Critics’ reviews

Twelve Monkeys (1995)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 69: 5 positive, 1 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Twelve Monkeys

69
Positive
5
Mixed
1
Negative
1

Most critics respond warmly to Twelve Monkeys, with praise centred on Terry Gilliam’s distinctive visual world, bleak atmosphere and ambitious time-travel storytelling. The performances provide an emotional foothold amid the disorientation, particularly Bruce Willis’s anguished, inward-looking turn. For the more enthusiastic reviews, the intricate plotting rewards attention and repeat viewing, while the uncertainty surrounding sanity and perception gives the science fiction something troubling to explore.

The disagreement concerns how much confusion the film earns. Empire finds a coherent plot beneath the difficult structure; Variety argues that visual invention overwhelms dramatic logic and leaves the cast struggling with cartoonish characters. Between those positions, even sympathetic reviews note distracting camerawork, uneven pacing or an overextended script. The spread is wide rather than uniformly approving: most critics find feeling and purpose in Gilliam’s complications, but the strongest dissent sees a failure to make the story work.

Empire
1 January 2000 · Kim Newman
80*

The critic praises the film's complex, coherent time-travel plot and emotional core despite its disorienting structure. Gilliam's visual flair and strong performances, especially from Bruce Willis, are highlighted as strengths that make it rewarding on rewatch.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · David Parkinson
80

The critic calls the labyrinthine sci-fi thriller very much the work of Terry Gilliam, who imposes his own pseudo-poetic vision onto the doomed world. They single out Bruce Willis's anguished introvert performance as what holds the gripping, hauntingly atmospheric film together.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
27 December 1995 · Kenneth Turan
70*

Gilliam's direction fills the film with strange and wonderful sights but often distracts from plot mechanics, making it baffling and difficult to follow at times. It ultimately builds dramatic momentum in an unconventional way that a more straightforward version probably would not achieve.

Read the full review →
Time Out
16 January 2012 · TCh
65*

The critic describes Gilliam's apocalyptic fantasy as even weirder than it sounds and a spectacularly disorienting inaction movie rather than a typical action pic. They call it a terrible mess but a terribly beautiful, tender one, praising Gilliam's lunatic poetry while noting issues with narrative pacing.

Read the full review →
Variety
21 December 1995 · Emanuel Levy
30*

Gilliam constructs an overwhelming visual universe but neglects dramatic logic and narrative coherence, resulting in a spectacular mess that is excessively complicated and ultimately a box-office disappointment. The stellar cast cannot overcome the cartoonish characters or the film's lack of humor and sharp commentary compared to the director's prior work.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
29 June 2011 · Stephen Carty
85*

The critic calls the film dark, bleak and mind-bending, declaring it as good as sci-fi gets and one of the standout examples of the genre. They single out Gilliam's distinctive visuals, foredoomed atmosphere and clever handling of time-travel paradoxes for praise.

Read the full review →
Collider
18 February 2023 · B+ · Elisa Guimarães
83

The critic highlights Gilliam's focus on the blurred line between sanity and insanity, with strong performances and ambitious time-travel storytelling that holds up, while noting flaws like some overly disorienting camera work and a slightly bloated script.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
23 September 2009 · 4 out of 5 · Carley Tauchert

The critic calls Twelve Monkeys one of Gilliam's most successful films and praises its intricate, thought-provoking plot and visual style as a strong sci-fi drama open to interpretation. They single out Brad Pitt's Oscar-nominated performance as Jeffrey Goines for particular praise.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate