear up any of this???
    
    
    Chris_dazed_and_confused
    :)
    

[spoiler answers]

> If Willis is travelling back from 1997 (which he says) and only a year
> to 1996 ( which he says ), then how can the kid in the airport be him 
> unless he has travelled back from the year 2020 or so??

	Sounds like someone went to get popcorn near the beginning of
	the movie :-)  The older Willis (the one doing the time traveling)
	is from farther in the future than 1997.

> It could be just coincidence but then again...it could be unexplained
> stuff that ended up on the editing room floor. She did say she had a
> feeling she had met him before and she did say this a few times.

	Don't forget his jump to WW1, where a picture of him was taken
	and ended up in her book ....
	(also see spoiling warnings in previous replies as there is
	a little bit of discussion on this)

    
    
    
    spoiler alert
    
    
    
    
    
    
    actually I do remember now that he did travel to 1997 to collect
    specimens and that's when he saw the animals in the city.
    
    but...Madeleine Stowe's character definitely said that she remembered
    Bruce Willis' character dressed as he was at the airport
    i.e mustache and long hair.
    
    
    Chris
    :)

    Saw this on Sunday and liked it a lot, needed to think a bit, but it's not
    too difficult to follow if you pay attention. Bruce Willis was good, as
    good as in Pulp Fiction, and Brad Pitt was marvellously manic.
    
    dickie.

    
    I saw this last night and liked it, although I didn't think it was
    complicated at all.  I found it very easy to follow and, if anything, I
    would have liked to have seen a little more of a convoluted plot.  The
    time travel was very well handled and all concerned turned in a very
    convincing performance (especially Pitt).
    
    spoily things:
    
    
    
    The woman at the plane on the end was a nice touch, although I got the
    impression that she was there to stop the global spread of the virus as
    he hadn't yet visited all the other locations where the virus was to be
    released.  With so many of her operatives about, they could have
    removed the security guard and prevented the disease ever happening. 
    The phrase "I'm in insurance" implied that she was planning on stopping
    the virus before it happened.
    
    
    I.

    
    
spoiler  alert
    
    
        
    
    re -1
    
    she stated at the beginning of the movie that the goal was to get
    a sample of the disease only. The past had already happened, all they 
    wanted was to effect their own future by developping a cure for
    the already existing disease.
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    I heard that part.  I just thought they'd maybe changed their minds. 
    You know, like you do.
    
    
    I.

    
    
    
    what do you mean " Like you do." ?
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    I've often changed my mind in the face of a deadly virus.  Haven't you?
    
    
    I.

    
    I caught this over the weekend on PPV and was impressed with Willis'
    acting in his role as convict "volunteering". I don't remember seeing
    any time-travel to go and collect specimens in 1997 mentioned anywhere.
    He did go back after initial outside collecting, to 1990, then back to
    future, back to 1996 and in the process got his picture taken in the
    191x's or early 1920's....the ending is what surprised me. I took Pitt
    to be a nutcase, and figured he would do the deed/be involved, but the
    deed turned out different than I expected which was a good surprise.
    
    My take on the woman on the plane was nothing at first till the
    girlfriend mentioned "did you recognize her?" and I had a blank stare,
    and she mentioned the scientist (she'd seen it before I did but didn't
    give much away prior to me watching it).....I said "oh!". Then it had
    me thinking they were going to take the virus and eradicate it, but
    then again, maybe just study it for a cure for the future....
    
    Terry Gilliam, isn't he one of the former Monty Python troopers?? Name
    is familiar....
    
    

Yes, he's a Python; he's the one that did the animations (though he did
show up in a few sketches, mostly either silent or with funny voices since
he's American).

But he's been doing a lot of directing.  Brazil, The Fisher King, Time Bandits,
Jabberwocky, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

    
    How are these movies as far as entertainment goes? I've been wanting to
    see The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, but was is Brazil about?
    
    And I still say BW did a good job in the movie, but the ending had me
    surprised! Good thing I've got it on tape, I can watch it again and pay 
    closer attention to it!
    

    I can't recommend the Fisher King highly enough -- it's one of the
    "least strange" of Gilliam's movies and I find it the plots of
    redemption and romance very appealing.  Robin Williams is very good in
    it and so is Jeff Bridges.  I think it's the most conventional of his
    films.
    
    
    Brazil is strange, but in a good way and not particulary uplifting,
    especially if you see the original ending.  I'd only recommend it to
    you if you enjoy unconventional movies.  
    
    Baron Munchausen was great, I thought.  :)  "It's Wednesday, sir..."
    Once you realize it's supposed to be a fairy-tale, more or less, it's
    very enjoyable.
    
    
    
    kim

    Oh, and Time Bandits was a hoot.  
    
    
    Jabberwocky, on the other hand, is the only movie I've ever not sat
    through to the end, no matter how bad they were.  That was many, many,
    many moons ago, maybe I'm more patient these days.
    
    
    kim