local related reading

hello reader

and so another two (2) books read, look you see. ones which were partially deliberately yet mostly by chance accidentally related in choice. deliberately, if it matters (perhaps not) because i bought them and then made a decision to read them. accidentally as one of them i didn't really intent to purchase. 

usual sort of thing (but not that sort of thing) for posts of this nature, then, which would be a bit of gander at the 2 (two) novels what i gone done read, followed by some vague comments of a most decidedly "spoiler free" nature. after that there will, alas, very much be spoilers on the go. 

starting where i did, then, and Dead Line (Deadline?) off of Steph McGovern is bewilderingly vehement and steadfast in being one truly hideous novel despite the makings of a rather profound work lurking within. meanwhile The Long Shoe, being the third novel off of Bob Mortimer, does with mercy move away (entirely) from the exhausted characters of his previous (first) two novels. it is an absurd work as you would expect, with just about all the focus being on quirky characters and humour drawn from random words instead of, say, a coherent plot. 

both of these writers happen to come from the same part of the world as moi, know worra mean, like. i suppose that i really should at least consider thinking of unashamedly signing the praises of all they do, leaving aside all existence being a quirk and such commonality being co-incidence. no, though, not going to do that as you have likely deduced. 

you are all aware of that spoiler warning thing, yeah? 

provenance of my copy of Dead Line (let me stick with that title variation) was Tesco, "book of the week" for "club members", £4.50. i had absolutely no intention of purchasing or reading it, however i ended up at a fancy, la-de-dah variation of Tesco in (why aye man) Newcastle where one had to spend at least £5 to be allowed to park at their hallowed premises. so, with no other book (and believe me i tried) seeming remotely interesting, this was it. 

with regards to the plot, well, it is (certainly) not what it advertises. it claims that it is all about a tv presenter (Rose) having her highest ever profile interview "hijacked" by someone claiming to be holding her wife and child captive, implying harm if she does not follow their instructions. this takes all of twelve (or so) pages of the novel. it starts off with a vaguely interesting (yet far too long) look at the joys of outside live news broadcasts from building sites. the "best" part is the middle bit, a flashback to the reasons for the "hijack". once more, spoilers. buried in this novel is probably the novel the world needed more, for it is (despite the poor writing) a look at exactly how the hideous practice of "grooming" happens, seeing how some adults (mostly men) find and prey upon vulnerable, impressionable children. absolutely no clue why Ms McGovern would elect to junk what could well have been a hard, dark yet important novel to deliver what is effectively trash. 

editing, or just proof reading entire, was apparently not in the budget for this. it pains me to even write it this way, but for a start there are two (2) instances where the word "revert" is immediately followed by the word "back". oh dear. yes, i have indeed been known to punch people in the face for using those two words together. you should also seriously consider punching in the face anyone who uses those two words in succession. they are clearly trying to sound clever by using what they think is a fancy word, yet clearly have no idea what "revert" means, otherwise they would know not to use "back" with it. same goes for anyone that tries to add a qualification to "unique". something is unique or it is not, so there is no such thing as "very", "quite" or "really" when using the word, thanks. 

no narrative structure exists in Dead Line. it all reads like Ms McGovern is just spouting out a really lengthy story idea to friends down the wine bar (or whatever) rather than having given some idea as to how to write it all. overall, at the risk of being repetitive, quite a shame. the seed, or genesis, of what might have been an outstanding work is instead just sloppy trash. absolutely no idea if the idea was that she's that famous so it will sell anyway. regardless, a true lost opportunity. 

moving on to The Long Shoe, then, which yes (provenance fans) was also a Tesco book of the week thing for £4.50 but i did (very much) knowingly and willingly purchase it. with some trepidation, if not hesitation, since The Satsuma Complex was underwhelming and, to be honest, Hotel Avocado was just an awful mess of the protagonist getting called a "sh!thouse" (mostly by himself) and being forced to eat raw (or if you will uncooked) mince for north of 300 pages. it being promised to be new characters had me go yeah, like the overwhelming majority, i adore Bob, and shall thus give anything he has done a go. 

something akin to a vaguely inane plot exists for The Long Shoe, if only theoretically. it is (ostensibly) the tale of Matt, a recently fired fancy bath salesman. facing eviction he is tasked with finding a new home for himself and his partner (and possibly their cat), although his partner would appear to have left. whilst fending off the advances of a rather flirtatious neighbour Matt gets offered some dream accommodation on the cheap, so long as he engages in some morally (and legally) questionable work for the owner of it.......

there's a decent level of interest (and amusement) in reading this well written novel, but all the time you are quite aware that you're engaged with a work so abstract as to force you to question life choices. once more, or again, yes i am fond of Bob Mortimer, but it is baffling that either he or a publisher really thought that this novel desperately needed to be thrust upon the world. if the intention, or idea, was that any book with his name on would sell enough to be a profitable venture, well, why not just print a whole load of doodles off of him, or just a list of random words which popped into his mind and occurred to him as being (somewhat) funny. 

each, or if you like both, of these novels are also laced with "red herrings" that are effectively rather dead herrings, for they exist as a momentary distraction and go nowhere. the most frustrating of these, and there was a spoiler warning earlier, was in Dead Line, where there was grounds for one character to suspect a relative might be a terrorist. quite the missed opportunity. 

were both of these to do further novels it would be (unexpectedly) another by Steph McGovern that i most likely would give a chance to. risking repetition, the ideas and overall concept she had was brilliant, just let down by poor writing and an abysmal sense of structure. this can be taught, learned or improved, though. for Bob Mortimer, well, i have no idea what itch he felt compelled to scratch by becoming a novelist, but it's clear, after three (3) novels, he is simply intent on having his absurd, effective comedy from stage and television masquerade as a novel. it, alas, does not work. 

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

foreign tongues

howdy pop pickers

and so another (not that there has been many to interest me, look you see) new tape (actual) released this year, with it being the improbability of another Rolling Stones album. yes, they do indeed keep going. well, why not, i suppose. 

this new album, Foreign Tongues, comes 'relatively' quickly (three years) based on their levels of output so far this century after (to state the obvious) their last, Hackney Diamonds. for those of you inexplicably looking to moi for some sort of in short review, well, much like the previous, it's a decent enough album as in it is not a waste of time to listen to but, exactly like the last one, rather unlikely too many will actively seek to listen to it much after the initial release. no, i don't think Hackney Diamonds has been anywhere near my stereo in the last two (2) years.

perhaps, as quite decent as the music on the album is, the most distinct aspect of Foreign Tongues is the artwork for the cover. it is, despite some fairly good attempts to do this before, easily the worst album cover the Stones have unleashed on the world and would have a strong case for being declared the worst album cover of all time. yes, oddly, even worse than an album cover that has an image of, say, Sammy Hagar, or even Ed Sheridan (or whatever) on it, for at least such pictures warn you what to expect and immediately tell you not to listen to it. 

best songs on the album? maybe this undermines what i have said of it being quite good, but it is (very much) the case that the two off of the single they put out, In The Stars and Rough & Twisted, are the strongest. two really decent tunes, and to (characteristically) contradict myself yeah, actually these two would likely get played further into the future. but then i possibly thought the same of Angry off of the last album, which was rather class but i have not felt any need to play it again. 

it is not the case that the other songs are "weaker" or in any way "lesser" (or "fewer"). they just really do stand out. rather easier to pick out what's probably the weakest song on the set, which is the Amy Winehouse cover You Know I'm No Good. not really sure why they were so taken with this, although to be fair it does allow for Sir Roger Moore to be namechecked on a Stones record. 

some people out there will have bought the tape (as in actual cassette) version to just either keep as a museum piece (all sealed up) or to sell for twice what they paid for it. not me. for those who have it and haven't opened it up, here you go, a look at the tape (both sides) and the inlay card (both sides). 

nice to see that they made a "proper" tape edition. really don't understand the tape revival thing, as fond as i am of them, for the quality of sound was never all that much. still, some bands have released tapes of a poor physical (as in easily snapped tape) manufacture, with little or no "proper" packaging. great that the Stones have gone "if we are going to release it on cassette then it's going to be properly done". 

going back (as it were) to the actual album and there's no one "thematic" thread running through the record, as in no distinct genre except it's a Rolling Stones album. you get a "bit of everything here", be it some proper rhythm n blues (not the horrendous soulless sampled rubbish that stole the name rnb in the 90s) of full tilt groove rock. somewhat catching me by surprise was the dance, if not quite disco, feel of some of the tunes. also a nice throwback to the falsetto vocals of Emotional Rescue can be found on Jealous Lover. 

how about a bit more "what's inside" action? i also bought what i thought was just the regular CD of the album. turns out it was a "store exclusive" red disc. yes, at first i was quite surprised that it was all yellow, then realised that the playing surface side was the bit that was the red disc. so, for anyone who has also bought this "exclusive" version yet wants to keep it sealed, here you go. 

those of you who(m) are all excited about what Ronnie Wood brings to the Stones are in for a right proper treat when you hear the penultimate track, Back In Your Life. not only does it have the rarity of a Ronnie Wood solo on a Stones song, it also has a most enthusiastic Sir Mick Jagger introducing said solo off of Ronnie. 

mostly, and this is not a dig or damned with praise thing, i think what i like most about this album is the very high production standards. yes, the songs are decent, and Jagger's vocals are as they should be. in this era of "streaming" and compressed sound, or "engineering" songs so they sound good on video games or other such licencing agreements, it's a welcome relief to hear someone that the effort to make a record sound so fantastic (superb) just as an album experience. once upon a time this high quality of sound production was a minimum standard, now it is a rare treat.

having played the album in its entirely some seven or eight (maybe nine) times i haven't gotten particularly bored of it as such. again, though, there is a sense of this being another momentary album off of them, one that it is great they have gone done yet not one that is going to resonate any distance into the future (rather than the past). sometimes that's enough, though. 

some sort of "contractual obligation" thing exists where one cannot mention a new Stones release without wondering "for how much longer" they will go on, or without stating how excellent it is that they are still on the go. all such comments and questions have been handled with efficient simplicity before by Sir Mick. he simply points out that this kind of statement or question only ever comes up purely because "no one has ever done what the Rolling Stones have". perhaps some other bands. with U2 being the most likely, may have just as long a career, but for now, well, yeah, Stones it is. 

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

paradox schrodinger train

greetings

yet another instance of me having not all that much to add here, but all the seem feeling obliged, or rather compelled, to put something here. and so it's further groans and what have you on the subject of trains, look you see. 

it is not entirely unreasonable for anyone outside of the UK (welcome and thank you) reading this to wonder why on earth i go on about the disastrous public transport system here, for it looks amazing. that is down to the misconception of "London" (innit) being representative of the nation (or if you will nations) entire. which is certainly isn't. how lovely it would be to have just a fraction of the services they get down in London up here in the north. instead we have to battle with extremely limited options as it is (for a lot of areas, for instance, no buses on Sundays, public holidays or, farcically, after 5pm), with them limited options subject to all too frequent cancellations. or "disruptions", for if they call it a cancellation they have to pay you a small percentage of your fee back. 

every now and then they are kind enough to give one some vague notion of an idea that an upcoming service "might" be an issue. such is what faces me around the time this is getting published. apparently yet more "work" is being done on the tracks, and so certain routes will have a "rail replacement service", as in a bus. on seeing a poster hidden away for this at my nearby station i tried to work out if my train would be affected. bewilderingly my route showed it as being their plan that both the rail replacement bus service and the train shall be running. go figure. 

quite keen to see what happens when i turn up at the station, which is a five (5) or so minute stroll from my lodgings in this era of exile. often i have heading off, having checked the "app" and what have you that it is running, only to get there and be told "actually no it is not". priceless when they place the blame on a cancellation on "one member of staff not turning up for work". i wonder how it would go if a hospital was shut down due to one person not turning up, or if all electric and gas supplies were turned off due to one (1) absence. breathtakingly brazen is how they are about their own sheer f****g incompetence. 

a reasonably recent cancellation was somewhat entertaining. the app things, the website and the tracker for the train all stated that it was all fine. except it (alas) was not. it was cancelled but they just let all the available sources of information (of course no one was answering phones) suggest that it was not. with regards to the "somewhat entertaining" part, well, it just so happens that a network rail employee was left stranded at the same station as i was. no, he couldn't even get hold of anyone to work out just what the f*** was going on. oh, make no mistake, it was no fun any of us being f****d over, but there's something vaguely novel about their own employees being made to experience our life. 

generally those responsible for trains and buses claim that some routes and services are "just not financially viable". this (to state the obvious) goes somewhat (as in entirely) against the idea of public transport, does it not? exactly how some services are not "financially viable" is a mystery. rather famously, for instance, it is cheaper to get a flight from "the north" (be it actual, like Newcastle, or branded, like Manchester) to mainland Europe and then a flight from there to London (innit) than it is to get a train. and not just marginally (or slightly) cheaper; often north of £100 less ("fewer"). 

when people speak of "Broken Britain" it is not always traditional moans and groans. quite often it is the wilful, knowing deterioration in what was a world leading infrastructure. our network of trains and buses, outside of that there London, are forever knacked, and we have somehow decided that between them Royal Mail and the Post Office (two separate entities so they can just blame each other when something goes wrong) don't actually have to deliver mail. let's not start on the water. 

pretty sure there's a Talking Heads lyric somewhere (possibly off Naked) that goes something like "and as things fell apart nobody paid attention". 

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

card pocket things

ow do

many of you will (or shall) have heard tales of "misunderstandings" with internet purchases. normally these would tend to be instances of someone purchasing an item of furniture at what appears to be a ridiculously low price, only for that cost to make sense when a miniature item, presumably intended for a dolls house or similar, lands. something kind of along those lines happened with (to) me, look you see, although i am not sure the folly is mine.

some of my time is spent recording ("burning") videos ("discs") to send to Mum & Dad. yes, i know, what with all my exciting life, be it laundry visits or buying things pertaining to koalas, where do i find the time. anyway, with that being what it is, i (reasonably) frequently have to purchase disc sleeves, or covers, to put them in to post. usually this is a straightforward thing, with me ordering them off of the most well known virtual car boot sale on the internet, them arriving in the post and all involved getting on with their lives. 

not so in my most recent incident of this. running a bit low (40 or so) i placed an order for some more, knowing that the vagaries of royal mail and/or the post office (any issues and they just blame each other in a loop that lasts until you get bored) being of such a nature that one does not rely on them for anything they need in a hurry. to be fair the package arrived reasonably quickly, but the parcel left in my mailbox at my lodgings in this era of exile did not look particularly right. 

as you might (possibly) be able to see in the above, it was not 100 CD / DVD sleeves they sent me. oh. instead they sent me 100 things that are called "card pockets" or card holders. this had me somewhat confused, so of course (on the off chance i was at fault) i went and checked what, exactly, i had placed an order for. which, as you can see below, was very much the thing(s) i wanted. 

bother, or oh dear. not ideal i suppose, but on contacting them to suggest they had sent the wrong thing i got a fairly fast reply with an apology and an instant refund. no real (or true) harm done, then, except that i have to go and order some more of what i want. no, this really is not the most exciting episode of my life which i have felt compelled to document here. 

from what i can gather the item(s) sent are "card" pockets or holders. i believe mostly such are used for them Pokemon ones, of which i have a notional understanding of the concept. somehow, i believe, some of those card are worth significant coins. makes sense to keep them in some sort of protective thing, then. alas, i have no such cards and am not really likely to have any. 

of what "cards" i have that i could use these for, since the seller said "just keep them", well, none make any immediate sense to use these card pocket things with. my regular (standard) playing cards featuring David Bowie and Star Wars (two separate decks) remain sealed. it would not seem to be all that worthwhile to open them up just to place them in these pockets. a similar scenario exists with the Viz top trumps cards i have. 

undoubtedly i shall find someone or other who will make use of them. actually, i think one of the chaps down the market "does" them card things, perhaps that is where they shall go. 

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

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