Change Your Image
nfinitemonkeys
Reviews
The Zero Theorem (2013)
A mixed bag, many good concepts without a core
{Mild Spoilers. Little that was not in Trailers.}
I have a fondness for Terry Gilliam. He has shown himself to be a filmmaker capable of making some truly outstanding and memorable works.
I just watched The Zero Theorem and gave myself a few days to ponder it. It does require some pondering as it has many concepts which are highly abstracted. I love the unconventional way he approaches society, putting people in worlds with nonsensical rules, yet which look like they make sense in that isolated context. They look like Dr. Seuss worlds, places with a working order, but which it is impossible to imagine how such places could have developed naturally. Then again bats developed sonar and flight, both necessary to capture their insect diet, but unlikely to have developed simultaneously or slowly over time.
On the plus side, I do think the performances were stellar, the visuals were dead on, and the whole picture just screams Terry Gilliam. If Christoph Waltz got an Oscar, I would not think it undeserved. I think this is exactly the film Terry Gilliam wanted, exactly the performances he asked for, and exactly the way he envisioned it.
Which brings me to the minus side. I think where the movie falls very flat for me is the world system, programming 'entities and analyzing the 'entities' to prove a lack of meaning to existence, and the deliberately abstracted emotional performances, particularly Christoph Waltz and Matt Damon, left me uncertain what I was supposed to be feeling at any point in the movie. Christoph Waltz is waiting, without any actual reason, for a phone call that will give him purpose, one which he disconnected years earlier. He courts blandness, perhaps to detach himself from the temptations of this reality so he can 'leave' it. But he doesn't really change when he succumbs or restarts his detachments. Mention is made of past relationships, ex- wives, etc... by all parties, but these are paper histories with no plot context.
Very quickly as the movie got going, it made no sense even as a metaphor for any mortal existence, so I tried plugging in the various roles in heavenly or hellish aspects. Was Qohen God, trapped in a daze of uncertainty and Matt Damon the Devil, well, bedeviling him with misdirections and distractions? Or was Matt Damon God, trying to force someone to feel purpose by making them seek the opposite. Was there no God in this story, just clay-footed figures stumbling through existence without realizing their effect on another plane? Try as I might, the threads for this metaphor were too opaquely drawn. Like string theory, any of a hundred ideas will produce the same outcome, so all are equally valid and invalid. From the uncertainly uncomfortable existence at the beginning to the blithely tranquil end, I was not left wondering deep questions, but instead wondering WHAT questions I should be wondering. Like Jackson Pollock, who 'intentionally obliterated any symbols' in his works, I think Terry Gilliam dove too deeply down a rabbit hole that 107 minutes was insufficient to allow me to follow the trail. Perhaps this would have been better if Terry Gilliam had allowed more clarity from either Qohen or Management, but even as philosophical stand-ins, they too no really solid positions. Management could have been seeking the Zero Theorem hoping to prove it, hoping to misdirect and prove the opposite, or merely as an exercise to distract. Who knows?
I love deeply psychological dramas, and think Science-Fiction is never better than when it asks questions that cannot be reached in real world situations. But whatever Terry Gilliam was driving at was too emotionally disconnected and conceptually abstracted for me to decipher. I still rate the movie as something worth watching, but I doubt I'll ever go back to it like Brazil, Munchhausen, or even Time Bandits.
Lucy (2014)
Addressing the 'Sci-Fi' and Third Act questions
(Spoiler Alert)
This is not going to be a comprehensive review, but a response on two subjects. Whether the movie is sci-fi and whether it goes off the rails and has a 'meh' ending after a satisfying beginning.
Science Fiction has many facets, one being a love of actual science and seeing it taken to extremes, projected into the future, etc... Another aspect, which it shares with Fantasy, is that it allows a storyteller to get at questions that couldn't be realized in ordinary situations. The outrageous science element allows a human/ethical/moral dilemma to exist and keeps that from seeming outrageous.
From about 30 minutes in, Lucy knows she is dying and, despite the (spoiler) extreme transformation at the conclusion, she doesn't try to find a way to continue normally, or even super-normally.
I think the answer to both of these complaints exists in the nature of the conclusion. (Spoiler) This does not end in a 'human-centric' way. It does not end with boy/girl gets girl/boy or good guy beats/reforms bad guy, etc... Transcending even human desire for living is the solution Lucy considers superior. I mean if she can transform herself into a computer and see/travel through time, then she could probably repair or clone herself or come up with some other similar feels- better ending.
Some of the most classic science fiction explores the horrible situation where something essential is removed from a person's being. Frankenstein (yes it was science fiction. Biology is science, people) was conceived during the birth of electricity and discovery that man- controlled currents could move and affect human tissue/muscle. Dracula (a bit more of a stretch) was conceived during the discovery period of blood-borne diseases, disease transmission, blood transfusion factors, etc... Robocop, the Matrix, Total Recall, and many others examine the loss of self or some essential facet of humanity. Lucy chooses that loss of self and in that way makes itself stand out from other such films in a way that at least presents some interesting science fiction.
Was it the greatest science fiction movie of the year? Nope. Would it have had less appeal if not for ScarJo starring? Yes. Does Luc Besson have a hit/miss record with nothing in between? Yes, and this one is a soft hit. In the end, I know I'll watch it again at some future date because I know I'll re-watch a movie with an interesting theme more often than one that just flashes explosions on the screen.