On Saturday night I went to see "O" at the Bellagio.  "O" was the second permanent Cirque show  in Vegas, opening the same day as the Bellagio. And last month, "O," like the Bellagio, rather quietly celebrated its 10th anniversary as a hit on the Strip. I have lost count of how many times I have seen "O," but the wonder of the performance is still as fresh as the first time.

In part, there is a practical reason for that, because there is so much going on during the show that you simply can't see everything in "O" with one viewing.  The production makes use of the entire stage in ways so complete that at times the audience simply must choose what to watch and what to miss. One reason Cirque fans can be so fanatical, returning to the shows again and again, is that there is so much to see. But "O" also has never been a static show. As in the other Cirque shows, there seem to be constant little changes and finesses, but the primary reason for the major changes that occasionally happen is that cast members' talents can be so specific and irreplaceable that it is hardly as simple as swapping out actors like a Broadway show. After all, many Cirque performers have competed in the Olympics or developed an act that was featured in a European circus, and you can't replace what they do in "O" with a "Help Wanted" sign, even in this economy. This is a show, after all, done almost entirely on water.

But what continues to amaze me about "O" is that no matter the changes, the show maintains a special narrative continuity from the moment the curtain comes down until it literally goes back up at the end of each performance. It is this effortless storytelling skill of the "show, don't tell" variety that Cirque would lose over time with its Vegas shows. Later Vegas productions like "KA" at the MGM Grand and "Love" at the Mirage use more spectacle (the stage of KA is the most amazing in Vegas) as well as a more traditional storyline to try to replace what the earlier Vegas Cirque shows "O" and "Mystere" were and are able to seamlessly present via symbols and theatrical feeling.

"Ka" and "Love" remain very good shows. But to me there has always been something special about "O" and "Mystere."

Of the remaining Cirque shows here, there is "Zumanity" at New York New York, which was obviously the gimmick of an adult show as a twist to the Cirque formula. Over time this has become a very good show  -- but as a series of indvidual acts more than as a single unified theatrical experience. Cirque actually improved the show by abandoning that ambition for Zumanity. And, looking back now, I guess that "Criss Angel Believe" was meant as a similar attempt to use magic where Zumanity uses sex. And, since sex is an easier sell than magic, a star like Criss Angel was needed. And, somehow on paper "Believe" should work using this thinking. Yet the result is lifeless, dull and sometimes laugh out loud bad.