[ThumBlister]

The ThumBlister Facebook and Twitter are officially up. Follow at  https://www.facebook.com/ThumBlister and  http://twitter.com/ThumBlister

[EyeSore] Prometheus Review

2D Version - Review by: Brandon Patton

For what seems like eternity, mankind has been divided on a single issue. The struggle with the 'difficult' question of who made us and why. Some support Darwinism, others Creation. Director Ridely Scott will use this natural human curiosity to fuel the Macguffin for the majority of his newest film, "Prometheus". But to his downfall he will never actually answer anything except how to not handle the exploration of a new planet.

While on screen, characters will argue the finer points of what primal oozes formed humanity, off screen a different division will occur. Splitting viewers right down the center, there will be those who love and worship both this movie and its lore, surely as much as Ridley Scott's other films “Blade Runner” and the original “Alien”. Then there will be those, like myself, who see the lore as contrived almost to the point of becoming cliché.

The good news is, regardless of which side of the line you may stand, everyone will be in agreement to the utter beauty Scott has managed to put onto film. From the first shot until the last, “Prometheus” is filled with simply breathtakingly large scenes. Over the past years Hollywood has begun to shift away from these tall, and expensive, shots toward more up close and personal ones. Forgetting that it is those shots specifically that make some of our most memorable scenes in film history.

Clearly the one drawing parallels to “Prometheus” is “2001: A Space Odyssey”, and for good reason. Both films not only have long and detailed shots of space, they also delve into the history of human evolution. Finally, and most obviously, both have creepy robot characters. It wasn't a coincidence that Michael Fassbender's character was named David. In essence “Prometheus” is exactly the film you would expect if “Lost” co-creator and “Prometheus” writer Damon Lindelof were to write his own version of Space Odyssey.

As I continue with this review, I will call this film a failure. That being said, “Prometheus” is a total achievement in cinematography. It will be absolutely worthless outside of the theater, so anyone even remotely considering seeing this film do so now. Find the biggest screen in your area, and go not for the story, but for a visual feast. +1

Big things have poorly written beginnings.

So, I have found myself on more than one occasion wondering about the existence of a hole in the thermal exhaust port of the original DeathStar, and how it was ignored. However, that has nothing on the blatantly ignored plot holes literally filling “Prometheus”. I like to call these, Swiss Cheese Films, and this is the worst case I may have ever seen.

As we technically are at an 11/10 score for “Prometheus” I thought it would be fun to play a game. I am going to base my score on plot holes. For every hole I will remove a point, while also attempting to leave the review spoiler free. Here goes:

• After exploring this completely foreign planet for not even 10 minutes, the 'scientists' all remove their helmets because there was some oxygen. Never mind that any other pathogens could be in the area, it's cool lets just take off our only protective layer. What's worse is had this event not happened, the entire film could have been avoided. -1

• The Geologist shown as mapping the entire cave system, and actually having a digital map, gets lost. Everybody clearly can tell his car is not gone, but I guess they just don't like him because they don't give it a second blink. -1

• This is around 70-80 years in our future. Each character has a camera attached to their helmets, but not one has DVR (Recording). Sure is convenient, given all the crap going down. -1

• How someone can magically, off screen of course, walk across the planet from one place to another without a helmet. -1

• A fully grown man, who apparently went to college, tries to pet an alien snake. Just reaches right on out for a pet. Spoiler Alert: He may or may not still have that hand. -1

• How this is supposed to be the prequel to Alien, and yet this is confirmed to be a totally different planet, making that fact physically impossible. -1

• This films existence voiding out the entire Alien vs Predator series. -1

I may be the first to say so, but there is a completely lackluster performance across the acting board. Charlize Theron isn't even trying, not that the script gives her much to work with. But the real failure here is Noomi Rapace. She is just a bore, and cannot deliver these hokey lines with enough seriousness to bring a needed realism to the film. It isn't just that she's up against Sigorney Weaver either, Noomi's performance isn't much better than one seen on an average episode of Stargate.

What about Michael Fassbender you ask? Don't all the reviews praise him as a golden acting god? Yes they do. Those critics also clearly never watched an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, where an emotionless Data is constantly dealing with the struggle of trying to both feel and understand emotions. Michael just plays his David android with a dead pan face that anyone could produce. Had he been allowed to break some boundaries of feeling, I am sure Michael could have delivered in spades. But as the script dictated his character was a by the books computer, there was no leeway for him to do so. -1

Finally, and this can be considered a mild spoiler. The absolutely asinine explanation of how the Xenomorphs came into being. You see it coming, and think it can't be this stupid, but it never stops. That said, this reveal does lead to one amazingly violent, but well delivered, freak out scene. Thus it's a draw.

“Prometheus” just fails as a story, let alone a continuation of the Alien mythology. Great camera work, effects, and set design may try but cannot overcome the plot holes, bad acting, and poor direction littering this film like rotten fruit. The fact remains: you can paint a rotten banana yellow, but don't expect any monkeys to take a second bite. I won't be.

I AM A GOOD ACTRESS!

“Prometheus”gets a 3 out of 10.

[EyeSore] Moneyball Review

[Moneyball]

   "Moneyball" being nominated for Best Picture this year came as a surprise to me. Not that there is anything wrong with the film, it is actually really good. It's just that nothing really separates “Moneyball” from the many, feel good sports movies before it, and no part of this film makes it worthy of the honor bestowed prior Oscar nominated sports films, such as "Field of Dreams".

   Brad Pitt plays the General Manager of a failing baseball team The Oakland Athletics. Having just lost the World Series, his team begins being sold off, forcing him to rebuild. The film then transitions into your standard sports movie formula. Brad Pitt hires Jonah Hill to be his creative force behind hiring a rag-tag team of nobodies ala “D2: Mighty Ducks” to create a World Series worthy team.

   Speaking of Jonah Hill, he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for this film. Thank goodness he did not win. Jonah Hill was just being Jonah Hill, not a scene went by where I was unaware Superbad was on screen. How this nomination happened was beyond me. -1

   “Moneyball” should be commended for it's ability to take the occasionally dull sport of baseball, and turn it into something truly interesting. Not only by making the sport itself interesting, but by making the 'behind-the-scenes' business side equally as fascinating. In fact the majority of the film puts a magnifying glass on this aspect of baseball, and props to Brad Pitt for being able to make it seem suspenseful as the games themselves.

   Near the end of the film, things take a turn for the worst. Without spoiling the results, the World Series does not end the film. Nor do we as viewers get to even see it. They simply tell you the results via a short voice over, followed by 15 minutes of worthless scenes telling the future of Brad Pitt's character. A part usually reserved for fading words during the ending credits. This ending may not have been as big a problem had the audience been able to see the World Series. After watching the team win 20 games in a row, the viewers are entitled to see how their story ends, and this early promise is just not delivered. -1

“Moneyball” Gets an 8 out of 10.

[EyeSore] Midnight in Paris Review

[Midnight in Paris]

   Woody Allen's “Midnight in Paris” is hands down my favorite film of the last year. I rarely enjoy Woody Allen's movies, but this one was just a perfect combination of wonderfully funny script, fantastic acting, and engrossing story it was impossible not to fall in love. In fact I may have fallen head over heels.

    Woody Allen is notorious for never letting his plots be known. As such I went into this film with little to no expectations. Count me surprised to find merely minutes into the film, I was quickly enthralled. By the time the twist kicks in, I was hooked. The plot takes off like a rocket.

    You owe it to yourself to watch this film unawares. Being surprised by a plot point in film nowadays is about as rare as finding a Starbucks around the next block. This story took me by surprise, and kept my interest the whole way through. Without giving anything away, the overall feel of this film left me both nostalgic for the past, while simultaneously contemplating the perspective of my present. The matters brought to light in “Midnight in Paris” are very serious and true, but are delivered with such whimsy they are easy to digest. After this movie you will find yourself not only thinking, but really feeling something. Not many films manage that these days.

    Owen Wilson leads the cast of “Midnight in Paris” basically playing himself. He is on screen 100% of the time, guiding the audience through a beautifully shot Paris. At the point of the plot twist, his acceptance and delivery of said twist is genuine and hilarious. Owen manages to hold his own as the lead, even when put up against many huge actors.

    Many being a loose term, because this film is cameo heaven. Every scene introduces a new character, usually played by a very recognizable actor. All of which seem to be just having a blast in their roles.

    However, no actor in the entire film holds a candle to Corey Stoll's portrayal of a writer, who shall go unnamed for the sake of the awesome reveal . That he was passed over for a Supporting Actor Nomination in place of Jonah Hill is a complete travesty. This became one of my favorite rolls ever, and he delivers the most ridiculous lines in such a way that they are both believable and absolutely absurd.

    Having just watched this film a second time on DVD, I believed my high opinion would waver. I did not expect the humor or story to hold, now knowing the twist. This was not the case. I found myself laughing just as much as the first time through, possibly even enjoying it more. This will become a purchase for me, and is must watch for anyone in need of a clever and truly original comedy.

“Midnight in Paris” Gets a 10 out of 10.

[EyeSore] Tree of Life Review

[Tree of Life]

   Oh boy, what can't I say about “Tree of Life”...

   Ok, I have to come clean. I did not finish this film. It is just a waste of time, plain and simple. In fact, I was forced to create a new word to describe this film. “Fartisticrap” a special combination of artsy fartsy crap.

   Let it be known, I do not walk out on movies. In fact, in my entire life I have only ever walked out on 2 films, the last one being Superman Returns. To put this into perspective, I actually finished M. Night Shyamalan's “Last Airbender” in one sitting. So I know what I'm saying when I say “Tree of Life” is the slowest, most random piece of “Fartisticrap” I have seen since my French Film History class. Critics and Academy may praise this film, but by doing so they are simply pointing out their pretentious snobbery, as they assume 'hidden meaning' where there is none to be had.

   Obviously I cannot review “Tree of Life” the way I normally review films, by taking points away. As such, I think it only fair that I begin at 0 and try, deep down, to find reasons to provide points to the film.

   Having had time to think about it, I have to say, I am still not quite sure why it was filmed the way it was. For every good scene that finally began to assemble some form of a story, the film would suddenly cut to random “Fartisticrap” shots of space, galaxies, and nebula. If Saturday Night Live were to make a skit on random pointless stuck up “Film School” movies, this would be that skit. Actually, watching it in this manner makes it a lot better. +1

   Also, the acting was good, for what little scenes I saw that had actual actors, and not flowing clouds of nebula. +1

So, for now “Tree of Life“ gets a 2 out of 10.

[EyeSore] Hugo 3D Review

[Hugo]

   “Hugo” is Martin Scorsese's first run at a 3D motion picture, and one of the few 3D films actually shot for the format.

   This is instantly noticeable as the film begins its opening shots. Hugo, our main character, is introduced as he goes about his daily chores around his home. This home isn't as you would expect, as Hugo resides in the massive clock tower of a train station. Our first shot of Hugo follows him through the entire station, one of the largest full sets I have seen in recent memory, without ever cutting. For anyone who still doubts 3D in modern film today, see this opening shot and your opinion will instantly change. The camera adds huge depth as it zooms  in and around Hugo as he runs through the inter-workings of a clock, past pipes and cogs all without a single cut. Even though Hugo failed to be my favorite film of the year, this was easily my favorite scene.

   Sadly the amazing quality of it's opening is never quite reached again. The film eventually becomes just standard fair, with a few 3D scenes interspersed amongst the story. Now those scenes do stand out as the best 3D has to offer today, but they barely make up 10 minutes of the film. -1

   As for said story, it will appeal to a very limited crowd, and definitely not the crowd it is directed at. Aimed for children as a kids film, “Hugo” passes them over completely with a mature coming of age story, primarily made for adults. With the bulk of the story surrounding an old 'real life' silent film director Georges Melies, and his prior work, the movie instantly alienates average viewers.

   Most people will become lost midway through, around when the mystery behind who Georges is becomes revealed. It is a huge build up, for frankly a poor reveal. The audience was expecting more. And while I found it did add to the overall story, it took the film into an entirely different direction. -1

   This essentially splits the film into two halves. The first part is filled with amazing scenery, a detailed mystery that keeps you guessing, and truly mind blowing 3D effects. Then suddenly the second part kicks in, and the story begins. Everything comes to a screeching halt. The mystery is over, we leave the train station far to often, and the 3D becomes unnoticeable. All of this begins to cause a drag, and where the first hour and a half went by in an instant, I suddenly found myself checking the time. There is no way a small child would sit through the second half, and have any understanding of what was happening, let alone enjoy it. -

   Score aside I want to make it clear, as a film major, I completely understood and loved this film. It does run a bit too long, but was easily worthy of its Best Picture Nomination.

“Hugo” Gets a 7 out of 10.

[EyeSore] The Artist Review

[The Artist]

   “The Artist” won this years Best Picture Oscar, among many other awards. The question remains, is this silent film actually worthy of such a title?

   “The Artist” longs to bring back the magic of cinematic storytelling audiences have since forgotten. It succeeds instead by merely instilling a curiosity in that magic. Try as it might to convince me otherwise, I never did believe this film was created in the time period portrayed. -1

   This failure to recreate the films on which it was based, does not mean it is a bad movie. Along the way “The Artist” creates an amazing homage to cinema’s earliest beginnings. Acting as a link to the past for those viewers unaware of a time without sound in film.

   “The Artist” achieves this by telling the story of silent film star George Valentin, at the peak of his career, while simultaneously at the downfall of his profession. Enter the love of his life, Peppy Miller, a woman rising to stardom on the coattails of George's failure.

   What is essentially a telling of a man's midlife crisis, is turned into so much more through some truly outstanding performances. Nominated for Best Actor and Supporting Actress, Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo rule the screen together. The two of them make very strong arguments for these awards, and likely with take them both.

   Not everything is roses and ponies though. If you go into this film expecting the song and dance shown in the many commercials and trailers, expect to leave disappointed. Sold as a film crammed to the teeth with dance numbers, a dance is only teased at in the beginning. Peppy begins her rise to fame in a musical role, setting the expectation in the viewer early on that movement will soon fill the screen. This is never delivered upon, and “The Artist” manages to bring only 1 single dance at it's very end. This can leave the film to feel slightly empty at moments throughout. -1

   Review aside there is one leading star worthy of a Best Actor win. An actor who absolutely steals every frame he is on. That lead actor is none other than Uggie the dog. How a dog could be trained to this extent floored me. He is a treat that keeps the audience laughing and impressed throughout the movie. In all seriousness, if this film does win Best Picture, and it likely will, Uggie deserves an Oscar right beside his human counterparts.

“The Artist” Gets an 8 out of 10