The Best Lip Curlers

I'm a sucker for a sexy snarling lip curl and I know I can't be the only one. Check out the six fabulous curling specimens below and let me know what you think.

1) Elvis Presley- He's still the king, but is his lip curl still relevant?

2) Billy Idol- 80's Icon. Is this bad boy bad enough?

3) Adam Ant- Another 80's boy. His lip curl is more subtle but does it 'Stand And Deliver' anyway?

4) Billie Joe Armstrong- This modern day lip artist is no 'American Idiot.'

5) Clint Eastwood- Will the curl of his lips make your day?

And Finally...

6) Alan Rickman- Whether this villainous actor is snarling at Robin Hood or Harry Potter his lips will make you 'Die Hard.'

Vote for your favorite in the comment section below.

Harry Potter Books and Movies

I run the risk of alienating Harry Potter fans, but here goes... JK Rowling is a death-eater.

Now hear me out. I just recently finished the entire Harry Potter series. I know, I know, they've been out for awhile, but I was coerced into seeing the first movie, went on my own to the third, and while I liked them okay, I didn't feel an overwhelming need to rush out and read the books.

Then a few months ago, I found myself with some major time on my hands and access to the books, so I decided to give them a go.

(spoiler alert, although I can't imagine who doesn't know the plot of these novels and movies by now!)

Let me say, Rowling is an interesting and alluring writer and I liked the books much better than the films I saw. But she ticked me off. While the first four books each had me salivating for the next ones (Glad I didn't read them when they first came out. I hate waiting!), book five was really dark. It was hard enough to read about that annoying and cruel Professor Umbridge, but then Rowling goes and murders Sirius Black, one of my favorite characters. The poor guy had a messed up life; he lost his closest friends, was blamed for killing them, and then was sent to that hellish Azkaban. He finally attained some happiness and then bam! Not to mention I felt terrible for poor Harry, who was now an orphan again and had to return to the miserable Dursleys.

So book five didn't leave me feeling warm and fuzzy, but I was hooked now and wanted to see how it all ended. So onto book six where, ta da! Rowling kills Dumbledore. Okay, I know it was for important plot reasons, I get that. But if she hadn't already abandoned Harry by killing Sirius, it wouldn't have seemed so terrible. And I was really frustrated that Dumbledore didn't pass on nearly enough knowledge to Harry before he died. It's like if the teacher from Karate Kid dropped dead after only passing on a few defensive moves and a couple words of wisdom. It's bad form to leave your hero high and dry.

Then came Deathly Hollows... This is where my thesis is proven true as Rowling murders beloved characters left and right, even Harry's owl! Really? The owl, Rowling? Poor Hedwig didn't even die heroically, just kinda keeled over unceremoniously in her cage(although I hear they changed it in the film-movie makers know the importance of a good death). That's what Hedwig earned after years of loyal service to Harry- feet up in a cage.

I'd like to say Rowling lost me at the owl, but I was heading out the door already. She killed so many characters, many of them gratuitously, that it'll take too much space to list them all, so I'll just go over my biggest disappointments.

Dobby... Those who have only seen the movies might not care too much as his role there was minimal. I have to admit when I first saw his character in the movie, I didn't really like him, but that changed once I read the books. Here again is another tragic figure who just manages to eke out some happiness before being slaughtered. And by a dagger in the back, no less... if you disapparated, wouldn't you disappear before the knife could get you?! Oh, the humanity! Er, elfity!

Fred Weasley... by stray wand fire. Sigh. I heard somewhere that Rowling felt it would be un-realistic if all the Weasley's survived. Whatever. Still, why not kill Percy then? It would have been much more dramatic. Percy comes to his senses, feels ashamed for how he's acted, steps in front of a spell and takes one for his brother. I'd have preferred that than losing Fred- one of the few comic reliefs in the whole dark series. You don't murder the funny characters!

I'm just glad Rowling wasn't in charge of Star Wars. She'd have killed off Threepio, R2, Lando, and Chewbacca long before the heroes reached Endor.

Then we come to Snape... we all know Snape must die. It's just inevitable. And I'd predicted long before this book that he was only pretending to be on the bad side, so I was hoping for something really climatic and heroic. How does he get it? By Voldemort shoving him unceremoniously at Nagini, the snake, while Harry hides in a corner watching. Snape didn't even get off a spell. That's like killing Darth Vader with stray blaster fire before Luke gets to him. What a let down. Snape deserved a better death than that. Yet again, a character with a dark and depressing past who draws the short stick on glorious death. I didn't even get the satisfaction of a confrontation between Snape and Harry.

My version would have had Harry learning important skills like Legilimency from Dumblodore during all those extra lessons instead of just trips down Pensieve lane, so that he could confront Snape, read his mind, discover Snape was really on his side, and then Snape could die some other way that involved protecting Harry. Something far more heroic than simply falling to the floor and passing off his old memories. Poor tragic Snape...

Finally... If you take the time to write about someone in a seven book series, they should at least get better than, "oh, yeah and by the way, that guy is dead too." There were some major secondary characters who we still have no idea how they actually died.

Besides the deaths, there were a few other things that bothered me:

Malfoy

Harry didn't grow and improve nearly enough to become a capable hero. If it weren't for Hermione, he'd still be wandering around lost in that forest. He doesn't find the items in the quest as much as the items find him. Who was his mentor? Inspector Clouseau?! I would've liked to have seen more magic ability and common sense out of him by the end. Yeah, he did a brave and good thing confronting Voldemort, but his moral fiber was never in question and didn't need to evolve; he was always that good a person.

Harry couldn't have used his invisibility cloak to escape from the Dursley's? I think that motorcade thing was written just to kill off characters.

You might be thinking, "Yeah, but what about that ending!" Ah, yeah. Liked the ending. But I was too bloody teed-off about all the deaths and my other frustrations to care by the time I got to it. I threw the book across the room so many times that the binding has dried paint chips on it. I've never wanted to take custody of a character so bad in all my life. Poor Harry! From the Dursleys to all the mishaps and deaths, I suspect Rowling subconsciously hates Harry, or someone she based Harry on, and decided to take her literary revenge.

I guess I just prefer my fantasies to be a bit less dark. And I prefer to admire my fictional heroes, not feel sorry for them. Maybe it's just old age creeping up on me. Life can be tough and I read fiction to escape life's problems, not be reminded of them.

So no, I won't be seeing the final movie. I'm sure it'll be really good but I'm also sure it'll be pretty loyal to the novel and I just can't relive all that darkness. As for the books, I've kept the first four and I will pretend the last three don't exist. In spite of my negativity, this review is actually a testament to Rowling. If she hadn't created such an interesting world and such captivating characters, I probably wouldn't have felt so strongly about what happened to them.

Netflix

I've never subscribed to Netflix, although I was considering it recently. I have Satellite and I was maybe going to cancel a few movie channels(not HBO, never HBO!) to substitute Netflix. Now, with their price hike announcement, I'm re-considering considering them!

First of all, I'd have to upgrade my DSL anyway to ensure proper streaming.

Secondly, I don't have a wireless system in my house to run streaming from my Wii. I don't want to watch streaming strictly on my laptop. I like watching movies on my nice 40 inch HDTV. So a lot of things would have to change in order for me to change my service. Their previous ten dollar deal could have offset the extra costs.

And third, with their streaming not having as much selection as their DVD plan, I wouldn't sign up for one or the other. I'd want both. $10 bucks would have been okay as a supplement to my satellite service.

Why don't I just dump the satellite? Well, I like getting multiple channels in multiple time zones so I can watch favorite programs when I choose. I also like watching current TV programs as they come out, not days or months later. And my TV is often on as background, so I don't want to concentrate on finding stuff to stream. I just want to flip to known channels I want to, er, listen to, while I do other things.

Back to the Netflix thing. I think the real discouragement, beyond the price change, is the principle.

It is tiresome to hear big corporations who release record earnings reports, scream about costs when it is their business practices which have caused their problems.

Corporate greed has:

**Screwed over the housing market and our economy because of unethical business practices. Swaps/derivatives anyone? Yes, I know these issues are more complicated- the greedy homeowner, the government/politicians, etc. But the homeowner wouldn't have had access to the loans if the banks hadn't disregarded their standards. And politicians, let's face it, are owned by the corporations, so lets just skip the middle man, shall we?

**De-regulated, allowing the big fish to swallow up their competition. How can you claim a free market, which is supposed to regulate itself, if you ARE the market? When I was a tot, we had basically ten watchable channels, but they were independently owned. Now there are thousands of channels that are all owned by basically six corporations. More channels less ownership. Of course they are going to screw with prices.

**Adopted hiring practices like making employees do more for less or same pay, in-sourcing cheap foreign labor, and outsourcing to boost their bottom lines so that the average American earns less or the same for years on end if they are lucky enough to have a job at all. The movie industry consistently outsources. They go to Canada or other countries offering tax breaks. But this isn't enough. Most of their profits/salaries go to 'above the line' people(producers, actors, studio heads, etc.) but they claim rising costs of production(i.e. the little guy) cuts into their billions so they have to raise prices. Meanwhile, those highly compensated people are responsible for the often poor product that is causing their loss of customers. Of course most people will wait until dvd or streaming to watch the formulaic junk they put out. Original product went out the window with studio moguls and FCC ownership rules. Now the industry is saturated with corporate stooges who have no interest in art and are only concerned with bottom line. They don't realize that much of the good, profitable cinema came from non-marketable, un-chartable ideas. The kind of movies I couldn't wait to see in a cinema. They are conditioning people to not want to go to the theater. Also known as cutting their own throats. But, alas, I digress...

Netflix might very well become the lightening rod for Americans who are fed up with corporate greed. At a time of record unemployment in a poor economy, which corporations are highly responsible for, they jack up our prices. The little guy is hurting these days. They see the middle class disappearing while Ebenezer Corp is sitting in the back room counting his gold. Netflix raising their costs 60% is seen as shooting an American while they are down. Yes, TV is a luxury, but for some people that escape is the only thing they have. Salary-challenged people can't afford vacations or concerts or even a movie ticket. It is one more pleasure being yanked out of their hands by a society more interested in a bottom line than the bottoms in line.

What do you think? I'd really like to hear, so please comment below.

Quick Five Faves- Cool Songs for the 4th of July

No Neil Diamond or Lee Greenwood(singing, anyway) on this list. It's the five coolest songs, not the five songs most likely to make you cry or gag(Diamond!)


1) 4th of July by X. It's pretty self-explanatory!
2) Born in the USA by Bruce Springsteen. When people around the world think of this Jersey boy, they think of America, but as far as this song for celebrating Independence Day... don't go too deep, just enjoy the chorus!
3) Living in America by James Brown. Get down, Brown, with yer bad self. I feel good!
4)Star Spangled Banner by Jimi Hendrix. Who needs words? Brilliant!
5) Proud To Be An American by Beyonce. She makes the Greenwood song cool.

The Count Of Monte Cristo Movie V.S. Book (Spoiler Alert!)

I saw the movie first and really liked it(the 2002 version), so while perusing all the free selections for my Kindle, I saw the book by Alexandre Dumas and couldn't resist downloading it.

At first, I couldn't stop comparing the book to the movie, but it didn't take long to forget all that and get absorbed in the story as written. Several days later(it is a very long novel), I finally finished the book and decided... I love both the novel and the movie, equally and for different reasons. This doesn't happen often. I'm usually a 'books are better' person. I was a highly disappointed Ludlum fan when they changed Jason Bourne's character for the movie. Occasionally, the movie is better than the book. Jaws, Bridges of Madison County and Fight Club anyone? And from what I've heard about the book version of Forrest Gump, I won't be reading that any time soon.

It makes sense that this case is different. The book version of 'Monte Cristo' is far too complicated for a good two hour movie. I thought Kevin Reynolds did a great job condensing the novel for film, while still capturing the essence of the book(and he left Kevin Costner behind this time!).

In the movie, the three betrayers are condensed into one main antagonist, Ferdinand Mondego. He is portrayed as Edmond's best friend, which makes his betrayal more meaningful and the final climactic scene between them more powerful than in the book. Danglars and Villefort are both in the movie, but their roles are heavily reduced and what happens to them seems more like Edmond getting justice rather than revenge. In the book, Edmond's revenge is divided equally among the three traitors and made up of intricate plots that simmer and slowly evolve into fruition on all three men equally and on their families as well. I couldn't imagine seeing that done properly in a popcorn movie.

In the book, the Count's soft side is shown through his relationship with Morrell and his offspring; in the movie, it is shown through his love for Mercedes. Both versions achieve what they are meant to, i.e. show the chinks Edmond's vengeful armour.

In the movie version, I like that the Abbe Faria teaches Edmond sword skills as well as book knowledge while they are in prison. It makes Edmond's transition seem stronger. Like he can handle anything thrown at him while pursuing his revenge.

In the book, I like when Edmond teaches Maximilien Morrell, through the Valentine storyline, that "only those who have known great unhappiness can enjoy its opposite, ultimate bliss." A wonderful lesson Edmond learns that is not in the movie.

I like the greater role Morrell and his family play in the novel. In the movie, the significance of Morrell's role is reduced to telling Edmond what has become of his father and Mercedes when he returns to Marseilles. The character who does that in the novel, Caderousse, is not in the movie at all.

In the movie, Edmund Dantes comes full circle and regains his relationship with Mercedes and the boy who turns out to be his son(a great plot twist). I liked the closure aspect of this ending. He was unfairly denied the life he'd been pursuing before he was arrested, but it comes back to him in the end.

In the book, Edmond does not reunite with Mercedes, the boy is not his, and he ends up with Haydee, the slave girl he purchased for revenge purposes. I liked this ending as well because it showed Edmond moving on and teaches us that even if you can't go back, you can always go forward. Although I do feel sorry for Mercedes in the novel because the injustices of her life were rectified the least.

The transformation of Edmond is more gradual in the book and the lessons he learns more profound, but that is to be expected, as a novel is a more detail oriented medium. Cinema is a visual medium, so many of the lessons were portrayed ambiguously, relying on the intelligence of the viewer to get the point. In the end, both mediums get the message across about revenge. The movie does this by portraying Edmond as tortured about the revenge he is taking, while in the book, Edmond is cold and calculating until his gradual, yet fully explained, transformation at the end.

The movie had a more obvious and happier ending, which I liked, but that doesn't take away my appreciation for how the book ended. When I see a movie, I want to see things turn out well because the complexities of an ambiguous ending cannot be explained nearly as well visually as they can with the written word. I want to feel satisfied by my viewing and reading experiences and both the movie and the book manage to leave Edmond at peace, which, in my opinion, is essential for a satisfactory ending.

A Website Worth Mentioning

Free YouTube to MP3 conversion. I used this site recently to make an MP3 out of a political speech I'd heard on the news.

http://www.youtube-mp3.org/

Simply copy the URL of the YouTube video you wish to convert onto this website and they will provide you with a download link for an MP3 version. The site cannot convert copyright protected pages, so choose your URLs wisely.

Quick Review: Earth Balance Buttery Spread

In my never ending quest to reduce my intake of unintentional antibiotics, I went ahead and bought the organic version. I used to use Smart Balance, which is made by the same company. The reason for my change in spreads is due to an intensive study of my previous spread's label. While Earth Balance is higher in sodium and fat than it's cousin, it doesn't contain the preservative TBHQ. 

Most of the time I just use butter, but it's hard to apply stick butter on toast in the morning, especially when you are in a hurry. I have to admit, Earth Balance isn't quite as tasty as Smart Balance, but I feel better about putting it in my body.

Louis L'Amour's The Walking Drum

A great historical adventure novel(plot summary) written by Louis L'Amour, who is dead, unfortunately, because if I ever wanted a sequel to a book, it would be to this one.

I first read The Walking Drum years ago(I'm not saying how many!) when I was a mere high school student. And no, it wasn't required reading! I became enthralled with the exotic locations(Russia, Turkey, and the Middle East) and the era(12th century). Such was the condition of public schools, that we were exposed primarily to European history, and when the time came, to American, but not much else. Too bad. There is a whole wide world out there.

L'Amour's philosophical style, as well as his lead character's strong thirst for learning, inspired me to study beyond the history of my ancestors. Immediately upon finishing the book, I went to the library(this was before google, or as I like to call it, BG) to find more books about the cultures covered in The Walking Drum. L'Amour's enthusiasm was so contagious, I lamented my inability to time travel so that I too might wander the Street of the Booksellers in Cordoba.

Yes, the lead character can be arrogant and larger-than-life, but that's exactly why I like him. A little boldness is sometimes called for in adventuring. If you want a tragic or everyday hero, go read Harry Potter.

L'Amour's books are typically well-researched, and while some critics note there are small historical inaccuracies in The Walking Drum, none are unreasonable or distract from the story. I'm amused when people complain about a fiction book not being 100% accurate. What part of the word 'fiction' do they not understand? Who cares if the weapons he gave to characters weren't used until thirty years after the period he was writing about? Only anal-retentive highbrow intellectuals who snub anyone who doesn't write esoteric, complex literature.

If you feel like being a smarty pants, there are plenty of good Camus and Dostoyevsky novels. But if you simply want a great adventure where you learn a little along the way, The Walking Drum is for you. Yol bolsun!
  

Quick Five Faves- Dog Pictures

1) Oh, how I wish!

From
http://www.batonrougetoday.com/2011/02/17/brec-offers-good-dog-dog-obedience-class/

2) Ha, ha. I'd like to see you do this with a Shepherd!

From
http://craziestgadgets.com/2009/03/19/two-different-ways-to-take-your-dog-with-you/

3) Oh my god, what is that thing? And I thought Dobby was ugly.

From
http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/individual/2005/07/an_ugly_dog.html

4) She didn't realize the ad for dog walker was literal.

From
http://jackienotman.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/the-secret-of-healthy-dog-walkers/

5) Here's looking at you, kid!

From

http://www.buzzaboutpets.com/dog-traits-behaviors-science-research-longevity-humans/dog-dna/

Quick Review: Panera Bread BBQ Chicken Salad

A good sized salad with antibiotic free chicken strips, corn, tortilla strips, BBQ ranch dressing, romaine lettuce. BBQ sauce drizzled on top. Yum! Served with fresh bread. Costs about eight and a half dollars, but much better value for your dollar than Subway, considering the quality of the ingredients. And Panera's bread isn't laced with chemicals and high fructose corn syrup like Subway's bread. 

Funniest T.V Moment of the Week

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

I don't care what side of the political fence you are on, this was one hilarious segment!

State of Entertainment

Recently, I tried to watch two new shows on cable, Camelot and Game of Thrones, but I got turned off by all the un-necessary violence. I admit, I gave Camelot more of a shot. I watched six episodes(there were other turn-offs than just the violence). I only watched one episode of Game of Thrones**, but they killed three people in the first ten minutes and I lost interest fast. It's not like I can't appreciate dark shows. I loved Twin Peaks and I watched Reservoir Dogs multiple times back in the day. Two of my current favorite shows are True Blood and Dexter. But these shows all have strong characters and plots. The violence is used to move the story- not just thrown in for apparent shock value or because they can, which is what happens all too often these days. Movies and TV notoriously use tools such as sex, special effects and violence without any real discussion on whether they add to the story.

I don't like sounding like an old fogey, but I might have to go there to make my point. We used to get well-developed stories with interesting people doing interesting things. Now it seems like corporate owned-and-run Hollywood is just trying to find the perfect formula that will consistently sell their product. Such a shame that the industry who created wonderful films like E.T., Star Wars, Tootsie, Rambo(1st), The Godfather, Psycho, and Terms of Endearment makes us suffer through formulaic trash just because they are focusing solely on the business part of 'show business.'

And just because cable TV allows creativity to flourish without traditional restrictions, that doesn't mean channels like HBO, Showtime, and Starz should just fill their programming with violence, bad language, and sex, just because they can. Plot and character still matter. The Sex in 'Sex in the City' worked because the show was funny and the characters were well-developed. I couldn't imagine the show without the sex stuff. It was all part of the joke. But I didn't enjoy the cancelled Lucky Louie because, while it had moments, at the end of the day, the only differences between it and a lot of other sitcoms were the obscene language and subject matter. The Simpsons, Rosanne, and All In the Family were much better at cynical humor and they didn't need the vulgarity.

**I understand 'Thrones' was based on a series of books with strong characters and interesting plots, but I just can't sift through all the blood and boobs to give the HBO series a chance. 

Quick Five Faves- Small, Smart Character Movies

1) Benny & Joon- Depp, Masterson, Quinn, Moore.
2) A Simple Plan- Thornton, Paxton, Fonda, Cole. Dark but thought inspiring.
3) Juno- Page, Cera, Garner, Bateman. Directed by a Reitman. The apple didn't fall far from the tree.
4) Chasing Amy- Affleck(2), Lee, Adams. Directed by Kevin Smith.
5) Keeping The Faith- Stiller, Norton, Elfman. Before the boy's egos got too big.

Incense

No, it's not just for masking the pot smells coming out of your dorm room! Incense has been around since ancient times, but I don't use it for religious reasons, or for rituals, or to cover the smell of pot, in case you were wondering(but I have no problem if you do!). I'm also not a hippy. I know people sometimes associate incense with those strange long-haireds who sit around and talk about enlightenment and world peace- not that there's anything wrong with world peace!

No, I love incense for two reasons. The first is obvious; it makes the room smell nice, which is especially beneficial when you have pets or if you cook fish for dinner. I also like to bring incense with me when I travel to improve the scent of hotel rooms and, for me, it eases homesickness when on long term trips.

The second reason I use incense may sound a bit new-agey, but it's a great way to clear the mind. I use it during meditation or when I wish to write. It helps me focus. In fact, when paired with classical music, it can be a great cure for writers block.

Incense comes in many shapes and sizes, but I prefer the sticks, and sometimes the cones. I have a round, brass incense holder that was given to me by an old friend some years back that I've used for both, but I suggest an incense boat for the sticks because you'll want something long enough to capture the ash that falls during burning.

My favorite sticks are the Airs brand. Okay, their packaging can be kinda new-agey, but the scents are fantastic. My faves are Ocean, Secret Garden, Dragon Cloud and Rain. If you buy the variety pack, you can get all of these without spending too much. (The company recently had some issues, so they might be hard to find in stores right now, but after a little research I found their site. They are well worth the trouble and hopefully the product will be back on shelves soon).

I tried rope incense once, but I didn't like the scent or the smell of the rope when it burned down. I've also used smudge bundles, but I find them inconvenient as there are times when I only want to burn a small amount of incense and sticks are much easier to extinguish and save for later. 

Usually, I avoid traditional earthy scents like wood(eucalyptus, sandlewood, etc) or myhrr but the following product recently caught my eye, or should I say, my nose...
So I bought a pack and now I absolutely love this stuff. It burns cleanly and the indescribably wonderful scent lingers in the room for days- longer than anything I've ever tried. I bought mine in Canada, but Amazon and other online retailers sell them here in the U.S.

But if you are new to incense, I suggest you avoid buying online until you know what your nose prefers. Shop for incense like you would a candle. Stick all the packages up to your nose until you find a scent you can't resist. Some people buy incense like they do aromatherapy products- for what each smell is supposed to do for you. I find that doesn't work for me. If something smells unpleasant, I don't care what the benefits are. And for me, variety is important as I like to change my incense with my mood.

The best places to find and try incense are specialty home and garden stores, new age book stores, "head shops" and aromatherapy stores. You can also find incense at places like Target or Pier One, but I've never found chain store incense to smell quite as good or burn as nicely as the stuff sold by specialty retailers.

What do you think? Do you have a favorite scent? How do you use incense? I'd love to hear from you. Email or comment below!

Quick Review: Creamy Dill Dip Mix

Bought at Whole Foods(I paid about $1.60). Package says you need two cups of sour cream, but I add to taste and use it as I go. One package can last weeks this way. This stuff is even better after it sets in the fridge for an hour or so. I use it mainly as a dip for potato chips(A great alternative to onion dip and ranch dressing), but it has recipes on the back for baked dill potato and a sandwich spread(yum!).

Quick Five Faves from Trader Joe's

1) TJ's Jelly Beans- Like Jelly Belly, only with natural ingredients.
2) Scallops Wrapped in Uncured Bacon with Brown Sugar Glaze- Yum, yum, yum! Eat with fries for a totally unhealthy but delish meal. Seasonal, tho. Boo.
3) Tarte D'Alsace- Flat bread, ham, Yummy Cheese and Carmelized oniony goodness!
4) Tuscan Italian Dressing- Love the creaminess. Wish they sold it in a bigger size.
5) Rosemary Apricot Chicken Salad- Good flavor combo and Sliced Almonds for crunch. Great on multi-grain crackers.

Honorable mention: Best tagline from their newsletter...

"Kernel Of Wisdom: Whole wheat flour uses the whole kernel versus white flour, which only uses the endosperm. Any attempt at a joke would be crude."

Drew Carey's Improv-A-Ganza

Those of you familiar with Drew Carey's old comedy/improv show "Whose Line Is It Anyway?," will recognize the format of this updated version on the Game Show Network. 

Improv-a-ganza is filmed in Vegas at the MGM grand. The audience sits night club style, meaning unlike the old 'Whose Line' audience, they can eat and drink at tables(which makes it interesting when they pick volunteers who've had one too many!). Aesthetically it works better, but the sense of intimacy and the feeling that anything can happen is gone. I used to like when the cast would run into the audience during skits and involve the crowd. Now, due to the raised stage and enormously spread out seating, doing that is impractical, so the only time they are in the audience section is to pick out volunteers for their sketches.

I was glad to see most of the old cast from 'Whose Line' on the new show. Well, except for Greg Proops. Sorry, but he annoyed me on the old show, and he annoys me on this one. I find him the least funny of the players and he seems phony--like he is above the people he is entertaining; in contrast with the rest of the cast, who all seem to like their audience and people in general.

The cast is older now, of course, than they were on 'Whose Line' but still very on their game. Drew Carey has changed the most because of his massive weight loss. Jeff Davis has changed the least; he looks like he stepped out of a time machine.

It's hard to pick a favorite cast member, but top on my list is Colin Mochrie. Colin is hilarious and you never know what will come out of his mouth. The great thing about him is that he rarely breaks character. When he says something crazy, he'll have the rest of the cast in stitches, but he'll just keep right on going. I liked him better when he was on 'Whose Line,' but only because there was more of him. Sadly, he isn't in all the episodes of Improv-A-Ganza. 
Wayne Brady is another bright spot, but unfortunately, he is in even fewer episodes of Improv-A-Ganza than Colin. Wayne is witty, has always connected well with people, and he's never afraid to laugh at himself. His warm personality oozes into everything he does. No wonder they gave him a talk show.

Ryan Stiles is terrific, of course, and I always enjoy Brad Sherwood and Chip Esten. I haven't had enough exposure to Heather Anne Campbell, but she seems okay. It would be nice to see Cathy Greenwood, though. Hopefully she'll guest in future episodes.

Newcomer Jonathan Magnum is terrific. I say newcomer, but he has a resume that goes back to the early nineties. His energy and enthusiasm led me to believe he was a twenty-something so I was shocked to discover he is 40 years old. He makes a great addition to the cast.

As for the format... The new show is more ensemble oriented. It may be Drew Carey's show, but he doesn't host it like he did the old one. The players all alternate hosting duties, which keeps it interesting, but also makes it less cohesive. The good thing is there are more players per episode so you get to see cast members mingle that you never got to see together in the old show. The bad thing is that because there are more players, it's harder to use everyone enough in the half hour show. Any chance of giving us an hour, Drew?

"Whose Line" seemed to move better because they fit more sketches in the half hour. If you didn't like one sketch, you didn't have long to wait for a different one. The new show only seems to do about three, maybe four sketches per episode and sometimes they drag on past funny. Most of the skits are similar to the ones on 'Whose Line,' but I miss Irish Drinking Song and the green screen stuff they used to do. I do not miss Three-headed Broadway Star, though, as I rarely found that one funny. Of the new sketches they've added, I like 'kick it' the best so far. This is where two players act out a scene, but have to break into rap whenever a third player tells them to. It's an upbeat, lively sketch that really showcases the wit of the players who can sing.

Improv-A-Ganza has only had one guest star so far-- Charlie Sheen. And they had to bleep most of what he said, so he was probably more enjoyable for the live audience. "Whose Line" used to have some great guests. In fact, some of the funniest episodes came from guest appearances. Who could forget Richard Simmons pretending to be a jet ski under Colin Mochrie? It might be harder to get guests on the new show because they aren't in Los Angeles, but hopefully they will try.

To sum it up, I will probably continue to watch Improv-A-Ganza because I like improv comedy and no one does it better than Drew and his cast. And if I miss the old show, I can still get my fix, as they air it every night on the Family Channel.

UPDATE!

Maybe Amazon read my review! Okay, maybe not! But the great news is they are paying attention. According to The Daily Beast, Kindle is planning to launch library lending. No release date yet, but I'll look forward to erasing that chalk mark from my con list when it happens.

Amazon Kindle 3G

Yes, these have been out for awhile, but I just got mine this past Christmas. When I first heard of the Kindle, I thought it was interesting, but not for me. I buy hardcover books of my very favorite authors, paperbacks when I travel, and borrow everything else from the library. I love using the library to preview new authors and/or read books I am interested in, but don't wish to own. I really didn't feel I needed a dedicated e-reader; my other options were working out just fine.

So how have things changed in the four months since I've been using my Kindle? Well, I haven't been to the library since; I probably won't be buying paperbacks anymore; and as far as hardcover... well, I still plan to buy my very favorite authors because I like having them on my bookshelf. I've always been an avid reader and, though it may sound corny, I love the smell of a new book. I also love a well-designed dust jacket, the feel of paper in my fingers as I turn the page, and... okay, I'm going all Elizabeth Barrett Browning on you. The point is, I did discover a place in my life for the Kindle in spite of my old fashioned reading habits. Like Hanna Montana, I get the best of both worlds. (Don't mark me down for the Hanna reference- I have nieces, okay?)

So, it's clear why I love printed books; now let me tell you what I like about the Kindle. First, I love all the free books you can download. Between what Amazon offers and websites like Project Gutenberg, I have thousands of books to read and I didn't have to pay a dime for them or leave my house to get them. Granted, most of these are books that are free of their copyrights, meaning they are old, old, old! Or, as I should refer to them, classics. I've downloaded Treasure Island, Sherlock Holmes, books by Washington Irving, Alexandre Dumas(Count of Monte Cristo, for those who've seen the movie), Alcott, and many other outstanding reads. But Amazon offers new books for free as well. Will you ever get a free Grisham, Baldacci, or Cormac? Not likely, but there are some surprisingly terrific lesser known authors out there. And it doesn't stop at fiction. Poetry, philosophy, history, biography, cooking- you name it, I've found it. There's also a 'higher tier' of 99¢ to $2.99 books to downloaded as well. I plan to pay full price (usually around $9.99) for books I'd normally buy in paperback when I travel (a nice way to save space in my carry-on).

Okay, I've made my point. There's good stuff to put on the Kindle, but what about the machine itself? Well, I love the way print looks on this device. One of the reasons I didn't want to buy an e-reader is because my poor middle-aged eyes were having enough trouble with eyestrain from using my laptop all day; I couldn't imagine putting my eyes through another computer screen just to read. But Kindle's E-ink technology is wonderfully easy on the eyes. The Kindle also allows you to customize your text: make words bigger or smaller, chose how words are spaced, and even change the orientation of the screen.

The highlighting feature is a nice bonus. No longer do I have to feel guilty for marring a book with pencil underlines and highlighting markers, or waste time copying the text to notes when I didn't want to mark up a nice book. I also like the dictionary feature in Kindle. Reading a book and unsure of a word? Click in front of the word and a short definition pops up. Not enough info? Hit the return button and a full definition pops up. I haven't used the 'add a note' feature yet, but I can see where it would be handy when reading a textbook or how-to book.

And I love, love, love that the Kindle has FREE 3G! Other e-readers charge you for access, but not Amazon. It makes downloading books anywhere a breeze. The internet is sometimes hard to navigate with the Kindle, but I have other devices for surfing the web, so it's a non-issue for me. I'm willing to make the trade off in exchange for the readable screen.

Speaking of the screen, I like that I can read the Kindle anywhere, even at the beach. Try reading an LCD screen in direct sunlight. The downside is that you can't read the Kindle in the dark or in low light, but then I've never read a book in the dark, so what difference does it make? Other e-readers have color screens, but since I'm an adult and most of my books are black and white with no pictures, I don't really miss it.

There are downsides, i.e. Kindle accepts PDF, but doesn't support EPUB, so you can't download library books on it, but overall, I am pleased with this little device. From a dedicated print book reader, that's saying a lot. The bottom line: I'll still buy hardcover, occasionally use the library to pre-screen books, but I'll be doing a heck of a lot more with my new Kindle.

This website!

I thought it fitting that my first post should be a review of this site. So far so good, but it would be nice to have an easy way to search for other bloggers on this site without having to go to Google. Nice templates, tho. And best of all, it's free!