The Zero Theorem- 2 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

 The Zero Theorem is wacky and zany. It's problem is that it is too wacky and zany, I know that can actually happen. The Zero Theorem is Terry Gilliam's new film starring Christoph Waltz as Qohen Leth, a rather odd computer programmer who refers to himself as 'we', is tasked with cracking the code of whether life holds any meaning or not, the Zero Theorem. Now although Gilliam is probably known to most people from his work with Monty Python Gilliam has now become a serious film director (Brazil, 12 Monkeys) although he has kept his sense of humour.

 The Zero Theorem has numerous problems. One it is tonally confusing. This film could be really funny but it insists on being deadly serious at the same time which rather ruins the fun. The films second main error is focus. The film can be clearly divided into two halves. The first shows Qohen Leth's relationship with the prostitute Bainsley (played delightfully by Melanie Thierry and I'm not just saying that because she dances around in a very tight nurses outfit). The second shows Qohen's relationship with boy genius Bob the son of the all powerful Management (Matt Damon). Now the problem with this is that the relationships never really fully develop. In the first half there are hints that Bainsley has lost her father but this is never really followed up on. There is never really any explanation of her character or why she might fall in love with this very awkward computer programmer. Then in the second part we start to see a father son relationship develop between Leth and Bob. But again this comes to nothing really. Doesn't do anything for narrative or thematically. It feels like it's for nothing. 'Aha!' you (should) say. 'But isn't the whole point of the entire film that it is all for nothing' Yeah but that's just boring and rubbish. It can portray that theme without making the film really dead. The fact of the matter is that if everything is for nothing there is no tension and no excitement- no point in watching it or, at least no enjoyment watching it. The lack of focus is also shown by the fact that the Zero Theorem basically drops out of the film in the second half.

Christoph Waltz as Qohen Leth

The next criticism is that the film feels either too packed or not packed enough. What do I mean by that? Well I'm saying it's kind of half baked. Gilliam obviously wants to show the world of his imaginings in full but he just doesn't have the budget. This restricts us to only glimpsing images of the outside world. And the problem is those moments are the best. It's where Gilliam's talent as a visual artist shines through. But the with the budget restrictions we only see a little bit of the outside world and most of it is set in Leth's bizarre monastical house. This is frustrating as we are invited into this intriguing outside world and then shut out and dumped in Leth's house. The solution on Gilliam's budget would have been to have it all set in Leth's house. That sounds boring but in a world where you only have to connect yourself to a computer through a less organic version of the hairs in Avatar you can go anywhere from inside the house without having to spend money building street sets. This would also make the dream sequences a starker contrast and more engrossing because we would suddenly be experiencing something new. It would also reflect Leth's character- socially awkward and never going outside.

Melanie Thierry as Bainsley

Another criticism of the film is that it doesn't flow well as a narrative. At the end I was left thinking 'Is that the end or is there more?' This is partly due to its lack of build up to a climax. It kind of just happens. That makes for rather unsatisfying viewing. My final criticism of the film is the lack of any sense of paranoia created by the security cameras and constant surveillance that Leth is faced with. You kind of forget they're there which means when he dramatically destroys them it really means nothing at all. Again lacks any tension or engagement.

Ok so the film does have some good bits. If this film is anything to go by Melanie Thierry would make an excellent prostitute. Her performance is captivating and breathes life into the character and the film. If her character made sense it would have made her performance even better. Waltz is also fairly good as Leth. The film's main strength is its humour. It is genuinely funny. However, this is rather undermined by the poor characters and lack of a narrative really. There are also some nice visuals such as Jesus's head being replaced by a security camera representing the fact that Jesus has become 'the man' as it were- he has determined so many of societies laws through his teachings that he has become the representative of the establishment. The film does have serious points to make about the meaning of life but this is all rather lost in it all.

The Zero Theorem is a confusing film and certainly not one of Gilliam's best but it does still provide laughs and some food thought. Although, like many of Gilliam's this film is probably better after second watching and considerable thought, this is unlikely to be a classic.

Ratings: Entertainment: 4 Technical: 2 Intelligence: 3= 9/20 **




http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/styles/insert_main_wide_image/public/zero_theorem.jpg
http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/zero-theorem-christoph-waltz-570x294.jpg
http://www.cubecinema.com/media/diary/uploads_6426fbd0-da7f-4f0f-97c5-f02abb70a360-the-zero-theorem-2013-lff-terry-gilliam-christoph-waltz-melanie-thierry-david-thewlis-movi.jpg

Her- 4 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

 Her is a film that I really, really want to love. And it is a very likable and enjoyable film. It's funny, moving and intelligent. It made me laugh, (almost) made me cry and made me think as well. Her is also a film for just about anyone. For those of you who don't know what it's about, it stars Joaquin Phoenix as Theodore Twombly a lonely but not especially weird guy who, when he gets a new upgrade to his computer, falls in love with his new thinking and feeling OS called Samantha (basically Siri with Scarlett Johansson's voice). Now you may be thinking 'that sounds completely creepy' and you would be right but the completely believable way it is done makes you almost fall for the strange relationship that Theodore has with his computer (also it does help that Scarlett Johansson has the most erotic voice out there). They laugh together, play weird 3-D video games with a foul mouthed ghost and have phone sex with each other. The film works because the two characters interact with each other in such a believable and real way that it doesn't feel awkward at all. OK well it does, especially when Samantha hires a random woman to be her body when she has sex with Theodore. What Her does brilliantly is reel you in with this very touching and believable relationship in one minute and then make you realise how completely ridiculous and awkward it is in the next.

Joaquin Phoenix as Theodore Twombly

 The film however does have some failings which are so disappointing because this is a really brilliant film. There are three major flaws. The first is that Theodore does not feel real, in fact less real than Samantha. Now this may be intentional to make the audience consider whether Theodore and his feelings are in fact any more real than Samantha's but the problem with this is that it does wreck the whole real feel of the relationship. This means that the contrast between the moments when their relationship is natural and when their relationship feels awkward is lessened because they're relationship never really feels completely real. It is obvious that the director and writer Spike Jonze has tried to make Twombly believable, real and relatable. Well he obviously fell at the first hurdle by calling him Twombly. The stupidity of that name makes me want to cry. Then the geeky twitches in Phoenix's performance and the deliberately awkward delivery of dialouge just makes 'Twombly' unrelatable to and unreal. The performance isn't even off that much, Phoenix just needed to make the character a little more real and use fewer stereotypical mannerisms. As it is I was not convinced by the reality of Twombly and that made it hard to engage in the film.

My next criticism involves the ending which contains SPOILERS so if you haven't seen it is sufficient just to say that the ending feels contrived. So at the end the OS's all leave, including Samantha, leaving Theodore alone. The way this was done, in literally one scene where she tells him that she's going to leave, just made me go 'Wow, someone didn't know how to end this film.' It felt like a cop out, as if Jonze didn't know what he wanted to happen. OK there are numerous occasions when we're informed that Samantha isn't happy and is more advanced than Theodore meaning this wasn't completely out of thin air but it was still quite unsatisfying. My other criticism of the film, and my last, is that the second part of the film felt less focused and too rushed. The first part is very focused on the building up of the relationship and is perfectly paced. As a result it is engrossing and enjoyable watching. The second half however, is more of a bumpy train ride. As the relationship hurtles from problem to problem the film becomes less engrossing because none of the problems are resolved. The lack of any real resolution to these problems made me frustrated. The combination of several different problems means that by the end of the film it becomes harder to care about and empathise with the relationship. Again, perhaps Jonze is doing this to make the viewer realise how naive they were in just accepting this strange relationship between a man and his computer in the first half. However, it is alienating and creates a distance between the viewer and the film meaning that at the end it is hard to feel any pity for Twombly.

Olivia Wilde as 'The Blind Date'

 Anyway, on to the good bits! The best thing about this film is the way the relationship is handled, especially in the first part. The first part is brilliant cinema: uplifting, funny and moving. The relationship between Theodore and Samantha is very touching, especially when compared with the terrible relationship of Theodore's friend Amy (Amy Adams), his ex wife Catherine (Rooney Mara) and a terrible blind date with Olivia Wilde. It is funny and engaging cinema made even more real by the imagination of Jonze. Jonze's imagining of the future is one very similar to our current world. Everyone walks around with their heads buried in their phones/OS's, wear slightly retro clothes and play mindless video games (albeit 3-D ones). However, the best part of this futuristic imagining is Theodore's job. People send him samples of their handwriting and what kind of content they want in the letter. Theodore then dictates a letter of his imaginings to a computer which 'writes' it out on the screen and then prints it off with the persons handwriting used. This small detail just puts even more emphasis on the fact that we, the human race, are losing contact with each other- so much so that we go to the extent to have other people write are letters. Theodores's letter are also horribly cringey although everyone in the film lauds them as a masterpiece. This again shows that people are so out of touch with human emotions that they regard Theodore's over the top and melodramatic letters as works of art. There are also themes of what it means to be human in this film. Samantha is constantly questioning what she is: is she human, is she merely a computer, is she more than human?

Spike Jonze, director and writer of Her

Samantha is evolving all the time (or so she claims)- does this make her superior to Theodore. What is it that makes someone human? Is it having a body? Is it having feelings, thoughts, emotions? Are all Samantha's feelings just controlled by a computer or is she independent of that? There are many more questions like this brought up by Her. There are no conclusions offered but I like that- when a filmmaker offers their opinions on a subject it feels patronising and negates any need for thought after the film. It is interesting to read some reviews of Spike Jonze's previous films however. Spike Jonze's other successful films (Being John Malkovich and Adaption) have been scripted by Charlie Kaufman who is, in my opinion, the most exciting script writer in the world at the moment (or at least in the mainstream). However, many critics have wondered whether the intelligence in Being John Malkovich and Adaption has stemmed from Jonze or mostly just from Kaufman's screenplay. Her certainly proves that Jonze is an intelligent and exciting director and perhaps future screenwriter. If I have one criticism of the themes it is that the film is not very focused thematically. There is never any real development of the themes throughout the film. However, that is not too major a problem as it leaves it more open to interpretation. I certainly am looking forward to Jonze's next projects.

So in conclusion, Her is an ambitious film with various laughs and moving moments but also thoughtful too. It suffers from lack of focus in some places and can occasionally feel alienating but I would certainly recommend this film to anyone who likes romance films, not too action orientated sci fi or anyone just looking for an enjoyable film.

Ratings: Entertainment: 8 Intelligence 4 Technical 4= 16/20 ****



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Her2013Poster.jpg
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/12/17/her-fp-0864_wide-1921514ec201ced0a9f0385827ba5e1b7bf29287-s6-c30.jpg
http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/her-olivia-wilde.jpg
http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/J/Spike-Jonze-9542284.jpg