"Breaking the Maya Code" (2008)

This is one of those documentaries that could get political pretty quickly--which is something I'd rather avoid.  It's not that it is a political topic--it only touches on the cold war briefly--but in edging on it and in asking myself, "What do I think?", the topic can come up pretty quickly.

I enjoyed learning the history of this topic in this documentary.  And I'm always saddened when what isn't understood is destroyed just on the basis of ignorance of the person or group of people doing the destroying.
I know they worked to end on a positive note--and were successful, I think.

This is also probably the first academic topic that has made me question the healthiness (for lack of a better word) of academic debate.  I certainly think that there should be freedom of speech.  As with any freedom comes responsibility.  And with responsibility and freedom comes our natural penchant to sin and mess things up.  This includes disrespect for the other side of the debate.

I also found with this documentary that I had to think about, "What makes a top rated documentary (in my book)?"  I certainly have opinions on it, and it is a theme I seem to address in many of my documentary blogs.

This documentary has got me thinking about all sorts of topics that could be dived into by themselves.  The above just scrapes a little bit of each one.  Any documentary that can get a person to do that while only attempting to inform about a particular topic is saying something.  And the topic this time?  Reading classical (ancient) Mayan writing.

"National Geographic: Herod's Lost Tomb" (2008)

This one was good, a very nice mixture.  Just the right balance.  This is the Herod that tried to kill Jesus as an infant.  The show had "Where is his tomb?" as a very loose mystery framework to organize the show, but otherwise, it was mainly a history of Herod's architectural achievements--based on archaeology, of course, with some brief mentions of Josephus.  I liked the computer generated "picture this from the past" images superimposed on current existing landscape.  Finally, a documentary with all the right balance of pieces in place.

"Bermuda Triangle Exposed" (2010)

There's a certain amount of repetition--as in right before a commercial break and right after a commercial break--in this apparently made for television documentary.  The voiceover narrator seems to be trying to find a balance between stating the facts and making it sound dramatic, without going overboard.  It's a "nearly there" effort, but not quite there.

Think maybe I miss Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom.

I've heard worse (overly dramatic), and I've heard better.  This one isn't bad.  As for the information, it's interesting enough.  I just don't see what the dramatic tone and script writing adds to the show.  To me, it doesn't.  But the information was interesting enough to keep listening to and I don't think I'd ever heard any of it before.  If an investigation of the Bermuda Triangle sounds interesting to you, this would be a decent enough update on it for you.  It focuses mostly on the science--fact through most of the show with theory near the end--more than any catalog of lost vessel particulars.  They include only 3 or 4 vessel particulars--just enough to serve as examples for the science.  The rest focuses on the science--and attempts to dazzle you with computer graphic displays.  And I suppose you have to show the viewer something while you talk.

"The Book of Daniel" (2013)

Wow.

When this movie started, I expected anything from a "Sunday School" movie (interesting enough to keep my interest, but not much more to it) or maybe something as smoothly done as "The Book of Esther", albeit low-budget.  Happily, not only was this closer to the "Book of Esther" end, but I think in some ways surpassed it.  To me, this movie is so very well written, and that's not something I was expecting.

The movie stays pretty close to all the stuff in Daniel as far as I can remember; but it also mixes in just a little information from history to round out things--not too much to take over.  The movie employs a frame story "let me tell you a story" framework, with occasional "interruptions", but the frame story is done well, too.  The CGI is low-budget--hey, they're lions!  What are ya going to do?--but other than that, I was pleased with the production aspects.  Just enough music in all the right places without taking over, and well-chosen end-credit and beginning credit music.

This one, I would watch again!

I like the theme riding through that mixes in just enough politics to point out power and political intrigue, but the strong finger of the power and authority God has over the kings and kingdoms of this world--this movie does a nice balance of that.

My only complaint is there was no disclaimer relating to "see the Bible for what it says there over and above what's in the movie".  Instead, there was typical "any representation to actual people is not intended" (I'm remembering verbatim here).  I know what they mean, and I suppose maybe they're trying to stay out of the way of "Bible is truth" vs. "Bible as made up/literature".  I suppose.  So, I'll say it.  The Bible is truth.

Now, the movie, I liked it.  Really impressed with it.  To me, sooo well-done.  Can we watch it again?

"Radio Rebel" (2012)

This is a teen flick--so pretty fluffy.  Teen romance comedy.  And the "bad guy" is the principal--why?--guess 'cause somebody had to be???--other than the rhetorics of the principal being the "bad guy"--which I'd rather it not be, but not surprising--and that the principal is all over music--'um okay--gotta be 'bout something...??...--other than those two things, I really enjoyed the storytelling of this movie.  Ups and down curves, no body dies, very nice ending for everybody--and even a twist that I totally didn't see coming--not easy to do and I loved that I was surprised.  I enjoyed this movie.  Would love to see more like this one.

Totally recommend.   Nice easy-going movie.  Written well.  Good for family time.  :)

"State Fair" (1962)

Music is better--better singers (Bobby Darin, Pat Boone), songs seem better somehow, better use of music in the background, maybe music recorded better, too.

Not sure that I liked the story better, though.  Of the subtle differences in story, I think I prefer the 1945 version overall.  Okay, maybe 1 or 2 story changes I liked better in this version.  Still I think I'd take the 1945 story with the 1962 music.  This might be an interesting movie to look at as a crossover/clash of 50s values (which win out) and the 60s values to come (which do flavor the show some).  I may be reading in some of the 60s bit--reading in something that isn't there.  But, it isn't just a modernization of the 1945 version.  There is something a little bit different about it--something besides the singing--and that's what I think it is.  It's trying to cross over into the 60s, but isn't ready to leave the 50s yet.

My recommendation, watch for the music--and if you like looking at those early race cars.

"The Real Story: Indiana Jones" (2009)

Let's get this out of the way:  Music is pretty non-descript.  "Let's think of Indiana Jones movies without really using that music and just kind of hover there in the background."  In other words, it works.

Settled.

Now...

You know that disclaimer at the end of movies about how any correlation between the movie and any real person, place, thing, historical event, or garden carrot is purely coincidental?  This episode pretty much said, "Yeah, let's ignore that and look anyway."  

It asks the question, "Was there a real life Indiana Jones?" and tries to tie the proposed historical figures into a "SEE!  SEE!  Here's the inspiration for the movie character. Uh-huh. Uh-huh," mystery speculation (which fails to feel like any kind of  'mysterious debate'  fuel to me--sorry).  Two propositions.  The first was interesting enough.  The second was depressing--which was why, I suppose, they started with the other one first, so you would keep watching.  Makes sense.

Then I was mulling over the theory of "There's only really one story," otherwise known as "There's nothing new under the sun."  This presents the question:  "Does it matter whether it is one story or two?"  And I don't mean that as in "Who cares?"  I mean that in, "What is the impact of that answer?"  

I think I may have just stubbed my toe on the corner of a literary debate/theory outcropping in my living room.

If you're looking for something short, just to fill the time, then this episode isn't too bad.  This documentary does cut out all of the false suspense building.  Thank you.  Yet at the same time it is unsatisfying.  

That's rather misleading.  That makes it sound like it's a bad thing, but I don't think it is.  It's unsatisfying because now I want to watch a biography documentary of the first person, one that does a more thorough job than this show did.  And I want to watch a team or group of people go back and do a more thorough exploration of that cave in the second story.  So, I think it's a good unsatisfying.  I just don't have the time to follow up either desire right now.  And highly doubt either exists.

So, much for satisfaction.