In the last post I extrapolated upon a technique that I use daily. I am a biologist and this kind of thing comes naturally to me. I realize that this is foreign to you. So in the spirit of enlightenment, I offer my brain. Pick at it, ask me questions. We all want to know about biology, after all it's the study of us. I am here to clear the air, to make it meaningful, and to start from the beginning.
If you see a cool spider, if the sink's clogged with bacteria/algae, if your car's covered in pollen, I have an answer. Ladybugs are filling your kitchen? I have an answer. Vitamin D deficiency? I have an answer. Just ask.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Flow Cytometry coolness.
Whilst fully admitting that I am a complete dork, I want to share a paper I just found. It details a procedure for using a "fluorescent bar code" to make your flow cytometry assay more efficient. It's so simple, yet so amazing.
For those of you who don't know what flow cytometry is, a brief introduction: I got into it about three years ago and I find the technique fascinating as it combines physics, chemistry, and biology. Basically, fluorescence is a property of most substances to a certain extent. Light (photons) of a given wavelength energize electrons in an atom, allowing those electrons to briefly occupy higher-energy orbitals. Once there, the electrons are not as stable as they were and fall back to the more stable orbital, one of lower energy. The energy that was present in the higher orbital is lost and emitted as a photon of a given wavelength. Often this wavelength is different from the incoming wavelength (the one that got the whole thing started), and we call this fluorescence. In other words, the excitation (incoming) wavelength is different (usually shorter) than the emission (outgoing) wavelength.
This happens all the time. Science has identified several hundred molecules that fluoresce in very predictable ways. The most famous of which is Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP), for which the discoverers earned a Nobel Prize recently. So how do we use this to our advantage?
Well, in the case of GFP, we can insert the gene sequence into a cell, like a pluripotent stem cell or a cancer cell. As the cell then goes on to do whatever it does, the gene will be translated into GFP and the accumulated proteins will fluoresce when under light of a given wavelength. After a few hundred mitotic divisions, more and more cells will produce this protein and we can track where the daughter cells go. Check out this picture of a green mouse.
This technology has been coupled to a technology called flow cytometry to yield some amazing results. Here's a link to some flow cytometry basics from Invitrogen. In flow cytometry, a suspension of cells is injected into a column of fluid in laminar flow, i.e., a flow cell. The properties of the "flow cell" cause the cells in suspension to move, single file, through the column without mixing with the flow cell. By shining a light (a laser) at the flow cell and measuring disturbances in the light at the other side, like when a cell passes in front of the light, you can count cells. Thus, flow cytometry ("cell counting"). It gets so much cooler.
If we have fluorescent molecules present on the cells, shining a light on them will make them fluoresce and emit light of a different wavelength than the excitation light. Through the use of filters, we can separate these two wavelengths (the excitation and emission wavelengths) and count when a cell passes AND if that cell has a fluorescent molecule...all at the speed of light, literally. Commonly, we're talking about measuring fluorescence at 2,000 cells per second. Without getting into the specifics about filters, scatter, and compensation, we can measure the presence/absence of up to 20+ fluorescent molecules (all emitting at their unique wavelength) on a given cell as well as the size and shape of the cell in question all at the speed of light. How freakin' cool is that?
To blow your minds just a little more, if we put two charged plates on either side of a flow cell, we can change the path the flow to the left or right. This means that we can tell the machine, "if you see a cell emitting this specific wavelength, push it to the right, otherwise push it to the left." In other words, we can sort cells according to whether or not they have a specific fluorescent tag.
This is commonly done with immunology in separating the many subsets of cells that contribute to cellular immunity (lymphocytes, B cells, monocytes, granulocytes, etc.) We can generate antibodies that are specific to certain molecules in and on a cell, label those antibodies with a fluorescent molecule, then incubate those antibodies with a cell suspension. If we have an anti-CD4 antibody, for example, all CD4+ T-cells (helper T-cells) will be labeled with that antibody. Running them through a flow cytometer will tell us how many cells in our sample are CD4+ T-cells, or we can sort them into a tube separately from the other cells in the mix.
Anyway, the point of all of this is a paper that I just came across. Here's the link. It's by Kutzik and Nolan, 2006, in the journal, Nature Methods. Currently, most flow cytometric applications involve labeling parts of cells, keeping each sample/treatment separate. Then the samples are analyzed individually. What these intrepid researchers realized is that we can label the cells, as whole, with a fluorescent molecule. The fluorescent intensity is a function of the amount (concentration) of the molecule in the cell (lower concentrations mean a dimmer signal, higher concentration mean a brighter signal). So, by labeling each sample with a unique concentration of the fluorescent molecule can allow you to then mix all of the samples together and then stain ONE sample with whatever antibodies you want. Then you only need to analyze ONE sample on a flow cytometer because you can use that first stain to separate the individual samples after-the-fact. Sorry if this has gone way over your head. It's just the coolest thing I've seen in a while. So dorky, I know, but that's what happens.
So true
From Cracked.com, a generic trailer for every academy award winning movie ever. Brilliant. Catchphrase!
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Vigilance
It's been two years since I started this. Two years ago, I started out by saying "I've spent two years living next to a $0.99 movie store. Therefore, I've seen a lot of movies and I want to review movies." Well over the last two years, I haven't seen a lot of movies. So it goes.
Now, I've moved again; and now I live near a $1.00 movie theater. Not only do I get to see recent movies for a dollar, I also get to see south-eastern Americans at their best. I hope to continue reviewing movies, and I will add a little flavor with scenes from an Alabama society - particularly of those who visit the dollar-theater on a Friday night.
You probably already see the discrepancy: who cares about reading reviews for movies that have already gone through the vetting process of theater sales? I don't know. What is the sound of one blogger typing? Wait, that probably does have a sound...
Now, I've moved again; and now I live near a $1.00 movie theater. Not only do I get to see recent movies for a dollar, I also get to see south-eastern Americans at their best. I hope to continue reviewing movies, and I will add a little flavor with scenes from an Alabama society - particularly of those who visit the dollar-theater on a Friday night.
You probably already see the discrepancy: who cares about reading reviews for movies that have already gone through the vetting process of theater sales? I don't know. What is the sound of one blogger typing? Wait, that probably does have a sound...
Monday, October 13, 2008
Prizzi's Honor (1985)
[Well, well, well. It seems I've forgotten all about this idea I had for creating a blog. I knew I was prone to let things slide but this...this is unforgivable. I was moved to begin again this morning by a motivational weekend spent in Lafayette, Louisiana. Well...here...we....go.]
Charley Partanna (Jack Nicholson) was born into the Prizzi family via Don Corrado Prizzi (William Hickey) accepting him as his godson while Charley was still in the neonatal ward. Charley moves up the ranks and is the family's most esteemed hit man. While attending the wedding of the grand-daughter of the Don, Charley spots a beautiful woman in the church. He gives the wedding photographer a few bucks to take some pictures of her before getting a ride to the reception courtesy of the NYPD. Charley briefly dances with this mysterious woman before she runs off to "take a phone call" and never returns. Later that night, after calling around trying to uncover her name, he receives a phone call from her. Her name is Irene Walker (Kathleen Turner) and she lives in L.A. So Charley hops on a jet and meets her for pre-dinner cocktails at a hotel the next day.
Charley is immediately smitten and at dinner, in syrupy dialogue that is non-existent in modern movies, he asks Irene to marry him. Back in New York Charley shows the photos the wedding photographer took of Irene to his father, a warm-fuzzy mobster who is the right-hand-man of the Don's son. His father smiles and immediately burns them, "she was the professional we hired to take the contract on so-and-so during the wedding." Charley's dating a hit-(wo)man. Business calls and Charley has to fly back to L.A. to recover money taken from the family in a Las Vegas casino scam orchestrated by Marxie Heller. Marxie ends up dead in a trunk and Charley waits for someone else to show up to ask about the money. That someone is Marxie's wife.....(wait for it)...Irene. So now, Charley is dating a hitwoman who has also scammed the family out of money. The movie goes on to ask the question: does love conquer all (i.e., the mob)?
What I didn't like: The fact that this movie is billed as a comedy. Granted, I laughed the whole way through the movie. However, it's more accurately a self-deprecating mob drama. It's not a spoof (see "Johnny Dangerously"); the movie comes across as completely sincere while showing the lighter side of the mob. It's not the first time it's been done. Would you call "The Soprano's" a comedy? No, but you laugh every time Paulie Walnuts and Silvio open their mouths. In the same respect, Charley Partanna is very funny in the "not too bright" mobster catagory while being very good at his job.
Otherwise, there's really nothing else I did not like. There are little things here and there that may detract from the whole, but taken as a whole this movie is great. There is one other big thing: I should point out that Kathleen Turner is not my favorite actress. I knew that going in and was prepared. Some people like her, I guess.
What I liked:
Jack Nicholson as Charley Partanna. Yes, even the accent. He's just great. And he has some great lines.
Anjelica Huston as the scorned grand-daughter of the Don. I think this was her first big role, and she was good enough to recieve an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. (The movie itself was nominated for seven, SEVEN, academy awards and won 4 Golden Globes as well as a BAFTA. Why in the world have I never heard of it until recently?!?!) Though I've excluded her role from the plot synopsis above, she plays an integral part in the movie, stirring up some family drama.
William Hickey as the Don. The make-up is hilariously bad but Hickey found the perfect role as a mafia Don.
Finally, I liked how the movie had that "classic" feel. It's directed by John Huston, of course, and there's just something about those movies - so awkward, fake, and romantic - that you can't find anymore. It's movies for the sake of movies, not for how many things explode, what's the kill count, and "you spent how many millions?" The scene at the Mexican restaurant where Charley tells Irene that the mariachi song being played will always be their song is a fitting example. I'm taken in by the indescribable power of the scene as much as I'm laughing at how hokey and contrived the dialogue is. Similarly, I love the fact that a mob movie, complete with plot twists and double crosses, works well without resorting to gimmicky surprise endings or incredible tactics a la Ocean's Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen (okay, I know those aren't mob movies, but you get my drift.) "Prizzi's Honor" deals with these twists as a mobster would, using leverage and cunning and plain old extortion. No explosions, no switcheroos, no pulling the blinds over the audience to reveal the fanciful resolution. These days, it seems Hollywood wants its crime movies to leave an audience wondering what happened, "how did they get from conflict to....wait was that the end? was that the resolution?" It was quite refreshing to see this film which was shot before "The Usual Suspects" and "The Sixth Sense." Before these uber-twists, something as simple as kidnapping someone who had been kidnapped is oddly satisfying.
Watch for: Rather, "Listen for:" The music, all classical, mostly opera. Perfect. The songs are used so well, in fact, that it's hard to believe some of them weren't written for the movie. I know that's a bold statement, I stand by it. Also, if anyone can send me a pair of the "reading-glasses" Robert Loggia used in the movie I would be grateful.
"Best Wedding" Award: Charley and Irene's Vegas-style shotgun wedding ceremony complete with an a la carte menu (for flowers, photos, songs, etc.)....in Cuba.
You should see this movie if: You find yourself in a relationship with someone who is just like you and you're not sure if it's going to work out....and you're both hired assassins. Wait...wasn't that "Mr. and Mrs. Smith?" weird.
Food for thought: Does the title refer to a specific Prizzi, or the family in general? Discuss amongst yourselves.
Charley Partanna (Jack Nicholson) was born into the Prizzi family via Don Corrado Prizzi (William Hickey) accepting him as his godson while Charley was still in the neonatal ward. Charley moves up the ranks and is the family's most esteemed hit man. While attending the wedding of the grand-daughter of the Don, Charley spots a beautiful woman in the church. He gives the wedding photographer a few bucks to take some pictures of her before getting a ride to the reception courtesy of the NYPD. Charley briefly dances with this mysterious woman before she runs off to "take a phone call" and never returns. Later that night, after calling around trying to uncover her name, he receives a phone call from her. Her name is Irene Walker (Kathleen Turner) and she lives in L.A. So Charley hops on a jet and meets her for pre-dinner cocktails at a hotel the next day.
Charley is immediately smitten and at dinner, in syrupy dialogue that is non-existent in modern movies, he asks Irene to marry him. Back in New York Charley shows the photos the wedding photographer took of Irene to his father, a warm-fuzzy mobster who is the right-hand-man of the Don's son. His father smiles and immediately burns them, "she was the professional we hired to take the contract on so-and-so during the wedding." Charley's dating a hit-(wo)man. Business calls and Charley has to fly back to L.A. to recover money taken from the family in a Las Vegas casino scam orchestrated by Marxie Heller. Marxie ends up dead in a trunk and Charley waits for someone else to show up to ask about the money. That someone is Marxie's wife.....(wait for it)...Irene. So now, Charley is dating a hitwoman who has also scammed the family out of money. The movie goes on to ask the question: does love conquer all (i.e., the mob)?
What I didn't like: The fact that this movie is billed as a comedy. Granted, I laughed the whole way through the movie. However, it's more accurately a self-deprecating mob drama. It's not a spoof (see "Johnny Dangerously"); the movie comes across as completely sincere while showing the lighter side of the mob. It's not the first time it's been done. Would you call "The Soprano's" a comedy? No, but you laugh every time Paulie Walnuts and Silvio open their mouths. In the same respect, Charley Partanna is very funny in the "not too bright" mobster catagory while being very good at his job.
Otherwise, there's really nothing else I did not like. There are little things here and there that may detract from the whole, but taken as a whole this movie is great. There is one other big thing: I should point out that Kathleen Turner is not my favorite actress. I knew that going in and was prepared. Some people like her, I guess.
What I liked:
Jack Nicholson as Charley Partanna. Yes, even the accent. He's just great. And he has some great lines.
Anjelica Huston as the scorned grand-daughter of the Don. I think this was her first big role, and she was good enough to recieve an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. (The movie itself was nominated for seven, SEVEN, academy awards and won 4 Golden Globes as well as a BAFTA. Why in the world have I never heard of it until recently?!?!) Though I've excluded her role from the plot synopsis above, she plays an integral part in the movie, stirring up some family drama.
William Hickey as the Don. The make-up is hilariously bad but Hickey found the perfect role as a mafia Don.
Finally, I liked how the movie had that "classic" feel. It's directed by John Huston, of course, and there's just something about those movies - so awkward, fake, and romantic - that you can't find anymore. It's movies for the sake of movies, not for how many things explode, what's the kill count, and "you spent how many millions?" The scene at the Mexican restaurant where Charley tells Irene that the mariachi song being played will always be their song is a fitting example. I'm taken in by the indescribable power of the scene as much as I'm laughing at how hokey and contrived the dialogue is. Similarly, I love the fact that a mob movie, complete with plot twists and double crosses, works well without resorting to gimmicky surprise endings or incredible tactics a la Ocean's Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen (okay, I know those aren't mob movies, but you get my drift.) "Prizzi's Honor" deals with these twists as a mobster would, using leverage and cunning and plain old extortion. No explosions, no switcheroos, no pulling the blinds over the audience to reveal the fanciful resolution. These days, it seems Hollywood wants its crime movies to leave an audience wondering what happened, "how did they get from conflict to....wait was that the end? was that the resolution?" It was quite refreshing to see this film which was shot before "The Usual Suspects" and "The Sixth Sense." Before these uber-twists, something as simple as kidnapping someone who had been kidnapped is oddly satisfying.
Watch for: Rather, "Listen for:" The music, all classical, mostly opera. Perfect. The songs are used so well, in fact, that it's hard to believe some of them weren't written for the movie. I know that's a bold statement, I stand by it. Also, if anyone can send me a pair of the "reading-glasses" Robert Loggia used in the movie I would be grateful.
"Best Wedding" Award: Charley and Irene's Vegas-style shotgun wedding ceremony complete with an a la carte menu (for flowers, photos, songs, etc.)....in Cuba.
You should see this movie if: You find yourself in a relationship with someone who is just like you and you're not sure if it's going to work out....and you're both hired assassins. Wait...wasn't that "Mr. and Mrs. Smith?" weird.
Food for thought: Does the title refer to a specific Prizzi, or the family in general? Discuss amongst yourselves.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tideland
A little girl is growing up cooking heroin for her parents. Every night rocker/father (Jeff Bridges) "takes a little vacation" courtesy of the smack prepared by his daughter, a sweet little girl named Jeliza-Rose. She escapes "reality," as every kid is prone to, to a world influenced by "Alice in Wonderland" and her father's narcotic ramblings about Jutland. When her mother dies of a methadone overdose, Jeliza-Rose is taken by her father to her grandmother's house. The only problem is that grandmother has been dead for years and her house is in abandon.
What I didn't like: countless "Alice in Wonderland" references. It's almost cliche at this point for a child to fall back on their "imagination" that is always portrayed as influenced by Lewis Carroll. Perhaps this is all that we, as adults, can come up with. I agree, Lewis Carroll was "into" children and created a vivid portrayal of the active mind of youth. But come on, why can't a "child's point-of-view" be something other than "Alice in Wonderland?" Surely Terry Gilliam is the one writer/director who doesn't need this crutch.
What I liked: Perhaps I was too harsh in asserting that "Alice in Wonderland" permeated the film. It was, in a good way, grounded by and in the story. That is, it was not necessarily an integral part to the story, yet certain thematic elements were reinforced by knowing a little about "Alice in Wonderland."
All in all, this is definitely a Terry Gilliam film. I suppose no one is disputing that, so I'll elaborate. He's brilliant in the shaping and crafting of his movies. The viewer is constantly trying to understand what is happening and will happen while being engrossed in thought about what just happened. We're forced to live in each moment of the film. His magic is in keeping us barely comfortable in those moments with striking images, wonderful colors, and a lens that films beneath the characters. It's by no accident that you find yourself narrating in one of Jeliza-Rose's dolls' voices as you watch the film. You have, thus, seen what Gilliam sees. It's nice to get out of your head for a while; which is why I love Terry Gilliam.
Watch for: Jeff Bridges, he never disappoints. Also, make sure you pay attention to detail; these are important parts of a Gilliam film. If you've rented the DVD, pause it when in a room and make notes about what you see. There are no mistakes about which objects find themselves on the set. A little lagniappe for ya'.
Most importantly, make sure you listen and heed Terry Gilliam's introduction to the film. At first it seemed unnecessary and a little self-indulgent. However this intro. is appropriate for all of Gilliam's films.
"I remember that" Award: I want a submarine, too.
You should see this movie if: you like Terry Gilliam, his movies, and you remember when how much fun you could have by just Being when you were young.
Take home message: Watch "Getting Gilliam." It's a documentary. You'll like it.
What I didn't like: countless "Alice in Wonderland" references. It's almost cliche at this point for a child to fall back on their "imagination" that is always portrayed as influenced by Lewis Carroll. Perhaps this is all that we, as adults, can come up with. I agree, Lewis Carroll was "into" children and created a vivid portrayal of the active mind of youth. But come on, why can't a "child's point-of-view" be something other than "Alice in Wonderland?" Surely Terry Gilliam is the one writer/director who doesn't need this crutch.
What I liked: Perhaps I was too harsh in asserting that "Alice in Wonderland" permeated the film. It was, in a good way, grounded by and in the story. That is, it was not necessarily an integral part to the story, yet certain thematic elements were reinforced by knowing a little about "Alice in Wonderland."
All in all, this is definitely a Terry Gilliam film. I suppose no one is disputing that, so I'll elaborate. He's brilliant in the shaping and crafting of his movies. The viewer is constantly trying to understand what is happening and will happen while being engrossed in thought about what just happened. We're forced to live in each moment of the film. His magic is in keeping us barely comfortable in those moments with striking images, wonderful colors, and a lens that films beneath the characters. It's by no accident that you find yourself narrating in one of Jeliza-Rose's dolls' voices as you watch the film. You have, thus, seen what Gilliam sees. It's nice to get out of your head for a while; which is why I love Terry Gilliam.
Watch for: Jeff Bridges, he never disappoints. Also, make sure you pay attention to detail; these are important parts of a Gilliam film. If you've rented the DVD, pause it when in a room and make notes about what you see. There are no mistakes about which objects find themselves on the set. A little lagniappe for ya'.
Most importantly, make sure you listen and heed Terry Gilliam's introduction to the film. At first it seemed unnecessary and a little self-indulgent. However this intro. is appropriate for all of Gilliam's films.
"I remember that" Award: I want a submarine, too.
You should see this movie if: you like Terry Gilliam, his movies, and you remember when how much fun you could have by just Being when you were young.
Take home message: Watch "Getting Gilliam." It's a documentary. You'll like it.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The Prestige vs. The Illusionist
Again with the magicians. Okay, here it goes. I'm having trouble with these two, so I've decided to pair them in a match on blogspot to see who comes out victorious.
The basic premises: Amazing magicians, border lined wizards, are at the top of their game in 19th Century (?) Europe. They have acts that astound the masses and draw considerable attention by others, namely government officials and/or competitors. They, of course, are mysterious and unconventional. Then you've got some romance on the side, beautiful love-at-first-sight stuff. The conflict with competition/officials escalates. Magician is crushed by overwhelming odds and reduced to poverty only to wave his hands (as only magicians can without seeming psychotic) and say "abracadabra, nothing was as it seemed, the trick's on you." Happy ending... or at least pleasant music with an undertone of revenge/retribution.
Seriously, that summed up both movies.
The Prestige: Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine. Nice line up. But can it compete against the power of...
The Illusionist: Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti, Jessica Biel, Rufus Sewell. Did I mention Edward Norton?
The Prestige: seemingly amazing magic tricks revealed with little(?) Hollywood magic.
The Illusionist: seemingly amazing magic tricks revealed with little(?) Hollywood magic....hmmm.
The Prestige: an insight into the lives of magicians and how fooling people for a living can lead to dangerous consequences.
The Illusionist: an insight into the lives of magicians and how fooling people for...a...living...touche....
The Prestige: What a horrible ending.
The Illusionist: Saw that one coming. Better luck next time.
Okay, that wasn't as tough as I thought it would be. The acting is fine in both movies. I would particularly like to mention Paul Giamatti's character. A beard will go a long way in dismissing you from your type-cast. Beard or no-beard, Giamatti did a fantastic job. I could say the same about another supporting actor, Michael Caine; but we all know he's going to be great, regardless. He's up there with Dustin Hoffman and the like; aging actors taking lessor roles but out-performing their leads.
"The Prestige" is presented more cloak-and-dagger than "The Illusionist." For some reason, I like the fact that "The Illusionist" is based on a short story; which gives it a leg-up in my book. In this sense, it has a better plot than "The Prestige," if that's what you're looking for.
However, I cannot completely dismiss "The Prestige," though this decision is almost based solely on acting. Specifically, David Bowie as Nikola Tesla. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. It's David Bowie. We were aware that he acted: "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me" and who can forget "Labyrinth." Bowie did a great job with this one. If you're into science and what-not, read up on Tesla. You'll understand why Bowie was perfect for, and did a perfect job with, this part.
So, see 'em both. Plot driven: "The Illusionist." Remember, based on a short story, not just crafted as an edge-of-your-seat screenplay. Character based: "The Prestige." Here, turn off the DVD when you think it's done. Don't worry, the "extra" ending will only disappoint. (Now I know you'll watch it all the way through, don't say I didn't warn you).
The basic premises: Amazing magicians, border lined wizards, are at the top of their game in 19th Century (?) Europe. They have acts that astound the masses and draw considerable attention by others, namely government officials and/or competitors. They, of course, are mysterious and unconventional. Then you've got some romance on the side, beautiful love-at-first-sight stuff. The conflict with competition/officials escalates. Magician is crushed by overwhelming odds and reduced to poverty only to wave his hands (as only magicians can without seeming psychotic) and say "abracadabra, nothing was as it seemed, the trick's on you." Happy ending... or at least pleasant music with an undertone of revenge/retribution.
Seriously, that summed up both movies.
The Prestige: Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine. Nice line up. But can it compete against the power of...
The Illusionist: Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti, Jessica Biel, Rufus Sewell. Did I mention Edward Norton?
The Prestige: seemingly amazing magic tricks revealed with little(?) Hollywood magic.
The Illusionist: seemingly amazing magic tricks revealed with little(?) Hollywood magic....hmmm.
The Prestige: an insight into the lives of magicians and how fooling people for a living can lead to dangerous consequences.
The Illusionist: an insight into the lives of magicians and how fooling people for...a...living...touche....
The Prestige: What a horrible ending.
The Illusionist: Saw that one coming. Better luck next time.
Okay, that wasn't as tough as I thought it would be. The acting is fine in both movies. I would particularly like to mention Paul Giamatti's character. A beard will go a long way in dismissing you from your type-cast. Beard or no-beard, Giamatti did a fantastic job. I could say the same about another supporting actor, Michael Caine; but we all know he's going to be great, regardless. He's up there with Dustin Hoffman and the like; aging actors taking lessor roles but out-performing their leads.
"The Prestige" is presented more cloak-and-dagger than "The Illusionist." For some reason, I like the fact that "The Illusionist" is based on a short story; which gives it a leg-up in my book. In this sense, it has a better plot than "The Prestige," if that's what you're looking for.
However, I cannot completely dismiss "The Prestige," though this decision is almost based solely on acting. Specifically, David Bowie as Nikola Tesla. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. It's David Bowie. We were aware that he acted: "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me" and who can forget "Labyrinth." Bowie did a great job with this one. If you're into science and what-not, read up on Tesla. You'll understand why Bowie was perfect for, and did a perfect job with, this part.
So, see 'em both. Plot driven: "The Illusionist." Remember, based on a short story, not just crafted as an edge-of-your-seat screenplay. Character based: "The Prestige." Here, turn off the DVD when you think it's done. Don't worry, the "extra" ending will only disappoint. (Now I know you'll watch it all the way through, don't say I didn't warn you).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)