The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magic names and the media » » Criss Angel Mindfreak series? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7..19~20~21 [Next]
pikacrd
View Profile
Veteran user
Florida
387 Posts

Profile of pikacrd
Quote:
On 2005-07-21 13:01, JoeJoe wrote:
Most of these comments are making me sick ... you don't like Chris Angel because he is doing things you can't do?? That sounds so laymen like! Doing something new does not hurt magic, it might hurt you because people will ask you to do something you can't do. That's your problem, not Chris Angel's.



JoeJoe,
You are kidding correct?

Quote:
On 2005-07-21 11:58, Magicbarry wrote:
Wow, people are attributing WAY WAY too much to stooges, editing, and special effects ... which, unfortunately, is what a lot of magicians do rather than admitting to themselves that they don't have a clue how an effect was done.

There may have been some editing, but I don't believe there was NEARLY as much camera trickery going on as is being suggested ... and frankly, for some of the effects that have been mentioned, there are alternative non-camera options that I'm surprised were not thought of by people in this forum.

As for stooges -- possibly, in some cases. Certainly not in the voodoo sequence, but possibly in the levitations. Then again, possibly not. I only allow that there might have been stooges for the levitations because I can't see how these volunteers could not have known they were levitating, and could not have known the secret. But perhaps they were legitimate volunteers. I don't know -- and that's my own failing as a magician. But my own failing does not prove that stooges were used.



Magicbarry,

Ok what side of the fence are you taking here in the first line you say that you think that magicians are attributing way way to much to stooges and editing” but then you go on to say that “there may have been some editing, and stooges possibly in some cases” pick a side and stick to it Mr. Kerry.

Personally I thought that both episodes were very poor in quality and quantity of magic. The fire bit did nothing for me at all it was a stunt not magic. The Voodoo segment used more stooges than a Nick at Night marathon hosted by Larry, Moe and Curly. Now the Levitation segments especially the lean back with one leg in the air bit I thought were creative uses of old apparatus but no great shakes. If you Tevoed the program and go back and watch I think that Mr. Angel actually gave a hint as to how it was done inside one of the old photos that he used when I think his brother was talking. As for figuring out how he did all of this stuff no it was not that difficult to figure out that more than a few camera edits were used and quite a bit of wire was wasted. I actually was looking forward to seeing the show after seeing Mr. Angel live a few years back but was disappointed in what I thought was nothing more than a one upmanship attempt directed at Mr. Blane. Mr. Angel is a talented performer and has the ability to be very entertaining but unfortunately none of that came across in either episode that aired last night.

All in all I would have to give the thumbs down to last nights airings of Mind Freak.
“Indubitably, Magic is one of the subtlest and most difficult of the sciences and arts. There is more opportunity for errors of comprehension, judgment and practice than in any other branch of physics”. William S. Burroughs 1914-1997 American Writer
giochi
View Profile
Elite user
479 Posts

Profile of giochi
Here's a lay person's (Whitney Pastorek)thoughts from Entertainment Magazine:
This new series opens with a sinister voice intoning, "Warning: Attempting anything you are about to see could result in serious injury or death. Do not try this at home." We then cut to a shot of Criss Angel, the Mindfeak himself-all Scott Stapp hair and Jesus Christ pose-who, in a sinister voice intones, "What I am about to do, anybody can do...if you believe." Dammit now I am confuse. Welcome to what is essentially Magic Jackass: Tonight, Angel runs around Vegas levitating himself and others and scaring the hell out of people. Its cool. But Freakboy is getting dropped one full letter grade for all his unnecessary Goth-metal cheesiness/eyeliner and for recording his own theme song. Sorry. C+.
JoeJoe
View Profile
Inner circle
Myrtle Beach
1910 Posts

Profile of JoeJoe
Quote:
JoeJoe,
You are kidding correct?


No I am not kidding ... he did a great job and deserves some respect. When my audience talks of him, I will give him the utmost respect. If they ask me if I can do stuff like that, I will tell them I don't want to steal his material. The same things I tell them when they ask about David Blaine, Copperfield, or one of the other magiicans here in town. Every magician deserves respect no matter what their skill level, it shouldn't matter if you are better than them or not. You should never ever bash any magician, not even the guy that did a change-bag at little Johney's birthday party. Any magic on TV is better than none.



Quote:
See the post above about the difference between editing for TIME and editing in the middle of a magic effect. When Angel, on fire, flops down onto the plywood and is instantly seen to be gone and then seen to be standing there in different clothes holding a fire extinguisher, that's a video edit. It was done to make it look like he could vanish from one place and a second later be in a different place. An amazing magic trick! Except that it's not a magic trick. It's editing.


You apparently don't know how he did it. There was no camera edit there - there were way to many people present to get away with a "cut - ok Chris, put the fireman's mask on - alright now, action". It doesn't work like that - he used the same technique Copperfield used for walking through the Great Wall. If you want to talk camera edits, check out Copperfields Imploding Building illusion, where the audience stood around for over 2 hours waiting for him to do that 3 minute escape. Despite the camera trickery, I still think that was one of Copperfields greatest illusions - a trick is a trick is a trick - period.

JoeJoe
Watch the Pilot Episode of my new TV Show:As Seen on TV: The JoeJoe Magic Show
Learn JoeJoe's secrets at Magic Joint dot com
MagicbyCarlo
View Profile
Inner circle
has squandered his time making
1062 Posts

Profile of MagicbyCarlo
Quote:
On 2005-07-21 12:33, Steven Steele wrote:

Additionally, I didn't care for all the "lead-in" filler. I just didn't care. I did't care about the mother's birthday or the death of his father...just didn't care. Maybe if I cared about Chris...but he appears to have anger issues.. Smile ; so I didn't care about him either. To get involved you have to care; it just didn't happen and I gave him an hour.



There's that "like the guy - like the magic" factor. I agree Steve. Although I've heard some negative things about Copperfield, his on stage persona is very dynamic. My wife assisted in one of his performances and she said he was very charming. After the show the hurried and almost impersonal version is who we met, she was surprised.

I don't want to come off as Angel's biggest fan. I certainly am not. But I would go to see him work because he's different. Do I really like him? Well not from his TV performance personality, perhaps he's more likeable in person. He failed to make me care about him also, but I was entertained by the magic. I find the over injection of personal information and commentary in these "series" a bore. It doesn't add anything to the magic. If the stories or plots are germane to the effects then, by all means let me hear it. Setting yourself on fire to celebrate your mother's birthday seems so contrived, what you're saying is "It's my Mom's birthday, look at me!" Nobody likes a show off at some else’s party. Angel could work on being more sympathetic and likeable on his specials, he shows no warmth or humor and that makes him distant, but then again I question if he's looking to attract the accolades of those of us that are commenting here. More likely the audience he is trying to capture is the depressed, rebellious 15 to 20 year old thrash rocker types, who will just think he's just plain cool, dude.

Metallica rules, seriously, dude.
Carlo DeBlasio
<BR>Entertainment specialist
<BR>and all around fun guy!
lowphat
View Profile
Loyal user
Michigan
240 Posts

Profile of lowphat
Check out this article from the Boston Herald:

http://theedge.bostonherald.com/tvNews/v......id=94595
MagicbyCarlo
View Profile
Inner circle
has squandered his time making
1062 Posts

Profile of MagicbyCarlo
Quote:
On 2005-07-21 15:55, JoeJoe wrote:

No I am not kidding ... he did a great job and deserves some respect. When my audience talks of him, I will give him the utmost respect. If they ask me if I can do stuff like that, I will tell them I don't want to steal his material. The same things I tell them when they ask about David Blaine, Copperfield, or one of the other magiicans here in town. Every magician deserves respect no matter what their skill level, it shouldn't matter if you are better than them or not. You should never ever bash any magician, not even the guy that did a change-bag at little Johney's birthday party. Any magic on TV is better than none.

JoeJoe,

You are both right and wrong. Never bashing means never acknowledging poorly performed or poorly presented magic as being poorly performed or presented. Never criticizing or analyzing the negative aspects of things in the public eye is as bad as speaking ill out of avarice. Most entertainers are subject to criticism, why should magicians be exempt? When a singer does a poor job with a song or gives a poor performance are we also to remain silent? I propose that criticism should be presented in a respectful and constructive manor. In other words don’t criticize unless you are able to offer a solid reason why you feel something is weak or suggest ways to improve it. Some of the criticism is taste related and tastes may vary greatly. Then again aren’t you free to state that you disliked something or even liked something subjectively? Most people here back up their criticisms with some explanation. Some are transparent and smack of envy, while some are well thought out and back up by logical thought. You are free to agree or disagree based on your own preferences.

In this internet world where we all can be published, read or make our views known, you will see criticisms and praise generated from every angle imaginable, but the old adage of, “If don’t have something good to say, don’t say anything at all.” will not fly in this type of forum where all are free to express our views opinions and prejudices with near impunity.
Carlo DeBlasio
<BR>Entertainment specialist
<BR>and all around fun guy!
pikacrd
View Profile
Veteran user
Florida
387 Posts

Profile of pikacrd
Quote:

You apparently don't know how he did it. There was no camera edit there - there were way to many people present to get away with a "cut - ok Chris, put the fireman's mask on - alright now, action". It doesn't work like that - he used the same technique Copperfield used for walking through the Great Wall. If you want to talk camera edits, check out Copperfields Imploding Building illusion, where the audience stood around for over 2 hours waiting for him to do that 3 minute escape. Despite the camera trickery, I still think that was one of Copperfields greatest illusions - a trick is a trick is a trick - period.

JoeJoe



JoeJoe,

First I am not sure anyone here has disrespected Mr. Angel by giving there personal impressions of the show or their thoughts on how that he did his material. In some ways you are correct unless you were working on the technical team it is all speculation. It is that same reason that I am forced to ask how you can be so sure of the method he used unless you yourself are on his technical team. I speculate that his levitation in the park where one leg was on the ground was done ala broom stick suspension but that is my guess because that is what it looked like to me.

I am not so sure for the fire bit that I believe that it was the GWC method rather I think that is was more ala Rudy Coby or even camera edit. I do think the same as a few other members that the whole thing was contrived and really asked myself at the end Who Cares. I never got a sense of connection from this performance from him that would make me care if he burned or not. Now that is not to say I was wishing it on him it is rather to say at the end of the day I just did not care about him or the magic and that is what was missing from this show in my opinion. Like a lot of greater magicians than I have said you must have a connection with your audience or the magic just doesn’t matter.
“Indubitably, Magic is one of the subtlest and most difficult of the sciences and arts. There is more opportunity for errors of comprehension, judgment and practice than in any other branch of physics”. William S. Burroughs 1914-1997 American Writer
Chad Sanborn
View Profile
Inner circle
my fingers hurt from typing,
2206 Posts

Profile of Chad Sanborn
Quote:
On 2005-07-21 01:29, Banachek wrote:
Amazing how some come to conculusions about some effects. I can tell you I was there and some of these conclusions are just wrong. But to be expected when one can't explain and effect. Amazed no one is talking about the little effects like the voodooo doll or ring in ice cube.

I am surprised to not have seen, wow, thanks Criss for brining magic back to where it should be. In the forefront of the TV audience.

Those seem to be ones that had the 'Banachek' touch on them. I thought so as I watched the specials. The 2nd special seemed to flow better than the first. How many episodes did you have and input on?

Chad
BTW, The Voodoo Doll was very nice, though not for me. And the ring in icecube is definately something I will be thinking about twisting for my own purposes.
cocomax
View Profile
Loyal user
North Fork, CA
285 Posts

Profile of cocomax
"A lot of what I do is completely real. There are no tricks. It really is the Mind, Body, and Spirit connection."
Criss Angel


The one thing that I really liked about the show was how easy for him was to HYPNOTIZE a STRANGER from off the street, just some random passerby and make her float with no wires, no harnesses, and nothing under her then poof she wakes up and remembers nothing. . .

Sounds like real magic to me. . .

Tim Wisseman
Chad Sanborn
View Profile
Inner circle
my fingers hurt from typing,
2206 Posts

Profile of Chad Sanborn
Quote:
On 2005-07-21 16:19, lowphat wrote:
Check out this article from the Boston Herald:

http://theedge.bostonherald.com/tvNews/v......id=94595

That article is exactly how people percieve magic at the moment. The public at large has no magician on TV they can relate to. Yet they dutifully watch the next magic special hoping for that magician to be the next Copperfield and capture their imagination, minds, and hearts.
I think its time to move away from the grungy street magic look and bring magic back to a classier time period. You can still do 'extreme' magic, just do them with dignity, not dirt.

Chad
cocomax
View Profile
Loyal user
North Fork, CA
285 Posts

Profile of cocomax
Here is a possible clue to explain last night

"Angel appears to have a rivalry going with illusionist David Blaine (Angel said Blaine challenged him to a head-to-head contest but now doesn't return his calls), but he said what sets his magic show apart is the way it focuses on his preparation."

The Toledo Blade

Here is a link to the source:

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art......07190320
Randwill
View Profile
Inner circle
1915 Posts

Profile of Randwill
Quote:
On 2005-07-21 15:55, JoeJoe wrote:


You apparently don't know how he did it. There was no camera edit there - there were way to many people present to get away with a "cut - ok Chris, put the fireman's mask on - alright now, action". It doesn't work like that - he used the same technique Copperfield used for walking through the Great Wall.
JoeJoe




The same way Copperfield did the Great Wall of China, eh? That'll come as a revelation to a lot of us who thought that the cage with the roller shades and, in particular, the steps to up to that cage were somehow involved. (Even with those limitations, Copperfield did it in one continuous camera shot.) Thanks for enlightening me.
cocomax
View Profile
Loyal user
North Fork, CA
285 Posts

Profile of cocomax
Here is another link to a laymen critic's view of the Mind Freak show. . .

http://www.andpop.com/article/4558

Posted: Jul 21, 2005 5:27pm
People that saw Mind Freak last night did not see a magic show, what they saw was people watching other people preparing to do a magic trick and then they where watching people on TV watching a trick being done. What was suppose to impress us more than the trick was the reaction of the people watching the trick live.

TV is a tiny screen, just a bunch of dots of light, you can make those dots do just about anything you what with the right tools, editing, stooges, doubles. . . what ever Criss does, even if it is the coolest mind freakenest trick in the world most of us do not trust that flat screen of little dots of lights, it can show us things are not true, yet draw us in emotionally, like any great movie can. . .

Sometimes a Magician can really connect with a group of people, even over TV were we CARE about the Magician, we care about what happens to the Magician, there is a since of wonder, you reach a point where you say to yourself, I do not care how it was done, that was really cool! Copperfield reached me in that way, but you know what when I went I saw my first Copperfield show live on stage it was a hundred times better that what I saw on TV, the limits of TV were gone, I was seeing, hearing, feeling and smelling this whole show with my own senses, it was truly FANTASTIC!

Maybe I am just wierd, but I love live magic much better than anything that I have seen on TV.

Did Criss connect with the public? Do people care about the MIND FREAK! MIND FREAK! I AM THE MIND FREAK!!!

Is he the next big thing in magic? Blood, needles, screaming, burning victims hands and feet people with lasers. . . maybe. . .

Tim Wisseman
Magicbarry
View Profile
Loyal user
Toronto
276 Posts

Profile of Magicbarry
Quote:
Magicbarry,

Ok what side of the fence are you taking here in the first line you say that you think that magicians are attributing way way to much to stooges and editing” but then you go on to say that “there may have been some editing, and stooges possibly in some cases” pick a side and stick to it Mr. Kerry.
Either you missed the point of my comments (which I suspect is the case) or I did not make them properly (which is possible -- though I suspect the former).

I never said there was NO editing. I said that people are attributing far too much to camera effects, editing, and stooges. They see something they can't figure out ... and so they resort to the "well, he cheated" line. Sure, there may have been some editing -- but not nearly as much as some are accusing him of. I'm not sitting on a fence -- I'm stating my position quite clearly: yes, some editing, but not an editing frenzy.

And my entire point in that stooge discussion was this: someone had claimed stooges were used for everything they couldn't explain. I merely said that stooges were NOT used in all those instances, and there was only one place where I thought there was any degree of likelihood that stooges were used. The other suggestions -- no. There were no stooges employed in the voodoo trick. There MAY have been stooges in the levitation -- I don't know.

What you're doing is trying to dismiss a perfectly reasonable post by claiming I said things that I never said. You're trying to present my argument as "there were no camera edits or similar trickery, and there were not stooges". I never said that. I only said that such tactics were not used as frequently as some posters were claiming.

Please read what I write -- not what you want to argue against.
Glenn Godsey
View Profile
Special user
737 Posts

Profile of Glenn Godsey
Quote:
On 2005-07-20 23:36, Randwill wrote:
Some thoughts on the Criss Angel "Mindfreak" programs which aired on A&E this evening. The first episode has been shown before, I believe, but I saw it for the first time tonight.

And I see I didn't miss anything. No actual magic was performed. All three "tricks" relied on camera edits and/or stooges. Very disappointing and not good for magic.

The second half-hour program was an improvement with it's focus on various levitation techniques.

Category one; the leviation to chair, to a low ledge and on an escalator, was a clever idea. I had not seen this before. It's weakness being that the performer must be facing away from the audience. Also the angles are limited.

Category two; the in-front-of-a-large-object-with-camera-push-in-at-the-finish levtations. Large plant and newspaper racks sold separately.

Category three; the very angly lean-forward levitation.

Category four; wires in a controlled situation with stooges pretending to be awed. This seems like pretty small potatoes when you consider that David Copperfield can fly all around the stage.

Category five; Finally a levitation that he can perform for real people in the real world. The leaning-backward levitation. Although, stricly speaking, not a levitation since his left foot remained on the ground. Still, pretty impressive, and most importantly to me, and many people here I expect, something I hadn't seen before.

Category six; the female-stooge-leaning-back levitation. I guess this was included for those of us who noticed he couldn't lift his foot in the Category five levitation. However this seems contradictory and anti-climatic. But boy, those "spectators" can act. For some reason he repeats this one at the end with another "helper". I guess this version is supposed to be seen as better, since she floats higher off the ground. That's specious reasoning dad.

The butterfly-in-napkin trick belongs in the first all-camera-edit show.

The floating-selected-card would have been more impressive if it didn't have to be performed 10 feet away from an audience behind velvet ropes. But that's the card they always pick isn't? Either that or the QH.

I don't usually speak ill of other performers, but this guy hurts us I think. The other school of thought would say he peaks muggles' interest in our craft. So maybe it's a draw. What do you think?

And who is Richard Cohn?



This is very well written and insightful review. You took the words right out of my mouth, but you wrote them better. "No actual magic was performed." That statement sums it up very well.

No audience will ever believe us again when we say "no camera tricks were used."

Best regards,
Glenn Godsey
Randwill
View Profile
Inner circle
1915 Posts

Profile of Randwill
Quote:
On 2005-07-21 17:27, cocomax wrote:

Is he the next big thing in magic? Blood, needles, screaming, burning victims hands and feet people with lasers. . . maybe. . .



With lasers? Really? Isn't that a lawsuit waiting to happen?

Well, maybe it was lasers. But it's still a ridiculous trick to present on television since the TV audience can't feel the effects the victim is claiming to be experiencing.

Now if the lasers had set a random stranger's hand on fire! Hey, now you've got a magic show!
love2laugh
View Profile
Veteran user
374 Posts

Profile of love2laugh
Yes cocomax, that laymen's review is VERY accurate.

I watched last night's Criss Angel show with 8 other people who were not magicians but love magic. We were all VERY DISAPPOINTED!!! Criss Angel was TERRIBLE and the SHOW FLOPPED on MANY LEVELS! We had a hard time keeping our interest in the show. So far, this series is a complete failure.

It became immediately apparent camera editing was involved in making the effects look like a 'real-time' miracles. Shot after shot of levetations, butterfly appearing out of an 'impromptu' drawing, and escaping from a garbage can. Since such severe camera edits were soooo apparent EVERYTHING afterwards was ruled out as being "special effects" as you would see in a movie. When we go to a movie and see Superman fly or the Human Torch flame up and fly we don't say to ourselves "Oh my god, how is he flying, that is amazing?!??" NO, we rule it out as special effects due to camera and computer technology. This fact looses the fascination and wonder which is critical for magic performances to succeed at a deeper level. Once we realize the performer we are watching on T.V. has resorted to camera editing then ANYTHING is possible. He could fly to the moon, around the sun, and back. Why not? Would that be tooo unbelievable? Sure, yet the stuff we saw on the show crossed that line of believability to the point where it all looked to be a melodramatic JOKE! Absolutely PATHETIC!!!

For the sake of magic, I would like to give the show a second chance yet it would be a waste of time to watch any more episodes and besides, last night was really 2 episodes so the second chance was already given. Oh, I'd also like to mention that it was in VERY POOR taste for Mr. Angel to bash Blaine on his show. This was not very professional. This was my first experience watching Mr Angel perform and I'll never do the same again and neither will my 8 friends. They commented after the show that it was the WORST magic performance they have ever seen, it was a cheap copy of Blaine's work, AND they will never watch another episode. I am not a fan of David Blaine yet after last nights Criss Angel "JOKE" I have gained a lot more respect for Blaine. At least David Blaine wasn't an embarrasement to our art.

Sincerely,
L2L
Michael Dustman
View Profile
Inner circle
Columbus, Ohio
1145 Posts

Profile of Michael Dustman
I encourage everyone to head over to the Genii Forum and vote on their on-line poll under the Buzz column. There are 3 questions regarding your views of the show last night. I think you may be surprised by the results.

Then again, only 36 have voted as of now, but that is more than have contributed to this thread. I think the options given on each question lead to some interesting assesments.
unilogo
View Profile
Veteran user
Las Vegas , NV
359 Posts

Profile of unilogo
Maybe we should just face MAGIC IS NOT FOR TV! It seems to me camera tricks and the fact average people just don't care enought is reason not to show it. I know how I am sounding.VERY biased from a magicians point of view.

But seriously the ratings are gonna be crap. Even if they make it past this week, I HIGHLY DOUBT anyone has that attention span.("I wanna see made, I wanna see made"-typical teenager reaction-brother)("How did he do that,how did he do that?"-other brother.Think anyone will never get bored of saying that and thinking that?Seems like a pretty dull feeling to a tv show.) Who watches A&E any whom? Do you think anyone will get addicted to seeing "camera tricks" and this "wannabe real deal mystic?". People seem to point out how believeable a magician is. ***! People have realized what it is to be a real magician and yet here we are doing the SAME OLD STUFF.IT TRUELY IS NOT THE TRICKS , IT IS THE PERSONA. How could magicians not get this simple fact.

Look, We make fun of angel for acting all supernatural. For thinking he has superpowers. For dressing the way he does. Talking a certain way. Yet most magicians steal the same jokes and act like a magician they see on tv. I know most people will deny it tho. But it is there.

I know most of us now feel weak and powerless. We are NOT. How can we? Live magic as pointed out before is much different that tv. Even after the Copperfield specials!

You feel weak and powerless because criss angel hurt you? You could strike him with the same card for when a laymen asks you "why don't you float like criss angel?Can you do vooodoo on me?"

Just say "I am sorry I don't do camera edits for my magic like tv, or use stooge people to help me."

Sadly if that is what angel drops you to. He HAS TO UNDERSTAND where WE ARE COMING FROM. If we have to understand HIM!

Lastly I don't see what is wrong with people who dress like angel. (coming from a guy that has been compared to him! Pointed out by ALOT of people)"Hey he looks like you".Hahaha......I really don't. I dress like him, but yeah that's up to where it goes.I feel I am the real deal. My persona TRUELY reflects who I am. My clothes down to my last word.

What a shocking show. Yet so inpirational to me.
diabolos
View Profile
New user
22 Posts

Profile of diabolos
Criss Angel’s style is the gothic rock star look combined with the classic hair band styles. This is not a new look for Angel. He was like this for years, before Blaine made his first special. Angel is not trying to make himself obviously different then Blaine, it just naturally occurs that way.

If Ozzy was doing magic, we would probably love it more, because we are used to his style.

Maybe since David Blaine was the first magician to film reactions out on the streets and devote a show of close-up magic, we automatically hate any new competition that threatens Blaine, even though we do not care personally.

I am sure if Criss put out his show before Blaine we would like it more then most are willing to admitting too, and we would then criticize Blaine, for being slow and monotone like.

When I watch magic on TV I could care less about the performer. I just want to watch magic. I do not care about the patter, the look of the magician and so forth. I just care about the effect. I look at magic stripped down and differently then laymen who look at it in its entirety, the look, reactions, effects, patter, ect.

I saw just the second half last night. Criss Angel, as a performer, I do not mind, he is ok. The show was over whelmed with the levitation, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Magic names and the media » » Criss Angel Mindfreak series? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7..19~20~21 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.38 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL