MovieChat Forums > The Zero Theorem (2014) Discussion > saw it today.... this isn't going to be ...

saw it today.... this isn't going to be a happy read guys.

posted 11 years ago by barrettbedlam
62 replies | jump to latest

It hurts me to say this, but I think Terry Gilliam has finally gone and lost me.
I'm not as happy with his latest as most critics are. Actually, that's an understatement. I'm not happy with the film. Period.
Maybe the film needs several viewings to latch on, maybe it isn't as clever as it thinks it is, or maybe I'm just not smart enough for it. But this does not feel like the same man who made Brazil, 12 monkeys or Fear and Loathing. Brazil and 12 monkeys had future visions that were genuinely frightening, because they were feasible, they were cautionary tales.
Zero Theorem's future isn't. It's hokey, its absurd and mostly its just impotent, because its now.
I bet if Gilliam had watched the Lego Movie a couple of weeks ago he might have been a little embarrassed, their universes share more than the odd idea (not a slight at the lego movie, it was very good).

Gilliam's eye is still everywhere though, he can still make a beautiful low budget "idea movie", but this film is basically Brazils little brother. Smaller, less inventive, and thinks it can get by by using the family name. Relying on obtuse storytelling to masquerade his tired ideas.
Gilliam, I think, is finally showing his age. he looks like a man who isn't really bothered about what the future may be, but instead is bitter about what the present has become. Which is fine, in theory, as that has fueled so many great stories... but his jibes are a little too on-the-nose to ignore.
A little originality could have gone a long way.

[–] alexsbigman 11 years ago

i'm banning you from the ZT board

[–] JazukaiX 10 years ago

You butthurt bro? Seems like it.

--
If I dont understand it, its a plot-hole!
-Average IMDB User

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] darksnapper99 11 years ago

Brazil was never about "the future", but about the present(as seen through Gilliam's lense back when he made the film). So was 12 Monkeys for that matter. I won't be able to see Zip-T until late summer, but I suspect it's present day satire rather than allegorical cautionary tale set in "the future". The future has come and gone. Where were you? Don't miss out the next time.

[–] barrettbedlam 11 years ago

I'll admit that most of the action in 12 monkeys is set in the "present day" but it is a time travel movie where we meet bruce willis in 2035, and Brazil is set in a retro-future world but I don't recall if a date is ever mentioned. Whilst 12 monkeys is not really allegorical of its times, it still brings to mind imagery of biological and germ warfare and terrorism which in the mid 90's were hotbed issues... remember how terrified the world was of Anthrax in the nineties?

Brazil was railing against the bureaucratic boom
12 monkeys (in a much smaller sense) portended the destruction of civilisation by terrorism

Zero Theorem has a similar distaste for number-crunchers and technology as Brazil had for bureaucracy. Its too repetitive of his previous (and much better) film. Had it been made 10-15 years ago, it might have been more impressive, or relevant. but it has mostly been done already. And done much better.

[–] ixusillwrath 11 years ago

Brazil isn't set in the future, past, or present. It's not set anywhere but a 'dystopic place'.

It's Theater of the Absurd, in the same spirit of Ionesco writing about everyone randomly transforming into rhinos for no good reason. The only theme of either being 'adapt or die'.

[–] ToddHere 10 years ago

I am sorry, but this movie was basically... boring. And I loved both Brazil and 12 Monkeys.

[–] RetroNewWave 11 years ago

Movies about the future are just as much if not more about the present day.

I was MovieKid56, but then I was cured alright

[–] tutankhaten 11 years ago

Barrettbedlam - good review, thanks.
I'm on/off with Gilliam movies - I find them totally compelling or of no interest whatsoever.
I suspect I'll wait for this one on DVD.

Star Stuff

[–] hell-cat-1 11 years ago

The movie wasn't great, it was not as clever as it thought it was and I think at time underestimating its audience, and generally didn't have a lot to say. I got all the Illuminati symbolism throughout the movie, the "put herbs in your water like fluoride" quote, the in your face advertising and the mindlessness of the future generation. However, as the OP stated, this is going on NOW, maybe it was the Gilliam's way of bringing this to light, but it is something we already know about (I refer to those who are aware of what's actually going on in the world).

Life is meaningless if you don't live it, obviously. And the religious aspect, people waste their lives and don't ponder why we exist at all. I don't know if this movie was intended to get people to think, but for those who think already it's a bit of a mess and quite tedious. I'm still not even sure how I feel about the movie to be honest.

[–] barrettbedlam 11 years ago

"I'm still not sure how I feel about the movie, to be honest."
That sums up how I felt after I left the theatre... I guessed I'd have to give it another watch, in a vain hope that I'd missed something.
but after trying to explain it to 3 other people, I realised I just simply didn't like it. The thought of going to watch it again was just deflating.

Nope... not this time Gilliam.

[–] dave1176 11 years ago

You pretty much summed up my feelings. The first part even made me feel I was watching a very low budget student-movie trying to copy Brazil. I did like some of the visuals and the acting, but apart from the actual zero theorem theme itself (of which I didn't think the hacking/solving was depicted especially cleverly) - the movie didn't seem to have much to say at all.

I am very perplexed how anyone can say this is Gilliam's best work in decades unless they were very very drunk when they saw it or just are pleased it looks a bit like Brazil.

[–] shine-2 11 years ago

Well Gilliam's films have always been empty, and weirdly overrated.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

like your personality?

[–] criztu 10 years ago

Life is meaningless if you don't live it, obviously.

Yeah, but how many people can afford living their lives? Most of us - including me - are forced to work, work, like a green Orc. All day. If you don't work, you die.

So how can you live, if the moment you stop working, you die?

You would think that being a citizen of the Occident, would empower guys like Gilliam to speak about the nature of exploitation, and how the prosperity of the Occident is achieved through the infinite exploitation of the rest of the world.
But no, Gilliam would probably be banned from the industry, the very moment he would dare criticize the system.

So what we get is neutered, sterilized, hollowed, inarticulate, rotten industrial waste, and rows of "artists" putting on an act, as the moment they'd dare to protest, they'd be punched in the face by the corporation, and sent back to painting the grass green, so the farce can go on...

This movie reminds me of Michael Jackson's glittering shows, exuberant embroidery, behind which there's a sad little boy, prisoner in his untreated mental affections, and prisoner of the system, forced to blurt out some bullsh!t to sell, or else.

[–] dustypistol 10 years ago

Yeah, but how many people can afford living their lives? Most of us - including me - are forced to work, work, like a green Orc. All day. If you don't work, you die.

...You obviously have time to watch Gilliam films and post on iMDB.

Michael Jackson... sad that by the time he was finally free of the tyranny of his father and had all the money he could ever want, fame, etc, he was too sick and too far gone to even quit and live a life he'd want to live.

That's what we do to the ones we "love" the most. Devour them with the hope a drop of their talent will change our lives... it won't... it belonged to them only.

[–] dbre 10 years ago

I got that it was the very near future. Nearer than we all want to imagine. The result is that the path we are on today are digging deep ruts that they are stuck in in the near future

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ixusillwrath 11 years ago

I haven't seen this one yet, so I won't discount your review. I just wanted to say that even though I thought the same thing after my first viewing of Tideland, it grew on me over time the same way almost every avant-garde album I listen to has.

I think on some primal level, and with some art, you just have to commit to something and want to like it and give it a few repeated viewings or listens to cement your mental relationship with it.

Lastly, you say Gilliam is becoming a man bitter about what the present has become. I disagree. I think he's always been that man from day one. He's always presented the perspective of the luddite in the face of increasingly complex technology. In his interviews he comes off as very traditionalist. New is bad, old is good. While he presents us with lavish, complex sets and innovative gadgetry, methinks it's a reflection of his own insecurities in the modern world. Just compare the way Gilliam sees something as mundane as a computer or a security camera compared to the way we see them.

[–] dbre 10 years ago

Or maybe new won't solve the problems we are trying to solve and they create a whole new set of problems for us

[–] barrettbedlam 11 years ago

Dont be an arse. Everyones opinion, provided it comes from experience, is valid.
The only invalid opinion is one of ignorance.

"I didn't watch this movie because its *beep* = invalid opinion
"I watched the film and thought it was *beep* = valid opinion

Another thing that pisses me off is some peoples reason for not watching a film.

"I didn't watch the film because I think it looks like *beep* = valid argument
"I've just heard about this film and have not seen a single frame, but I won't watch it because I think it'll be *beep* = invalid argument

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SloppyJ30 11 years ago

"I've just heard about this film and have not seen a single frame, but I won't watch it because I think it'll be *beep* = invalid argument

Not sure about that. When you've had bad experiences with Director A's or Actor A's movies, it's not necessary to do much beyond see a poster to know it's probably not worth your time. I think this is pretty normal human behavior, even for "open-minded" movie fans. Every actor and director we're familiar with carries baggage from previous films.

Do I owe Friedberg & Selter a certain amount of research before I decide to pass on their next comedy extravaganza? How about Uwe Boll? Adam Sandler? I have been unable to completely avoid seeing a few TV spots for "Blended," but pretty much crossed it off the "must-see" list as soon as I knew it existed.

Now, writing a review of a movie I haven't seen . . that's out of bounds.

-------------------------

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.

[–] nhnolan 10 years ago

I'd think director or actor A would fall into his first, valid argument, category.

[–] rosewood-6 11 years ago

I went to a screen in Orlando that had a Q & A session after the film with Pat Rushin, the screenwriter. I asked him what the inspiration for the film. He said that it was a quote in Ecclesiastes

“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”

[–] joshua-129 11 years ago

I know we're going to win the unpopularity contest, but as much as I respect and admire Gilliam, these movies just aren't any good. I know I come off as an unsophisticate, but they just don't work as movies. Not just this one, although this one is the worst.

I defended Greenaway's Baby of Macon, and Schrader's The Canyons, but this thing is just dumb, cliched - "hokey."

Hopefully this is his nadir, like Cronenberg's "Spider," and he'll bounce back.

[–] heelmaster2000 11 years ago

I haven't watched the film so I have no idea whether it is good or not, but after seeing the trailer I feel like the OP. This film just doesn't seem like a Gilliam film to me in either appearance, texture or tone. I could be very wrong about this, but I am not ashamed to say that the trailer has done little to encourage me to watch the film.

[–] alexsbigman 11 years ago

you're all idiots, TZT is going to be landmark

[–] rosewood-6 11 years ago

I saw it a couple of weeks ago and really think that it has the look and feel of a Gilliam movie. The visual perspective has the oblique angles and richness in detail that scream Gilliam to me. The tone is dark and complex. In many ways, it reminds me of "Brazil."

[–] all-english-society 10 years ago

Very Brazil, indeed. I also found it completely mesmerizing, I couldn't look away. Not sure how much of it I truly understood though, as it seems rather random, or stream of consciousness at times.

[–] MarshallStax 10 years ago

Funny you say that, since "Spider" is one of my favorite Cronenberg films. I'd say his nadir is "Cosmopolis".

All Art is pretense.

[–] rosewood-6 8 years ago

There is a difference between "It is no good." and "I didn't like it." Just because you don't like something does not mean that it is no good.