"Journey to the Christmas Star" (2012)

At first, I thought the dubbing was a little out of sync.  (That happens on rare occasions for streaming at my house.)  It wasn't until the credits rolled that I realized it wasn't out of sync or bad dubbing.  It was dubbing English over onto a movie initially made in another language.  Since the credits read "Disney Studios Norway", I'm assuming that's Norwegian.

There's just enough fancy to keep this fun--"just give blueberries to the bear and say hi"--and who wouldn't find it fun to hop onto the North wind for a ride--and yeah "jump onto what?" kind of adventurous-scary, too.  The "bad guys" are bad but the one bumbles just enough that it's a "safe" bad.  And as I said, there's enough magic and whimsy to keep it a lighter movie.  The lead is a girl.  That's nice.  I'm taking the character "Mose" (sounded like "Moss") as one, too, but I'm not entirely sure there.  (My apologies if I'm wrong there.)

So, this story could be subtitled a Christmas Cinderella Adventure.

And if you do decide to watch this movie, hang in there through all the credits.  :)

Also known as Reisen til julestjernen.

"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" (2013) [extended version]

I liked it.

I usually try to watch the theater version first before the extended, but that didn't work out that way this time.  With the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I have found that my personal preference was for the director's cut.  I like pacing of the story much better in the director's cut versions.

I read somewhere to the effect that Peter Jackson felt he let Tolkien fans down because there wasn't a fresh take on the films, that new ideas were brought, by having a new director.  Personally, I am glad for the continuity.

I don't have any criticisms or accolades to express with this first viewing.  I just thoroughly enjoyed myself by allowing myself to be immersed into the world of "The Hobbit 2".

"The Brooke Ellison Story" (2004)

An amazing story (that I'm assuming is true) about the journey of a girl (along with her mother and the rest of her family) from age 11 to college graduation from Harvard.  [I just spoiled the ending there for you.]  Amazing lady.  Amazing mother and family.  Brooke Ellison is a quadrapelic (or maybe it is paraplegic).  Brooke Ellison is a summa cum laude Harvard graduate (or maybe that was just her senior thesis?).  At the time that the film was made, she was working on her doctorate.

I think that qualifies for "inspirational story".

The movie is biographical.  End messages connect to the Christopher Reeves Foundation (which makes sense since it was directed by Christopher Reeves).

Not a bad way to spend a Sunday evening.  Just not much more to say about it.  Maybe that means the movie speaks for itself.

Maybe watch it on Mother's Day.

"Red Dawn" (2012)

When I read the one line description of this movie, I didn't read it close enough.  I saw "Korean" and thought this movie was set on foreign soil.  Nope.  I've not seen any zombie movies, but "Zombie Apocalypse" without the zombies is sure what came to mind.  It's a war/guerrilla movie, set on American soil.  In Seattle.

It has some warm moments--there are girls--but it's more about brothers bonding and the younger growing up some.  The ending isn't a "everything comes out all right" kind of ending.  Shoot, everyone in the starting group doesn't make it to the end.  (I told you "zombie apocalypse without the zombies", didn't I?)  So, it's not a "feel good" ending.  More of

an enobling one.  I suppose.  [Is war enobling?]  Prefaced right before it with a moment that dropped MY jaw.  Didn't see that coming.  Definitely not a "good guys never die" kind of movie.

So, if you like action movies--like Bourne Identity--this might have some of that flavor of action.  Main characters die or, for other reasons, don't make it to the end of the movie in the group.  Guess that makes it realistic.  So, if you want a happy ending or want an ending where the protagonist wins, this isn't that movie.  But if you just want to see some "blow 'em up" action mixed with "we're real people" dynamics, real people that make decisions that you understand, that aren't easy, and different people making different decisions in similar situations.  That's the movie that this is.  Those decisions could be some discussion starters.

And set in near-present day American Seattle.  Yeah.  That's not "somewhere else."  That can get you thinking, too.

Favorite lines:  "We're trying to link up with a group of insurgents working in the area.  Call themselves Wolverines.  You ever hear of them?" ... "We're the Wolverines."  "I was afraid of that."

and "Marines don't die, they go to hell and regroup."  [Thanks, IMDB, but what's that comma splice doing in there?]

So, I think I recommend this movie.  It's a good movie for the right kind of mood.  You just gotta know what you're in for, though, then it will live up to it.

"Peter & the Wolf" (2006)

This is a half hour film--Polish, I believe--of Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf.  Now, I grew up listening to Leonard Bernstein's Peter and the Wolf.
I can't tell you how much I listened to that as a kid and how delighted I was to find that old record on a CD as an adult.  I couldn't but hear Bernstein's voice in my head.  Nevertheless, adaptations of familiar works are a good thing.  This adaptation certainly made me wonder how much of Bernstein's version was Bernstein's two cents and how much was Prokofiev's.  No dialog in this version; so you don't need to worry about Polish or subtitles.

I was pleased with this adaptation.  It's primarily puppet (no puppet strings, just orchestra ones) with digital assist.  (That's how I read it.)  I was intrigued by when she chose to start the music in this story.

And that cat!!!  Garfield has nuthin' on this fat cat.  Trust me, this is one, fat. cat.  And there are a couple of moments that made laugh out loud.  And suspense of story--even for a familiar story--came from some interesting places.  I also definitely didn't guess that ending.  Thought I knew.  Nope.  Quite the duck.  Only actor who could have carried off that part, I guess, in spite of what is typical of ducks in general (tongue in cheek).

That cat!!!  :D




[According to IMDB, this movie won an Oscar for best animated short film.  Director and writer is Suzie Templeton.]

"Despicable Me" (2010)

I wasn't sure what to expect when I started this movie.  I didn't know anything about it, not even a trailer.  I was quite satisfied with the movie, enjoyed it, and even surprised myself with needing some kleenexs near the end.  Nice movie.

The flashback threw me off.  I realized what it was the 2nd time it happened.

Oh! and it had "Coco-cabana".  :)

"A Werewolf Boy" (2012)

Foreign film (subtitles).  Korean I think.  (Yep, Korean.)

It has parts of lots of stories from before, but puts it together as it's own.  Could I even begin to list them all?  Part romance, part sci-fi.  Okay, mostly childhood romance with the romance of Titanic as it's flavor.  Sci-fi like the incredible hulk--enough to make the romance stand out as unique, but not so much that you feel like you're only watching a sci-fi movie.  And nobody kisses.  So then is it really a romance?  And I think there are connections to "Beauty and the Beast".  The romance, I suppose, is more like Tarzan, except maybe a better ending.  (Okay, I don't know how tarzan ends.  Maybe I'm thinking Jungle Book?)  Save this movie when you feel like savoring the small moments, not when you want fast-paced story or tons of action.  (Okay, even I fast forwarded once or twice, but the forwarding didn't last long--and the parts turned out to be important, one of which at the end of the movie I went back to see.)  Also brings up questions (not surprisingly) of "Who is the real beast?" with all the expected answers--but it's nice to hear them asked again anyway.

I think I expected this movie to be a "fail" and turn into a thriller/horror flick.  Or a drama that turned boring after the first half hour passed.  But neither was the case, and I was rather pleased with it.  The Sci-Fi-ness was probably closer to X-Men premise then anything.

I think the only point of improvement I could think would be maybe the movie cover art work.  Guess a person judges a lot about a movie by the "front cover" and that made it hard to see what this movie was going to be like.  But the front cover wasn't wrong either.  Kind of sets up your expectations--and then maybe (if you're observant) you catch what your expectations are and realize that you aren't on the inside circle, the inside circle of the two characters you're rooting for.

And that "creepy" walk up to the door?  The one where there's "always" music to heighten... Well, that was kindly left out.  No music.  So, you had to guess yourself.  Will you be startled?  Will there even be anything there?  What will you find?  Should you open the door?  Or are you just being ridiculous?

So, there you go.  A title that is accurate, yet misleading.  A front cover that is misleading, yet appropriate.  A sci-fi movie that hardly feels like, yet it is.  The feel of a romance yet it isn't, not strictly.  I think I was glad I spent the time.

"Legend of the Legendary Heroes"--episodes "Rule Fragment" & "Twilight" (2010)

Any regular readers of my blog should notice that I've talked about the trouble TV series present to writing reviews--It's a challenge to write one review for something that can change its character, or to watch it all before saying anything.  Therefore, I tend not to worry about keeping track of what I think about TV shows, with occasional exceptions.

This show is one of those exceptions.  First, I can't say that I've watched very many of the episodes in order.   And I've certainly not seen all of them. See, they're written like a book--one episode leads to another--as opposed to stand alone episodes that you can generally watch in any order without missing too much--or that start and end in a self-concluding way.  Maybe my skipping around (watching a few early episodes, skipping a few, watching a few skipping a bunch, watching the last one. etc.) is because I'm impatient with a series where you have to watch all of it (overlapping stories I understand as a current television style of writing, but "you have to watch/buy the next story to finish this one" to me is also a "cheap shot" at getting people to watch based on blackmail instead of quality writing).  Maybe my skipping around is a search for the heart, the nugget of what intrigues me, of what I enjoy analyzing, of the search for those rare moments when TV/movie making actually captures something.  For me, this show--and specifically these two back-to-back episodes--do that.  They capture something.  I'm just not sure I've figured out what.

Now, I'm not saying this show is any kind of moral allegory.  It doesn't seem to me to set out to do that.  And if it is intentional, I either am not spotting it, or am not up enough on that sort of knowledge to identify it.  (I'll leave that to some of my more read theological friends.)  But there are some elements in this story that touch on some of the important spiritual ideas in life.

I can't say enough that I'm not saying this is a perfect moral allegory.  I'm not saying it is a moral allegory.  And I'm not saying I'm right.  But watching the bits and pieces of this show as I have, there is something here that shouts itself.  And it's that that I want to try and point out.  Because my experience has been that if it shouts to me, then it is worth pointing out.  (And please pardon my brief unusual excursion into summary-exposition that follows.)

First off, for you to see where I am coming from, there might need to be some watching of the first few episodes of this show to get a handle of what is what and who is who in this particular fantasy world.  The two episodes that I'm specifically reviewing are numbers 9 & 10 of the first season.  One main character is "Ryner Lute".  Ryner is an outcast, but not because of behavior, or race, or culture; but because he is a person (like others who are rare but who are encountered--kind of like that occasional "witch" you meet in medieval tales) who is a bearer of the "alpha stigma".  The other character I'll mention in this post is his quest companion "Ferris Eris".

I like super hero movies/TV shows, especially the first part where the super hero first gets his/her super hero powers.  He/She goes "AAAAhh!  What's happening to me?"  But then they get the hang of it, decide to use it for good, and go out an "kick some butt."  That in-between struggle of identity is what I find most intriguing.  The end result and the appeal of super heroes doesn't surprise me, and isn't nearly as intriguing.  Usually makes for just a decent ending to a movie.  As far as I'm concerned, it just leaves all the "good" stuff behind at the beginning of the story.  Why isn't this appeal surprising?  Because it is the same thing that happened in the fall in the Garden of Eden--mankind wants to be God, wants to be King, the center of the universe, all powerful.  So, are super heroes trying to be God?  or trying to be a "savior"-figure in said stories?  It's an interesting question, but a side tangent to this post.  My point is that it is predictable.  Unsurprising.  Yet again the hero can do cool stuff.  He is powerful.  She has superpowers.  It's presented as desirable.  Perhaps we want to be able to do the cool stuff they do.  Or perhaps we want to see that it's possible to be saved--something also deeply desired by everyone.

And that's where this show departs so far.  Ryner is not only powerful, but pretty much over-the-top unstopable.  But it is not desirable.  It is a curse.  Something shunned.  Something that makes people run.  It makes people want nothing to do with him.  Ryner can't control it.  Doesn't want it.  Because this curse--the "alpha stigma" that he carries, that enables him to turn back and defeat the bad guys--also takes over and sets him on a course to destroy everybody and everything around him.  That is not what you typically see in super heroes.  And I'm not just talking Incredible Hulk destruction.  I'm talking atomic bomb.

And how much louder can it shout as the picture of sin?  The sin, the alpha stigma is inside.  It can't be gotten rid of.  It destroys.  It is barely controllable.  No one wants it.  It causes death.  And isn't defeatable--by normal, un-godlike humans.  And by "it" I mean both sin and Ryner's alpha stigma.  Life means nothing to Ryner because of how his alpha stigma (read sin) has affected his life.  Tell me this doesn't resonate with the spiritual warfare that is inside each of us.

Again, how many super heroes have a "superpower" that is so destructive they never, ever wanted it.  Not just momentarily, or at certain parts of the story, until they come to peace with it.  Or until they decide to use it for good.  With Season 1, as I scan it, this just is not the pattern for Ryner.  He's never wanted it.  He can't get rid of it; not an option.  He can't use it for good because it is uncontrollably destructive.  And it only comes out when triggered, when backed into a corner.  And then it is never a last resort choice for Ryner.  It is no choice.  It surfaces unbidden, unasked for.  The Incredible Hulk changes back when he calms down.  Not even a possibility for Ryner.  It takes someone else to help him squelch it down into something still there just below the surface, a "monster" waiting to come out again.  In these two episodes, it is Ferris who helps him fight it back into barely submerged something inside of Ryner.  After which, Ryner breaks down in tears, completely broken over who he is, of what he is.

And Ferris is the other intriguing element in a completely unrelated way.  Female.  She is sure Ryner is a "sex fiend" just because he is male and exists.  (He truly does nothing of any sort of notion to support Ferris's accusations.  He doesn't flirt with anyone.  Doesn't try to kiss her or any female.  Nothing.  He'd as soon just sleep the rest of his life away.  She accuses Ryner anyway.)  She's an incredibly powerful swordsman from a very dysfunctional family.  (Her brother used to strangle her to put her to sleep at night.  At least in this episode, she sees nothing unusual about this.)  Her motivation?  Her deepest thing to fight for or to use to persuade her to do something, or not do something else?  A food item called "dango".  (The animation draws it as colorful round bite-sized things [appetizers? candy?] on a stick.)  Threaten to raze the only decent dango shop in their world and you unleash the fury of a woman to do what ever it is you want.  It is a dramatization of all the chocoholic shirts, mugs, and posters you've ever seen.  Give her her dango, and no one gets hurt.  Refuse and you have the best swordsman in their world pointing her sword at your throat.

And this is who can convince a "I've given up on living" to leave his nap to go on the next quest?  (It's persuasion by sword point in case you had any doubts.  And the price of a nap so she'll leave him alone?  Dango, of course.)  Is this what the "angel in the house" who can "save" by changing the unsaveable crossed with "females can be strong leads, too" looks like?  This doesn't read to me like an attempt to either hold up both genders as equal, or as any kind of "lets throw a female in for romantic tension".  I just don't have a label for this yet--or a finished analysis of her for that matter.  She's a puzzle to me, a literary puzzle.

A female who is the highest sword master of anyone (that I can see) in this little world who holds familiar yet puzzling, but completely believable patterns of behavior and reasons of motivation is traveling with a characterization of our morally "original sin" sinful selves.  Ryner stuck with something uncontrolable who has no answers and no hope.  Ferris who gets him to interact with life in a quasi-useful way.

I told you this was puzzlingly intriguing.  And definitely nothing I've finished figuring out.

[series also known as Densetsu no yuusha no densetsu]

"Cirque du Soleil: Worlds Away" (2012)

When I look at the first movies made in color, I see a certain "Look at the cool things we can do now!" that interlaced the films.  There was still acting and plot and such, but there was a certain degree of thought given towards the visual.  This is not to say directors don't do that now, but today's visual is for a different purpose--the visual's contribution towards the story, or the setting, or the character, or the symbolic--not for the pleasure of visual in and of itself.

Then there's the joy of story telling through dance.  I remember enjoying this pleasure through The Lord of the Dance, but it sure not something that is very pervasive in American culture.  A pity.

So, Cirque du Soleil--as so many know--embraces the joy of the visual for it's own sake, and story telling through dance.

On top of all that, is the joy of seeing athletic prowess being used to create something beautiful.  Something more that is very sorely lacking in American culture in general.  How came we to lose storytelling through dance?  or the pleasure of the visual for something other than, shall we say, "courting ritual"?

This particular Cirque du Soleil taps into our romanticized notions of pirates, and childhood memories of watching the circus on TV.

Now I want to watch The Lord of the Dance again.  And this Worlds Away again.  Both at the same time.

The pleasure of the visual

"Fantomas I: In the Shadow of the Guillotine" (1913)

I've watched 1 or 2 of the Fantomas movies, but I haven't necessarily seen them in order.  I don't think this is one of the ones I've already seen, but it definitely sets up the characters, and now that I've seen a few, I have a little better idea what is going on.  Helps to see them in order--you know--better to see them as "here's the characters" followed by "here's what happens next" instead of the other way around.  Even if I have seen this one before, it was good to see it again feeling more in the know and having a little easier time keeping track of who's who.

Silent film cinematography tricks intrigue me.

This Fantomas:  sets up characters, and some of the initial impetus for how everyone is connected to everyone else.  Characters include Fantomas, Inspector Juve, Lady Beltham, Princess Danidoff, and Nibet.  This episode has a few other characters besides those, but I think these are some of the characters that also have impacts on the plot in episodes to come.

I'm assuming the music was a modern addition when they restored the film even though it was "period".

"Ben 10" (2005 - 2012)

I think Ben 10 is the first superhero I remember encountering whose parents didn't die first before he become a super hero.  There may be others, but they are definitely far and few between.  I mean, how great is it to hear in the middle of a super hero crisis "Don't run in the house!" from the mom?

I just gave this post the shortened Ben 10 title, but I am including it's subsequent versions of Ben 10:  Alien Force and Ben 10:  Ultimate Alien in the review as well.  There seems to maybe be another one or two.  Those are the current ones I have access to.  Ben 10 must be the original; he's a small kid then (4th grade?  5th grade? 10 years old?).  Ben 10:  Alien Force he is a young teenager, but the series refers to some things that happened in the gap between Ben 10 season 3 and the start of this one.  (Something for me to keep my eyes out for.)  Then in Ben 10:  Ultimate Alien he is still a teenager but older yet.  His cousin Gwen is his constant sidekick functioning well in the capacity of "annoying sibling" in the first series and "still supporting but with my own family bloodlines and stories" in the later ones.  So, yep, the female angle is covered.

I like bouncing around between the series.  The first one is good for lighter fare--just fight the encountered bad guys and go get some ice cream.  The older ones still keep the same flavor of story line--they fight the bad guys to save the world, but it is mostly self-contained stories and it keeps from getting too serious when the "mass plan for domination" is merely putting in an earth-wide air-conditioning system.  Yep--good to not feel too threatened with that, then I can enjoy more of the jokes and other subtleties in between.

It is a cartoon, but you have to admit, it's costly to do live-action super hero and supernatural stuff.  Or so I'm assuming.  So, why do I feel the urge to be defensive about enjoying this show?  If you think what traditional children's stories include, you're going to include fairy tales--complete with children talking to strangers, shoving old ladies into stoves, and other story elements that aren't so "child only" when you think of them.  If I look to the younger, the only thing that differentiates children's stories from non-children's stories is talking animals.  Not much help there.  And I can't look to older because "adult entertainment" gets into a whole realm of things that I don't want here.  I'm not interested in watching X-rated fare on my TV set.  Not much help there either.  Maybe the segmented of "children's stories" and "adult stories" and whatever you're going to call the stuff in between is a fault of a segmented education system--1st graders learn with other 1st graders and only ever learn with 1st graders.  Repeat for each grade level.

Well, I have been searching for any kind of follow up to the old Munsters series.  Something supernatural, but something fun.  Something light-hearted without being stupid or over-acted.  Munsters came and what came next?  Addam's Family was about that same time.  And in our current decade, what "family-friendly" non-X-rated adult supernatural don't-take-the-world-too-seriously fare is there?  I keep searching.  And I guess I feel Ben 10 is one of the finds for that definition.

And somewhere I need to make myself a master list of superheroes that have both of their parents.  I think it would be a list of two at the moment.  Although, off hand, I don't remember who the other one is.

I've only seen a fraction of Ben 10 at the moment cutting across all of the different series, but I can tell that this series is definitely going to be one of my "let's watch all of it!" on-going enjoyments.

"Max Steel" (2013)

TV series.  Just watched the first 2 episodes.  This has all the right combos for what I like in my superhero watching.  Vulnerability (he needs "Steel").  Supernatural super hero (he can do cool things).  And, of course, I'm a sucker for a super hero's first few episodes ("What's happening to me?") where the whole identity issue hits the main character smack in the eyes.  Throw in lots of short-lived action and a bit of humor, (e.g. "I'm married to this toaster?") and it's a great combination for me.  The first 2 episodes of this series are continued into the next (each episode is only 20 minutes in length), so I'm hoping the cliff hangers are just a quirk of getting started (which is pretty typical).  Otherwise, I won't get anything done.  I understand why shows do cliff hangers and I understand the "advance" of story telling in making long interconnected stories that span one episode to the next. But I miss having the story end.

Maybe I better clarify that.

I want to know what happens next, and not have the story end, as it relates to characters.  The people development parts of things.  But, I don't want it to stretch out to where I need to watch more, and more, and more, just to get to some sort of chord resolution in the piece.  Come to the end of a cadence already.

Here's another illustration.  Who would write a mystery--TV show, miniseries, or movie--and then end the thing before you find out "Who dunnit?"  You'd have a mad audience and a short-lived run.  Why in the world should all the other shows--and books!--be different?  They're like a run-on sentence.  You might have a lot to say, but it's overwhelming.  The commitment then isn't "Do I want to watch another episode?"  The commitment is for the entire series.  That's quite an investment.

But I also don't want it to where it doesn't ever matter what episode you watch next because they're interchangeable.  Nothing changes between characters.  That's relaxing sometimes; so there's a place for those shows, too.  But it can get pretty shallow, otherwise, when you keep things that way.

And the whole "Superhero Loses Parent" headline?  Yep.  That's here, too.  Figures.

"Mystery of the 13th Guest" (1943)

Decent enough light-mystery detective story from the 40s.  Black and white.  Equal opportunity dingbat characters.  Not a bad way to spend an hour.  Not sure the story ever explained the title, but that's okay.

"Underdogs" (2013)

Fantastic movie!  Sweet movie!  For a sports movie, the plot isn't cookie cutter, but not weird either.  I liked the pacing.  Enough moving to keep you watching and wondering what's to come next without making you feel like you're on the verge of having a heart attack from holding your breath.  "Inspired by true events," it says.  Father of QB stutters and runs a secondary storyline as an inventor which is also a very nice story line.  Very satisfying movie.  A lot of pieces are there for the "what you expect from a sports movie about underdogs", but not everything.  I thought I would miss the pieces that aren't, but I don't.  I'm thinking this movie is going to get rewatched sometime.  Very nice movie!

Yep.  I'm watching this one again.

"Shrek" (2001)

"Hollywood" needs more accents.

I don't care for "stupid humor".  Although, I do appreciate that for many people, stupid humor is the perfect way to relax.  For us "dry humor" folks, dry humor seems hard to find.  ("There's 'um... Well, there's...um...or maybe....)  Yeah.  Not sure this movie fits the "dry humor" label, but it was fun to watch the humor built on cultural references and to watch a movie that wasn't loaded down with the humor that I have trouble laughing with.  I don't try to be hard to please.  Maybe dry humor is in the minority part of the population.  Anyways...

It was nice having a main character with an accent other than the "American Standard Midwest".  I liked hearing that little bit of different in Shrek's voice.  (Scottish?)  Not that the donkey is midwestern, but City Eddy is a well known flavor.

And of all the different renditions of Robin Hood that have been put into to film, I'm not so sure that the cameo appearance in this film isn't closer to the original flavor of the book than all the rest of the full fledged adaptations.  (Okay, I haven't seen all the versions yet.  So, my opinion could easily change.  I can think of one version I haven't seen that could be a challenger.)  Robin Hood dramas are nice--and understandablely a good selection for an adaptation.  At the same time, most of the book is much lighter "ha ha pulled a fast one", "let's swap stories" stories.  And Shrek's Merry men appearance is definitely on the lighter side.

Let's see.  Nice to have a lady dragon.

This movie was good fare.  A nice watch.

"Aeon Flux" (2005)

Female lead.  Lots of acrobatics.  I think the movie does a fine job submitting its own answer to "How would a female action lead look?" meaning, how would she fight different, to prove she is all woman, but still show "She can do it, too" just like a man?  (Here come the criticisms launched at the accusation that she should even have to be compared to a man--either as what she is as like him, or as what she is not in relation to him.  A sign as the negative of the picture to show that she is or isn't the positive--or both is AND isn't.)

So, how about instead the beauty of a body in fluid motion--a dance for something other than a dance competition.  And any screen fight instructor will tell you that fights are choreographed, a word used for dancing.

Interesting use of color throughout the movie.

I think for me, it's just the pleasure of seeing a capable woman who didn't need to be rescued/saved by a man during the fight.  And yet, as a Christian, we're ALL saved by a man.  It's what mankind--men and women--all realize inside them somewhere, that we're in need of a savior.  And even Aeon Flux--you find out at the end--is saved by a man, an old man.  Although, he saved her because he saw something worth saving.  And Christ's bride--the church--has nothing as part of her own self worthy of being saved; and yet Christ loved his bride enough to die for her.  Our need for a savior is buried deep inside us.  It can't BUT come out in what we create.

And Aeon Flux is just a nice action movie to watch on a Saturday night--enough shoot 'em up action with fluid motion acrobatics to keep you watching, with enough Sci-Fi to make things interesting--without so much gore you get sick of it or too much science mumbo-jumbo to scramble your brain.

"A Fistful of Dollars" (1964)

Clint Eastwood western.  I grew up when Sunday afternoons all that was on were old westerns--and as a kid, I generally went and did something else.  Now as I continue my exploration of films, it seems too weird to try watching an old western at any other time than in the afternoon.

What strikes me about this one--'64, is that early?--is the question of music.  One of the versions of My Darling Clementine simply plays the song "Oh, My Darling Clementine"--which might be obvious from the title, but does harken back to cowboy folk songs.  A Fistful of Dollars seems to try addressing the question "How do you say 'Western' and 'Modern' at the same time?"  You have whistles and chorus--perhaps connecting to cowboy ballads which were both sung and whistled to--, but the whistles are made using modern sounds--as if just a little more push to 'em and they'd be only electronic sounds--which would be all wrong for an "old western".

As for watching a western in the afternoon--that bright sunlight outside seems to help counterbalance all the violent shoot out stuff.  The western ends, you look outside, and that ol' sun reminds you that that story is done, that that isn't here and now, and you have a chance to reflect that the story was woven well enough together that you enjoyed it--and the good guy won.

"Night at the Museum" (2006)

I think this is probably a great movie for certain audiences--young audiences, families, and those who enjoy this style of humor.  I watched the start of this one and can see that it was done well, and I probably would enjoy the heart-warming parts of this movie.  However, my sense of humor is on the dry side, and the movie seems to cornerstone on slapstick.  So, for those audiences that this is geared for, those scenes probably are great, but for me, just seem slow.  And if I was handed an instruction manual for a job, I'd be reading it.  I realize then that would cut off part of the humor and sense of discovery.  Also, movie included (and butchered) a quote from Twelfth Night.  It just doesn't sell me watching it to the end.

I believe this to be a very good movie.  I just didn't watch it all myself.

Later:
I found that there was a enough charm to this movie that I pulled it back out and watched the rest of it.  The humor was still "stupid" humor, but the charm of the movie was enough to make up for it.

"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.

"Secrets: A Viking Map?" (2013)

The sound was a little better--still dramatic--but not as bad as some of the other documentaries.  This documentary is not questioning the arrival of the Vikings to America.  It is looking at the authenticity of an artifact known as the Vinland map.  A good introduction to this particular artifact.  This documentary is also a good introduction into looking at why anything is produced--Why is this document written?  Why is this essay written?  Why is this news article written?  Why is this product on the market?--Or in the case of this documentary, Why is this map produced?  Does a nice balanced job of presenting the ambiguousness of historical research.

"Secrets: The Sphinx" (2013)

This is what you get when you try to make archaeology as exciting as the Super Bowl.  Good Grief!  And the music has "got" to be straight out of an opera's mass choir "crowd goes to war" scenes.  

Wouldn't it be easier just to play an operatic quartet  number during each 4th down of a football game, and then during the final two minutes of the 4th quarter say "Yeah, we still don't really know anything about the Sphinx."?  The effect would be the same.  All that was missing was for one archaeologist to tackle another one.

Or we could just teach the whole stadium to sing, "O Fortuna".  That would work, too.

Perhaps if I took a class on the history of the documentary, maybe that would enlighten why these choices are made.  Otherwise:  For the "adrenaline junky", it's not going to cut it.  For the scholar, it seems to me more annoying than anything.  And as for pop-scholarism?  Let's commit and do it, instead just commercializing our egos.

I will say I recognize the mentioned "hey we found this tomb" tomb in this documentary as the tomb that held one of the "we're going to open this" spots from "Into the Great Pyramid" .  And the guy talking about that spot (Director of Giza.....) was also in the other one, too.

"Penelope" (2006)

SPOILER ALERT  (seriously, SPOILER ALERT):

In my quest to find a mild-mannered film, I came across this title.  Knowing my interest in leading characters with a "flaw" of some kind, I gave this a shot and was very pleasantly surprised.  This is a modernized fairy tale, but it also nicely includes a twist or two that I didn't exactly see coming.  I like that.

The first on-the-list surprise is that the guy doesn't save the girl.  The girl does.  She saves herself.  Twice.  And in a way, him, too.  A "self-rescuing princess" as I heard a friend tell me once.  This also counts as the second on-the-list surprise because I was expecting either 1.) girl marries wrong boy, marriage breaks curse, divorces boy, marries right boy or 2.) girl marries right boy, they don't worry about curse, or he has a secret past even he doesn't know of that breaks the curse.  But it was neither of these.  And I liked being "wrong" in this way because then it meant I didn't have the story all figured out because the story wasn't exactly like all the other romances.

I also liked that they cast a little person (isn't that what is politically correct?  hope so.  My apologies if it is wrong.) as one of the other characters without making his stature part of the story and without making it part of any of the jokes.  He was just another character.  I liked that.  Movies need to do that more.

So, girl saves herself.  And gets the right boy.  Boy changes, but not because girl made him.

Is this the new correct way to write a romance story that will please both genders?  And would you believe it, I think I like it--a lot--and not like it at the same time.

Don't get me wrong!!!  I really enjoyed this movie and really like what they did with the plot.  Period.

I just think the thinking part of me realizes how much we all need saving.  That means, I really hope the other story doesn't disappear.  And I really don't think it will.

And it is certain that there are traces of "woman as angel" in the story, but they're very faint.  [And I'm realizing this post has way too many "and"'s and "so"'s in it.  So, there's that annoying bit.]  Maybe I'd like to see an action romance movie, one where girl saves boy from bad guys.  And the boy isn't a wimp, or jerk or lost cause.  A boy who's a good looker who's in a bad spot.  A movie done well that isn't over the top unbelievable.  And that doesn't look like the over abundance of cop shows.  An action movie where it's not a cop shop.  There's a good writing challenge for you.

As for modernized fairy tales, I think the genre has possibilities of generating enough "new" stories to be considered a category of films.  I like it.  Let's keep 'em.

"Biography: Irving Berlin: An American Song" (2001)

I'm not super familiar with A&E Biography not subscribing to cable as I do, and the brief bursts of cable contact during hotel stays and such always seemed to lead to other choices.  Tonight seemed to be the night to actually get around to watching this particular episode, one I've had on the shelf for awhile.

Amazing.

I've had some negative after affects from some biographical productions--not for the quality of the production so much as sometimes what you get when you start digging into the behind the scenes information of people's lives yields information you didn't really want and results that you didn't expect to get.  And after a particularly negative experience that has long since "scarred" me, I've since been a little "gun shy" for watching them--which is why this particular one has been on my shelf for so long.  This biography, happily, did not have that effect.  Not only did enjoy learning new things (a consistent joy to me), but I was able to make some other connections, too.  There were the songs I'd come to know from my music days when music was so much more a part of my life--songs that had showed up in teaching jazz band, songs on my shelf to be played for pleasure on my clarinet and piano.  All these songs now had a context for a life, and in some instances a specific context.  Much of this, I guess, I expected and anticipated.  What I didn't anticipate was the movie connection.  A number of the movies that had Irving Berlin connections were ones that I was either quite familiar with or were ones that I've seen within the last few years.  "Alexander's Ragtime Band" (1938), "This Is the Army" (1943), "Easter Parade" (1948), "Annie Get Your Gun" (1950), and "Call Me Madam" (1953), as well as "Holiday Inn" were movies that when this biography referenced them, I could say not only "I've seen that!" and "I've seen that, too!", but I felt I knew exactly what they were talking about when they were musically chaptering them.  Other than name recognition of "Irving Berlin", I'd never really thought about how all of these strung together.  And when this biography did all of that, all I could do was say, "wow".

I mean, when the biography referenced the "This Is the Army" appearance of Irving Berlin himself, and the crowd's reception, and some of the other things said.  I could say, "I remember that moment!"  And remember being amazed myself when I originally saw that scene to go "That's Irving Berlin!" with my jaw dropping.   And then, to learn that he was very much quite alive during 18 years of my life, that he lived a full year plus past when my dad lived, I'm filled with thrilled amazement and dismay that such an "institution" to American culture would be out of my knowledge until now.  And his adaptive achievements--wow.

Amazing.

"On Her Majesty's Secret Service" Special Edition (1969)

This movie reawakened the question of "What makes a movie slow?"  This movie had its slow moments (so I did fast forward just a tiny bit in places), but I wouldn't call it a slow movie.  I don't know that you can judge by amount of chase scenes, length or amount of suspenseful moments, or anything as obvious as all these things.  At least some of it has to be the mood of the person watching.  If the person is impatient for something in their own life, will all movies seem slow?  If a person is perfectly content with things, will all movies seem either just right or too fast?

SPOILER ALERT:  And the ending.  What.  Forget the "If you want a happy ending, stop here" sign?  Well, guess you can't complain too much about not knowing what happens.  The boy gets the girl, a happy wedding, and no marriage obligations.  Thanks a lot.

Analysis all being said, it was a decent enough movie.  After all, it's a James Bond movie, so what do you expect?  He likes all the girls.  The occasional gadget exits.  Everybody "hates" Bond so they attack 'im; therefore, there's lots of fights and chase scenes.  This one is a regular Winter Olympics--skiing, skating, snow blowers (really?  was that scene/moment necessary?), bobsleds down tracks, avalanches, carols, Christmas trees, presents, people falling over cliffs, and a demolition derby and a bull fight thrown in for good measure. And Bond in a Scottish kilt...ok.

And, obviously, there's the iconic Bond music.  The man sweeping and whistling a fragment of a Bond theme was a very nice touch.

Make note:  This really is a fine movie.  It just leaves me with more analytic questions than what I have answers for.

"The Lost Medallion: The Adventures of Billy Stone" (2013)

Good kids movie.  Theology just borders on decision theology but doesn't push it and doesn't really cross over.  I don't remember much about the music, so it must have  been perfect.  End credits music was right on and enjoyable to listen to.  Good amount of action, and about one kleenex at the end (just sniff real hard--no one will notice).

SPOILER ALERT:  Let's see.  Girl saves boys.  Boy saves himself.  Everybody in trouble together or everybody saves everybody.  So, I guess it's fairly balanced--or at least close.  I guess the girl is traded twice.  But it didn't seem too badly lop-sided.  I'd still recommend the movie.  It was put together well and I found me constantly watching.  And the frame story was a fine inclusion, too.

"Ocean's Thirteen" (2007)

It's better than Ocean's Twelve, but not quite up to the original Ocean's Eleven--close, but not quite.

One of my favorite aspects is the family life of the character of "Linus Caldwell" as well as that character itself.  Amuses me.

The other favorite aspect is a similar quality that this movie has with Lara Croft--a smoothness of the plot that ticks together like a well-tuned mechanical clock.  It is a well choreographed dance in the shape of plot.

I still think this movie did pretty good.

"Lady Gaga & the Muppets' Holiday Spectacular" (2013)

SPOILER ALERT  (but then, it's a music special, so what do you expect):
Okay, let me say from the beginning I have no opinion--positive or negative--about Lady Gaga.  This is the first I've likely even knowingly heard her singing.  And the songs were largely a promo for one of her albums/CDs.  I watched this for the Muppets part of the show.  And I a smidge curious to see how they were doing with 2nd generation Kermit (Jim Henson sure was something else).

So, the first number is a joint number between Lady Gaga and the Muppets.  I am a huge Animal fan, and he is playing the drums in the background.  So, I watched the number all the way through.

Then I discovered that pretty much most of the rest of the numbers were Muppet-less (with one exception) until the finale.  Well, that just kinda misses the point.  So, admittedly, I took to fast-forwarding through the Muppet-less parts, so I could get to the "good" stuff.  When they finally did another number together, it was the finale--complete with credits right over the whole thing.  Way to show case it.  The inserted Muppet "bloopers" which were wonderful.

What does make it worth watching for the Muppet/music fan?  Two musical numbers...Ready for this?  Audio-visualize this singing trio:  Beaker (meep, meep), the Swedish chef, and Animal.  At two different times these 3 sing a "well-known Christmas carol"--Do you think it's possible to recognize it?  Lyric-less Beaker, Swedish Pig-Latin lyrics (just as unintelligible), and then the only thing possible to understand is Animal--except the 1st time he speeds things up too fast, and the 2nd time he only does follow-up/echo licks to the unintelligible stuff--so, he's the only one you can understand.  You don't understand the first part, but you understand the echo.  I was grinning ear to ear.  How musically funny is that?

That leaves me stuck with how to rate this.  It has great Muppet moments, but the Muppets aren't threaded all the way through like I remember from my childhood The Muppet Show.  But that mismatched singing trio?  That is just tops.  That's great!

"Escape to Witch Mountain" (1975)

Rewatched this childhood favorite.  Thoroughly enjoyed it.

How come they don't make more movie plots like this?  I couldn't imagine anything better--little bit of humor, but not stupid comedy.  Characters unique and different--personable yet each has stuff they can or can't do, stuff they know about themselves, or are figuring out as they go.  Touch of imaginative sci-fi.  And the tone of the whole thing isn't dark and depressing.  No murderous alien races or world stomping terrorist groups.  In fact, no one gets hurt--not even the "bad guys".  Simple plot, just a touch of mystery without being too complicated; yet, enough complexity of dialogue and background to avoid being shallow.

How come they don't make more movies like this?