"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.