The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Mentally Speaking » » Jan Forster Penguin Live ACT (36 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
JanForster
View Profile
Inner circle
Germany ... when not traveling...
4117 Posts

Profile of JanForster
Yes, you can. I've done so about three years ago, using 4 business cards and apparently taking numbers from "PI" (Vincent Hedan), apparently writing them on my cards on the fly (or in real time). Just adjust your presentation a bit. It is a perfect combination, as you stay in theme. First you are the "hero" (PI), then one of the spectators. Jan
Jan Forster
www.janforster.de
AlexanderG
View Profile
Veteran user
No more and no less than
363 Posts

Profile of AlexanderG
An interesting twist! So you open the book of numbers at a random page and pretend to write down four six-digit ones - when in fact, you're just writing down the numbers you've memorized.
helder
View Profile
Inner circle
Portugal
1048 Posts

Profile of helder
Quote:
On Dec 5, 2018, JanForster wrote:
Yes, you can. I've done so about three years ago, using 4 business cards and apparently taking numbers from "PI" (Vincent Hedan), apparently writing them on my cards on the fly (or in real time). Just adjust your presentation a bit. It is a perfect combination, as you stay in theme. First you are the "hero" (PI), then one of the spectators. Jan


It’s published or will be in your book in english?
My version of Eddie fetcher "Be Honest What's it?" it's available at Penguin Magic
Email: heldermagico@gmail.com
www.facebook.com/heldermagico
JanForster
View Profile
Inner circle
Germany ... when not traveling...
4117 Posts

Profile of JanForster
It has been published partly in a limited edition of lecture notes in 2015. I will think about it putting it in the book as well. But the handling should be obvious anyway. Jan
Jan Forster
www.janforster.de
Matt Pulsar
View Profile
Inner circle
1115 Posts

Profile of Matt Pulsar
Thanks for the great lecture Jan. I’ve alred started using your take on 4DT and I’m loving it. I have nothing but praise for the lecture. So, I’ll find the one thing I can pick at and question. Why do you start your show with the silly joke “I just flew in and boy are my arms tired.” It’s an old “groaner”. To me it’s sets up your character as something other than it is. I’m guessing you use something different in Germany but maybe not. Do people actually laugh at this? As I know everything in your act is well considered I imagine you have a reason for using this kind of joke to introduce yourself.

Thanks again for all the amazing work Jan!
Belief Manifests Reality.
Nebula CT: https://www.penguinmagic.com/p/8517
JanForster
View Profile
Inner circle
Germany ... when not traveling...
4117 Posts

Profile of JanForster
Thanks, Matt! Smile I never said it before, nor do I say it now or in future... I really said here only once as it was true, the timing, not the flight. I came with SAS (Frankfurt - Stockholm - Washington - Columbus ... 18 hours travel...) ... Jan
Jan Forster
www.janforster.de
j100taylor
View Profile
Inner circle
1194 Posts

Profile of j100taylor
You said it in both your lectures. It was funny both times.
Lakewood, Ohio
JanForster
View Profile
Inner circle
Germany ... when not traveling...
4117 Posts

Profile of JanForster
Funny, and I do not remember that... Smile
Jan Forster
www.janforster.de
Ever Elizalde
View Profile
New user
32 Posts

Profile of Ever Elizalde
Outstanding lecture, Jan! Your take on "Some total" is very clever. I had a "What didn't I think of that before?" moment.

Also, I've always loved the opener with the bags (I first learned this in Paolo Cavalli's "SIGMA", and then I saw Colin Cloud's take on it) but never felt too comfortable with it. Your version, however, without exaggerating and at risk of sounding cliché, went straight into my act! Smile

All the best,
Ever
Sharktale
View Profile
New user
Ukraine
30 Posts

Profile of Sharktale
I love the finale, now working to adopt the trick, and make it my own. Jan big than you!!!
VIEW
View Profile
Special user
687 Posts

Profile of VIEW
The finale is good. It’s a routine that Fredric da Silva has performed in his Las Vegas show for many years.

Now that it’s released I guess we can all perform it.
JanForster
View Profile
Inner circle
Germany ... when not traveling...
4117 Posts

Profile of JanForster
I perform it – inspired by Satori – more or less this way since 2014 and had it for the first time in my (German) lecture notes 2015 (“M & M”, 2015, “Mental-Forum”). And I just got told that Daniel Weininger (whom I met during Mindvention) performs it quite similar since two years Smile Jan
Jan Forster
www.janforster.de
wandering star
View Profile
New user
26 Posts

Profile of wandering star
It must have been 2012 (or 2013) when I attended the first lecture - and saw Jan performing (... at Magie Exquisite - absolutely lovely location). And having had no prior konwledge of how he was doing these things, I was really stunned (..and still am - mind reading at its best) - and most importantly simply enjoyed his perfomance. I am really not into the discussion mentalsim vs. magic - it is just art meant to entertain. It's both for the people, to amaze - to make people smile - and I would say my repertoire would categorize me as "magician" (... the way I use cards and thelike). And Jan just amazed and impressed me (..as performer in general). His guiding of participants (when and how to let people speak and so on..) is great. And since I read all of his booklets and notes and wanted to see him perform his effects - that's why I purchased Jan's latest lecture. And it is simply fun to watch (..and seeing Jan handle situations that occasionally may happen - people sometimes are slow on the uptake ;-) ... never seen anybody eating stones - and Jan was clear on his questioning). I really love combining PI and Hypno Numbers - I am a bit of maths addicted ;-) I wonder whether Jan's effect at his opener gets "alieneted" when performed using a second colour on the tossed out paper ball (word = one colour/ pen used for writing the word = different colour). I used it successfully this way last week when it served me as another optional out.

One aspect I was wondering about was an issue of distance vs. body contact referring to the handling of spectators - at one occassion during the lecture Jan put one hand on the spectator's belly. And I was wondering whether this might be risky for not knowing the spectator'S reactions/ feelings about that one. Using i.e. Craig's Insightmyself and then having to do that (..not with he belly ;-), I believe that it needs thinking on how to approach and prepare for these kind of actions that mean stepping into another spectator's zone of "proximity". Looking forward to hear about these aspects from you Smile

Jan
wandering star
View Profile
New user
26 Posts

Profile of wandering star
... Inception (!) - no need for body contact with Insight ;-) different creators, different effects
JanForster
View Profile
Inner circle
Germany ... when not traveling...
4117 Posts

Profile of JanForster
It is not something you can really explain... I had conversations about it more than one time with Joerg Alexander... There are things one person can do and say, other people don't. It takes time and experience (nothing you have to work on, it comes by time automatically, just important to be aware of it, and think about it as only absorbed experience is of any help...). Concerning IN...ION (wonderful device): I see far less problems as the sort of hypnosis you have to "play" has to allow you doing things you would never do, normally. Of course, you have to tell your participant in advance and ask him for "allowance".
BTW, as wonderful things are you can do with it, it is not my cup of tea. It is not me. Jan
Jan Forster
www.janforster.de
wandering star
View Profile
New user
26 Posts

Profile of wandering star
Thank you, Jan, for your reply - it is true - it has to fit anybodys's style which makes it authentic and an impressing experience for everyone. And sometimes it is a poor way of presentation that weakens any genuinely wonderful device - see i.e. inflation of simple which hand routines as an outcome of hyped devices - pure boredom, no plot and far away from entertainment. It seems like advertising in a sense of "you are instantly able to perform miracles - right after opening" inhibits any further thinking on your own and prevents from becoming creative. Besides one may be tempted to perform things just because a device exists without reflecting on the way it suits you. Anyways, some tools help to take ideas one step further - I would not like to miss that (..and I was really impressed by your pad when I saw you perfoming with it - and the device itself (whether you use a biro or the pen) is so unpretentious just like any everyday prop). Maybe I am just to impress easily - but I like it Smile
o.
View Profile
New user
53 Posts

Profile of o.
This is one of the absolute top 5 lectures I have seen. I‘m amazed!
Consultthemind1
View Profile
Regular user
166 Posts

Profile of Consultthemind1
Long post warning.

I�ve left it several days before deciding to review this lecture; as always, I watch what I�m reviewing several times before committing to my impressions (mind the pun) and then proceed with the review.

I must stress that any views expressed in this review are my own and are simply opinions and should be viewed that way. I�m happy to be challenged on any points I raise and welcome opposing opinions also.

I recently watched Christopher Carter�s penguin lecture and thought it was great; after enjoying Chris� lecture, I put out the feelers for a similar lecture, and Jan�s Penguin live act was recommended as a nomination.

Let me start by saying that this is my first time seeing Jan perform. I�d not heard of Jan until a couple of weeks back, and after writing this review and searching this forum for related posts, it was a pleasant surprise to see that he�s a poster here. I�m out of touch with what is �fresh�, and his name must have fallen through the cracks.

Watching Jan Forster�s live act/ lecture, there is no mistaking that Jan performs professionally and often. His focus on radio equipment and the use of a kill switch told me that instantly, that coupled with the indexing of props made it crystal clear. I mention this as it plays a role in a few points I make later.

Jan opens with a routine which penguin lists as �The Opener�.

This opening performance is a two-tier performance, a primary (light) effect and then a secondary 50/ 50 game show style effect where the spectator wins a prize if they make the correct choice.

As I mentioned, this is two-tier, for the primary effect Jan employs �the disposable color� - Which he wrongly credits (in the explanations) to Banachek, it�s a Max Maven idea, published in �The Red Book of mentalism� and contributed by Max Maven to Banachek�s �Psychological Subtleties 1�. It�s easy to see the confusion for the miscredit; it is important, however, to get the credit right; I know how Max would feel if it was wrongly credited to someone else, with it being such an excellent dodge.

The disposable color in its original form is excellent and requires no alteration.

Jan has made one alteration; it�s a minor alteration that others have also played with, and I struggle to see the benefit of the addition in this context. I am referring to Jan�s horrible use of equivoque if the disposable color doesn�t go in the direction that Jan wants. It doesn�t make sense to use equivoque in this context. Let me elaborate; it might be a valuable tool if the routine that followed didn�t use a similar principle and was not also a 50/ 50 choice.

Even with the addition it also has a chance of totally failing, and In the worst-case scenario, Jan would say, �You just named the perfect color; therefore, I know you will be the right person to make the next decision�. The beauty of the original dodge is that it never felt like a failure when the wrong color was selected. The routine via construct was designed to be disposable. Creating an extra process to end up in the same place only draws attention to the color selection.

In short, in this situation, it logically makes more sense to stick to the original than resorting to a 50/ 50, succeeding and then moving right into another 50/ 50 routine.

The old expression, �Never repeat a trick twice,� is a solid philosophy for a reason. It is especially crucial to pay close attention to that philosophy in this particular situation. Let me briefly expand on a point I've made already, because the following 50/ 50 effect also relies on a very similar (not the same) method it is not a good follow up. If, by chance, in both cases, the outcome is the weakest outcome (you�d have to watch the lecture to understand), then you ruin your opening effect, and it ends up being nowhere near as powerful as it could be.

Outside of equivoque not being a good fit for this situation, I wasn�t a huge fan of Jan�s use of equivoque for the color either; it didn�t make any sense, the language didn�t sit right. I am 100% certain it flies in the real world �live� because of the speed of the effect, but on a recorded medium that can be rewound and picked apart, it felt weak. He mentions in the explanations that sometimes a Male would catch the paper ball first and then pass it to a female; It would be a much better option to (if you wanted to name more than one colour, which I don�t advise) go back to the male who first caught the paper ball and say, �What colour would you have said?� IF he goes on to say what you want, you can say, �there is a reason you caught the ball first; open it up and show him�. It would make much more sense than resorting to a magician�s choice.

I also found Jan�s selection of information (used in the disposable color) weaker than it could have been.

Here is why.

I will talk about a zodiac revelation that Jan employs later in this review. He could strengthen that routine by using a star sign instead of a color leading up to the opening effect. If that hits out of the gate, Jan has a fantastic miracle on his hands that is incredibly powerful. If it misses, it opens up the opportunity for a beautiful callback moment later in the show. He can say, �Ha! I knew you were that sign; you have the exact characteristics of the person I need to make the next decision; only someone with your star sign would make the correct decision�.

Now, when the main opening effect is a success, it confirms that Jan also knew the spectator�s sign. Not only that, when he revisits the plot later (and changes the spectator instead of working with the same one), it becomes a �call back� much like what a comedian would employ where they destroy the audience with the same joke twice. In this case, when Jan divines the sign later, it also confirms that he must have known the first spectator�s Zodiac sign (in the opening routine). With Jan�s character, he could even make a joke of pointing that out and referring back to the opening spectator.

In my mind, it is much more of a logical solution. The payoff is more significant, and it forces you to not rely on that horrible �choose one for me� line in equivoque.

To sum up, the opening effect is ok, nothing to write home about - I think the language is a little confusing. I understand it is designed that way purposefully, but the weaker of the two options is far weaker because of the word �use�. You�d have to watch the lecture to understand, but I�m sure you�ll agree. With the wide variety of other methods available to pull off this type of effect, I am not convinced that the verbal approach is the best (framed this way). There are much better versions, and this isn�t anything groundbreaking.

The following routine that Jan performs is a routine called �Back to School�.

This effect, much like the effect above, has a primary (more minor) effect and a larger secondary effect. The primary (smaller) effect I referenced above, its a zodiac divination. This effect is very similar in presentation and the same method as �An Astrological Aside� released in �The Mental Mysteries of Hector Chadwick�. Hector�s revelation is more off the cuff and makes more sense than Jan�s approach in the lecture. The spectator in this version gets nothing from the effect� At all. The principle used is a well-known principle credited to Dunninger (I won�t name it for fear of tipping the method). Going down the polling route felt a bit lazy, and the revelation suffers because of that. You could increase the odds of the spectator getting something from the effect if in the polling phase you had the on-stage spectator point at someone in the audience and let them take a guess. If it hits, the miracle is that the spectator chose the person thinking of their sign out of everyone in the room. I understand you keep the spectator on the stage to give them an effect to leave with; I�d trade the time used in the polling phase and use it elsewhere. I believe there are much better ways to use the information you have gained. Jan could have used a modified version of Orville Meyer�s �Tervil� and adapted it to the stage; using this principle would allow him to make the on-stage spectator believe that an audience member had correctly determined the sign. He could even use his initial polling phase, have the on-stage spectator select one person from the audience, move into Tervil, not add time to the routine, and not have to deviate too far from the way Jan presented this primary effect.

Jan did share an interesting version of the same principle using the Invisible deck - It was great and far better/ well thought out than the approach to revealing the zodiac sign.

However, I want to be fair and point out that deviating from Jan�s path, you add a tiny amount of time to your performance, and maybe the time restraints are why Jan favoured the lesser impressive reveal. I always think it is better to choose the option that offers the best entertainment for the spectator and audience - The balance is sometimes hard to find.

Whilst on the subject of this ploy, Dan Harlan correctly points out that Dunninger used �The Modesty Ploy� in conjunction with this effect. Dunninger never actually wanted it to seem like he had done anything (from the perspective of the on-stage participant) whilst making it seem like he had pulled off a miracle (to the audience as a whole); he did this by silencing the audience when they applauded. It would have been nice to see that here; it would have made the polling sequence more logical and rounded off the effect nicely.

I have spent a lot of time studying this ploy; some years ago. I came across a series of articles that claimed Dunninger would always do this with the first participant he invited onto the stage. They believed Dunninger did this because if Dunninger (or any mind reader) could read minds, they wouldn�t have to ask audience members their names - they would know. Dunninger also always made a big deal of never performing the same feat twice in a row, and therefore, when he asked people their names throughout the rest of the show, nobody would ever question why he did this.

I always hate watching Mentalists ask people their names; it never really made any sense. It might make sense if the audience knew that your �process� of reading someone was physical contact, like Christopher Walken�s character in the film �The Dead Zone�. That way, you could ask questions and then when you hold out your hand, and the spectator places theirs in yours, that�s the moment you start to get impressions. As there�s a visual moment that lets the audience know when the mind-reading begins, any questions asked before or after that moment are logically justified.

Find a �moment� (visual or audiological) when the mind-reading occurs. It�s more entertaining for the audience and helps wash away illogical moments. Think about it; if you had a routine wherein you needed to �fish�, and you were using The Dead Zone�s process, you could say (when introducing the process), �the longer I hold someone�s hand, the more information I receive�. When you want to move into a routine where you need to fish, you could say, �Instead of holding my hand, I want you to high five me�. Now because you only briefly made contact, it�s highly implied that only a tiny amount of information came through, and it justifies the fishing process.

Anyway, onto the secondary (larger effect). Two more spectators are invited onto the stage to join the first. They are not selected via the throw of the paper ball or in some other random fashion; they�re pointed at, which sort of (not entirely) defeats the entire point of the paper ball being randomly thrown out in the beginning effect. I understand that in the scenario the ball is opened (in the eventuality of a hit in the first effect), it makes sense not to throw the paper ball into the audience for the rest of the show. Suppose the ball isn�t opened (in the worst-case scenario). In that case, that paper ball should continue to be used throughout the rest of the show to make random selections of audience members or some other audience selection process.

He proceeds to move into his version of 4DT; Cassidy was a good friend of mine and was such a powerhouse that many people wrongly believe he was the inventor of �Fourth Dimension Telepathy�. It was an Annemann creation (published by Burling Hull), and Jan credits Bob for the invention; credit correction is vital as readers might want to visit the plot�s roots. A book I�d highly recommend is Bob�s �A Journey Through The Fourth Dimension�. It outlines the growth of the principle and details all of the changes Bob made.

In Jan�s defence, it�s important to state that Bob made the effect his own, and his presentation became the industry standard.

My thoughts on Jan�s contribution to the plot - I agree wholeheartedly with Jan about using names on the envelope instead of numbers; it adds a personal touch to the routine and makes a part of the process much simpler for the person who holds the envelopes to follow.

I have always hated the drawing phase of the three envelope test; I don�t see how people who perform this effect cannot see that it is messy and illogical to have the spectator re-draw their drawing. With a bit of thought, it is easy to eliminate that part of the process and have the spectator only make one drawing the size you need it to be from the get-go and give you the information you need simultaneously.

I�m getting sidetracked.

My honest thoughts on Jan�s version of this effect is that it is a step backwards from Bob Cassidy�s (which, as mentioned earlier, was the inspiration for Jan�s). It is a step back because there is an element in Jan�s version that severely restricts one spectator and lessens the effect for them, and obliterates the routine for friends of that spectator if they decide to talk about what occurred after the effect. I understand the thinking behind the choice for this phase in the routine; it seems logical to cut a part of the original process out and seems like a clever candidate for a replacement method. Upon first glance, I can see how it would look more beneficial than Cassidy�s approach, which utilizes Al Shaxon�s envelope. Still, that cleverness soon falls flat when Jan applies a method later to give a spectator their billet back (which is not unique to Jan). Therefore, Jan might use that same move at the beginning of the routine and allow the spectator to think of any word they would like.

All Jan accomplished was to move the compromise in the routine to a different area at the expense of the entertainment for one spectator and people they came to the show with.

For this reason, Cassidy�s version reigns over this one - It is the same amount of work, with the same amount of compromise.

Jan�s version does what it sets out to do, and it is worth paying attention to the finer details that Jan shares in between the moments integral to the routine. His philosophies are often sound, and his reasoning for making certain choices whilst not always working for the routine being presented will serve you well. These ideas should be added to your bank of ideas and applied in other performance areas.

Do you believe in chance?

This effect was a playing card prediction type of effect. The spectator arrives at a random playing card, and you have predicted it in advance. For clarity, I say prediction loosely as it�s up to the audience to decide if it�s chance or fate, and that is the presentational hook.

This effect was ridiculous; what a convoluted, over the top way to arrive at a playing card. Carrying 18 dice around to perform an effect is a no from me. If you�re reading this, Jan, there is a much simpler solution where you only need to carry three dice around.

As you know that your target card is definitely going to be amongst the series of six cards for definite (because of the Canasta subtlety), you can hold the cards up casually to reshow the audience the six choices and manoeuvre your target card to the position that coincides with the three dice you have already out on the table (from the top of the small packet down) for example, if your three dice work for the number three make sure that the target card is three from the top of the facedown packet.

Hand the cards to the spectator and hand them a pen and ask them to write the numbers 1 to 6 on the cards. In my opinion, the audience having the ability to number those six cards in any order makes no difference to the routine whatsoever. It makes no difference because you seemingly do not know what cards will be drawn out of the packet in the first place.

Also, the spectator is rolling the dice, so everything seems fair and random. It also cuts out having to do any prep work to the deck, and you can still use a sealed deck of cards (if you want). Anyone who has watched the lecture will understand what I mean by this.

But, if you were hell-bent on having the cards numbered randomly because you feel that it makes the routine feel fairer, you can still do that using a slight variation on the above method that I have just shared. After holding the cards up to show the audience control your target card to the bottom of the small packet. Shuffle the small packet whilst retaining the bottom card whilst saying, �the cards were randomly thought of; I will mix them up into a random order. Take this pen and call out a random number from one to six�.

Let�s say the spectator says the number you want (that coincides with your die); shuffle the bottom card to the top and hand them the top card saying, �write that number on the back of that card�. Repeat the process, each time shuffling and giving the spectator another card. Now the cards are mixed, and the numbers are called out randomly.

For clarity, If the spectator does not say the number you want, shuffle, retain the target card on the bottom of the packet, and hand them the top card saying, �Write that number on that card. I don�t even want to see which card that is�. Repeat this until the number you want is called out, shuffle the target card to the top, and they now write the correct number on the back of that card.

This process looks like a number is called out, the packet is shuffled and that random number is written on a random card.

The compromise, I feel, is much less, the deck requires no prep, and you have less to carry - Win/ Win.

This overall was a weak effect, and there are much better ways to arrive at a playing card that is theatrically more pleasing. Too much work for too little pay.

Hypno Numbers

This effect is a hard-hitting number revelation.

This effect was the best effect on this lecture, the kicker was fun, and it was a lovely homage to a Larry Becker idea.

I (many years ago) played with this concept based on Harry Lorayne�s teachings; watching Jan�s version has inspired me to revisit it.

Thank you for that, Jan.

The only gripe I had with the performance of this routine was the lack of commitment to the plot. It is framed as hypnosis, a slightly longer pseudo induction and/ or a false selection process that utilized the entire audience by having the audience all participate in a suggestibility test would have complimented the effect. The �hypnosis� element of the routine felt a little glossed over, and it was hard to feel like it was believable. Once the audience questions what you�re saying, based on what you�re doing, your credibility comes into question. There were no suggestions made when the spectator had their eyes closed and therefore there was no reason for the spectator to close their eyes, it made no sense.

Outside of that, this one effect alone is worth the price of admission.

Overall opinions

As I�ve said, Jan is a worker; he�s a pro, so you can learn a lot if you break down each phase of each routine into mini sections and dissect them whilst taking many notes.

Watching him perform, though, I didn�t feel he could read minds. It felt more like watching the presenter of a game show. There was also never a time I thought he might fail; it all felt too polished to the point that it was almost overworked. The best performers realize that it�s not easy to read someone�s thoughts; it takes work, and whilst it rarely fails, the audience feel it could at any moment; therefore, when the performance succeeds, the audience cheer on the performer. Inronically, the moment Jan hated in the performance of 4DT - where he was working with a spectator that made his job a little complicated, and he had to work (a minimal, almost unnoticeable amount) was one of the only moments that felt like Jan was �reading� anything. As mentioned earlier, there was never any process, it was just think of something, and here it is, or think of something, and he�d predicted it.

I also found it strange that Jan spoke of himself as a memory man, citing his 25 years working with the Aronson stack as proof to back his claim up, but misremembered credits, missed credits and at one point in the lecture mentions Luke Jermay�s 3510, calling it 3540 instead.

The performance was very by the book, the plots were not new or fresh, and Jan could have been any other corporate performer. Nothing separated Jan from the pack or stood out about him; I preferred Chris Carter�s live lecture but that is personal opinion and me being picky.

However, if you are looking for an act that you can copy to make money, this might be the best small amount of money you could spend. The effects are simple to perform, they all work, and Jan spells them out very clearly. The lecture would enable someone with minimal experience to get out and perform a 25-30 minute act.

David.
Stunninger
View Profile
Inner circle
2274 Posts

Profile of Stunninger
Now that's a thought-provoking and valuable review. Well done.
Business Card Q&A eBook & The Elvis Peek videos are $30 each and may be purchased by sending a PayPal to: mindreaderfxfx@gmail.com. Elvis Peek videos are streaming only and cannot be downloaded.

Reviews: https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=715994&start=0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtMqE98Rol8&ab_channel=NiqueTan
The Unmasked Magician
View Profile
Inner circle
If only I didn't have a wife and a kid I would have MUCH more than
2008 Posts

Profile of The Unmasked Magician
When I saw you posted a review and the first sentence was "long post warning" all I could think was: Yay! This will be great! And it was. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Much appreciated and I'm curious to hear Jan's reply and see his thoughts on your thoughts. And... I thought Christopher Carter was great too.
Please check regularly if you are becoming the type of magician Jerry Seinfeld jokes about. (This applies to mentalists as well.)
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Mentally Speaking » » Jan Forster Penguin Live ACT (36 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.15 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