eight videos

hello there

pretty sure that the last time i gone done one of these sorts of posts i said (or suggested) that i would not do quite so many videos (discs) all at once. but, no, here we are, look you see. as the title suggests, then, it is eight (8) films what i have watched of late, with quite a few of them being "first time" watches. yes i do try to avoid watching stuff what i have already seen, but there is also (always) great comfort in familiarity. 

honestly i would have thought (or taken as a given) that in this "internet era" such things as spoiler warnings were somewhat superfluous. going ahead and searching for information is quite likely to give you such. all the same, such a warning is in place for after the pic of all 8 (eight) videos. 

looking at them and it is in fact only 2 (two) of this batch what i had gone done seen before. further to that, as i shall document, a couple of them (as in two) were watched purely on recommendations. no, of course, there is no particular order to these here, just as the images uploaded. and there looks like a lot for me to go through. 

up first, then, is one of the ones i had seen before. if not in full. many, many years ago, so my memory gives every suggestion (at least), i can remember seeing most of Hannibal Brooks on tv one afternoon. quite likely a school holiday, with moi left in ostensible (or accidental) charge of my brother and sister. couldn't remember much beyond the basics of the plot and that we all sat engrossed, silently enjoying it, so when i saw it (the video) down the market i picked it up. 

plot? Oliver "Ollie" Reed plays a British (decidedly English) prisoner of war assigned to work in a zoo. when bombs start hitting the zoo he is assigned the task of taking the elephant in his care to safety. something that gives him an accidental and unintended chance of escape. unwanted too, since he has no real wish to resume fighting. 

this one, Hannibal Brooks, is very much a lovely film, and watching again revealed why there was little question of why it has resonated in memories. i appreciate modern day visions of Ollie Reed is to be aware of his impressive "hellraiser" days, so it is easy to overlook the fact of him being a remarkably gifted actor. here he delivers a genuinely engaging and affectionate performance, perhaps somewhat at odds with the kind of role one would usually associate him with. not sure why it has the 12 certificate, although i don't recall the almost nudies scene when it was on the tele (certainly i would have remembered that), but this is the oddity of a Michael Winner film suitable for all of the family. very likely the only film he ever made which could be described like that.

first of the ones i was recommended, then, or strongly urged to watch. it was suggested by a chap who(m) sold it to me for the princely sum of 5p or 10p (same provenance and maybe even picked up at the same time as Baron Munchausen), so i figured well, why not have a watch of Little Big Soldier. 

it would be accurate to say i am (quite) aware of Jackie Chan. nothing against him in terms of dislike, yet also not someone i have rushed to see in anything, despite him being quite class in Cannonball Run II. being told that this was a "quite different" film for him was intriguing, being told it was a "personal project" film had me fearing the abhorrent mess of similar such films, in particular Scorsese's Gangs Of New York which was 5 minutes of Liam Neeson being excellent, 20 (or so) minutes of Daniel Day Lewis being excellent and then just north of two hours of watching watches being stolen. 

mercifully this was a "personal project" which was rather worthwhile. a really decent film, this one, with Jackie Chan being a solider not keen on fighting who(m) somehow ends up capturing the leader of the enemy. a quasi "road" movie, of sorts, then, with some serious charm. not sure that i shall ever actually watch it again, but you know what, glad that i did. a very decent 90 minutes of entertainment. 

controversial one coming up and i am (really) not sure i shall word this all correct. down the market i spotted a film that i was "aware" of but never saw. that would be Auschwitz by Uwe Boll. like many others it was the case that when the trailer came out i took it as being a very poor taste, awful idea of a joke, for surely no one would allow Uwe Boll to make a film on such a sensitive subject. turns out they did, but there was a "tacit" agreement amongst many in the world to pretend that they had not. 

wasn't really (at all) sure what to expect with it. quite surprised, then, when it was quite a lot of interviews with young Germans to try and gauge their general understanding of what actually happened broadly in World War II and specifically in the concentration camps. also fifty or so minutes of a documentary like "drama" in which it shows the full horror of the gas chambers and the monotony of high ranking nazis having to do administration work. 

for the most part i "get" why this was made, and can (genuinely) see the intentions, noble or otherwise. one of the more prominent reviews for this is that it is "Schindler's List for thick people", which, at the risk of making myself look stupid, is a little harsh. the impression Boll creates with this is of a Germany desperate to escape the truly dark shadow of its history, but needs to fully comprehend how horrific that shadow really was. i would suggest this is essential viewing for anyone who goes around saying "all of x, y and z should be killed". watch this emotionless brutality and then try, if the natural safeguards of your own mind allow it, to imagine that someone with this power decided you were the ones it should be done to. 

quite by chance sees a (kind of) remaining with Germany related in the form of Strangeblood or Strange Blood, whichever is how they want it. my magpie eyes were drawn to it in a charity shop (50p) since it was clearly a German released DVD. some quick internet searches suggested that it had not been released here in the UK. i was optimistic that the "uncut edition" part of the cover meant it was something so prolifically obscene that the BBFC were having none of it, but i rather think it being more the case of it not being released here as it's somewhat rubbish. 

essentially this is a dull, tired, cliched take on the subject of either "vampires" or "quasi vampires", bringing nothing new at all. some demented doctor believes he has created an organism which shall yield secretions that can heal anything, wouldn't you know he gets an infection from it and rather than be healed gets a (never really fully explained) craving for blood. 

you go ahead and feel free to pick either "bad" or "mediocre" as the word to put in front of story, script, direction, acting, lighting, sound and pacing, and there's (most of) your review. even the nudies were quite a disappointment. only real credit i can give this is that some of the effects really really made me rather squeamish. as in The Substance squeamish. ultimately the best life advice i could ever give to anyone is that if chance allows you to watch Strange Blood, well, don't.

just a quick break from the actual films for the inclusion of this what turned up on one of my "social media" things somewhere. mostly this is an answer to why i still get videos (discs), why they are my preference for watching stuff. 

assuming the above is accurate, that's just f*****g stupid. imaging purchasing a film, albeit in a digital format, and being told "no you didn't actually". leaving aside "piracy" and considering only "legal" variations of watching stuff, well, "streaming" and "digital purchases" makes little sense. no, that's not fair, some offer "exclusive content" and what have you. but for just regular films, or even favourite tv shows, i will stick to having the videos (discs), thanks. the "licensing agreement" is all done and dusted with the purchase, they are not deciding that no i have been sold it enough. 

returning to the (ostensible) specifics of the post, then, and Top Secret! i likely have two or three copies of the video (disc) already, but spotted it once more dans le avec moi market, so picked it up. to be entirely fair, objectively this likely ranks above Airplane 2 and Naked Gun 3, but doesn't quite have the consistent genius of Airplane!, the first two Naked Gun films and Ruthless People. subjectively and the funny parts of this film remain some of the funniest things what i have ever seen. 

in no way, shape or form (at all) does it feel good writing this, but looking at it again the "weakest part" of the film is, surprisingly, Val Kilmer. he remains one of my favourites, but he is treading water here. really i think the issue is that his character isn't that interesting, with the humour stemming from the side characters and arbitrary, random background things. 

with a very strong warning that these two (2) videos contain scenes of "implied cattle (or bovine) abuse for the sake of laughs", yes, it was very much so that i was close to tears of laughter with these 2 (two) scenes once more, some 40 years (!) or so from the days when my brother and i absolutely hammered the pirate copy we made off of a rental video. 

perhaps this is as late as it is obvious, but yes, indeed a "spoiler warning" for these two clips.

a sense of being somewhat if not sad then a trifle heartsore came with the realisation of the laughs in Top Secret! coming further apart than i had (perhaps) recalled. unlikely, then, with whatever time i have left that i shall revisit this again, but still, when funny dear me it's funny. 

on, then, to the second (and final) film someone insisted i watch, with the person insisting being Spiros and the film being The Interview. inexplicably he had gotten it into his head that this one was the film declared to be the "worst ever made", but could not understand why. whilst i am not expert on such things i am pretty sure there was one out around the same time called The Room which got so slated, with this one generally getting above average reviews. further from what i can recall this is the one that saw North Korea "hack" Sony and release all sorts of documents. 

basics of the plot would be that it turns out an American chat show is the favourite thing on the North Korean leader, so he agrees to be interviewed on it, and of course the powers that be in America expect the show host and producer to kill the North Korean leader. 

let me once again say i don't really keep up to date with such, but i think it's the James Franco out of this that you are not supposed to watch any more as he did some naught or other. shame, i guess, as he was quite decent in this. also i now "get" Seth Rogen, as he was better in this than that hideous tripe that saw him play some sort of retard who(m) believed had invented cooking chicken. 

whereas i enjoyed it perhaps it's a bit telling that the most riotously funny moments are the ludicrous fake interviews with real celebrities. in terms of comedies featuring (the not naturally humorous) politics of North Korea, well, it's no Team America World Police. 

now for one that is not a Monty Python film, although for years i and many others thought it was. in my case our video (actual VHS) of Monty Python And The Holy Grail featured trailers for all their (up to then, this was pre Meaning Of Life) other films, with this included. hadn't ever seen Jabberwocky before due to how when i was 8 or 9 this looked really scary, and then as years went by i learnt that it was not a Python film but was extremely boring. 

yes, alas, it is quite dull and boring, this one. hideous bad pace to it and the jokes, what limited ones there are, fail to land. considering the inspired works Terry Gilliam has delivered (be they linear or abstract) with movies like Time Bandits, Brazil, Twelve Monkeys and The Fisher King, one finds it hard to understand how he managed to make dross like this and the previously linked (above) Baron Munchausen. there's nothing in the film (at all) which suggests it was ever a good idea that just didn't work, it is sans anything salvageable. well, obvious except for the unexpected (and very welcome) full tilt lady nudies, which was a surprise (to be sure) in a PG rated film. 

a very dear friend of mine (hello, Faye) holds the original Jabberwocky poem in high esteem. can't say that i am all too familiar with it at all, but surely it doesn't deserve an adaptation this bad. 

final one for now, then, and (indeed) i am aware that i made some sort of vow not to watch any further really bad (as in sh!t) French films just because they promised "explicit content". that was after enduring the terminally dull Blue Is The Warmest Colour or whatever. but then i saw something called Ma Mere down the market and went, ok, sure. 

virtually all of French cinema is people moaning and whining about just what a miserable plight it is to be French. whilst this is a valid view, one can only engage with it so often. in this instance it's a bit of a patchwork variation of oedipus. plot is something about some shoegazing spotty French teen that has a rubbish father but ends up being dumped on his sexually extravagant mother for a while. dull and depressing, mostly. with little in the way of artistic merit and less ("fewer") in regards of entertainment. although, to be fair, bits of this were clearly seen by them what made Game Of Dragons (or whatever) which they "adapted", Ed Sheridan (or whatever) style. 

true, some of the nudies are "explicit", but such is fleeting, and way too far and few between to be of any interest. what doesn't help is, and this is even by the accepted inherently poor levels of talent in the realm of French cinematography, it's all filmed really badly. really do think the world would be better if the French just stuck to doing whatever it is that they are actually good (or not bad) at. which certainly isn't making cars, films or music. 

well, that's that for this round. i think i have, already, watched more videos (discs) than usual for any given year. quite likely that for the next one of these sorts of things i will plough through a few of them fancy videos (blu ray) that i have piled up. although most of them in my "to watch" pile are of course ones i have seen before. 

quite the unexpectedly cosmopolitan, eclectic mix with this lot, looking at them again. far more european centric than i had anticipated my viewing habits would be, but there we go. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

new bowie bag

heya

yet again (or once more, look you see) one of them posts which simply does what it says on the box. or in the title. more or less ("fewer"), give or take. but yes this is just all saying (or showing off) that i have a new bag, and it is one which, once again, celebrates David Bowie. as in the fact that it has Bowie written on it outweighs any "issues" or practical concerns with it. 

provenance of the new bag? a father's day gift from my two (known) sons. speculative conversations were held as to what i might like as a gift with, oddly, some new (obviously dapper) Star Wars themed socks being my first choice. but then i considered just how battered my much beloved Bowie bag has gotten, what with some zip handles (or clips) falling off and it now tearing a bit around the top handle part, presumably due to weight stored in it. 

so, mindful to stress that only if it was within budget (i am hardly father of the year material, so expect no real extravagance), a new Bowie bag (or bag of Bowie) would be lovely. when asked if i wished for a "like for like" replacement, as in the same design, i said they could do that if they wished, but ideally i would like them to select one which they believed looked quite class. 

my "original" bag, the one with the quasi "Japan" design, is to the left, whereas the new one which was the gift is there on the right. yes, indeed i (truly) do like the new one, considerably. not quite sure why, exactly, i was drawn to the original one originally (as it were), i suspect purely because how striking it was as being "very Bowie" yet not a go to (or obvious) design idea. 

the initial (or first) bag, which i am certainly not discarding or disposing of, has been a magnificent servant, indeed companion, for the last three (3) or so years. it has, of course, been all the way to New Zealand and back with me, with it on the return trip (so to speak) being stuffed to capacity with as many Marlboro Red off of Dubai as i could fit in. other than that it has been here, there and everywhere with me, my overnight bag for any and all of the gigs documented here. well, ones i went away for. 

also it has been, intriguingly, a conversation piece. people wandering the world with things that have Bowie written on them is not quite common yet still not rare, and it's beautiful, man. however this bag has inspired random strangers to come up and speak to me about Bowie. too many conversations for me to recall with any immediacy. a few will always remain in mind, of course, like the bloke who saw my bag and had a happy memory of having a cup of tea with Bowie in 1971. perhaps that is down to the rather distinct, eye catching design of it. 

but, it must be said, both of the bags do have a decidedly noticeable flaw. which is the complete lack of a side pouch, illustrated above. there is no extra "pocket" there, for a drink bottle or similar, or another zip section thing. does make it rather slim, mind, and forces one to be mindful of what they are packing to take with them wherever. yet a pouch (or pocket) thing would have been most welcome. 

provenance of the bags? each was procured (ordered) from the official Bowie store, which i am sure you can work out how to get to. for concerns of cost, well, the new one would be a private matter as it was a gift. since i bought the original myself, it is fine to say that it was (just) south of £20 on a sale, a price i considered reasonable when i was weighing up bag options ahead of going to New Zealand. can't think the regular price is all that much more. 

uses for the new bag? well, in the face of my medical exploits over the last year (or so), i have more or less elected not to undertake all that much in the way of ambitious travels. mostly, then, i remain quite content at my lodgings in this era of exile, bar the odd trip to (why aye man) Newcastle for gigs at their most excellent City Hall. for the most part, then, it shall get used on weekends, be it for my usual strolls around the shops and market, as well as for (when trains work) my weekly trip to see my (known) children. 

does any of this give any sense of a practical run down of the bag, or in any way serve as a review? maybe not. i would say that anyone looking at one of these needs to consider very carefully what is going to be more important - being quite stylish and having Bowie written on it or wishing for a bag with at least one (1) side pouch / pocket thing. evidently one cannot have both. 

give me your hands, 'cause you're wonderful, just give your hands, 'cause you're wonderful, oh give me your hands, 'cause you're wonderful 

duty free marlboro red

greetings

indeed this is to be (arguably yet) another post on cigarettes, look you see. to be fair it has been a while since i have done one. all the same, as usual, of course smoking cigarettes is in all likelihood not at all good for you (probably quite bad) and you should either not take up the habit (or addiction) or, if that bit of sterling advice is too late, seek help to quit. 

mostly (or for the most part) this will (shall) me just enjoying the rare treat of my most beloved, or if you will preferred, cigarette, Marlboro Red. a duty free carton of these was kindly purchased for moi by my eldest (known) son on holiday. he perhaps should not have, for i am quite aware that both of my (known) children would very much prefer it if i did not smoke, but still. however, also here will be a look at the stupid corner certain governments have backed themselves into with insane taxes on cigarettes. 

a highly biased and considerably subjective thing for me to say would be that Marlboro Red are the finest cigarettes in the world. perhaps they are, certainly in their classic form they had the strongest branding of any product ever. for a start them tw@ts at Apple can only wish their branding was so identifiable. just my personal preference, they are, to be sure, like others have a preference for a specific type of tea, coffee, whisky, beer, etc. since the (ahem) independent retailers of "imported" cigarettes don't get them in and also that i will be f****d if i am paying the exorbitant price commanded for them at more conventional shops, well, they are a rare treat indeed for me. can't be sure with precision on this one but these may well be the first ones i have since i crammed my Bowie bag full of them in Dubai on my return from New Zealand. 

what's the fascination, appreciation, wish or appeal of (or for or with) them? famously us smokers tend to lose all sense of taste and smell over the years, but it doesn't disappear entire. they do indeed have quite a distinct taste, indeed kick if you will to them. with apologies to all non and anti smokers, whose views are not entirely unreasonable, to have one of these is sheer bliss. two hundred even better. 

kind of the "best of both worlds" with the packaging on these, then, for it features the apparently all important warning images and text whist retaining the iconic branding. of the warning pictures the one to the right, which is clearly a child doctored to look like much admired leader Putin, remains a strong favourite. the one in the middle, promising that the cigarettes shall cause an amazing sexual explosion, is also quite class, and for some reason the one to the left of that looks like artwork for an album off of The Doors or similar. well, no, there isn't anyone similar. 

cost of these, duty free? just south of £50. i believe the exact was £47, but i sent my son over £50 and i am sure he bought himself a can of pop and a copy of the Beano or similar with the change. this is of course (far) cheaper than the price of these on the shelf in the UK (roughly 25% - 30% of the price) and even slightly less ("fewer") than what the independent shops charge here. which leads us nicely into a bit on the problems faced with governments who got very greedy and extremely stupid with tax on cigarettes. some of the following might seem like a rant, but hopefully someone somewhere can see my point. 

just two things, in the above, i have noticed "online" about cigarettes. the top bit is from Australia, where they are now actively looking to decrease the cost of "legal" cigarettes. as a more progressive country they have acknowledged higher taxes has "served only to give the biggest cash boost to criminals in history". bottom is the UK, where the government (of course) refuses to accept they made a similar mistake with the taxes and instead wants to scare everyone into buying overtaxed "legal" ones. 

quite a lot of this relates to the facts, figures, numbers and calculations in this post, where i took apart the current taxation of cigarettes (in the UK) compared to what they should be if just standard inflation and standard increases of the "sin tax" had been applied. present day numbers are likely to be higher, but allowing for all of them adjusting they should still (more or less) reflect the scenario. much of this relates to their £1.7 billion "stolen" from taxpayers number.

let us say, and i am (quite) aware that i should not, on average i smoke 2 (two) packets of cigarettes a day. these are presently all procured from (ahem) "independent" distributors. so, with the figures from the link above (and here again), this is where they and i am are at -

TOTAL TAX RECIEVED BY GOVERNMENT OFF MY ACTUAL CIGARETTES - £0 (zero)

TOTAL TAX IF THEY HAD STUCK TO THE ORIGINAL SIN TAX - £1,569.50

TOTAL TAX IF I HAPPILY PAID THE CURRENT EXTRA TAXES - £7,285.40

yeah, no. the "original" or existing "sin" taxes on cigarettes would price them negligibly higher than what the independent sellers charge, and like many others i probably would not have sought out such. let it be made clear that i appreciate (understand, even) that some will see this as me "robbing" our much loved government of just north of seven grand in tax. a better question is why, exactly, they weren't happy just taking north of fifteen hundred from me. 

slight break (for more are to come) from numbers, then, for a "poster size" VHS mode selfie of me very much enjoying one of the Marlboro Red. yes in my outrageous round sunglasses. 

more numbers? sure. this whole £1.7 billion "stolen", then. i think they just like to come up with an arbitrary figure which sounds as plausible as it does scary. for that number to be correct, and assuming by this they mean the tax "stolen" is at the level in my previous post (links above), they believe that around about 170,340,681 "illegal" packets of cigarettes are sold in the UK each year. yes that is indeed just north of one hundred and seventy million packets. much of this shall be courtesy of our famously celebrated "after you" approach to border control. once again using those numbers, it isn't really a case of £1.7 billion being "stolen", rather the government tossing away £366,232,464 in tax revenue had they just kept the inflationary "sin tax" levels at a constant.

oh, sure, but there's the "aah, but illegal cigarettes are funding terrorism and criminals" argument. from what i remember pirate videos (and then DVDs) were also doing this, and probably lots of other things. sometimes they don't need to sell more than an "idea", especially when you consider the astronomical amounts the Americans "donated" to the IRA on the basis of a somewhat recollections may differ interpretation of the history of Ireland and how blowing up some churchgoers would make it all better. up to now no (alas) the government has not explained how stopping purchasing illegal cigarettes will somehow end all terrorism and/or criminal activity. i am sure they shall, eventually. besides, if they are all that bothered about smokers "funding" anyone but them, well, bring the price of cigarettes back down to a sensible level, like our friends in Australia are actively seeking to do. 

well, that quickly became more an awful lot of numbers and something of a rant that wasn't entirely intended, but there we go. unfortunately common sense got jettisoned from the world with things like this, but fair dinkum to the Aussies for trying to fix a mess made. oh if only we had such leadership. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

supergirl

hello there

well, as the title gives you every indication of being so, off i went to see Supergirl. eventually, look you see, but that's a story for a bit further into all of this. being as helpful as i can for those who have gone done a "google" (or whatever) and wish to just know (kind of) quickly if this new Supergirl film is any good, the answer to that is a resounding yes. some of the more sensible, considered critical reviews out there (as in the ones not simply upset with a lady lead character) are not entirely wrong with some observations, in particular the pacing of the last half hour or so, but overall this one ranks as well above average for moi, for whatever that is worth (not much) and is by a fraction the best film i have gone done seen at the cinema thus far this year (2026). 

first off though and once again it was the case that i went to Roxy Movies in Middlesbrough to see it. twice, as it happens, and for those using that facebook thing here you go. at this risk of making this overtly link heavy (or just too busy) i was really impressed with the cinema when i went to go and see that Masters Of The Universe not so long ago, and thus it has become my default cinema. not the closest one too me but oddly the easiest to get to. 

just what, exactly, compelled me to go and see Supergirl? if i was asked i would say i could pretty much take or leave "superhero" films. however, an awful lot of "credit in the bank" exists due to just how damned brilliant the Superman film of last year was. sure, the various (yet limited) bits and bobs of promotion for this one looked interesting enough, but my choice to go and see it was more or less made last year when (and perhaps a spoiler warning here) the character was introduced at the end of Superman. i was very much "yes please, more of the same of this type of film, thanks". 

plot? sure, but in giving that (since i wasn't really sure what it was when i went in) now is the time to give an actual, proper spoiler warning thing. to be fair i have given you the "review" bit at the start. anyway, the film commences with Supergirl out and about on an interplanetary pub crawl, ostensibly to celebrate her birthday. another lady walks into one of the bars, seeking help on a quest for vengeance slightly confused as justice, which Supergirl has zero interest in. until her dog, Krypto, gets poisoned, and finding the antidote means joining the quest, albeit in a quasi way. 

eventually, when i got to see it, i ended up with a default (or "de facto") private screening, for it seemed like no one else considered it a quite class idea to see it at noon. oh well. my plan was, on the spur of the moment, to see it the night before, since i had no interest in whatever football was being played. off i went, having booked a ticket, only to find it closed due to a "system failure" after a power cut. oh. well, the staff were excellent, and to be fair they gave a refund and a free ticket for this screening. 

things i liked about the film? well, for a start, this Milly Alcock, who(m) i don't think i have ever heard of before or seen in anything, is really good in the lead role. it's a rather well written role with some decent character development and she is (ahem) superb. rest of the cast also good, but just about all the focus appears to have gone into making sure they get her "right". 

also it has a punchy, (mostly) let's get on with it pace, all at no expense to the story. quite a relief to see a film in this day and age what is south of two hours, what with the calling of bathrooms and cigarettes usually being the main thing against a cinema trip. in terms if the criticism i mentioned above, yeah, the ending (not the final scene, though) felt "a little off", somewhat more clumsy with the editing and pace than the bits before.

yes, indeed i am aware, as anyone legally connected to Scala somewhere north of 30 years ago can confirm, one generally should not test the patience (or f*** around with) Warner Bros in regards of matters of copyright. going on them people what throw stuff on you tube, however, i would suspect (or kind of hope) they won't get too @r$ey (or p!ssy) about the few seconds i (ahem) accidentally taped in the above clip. 

mostly, allowing for the (usual) poor quality of my videos, that's there to show what i love about Roxy. yes, these multiplex things have massive screens and larger sound. they are also rather soulless. going to see a film at a "multiplex" is to have to have your eyes darting all over the screen and feeling the walls vibrate as they have confused "excellent sound" with "as loud as possible". here at Roxy there's a very easy on the eye perfect size screen and the volume correct - not too loud, not to quiet, just right. 

quickly glancing for information on such gives every indication that, thus far, Supergirl is not doing particularly well at the box office. oh. mostly, of course, this isn't my problem. traditionally i think it is so that, for a variety of reasons, "female led" films don't always do that good. if one looks back, most of the promotion of Barbie focused on Ryan Gosling. nonetheless, or regardless (or, you know, whatever), it is a surprise a film of this quality isn't (so it seems) drawing in crowds. perhaps the world at large was just not as enamoured and impressed with Superman as i was last year. 

what shall be my next cinematic excursion? not sure, truthfully. i am not that @r$ed about yet another Spiderman film being essentially the same story Marvel makes, and to be (completely) frank the idea of watching Nolan's The Odyssey in a cinema feels like an endurance test i shall fail. since i don't keep up to date with news of releases, well, maybe an advert will pop up on the internet for something what looks interesting enough to go see. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a little piece of you, a little peace in me, will die

who is and who isn't

tradition does indeed dictate that today, July 1, is a celebration of The Stone Roses here on this blog. if you were to ask why, well, that's the date i, my now former (yet still considerably) better half and some dear friends saw them at Heaton Park. way back in 2012, look you see, which does and does not feel like fourteen (14) years ago. 

rather than the usual fawning over them, or (more frequently) stating that "there's not much else i can write about it all", events between the last post on this and the one here have dictated what to write. by this i of course mean that we, the world, have lost Mani. none of the grief or sadness we feel, to state the obvious, compares to the heartbreak of his family and dear friends. mindful, of course, that it is not a contest or thing to be "the most of". 

my original intention was to call this something along the lines of why we grieve for those that we did not know, but hey, Bowie (slight mis-) quote is always going to win. also i don't have the answers to you for that one. some ideas, thoughts, theoretical ideas perhaps, which (but of course) i will throw out here. perhaps they will make sense to someone; probably not. 

but first Mani. if you are here via a "google" thing looking for gossip, rumours or such, you may as well leave now. i have absolutely no idea on the nature of his passing, only that it happened. my honest first reaction to the news was "but that's simply not possible", which was exactly the same ten years ago when we lost Bowie, and then Prince. of all the comments made when Bowie past the one which has resonated me with the most was another fan, anonymous, who when asked about it just went quiet and then eventually offered "it didn't occur to me that he could die". 

exactly why was Mani loved, held so dear? a lot of it is, of course, his music. yes, some journalist somewhere will have kicked off an era of mourning describing him as "the best and most important bass player of all time", which he would have responded with a list of players he considered superior. still, man, that bass of his. everyone gets drawn to something, i think the "sell" for me with The Stone Roses was always his bass, be in the ingenious Taxman off of The Beatles played backwards for I Am The Resurrection or that most amazing bass ever on Fools Gold. 

ostensibly one could describe The Stone Roses as a band in possession of all the talent, artistic gift and quality to be the biggest band in the world but ultimately simply couldn't be @r$ed with it all. still, they remain hugely important for what they did do for many of us. in terms of the love for Mani, well, he was generally seen, or regarded, as the "most approachable" of the band, the one more open to any conversation you would care to have with him. for all the mythology, legend and tales of why The Stone Roses fell apart he was always direct, candid and honest about it, saying it was "four very different people doing four very different kind of drugs", making clear not so much that it was obviously not going to last but more wonder that it lasted at all. 

famously, or if you will infamously, when (in the words of the band after the fact) the "wheels fell off" the band, he joined Primal Scream. yes, made more albums with them and was in that band longer than he was in The Stone Roses. to illustrate either his humour or philosophy (if not both), when these "facts" were put to him was always "also, interestingly, I have been in Primal Scream longer than and done more albums with them than i did The Beatles". 

going to the "wider context" here and it is a folly to think that "outpouring of grief" is a fairly new phenomenon, existing only in this "social media" era. not quite true. back in the 80s is was pretty standard for any "famous death" to make the news. oddly i can remember more than once it being the passing of someone who was only really widely known for being in one episode of Fawlty Towers that made such news coverage. such is how we feel sad when someone who has made life better leaves us. 

perhaps if we were a more "enlightened" society (and it is a surprise, for all our history, that we are not) then news of the passing of some minstrel that made music, someone who was good at dressing up and pretending to be someone or someone who was better than average at kicking a ball, would just get a brief mention. instead, medical professionals that keep us alive, teachers who spread knowledge and more importantly every mother in the world would be the ones we held in the highest esteem, those we grieved the most for. such is not the world we have created, though. 

yet, ultimately, i "get" it. those famous people who have passed are essentially poets in the purest sense, for whatever their art is that they have shared with the world it has infected minds and seeped into hearts. to variations of extent all art is an attempt to understand, or make some sense, of the incomprehensible human condition, to grasp an idea of why we have that will to live, what makes us feel and so on. but someone a good deal cleverer than me can probably word it better. 

not entirely sure (and far from convinced) i have worded this all proper and as intended, but who knows, someone out there may get the idea. ultimately, it's natural and understandable to feel a sense of loss when someone who has made your life better passes away. what they did that touched you so shall remain in the world long after we have all gone. 

one generation under the same groove. 

who is and who isn't, who is and who isn't

unusual insect

heya

just another of them "chance sighting" things, look you see. although in this instance not, alas, either an item of footwear discarded or (for that matter) a repurposed shopping trolley. no, this time around it was a most curious insect what i managed to see. 

to give a ragged notion of the idea of some pretence of context, one day (mid June) i was out and about in the world, doing my thing (verk) when i stopped for some dinner (lunch, if posh). on going to dispose of waste (wrappers and what have you) in a bin something caught my eye sat upon the trees, bushes, plants or what have you nearby. so of course i took a picture. yes, video too. 

admittedly VHS mode with "damaged tape" on the go isn't the best to help identify what i saw, but here we are. pretty sure you can see it clearly enough anyway, just sort of middle off central, as it were. a clearer, or if you will more better, image is below somewhere. 

no real idea what kind of insect this is, to be honest. my best guess would be a moth based on the size of the body and wings, but it is with no certainty that i say such. quite interesting to see one of this colour, and so clearly well camouflaged. presumably it remains this colour, and is not a kind of chameleon type of creature. unless, of course, it is. 

video above for you, then, which (of course) is in VHS mode. i can assure you this insect (if indeed that is the correct terminology) was very much alive, yet oddly still as i approached to take the pictures and video. 

certainly i am aware that i could do one of them "google image searches" (or similar) to find out what sort of insect (or winged creature) this is, but, well, where is the fun in that? there is no more obnoxious or annoying a pr!ck than the type that knowingly goes on any sort of "internet forum" or chat thing and responds to a question with "you could just google that". if that's your approach, why are you on a system where conversation is the crux? slightly worse are those that post "someone else has already asked that". yeah, conversations can be had again, in particular by those who(m) were not part of it the last time it happened. 

my best go at a clearer, or if you will "proper", picture above, then. the more i look at it and beyond thinking how magnificent it is the more i am reasonably sure it is a sort of moth. 

righty-ho, that's that. likely more than was actually there to write, but done now. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pleasantly surprised

greetings

well, what can i say. this is all to do with a (reasonably) unexpected further cinema visit, look you see. i did kind of get into the habit of going fairly frequently when down in that there London (innit), but since my days on the road came to an end, not so much. having, somewhat predictably, gone off to see the most recent Darth Vader (or whatever) film, Buckethead & Space Frog, in this instance the excursion was to go and see Masters Of The Universe. a motion picture, in truth, that i was only aware of via seeing a trailer for it at that previous (or most recent before this) trip to the cinema. 

further (or also) a film i was not all that @r$ed about, truthfully. yes, the trailer for it did indeed look quite class, but the original animated series isn't one i recalled all fondly, even with my proclivity for nostalgia. as far as i can remember i have also never managed to make it all the way through the previous live action film, with him out of Rocky IV in it. still, a good friend went to see it and was urging me to go, and was clearly not going to cease urging until i went. thus, off i went. 

rather glad i did, as this new (2026) version of Masters Of The Universe is, simply, excellent. on a straightforward level it's a really well made, solid entertaining film that's slightly north of two hours long because it needs to be, which is to say it is not needlessly padded out. going somewhat deeper than that and it pulls off the remarkable trick of being self aware without descending into either parody or p!ss take. quite a lot of skill, effort and outright love for the subject matter went into making this operate as a truly decent adventure film for a "new generation" and a knowing nod to those who perhaps recall the series a good deal more fondly than i do. 

plus, as it happens, it gave me the excuse (or reason) to go and try a "new" cinema not so far away from me in my lodgings in this era of exile. glad i did too, as Roxy Movies in Middlesbrough turned out to be a wonderful cinema, clearly run by people with a passion for movies and is most decidedly more better priced than the "big name" ones. rather like, i suppose, that Ealing Project one i did love going to. 

before doing a bit more on the film, and thus before any sort of "spoiler warning", some more on the cinema itself, then. smaller theatres and smaller ("fewer") screens than the big multiplexes, yet somehow the picture and (in particular) the sound felt a great deal better. i am no expert in such but often it feels that the "overtly digitalised" and "ultra definition" stuff really sanitises and thus spoils the experience sometimes. a friend, and someone who(m) i greatly respect, says that there's no argument that DVD, Blu Ray, etc have superior sound and video, but completely lack the "warmth" and enjoyment one got from watching a videotape. for pricing comparisons my tickets at the Roxy for Masters Of The Universe was roughly half what the "big" cinemas wished to charge, a medium popcorn, which was about the size of a large one at the major chain ones, and a decently large pepsi max was a straight (or flat) £9, which was more or less half of what the same cost me for Baby Space Frog or whatever it was called. 

i will try and make it so that there are not too many (if any), but from here on out there is every chance of "spoilers" featuring. the biggest concerns i had going into the film were that either it was going to be around 80% "origin" story or it would be full tilt Marvel, with it being just a fragment of a film intended for some grand "expanded universe". merrily neither happen. it is with efficiency and high effectiveness, as well as some humour, that the premise is all set up in 10 (ten) or so minutes. whereas the potential exists for further films, there is no "cliff-hanger", and it is very much a self contained, very satisfactory complete story. 

most, if not quite all, of the cast do a decent job here, yet understandably it is left to Idris Elba to do just about all of the heavy lifting with "proper" acting. as far as i am aware, and no i don't really follow social media or what have you, this Jared Leto is someone we are not supposed to like, yet his (and i appreciate mostly voice) performance as Skeletor is ace. realistically quite a lot of this fantasy world film has to be special effects (or "cgi"), yet it is all gone done proper, with it not being like you are just watching a glorified computer game. 

ultimately, at the risk of sounding repetitive (or even more so than usual), it was a genuine delight to spend an afternoon watching a film which entertained, made me laugh and felt very good indeed. again, not sure how, exactly, i managed to miss that they were even making this one. 

oddly (or as it happens) my next cinema trip should be quite soon. the Supergirl film is out shortly, and i am rather keen. going on just how excellent Superman was last year, well, i am looking forward to seeing more of the same. certainly yes, if possible, likely will head to this Roxy to see it. for the record, the view in the cinema is not as "obscured" as my image above accidentally suggests, that's just me keeping the camera thing on my phone low down so as not to disturb others. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

elvis tapes

howdy pop pickers

just another of them posts showcasing some needless acquisition or other, look you see. well, no, that's not fair, it cannot be entirely needless when it concerns The King, Elvis Presley who(m) hasn't been mentioned all that much on here of late. time, then to address that. 

recently, then, i picked up some tapes of The King, Elvis Presley. not just one, which would be north of the none i intended, not as few ("less") as two, and not nearly so many as four. so three (3), then. i believe i got "upsold" into taking an extra 2 (two) on top of the one which caught my eye, but there i was, here we are. 

provenance? a shop which was closing down. one i had done some business with before, a year or so ago, when on a whim i wished to procure a machine what did both video (actual) and disc. it is, or was, a shop that one would kindly call a "bric a brac" one, or if American "thrift" i suppose. junk shop is likely more accurate. still, i found things of interest there. 

i was on a stroll, making my way in the world as usual, when one of the tapes (actual) i ultimately purchased was in the window and caught my eye. rather than the above image, i draw your attention to the one below. the tape in the middle was the one i saw and thought "that actually looks class", and it being in the middle allows us to avoid any of that left or right nonsense. 

the tapes were £1 each, and no i am not going to convert that into various currencies as the market is rather volatile these days. when i went to pay for the one (1) that i wished for with a crisp (hello, Faye) £5 note, the bloke said he "only" had 2 (two) £1 coins, so would i rather like to buy at least two (2) more tapes. hence me also owning the ones to the left and right. now that i think, or look, the one on the right (the Love Songs one) is a really smart picture of Him, The King, Elvis Presley. 

certainly there is a degree of nostalgia, or if you will sentimental hygiene, behind the purchase. other than me being a compulsive shopper. probably the first tape of The King, Elvis Presley, i ever encountered was one my brother purchased. we were on holiday, i think Torquay 1983, when he purchased it. up until that point i don't think i was aware of him being a fan of His, and i am not sure he was aware of it either. from what i recall the "draw" was the cover promised it featured the "laughing version" of Are You Lonesome Tonight. i would speculate that neither i nor my brother at that point in our lives were particularly aware of any version of the song. 

which of these three (3) is the "best"? there is no such thing as a bad tape of The King, Elvis Presley. leaving that (obvious) statement aside, then the already mentioned Love Songs one seems to have the higher proportion of the most well known songs He gone done. think it just has the standard, as in not laughing, version of Are You Lonesome Tonight on it, along with Always On My Mind, Can't Help Falling In Love, Suspicious Minds (which i am not sure is a traditional love song), The Wonder Of You and more of that nature. it is all a bit more eclectic on the other two tapes (actual), with a sparser share of "well known" stuff. but, all the same, still all great songs. 

yes, i shall indeed actively seek out stuff of interest to write here for the next time. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i stare at the sky and it leaves me blind

hello there

one of them erratic if not ad hoc "health update" things, look you see. indeed i do appreciate that those wishing to hear of how i am getting on (at least in a positive way) are limited in number, but still, you never know, someone doing a "random google" might find some of this of use as they go on making their way in the world. 

if for some reason you are interested in how i am getting on yet have no patience for my waffle, the short version is a remarkable reversal of fortune, thanks. as in i was quite sure i was on the verge of death, but i made it through that and am "on the mend". should you remain of a mind to have some interest, you are welcome to read on. yes, some "story so far" links are likely a good idea......

either to recap, then, or for those reading this wondering just what, exactly, all this nonsense is, some links. presented in chronological order, with i (do indeed) appreciate is a bit out of character. by the way, be warned, for selfies feature both here and in the links if you click. here you go - 

until the end of the world

blinded by the light

here i am, not quite dying

 

of these, hope

sleep for a while and speak no words

don't be afraid to care

righty-ho, then, an update on what test results i have back, for they have taken an awful lot of blood, and other things, from me to have a bit of a gander (or look). you all saw that selfie warning earlier on, yeah? 

the above is indeed taken after my (most recent) diabetic eye test. when they make a booking for you it is made (perfectly) clear you should bring sunglasses as your eyes shall be sensitive, and you shouldn't plan on driving for some 4 to 6 (or so) hours after it. on this front they are not f*****g kidding. not sure my eyes have ever knacked so much. 

eyes

yes, i am starting with the one that i don't have the full results off of. well, i do (at the least) have some provisional ones. they did the tests what knack, and it would seem that all is ok. for those seeking information, of the many things which can go wrong (or "went f****d") with diabetes a particular concern is going blind. as for the test, well, each eye gets two (2) blinding, scorching flashes as they take a picture (or x-ray or what have you) of the back of your eyes where the damage can occur. one is a straightforward, erm, look straight forward one. second one is quite class, as you have to "follow" a white circle along, then they "flash" at random. watching the circle is a bit like watching that smart bit that's usually at the start of James Bond films when the protagonist is viewed down a gun barrel. 

weirdly, or oddly (strangely, perhaps), on the provisional tests my "long distance" vision has somehow managed to improve since last year. i did indeed ask if it was normal for eyes to get more better without any sort of treatment or intervention, and apparently yes, it is both possible and not unusual. 

full tilt results of the eye test will only get to me in a few weeks, but as i said it would appear that all is as it should be for now. which means i shall only have to get the tests done again in 2028 (assuming i make it that far). something of a relief, that. 

circulation

being not too clever i am not sure on the wording being all proper here, but effectively diabetes means there's damage to blood vessels and arteries. this can cause all sorts of issues, but particularly with your feet, for reasons of how blood circulation around the body goes. and so a regular (as in every year) test is done to make sure all is as good as can be. 

quite a few people would, i suspect, rather like to watch me get this test, for it basically (or essentially) involved me getting repeatedly jabbed in (on) the soles of my feet with a pointed stick. or something that feels like such. once more, then, it was good results for this, with me being "low risk". i asked if it was so that i would only have to have this done every two (2) years now, like (hopefully) with the eyes, but no, they want to stab me at least once a year. 

appreciating the limitations on just how much information you would wish for in regards of various rituals i engage in, i do indeed do precisely what they told me to do in respect of limiting (or mitigating) the risks of damage. so, every morning i put some aqueous cream on my feet, and read a few chapters of a novel as it all dries enough for me to put socks on. 

blood sugar 

the "biggie", as it were. if you have read the first link off of the above list then you may recall that my blood sugar level was at 107. not a normal figure, and one that had the paramedics sure that their machine was busted as they doubted anyone with such a level would be coherent or alive. 

sets of tests some 6 (six) months apart show that it is now 56. as a frame of reference, the "ideal" or maximum should be 58. i asked if that meant i was to work on bringing it lower ("fewer") and they said not really, not really, no. with respect to how this has been achieved, a mix (blend) of medication (but i am not on them "hippie yuppie weight loss" jabs), a changed diet and an awful lot of walking, with the latter being the only exercise i am prepared to do as it is the only one i can work out that i can do and still be able to smoke whilst doing it (sorry). 

my vegetable intake on any given week (or day, i suppose) now is probably higher than the combined levels of any other decade of my life you would care to mention. strange. every weekend a batch not too far off the above example gets washed, peeled, grated or chopped and added to a boss mince recipe my sister gone done for me. 

heart, lungs, breathing

a quite interesting (and surprisingly) casual call i got earlier in the year (after some tests) was that i should not worry too much, but they had "an idea" that my heart might fail. oh. well, yes, ideally that was something to avoid. medication for that appears to be working, and so long as i keep going with the tablets and all the other stuff it should be "fine". 

indeed there was a conversation about my proclivity for smoking. they asked if i had any wish or desire to quit, and i said not really, not really, no (sorry). whilst obviously no endorsement came of smoking it was the case, then, that they suggested i do not "force" myself to quit. probably need this one as a psychological support still, and there's also the "shock to the system" possible if i did try and quit,  mindful of all else going on. a suggestion was made that i try and cut down and i said yeah, sure.

kidneys

being propped up with medication comes (of course) with a price. in my instance, my kidneys (for i think you have more than one) are doing an awful lot of work to "clean" or otherwise heal what is wrong, which comes with the risk of them going all busted on me. 

this, as in them going busted, was closer to a reality than a risk earlier this year. happy to say that, yes, it is so that some extra, extra medication is being taken, and it is working. no immediate risk of them going all f****d, then, but i do really rather suspect i shall be going wee wee in some test tube things for quite a lot of the future, allowing someone to look at it and check it's not too bad. 

just look at what an outrageous slave to fashion in am in the above combined (composite?) picture. yes, indeed these are selfies of moi, a year (or so) apart. first one (on the left) is last year, after the diabetes eye test, then the one to the right (with the grey sky and full tilt beard) was taken just a few days ago, after the most recent eye test. or a few days before the date of this post, should you be reading all of this many years from now. forward, not backward. 

right, well, i think that's covered the main "bits". possibly too much information on some of the things, most probably not enough details on the others. oh well. more importantly, though, and in no real order, best of luck to anyone who has stumbled on this looking for things of stuff as they contend with their own medical plight, and thank you very much indeed to all those who have offered (or extended) support and help. absolutely no idea why anyone would think it ideal to have me remain as a going concern, yet here i am. 

UPDATE

so my eyes are, as you can see in the above (mostly), fine then! nice one. this means no blinding test for another two (2) or so years. i shall just have to find a different reason to give you all an update on my latest fashion trend around this time next year. should, of course, i make it that far. 

be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!