Skip to main content

These are the guys that have been killing you.

12:01
(1993)

(SPOILERS) 12:01, a Fox Network TV movie, was first shown the same year as Groundhog Day, that much feted classic of the one-day-repeated micro-genre that also includes the recent Edge of Tomorrow/Live. Die. Repeat., The X-FilesMonday and Source Code. It had previously been made as a short three years earlier, with Kurtwood Smith.  Indeed, Richard Lupoff, Jonathan Heap and Philip Morton, the writers, sued the Groundhog Day people, claiming plagiarism. 12:01 is a serviceable little movie, engagingly told, but it’s easy to see why it hasn’t entered into the annals like its more illustrious companions.


Indeed, even The X-FilesMonday (from the recharged sixth season), is superior, telling its story effectively and punchily in half the time. Like Edge of Tomorrow and Source Code, 12:01 attempts an explanation behind its conceit, rather than it all just being magic to cause a shift in its wayward protagonist’s outlook. This forms the underpinning of events and the murder narrative, but like Groundhog Day it’s driven by a love story.


Barry (Jonathan Silverman, a more affable Judd Nelson) is a bored and put-upon personnel department employee of a company conducting experiments into particle physics. He moons from afar over scientist Lisa (Helen Slater) and ritually gets drunk with buddy and practical joker Howard (Jeremy Piven, basically setting out the store for his entire career). Lisa is shot dead, and that night Barry suffers an electric shock from a lightning strike at the same time (unbeknownst to anyone else, since the device is supposed to have been shut down) that a faster than light particle experiment is being conducted.


Barry awakes the next morning to find himself reliving his previous day. As you can probably guess, his main endeavours, once he gets the measure of his predicament, is to woo/save the life of Lisa, which inevitably leads to working out just who is responsible for her (attempted) murder and for continuing the (banned) experiment. Along the way there are a series of quirky little signatures (the collapsing office chair is effectively the same as Ned Ryerson and the puddle in Groundhog Day) and amusement resulting from learnt behaviours and observations of others (in particular, Barry’s reactions to his overbearing boss Robin Bartlett have something of Office Space’s relishable contempt for to all things oppressively officious).


Silverman’s solid, Slater’s incredibly likeable, Piven’s Piven, and Martin Landau as head of the project Dr Moxley is as reliable as you’d expect. There’s also a decent Danny Trejo cameo.


12:01 isn’t quite able to grasp the same giddy mettle as some of its stable mates, however. Jack Sholder (Freddy’s Revenge, cult classic The Hidden) does an effective and pacey job, but the final act reduces to efficient-but-bland straight thriller antics. There’s also only one instance where the go-for-it side of repetition is fully embraced for humorous effect; Barry awakes, galvanised, heads out to work, only to be hit head on by a car, killed, and awakes again; that kind of shorthand gag could have been used to knock the movie out of the park (as both Groundhog Day and Edge of Tomorrow exploited). As it is, Barry is only caught in his loop for about four days, by the looks of things.


The moral of the piece is much more effective, if still glib, than the meal The Age of Adaline makes, only coming from a different angle; “That’s why life is so precious. Because time passes”. Worth a look then, if a lesser entry in the repeated day cycle, and 12:01 can currently be seen on YouTube. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.