Deja Vu, anyone?

In our "everything's disposable" American society, we have many, many items in our lives that are not made, or built, to last very long, really.  There are houses standing in this country that have been there for over 100 years, but modern houses?  Most of them are slapped up wood, a little concrete, and plastic.  Cars?  You drive it until it can't drive anymore and pile it up at a wrecking yard.  Clothes?  Wear it, tear it, and replace it.  Technology?  My ipod has been working for quite a few years now, I have a second gen. ipod nano.  But in the last year I've noticed it's starting to do a few buggy things.  It has many good years left, but when it dies?  I'll replace it with a new one.  No big deal. 

This mentality has even seeped into our entertainment world.  Lady Gaga mixes Madonna's melodies into her songs and although a few people comment on it, basically it's considered "new" and "fresh" and the radio won't stop playing the bloody thing.  On TV, for decades now, cop shows have been recycling the same basic premises over and over, as have lawyer shows, medical shows and sitcoms.  And once upon a time the whole "reality" TV thing was relatively new, as was the "talk show" (I remember Donahue...), but now, it's ALL been done.  And they keep doing it.  Again and again.  Often when a new idea comes along on TV, it's soundly rejected by the majority of the viewing audience and slashed from the lineup after just a few seasons (as evidenced here). 

And movies?  Movies are the worst offenders!  There seem to be more sequels and remakes every year than original films! I understand a "franchise" of films, such as "Star Wars" or "Indiana Jones" or "Harry Potter", telling a story or keeping a character going for multiple films, but what baffles my mind are movies such as "Yogi Bear" or "The Smurfs".  Whaaa?  It's jaw-dropping.  Or even worse, when Hollywood takes a classic film, like "Psycho" and decides it can do better.  Nah, just stupider.  I was looking at movie trailers here today and saw a new "Planet of the Apes" film is on its way.  My first reaction was to ask why the heck do they need another one.  Then I watched the trailer and understood.  It actually looks good, and it's a new angle, not just a "reimagining" of the old story.  But... it's still not really an original idea.  There have been a few times that a new film is a definite improvement on an original.  Take "Batman Begins" for example.  Other superhero or comic book movies fall into this category.  I understand taking a terrible movie and wanting to use the characters to make a better movie. 

It sounds like I'm taking both sides of a debate, which I guess I am, but what I would really like to see from Hollywood and entertainment in general are more original ideas. Maybe that will become the new trend in a year or two.  We can only hope. :)

Best comedy routines...

 I love stand up comedians.  I have a hard time with those who "work blue" or whatever it's called, using foul language and sexual themes for their jokes.  I prefer those whose routines are more observational, like these guys:

Henry Cho
Henry is a full-blooded Korean man who grew up in Nashville, Tennessee.  He even has a southern accent.  He is hilarious and almost completely little-kid-friendly clean.

The dang blogger-youtube connection won't post my favorite bit about his really stupid friend, JB Stewart, but it's the one I really wanted to share, so you'll have to forgive me and click the link.

Brian Regan
If you haven't ever heard Brian's stuff, you are absolutely missing out. He recently released a new album available for download here.  His routines are amazing.  And clean.  He has so many great bits that I had a hard time choosing one to insert here.  This scene is among my favorites:

When my family takes road trips, we like to take comedy CDs with us to listen to.  We enjoy Bill Cosby, especially his older stuff.  You can't go wrong with some great, classic Cosby, right?  Funny, relatable, real, and family-friendly.

Another comic that I like a lot is Steven Wright.  Good stuff.  He's the one who is completely deadpan, dry and looks like he may be half asleep...

We also love a lot of Weird Al Yankovic's music.  Some of his parodies are amazing, but I prefer his original stuff, myself.  Like this: (I actually prefer my own imagination to the animated video... it's much funnier just to listen...)

TV service MY WAY

For years now, my dad has been talking about how nice it would be if the TV cable and satellite companies would offer people an a la carte menu of channels to select from. I have completely agreed with him-- I didn't like paying for 200-plus channels, when my family and I only watched about 15 of them!  Sattelite companies would like you to think that such a plan is impossible (in fact, there's an ad on TV right now, I think it's for DirecTV, stating that while such a thing would be nice, no one can offer that right now), I think that's a load of garbage.

If I could choose my own channels, I would be such a happy customer, I would recommend them to ALL of my friends.  I would even be okay with having to select a minimum of, say, 50 channels in a package.  I don't mind being sold a package.  Just let me choose what's IN that package!  I would even pay more per channel if I didn't have all the garbage.

We had Dish Network for a few years, and we had over 200 channels.  We blocked SO many of them.  There were a huge pile of shopping channels, spanish-speaking channels and religious channels that we just weren't going to watch.  On the other hand, we would have LOVED to have had the Mountain so we could watch BYU games, or Versus, so my hubby could watch the Tour de France, or even National Geographic channel.  Silly!  We didn't want so many of channels we were "required" to pay for in order to get the few we wanted.

It doesn't really make sense.  Recently, cable and satellite providers seem getting their proverbial butts kicked by that fabulous friend-of-mine, Netflix, and rightly so!  With Netflix, I pay a small monthly fee and I watch whatever streamed shows are available as much as I want to-- they aren't brand-new shows, but between Netflix and Hulu, I'm satisfied.  There are only a couple of shows I am missing, and guess what!  Next year I can catch them on Netflix!  I do wish Netflix had more to choose from, but as time goes by more and more shows and movies are added to their lists, and subsequently, into my queue.

There was an article in the Deseret News today by Lane Williams about this very thing.  The writer was discussing the fact that, although he doesn't watch MTV, if he pays for TV, he is supporting and helping fund MTV's programming lineup, which includes primarily shows that he has no interest in watching.  I hadn't really ever thought about that before:  that I helped support MTV (not to mention VH1, Spike and others) and it's garbage for those years I had satellite TV service, even though I had that channel blocked in my home!  If it isn't something I want to watch, why would I want to line their pockets or help pay for TV shows that I find inappropriate and offensive!?  Ridiculous.  In the article, he said it's estimated that about $10 a year goes to MTV from each household paying for cable TV.  Even if it's only $5, I don't like it.

I wonder if enough people leave cable and satellite TV behind in favor of Netflix, hulu.com and other sources where we can choose what we watch when we want to watch it, if satellite and cable TV providers will realize it's time to change things up.  They could generate a lot of new business (we would return!) if they offered more choices in programming.  As I previously stated, they could offer packages where you had to choose 50, 75, 100 channels, and still offer their lumped-together-with-junk packages.  Some people would still buy them... maybe.  

The people who would be most adversely affected by this proposition would probably be the owners of shopping channels, but even they would probably get enough business to stay in business.  There are folks who enjoy shopping on TV, right?

It feels like it would be a win-win, in the long run, but TV providers are just too afraid of thinning in their personal wallets to take the chance.  I hope soon they are forced to it by people like me, who finally get fed up and walk away.

PBS is awesome

I sang the praises of PBS when I wrote about how much I love the BBC show "Sherlock" and I think it's just fantastic that PBS aired that show.  A couple of weeks ago, I watched the new 25th anniversary "concert" production of "Les Miserables".  It took my breath away!  Fabulous.  I think Alfie Boe outperformed the original Jean Valjean, Colm Wilkinson, and Lea Salonga was incredible as Fantine.  The actor who played Enjolras, Ramin Karimloo, was one of the best in the entire show, second only to Boe.  I was entranced by his performance-- in a word: amazing.

I have loved this show since I was a jr. in High School 21 years ago, and I know it by heart.
It isn't exactly unusual, but I was sobbing by the end of the production.  Even without staging and full production value, this concert had such heart, such emotion, amazing acting and phenominal singing.  The one and only weak link was the poor little Jonas brother, who was cast as Marius.  Why, I don't know.  It really isn't his fault-- he did do his best to perform well, and you could tell he realized that the rest of the cast was singing circles around him.  His acting was weak; as my brother said, he looked a bit constipated throughout.  He just seemed... uncomfortable.  But who would turn an opportunity like that down?

His performance reminded me of the time I saw the film version of "The Phantom of the Opera", when I was horrified, disgusted and offended by the terrible performance of Gerard Butler.  He isn't attractive, he wasn't seductive, and he sang off-pitch and without any professionalism.  His performance ruined the film for me.  I won't be watching it again.  Ever.  The only positive in the performance of the Jonas boy in "Les Mis" was that at least the Jonas kid could hit the notes.  Not always very strongly, and without the authenticity and passion that Marius should express, but at least he was ON PITCH (the same can't be said about Butler's Phantom).  His weak performance didn't mar the magnificent performances around him, it took a little getting used to, but it didn't destroy the show.

At the end of the show, members of former casts came onstage and sang encore performances of a few numbers, including Wilkinson singing "Bring Him Home".  It wasn't as good as Alfie's rendition at all.  I didn't need the excess, and I think it's just fluff.  Personally, I was emotionally and musically fulfilled by the show itself and didn't require any extra hoopla for the original cast.  The reunion was nice, but I didn't care much.

Follow the link to a good review of the show:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705367935/PBS-celebrates-Les-Miserables-25th-anniversary.html

A little closer to balance

I am continually amazed by my own gullibility.  Maybe because I am an honest, literal person, I expect that others are and I take what they say at face value, never suspecting an agenda.  I like balance, I like information from two sides of an issue, so I can make a decision for myself.  Unfortunately, when someone is only giving me one side of an issue, I tend to believe them, but often I am misled, because I don't even realize they could be trying to make me think a certain thing is true, even though it hasn't been proven... I'm trying to stop doing this. I'm trying to think for myself.  In a world where we are constantly barraged with ideas and images and "evidence" and "studies" and "science" that "proves" ideas to be "true", I'm learning to question, learning to ask for evidence, learning that if something hasn't been proven 3 or 4 times, it might not be true...

So I was very happy to discover that someone had made a counter-argument documentary for a film that I had watched last year, the film that tried to destroy McDonald's:  "Supersize Me".  This movie is shown in some of our own junior high health classes, and has been said to "expose" a "conspiracy" in the fast food industry, etc. etc.  I suggest you watch it rather than have my opinions affect your own.  I took it pretty much at face value and, having been told my entire life how bad saturated fat and animal fat is, I felt pretty guilty every time I ate at McDonald's after watching it.  It even made me feel a little sick to watch this man get more and more grossed out by the food as he ate it for an entire month.  A few of the points made by the film were that McDonald's is partly to blame for obesity in America, that Americans are helpless against the corporation feeding them food that's unhealthy, and that the government should do something.  Etcetera.

And then, this year, along came Netflix.  We got rid of our satellite service and adopted the Netflix streaming on our Wii.  By happenstance, one afternoon my husband and I watched a less professional, but even more interesting documentary called "Fat Head", which systematically debunked everything in the film "Supersize Me", as well as showing how we, the nation, including the medical world, have been indoctrinated to believe that manufactured vegetable oils were better for us than animal fat (saturated fat), and all this "science" about lipids.  It turns out that in the '80s and '90s while obesity was becoming an epidemic, people were eating a lot more vegetable oils and sugars and grains and a lot less animal fats.  And we were still gaining weight.  How could this be?  I can't remember the actual studies or science (again, watch the film, it's better than my memory will reproduce), but the gist of it is that humans actually need animal fats-- our brains are made of fat.  Also, the man in this film reproduced the "experiment" of eating at McD's every day for a month and he lost weight, his cholesterol went down, his blood sugars were good, etc. in effect:  by increasing his exercise routine to 6 nights of walking each week, while eating fast food for all 3 meals (I think it was all McDonald's, but it's possible I'm mistaken), he got healthier!  Weird.  It was very strange, and his doctor tried, without success, to explain it away.

My recommendation to you?  Watch them both, beginning with "Supersize Me".  Then do some research, if you are able, and decide what's what.  To find out the government has been misleading us for decades should come as no surprise to any of us.  We have become increasingly cynical and mistrusting of our politicians for a reason.  As for changing my diet?  I will not be taking any drastic measures-- for one thing, I love bread and cakes and sugar.  However, even before watching this film, I realized my family needed to increase our fruit and veg intake and dramatically decrease our sugar intake (now I realize this includes breads and grains, but I won't be removing them completely.)
I think balance is the best thing.  What rings true?  What sounds right?  Do you feel good when you try to cut out all meat or animal fat?  Does it make sense that we are eating processed, manufactured oils, when butter or coconut oil is actually better for us?  Can you give up your soda and chips?  I would dare say that if American parents want their children to be healthier, the first thing to go should be soda and candy.  The second, chips and all those starches-- fries, breakfast cereals, etc.

I actually find it difficult to research these things because the internet is packed with conflicting information, and the only way to know what is true is to keep going, keep reading and then listen to my gut.  If something feels wrong, it probably is.  At least for me.  But it isn't always easy to tell.  Logic plays a large part.  It is logical that we would be healthier eating natural foods, like butter, than processed, man-made foods like vegetable oil, but I was taught most of my life how evil butter is. Same with eggs.  We've been told alternately that eggs are bad, eggs are good, eggs are bad, now eggs are good again.  What do you believe? And what has led you to believe it?

I think I should do my own experiment.  Change my diet... I'm not interested in going full-Atkins here, but maybe a little bit for a month, see how I feel.  I spend so much time feeling tired and sluggish-- probably changing my diet would help.  Hmm...

A link with some interesting quotes about some items discussed in the second film:
http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/articles/p150.htm

The Facts Were These...

Some shows you may have missed because 1.  The network Gods deigned them unpopular and pulled them off the air too soon; 2. The audience didn't give them enough support and the network Gods cancelled them or 3. They were too smart for the new demographic:  Dimwits who prefer to watch obese people work out and be yelled at, losers living in an apartment together "hook up" or single men/women act like idiots to get a rose and maybe "find love" than to actually have to pay attention to dialogue, story lines and character development.  But I'm not bitter.

The first to pop into my head is the eccentric, enchanting "Pushing Daisies".  This fabulous little show centered around the character named Ned (played perfectly by Lee Pace), who discovered in his youth that one touch of his finger could bring a dead person or animal back to life, at the unfortunate cost of another person or animal's life, unless he touched the dead person or animal again within 60 seconds, which rendered them dead for good.  Featuring brightly colored sets and costumes, clever narration, distinct and funny dialogue and plots, viewers followed Ned as he and his new partner, Emerson Cod (subtly understated and fabulously played by Chi McBride), ran around solving murders by simply asking the deceased how they had died.  Not to be deterred from his day job, as a pie baker, however, Ned kept up his shop (called "The Pie Hole" ha ha!) and his friendship with his waitress, Olive Snook (played brilliantly by Kristin Chenoweth).  Each crime solving foray began with the narrator stating "The facts were these..." and describing the situation.  It was funny, tender, silly, heart-felt fantasy.  It was a wonderful little show and I was so sorry when they cancelled it.  It just didn't catch on, I suppose.  I failed to mention that Ned also had a love interest, whom he had brought back from the dead, and didn't have the heart to put her back down, and so she lives on (a beautiful, vibrant zombie, I suppose) but they can never touch, even though they are in love.

Next on my list is the fantastic, quirky, spiritual-yet not preachy "Eli Stone".  This show was touching, sweet, thoughtful, intense, funny, classy, dirty, exciting, dramatic, and brilliant.  The pilot takes off (no pun intended) with Eli (played with the perfect balance of incredulity, humor, intelligence, and man-in-crisis by Johnny Lee Miller) having the first of many hallucinations/visions.  This one: George Michael in his front room, singing "Faith".  This becomes the theme for the show.  Eli is a lawyer who, when the visions begin changing his priorities, goes through a major transformation.  This has been done before, but never with such a unique cause or such imaginative set pieces. There were two seasons of this fantastic show.  I would recommend watching every episode in order.  I'm not including other rich characters in this description, but there are many, including Eli's brother, the women in his life, and his acupuncturist.  This show is so layered and detailed, I can't even begin to give you an accurate picture of it.  Just go watch it on Netflix, okay?  For my high-standard friends, be warned, there are the occasional adult themed scenes here and there.  I personally wish they would edit sex scenes out (we know what goes on when the lights go down, after all), but this show is one that I think is worth fast-forwarding anything you don't want to see.  It's outweighed by the lessons on God, faith, truth, trust and love.

I knew from the first episode that I would like "Freaks and Geeks".  This show made me uncomfortable while making me laugh.  It is a coming-of-age comedy/drama about teenagers in the 80s, living in Michigan and it is incredibly real in it's portrayal of both the times and what life can be like as teens, tweens and in-betweens. The show was hilarious, painful to watch and thought-provoking all at the same time, and featured a cast of unknowns (including a certain failed Oscar host, James Franco, and others you will recognize from recent roles.) who were perfect in their roles.  A great, great show.  My review here is short, I am needed back at my job.  Look it up on imdb, then rent or stream it.  I think you'll enjoy yourself.

No list like this would be complete without including "Firefly".  I admit that I have a bit of a crush on Captain Hammer, Rick Castle and Captain Reynolds himself, Nathan Fillion.  He manages to make me like every character he plays.  "Firefly" is famously frustrating for nerds across the nation.  It was a good show by Joss Whedon who was also the brain behind "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" (as well as other things, I know...) and it was very upsetting to fans when "Firefly" got the axe.  Luckily, it is available to watch, as is the film that continues the story, "Serenity".  This show is basically a western drama set in outer space.  A sci-fi western.  That was a unique idea, the merging of these two genres (at least, unique in my limited experience. Soon we will have "Coyboys and Aliens" but "Firefly" was the first on my radar to use both genres.)  I did not love this show as much as die-hard fans did.  I had a little trouble with the dialogue using old-timey western-ese-type phrases and terms.  I loved the characters, however, and the episode storylines were interesting and intriguing.  I have to admit here, I have yet to watch "Serenity", so I can't speak to the film, but the show is worth checking out.  Especially if you happen to like outer space shows.  Or tough-guy shows.  Or Nathan Fillion.

So add to my list-- what shows did you love that bit the dust?  Why do you think it is that so many great shows get cancelled?  Am I being too hard on the watchers of "reality" TV?  Is there intelligent life out there?

So... what's the big hullabaloo??

Last night, I finally watched a rented copy of "Inception".  My son had watched it a week ago at a friend's house and was freaking out excited for us to watch it with him.  He told us (as we had heard back when it first came out in theaters) that it was "mind-blowing" and very entertaining.

My husband's comments on the opening scene were that "it felt like being dropped into the middle of the movie-- there was no buildup, no story development, just BOOM! Here you are."  He wasn't too impressed.  As evidenced by the snores.

I stayed awake and even used all my brain power to actually try to follow and understand the storyline.  I found the visual stunts and effects amazing.  I thought the idea of the "sharing" dreams and entering another person's dreams unique and efective.  However, about the time of the snow-fortress battle-on-skis, I lost interest.  I just didn't really care about the characters. I wanted to care... I know they were acting their little hearts out for us, but... meh... I just didn't care.

I stuck it out, watched the whole movie, and at the end, I had a MASSIVE headache. Thus, my impression of this film wasn't quite as positive as my son's, nor the majority of the public's, either.  I understand that I have aged out of the "target demographic" for popular media, so this movie wasn't made for me, so the filmmakers don't really care that I didn't like it that much.  

My son tells me I'm too critical, and he's probably right.  I expect a lot from my movie watching... I want characters who are engaging (even if they are the antagonists-- you have to want to watch them) I want plotlines that surprise me, and visuals that at least draw me in, if not amaze me.  I want actors who can act and music that doesn't distract.  I want to care without having a message stuffed down my throat.  I want to be entertained, but at a high standard of quality.

As for the cast, Leo DeCaprio was solid, as always.  I liked Joseph-Gordon Leavitt.  I haven't actually seen him in anything since watching a few episodes of "3rd Rock From the Sun" years ago, and he has developed into a decent actor.  I always enjoy the under-used Michael Caine. The filmmakers seemed to have cast him just to have him in the film, however, and didn't let him really shine. Cillian Murphy, whom I know from "Batman Begins" was also good as the target of the dream-invading team.  Overall, it was well cast and solid.

It was a so-so movie.  You would probably enjoy it... I am glad I watched it, but the truth is, I won't be watching it again.  Once was enough.  

Really?!

I whole-heartedly recommended "Harry's Law" last week.  I still recommend it, but my recommendation this week  is closer to half-hearted.  The episode this week was great- humorous, serious, sweet, genuine, and mostly compelling, until her dang closing argument at the end of the hour.  I'm not sure I can watch every week if there are always going to be liberal-agenda laced closing arguments from her character.

Harry's trial this week featured an 80-something-year old woman who held up a liquor store with a loaded gun to steal money because she was starving.  Her son, who lived many states away, had lost his job and been unable to send her money, and her Social Security just wasn't enough or something like that.  Okay.  So, she's in court because she held up a shop with a loaded weapon. In Harriet's closing argument she built up the sad story of the woman's situation- okay, fine, so far so good, but then she had to throw in that' the jury can't do anything worse to her than what the government has already done to her.' (I'm paraphrasing.) I did a mental double-take.  Whaaa?  The government?  Wait, wait, wait, I thought.  What about welfare?  Food stamps?  Food banks?  Medicare?  The government actually DOES have programs in place to assist the elderly (and others) who don't have enough money for food or medical care (before the Obama administration's healthcare bill, there were already multiple programs provided by the government, both local and federal, but that's beside the point)... the point is that I think the writers of this show are pouring in all their personal, emotional agenda items into this character's monologues, and that's great, fine, dandy, but I don't want to hear it.  Personal politics?  I feel like the character should have been taken care of by her SON!  He should have said, "Mom, come out here.  Live with me, we'll figure things out.  Oh, and you can bring your gun."

NOTHING in life is as cut-and-dry as the story lines on TV, including people in the sort of situation like this old lady found herself.  Um, another point, where did she get the big gun?  And money for ammo?  It would make it so much more real to have Harry talking to the lady about what she's going to do if she's not convicted-- how is she going to eat now?  Can I help you get signed up for Medicare?  Can I direct you to services like food stamps?  HELLO!?   None of that happened.

I'm not a big fan of everything government-related;  I find politics frustrating and annoying, and I would not even begin to imply that they are doing things well or right or what's best for the country all the time, and I don't mind TV characters impugning what's wrong, but to make blanket, general statements about the Bush administration or the Republicans is just useless and (to use the popular term) polarizing.  Which makes me want to turn off the show.

I will give "Harry's Law" another chance, next week.  But if the trend continues I will perhaps begin watching all but the last 6 or 7 minutes... or just turn the volume down when she does her closing... we'll see...

Sweetness, Pie, England, and mystery...

I found a great little mystery during my weekly volunteer hours at my local library, called "The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie".   It's a quirky, decidedly British story, set in England in about 1952.  The heroine who tells the story, as well as solves the mystery, is the precocious, irresistible 11-year old Flavia DeLuce.  She is entertaining, intelligent, enchanting, and has a humourous mad-scientist flair, due to her love of all things chemical and her obsession with poisons.  She is witty and clever, and takes the reader through the story as only an 11-year-old girl can do.

Flavia lives in an old mansion, on a large estate called Buckshaw, with her two older sisters, Ophelia and Daphne, and her widower father, who is an enthusiastic philatelist (stamp collector).  Her sisters are appropriately spiteful, cruel and nasty.  The housekeeper is an almost stereo-typically wide-eyed gossip, flighty and chatty.  I love the gardener, Dogger,- he's retired from the military and his mind isn't quite right since the war.  He is sweet and cares for Flavia when it seems like no one else does.

I learned a lot about stamps, poisons, chemistry, and England reading this book, but not in the boring, read-and-learn format you get at school.  I did have to look up multiple terms and cultural references that I, having never lived in England (much less in the early 50's), was totally unfamiliar with.  I returned the book to the library before writing this, so I can't site any, but the book is rich with references that make the reader feel as though he is sitting down to tea in the English countryside.

What surprised me most about this book was that I didn't really look at the title page or the text on the cover (which is unusual, I admit), and I assumed it was written by a woman.  Normally, I prefer male writers, so I was all kinds of excited about having found a book I liked by a woman.  But then I read the dust jacket at the end of the book.  It was written by an old man!  Ha!  What a great writer!  When I grow up, I want to write just like him.  His use of metaphors and the intertwining of details throughout the book are masterful.  I am so surprised that this is his first novel.  Welcome to my list of authors I love, Alan Bradley. 

Quotes from Flavia that I just love:

"As I stood outside in Cow Lane, it occurred to me that Heaven must be a place where the library is open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. No ... eight days a week."

"A peculiar feeling passed over me--or, rather, through me, as if I were an umbrella remembering what it felt like to pop open in the rain. "

Why I love the British

Okay, I have decided to forgive the Brits for only making three episodes of "Sherlock" so far.
I will give you two reasons why:

Martin Freeman.  Okay, he doesn't have those hunky, traditional, melt-the-butter good looks that so many other actors have, but there's a certain... je ne sais quoi going on with him.  He's a real guy.  A real guy, who is funny, cute, and very good at understated, subtle wit.  I enjoyed him on the British "Office"-- he was the one really compelling reason to keep watching the series.  He was so cute in "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", too-- perfectly cast.  And, if you've read my other post involving him, you know I think he's perfectly cast as Watson on "Sherlock".  I am intrigued to see him as a Hobbit.  Should be... fascinating.

James McAvoy.  I can't stop looking at this picture.  Holy cow.  After I discovered him in "Becoming Jane", I couldn't get enough.  There is no man in Hollywood or anywhere who is better at a kissing scene- especially a tense, heart-wrenching kind of kiss.  He makes women weak in the knees...

Besides the kissing, he is an incredible talent, who steals every scene he's in-- you just can't take your eyes off him!  He's intriguing onscreen-- he seems to buzz with energy, intensity and life.  And that accent... aaahhhh, we American girls do love the accents.  Technically, James is a Scot, so I don't know if that should be differentiated from the Brits, but it's my blog and he's my favorite, so... there.  Plus the man could pull of any nationality-- he's that good.


There are many, many other great British actors, but these are my current favorites, for whom I will be keeping a weather eye on the cinematic horizon... so to speak.