Uploaded by vtwin88cube | Size 2.39 GB | Health [92/9] | Added 24/01/23 06:55 |
Uploaded by Maxoverpower | Size 3.76 GB | Health [10/2] | Added 16/10/23 17:58 |
Uploaded by nitro85 | Size 82.37 GB | Health [10/14] | Added 26/11/23 22:16 |
Uploaded by GalaxyRG | Size 1,002.06 MB | Health [9/3] | Added 19/03/21 16:43 |
I rented and carefully watched this movie from beginning to end (back in 1996) and can assure you with great disappointment that there are no monkeys anywhere doing anything relevant. It's a very deceptive title. |
Add to the list: any movie with "monkey" in the title is to avoid at all cost. |
Saw this years ago, didn't quite get it. Maybe its time to make sense of it. Thanks for the upload |
probably one of the most boring snoozers ever produced, well this and 2001 space odyssey! |
an animal rights group called the Army of the Twelve Monkeys just to clear up the missing monkeys in the film.I will also agree one of willis,s better films....... audio 10 vido 10 |
I watched this movie when it first came out in a Montreal theatre - before home computing and Internet. I think it's relevant today than then. |
Personally, I think the movie appeals to me because it has a story that ties-in to my biologist training and roots, the narrative has remained appropriate and doesn't appear that dated. Willis is fine as a leading man. He is charismatic and entertaining, and manages to breathe some action and life wherever it's needed, and he's supported by excellent character actors in the shape of Plummer, Stowe and Pitt. Whilst Terry Gilliam remains one of the most artistically original directors in the genre. So, not "because of" nor "despite of", but due in part to Willis' performance, because an actor is part of a creative team that delivers a relevant and entertaining piece of their art. So, from a personal perspective, the movie scores a7.5, probably nearer an 8, out of 10. But of course, that's a subjective review, as these things must always remain. Hope that's OK Guest-3677, who feels that somehow, not even having a regular "screen-name" from which to bear responsibility for critique is a position that allows you to throw metaphorical stones in an acceptable manner. Here I am, feeding the animals again. Will I NEVER learn? |
"Guest-3677" is as much a screen name as "LiberalLesbo". When will you members get over yourselves and admit that you're just as much anonymous as any guest and as such bears as little "responsibility for critique". Each and everyone of you hides behind a chosen anonymity. Get of you high horses. |
You speak of "animal" when someone questions whether it's a Bruce willis movie or a movie with Bruce Willis in it. Weren't you telling others to not insult users of this site? Please acknowledge the beneficial use of a mirror. |
Oh Hell!! Am I going to agree with jaxe??!! Yeah, my favorite Bruce Willis movie bar none. Thank you GalaxyRG |
You should ask yourself whether this movie is great because of or despite Willis. I'm worried that neither you nor jaxe even considered that question. Darn shame. |