USA 2011

When we planned our holiday around Utah this year we didn't intend it to be particularly film-centric, we honestly didn't realise how many movies had taken advantage of the amazing scenery. We had been invited to a wedding in Houston, Texas; but thinking there wasn't really anything interesting to see in Texas (and judging by our 25 hour train journey through it, we were right) we decided to do a bit of a tour of the National Parks in Utah beforehand. Like I say, it wasn't meant to be so cinema related.

Having picked up the hire car in Salt Lake City, we immediately left and drove straight to Moab. Our first port of call was Arches National Park where amongst other things the beginning of this was filmed:

There were also some Thelma and Louise scenes filmed in Arches, but the famous driving off a cliff scene was filmed under Dead Horse Point; the view from which looks like this:

This viewpoint also features in 127 Hours as a brief sunrise scene. The cliffs under this viewpoint are also the cliffs that Tom Cruise climbed in the opening scenes of Mission Impossible 2, but you don't get to walk under there, so I don't have any photos.

After Dead Horse Point we did Canyonlands National Park, which hasn't appeared so much on the silver screen, but some of 127 Hours was filmed (on account of Aron Ralston getting his hand stuck under a rock in another part of Canyonlands), and some of The Greatest Story Ever Told was shot at Green River Overlook:

Next we headed off down to Monument Valley. Now it really would be unrealistic of me to try and list all of the films that have been shot here. If you have ever seen a couple of westerns in your life, there is a good chance that at least one of them was shot here; especially if it had John Wayne in it, or made by John Ford. In fact this is the view from what is known as John Ford's Point:

Now, I have never seen a John Ford film, or a John Wayne film for that matter (hides head in shame); but it's not like John Ford had the exclusive rights to this view. This is Once Upon a Time in the West:

Sergio Leone obviously also a fan of this scenery.

Of course this isn't just restricted to Westerns, just stick a DeLorean in front of those Buttes and Mesas:

And for those of you with a British sci-fi leaning, this is where the Doctor meets Amy, Rory, and River at the beginning of the last series of Doctor Who:

Then just after we'd taken this picture (or one similar), we turned around, got back into the car and saw this:

We weren't even trying, and the movie locations kept ambushing us!
Following Monument Valley we headed to Zion; not much filmed there, though Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was filmed not too far away. Next stop was Bryce Canyon, and then Grand Canyon. Nothing terribly much was filmed at either of these locations, and I've wittered on far too long already.
I hope that you liked my photos, and if anyone wants to go to the States but doesn't know whereabouts to go, or anyone who lives in the States and has never been, I thoroughly recommend visiting south Utah, it is truly spectacular.

Science on Film

On my twitter profile I claim that I am a scientist (true), evil genius (probably not true), and part-time movie blogger (true). So it is in my capacity as a scientist (Microbiologist to be exact, though I have dabbled in Biochemistry as well), that I wanted to be critical of, and in praise of how science is shown in films. Of course due to my biological science background, a lot of what I’ll say reflects this; I’m sure a chemist or a physicist would come up with a completely different set of examples, maybe even a different conclusion.

Generally I don’t think science is portrayed well/accurately in films. Though to be honest this can probably be said of various media, and of various topics. I think for the sake of an exciting film/TV programme/newspaper article, technical accuracy isn’t always 100%, whether it is scientific, historical, or biographical. Perhaps the difference is that science is logical, experimental, and (should be) based on unbiased facts; ie things are done for a reason. Consequently, when it is obviously done wrong, at best it’s like a slap in the face, at worst it’s just laughable. This of course is a problem (should be a problem) for the filmmaker, because as soon as a punter laughs at something that is supposed to be serious (now I’m not thinking of Yoda at the end of Episode II at all!), then in their eyes the film loses all credibility.

So a slap in the face for me is my pet love/hate; Radioactivity. This is the warning sign for radioactivity:

It is so because the chemical elements that are radioactive are unstable. Due to this instability they break down and release radioactive particles. Therefore the warning symbol shows two “objects” balancing on one, an unstable design. Therefore, to show the symbol upside-down is not only meaningless, but implies the complete opposite of what is trying to be conveyed; “This substance is stable, no danger here”! Actually there are specific rules as the dimensions of the symbol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_symbol#Radioactive_sign

                                                         Unstoppable: All sorts of wrong

                                                              Back to the Future: Correct

While we’re on the subject of things being just plain wrong, here’s another corker. This time from The Matrix. And I quote:

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not.

WRONG! If only the Wachowski brothers had taken 10 seconds to check Wikipedia, they would have found that mammals are so called because the female of each species possesses mammary glands! And last time I checked, humans fall into that category!

Smith then goes on to say that we are actually viruses. Well, we’re not, but viruses are very interesting. Not least in the context of this article as they possibly (though I have no evidence for this - bad scientist!) inspired Alien, at the very least. We all know the life cycle of an Alien: Queen lays eggs, eggs hatch, facehugger jumps on unsuspecting passer by and impregnates, chest-burster bursts out killing host, and Xenomorph can then grow up and lead a healthy and fulfilling life!

In many ways a bacteriophage virus is very similar. A bacteriophage is a virus than infects bacterial cells. When the virus finds a bacterium, it will attach itself, and then “impregnate” the cell with it’s own DNA. The virus then exploits the host cell processes to make many new copies of the viral DNA; new viral particles are then assembled within the host cell, until it eventually bursts releasing all of the new viruses.

As can be seen from this video, the bacteriophage even look fairly horrific.

The video may be a bit over-dramatic, but you get the idea! So we should tip our hat to H.R. Giger, and Ridley Scott for making a Sci-fi film about an alien with accuracy; because few things are scarier than nature! And as if to confirm this, watch this video of the Cordyceps fungi that infect insects and then grow out of the host body!

So some of those horrific Sci-Fi creatures may have some basis in science and nature, though it may not be intentional some times. And while we’re at it, if you thought that The Thing was a bit too far fetched, then you really don’t have to look any further than Dictyostelium (Slime Moulds):

Then from the sublime to the ridiculous. That special breed of film that contains that particular branch of science: Spacker Science! Whether it be trains of molten phenol in Unstoppable, or toxic waste melting Paul McCrane in 10 seconds in Robocop! But all pale into insignificance when compared to Deep Blue Sea! Ah yes.

“Scientists” discover the cure to Parkinson’s disease; a protein that causes neurons to fire again (which happens instantly in a petri dish!). So, shall we copy the gene for the protein into E. coli, so that it can be propagated and produce loads of protein in the lab (standard practise, even I do this in the lab)? Or shall we breed giant sharks, with giant brains, so that we can pipette the protein directly out of it’s brain?! I’m sure there was a reason for the sharks particularly, but I can’t remember what it was. Of course, giving sharks larger brains makes them super-intelligent! Of course we all know that this is true; larger brains = greater intelligence. That is why the elephant is the most intelligent mammal!?

I could sit here all day and pick holes in this film, but then that’s not it’s point is it. As I said earlier, to make something like a film more entertaining, there has to be a certain amount of willing suspension of disbelief, especially when it comes to science. Let’s then be honest, who wouldn’t find Samuel L. Jackson being eaten by a giant shark, or Saffron Burrows stripping down to her knickers and bra so she can electrocute a shark, or L. L. Cool J telling us how to make an omelette entertaining?

I think science generally comes off quite badly in films; if it is not accurately done, then scientists themselves are usually portrayed as socially inept nerds who live only for their research and barely see daylight. There are a few good examples of films, but I don’t really have the time to go into Contact (written by Carl Sagan), or 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Sunshine (Professor Brian Cox was scientific advisor), and I’m sure more films that escape me right now.

As I said at the beginning, there are reasons for scientific theories and ideas. Research, experiments, and drawing the most likely conclusions based on evidence (almost Occam’s Razor) is how we progress our knowledge. Perhaps the conclusions may not be completely correct at the moment, but this is the point of research, to question accepted dogma if we have reason to doubt it, or in the light of new evidence. This is why when it is done badly/wrong in films it just looks silly because it just doesn’t make sense.

I should finish by saying this doesn’t necessarily ruin films for me, despite perhaps being “pulled out of the film” by some stupid science, I still think the like of Deep Blue Sea, Robocop, Watchmen, The Thing, AVP, The Matrix are all still great/very entertaining films (I’ll let you decide which of those you think I think are great or just very entertaining!). It would just be nice if Directors/writers/producers/set designers could just do a little bit of research themselves to make sure their film was slightly less silly!

Alice in Wonderland

I will be the first to admit I don’t have a clue when it come to a whole bunch of classic children's stories or nursery rhymes (my Mum and wife would be a very close equal second!). Consequently, the first time I am becoming acquainted with the story of Alice and her land of wonder at the age of 34, is courtesy of Tim Burton and Love Film, rather than a kid's book. Of course this also means that I don’t know how like the original story this film is, but then since when have film adaptations been completely faithful to the relevant book?
The film did throw up a few surprises for me, meaning I had no idea the Jabberwocky was from this story. For as long as I can remember I have been able to quote “Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe” (if I remember correctly), but had no idea it was from Alice in Wonderland. Also the various references to the story in The Matrix make a bit more sense!
As far as the film goes, all the usual suspects for a Tim Burton film are there (including music by Danny Elfman of course). It took a while to figure out why I recognised the Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover) but he was George McFly in Back to the Future! I think it’s also worth mentioning that Anne Hathaway looked stunning as the White Queen, though slightly silly and floaty (in a humorous not stupid way). Of course Johnny Depp is good as the Mad Hatter, but not in a “Hey look at me I’m Johnny Depp!” kind of way, which I might have expected following Pirates of the Caribbean. There is also quite an ensemble cast of voice actors as well, featuring Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman, Michael Sheen, Timothy Spall, Paul Whitehouse, and Barbara Windsor.
Then of course there’s Alice. Played by Mia Wasikowska, Alice must be young, yet independent and strong minded, then at the end she must be brave enough to fight a monster. I feel a lot of films that have a young main role often fall foul of playing on the youth too much, and consequently end up being like an 80s Disney film (one reason I’ve never liked the Narnia stories); but I didn’t once feel that while watching this film. Mia manages to play the youthfulness of the character, but at the same time question everything around her in a logical way (I guess logical for someone continually expecting to wake up from a dream (huh, more Matrix references)), thus showing how mature Alice is, rather than just being an irritating kid.
There’s probably no point in trying to summarise the plot; most other people in the world knew before I ever did, and it’s so convoluted and non-sensible that my falling-asleep brain couldn’t cope. So I should just conclude by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed it, Tim Burton creates a zany world (wie immer!) that you become immersed in, and I should make sure any kids I have know their classic stories and nursery rhymes!

"Get outta here! Tim Burton designed this?!!"

What are you looking at Butthead?!

Often when someone remembers a great film from their childhood, and makes you watch it for the first time as an adult, you hate the film. I've made people watch The Lost Boys & Star Wars, and at best received a shrugging of the shoulders in return. The only film I can think I've been exposed to like this is Dirty Dancing, which being more of a chick-flick isn't a fair comparison I guess. But when I watched Back to the Future in its entirety just a couple of months ago (Yes I've never seen it all before, I've seen bits over the years), I was surprised that I really enjoyed it. Maybe this should be the hallmark for a great film; if you can watch it for the first time 25 years after it was first released and still think it's great, it must be good!


Therefore, as it has just been re-released for its 25 year anniversary, I saw it for the second time. Disappointing that there was only 8 people at the Belmont cinema to see it though! That's only 2 more people than there was when I went to see AVP in Berlin!!
As far as the film goes, was there anything that could go wrong? There's humour, romance, fast cars, time travel, extremely quotable lines, The Power of Love, and executively produced by Steven Spielberg. I guess MJF could have turned out to be a total bust, but even he's great. It's hard to think of many other films that are as pure entertainment as Back to the Future, apart from Indy films (Oh, Spielberg again), and perhaps Transformers! (sorry, but I was always going to love Transformers since I was a HUGE Transformers addict when I was a kid; Oh and look, Spielberg again!). So maybe I should redefine my great film criteria to one where Steven Spielberg is a producer! Erm checking IMDB I quickly retract that, I'd forgotten about Revenge of the Fallen, Jurassic Park 3, and some other clangers!


Lost the plot a bit there! Back to the Future. Great film, even 25 years on, doesn't look too dated. Cool enough to inspire not one but two Last Exit to Nowhere shirts! Go and see it if you haven't already!

“Doc, are you telling me that it’s 8.25?!” “Precisely” “Dammit, I’m late for school!”