UnSpace

Nancy and I went to the Cinemark 18 at Pittsburgh Mills in Tarentum to see The Simpsons Movie.

I liked The Simpsons Movie better than Spider-Man 3. I liked it better than Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. I haven't seen the latest Harry Potter movie yet, but I have no doubt The Simpsons Movie is better.

Beginning with the Itchy and Scratchy Movie, which caused Homer to ask "Why would anyone pay to see something they can see for free on TV?" the audience was laughing out loud. As Bart skateboards through Springfield naked, there was one point where the audience simply (Simpsonly?) lost it: when you see the movie, you'll know exactly where I am talking about!

We've enjoyed The Simpsons since they were on Tracy Ullman's show. Yes, we have recited large sections of episodes at family get-togethers (I usually take the part of the most sympathetically-portrayed Christian on TV, Ned Flanders). But we've also missed episodes. We're not fanatical about this cartoon show.

This movie might well change that.

I don't know how The Simpsons Movie will hold up with repeated viewings. Will this become one of those must-see movies that our extended family will watch and recite lines with every time it's on cable, like "Airplane!" and "Young Frankenstein" and "Blazing Saddles"? I'm not sure, but I think it will be.

I don't remember ever laughing this hard during those movies. Yeah, The Simpsons Movie is that good, and not just because Ned Flanders had a big part.

I only have one complaint about the movie: I wish they'd had Collin voiced by Bono. I'm even willing to ignore the huge, glaring mistake in physics upon which the movie hinges. Lisa should have known better.

The movie was that good. Go see it.

And now, me, if I were a character in The Simpsons Movie:

Not every movie I review contains some aspect of time travel. Only The Lake House and Premonition (both with Sandra Bullock) contain time travel or time-travel-like elements. "Next" is the third:third rate stage magician Cris Johnson (who goes by the stage name Frank Cadillac and is played by Nicolas Cage) can see two minutes into the future, and FBI agent Callie Ferris (played by Julianne Moore) wants to use that two minutes to prevent terrorists from detonating a nuclear bomb. Cris, who was studied as a child to the point of torture, doesn't want to cooperate. Cris is more interested in finding the girl of his literal dreams. While Cris can normally see only two minutes into the future, this woman (Liz, no last name, played by the beautiful to the point of being overdone Jessica Biel) somehow appears days in advance. Cris doesn't know why, but he wants to find out, so he sits in a bar every day at 8:09 a.m. and 8:09 p.m. sipping a martini, waiting for her to appear.

"Next" is based on the Philip K. Dick story "The Golden Man." Dick is up there with Shakespeare and Ian Flemming for having movies made based on his work that only bear a passing resemblance to the original. A surprising number of plot points from "The Golden Man" are carried over into "Next," although one is only hinted at, another is changed to be more realistic (possibly an improvement on the original), but they manage to cut out the most important point.

Still, "Next" is an enjoyable action movie. It's not as thought-provoking as "The Lake House." It doesn't have the "is it real, or is it the little blue flower screwing with the characters?" of "A Scanner Darkly." But the movie does keep you guessing, and there are some surprises I didn't expect. I did keep waiting for Jack Bauer to show up and say "We don't have time for this?" and have Cris say "Well, actually, we do!" What is it with nuking Los Angeles anyway? Some of the action scenes are exciting to the point of being overdone. Hmm, that seems to be a theme, doesn't it?

The movie sets its rules of time travel up and abides by the setup. At some points, you may find yourself going "Hey, but wait!" The writers and producers have played fair, telling you what you need to know. Whether you piece it together is another question. It does result in some interesting scenes, like the firefight where everyone else is proceeding warily except for Cris. Nicolas Cage does an incredible job of acting there, making Cris Johnson's power seem real — and believable.

Julianne Moore appears to be playing her Clarice Starling FBI character, but she is good at it. Peter Falk has a small part as "Irv" that's surprisingly enjoyable. José Zúñiga does a nice turn as head of security for a casino. He's an actor who's played parts on just about every show I watch.

I've been enjoying quite a number of hits for my movie review of 300. I still get an amazing number of hits for my Inside Man explanation.

Unless people decide to come to my blog because they want to find out the basics of the movie instead of seeing it, my hit counters aren't going to see much change after Premonition. We're talking box office bomb. I don't think it will make Rotten Tomatoes' Worst of the Worst Pictures, but I also like time travel stories.

Who is going to go to this movie? Obviously, time travel fans. Fans of and those who want to go just to watch Sandra Bullock for 110 minutes will want to see Bullock's turn as Linda Hanson, the wife living the days of her week out of order. Bullock does a great job with her part, but that's not the problem. Fans of Julian McMahon of Profiler, Charmed, Dr. Doom, and Nip/Tuck might think they want to see this movie, but they don't: McMahon's character, Jim Hanson, spends about half the movie dead, which doesn't give him much screen time. If you go to see this movie because you're a fan of Mike Novick on "24" (played by Jude Ciccolella, who gets a small part in this movie as a priest), then you need to stop going to movies, turn off the TV, and get a life — you've become the "24″ equivalent of a Trekkie who's never been kissed and lives in his mother's basement.

If you want a movie that tries to do something different, and you don't care that it doesn't succeed, maybe this is for you.

Linda McMahon keeps waking up on different days, all out of order. The first day she wakes up, a sheriff comes to her door and tells her that her husband has been killed in a terrible accident. The next time she wakes up, he's alive, and it's a couple days before he's supposed to die. Linda doesn't know what to do.

Linda doesn't watch much science fiction, does she? Linda also doesn't watch TV, either. At one point, she's headed for an involuntary commitment, and she starts acting like she's crazy. Am I the only person who would go dead calm, tell everyone that they're doing their job and I will cooperate fully so that we can get this horrible mess straightened out, and talk my way out of the mental institution in under an hour, including lunch and profuse apologies from everyone involved?

There are some disturbing things that happen in this movie. According to the IMDb, it's in the drama/ thriller category. I'd be tempted to place it more in the horror category. There's no explanation ever for the time travel aspects — the universe is just messing with Linda Hanson for sadistic fun and, well, that would be telling. I'd call it mild horror. The movie might have worked much better as horror, and only a small set of changes might have pulled that off.

According to Rotten Tomatoes, the Tomatometer rating for Premonition is currently 10% — only 10% of the reviews are positive. That might go up slightly as more reviews come in, but the critics won't like this movie and, once word of mouth gets around, neither will the audience.

I like time travel movies, and there was nothing new on TV tonight, so I had a good time. Nancy stayed home; she's got the cold I just fought off and wisely took it easy. A friend got tickets to the preview and decided to stay home and work. Probably for her, that was a good move.

Update 03/16/07: Boy, was I wrong. Premonition dropped on the Tomatometer reading down to 8% and actually made it onto the list of the 100 Worst of the Worst. It pushed "Justin and Kelly" off the list, which makes me wonder a bit about the Tomatometer's accuracy. This movie preview is also generating a tremendous number of hits for this blog. I have to wonder if it's going to do fairly decently this weekend and only dies off the next after word of mouth gets out. On the other hand, it does have Sandra Bullock. She's really cute, but is that really enough to make a movie do well?

By the way, if you're stopping by to read this review, I'd really appreciate if you came back after the movie and left a comment about how you thought the movie was and how helpful this review was.

Scary middle easterners are willing to sacrifice their lives for their God in an attempt to overthrow a bastion of freedom. How can anyone not think about the current "War on Terror" while watching the movie adaptation of Frank Miller's "300"?

King Leonidas, recognizing a threat his countrymen do not, is willing to put himself on the line for his honor, his people, and his men. It's his inner strength and intelligence that allow him to carry the day despite defeat and even death.

As I was watching the movie, I thought of our President, hiding in the National Guard and doing a poor job of service even there. I thought of our Vice-President, with more important things to do than go to Viet Nam. An alternative, a man who was willing to go to Viet Nam and fight despite having the same opportunity to hide or be somewhere else, was shamed for having been willing to serve his country.

We've got a popinjay in the White House who declares "Bring it on!" and then is horribly surprised when they do, in fact, bring it on. He declares "Mission Accomplished" for his own political glory and gain when the mission is nowhere near the end. We've got a schlub who, in the face of the real threat of Islamofascism, goes after the weakest, most unrelated player on the field and proceeds to botch the whole thing.

Is it unfair to compare President Bush to a movie King? Be careful what you ask for. The real King Leonidas was given a choice by the oracle: have all Greece crushed by Xerxes or have the Spartan King die. He used strategy to effectively destroy much of the enemy's hordes, and stayed behind to buy time for the rest of the army to regroup against the remainder of Xerxes' hordes. The real King Leonidas willingly gave his life buying time that would enable his people
to defeat the enemy. I'm not nearly as impressed with the movie King.

World War I was the war to end all wars. World War II was the war against fascism. World War III was the cold war. We're in World War IV right now, like it or not, the war against Islamic Fundamentalist Fascists. There is no quick victory against an enemy so diffuse.

We need a leader like King Leonidas, and not just one willing to put his life on the line for the country. We need someone smart enough to find the pass at Thermopylae, to make the enemy batter his own forces to death.

God help us, I don't see anyone that out there on the political landscape.

No, 300 is not an accurate historical retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae.¹ If you want the history, the Wikipedia entry is a nice start, but be sure to go to a few of the links for more information. My Christian and Jewish readers out there might be interested to know that Xerxes, the Persian king the Spartans are fighting against, is Ahasuerus (the Greek form of the Hebrew name) the King of Ezra and Esther. I'll skip the potential "better than Ezra" jokes here.

The movie, based on Frank Miller and Lynn Varley's graphic novel, 300, is very stylized. The colors are sepia and red, and much of the same bluescreen effect that was used so well in Sin City is used here. The photography is paramount in 300; much of the graphic novel has been captured, and part of the effect of the movie is the beauty. As in Sin City, there is female nudity and hordes of (as Nancy puts it) "half-naked men in leather loincloths whomping on each other."

In the movie, Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) sends his emissary, complete with the skulls of defeated kings, to meet with King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), offering peace at the mere cost of a little land and a little water and bended knee. Leonidas, much like Martin Riggs, has no use for "diplomatic immunity" and tosses Xerxes' messenger down a well. Xerxes served Leonidas, Leonidas danced back, and suddenly "It's on!"

Only, the war between Sparta and Xerxes' ravening hordes is not on. At least not on the Spartan side. Leonidas has to go check with the oracle, an inbred group of priests that have been bought off by Xerxes with Theron the Spartan's help.² The priests tell Leonidas Sparta can't go off to war. So instead, Leonidas decides to go off for a walk with 300 bodyguards. Leonidas leaves behind his extremely competent wife, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) to handle the political end of things back home. She tells him "Come home with your shield or on it."³

There's a pass at Thermopylae. If the Persians are forced to go through that pass, their superior numbers will be rendered ineffective. Along the way, Leonidas meets a scarecrow, a tin…no, wait, wrong movie. Leonidas meets about 700 Thespian Greeks. The leader of the Thespian Greeks is disappointed the Spartans only brought 300 warriors. Leonidas asks the occupation of the Thespians. They had regular jobs⁴ Leonidas asks his men their occupation, and they say "Warrior" in unison. The point is made. Also along the way, they meet Ephialtes, a Spartan saved at birth by his mother despite his severe skeletal deformity (the Spartans threw deformed babies onto a pile collected for just that purpose. He tells Leonidas that there is a goat path above the pass that the Persians could use against them. Ephialtes asks to join, to fight. Leonidas explains that the Spartan method of battle depends on each man's shield defending the person next to his left, and Ephialtes can't lift his shield high enough. Instead, he asks Ephialtes to perform other duties. Ephialtes goes away in a sulk, and at this point no one in the audience would be surprised to learn what the Greek word for "traitor" is. Leonidas asks the Thespians to hold the goat path.

Battle is engaged between the 300 Spartans and the millions of Persians. The fighting is stylized and visually gorgeous, if unbelievable. There's lots of blood, but it doesn't even rise to comic book blood. The strategy (as filmed) is wrong. The whole point of the pass was to cut down the attack angle of the Persians. Instead, Leonidas and his men stand at the mouth of the pass and occasionally break out into the open to fight the enemy. For some reason, this bothered me immensely. If you're going to make a big deal out of fighting in the pass, fight in the pass, not just outside of it. Occasionally there are monsters: rhinoceros and elephants dressed up as war animals, and occasional deformed humans that are supposedly great fighters. If you think of 300 as the story being told in the movie's frame, the exaggerations make sense.

Xerxes, we find out, is a dandified and overly pierced would-be God. You look at the dude and you want to smack him a couple times. Fans of Stargate SG-1 will recognize the voice and half expect his eyes to glow and a parasite to crawl out of his throat. It doesn't happen. To the ancients, Xerxes throne would have been terrifying and looked like the trappings of a god. To modern viewers, it looks like a bad stage show. The guy is such a fraud.

While lots of enemy blood is being spilled, with very few Greeks dying, Queen Gorgo tries her best back home. She attempts to bribe Theron by offering her body. The scene wisely ends before we can see anything of the rape; I would have turned away had anything more been shown, to protect Queen Gorgo's honor. That is how powerful the scene was. Theron later accuses Queen Gorgo of adultery with someone else. When Queen Gorgo grabs a sword and stabs Theron, the audience cheered loudly. Gold coins with Xerxes image spilled on the ground, proving Theron's perfidity.

Speaking of traitors, Ephialtes goes to Xerxes and is offered sex and riches to betray the Greeks, which he does willingly. Even knowing the real history, this betrayal causes you to lose hope that King Leonidas might pull off a victory. This is the end. The Thesbians are scattered without fighting by the Persians. Surrounded, the 300 Spartans make their last stand, sending a half-blind Spartan home to tell their story to rally Sparta and the Greek city-states against Xerxes.

This is the review with spoilers, but somehow I don't want to tell you King Leonidas' last ploy. As filmed, it's stupid. What happened in real life was far better and would have made an ending to have the crowds screaming. Instead, the Pittsburgh audience seemed to be having a flashback to Super Bowl XXX and a certain quarterback's problem throwing. Also, in real life, there was a purpose for the brave sacrifice. As filmed, it was heroic and stupid. Today is not a good day to die for your city-state. Today is a good day to make some other poor bastard die for his city-state!

The movie is great eye candy, and got quite a bit of applause at the end. Of course, I'm sitting here thinking of how this movie plays out in a "War on Terror" world. I'll try to do a follow-up post on that. Briefly, I suspect that FauxHawks will seize on this movie, and that's a mistake on their part.

The movie's rated R, and it's not for everyone. Nancy and I enjoyed it; again, I think Nancy enjoyed it more than I did.

1. I can now spell Thermopylae without looking it up. [back]
2. Nancy wants to know how the priests got inbred. They outcross every generation with the beautiful virgins that are brought to them. I'm the biologist and Nancy catches this. See, knowing theory is one thing, but working up a breeding program for intelligent parakeets is far better. [back]
3. Hey, these were the people who invented the saying.At least according to Plutarch. Apparently those shields were expensive, too. My wife is more understanding when I go to rocket launches. [back]
4. No, those jobs weren't "actor, out of work actor, waiter (but I'm really an actor) or scriptwriter." [back]

I'm a little late in blogging about the preview of Wild Hogs I saw on Wednesday. Unlike "Black Snake Moan," a movie so complex that I had no idea where to begin, Wild Hogs is so simple, I don't know where to start.

How about the cast? I've been a big fan of William H. Macy ever since his turn as The Shoveller in Mystery Men (a movie I thought alone in my appreciation for, but does surprisingly well at Rotten Tomatoes). Macy does well as Dudley Frank, the character who develops the most through the movie. I probably shouldn't admit that I know Martin Lawrence best from Black Night, but his humor here as hen-pecked Bobby Davis is understated and quite a good performance. Tim Allen isn't over the top and mugging; this isn't Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor, it's Doug Madsen, dentist, for which I'm glad. John Travolta turns in a good performance as Woody Stevens, a man whose life is disintegrating. The lesser characters, including "Crossing Jordan"'s Jill Hennesey, Marisa Tomei, and Ray Liota are functional, but don't contribute that much to the movie.

Then there's John C McGinley, Dr. Perry Cox from "Scrubs." He plays a gay motorcycle cop. With four guys, the whole question about "gay" apparently has to come up, with the whole "people might think you're gay" brand of humor. Maybe this is some snarky reference to Travolta's sexuality that I'm not getting. It plays out as some strange Snicker's commercial. This part of the movie was simply embarassing. You know those portions of "I Love Lucy", "Monk," and "Psych" where you want to slam your head into the wall to make your head hurt so bad you'll forget what you're seeing? McGinley's appearance signaled it was time to go pound your head. He's a great actor, I swear I know a real life Dr. Cox, and I'll take a while to forgive him for this.

The four friends decide to go on a road trip for various reasons: Davis hates his job with "The Firm" cleaning out toilets. Steven's losing everything, Allen is having a midlife crisis and his son doesn't think he's cool, and Dudley, well Dudley's named Dudley. That tells you all you need to know about Dudley. They run into a motorcycle gang and hilarity ensues.

The term "formulaic" comes to mind as I think back on "Wild Hogs." Given the characters and the setup, most of the screenplay writes itself. There are a couple small surprises along the way, which were honest treats.

I got to see this movie as a preview. If I hadn't, "Wild Hogs" would have been one I said I wanted to see and never did. I hope all the movies I wanted to see and didn't were like this, because that means I haven't missed anything significant. "Wild Hogs" wasn't horrible, but it's not a movie I'm going to see 3 times like Inside Man.

Nancy liked this one better than I did. She doesn't think the Highway Patrolman scenes with McGinley played out as homophobic as I did, but she did admit they were somewhat over the edge.

If you have a choice and want leather and chains, go see Ghost Rider instead. Everyone was telling me what a horrible movie it is, and yet the flaming bike is burning up the box office. Nya nyah!

Me? I want to go see Bridge to Terabithia. Kids movies are fun and no one ever dies, especially not a kid.¹

Note: I see no need to do a review with spoilers for this movie. If anyone disagrees, leave me a comment and maybe I'll change my mind.

1. Yes, I know. That's what I'm being snarky about. [back]

There was a point in "Black Snake Moan" where I was wondering if there was any possible way to review this movie. Right about then, the Rev. R.L. (played perfectly by John Cothran Jr.) turned to Lazarus (played by Samuel L. Jackson, and yes, he does get to say the "MF" word several times, as well as play a mean guitar and sing) and said "You've got a half-naked white girl chained up in there!"

By the end of the movie, though, I realized I'd just seen one of the more powerful Christian movies in recent memory. Given that Christina Ricci's character Rae appears topless, having sex. There's a lot of drinking and pretty much everyone swears heavily. Putting "Black Snake Moan" on the "powerful Christian movie" list might take some explaining, and no, I'm not deliberately trying to get thrown out of my church.

Windrider 2007 said it before I did and better:

With the depiction of one of the rawest examples of unconditional love, Black Snake Moan presents a broken life, rocked by the abuse and addiction in need of healing. Writer/Director Craig Brewer (Writer/Director of Hustle and Flow) brings to the subject matter a genuine sincerity on the issues of forgiveness, love, and purpose.

No, this movie is not for everyone. If the idea of explaining the term "vagina" in "The Vagina Monologues" to your 12 year old niece upsets you, perhaps you should never see another movie or TV show. If you're going to this movie only to see Christina Ricci's breasts, you need to grow up. My lawyer would probably like me at this point to remind everyone that chaining someone to a radiator is not approved psychological therapy for emotional trauma.

But if you're an adult with a brain and don't have personal problems with pornography or profanity, you should see this movie. I'm not asking anyone to make their own situation worse. But there must be some who could handle this movie.

So, here's where I break the post. If you want to read all the spoilers for this movie, continue on. If you're reading the RSS feed, WordPress breaks the full feed at the "more" tag, so you'll have to come to the article on my blog to read the rest.

I think you ought to see the movie first. I had no idea what I was getting into when I sat down for this movie, and in some ways that was part of what made the roller-coaster ride so fun.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Europeans have Goethe's Faust: Sell your soul to the devil, meet a horrible end. Americans have a different tradition, one that began with "The Devil and Daniel Webster" by Stephen Vincent Benet, or, if you haven't read that, was continued by Charlie Daniel's "The Devil Went Down to Georgia." Americans believe they (or at least their lawyers) can outsmart the devil. The movie Ghost Rider (and the original comic book) follows that tradition.¹

Young Johnny Blaze is a carny motorcycle stuntman with his father. Johnny's sweetheart is Roxanne, and her father doesn't approve of Johnny. Blaze Sr. smokes and coughs, so you know he's got cancer, even before Johnny finds the crumpled medical report — not that I've ever seen a doctor hand a patient an "I'm sorry to tell you that you've got a terminal disease."

A mysterious figure named Mephistopheles² comes along and offers to make Johnny's dad "healthy as a horse," if Johnny would only sell his soul to the stranger. Johnny merely takes the scroll to look at the contract (which is in Latin, making it slightly more understandable than were it in legalese) when the rigged scroll cuts Johnny's finger, causing him to bleed on the "dotted line."

This is a spoiler-free review, but if you've ever purchased a used car, you can predict exactly what's going to happen. The devil laughs at Johnny, telling Johnny that some day, the devil will come for payment.

Johnny should have gotten himself a lawyer. Even I know the contract can't be valid. In Texas, if you make a major purchase away from a regular business establishment, do you still have three days to change your mind?

Johnny, seeking to protect his girlfriend, as do all super-heroes, "because you never know when some lunatic will come along with a sadistic choice. Let die the woman you love… or suffer the little children." Johnny takes to a life of jelly beans, Carpenter's music, and monkey humor to keep his temper under control. I'm not sure why he continues to do daredevil stunts on his motorcycle, which would get me all riled up, but Johnny seems to be calmed by the stunts, relaxing to the point where he has flashbacks. That might be a bit too relaxed, as Johnny finds out when he wrecks the motorcycle in one of the scenes. For all the special effects in this movie, that wreck left me gasping.

Well, Mephistopheles' son, Blackheart shows up with three other dudes representing the "natural elements" Earth, Wind, and Water. They're after a contract, and Mephistopheles calls on Johnny Blaze to pay up.

Having your flesh burned away as you turn into a flaming skeleton probably isn't fun, and during the transformation, Johnny is in pain…until the Ghost Rider takes over and laughs maniacally. Mayhem ensues.

This is the spoiler-free review, so I won't tell you what happens next. You might be able to tell me anyway, at least if you read comics or listen to Norman Osborn. Some of the best action shots made it into the trailer, which is a bit disturbing.

Nancy says the movie has everything cool: Nicholas Cage, a flaming skeleton skull on top of hot motorcycle leathers with spikes and chains, flaming motorcycles that destroy concrete and create blowback 3 meters on either side, a flaming cowboy with a flaming horse (that's in the first 5 minutes of the movie) and cool high plains drifter clothing, and hot men fighting. I'd have to replace Nick Cage with Eva Mendes to Nancy's list of what was cool about this movie. Having my wife love this movie, despite her skeleton phobia, was an extra treat.

This was a good "popcorn" movie. It's not as deep as the Spider-Man trilogy, at least for me. The message that no matter your mistakes, you can turn your life around if you seek redemption, is good. At one point, subtle and brief, the insufficiency of human effort and the need for God is mentioned.

I enjoyed this movie and had fun. But it didn't touch me. As I write this review, I realize that someone who is a "friend of Bill W." or involved with one of the other 12-Step programs might find resonances in this movie that I don't see. I wonder what would happen if I compared this movie to the AA "12 Steps" in the Review With Spoilers?

Update: I just Wiki'd the 12 Steps, and no, they didn't crib from them for this movie. Had they done so, making Johnny Blaze's experience with the Ghost Rider into a metaphor for the 12 Steps, it might have been a more powerful movie. Still, there are a number of similarities, and the Ghost Rider as a fight for recovery is a legitimate theme for this movie.

1. Nancy and I were wondering "What's the Australian take on that?" We finally concluded that, in Australia, if you sell your soul to the devil, you get taken away to hell and someone else (who could have saved you) stands there, shakes his head, and says "That's nature's way." [back]
2. Hey, I spelled that right on the first try! I guess I learned something from reading a section of Faust in German class. [back]

I wanted to see something to cheer me up, like "Night at the Museum," Nancy wanted to see "Apocalypto." We saw "Apocalypto."

To recover, we're watching Scrubs.

Here's my Eragon movie review. As usual, if you don't want to have the plot spoiled, don't read this until after you've seen the movie.

Read the rest of this entry »

You need to see this video trailer! This is the most astonishing video I have ever seen!

I came across the video of "The Inner Life of the Cell" at Clicked. You need Flash 8 to view it. The movie is 8 minutes long, but it's not available anywhere yet. The link is to a 3 minute "teaser." Excluding two basic cheats (cells are crowded — you could never make sense if they included everything, and most reactions have to be slowed down immensely so that you can follow them), the movie is amazingly accurate. Go see it now, and then come back here. I'll do my best to tell you what you're seeing.

You just watched the basic inner workings of a white blood cell, like the ones in your body. For the most part, what you watched will occur in some form or another in every living eukaryotic cell.

Here's my best interpretation of what you just saw. I'm trying to spoil the movie "trailer" for you — tell you what you just saw, in detail. The problem is, some of this is beyond the biochemistry I know. I've used Andrew's Website to confirm (and in the case of the endoplasmic reticulum translocon, learn some new things). I'm doing my best. I may be wrong at points, and there are aspects that I simply don't know enough to go into detail on.

The Plot:

The movie opens with a view of a capillary. There are red blood cells and white blood cells moving through a capillary. The white cells are rolling along. The movie focuses in on one of those white blood cells and shows you how it manages to "roll along." Finally, the white blood cell squeezes in between two other cells and disappears. The movie goes back to a capillary view and closes.

Detail:

Here's a step by step summary. By the way, when I say "proteins," I generally don't know exactly what protein I'm looking at. It's quite possibly a glycoprotein. Animal cells don't use cellulose for structural material, and I don't think they use carbohydrate polymers except for storage of sugars. I could be wrong. Anyway:

1. Red and white blood cells are moving through a capillary. The cells are color-coded according to their names. Every once in a while, you'll see "something else" flash by too fast to be identified. The cells of the capillary are sort of flesh-toned. The red blood cells flow by, but the white blood cells actively move along in what appears to be slow-motion compared to the red blood cells.
2. The camera zooms in to the contact area between the white blood cell and the capillary cell. The white blood cell is "down," and the capillary is "up." For most of the movie, the directions seem to be consistent where it matters: down is toward the nucleus of the white blood cell, up is toward the capillary. The white blood cell is seen to "roll" along, but at this scale, we see the rolling is more active, controlled by surface proteins.
3. The camera zooms in even futher for an instant, and the blue white blood cell proteins brush up against the golden capillary proteins and appear to attach. The blue protein has regions of charge that match up nicely with the regions of charge on the gold protein, so they form a weak link.
4. The camera pulls back a bit, and we see the white blood cell (down) linked by those linked proteins to the capillary cell (up). There appears to be a spaghetti-ish surface proteins on both cells, partially hiding the lipid bilayer.
5. When the camera changes view again, we are now at the surface of the white blood cell. The tiny light blue, dark blue, and green balls are the hydrophillic ends of the outer lipid bilayer. Floating in the lipid bilayer are rafts of proteins. Some of the proteins are mounted on the lipid bilayer; others will go completely through, either allowing small molecules through or permitting a mechanical "signal" to be sent (like sliding an envelope through a mail slot). The movie focuses in on one protein (brown) coming down from above and sticking a chained green blob into a receptor. The receptor recognizes the green blob and sends a signal through the membrane.
6. Now, the camera is inside the cell. The lipid bilayer is visible at the top of the screen — unseen, the capillary cell is above that. This might be where they made a cut — how the sensor protein sends the signal through to the interior of the cell either is beyond me or was cut from this shorter version. We're getting a look around, just under the surface of the membrane of the cell.
7. In one of the few cases where "up is not toward the capillary cell," the camera pulls back and shows the structural proteins that form a sort of "honeycomb" underneath the lipid bilayer. This honeycomb allows motion and (I believe) some physical signals to be sent back and forth along the cell membrane. Calling them "signals" may be a bit incorrect — if the cell "wants" to move to the right, is pushing the cell that direction a "signal" or not? The camera pulls back, and we see the vast network of these structural proteins. The "rafts" are seen floating on the lipid bilayer.
8. The camera changes viewpoint again, and now we're going through structural proteins in the cell that make up the cytoskelleton. I think. I'm lost. They may have cut something again. Sigh. The camera emerges into a relatively clear area where we are watching actin fibers being created. The actin subunits stack up rapidly, forming a long helix-like chain. A slight shift moves to another place where actin's being assembled. There are yellow proteins that I should be able to name and can't that join actin structures together.
9. Another shift and we see an upside-down yellow and green enzyme come along and attach to the actin fiber. The actin fiber is cut at that point; the enzyme (another one I should be able to name but can't — and possibly part of or related to the yellow protein earlier — when I took biochemistry, they were just starting to learn about this stuff!) seals one end but allows the other end to fall apart, starting from the cut. In the background, there's a microtubule.
10. The focus shifts to the microtubule. The microtubule subunits link up and zipper up to extend the microtubule.
11. A shift, and we see a microtubule catastrophe — the microtubule is taken apart. What you have just witnessed, in the formation and destruction of actin fibers and microtubules is the cell moving, shifting, and responding to information. We're used to thinking of DNA as a "computer," but this is a mechanical computer, which is, granted, controlled by the DNA.
12. Ok, this is simply the coolest thing in this movie, bar nothing! This is not made up. This is real. That "herculean" protein with the "earth" on it's back is a microtubule motor protein. Think of it as something that can only walk on a railroad track. At the other end, it has a lipid globule. It, too, is a bilayer, with water and proteins on the inside and proteins on the surface and through the lipid bilayer. Why is the "walker" doing this? Where is it going? You're about to find the answer.
13. The camera focus shifts. We see walkers carrying things to and fro on the microtubules. There appears to be something that is a focus of many microtubules. It is the nucleus — that's where we're going next, as you can tell when the focus latches onto the nucleus (great filmmaking, by the way).
14. We're now at the nuclear membrane. There are pores there, gates where only certain things can get in and only certain things can get out. We're watching messenger RNA (mRNA) shoot out of some of those holes, with a protein on one end to guide and control them, and a protein on the other end to mark the ending.
15. The mRNA assembly arcs up and the two proteins unite, forming a loop of mRNA. A two-part ribosome starts at the beginning of the mRNA.
16. We zoom in and see the ribosome make a protein. This is a special protein — a promoter. By itself, it can do nothing. We see it shoot off to the left.
17. We follow that protein (now it's blue) and it comes across an orangish blob. The two link up and together, they can find a strand of mRNA with the right sequence and tell it to start making another protein. This is part of how cellular activity is regulated. It heads toward a piece of endoplasmic reticulum.
18. The scene changes — I think this is another cut — and the orange part of the orange and blue joint promoter proteins can be sort of seen at the far right. Now's not a good time for any tendency toward dyslexia on my part to kick in. Anyway, it's on a hunk of mRNA, the mRNA has a ribosome on it, but this ribosome heads for a translocon on the endoplasmic reticulum. The translocon is on a "surface." This is another membrane. The protein gets "squirted" into the endoplasmic reticulum as it's made. See how the protein is hard to see through the membrane at the bottom of the screen? The protein is contained!
19. Another cut (possibly a cut with some of those extra 5 minutes gone), and we see lipid bodies popping off the endoplasmic reticulum. These blobs contain proteins that were manufactured by ribosomes like the one we just watched. The focus changes (I love that trick — it's basic, but it works so well) and we see a microtubule "walker" on a microtubule carrying a lipid body. See, I told you we'd find out the story of that walker! Now you know why it does that! Proteins made from mRNA from the nucleus, inserted (and possibly modified) in the endoplasmic reticulum, formed into lipid bodies, and then grabbed by the walkers to be taken to a destination! Cool, huh?
20. There's a change, where we see blobs going to the endoplasmic reticulum and away from the endoplasmic reticulum. This stuff was all 2-D when I did biochemistry and cellular biology. We had nothing like this to see! Our drawings were crap in comparison, and a few electron micrographs made no sense — at least to me.
21. Another cut, and we see a "walker" heading up toward the cellular surface with one of those lipid bodies.
22. Now, the viewpoint is outside the white blood cell. We're watching proteins (and I possibly hormone release and/or garbage dumping) be released into the lipid bilayer of the cell outer membrane.
23. Several proteins gather together and form a raft on the lipid bilayer. They "awaken," reach up and grab onto proteins on the surface of the capillary cell. We're back where we came in!
24. The white blood cell rolls along and then decides to slip between two cells of the capillary. Did it, in it's protein reactions, find that something wrong might be nearby?
25. We'll never know until the 8 minute movie comes out! Who knows what they cut. This may not be the end, but for now we watch blood flow through the capillaries again, and white blood cells crawl their way along the wall.

Conclusion:

That's my analysis of the movie trailer for "The Inner Life of the Cell." If anyone can correct my mistakes, name the proteins involved (specific protein names would be fascinating), explain the significance of what we are seeing, or provide better context, I'd be grateful. I'm hoping folks can work together on the Internet to figure out the significance of this wonderful movie!

Note:

I have no idea how many times I've watched this video. The more I watch it, the more I see. I'd love to know what that cylinder with the glowing center is supposed to be! Do we see mitochondria? Every time I've viewed it, I've come up with something new.

At some point, I need to go back through and explain a lot of the terms. I myself was never quite clear on what the Endoplasmic Reticulum was. Back in the late '70s, I don't think my professors were all that clear, either.

You realize this will be the future of biochemistry instruction and research, don't you? Imagine a video like this, except you can control it on your computer. The entire cell could be created, thick and rich, and by ticking off certain items, you could make those structures transparent or translucent, control the camera yourself — viewpoint, focus, motion, and explore the cell better than the adventurers in the movie "Fantastic Voyage."

Update:

Further comments are currently in the…well…comments. Duh.

According to ComingSoon.Net, filming began on Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

In the original comic book, the Silver Surfer was the Herald of Galactus, sent ahead of a giant planet-devouring being with a giant "G" on his belt, to find planets suitable for Galactus to feed on. Do I need to tell you that Galactus was stopped?

Sure, there was something hokey about Galactus. But somehow, in the original Kirby stories, you forgot that…at least for the first ten or so readings. The story really focused on the changes in the Silver Surfer, and if even half of that magic can be brought to the screen, this will be a wonderful movie.

In the Ultimate Fantastic Four Universe, set in a "parallel universe" to the original Fantastic Four, Galactus was not a giant but a swarm of life-hating berzerkers travelling through the galaxy. While interesting in it's own way and far more "adult" and realistic, that version of the story would not work as well in the Fantastic Four movie. I'm hoping some sort of surprise variation can be worked out for the movie that won't be silly but rather awe-inspiring.

I'm also hoping for cameo background appearances of the other established Marvel movie heroes: Spider-Man, X-Men, Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider, and the Hulk. Nothing prominent, just "Easter eggs" that you might miss on the first couple viewings. Galactus is a "destroyer of worlds." Everyone's going to be helping out, and the presence of the others would add some verisimilitude and fun for the Fan Girls and Boys.

Yeah, even Electra and the Hulk. You'll notice I didn't mention The Punisher, though.

Here's the review of The Wicker Man where I give up all the spoilers. Normally, I warn you "Go see the movie before you read this." I'm sort of going to do that again. Go rent the original version of the movie, the 1973 version of The Wicker Man. Some of the major plot points appear to be the same, and while I haven't seen the original, its ranking as one of the top British horror movies of all time means it must be better.

To read the review with spoilers, click on the phrase "Read the rest of this entry »."

Read the rest of this entry »

As "The Wicker Man" ended, some members of the preview audience burst out laughing. The one fellow, with a particularly distinctive laugh, was still in hysterics by the time we made it to the car.

I don't think the movie was that bad. I found some points of interest in the film. Of course, I am now tempted to rent "Ishtar," "Gigli," "From Justin to Kelly," and "Battlefield Earth" as an experiment. Can I watch any old piece of crap and find something to think about? If I'm going to keep doing movie reviews, that might be something worth knowing.

"The Wicker Man" is a remake of the 1973 version of the same title. Fans of the original (and there are many — it's ranked as one of the top British horror films of all time) despised the Americanization of this film. I haven't seen the original, but based on the IMDB cast listings alone, I suspect some changes were made for the worse.

Nicholas Cage, as Officer Edward Malus, is a dedicated man, if a bit abrasive. For those who may not know, "Malus" is the genus for apple trees. Willow (Kate Beahan), to whom Officer Malus was once engaged, writes him a letter telling him her daughter, Rowan, is missing. Rowan is a type of tree, sacred to the Wiccans. The use Wiccans have for this tree would need to go in the Review With Spoilers. Malus flies (literally) to the rescue, to Summersisle. The folk living there are strange, to say the least.

Part of the problem with the movie is, it's hard to tell when those folks are strange and when they're just doing a bad job of acting. Officer Malus gets no help from anyone on the island, not even his former fiance, whom you think would be a bit more forthcoming with the information Malus needs to rescue Rowan.

The film is monotone, with a creepy feeling throughout. When Nicholas Cage puts on the bear suit (don't ask), people laughed. Had there been any humor in the film prior, the humor might have worked to the movie's advantage, even keeping the serious tone of the plot. Instead, the movie takes a wrong turn at that point and never recovers.

I thought the movie was watchable. Of course, I got to see it for free and, as I pointed out earlier, perhaps I'll watch anything. The movie was not pre-screened in advance for the critics, which is almost always a bad sign.

Once again, it's time to spoil a movie's ending. Somehow, with The Illusionist, I feel especially bad about doing this. Go see the movie first. Wait until it comes out at the cheap theaters if you have to. But don't spoil the surprises.

Well, you've been warned. I hope you listened and saw the movie first. Once you have, click on "Read the rest of this entry »" and check out my take on the movie.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the very early 1900s, social forces battled. Democracy threatened the hereditary rulers and strict class system of society. Science and spiritualism battled one another. The beginning of the battle against prejudice had just begun, while the Victorian era (and its preocupation with appearances) was drawing near its close. This is the world of The Illusionist, a movie based on a short story "Eisenheim the Illusionist" in the book The Barnam Museum by Steven Millhauser.

As a young man Edward Abramowitz (played by Aaron Johnson) has two chance meetings. The first introduced him to a travelling illusionist who taught him the fundamentals of magic. The second brought him together with Sophie von Teschen (played by Eleanor Tomlinson), a young lady of high social standing. They fall in love, against her parents' wishes. She begs Abramowitz to make her disappear so they can run away. Trying to make it happen by true magic, Abramowitz fails. Sophie is taken from him and Abramowitz leaves to explore the world.

Years later, renaming himself Eisenheim (played by Ed Norton), Abramowitz arrives in Vienna, where his self-proclaimed illusions become the event of the season. The Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell) and his soon-to-be fiance, the Dutchess Sophie (Jessica Biel) attend a performance. Leopold volunteers his fiance for a trick. Sophie and Eisenheim recognize each other.

Still in love with Sophie, Eisenheim attempts to win Sophie from the Crown Prince. His actions attract the attention of Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti). Suddenly, Eisenheim's plot goes awry, and tragedy results.

Inspector Uhl appears to be an incidental character. That also may be an illusion. When you see this movie, take special note of him.

To say more about the plot of the movie would be to give away far too much. As with Inside Man, you need to pay close attention to what people say in The Illusionist.

The movie is visually stunning, from the period costumes to the "Hall of Trophies." This movie will be an obvious contender for awards in the area of costuming.

One question I have is how heavy the movie is in special effects and how much is the reproduction of turn-of-the century magic tricks, recreated for modern audiences. Ricky Jay and Michael Weber were listed as magic consultants. As I left the theater, Nancy said that some of the illusions were impossible, given early primative 20th Century technology. As an amateur magician, I wondered if there might be some way they could have been done using the techniques that gave us the phrase "smoke and mirros" as well as tomato tossing (designed to make mirrors visible). For those interested, I suggest you check out Movie Review: The Illusionist at About's Magic and Illusion. The short of it is, some of the illusions benefit greatly from modern 21st century materials, one may not be possible as presented, and the main illusion of the movie is entirely the result of digital effects. I'm disappointed, but not terribly.

Nancy and I both recommend this movie. Filmography, sets, costumes alone would make this worth seeing. Norton, Giamatti, and even Biel are at the top of their acting ability. But there is more, much more. I recommend it heartily to anyone who would be comfortable seeing a PG movie. I think The Illusionist was rated PG-13 for one particular death.

Update: The Illusionist: The Review With Spoilers is now up. Needless to say, it has spoilers! Don't read if you don't want the movie spoiled!

Thanks to Eides' Comics for providing me with the pass to the preview. Eides' takes care of it's customers. That's why I've been shopping there since 1980!

I wound up with a pass to the preview of The Illusionist. So of course, it would be on this Wednesday in the middle of Blogfest 7. Nancy suggested that we go early to Blogfest (4:30 pm-ish) and have dinner. We'll probably have to leave around 6 to 6:15 pm to get to the movie (preview passes are not guaranteed seating).

I was looking forward to getting to meet some people who would be attending, including an angry copyreader for one of the well-respected newsblogs of Pittsburgh. I hope those folks will be able to make it early. On the plus side, Nancy will be attending!

This is going to be an interesting week; the next night (during the season finale of "Who Wants to be a Superhero" — I can't decide whether to root for Fat Mama or Feedback, they're both great), we've got another preview, this time for The Wicker Man. That means back-to-back mad dashes home to write spoiler-free and spoilered reviews of the movies. I have fun doing that, but it also tends to be an intense effort.