seven regular videos

heya

so, more film watching, then. it was so, as the title suggests, that since the last post on this subject i have watched seven (7) videos (discs). not them really fancy videos (blu ray) in this instance, but what is now just regular (hence the title) videos, as in DVDs, look you see. with an inherent lack of anything else to do with such information, of course here is an obligatory post with my ramblings on them. 

i was indeed asked, if not quizzed, recently as to "why" i still get DVDs. fairly routine answers to that exist. yes, all this "streaming" is ace, and the quality is probably good, but i simply don't enjoy it. humans are tactile creatures, i really do like physically handling the video (disc) and watching. other answers are that not all i would wish to watch are on "streaming" services (or released on blu ray), that with the discs i am free to watch it when i like and, as shall be shown below, often in this day and age you can get the things for a ludicrously cheap price. 

just which films have i gone done watched this time around? well, here's a handy, slightly trimmed down and somewhat apt VHS format image of the titles. 

pretty, if not fairly, sure you can make out nearly all of the titles on display there. if not, well, that's a bit of a shame, but also you are welcome to just scroll down and look if you are all that bothered about what, exactly, they are. with (of course) disclaimers that these are not presented in any sort of particular order, and it may well be that *** SPOILERS *** lie ahead. as it were. 

going for a generally (and genuinely) delightful surprise first, then, and the decision i made to eventually having another watch of The Living Daylights, being the first (of two) James Bond films what Timothy Dalton did (as Bond). not sure i ever watched this one after seeing it at the cinema in 1987 or whenever, for i could recall leaving the cinema if not disappointed then rather confused as to just what the plot actually was. over the last few years (say four or five) i have embraced an unexpected admiration for the a-ha theme for it, which led to me being curious about the film once more. for provenance i believe i picked up the video (disc) for £1 or so at a charity shop maybe 2 or 3 years ago. 

this was, to be honest, superb. perhaps i was distracted, or just too young, when i saw it to grasp the plot, especially as no "immediate" baddie is visible or in your face as would be standard for a Bond film. looking back and this is really good at capturing those years when the Soviet Union commenced to crumble, hinting at the other problems which would come with such. 

mostly the big takeaway from The Living Daylights is just how f*****g good Timothy Dalton was in the role. as i understand it he was considered as a likely Bond from the 70s, which shows the planning and what have you that goes into it all. really a shame, since Sir Roger made it clear he made the last two or so out of a sense of duty and obligation, that they didn't bring him in earlier, since legal reasons prevented him from doing further. not that my views or opinions matter much, but all the same this one has gone from being a "meh" Bond on my list to easily being in the top ten (10) of them. as for which ones are at the bottom of that list mostly they have Pierce Brosnan as a link. 

not, it has to be said, a happy experience with revisiting The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen. what on earth was i thinking trying it again, you ask? probably a spontaneous thought that surely it could not possibly be as bad as i remembered, and also the 5p price in the charity shop. unfortunately the result is that, in total, that is four (4) hours of my entire life wasted on this motion picture, and oddly it just gave me the same kind of headache feeling in both instances. 

a vague memory was of Oliver Reed (as Vulcan) at least being entertaining and worthwhile seeing. time has not been all that good to his performance in it, with his bit now feeling like it is simply the least dull and the least headache inducing. 

no, it's not that i "don't get it", it really is as straightforward as The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen is complete sh!t. oh, but they had budget restraints and couldn't afford to film what they wanted. really? then they should have just binned it off before finishing it. for all the masterpieces Terry Gilliam has made this is an absolute clunker with it being impossible to ascertain what any sort of worthwhile intention might have been. horribly paced (in particular the tedious, monotonous trip to the moon), woefully cast, badly acted and, shockingly surprisingly of all, awfully written. if you are ever tempted, out of sheer curiosity, to watch this, then don't. 

surprisingly, though, it was not the worst film of this batch what i went and watched. that special place is most decidedly reserved for Eva Braun. fairly obvious to work out why i bought this one (new, £5.99, HMV), what with the cover displaying nothing but nudies and it stating that it was "inspired" by the sex scandals of Berlusconi. reasonably, then, i assumed it would be a nice saucy thing with particular focus on the celebrated "bunga bunga" parties he famously had. no. 

it turns out that Eva Braun is some ham fisted thing striving to make that point of how moral decay leads to physical decay. or something (quite) like that. essentially it's about some rich, powerful and hugely influential bloke that people subject themselves to his fantasies in the hope of winning favour and getting some sort of boost to whatever it is they wish to achieve. fame, most likely. these fantasies, or fetish things, are (mostly) of a sexual nature. one is disgusting, and is a moment which makes no shocking statement and just feels appalling. the rest are presented in a really, dull way, and yes (you had a spoiler warning) ultimately the heavy handed point made is that the more "corrupt" this man gets the further his physical health deteriorates. 

reasonably sure that the makers of Eva Braun had an idea that they were making a statement along the lines of the uncomfortable brilliance of Salo, or even the bonkers Caligula. if so, they failed, with alarming ease. a film so bad you have to check that it really wasn't made by the French. 

for whatever reason Tesco stopped selling tapes (discs) a while ago, yet randomly sell a few copies of what you could call "big" titles every now and then. i was somewhat surprised to see One Battle After Another being one of these rare instances. since i skipped it at the cinema (the three hour running time was the dealbreaker) and i had a voucher, i went for it. 

divisive and contentious would be the best way to describe reviews of this film. some have argued it is an extraordinary, breath-taking masterpiece. others have suggested it is one great, big pile of sh!t, that is its pure garbage, a true waste of time. oddly, some time after watching it, i remain undecided as to which of those it is, or if it is simply both. my dear friend Shaun has perhaps nailed the perfect review of One Battle After Another, summing it up as a "vanity project for all involved". still, that i find myself considering it long after watching suggests there's something to it. 

looking at it as "just" a film, and as one intended to entertain, well, it does fail and the bad reviews make perfect sense. it's far, far too bloated to make much of a point and makes the audience work to remain engaged. as for the celebrated "action scenes", well, no. nothing here lays a finger on such that we have seen before, with for no apparent reason films like Heat and The Dark Knight coming to mind. a lack of "wow" factor and nothing astonishing. genuinely darkly funny in places, to be fair. 

yet, possibly despite itself (to try and sound clever), One Battle After Another holds interest. mostly this is down to the superb performance by Sean Penn as Lockjaw, which is just about the only well written character in it all. Leo's character, as an aside, is flimsy, one dimension and quite a surprise he took on a part that doesn't immediately offer much interest. whereas no, Oscars are no sign of quality, it will not be a shock at all to see Mr Penn collect another little statue. see the film and work out yourself if it is good or bad is the only suggestion i can offer, although at a dragged out three hours i would not say rush to put yourself through it. 

my preferred video (and disc) seller down the market tends to get all sorts of if not rare then fairly obscure, not generally available titles in. recently one of them was Piranha, which i had never actually gotten around to watching in the 80s or any point thereafter. so why not have a go. 

not really sure why i did not bother with it back in the heyday of 80s video rental when it was in most video stores, especially during that golden era when they rented any tape to anyone, regardless of age. were i forced to speculate then i would suggest it simply did not appeal; for horror i would want an absolute maniac with a chainsaw rather than killer fish. 

having now seen it i don't have much in the way of a review for you beyond it wasn't half bad. it kept me entertained for 80 minutes or so, especially with some full tilt nudies early on and then fragments of gestures of nudies every now and then. an almost coherent plot exists, something about a secret military lab creating genetically mutated vicious piranha fish right next to a kids summer camp. quite liked the effective special effects with limited budget and technology, to be honest. ultimately the best thing about watching Piranha is that now, if anyone asks, i can say yes, indeed i have seen it. 

for what reason would anyone, around 30 years or so on, wish to procure or watch Devil's Advocate again? not sure there is a conclusive answer. mostly, honestly, when i saw it for 20p in a charity shop, my instinct was to get it on the off chance it was one of the rare copies that slipped out before they made they digitally alter the sculpture in it. alas, no, this is not one. still, i could vaguely recall some most agreeable nudies in it, so watched it again. getting that out the way now, and oh my does it indeed feature some very agreeable nudies. 

quite the textbook example of a film which is neither brilliant nor awful, yet not so middle of that to be dismissed as "meh". possibly the best example of the obscene idea in the 90s that Keanu Reeves could probably (actually) act when he clearly could not. also one of the more in your face instances in the 90s of Al Pacino apparently rejecting his immense acting skills upon realising he would get paid just the same if he simply turned up and did a lot of shouting. 

plot? a bizarre yet unexpectedly coherent mixing of Angel Heart with The Last Temptation Of Christ, written by someone desperately (and patently) longing to be John Grisham. it just about all makes as much sense as it does not, really. i get it, everyone loves Keanu, i think he's wonderful, but for films just stick him in Bill & Ted or just roles where he gets to wear sunglasses and run around with guns. my main take on watching it again is that this would likely be more fondly remembered in the present day had a different actor taken the part, even with Pacino in full tilt shout mode. which other actor? no idea. oddly i think this could have been borderline masterpiece with Tom Cruise, but it would have been somewhat unlikely he would have considered it, having nailed a lawyer role in A Few Good Men and, well, that religious thing. other, likely more prominent thing, was a reminder of just how f*****g good Charlize Theron was in this, an extraordinary actress and seemingly always excellent. 

last one (for now), then, and it's The Warriors. i was pretty sure i had seen it many years ago, but watching now and i believe i got confused with a different film. don't be fooled by the vaguely visible price sticker there, as this was another 5p find in a charity shop, which was an absolute bargain. 

in that absolutely terrible David Lynch documentary i endure a couple (or so) of years ago, the one in which it seemed the maker made it only so he could say "Lynch is quite class" (which he is, or sadly, was) and have his own giant head on display at the end there was a snippet of someone asking if all his films were essentially (warped, bizarre) remakes of The Wizard Of Oz. the considered answer Lynch gave was "isn't every story fundamentally about someone trying to get home". one could speculate if not suggest that The Warriors is the personification of this idea. 

essentially, basically the plot of The Warriors is a New York gang are falsely accused of killing a prominent gang leader, and their struggle to get back to the safety of their home turf (on the other side of New York) with various other gangs seeking them out for revenge. simple yet effective, and the film is considerably more. this film works on various levels, the least of which is not being in its own right a brilliantly paced, absorbing thriller. beyond that it is exceptional in presenting the dark, seedy underbelly of 70s New York, something that was always way closer to the surface that many wished to admit. it also looks at, and takes seriously, the "gang culture", what motivated people to be in one, and how their own societal rules develop and function. 

should "film study" be a thing for you it is (most decidedly) so that The Warriors features one of the greatest moments of non-verbal storytelling i have ever seen. limiting the spoilers a bit it's a scene towards the end, where some (i think) students heading to a prom board the same subway train as the gang making their way home. most impressive, as the whole film is. 

righty-ho, that's that for this bout of video (disc) watching. quite a mix, i suppose, with not all my choices guided by the promise (if not delivery) of nudies. every now and then i will watch a film for something other than that, although (granted) not all that often. 

as ever i have not a clue as to if this has all been of any interest or use to anyone, but all the same many thanks for stopping by and reading!

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

encounter at a train station

greetings

exactly how prone i am to symbolism, deeper meaning or perhaps even precedent setting is a subject of quite limited interest, i would suggest. for anyone all that interested, well, determine such as you will, although i suppose there is a clue in the name of this blog, look you see. yet i do wonder exactly what the precedent, meaning or what have you is for the first in person, actual "conversation" i had with someone on the first day of the second month of this year (2025, to get obligatory bracket use in). 

it was, indeed (and very much so), a sunday. as would be usual i was off on a train to see my (known) children. strangely the trains have been running as intended of late, of which i am certain that the fact network rail staff are being made to take them to verk is entirely (purely) co-incidental. moving on, so to speak, and as i stood on the platform, waiting for the train, a gentleman approached me. no. not in the way, it turned out, with the ambitions or ideas with which my chum Spiros approaches men, and besides which we were absolutely nowhere near a bathroom. 

considering how i am (most decidedly) not celebrated for my sartorial eloquence it would be most unbecoming of moi to comment on the appearance of others. that said, he did have a certain disheveled, potentially unhinged style on the go. a look which was complemented, completed or otherwise rounded off by the presence of his dog, resplendent with a leash that was rope. he handed me a card and began an unsolicited conversation. maybe more of a soliloquy. 

for some reason, and i forget how he addressed me but it was in a complimentary (bordering on flattering) way, he felt compelled if not obliged to speak to me of the dangers of various (likely all) vaccinations being offered, of how (sadly) a relative had passed just over two weeks after being given one of them, and of how the earth is actually flat. the card references most of these things, along with how certain terms are clearly (according to he and the card) anagrams of the real truth, along with some rudimentary numerology interpretation. quite a formidable amount of what one would call conspiracy theories are captured on this regular size business card. i would rather, mostly, call them theories or just straightforward ideas, for one can never tell if it is (as point of fact) a conspiracy. 

why me, i wonder. yes, for all i know he went off on a train somewhere and approached a great many other people, but at the platform it was me and me alone he decided needed (if not wished) to hear what he had to say, approaching no others. likely, or possible, that there is some truth to what my chum Steve said when i met Piers Corbyn. he had, for those not caring to click the link planted there, no idea who(m) or what a Piers Corbyn was, and took as a given he was "just the standard type of oddball" he believes i am quite the natural magnet for. 

being honest i have a level of something or other that circles around respect and admiration for chaps like this. to have a level of belief, or conviction, to go out and approach people with their theories, ideas or what have you, knowing full well that they may (and probably will) at times get some angry, or even quite cross, reactions off of some. a thing with "freedom of speech" many forget is that it does indeed have a price, with the price being everyone has it or no one does, and that you have to be prepared to accept there are going to be consequences for what you say. some, in particular those social justice keyboard warriors of the internet, believe they can say whatever about who(m)ever, but they absolutely should not be taken to task or attacked themselves for doing so. 

as for "conspiracy theories", or just theories, notions or ideas, there's always been a pretty basic test i run them by. essentially for all the effort, resources and cost it would take to "pull off" most (if not all) of these conspiracy theories, someone somewhere would need to stand to amass (or accumulate) vast power and money from their success, for they are the only reasons that would make doing them worthwhile. 

some examples? certainly. whereas i am quite prepared to accept it was all real, that it happened and can be proven, the "moon landings were a hoax" theory is indeed oddly plausible. the reason would be why would America do such, and it's fairly simple - to "trick" the Soviet Union and, to a lesser extent at the time, the emerging China, into wasting vast amounts of resources to compete. money spent on landing on a docile rock in the sky is not money spent on missiles or similar. up to now absolutely no one has explained to me how anyone could possibly gain a single thing from convincing billions that the planet on which we dwell is a different shape. 

vaccinations, since they are the cause of most conspiracy theories in this wonderful century? again, if they wished to either control or just straightforward eliminate (as in kill) certain people on the planet i would imagine there are much simpler and potentially more efficient ways to do such. i do, however, appreciate the creativity on display when some come up with theories about it all. 

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

ready to slip, ready to slide, ready to accept what i once denied

hello there

well, i am now into an era, or if you will period, of some medical tests and what have you. this is indeed all relevant to something of an incident last year (2025, look you see) which kind of changed things for me, for better or worse. no, actually, since i am writing this and you are reading it, presumably for better. 

regular readers here (thank you) shall be rather tired, i suspect, of frequent links to it all. instead, then, just the one link (here) to a "year in review" sort of thing, which features many, many links to all that i, although this sounds dramatic, went through. for those wishing a short, executive summary sort of thing existed, well, life choices and what have you have led to a bit of silly bother with my health. 

since it seems i feel compelled, if not (overtly) obliged, to give updates here, it was so that fairly recently i went for the first round of some check ups. as to why bother writing all of this, well, i am under no illusion that anyone is all that particularly interested in moi. maybe i do it (so to speak) for myself, for the novelty or humour value, but (that said) if someone out there is going through vaguely similar and all this documentation of it gives them something (i am reticent to say help), nice one. 

before going on about the most recent tests, which were not all that significant, i suppose i (really) should write of the most significant update. i got a call from the doctors or what have you. whilst telling me not to worry too much it was so that they had a notion that my heart might fail, or otherwise do something most disagreeable. oh. anyway, they have added some more (further) pills for me to take on a daily basis to hopefully avoid this. been on them for a week and, if i am honest, it took some doing to adjust to them and have the psychology of that sink in. 

mostly i appear to have avoided all of the more unpleasant side affects (effects?) of these meds. they certainly disrupted my sleep, at least in the first instance. of the suggested consequences i was partially intrigued by the idea that they "may cause a cough". i was not at all sure how i would determine (or otherwise ascertain) if it was a "new" cough or just the (ahem) natural cough one gets from being a reasonably regular smoker (sorry). identifying mood swings was also a curious thing, for i had no way of knowing how i, or anyone else who(m) is in regular contact with me would know if it was a medication induced mood swing or just my natural way. 

getting to, or back to, the ostensible point of this, my most recent tests. just some standard, quasi provisional ones. i get the sense that the weeks ahead shall feature (considerably) more of them, but for now it was just height, weight, blood pressure, heart beat and (as the picture above shows the conclusion of) giving some blood for further tests. yes, of course when they said how much blood was to be taken i did use the classic "that's nearly an armful" line. 

for results my height would appear to be a neat or flat 6ft, which is whatever in centimetres. alas the rather dramatic (and discernible) weight loss i had on the go has ceased, and it has crept up a bit. not, that said, near the weight i was before all of this. odd, as i am forever dropping a trouser size (so to speak) and getting a good friend to drill holes in belts. presumably the weight is now residing elsewhere about my body, but all the same i do need to shift some more. 

heart rate (or beat, if you like) was there in the first instance, which shall likely be a surprise for those convinced i possessed no such thing. i do, it seems, just maybe not using it as some may have wished i did over the years. oh well. blood pressure (systolic and diastolic, whatever such means) was a trifle high. not in the danger zone (as such), but very much peering at the line. this could, according to the nurse, be due to my body taking on the new meds, with these tests happening 4 (or so) days in to them. also she acknowledged that i was told to stick to my usual routine prior to the tests, so they reflected my day to day, but they had not anticipated me downing a (large) coffee and having a cigarette (sorry) just minutes before my appointment. 

that's that for now, then. so yes, i am (indeed) still a going concern. well, at the time when i gone done wrote this, at the least. i mean be reasonable, if you are reading this many (or a few) years from now, i cannot be certain the same would remain true. 

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

we can sue if we want to

howdy pop pickers

my three quarters life crisis (for there is f*** all chance i have as many years ahead as i do behind, look you see) has had some pretty interesting moments. quite a few mundane and banal ones, too, truth be told, but still. it has seen me make life choices that i normally would not have and led to all sorts of wonderful experiences. 

that said there are some (or certain) places i have not been. one of the most prominent of those would, as i am sure is true for most, is giving absolutely zero countenance to even considering thinking about going to see a Men Without Hats concert. usually i would suggest there would be more chance of me knowingly and willingly listening to Sammy Hagar, or that ex-Mr Kim Kardassian (or whatever) fool than there would be of me paying money to see Men Without Hats in person. yet a fairly lucrative payday in the courts suggests it is now within the realms of reason. let me explain.......

as far as i have been able to determine, or otherwise ascertain, there are only two (2) valid reasons for someone of their own free will attending a Men Without Hats concert. the first of these would be just the plain, sheer curiosity of seeing exactly what it is the band and the audience do in those moments which are not the song The Safety Dance. sure, a hardcore fan base element in the crowd might get all excited about Pop Goes The World (or whatever it was called), but even then that's a lot of set list for the band to produce and an audience to endure. as to the second, well, out there one is bound to find people who really, really like the idea or staring at men sans hats. which is where the possibilities of a legal case come in.

observe, if you will, the concert poster above. generally i would trust the intelligence of readers here and so it is (quite) likely you know where this is going. but, for the sake of clarity, i draw your attention to the images of the band members at the top. second from left is clearly a lady, or female. no i am not listening to gender fluidity on this one, but even if i did do such, look at the right, as in the drummer. that, dear reader, is clearly and unmistakably a man with a hat on, in a band called Men Without Hats. 

even the singer, whatever his name is, gets in on this betrayal of the name. you can see him (very) clearly above, doing his thing, whatever that is, whilst wearing a hat. if you ever wondered why, exactly, Men Without Hats were not all that big, there you go. Frankie did go(es) to Hollywood. Duran most decidedly did Duran. Without question Depeche absolutely went Mode. how difficult is it not to wear a hat when your name is Men Without Hats?

it would not be that often i can say this, but how fortunate i am to be friends with Spiros, the greatest legal mind of his generation. i asked him about if i went to a Men Without Hats concert and one of them wore a hat would i be able to sue. unfortunately right now he (Spiros) has embarked on a massively convoluted and ultimately pointless quest to convince people that he was the original singer with Musical Youth before they changed direction. however, he did say that a lawsuit would probably get dismissed, as the name of the band is not Only Men Without Hats. so long as at least two men (either via birth or fluid whim) were on stage with no hats they had met their legal obligations. right, so no need to go to one of their concerts. 

let us assume this is probably (hopefully) the last time Men Without Hats features on this blog. with that in mind, time to tell the wonderful myth, or urban legend, of their name. the story goes that they were called Men Without Hate (which makes more sense as a name) but a typing error somewhere at the record label meant they were told they were now Men Without Hats. as far as i am aware this has been proven incorrect, which is a (great) pity as that would make them more interesting. 

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

andrex betrayal of cushelle

g'day

honestly, if asked, i would not have thought there would be too much interest (if any, look you see) in what toilet paper i happen to use. why, if nothing else of the subject, would anyone care? yet there appears to be some interest, what with this post and then this post from last year (2025) getting a greater number than one person reading them, so go figure. 

for those who simply cannot be bothered to click on either of those links yet for some reason have an interest in this subject, well. a brief, sort of (but not actual) executive summary sort of thing would be that after many years of using andrex toilet paper i elected, on a whim (and inspired by a decent discount), to give the cushelle variant a try. but now, as the title of this posts suggests, i have reverted to andrex.

note the correct use of a variation of the word "revert" there. yes, another of my moans and groans i am afraid. anyone - and i mean anyone - who says (or writes) revert and then applies the word "back" directly after it is simply trying to show off, using a word they do not understand, and quite clearly want a punch in the face. i am getting quite fed up of (supposedly) professional broadcasters, even the predominantly thick ones from Bolton, do precisely this. they should be dismissed and removed from any sort of broadcasting so as not to pollute any further minds. 

so, why back to andrex? i happened to need to get some more toilet paper in and noticed this particular pack on sale. from a costing perspective, since i can't recall the provenance, it was £3.99 for 9 rolls, which with the help of a calculator comes in at around 44p a roll. this struck me as a reasonable cost, especially when considering all the benefits or bonuses on offer. 

it isn't really my place to tell a massive toilet paper making company how it is, yet all the same it strikes me as rather disingenuous to call one specific type of their products "complete clean". oh yes, presently the world is littered with people using the term "disingenuous" incorrectly, but as mostly it is done by provincial politicians it is not worth going off on one about as few ("less") listen to them anyway. getting (somewhat) back to the point, is it not so that andrex calling this type of toilet paper "complete clean" means that their other types do not  do a complete clean, as it were? who is it that they think are only interested in toilet paper that does a partial clean? 

does the "unique 3D wave texture" (credit for a correct use of the word unique) make any difference? not really. i mean, no, i have not gone and done a comparison between andrex and cushelle, or for that matter between different andrex types. should it be of interest, yes, this toilet paper is doing all that i would wish it to in a satisfactory way. 

can't make any promises, but yes, i can certainly try to make future posts more interesting.

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

fubar trolley

hi

for some reason i thought that i had not done a post on the subject of abandoned trolleys (which might actually be spelt trollies) since those hedonistic days of 2024. as point of fact, however, i did do at least one in 2025, look you see. not a particularly good or interesting one, but still.

so as not to disturb or distort anything to do with some unknown equilibrium in the universe that for no apparent reason relies on such, what was i saying, oh yes, here is a post on the subject for this year, being 2026. quite, as the title gives you every confirmation of indication, a mess of a trolley too. 

wow. that was my reaction when i saw it, or what remains of it (the trolley), over a fence and beside a railway line. although one can see it is a trolley, perhaps it is best to say that it was once a trolley but is now not one no more. a hell of a beating, it has surely taken. 

if it needs clarification, "fubar" is an acronym. a proper, actual acronym, which means the initials of a phrase make a pronounceable word. using my best censorship the origin of the acronym is "f****d up beyond all recognition", and was most commonly used to described what was left of the losing debater in a disagreement between two gentlemen (or more) serving custodial sentences. however, more recently, people use it to mean "f****d up beyond all repair", and the most frequent use of this is to define (or otherwise describe) a car that has seen better days, or just a brand new French one. 

just using initials (and this does annoy me) like BBC, FBI, etc, is not an acronym, as none of them are pronounceable words. even CIA is something people say as C - I - A, and not "sia" or "seeya". they are just initials, before you start with "ah, they are abbreviations". an abbreviation is when you shorten words but still use words, the best example being "sci-fi" for "science fiction". 

despite this (absolute) wreck of a trolley being found near a railway line (which you can sort of see in the background) i don't think the damage was done by a train. firstly that would, of course, require for at some stage a train to have actually run, and as we are all too aware in the UK the train companies don't particularly like to do that. if we assume that for a laugh a train actually did run in this country, well, i would have really thought one hitting a trolley full tilt would have done even more damage to it.

yes, who(m)ever did this certainly was short sighted. whatever brief pleasure one could have taken from seeing this trolley getting all fubar would be insignificant compared to the lucrative financial rewards of taking it to the nearest (tax efficient) scrap metal dealer. had they done that, of course, then i would not have been able to share these class pictures with you. quite the paradox, probably.

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

unexpected avant garde cigarette warning

tekrar merhaba

should it be so that you are expecting a focus mostly on the joys of Marlboro what ostensibly exists for the Turkish market, no. i have done a post on that, look you see, which you can as point of fact see if you wish by clicking here. this is all more to do with the curious, possibly quite class, warning picture on the current packets of them what i have. 

for those unaware it was so that, what, ten or so years ago someone somewhere decided to have rather sinister "warning pictures" on packets of cigarettes. all colours and branding were gone (at least on officially and heavily taxed packets) and the focal point would be a picture that had every intention of scaring you off smoking. you know, like the pictures they don't put on alcohol. 

quite controversial, some of them. but not necessarily (or actually) for the reasons them what insisted on the pictures would have hoped. there was that time, for instance, that they put either Ant or Dec out of Ant and Dec on the image, not forgetting the time they also used a doctored image of John Terry. yes, that one. also they used a picture of someone who(m) had had a leg (or arm) amputated, stating that it was due to smoking, when it turned out the person shown had never smoked in their life. which was also the case with an unfortunate male model duped into posing for a picture which suggested that smoking cigarettes had made him impotent. 

rather like the UK it is the case that Turkey (or, correctly, Türkiye) are outside of the EU. for various sorts of reasons the EU staunchly defend the copyright of the images they use for cigarette warnings, preventing non-EU yet still European nations from using them. so it is that other countries, despite being free not to have images on, have to come up with their own. an added bonus of getting Turkish Marlboro, other than the (considerably) more agreeable price, is seeing their warning pictures. 

this image, shown clearer below, is quite class. a bit avant garde as i suggested (or stated) in the title, or leaning towards "performance art theatre", except just as a still image. which i think makes vague sense, or at the least i will trust you to know what i mean. 

from what i can work out or otherwise ascertain (i am not all that clever) it is showing a child doing a sort of quasi-mimic thing of what the adult is doing, only without a cigarette. so pretend smoking cigarettes is, presumably, also rather bad for you. no, i did not know that. 

more impressive than the picture (perhaps) is that wording there. can't say i have absolutely no idea what it means as i am about to guess, but there's an awesome level of poetic joy in "cocuklar gorur cocuklar yapar". yes, of course i could do one of them google things to see what it means, but finding out stuff via other means is more stimulating. taking a guess here would be that it is kind of a Turkish equivalent of "monkey see, monkey do", warning that others shall imitate certain actions when you may not wish them to do so. 

yes, indeed i do know someone who is quite clever. my chum Spiros, the greatest legal mind of his generation, is not too bad with languages. by coincidence he also has some of what one might call Türkiye experience, in that he has a fondness for big, hairy, sweaty Turkish men, especially ones with well kept bushy moustaches. i asked him, but (alas) he got (somewhat) distracted by the idea of one of the words sounding like "cockular". he then proceeded to tell me all sorts of lurid things that i wished i did not now know, none of which can be shared here. 

just, for the sake of completeness, the usual disclaimer here. smoking cigarettes is, apparently, very bad for you, and you should either not start doing such or if you do then seek assistance immediately in quitting. or something like that. 

birbirinize karşı nazik olun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

obligatory we had some snow post

greetings

pretty much does what it says on the box, this post does. or states in the title, look you see, for those keen to be specific and note no box is involved here. we, as in the UK (not that i speak on behalf of the nation), had some snow this january (2026). such would be "the norm" or expected, yet of course it does take one or two by surprise. like, for example, how the Post Office / Royal Mail (split into two so one can simply blame the other when things go wrong) get a shock when christmas rolls around and all of a sudden lots of people use their services to send cards. 

we, as in here in the (somewhat lower reaches of) the north east, didn't get all that much snow. certainly not compared to other areas, and at least not so (or "thus") far. as would be standard Scotland got quite battered, and somewhat unusually down south took a pasting. in terms of the latter normally the higher level of humidity there (i think) means that they generally don't get as much as we do. but, still the snow came and still, thus (or "so) far, we have survived it. 

many things that would be usual (or the standard) happened with the imminent arrival of snow. by that i do of course mean that the press (or what remains of it) went ape, having a brain melt, all in anticipation of it. reports were that temperatures would fall to around minus one thousand of whatever measurement you care to use, that the country would be destroyed by the snow and we could all, with some confidence, expect to be dead. once this (decidedly) did not happen they of course just casually moved on to stories about Americans shooting each other, Americans having ambitions (or designs) to invade some place i am quietly confident most cannot find on a map and people in Iran (country, not the song off of A Flock Of Seagulls) being quite cross about something or other. 

indeed i have probably put far too many images and videos (yes, we have a video) on here for this post, so expect waffle and what have you around them. still, this might be interesting for people that for whatever reason quite like looking at pictures of snow. certainly it is, even if just a light sprinkling of the stuff, better to experience it as something to look at rather than live with. 

the above image, which isn't all that bad compared to the usual quality i opt to share, was taken on my usual strolls from the village train station to go and see the boys. which means yes, despite the easiest of excuses for them not to actually run the trains actually ran at a time of not perfect weather conditions. well done you, train people, for just doing the job you exist to do and get paid a lot to every now and then actually do. glad, of course, that they did. 

effort was made (as you can see in the picture) to clear the road, so that cars would have a reasonable chance of being driven safely. not so the footpath, as i have every confidence that you can see. the paths not being cleared has become "a bit of an issue" for some, especially near my lodgings in this era of exile, with complaints being posted all over social media stuff. apparently, in terms of responses to this, it is so that councils "would like" to clear paths too, but "cannot" due to how doing such would somehow make them "legally liable" if someone fell and hurt themselves on paths they had cleared. oh. well, would they not be liable for such anyway? 

usual disclaimer for the above video, then, in as far as smoking is quite bad for you and you should not smoke, or if you do you should seek to quit. fascinating how society has been quietly conditioned over the last quarter of a century to believe the cigarettes are the cause of all flaws and folly in the world. anyway, no i was not going to include this video, showing as it does my plight in trying to have a cigarette (sorry) in the snow. however, my brother was quite taken by how a snowflake (actual, and not a reference to someone overtly sensitive) landed on the lens as i filmed. if for some reason you actively seek out videos of snowflakes landing on lenses unexpectedly, you are very welcome. 

from a train that actually ran during the snow is, of course, the answer to where that image above was taken from. if you were inclined to ask. quite a famous, celebrated or well known landmark that is, or for the sake of google and other search engines Roseberry Topping. certainly not a bad picture, that, but i dare say many others will have flocked to the place with tripods and much more better cameras to go and take a million pictures. 

one thing that has always kind of puzzled me is how come photographers, be it of a professional (as in they do it for a living) or keen amateur status, always insist on having themselves holding a camera up on profile pictures for social media accounts. i cannot think of any other profession where one insists on including the tools of their trade in their "avatar" or what have you. were i to hold up items relating to what i consider to be my hobbies on such social media profiles i wouldn't be at all surprised if i ended up getting banned off of most of them. yes, other things puzzle me too. 

a bit more video above, and indeed what might be of interest to some. consider it a kind of "reward" for making it this far into this particular post. for clarification, yes, that is the River Tees (reasonably close to my lodgings in this era of exile) and it is very much frozen over. likely not "deeply" or otherwise substantially frozen over, but frozen over all the same. 

the point of interest, or if you will focus, of the above is of course the plight of swans in their all of a sudden now frozen natural environment. mostly, going on what i could see, they managed to cope with it rather well. almost as if they were aware that such things could and (probably) would happen and were able to manage. often it is so that we humans can learn from nature, but we do not. should it be that for some reason you wished to see swans on a frozen river but as an image rather than a video, well, below is an image that kind of meets such a wish. 

something you can usually expect (or count on) is, as and when snow comes to us here, people asking why we are "not prepared" for it. recently one of the radio presenters i quite like addressed this, especially when what was "on the table" (metaphorically, i believe) was the usual argument about how is it that Norway "deals with the snow" in a much more better way than us. normally this radio presenter would be all "why oh why" (with an exasperated voice) about anything, but in this instance it was all just good sense. realistically each year we in the UK rarely get more than a week or so of snow, and so it would not be practical or viable to have the resources stored away for dealing with it. sure, it is very much true that Scotland gets it more than that, hence them having a decent amount more resources for it than the rest of the UK. over in Norway they get a load more snow for a lot longer, and so it would make sense for all their infrastructure and resources to be set to deal with that. 

generally the idea for dealing with snow here in the UK is that everyone just "uses common sense", as in doesn't go off making unnecessary journeys, are slow, steady and careful when they do and accept that it all will (pretty soon) pass. mostly this actually (sort of) works, especially on the roads. one would reasonably expect carnage whilst driving, but usually the majority behave. 

one more video, then, of the swans doing their thing. i am not sure it's stretching things to say, rather than simply suggest, that this will be one of the more interesting parts of this post. 

righty-ho, i do believe that that's (more or less) as far as i can stretch some writing around all of this. by the time this "hits" the internet either the snow shall have gone or we will have been covered with yet more of it. truth be told i would prefer the former, but if the latter i am sure we shall deal with it. 

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

quite a few of them fancy videos

heya

it was so that, as has become quasi-customary (or at least kind of, look you see) i spent some time over Christmas and New Year watching a few of the videos (discs) what i had picked up over the last year or so. for a "bit" of a change it was so that i only watched what one may well elect (or opt) to call the fanciest of fancy videos (discs) what i have, which are them "blu ray" ones. 

despite having a blu ray player it seems, or at least feels like, i still tend to watch just regular DVDs on it. mostly, or for the most part. this is likely due to DVDs being somewhat cheaper and a widespread availability of them exceptionally cheap down the market and at charity shops. still, i do (somewhat obviously) purchase blu ray discs, whilst finding it odd that i rarely watch (or play) them. 

above, then, in the form of a not quite so high definition VHS image, is/are the fancy tapes (discs) what i watched lately. mostly lately, as one or two i "forgot" to write of here so have just thrown them in here, for what difference does it make. of course i am going to (vaguely) comment on them all here, in what shall likely be a long, laborious post. 

rather likely you reign in too many (or any) expectations about "technical" aspects of the blu ray format being on the go here. yes, blu ray is (even on my relatively basic player and tele) discernibly a step up in quality from "standard" DVD, but you have to bear in mind that the only reason i elected to upgrade to this format was because it was the only way in the modern world to get your hands on the proper, uncut and as the world intended version of Mad Max 2, with mid 80s onwards video and DVDs featuring the hideously badly edited (censored) variation called The Road Warrior. 

no particular order is used to show them here, but first off (as shown above) is the class film that is The Return Of The Living Dead. i would argue that this cheaply made, mono sound gem didn't really need any sort of "upgrade", but then i thought that one excellent scene of nudies would be smart in high definition (it is) and this two disc collectors set looked like it was loaded with smart extras. 

whereas i thoroughly enjoyed watching the whole film again (not just the famous nudies bit, but yes that proved a highlight) the extras were somewhat baffling. the idea of "alternative and deleted scenes" was intriguing, but oddly peculiar. rather than usual extra scenes it seemed they had just thrown on an edited version of a "workprint". about twenty or thirty minutes into this had me wondering why on earth they had not just put the entire workprint on the disc, as that would have been an even more better, attractive reason to buy it. 

i think this set cost me somewhere north of £20, maybe £25. have to say yes, it does feel like pretty decent value, for it is the "definitive" edition of a much loved film, allowing for the fact that i am very unlikely ever to upgrade to whatever "4K Ultra HD" is. how often i shall sit and watch it all again is reasonably debatable with the conversation leaning towards possibly not at all, yet i am rather happy to have it in the collection. 

on the off chance that superstition, or precedent, or whatever, is an actual thing i elected to be very careful with my choice of "first film" watched this year (2026). so of course i went with the blu ray of a much treasured Bond film, A View To A Kill. believe i bought this, a fancy "steelbook" edition, a year or so ago, when i saw it on sale on some web thing or another for if not £10 then south of it. 

much maligned, this one is, with some considering it the "worst" Bond film. immediately to that i would suggest you try and watch, say, Die Another Day. true, Sir Roger (by his own admission) was likely a bit too old, but all the same he felt obliged to give it a go. never understood people taking apart the plot, which is more relevant today that it was then. unless you think a tech billionaire with some extreme political views trying to take control of the world via technology is somehow outlandish. 

with regards to the "blu ray" upgrade here, mostly this tape (disc) feels like it is just the two discs of the DVD "ultimate edition" shoved onto one. that said, the crystal clear picture does neither the film nor the audience any favours, as you are all too aware that mostly you are watching the stunt double of Sir Roger Moore than you are Sir Roger. still, an enjoyable film, and with it comes fond memories of seeing it at the Odeon multiple times in 1985. 

brief comment on the oddities of British censors for these first two tapes (discs). whereas Return Of The Living Dead has been "downgraded" from an 18 to a 15 (despite no cuts), i note with interest that A View To A Kill is now a 12 rather than a PG. this despite a rather clumsy and obvious censorship edit when the (agreeably) naked Grace Jones climbs into bed so as to pulverise Sir Roger in a way i can only dream of ever happening to me. 

purchasing Satyricon was very much an impulse thing. i had a few moments to spare and was browsing the "world cinema" section of HMV. mostly this was because i have clocked the just mentioned censors at the BBFC have an odd thing where "foreign language films on blu ray" are clearly "art" and so usually lots of nudies get left uncensored. every now and then you see a decent film too, but that's secondary to nudies being on offer, thanks. £10, or a penny short, i think, was the cost. 

this was a film i had (vaguely) heard of in passing, and was aware that the maker of it, Fellini, is one who(m) is celebrated and revered. plus there was a line in Class Of Nuke Em High which suggested that Fellini films were ones that featured nudies. it thus struck me that i would have little to lose, bar £10 and two hours, giving this a go. 

indeed i do have a kind of "what the f*** did i just watch" sense with Satyricon. really don't like to do this kind of comment but i would suggest "at the time" this must have been regarded as highly subversive. filled, mostly, with curious vignettes that are sometimes interesting rather than being a linear story, i am glad i (eventually) saw it. but, overall, probably a bit too artsy for moi. 

arguably at the other end of the artistic spectrum is Spies Like Us, which i picked up down the market. yes it is a "double bill" disc, with something called Funny Farm on the same video (disc), but it was this film i was curious about watching again. not 100% sure why, and it was months after i picked it up that i watched it. the reason for giving it a go (again) was the internet becoming littered with comments in some way celebrating the 40th anniversary of its release. which felt strange, as my memory of it was that it was a disappointing bore. 

maybe time really does mean memories fade, for i can't recall exactly if i went to the cinema (it would indeed have been the Odeon) to see this or just rented the video (actual). i think it was at the cinema, back when it was 99p for a ticket and it was a forever lasting summer. still, int my 1985 mind, it was a coming together of the dude out of Ghostbusters and Trading Places with the dude out of National Lampoon's Vacation, so it was bound to be really funny. except it wasn't really. 

on watching again it did, unexpectedly and pleasantly, turn out to be a good deal better than i recalled, with some genuinely funny moments. no spoilers here, but that "impact training" scene is class. to suggest or state it is a "lost" or "forgotten" comedy classic is going a bit too far, but still it's really decent. 

exactly how i came to watch a three hour French film is partially covered in the comments above (or if you will earlier) about the BBFC and how they give "world cinema" a free pass. mostly, though, i was reading something on the internet about "most explicit that sort of thing scenes in mainstream cinema" and Blue Is The Warmest Colour featured quite a bit. with the promise of (admittedly French but still) nudies i ordered it off of the internet, think the cost was south of £10. 

hmn. on a base, or purely honest, level, this is 20 (or so) minutes of agreeable nudies, plus two hours and forty minutes of melodrama that borders on soap opera. it's as good as it can be for what is essentially the plight of middle to upper class, well to do French people growing up amidst wrestling with their sexual identity, but the audience of such feels fairly niche. oddly, and unexpectedly, i was rather taken by some of the social commentary, in particular the different ways in which the parents of the ostensible two main lady characters were treated. mostly, though, i rather doubt this film would have had rather high levels of praise, critical acclaim and awards thrust upon it were it not for the somewhat graphic (if not really all that explicit) moments of "intimacy". 

for the second (of two) films what feature both Sir Roger Moore and Patrick Macnee in this post it's the U certificate (!) Sherlock Holmes In New York. see, not everything i elect (or opt) to watch has to come with the promise of nudies and/or violence (but mostly nudies). didn't even know this film existed until i saw it on offer for sale on some website or other, with me being of the view that seeing Sir Roger have a go at playing Sherlock Holmes was well worth £5 of anyone's money. 

this one i watched over that "where and when am i in time and space" weekend between Christmas and New Year, for such felt like a period which exists purely to indulge a Sir Roger Moore film. yes there is a precedent for this here on this blog. believe last year was when they showed the Sir Roger Moore documentary on home videos over Christmas. 

one of the more striking aspects of Sherlock Holmes In New York, which appears to be a made for television movie, is just how frequently other, more celebrated films have borrowed from it. i am reluctant to give any spoilers, but for a start there's a significant chunk of the plot of Die Hard With A Vengeance lifted from this one. overall there's a certain charm to it, and it certainly wasn't "bad". that said, for an accurate review, Sir Roger Moore has a wonderful hairstyle and does some class eyebrow action but his uneven sideburns are distracting, Patrick Macnee appears to think it is all just a rehearsal going on him fashioning a slightly different accent in each scene, John Huston seems to not know he is in a film and Charlotte Rampling appears keen to break down in tears and apologise for the film every moment she is on screen. 

as it happens (or actually) i procured this rather (admittedly blurry image but all the same) fancy edition of The Sword & The Sorcerer all the way back in 2024, but somehow neglected to do an obligatory post for (or about) it. weird, as at £35 i think this is the most i have paid for a video (discs). much like was the case with Return Of The Living Dead, it kind of felt appropriate to procure a lavish if not definitive edition of a film what means a great deal to me. plus, truth me told, my brother insisted i get it. 

to the best of my knowledge is this is the first and only one of them "4K Ultra High Definition" discs i have, although no, not having either a player or tele capable of handling it thus far it remains unplayed. from what i could tell it was the only way to get the set with a book, a poster, some cards and all the extras, plus the film is also on a regular blu ray. indeed there was a cheaper "blu ray only" copy, but it just made sense to get the fancy one. 

what of the film? somehow we ended up with a copy of this on video (actual) in the early to mid 80s, and my brother and i watched it frequently. quite class it was, and kind of still is. part of a wave of "swords and barbarians" films that never took off, but all the same it features an agreeable level of nudies, some boss fighting and is, overall, well paced, funny and entertaining. once again i am somewhat surprised to see this has been "downgraded" to a 15, but such is the conventions of our present day society, i would presume to assume. 

don't actually recall purchasing Bad Biology, but going on the price sticker (which had it less, or "fewer", than the regular price) it was off of Fopp down in that there London (innit). rather likely that i was browsing, saw the warnings (or promise, if we are honest) of explicit nudies in advising why it had been awarded an 18 certificate and went, well, why not. 

so no, i had no idea what it was that i bought, and pretty much (as in more or less) went into it in a kind of blind way, unsure of any sort of "plot" or what have you when i watched it. having now seen it, well, i find it (somewhat) difficult to give you a rundown on the plot as it feels impossible to do so whilst maintaining a general idea of refraining from the use of "offensive" or upsetting language. certainly it would be true to say this is most decidedly for adults only. 

quite funny, really. a bit of a "throwback" to the type of 80s sex horror comedy kind of thing that used to get made, only unlike most 2000 onwards efforts of this nature it "gets it". possibly due to the film being made by someone who made such films in the 80s. an agreeable level of nudies, which oddly is plot relevant, and a decent watch. that said, if i sat down to re-watch a film for humour, nudies some comedy horror, this would be behind Return Of The Living Dead and Class Of Nuke 'Em High. not all that far behind, but still. 

kind of makes sense to have the above together since they are thematically (and indeed theologically) linked, plus i got them both at the same time. for provenance, i was browsing the "world cinema", also arthouse, section of HMV in (why aye man) Newcastle the morning after the Holly Johnson gig. some dude what works there started putting "2 for £15" stickers on select discs as i was browsing, and so i got the two most likely to feature nuns doing nudies. this indeed remains a staunch favourite of mine. 

neither of them, as it turned out, was all that good. with respect to the main motivation for purchasing and watching either, which would be (in case you missed it) seeing nuns do nudies, Story Of A Cloistered Nun is superior, as it has more of it and a lot earlier in the film. there are a few bits of nudies in the misleadingly named The Nun And The Devil, but only really towards the end of a quite dull film, and even then the lighting used is rather poor. 

for those of you considering watching either and inexplicably have an interest in the plot, well, i can sort of vaguely recall them. i think The Nun And The Devil was all about the "politics" of the church, all the climbing up into positions of power and what have you. pretty sure Story Of A Cloistered Nun was about a young lady being sent off to a convent so as to get out of a deal for an arranged marriage, and if truth be told it was a quite decent story. honestly though the only thing (outside) of nudies i recall was a scene where some young nuns discussed how a visiting Monsignor seemed only interested in knowing whereabouts they touched themselves, which suggested i had missed my ideal vocation in life. 

usually i wouldn't bother with any sort of "biker" movie. even the greatest of the genre, Easy Rider, is more of an outstanding soundtrack and a few iconic images than it is a particularly good film. but this one, Angels Hard As They Come, was cheap on sale (same place i got Sherlock Holmes In New York from), kind of had the promise of nudies and had an interesting cast and crew. with respect to the latter, if the first two explain themselves, it is billed as starring Scott Glenn (or Scot Glen) and has as a producer or something Jonathan Demme. seemed worth a go. 

strange that the box, or the website i got it off, makes no mention of the fact that a young Gary Busey is also in it. he also, like to be fair most of the cast here, does a good job in it too. i mean yes, this is a low budget exploitation thing (with some nudies, which helps) but it turned out to be pretty decent. no masterpiece, for sure, and certainly not fun for all the family viewing, but all the same an above average take on the standard stuff for "biker" films, which rarely amounts to more than some nasty bikers taking on some slightly more nasty bikers. 

regular readers here will (of course) not be surprised to learn that my mate Spiros was once part of that whole "biker" lifestyle. briefly, as it turned out. he assumed that the key components of their lifestyle - men only gangs, men that were quite large and hairy, men wearing leather, men fretting over things like lubricant - was a perfect match for certain passions of his. similar but different, as it turns out. 

i took a bit of a chance on something called Horror Hospital at one of my preferred charity shops, with this second hand copy being on sale for £4.99. quite steep for a charity donation, but for all i know it's maybe rare or "worth more". yes, the main motivation to give it a go was the presence of Confessions star Robin Askwith. his presence in a film generally if not usually means that there shall be some nudies of some description in it. yes, there is in the film, albeit brief. one gets to see rather more of Robin doing nudies than the female cast, but that was the gamble. 

leaving aside the plot and the wonders of this disc are all in the bonus material. quite revelatory. a fascinating thing is an interview with Robin Askwith, in which he is asked his opinion on the acting skills and talents of the rest of the cast in the film. yeah, let me leave that there with no further comment. 

best of all on the extras is a "making of" documentary, which explains how the entire project is as demented as it is insane. for a start they appear rather proud of the fact that the film was written and budgeted with Robin Askwith in mind. no, it's not that they hired him as he was cheap or no one else was available, they actually wanted to showcase his talents (or whatever he does) and built this around him. then there's all sorts on the making of it which just proved more compelling that the actual film. i would suggest it is worth finding a copy purely to endure the movie and then be thoroughly entertained by the disclosures in the documentaries. 

finally, and my this has been a long post, there is Smokin' Aces. had never ever heard of this one, and now i can't remember how, exactly, i did learn of it. probably something or other cropped up online about it. likely i was intrigued enough to read up, discovered it had a quite class cast and then decided to look for the video (disc) of it. as it turned out the fancy "steelbook" of it was south of £10. 

plot? somewhat Pinteresque with a twist of what has come to be known as the Tarantinoesque. basically what is believed to be a high value assassination contract is on offer, with the money apparently being front being enough to attract several killers to go and have a go. action all takes place in one location (which is the Pinter bit) and it all goes violent, but not as you are expecting or anticipating (Tarantino). 

quite good, really. surprised that no one had suggested it to me in the 20 (or so) years it had existed by the time i heard of it, but then maybe someone had. yes it does indeed have one bit of nudies, but it is brief and not really a focal point. overall a good example of a film one would enjoy watching, a lot, but would be unlikely to watch a second time (or more), so i am not sure it needs the prestige of the rather fancy "steelbook" edition, but hey i have it now. 

phew. i am reasonably sure that when i have done a post of this length before (so to speak) i suggested that i wouldn't do such a lengthy one again, only to do it. well, done now. on the off chance that someone has found something of interest or use (if not value) here about any of the movies, well then that's boss. 

yes, it possibly would be an appropriate, apt or what have you job for me to do in regards of reviewing films based entirely on nudies rating alone. that, however, has already been done by someone. forgive me if my mind betrays but i am quite sure the bloke what gone done it was Joe Bob Briggs, reviewing films only at drive-ins ("as God intended" i think he said) and his accounts of films watched were rarely more than a list of nudies in them. class, that. 

righty-ho, that shall do until i find something else to waffle on about.

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