New Terry Gilliam film provokes, but doesn't innovate.

We all know Terry Gilliam for who he once was. For some, he is the soul behind the visual folly of the Monty Python films. For others, he is the visionary director of the ’80s and ’90s, when he directed such milestone films as “Brazil” (1985), “12 Monkeys” (1995), and “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” (1998). In any case, Terry Gilliam’s name and career seem to be adding up to something. Without a doubt, Gilliam once was a master.

So what is left of him today? What does his work respond to in modern society? Does he still have something to say?

“Everything adds up to nothing” seems to be the guiding line of his latest opus, “The Zero Theorem.” During the entire movie, Christoph Waltz’s character Qohen Leth wants to find an answer to this question: Can the zero theorem be proven? He searches and searches; he loses himself inside a giant black hole that appears out of nowhere. Qohen struggles with mathematics and at the same time looks for the meaning of life. He waits for a phone call which we all know will never come, tries to find love, learns to be a friend, and rebels against the Orwellian society he lives in. A bit too much, isn’t it?

That is just how the movie feels. Just like its main character, the film never seems to find its true identity or its consistency. The script wanders off here and there. The plot is cliché and unreadable at the same time. As an audience, we don’t just struggle to figure out what the heck the zero theorem will add up to; we struggle to keep our eyes on the screen.

First of all, the story doesn’t seem to be saying much of anything. Gilliam constantly covers up the lack of substance with visual gimmicks, which sometimes are absolutely brilliant. For example, he compares solving an equation and designing a building. We are left wondering, “does Terry still have something to say?”

If we compare this film to “Brazil” (which I consider to be a visionary work of art), we find many parallels. The plots are basically identical. An individual crushed by a totalitarian system fights back and then finds refuge in an illusion. So, in 30 years, the plot has not changed, and neither has the point of view. This is probably the most disturbing, fundamental issue with “The Zero Theorem.” Terry Gilliam depicts society in 2014 in the same way he depicted it in 1985. Our society has changed. It is no grand statement to say that phones, computers, iPads, and other technological devices are integral parts of our lives today. Everyone knows it. Not everyone agrees with it. However, that is another matter. Gilliam seems to denounce what he foresaw thirty years ago. But now that the future is here and present, we need a point of view that takes our modern lives into account, not a voice from the past yelling, “I told you so.” Now that it’s here, what do we do with it? Do we crash it with a hammer like Qohen does, or do we think properly and have a real discussion about it?

The feeling that also arises when we look at these two films simultaneously is comparable to the one I had when watching “The Wolf of Wall Street.” It’s the feeling of a director trying to do the same film he did thirty years ago, but worse. If “The Wolf of Wall Street” is a pale copy of “Casino,” “The Zero Theorem” is a pale attempt to modernize “Brazil.” It’s the feeling of a director losing his breath, working with people who try to “sound like” their mentors.

The second issue I would like to raise about “The Zero Theorem” is its aesthetics. It is widely known that Gilliam had extreme financial difficulties in building up the project. Producers backing out, actors refusing roles, and a terrible promotion did not guarantee the film to be successful. The film, shortly said, is cheap, and that is far from being a crime. However, the film also looks terribly cheap. This is not a question of high or low budget: Some of Hollywood’s biggest productions waste millions of dollars on expensive effects and still manage to look ugly and cheap, while some micro-budget films manage to look strong and sophisticated. “The Zero Theorem” suffers from a lack of depth: all the sets look weak, fake, and inconsistent. The actors are horribly dressed, to the point where all the costumes seem to come straight from a Craigslist sale. The film tries to be big and somehow epic, but it’s betrayed by cheap looks. For example, Gilliam constantly uses the same camera movements and angles, with the purpose of making everything look more grand and distorted. “The Zero Theorem” ends up looking more like a promising thesis film than a work by a great and accomplished film director. It’s interesting to consider that Terry Gilliam’s old films seem unbelievably modern today, whereas his 21st century efforts look so terribly outdated.

Yet, it is impossible for me to completely dislike the movie. While it has many problems, it manages to retain a certain charm. It may be a bad Terry Gilliam film, but it still is a Terry Gilliam film. It has a little something that keeps you from hating it, although you may still find it terrible. Christoph Waltz’s performance is brilliant; he carries the entire movie on his shoulders. His rendition of Qohen is challenging, disturbing, and odd, yet utterly charming and touching. His weirdness adds  to the film’s weirdness, and quite surprisingly, it does add to something, contradicting the film’s guiding line. As chaotic as it may be, “The Zero Theorem” still manages to make you feel like you haven’t wasted your time. You will think about the zero theorem. You will try to figure it out. And maybe you will watch it again, just to be sure that you’re not completely lost, even if Terry Gilliam seems like he might be.