it starts and ends with you

howdy pop pickers

ok, this is all about the fancy video (blu ray) version of Ziggy Stardust The Motion Picture, look you see. but before i waffle (or ramble) on, i must state something of high importance. thank goodness, or plain old thank f***, no, absolutely none of the horrendous, hideous, insipid and embarrassing "panel discussion" off of the cinema premiere (see here if you wish). with any luck any recordings of that monstrosity have been destroyed. so, what you get is the "enhanced" version of the fancy new cut of it. 

further, or for those seeking a quick review, yes this is absolutely worth getting. i may have some issues with this cut, but ultimately the restoration of sound and vision is superb. should this be in any way indicative of the quality we can expect for future Bowie re-issues (or what have you), all looks good. except of course for annoying cardboard packaging what gets damaged easily. 

so far as i am aware, or from what i can recall, this is now the 4th time i have got a copy of Ziggy Stardust in a visual form. first, of course, was the (actual) video. then came the "special edition" 30th anniversary DVD, then a DVD of it came gratis with a Best of Bowie set i got. no, i would very much doubt that i shall consider buying a fifth (5th!) if they ever released such. chances, if we are honest, of me being around for any further future "landmark" decimal friendly anniversary and rather limited. 

to be honest i don't rightly know if there's all that much i can add to my comments from seeing this at the cinema. same link as above if you are for some reason interested, but here you go if you can't be bothered scrolling up. ultimately it's quite the same as the original 1983 release (the anniversary dates used on releases pertain to the gig and not when the film came out), yet very different. for the business end of this, i am convinced that a great many "alternate angles" have been used here, perhaps just for the sake of it. still, you also get a good deal more Mick Ronson than i can recall. being fair, it's been a fair bit since i last watched it. well, before the cinema visit. 

a big step backwards is the lack of lavish packaging what they gone done for the 30th anniversary DVD version. you got an ace box, a poster and a booklet you could actually read. sure, or true, there is a booklet with the new one, but the colour of booklet vs colour of text makes reading impossible. just as well the only think in the new booklet actually worth reading, the bit from director DA Pennebaker, is a direct reprint from the perfectly legible 30th anniversary booklet. 

it remains that the major change here is the (it is claimed) full set being presented, meaning the tunes done with Jeff Beck as a guest. for clarity, that's a medley of Jean Genie and Love Me Do (off of Beatles) and then Round and Round, a song Bowie had previously recorded a cover of. again, leaving aside just how excellent the songs are, the main point of interest (if we are honest) is just how uncomfortable and unhappy Jeff Beck is with all the theatrics going on. he is clearly having none of Mick Ronson's boss moves and declines to join in. 

pictured above is a section (or "detail") from one side of the poster in the 30th anniversary set. the other side of it (the poster) is indeed below. again, it's kind of weird that for a further (or another) re-release of this what you get for your coins of money is considerably less, or "fewer". hey ho. 

with regards to the other "extra" scenes added, well, see other post (again). there's a stack more crowd scenes, which is lovely for them there. a bit of a distraction is the various "behind the scenes" bits, which are inserted and break up the flow of the concert performance. as interesting as it is to see a few seconds of Ringo Starr attempting to peek (or sneak a look) at what David has downstairs (so to speak) maybe such things would be nice as an "extra scenes" option. before, despite comments to come in regards of "best Ziggy Stardust gig released", this one stood alongside Stop Making Sense in terms of being all that a concert film could and should be. now it's a disjointed experience. 

how lovely that there has been no revision of history, by the way. one can still very much see as much Angie Bowie here as in the original release. whilst i didn't have a stopwatch on me, it also felt like last year's excellent Moonage Daydream contained more scenes with her than it did Iman. 

once more, it is so that the true highlights here (from several) are performances of Time, Width Of A Circle and indeed Moonage Daydream. and loads more. i would argue (and so would many others) that the best "official" recording of a Ziggy Stardust era gig remains Santa Monica 72, which exists in sound only. but that is not to say this is in any way, shape or form bad. a must have in a collection, even if it cost somewhere around £30 to get. Iman has some funny ideas about how much postage costs. 

right, after a splurge of Ziggy Stardust things (let us not forget this month started off with this, too), off to other things i suppose. quite odd that we've not had any "super sets" of any albums released since them at Warner Bros spent a lot of money to get the rights, but perhaps soon. 

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

ramble on

greetings

well, what do you know. this might well be a case of me seeing (or observing) something that's actually, or possibly, worthwhile sharing, look you see. 

there i was, visiting my place of previous residence prior to entering me era of exile, when i had what i believe to be a good reason to step into the garden momentarily (sorry). as part of doing so, or during it, i glanced around and was quite surprised to see something very dear. 

yes, indeed, as you may well be able to work out, a rare, unusual and potentially matter of concern sighting of Spiny Norman, the hedgehog, in the garden. or dans le jardin if for some unfortunate reason you are a frenchie yet feel a need to read this. certainly i appreciate he, or possibly she, isn't too easy to spot in the above image, but i am sure if you look closely you will see. 

i say potentially of concern for, strictly speaking, hedgehogs are nocturnal. the general advice is that if one sees a hedgehog roaming during daylight hours then be sure to look out for any signs of distress or injury. yet it is so that hedgehogs can wander in the day without being in harm. more often than not, and here i am hopeful, it would be to forage for things for a nest, or to take a brief break from nurturing younger members of a Spiny Norman clan. 

oh. yes, perhaps (maybe) i should have mentioned prior to it popping up, but yes, we have got a video. that is i took some video, and here it is (above) for you to watch if you so wish. just a few seconds mind, but enough i trust to show Spiny Norman heading off to the splendid palace fashioned. 

my suspicion has long been that there is very much a Spiny Norman clan living in the mentioned palace, which would be the remnants (or remains) of a massive tree long since cut down, presumably or quite possibly for safety concerns. it has been a while, but going on the different sizes of Spiny Norman i got to see over the years, well, it just struck as plausible that there was more than one. hopefully it is so, as i believe they are an endangered species. and hedgehogs are class. 

just the one more picture, then, which shows Spiny Norman heading back in to the nest, if you will. i suppose nest is probably the more better word than palace, but still. 

certainly i appreciate these images (and video) have not been of the best quality. it simply isn't so that i am either a wildlife photographer, or even a decent picture taker. my main concern was to not disturb, or of course scare, Spiny Norman. 

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

mystery message

now then

and so back to that there London (innit) place, look you see. which means seeing all the strange and peculiar things down there what they consider seeing "normal". mind, having been away from the place for three (3) or so (ish) weeks, it was strangely comforting to get there and hear the people hooting horns away when traffic failed to move within 0.003 seconds of the lights changing. with that, of course, being on the two or three roads what the awful mayor of the place actually allows cars on. 

generally there's something of interest to see no matter which direction you look down there. rather interesting things in select shops in Soho, but that's for another time, another place, thank you. no, this isn't going anywhere is it, let me get to the point. a rather large (excessive) part of the London scenery tends to be rather poor, worthless graffiti. here is an example.

sadly (alas) it is something of an obscene message, hence it being presented in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode. yes, there is a clearer image below, but it is quite rude so this is a bit of a buffer to warn anyone what might get upset. 

perhaps the most curious, or interesting (a matter of note) aspect of this is where in that there London i saw this. sure, just about all of the place is expensive. but this was a tres expensive part. like, you know, a couple of million probably would not be enough to buy a place. and those who rent in the area undoubtedly work their high powered, miserable, soul draining jobs just to earn slightly enough to pay off the debts from trying to pay the rent. why people wish to live there is a mystery. 

well, here you go, the full version of what i saw. once again, then, a warning that the content of this next image will likely upset someone somewhere. 

quite strange. i suppose, maybe, there's some cartesian dualism on the go here, or a bit of a split personality. maybe just mixed feelings on the subject. well, not really a "maybe" there. one assumes this has been there for at least a year or so, so i guess someone decided it was worth keeping. for my sins i suppose i have enabled the preservation of it. 

maybe, if i am fortunate (or do some more better looking), i shall see something nice on my travels to add here. 

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

yet more interior decor

hello there

just another impulse purchase showcasing (or showing off, if you like, look you see) post. as much of the things what i have bought in furtherance of beautifying my place of exile are. little, if anything, of my decisions in this regard suggest planning. 

so yes, this is (mostly) things what i found down the market which appealed, and then looked kind of all right when i put them somewhere. ostensibly this is about two (2) new things of such (said) nature, but the third (the middle one) is now a thing which i don't think i ever documented here. which is rather out of character for moi. 

as you can see, in of course the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode, i have indeed gone right ahead and purchased an Alien out of Alien and a Predator out of Predator. well, why would i not. both are very much favourite things, really, and it was smart to be able to get both for not that much north of £10. indeed the one in the middle is a skull effigy (or what have you) of The King, Elvis Presley. that was also off the market, but procured last year, either late November or early December. i had set off with every intention of purchasing Christmas things, but got distracted. well, on my own in exile gave every sense of huge depression following any effort to do festive stuff. 

if we take it as a given that He, The King, Elvis Presley is the greatest thing there (except maybe my well traveled Dallas Cowboys glass tankard), which is my favourite? out of Alien and Predator? i suppose, at a push, Predator. whereas Alien and of course Aliens were quite class, the third and fourth films were not this. i have yet to encounter the Predator film i didn't like. yes, i would include the much maligned Alien vs Predator films, for i enjoyed them for what they were. 

how fortunate, though, that one does not have to choose. i can quite happily live with both of these wonderful concepts on the go, enjoying films with either (or both) in as and when chance permits. and now i can gaze upon likenesses of them (and Him) when i am in my place of exile and am doing things like making coffee. or tea. 

no, i don't really have any intention of procuring any further figures to put on display, for an audience of, mostly, precisely one. but, then again, it's not like i set out to obtain these three, so who knows. well, you will if i do and i add pictures here, i suppose. 

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

fifteen now

howdy pop pickers

and so another Now That's What I Call Music reissue. with this one being of volume, or edition, 15, look you see. but i suspect you worked that one out from the slightly spooned title. if spooned is the correct term, as in spoonerism, and not that laid down thing. 

partially i was ever so slightly surprised to see this one out now, as in August 2023. from what i could remember (or recall) they have been putting these out at a rate of 2 (two) a year, with the release dates being April and November. one quick search of my blog from previous volumes what i have been compelled to purchase and no, at least last year there was also three (3) put out. didn't bother looking any further back, for now (15) is where we are. 

for those interested in matters of provenance, it was off of Fopp in London (innit) that i got this. and if you are unaware of what a Fopp is, well, me too. it's kind of a quasi HMV that isn't HMV, yet clearly carries their stock, uses their price stickers, etc. no idea what the deal is, probably some form of tax purposes arrangement. 

where are we now with Now 15? it covers, vaguely, spring into summer of 1989. quite the (nearly) end of an era, then, in several ways but the most dominant being (of course) the closure of a decade. some people suggest that the 80s was the last truly great decade for vibes (music), but that is patently incorrect. quite a bit of the greatest stuff ever made, be it quality or iconic impact, was to come in the 90s. well, eventually, for the first couple of years of the decade kind of sucked. no, it really all went right to sh!t in the 2000s, to be honest. 

to pay some respect to Dickens, this set really is a best of times, worst of times set. should one listen exclusively to tape (disc) one (1) you'd think the summer of 89 was class. yet listen just to tape (disc) two (2) and you would think it was, mostly, a poor time to be alive. not sure if they plotted the selection of tunes to reflect this, but here it is. but it's not like all of 1 is class and all of 2 is a write off. 

easily, and by some distance, the single greatest song on here is Americanos off of Holly Johnson, and indeed that's pure bias. but the really strange thing is that's not his best song from the year, with that honour very much going to Love Train, which apparently got released at a stage which excluded it being either here or on Now 14. for some reason it's Americanos that gets a lot of radio play and lot and lots of love, rather than Love Train. hey ho, it's not like there's such a thing as a bad Holly song. 

close second (and probably closer than i intimated above) is Song For Whoever off of The Beautiful South. i am delighted to find it remains a damned fine, catchy and very witty tune. 

quite a few heavyweights of the vibes scene find themselves on this set. an interesting one is track one off of tape (disc) 1, with that being I Want It All off of Queen. it's boss, it is, even in this single edit form, where it clocks in just south of four minutes. sometimes the "edit" of an album track for a single robs it of its soul, but Queen most decidedly did not p!ss about on the quality front. also present is Paul McCartney (who wasn't Sir then) with My Brave Face. i had kind of forgotten about this one, but was happy to find it remains a most smart tune. as i recall the video was somewhat interesting, something about a Japanese businessman thinking he had Macca's Beatles bass guitar. 

rounding off tape (disc) 1 and, well, lots of highlights. there's the banging Good Thing off of Fine Young Cannibals, Kirsty MacColl's ace cover of Days, Steve Nicks with Rooms On Fire and The Look off of Roxette. sure, the latter might have borrowed slightly off of U Got The Look off of Prince, but still, it works. the only major disappointment is a ho-hum Simple Minds effort. i had forgotten all about The Second Summer Of Love off of Danny Wilson. whereas it's smart, the "plinky" guitar on this was kind of new-ish then, but got over used and murdered by a succession of however did they even have so much as one hit wonders off of America in the 90s and 00s.

do i have to do tape (disc) 2? ok. well, there are some good things. first track is Back To Life off of Soul II Soul (and Caron Wheeler), which remains boss. at the time the James Bond theme Licence To Kill felt like a let down of A View To A Kill and Living Daylights, but my ears now appreciate it as a classic ballad theme. the tape (disc) ends with Lullaby off of The Cure, which is one of those rare moments for them when their immense experimentation and latent pop sensibilities are combined in one song and it's excellent. note, just about all songs off of The Cure are excellent, it's just normally they are either or the descriptions there. 

not really in the mood for negative waves, man, but my goodness there's some right sh!t on disc (tape) two. Jive Bunny has (have) not aged well, for a start. actually, i found myself laughing a bit at Bobby Brown with Every Little Step. from what i recall he kind of projected a "hard man from the hood" image, yet this sounds like a teeny bop New Kids On The Block thing. should anyone need evidence that D-Mob could be just as irritating and annoying when they didn't simply say "acieeeeed" in a really bad high pitch voice, such (or said) evidence is to be found here. as for the rest of the tracks, one or two good ones, but also a lot of average tunes. like, for instance, the Pet Shop Boys handing in a "will this do" song with It's Alright and Bananarama delivering a remix of a previous hit. 

i have no idea which song is missing from the original release, but one (1) clearly is. oh, well. certainly missing is probably the biggest film related tune of that summer, which would be Batdance off of Prince. from what i recall, though, he himself had issues trying to licence it for one set. my abiding memory of that summer is me and some of my mates playing tapes (actual) of Guns N Roses, Metallica and probably New Order. perhaps the stuff wasn't actually released then, or just not licenced here. 

one has to assume that Now 16 will be due for a release in November, then, going on the pattern. will i be getting it, if so? probably, should i still be a thing and around. i imagine it will cover the last few months of 1989, so yes. after that, well, it shall be 1990, and i don't recall anything immediately from the charts then. who knows, maybe some forgotten class tunes. 

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

another four films

hi

well, what the title here says, really. i had a most unusual amount of quasi free time at my disposal, so i spent it watching some films what i had very much seen before, look you see. that makes this just a trifle slightly different from the last time i gone done a post of this nature, which was this one. 

as to just why i would watch films seen before when there are a fair few that i have not (as yet) seen that wish to, well. there's a kind of, if you will forgive the American terminology, a security blanket sort of thing, isn't there? beyond being curious to see if one (or maybe two) of these were as i remembered, putting on something to watch that you know what you shall see is kind of relaxing. i guess that's why some have looked at this idea of 'spoilers' and determined that, for many, knowing what will happen tends to increase the enjoyment of something. sounds strange and peculiar, but there you go. 

for those of you who get rather sensitive (like, for instance, whomever it is what keeps reporting my posts on how quite class Bullseye is), it is so that 75% of the films featured here are not what one would consider (or call) family appropriate viewing. this, appreciated, is something you probably worked out off of the above image, presented in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode. also, or further, there is every chance a *** SPOILER WARNING *** is most apt from here on out, despite the theory floated in the previous paragraph. 

no particular order is in place here, just as i (more or less) took and uploaded the images. but, that said, if you had a choice or option, well, why would you not start off with one of the better films to feature Chuck Norris, such as Code Of Silence. 

provenance of my procured items seems to be a thing of interest for some. very well. i picked this up off of one of my favourite tape (and disc) stalls down the market. rather fond memories of seeing the film, on (actual) video in the 80s came to mind when i noticed this on offer. quite likely that i spent £2 to rent it back then, so the same price to own the tape (disc) seemed very reasonable indeed. 

plot? Chuck Norris is a no-nonsense cop who finds himself at war with two rival drug gangs who (hence the rival bit) are also at war with each other. making Chuck's plight with this somewhat difficult is that he is presently subject to a "code of silence", meaning his fellow members of the constabulary, or whatever they call the police in America, will not come to assist him. this is down to him refusing to "stand by" or support a generally inefficient and not at all good copper who had just recently shot an innocent teen. so, it's Chuck vs some particularly nasty people, including Henry Silva, that are well armed and very angry. would you care to guess who wins. 

this was made long before Chuck became a curious archetype for all things of limitless strength and immortality on the internet. perhaps films such as this one helped cultivate this retrospective position, and why not. it is quite class how, in this film and in others, the simplest and most gentle of kicks to the head off of Chuck can reduce one to eternal nothingness. 

whilst no, it was not so that Code Of Silence seemed as amazing and impressive to me now as it did to 13 or 14 year old me, renting a tape of it that i probably shouldn't have been allowed to, yes it was still a decent 90 minute watch. not sure if it's censored or what have you, knowing the BBFC quite likely that it is. oh well, it was still well paced with action, rather well written and featured some fine acting performances, contextually at the least. 

i would suspect that "new" audiences to this film today come to it informed by the caricature which Chuck has morphed into. this, presumably, means that anyone watching it for the first time now would be doing so with eyes governed by the modern understanding of the word "ironic". a shame, really, as if one took this, Delta Force and maybe (at a push) Invasion USA, you would wonder why, in the UK at the least, Chuck wasn't up there as a Grade A star with Sylvester and Arnold. 

here's the one that is suitable for all (it has a PG and everything) but i am not at all sure how much sense National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon 1 would make to the present day. other than choosing to watch this relies on understanding that there was a time when a film featuring (at least) one of the Martin Sheen family wasn't an immediate no-go, many of the references here require a good working knowledge of early 90s films. for the latter, happy days, as my memories appear to be in tact. 

so what's the deal here? ostensibly it's a direct parody, or if you will rift, on the Lethal Weapon films, but also other mismatched cop buddies films off of the 80s, and more. not sure if it comes within the realm of being spoilers, but you would very much have had to seen Basic Instinct and the incredible the silence of the lambs to "get" or catch some of the jokes. which happily remain rather funny to this day, some thirty (blimey) or so (!!) years on.

getting provenance out of the way for you would be to say (or write) that i picked it up at a charity shop, i think for if not 50p then 20p. something of an impulsive nostalgia purchase, for i fondly recalled how a bunch of us at university went to see it at my insistence, which such based purely on Denis Leary being in it. he is, for about two minutes. somehow i had forgotten two greats were in it, namely Tim Curry and William Shatner. 

perhaps, or possibly, it was from sheer nostalgia, but this remained as funny as i recalled. not exactly in the league of, say, Airplane or Top Secret, but all the same, a right good laugh. just the standard version what i remember seeing here, as this film infamously has different versions of it. i would, one day, like to find the version what has the Christopher Lambert scene, but maybe i will just look for a video of that bit on the internet. meanwhile, anyone hankering for some 90s nostalgia that is south of 80 minutes could likely do worse than have a gander. 

and so nostalgia continues, but of a more decidedly 80s nature, which is kind of my happy place. residing in a massive, huge, large pile of films from then (and the 70s) of films what people reckon there's no way would get made today is Weird Science. 

from what i recall i picked this up as part of a "3 for £2" off of my preferred tape (disc) vendor down the market. which would prompt a question of why it wasn't already in my collection. true, i have been tempted by the fancy video (blu ray disc) version of it, but, well, didn't ever bother. no quarrel at all with the price i got it for, so there. 

plot? two dorky, nerdy teenagers (with wealthy parents, as was always so with this kind of film) are bored and apparently destined to die virgins, so they create the perfect lady off of their computer. some mayhem ensues. 

no, i have no intention of going through the various reasons as to why it's somewhat unlikely a direct remake of this would get made today. let us instead concentrate on the quite class stuff. for starters, the soundtrack. whilst some films had one or two decent tunes, i think it was (of the 80s) only this that had absolutely quite class quality tunes all over it. well, this and Ferris Bueller's Day Off of course. then there's the computer what they used to make Kelly le Brock on, a black Commodore 64. it looked amazing, man. probably just a regular one what they painted, but we imagined that the kids of America could get something that cool. certainly not least, but last for this paragraph the brilliant Vernon Wells is in it. 

i would suspect a few in this modern world i don't understand have gone and 'discovered' this one on the basis of a certain Robert Downey (no jnr on the credits) featuring. yes, it is he, and he is just as excellent here as he has been throughout all of his career. overall, the overt and in particular the hidden comedy moments here are just as funny as i recall. you know what, i may well go ahead and upgrade this to a fancy tape (blu ray disc) version, it is quite class. 

speaking of fancy video, i elected (or opted) to pick up one of my more treasured films in that format. with that film being Blue Velvet. i heard someone or other talking about it, and was pleasantly surprised to find the two tape (disc) fancy video of it, with "lost footage", going for £5 on the internet. 

a warning for you. the transfer of this film on this version, which as far as i can tell was done by someone called High Fliers Films in 2014 (nearly 10 years ago!) is awful. quite a disappointing mess. this plagues a few blu ray releases, i believe. sadly i am not technical, but there are some points where the tape (disc) is unwatchable, as the colour scheme goes, scenes are "over saturated" or what have you, and it looks worse than a bootleg (actual) video. my old (actual) video of the film felt like it had a way better picture. so no, there is absolutely no chance of me "upgrading" to whatever they reckon this 4K "ultra" business is, thanks. 

how to describe this film? absolutely no idea. neither did them what had the job of trying to market it back in the 80s, to be fair. you can see that in the baffling trailer included on the disc. hence it being a financial failure on release. sure it's developed a "cult" following over the years via home video, but due to the nature of the film it's not exactly one that people would rush to watch for fun. 

now its (or (it's) dark is the refrain of Frank Booth (the brilliant Dennis Hopper) in the film, and that's probably the best description you will get. it is an horrific, brutal, dark film, which tests any audience on what they can tolerate watching. the simplified description is normally "the dark underbelly to regular American suburbia", which kind of works. it's a film to put on if you wish to feel genuinely uncomfortable and see how far you can push that, even well north of 30 years on. 

one frequent conversation about film is who is the most evil, demented, dangerous villain ever to appear on screen. a usual winner would be Hannibal Lecter, which is difficult to argue with. unless, that is, you have witnessed Frank Booth. if i had to choose the most evil of all time it's Frank. with Hannibal you have a 50-50 chance, for if you don't upset him or give him reason to believe the world would be better without you he would likely leave you alone. not Frank, not at all. 

despite my disappointment with the quality of the actual film, the 50 or so minutes of "lost" footage, presented on a separate disc, were well worth it. normally, usually, deleted scenes are cut with reason. here it's astonishing to see how different the film could have been, with ostensible protagonist Jeffrey, played by Kyle MacLachlan, being even more of an anti-hero than in the released version. indeed, Kyle fans, as with Showgirls from the last film post, he does indeed show off his bum in this one. and other bits, if that takes your interest. 

right, well, that's that. of these four, it is the last (or latter) two i am likely to watch again. but i suspect some research needed and a much more better copy of Blue Velvet will be procured. 

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

this milk is now gone

dearly beloved

we are gathered here today to discuss milk, look you see. and not just any milk, i suppose. for a start it's actual proper milk, meaning full cream or full fat, depending on your branding preference. none of this skimmed or "semi" skimmed nonsense, where as far as i can tell (or taste) all they would seem to do is dilute it with some water. 

showing a complete lack of things to add here, and in doing so perhaps reflecting the empty state of my existence, here we go. this is all to do with some milk that had a use by (or best before) date of yesterday, at time of printing (publishing) this on the internet. precisely, if one wishes to be pedantic, 61 seconds prior to this going live. 

i suppose there is kind of a partially interesting question here. should one take 'use by' literally, well, exactly how literally? were it so that i drank of this milk at 11:59pm on the date marked would it somehow be of a more better, acceptable condition than if i drank of the same just north of a minute later? obviously 'best before' doesn't come into this one, and that's just warning you the experience or quality may not be the same if used after that date. no, i have never tried this with milk, or any other such item what has a 'use by' warning. 

as it happens, yes i did purchase one of these bottles of milk. i had finished it a quite considerable amount of time prior to the use by date. having stored it as directed, or traditional, in a fridge, it was fine for all the time i had made use of it. mostly this was in tea or coffee, depending on the time of day. 

perhaps the best ever conversation about milk is that one line off of a comedy show off of Billy Connolly. he, in it, reasonably asked who was it that worked out you could get milk from a cow, and what was it they thought they were doing to the cow when they made this discovery. as fair as that question is, i am not entirely sure a full disclosure answer would sit well. 

right, well, let me get on with stuff, see if i can find anything a bit more interesting to put here. unless milk is your thing (or your "bag"), then i imagine this would have been quite class. 

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

secrets of the 89p Barbie egg

hello there

if you had, recently (as in moments before reading this, look you see) typed in to one of them internet search engine things "is a Barbie egg with toy worth getting" and clicked to come here, it would not at all be unreasonable for you to be present with an answer. for the sake of saving you some time, the answer to such a question is probably not, no. but, if you want a more elaborate, if not particularly expansive insight into that answer, feel free to read on. go on, you are here now, after all. 

some background, or if you will scene setting, as to how i came to learn the so-called 'secrets' of a Barbie egg, and indeed how i came to be in such a position to do so. recently it was so that i was on my travels, for verk, and the lodgings (hotel) secured for me had rather little in respect of places nearby to wander around. my choices were limited to a petrol station, a number of American fast food outlets and a reasonably well known discount store called Home Bargains. the latter was where i strolled. 

various items (or if you will, wares) were on offer, but oddly not that which i craved. i had hoped to get some strawberry bon-bons to enjoy as i watched a motion picture or two (2, as it turned out) in the comforts offered by my designated hotel room. no luck with that, alas, but i did get some cinder toffee honeycomb stuff (not sure what they call it these days) and, as you have no doubt ascertained, something called a 'Barbie' egg. 

yes, indeed this is some sort of endorsement, or sponsorship, by the relatively world famous Barbie range of dolls. ostensibly this has been a toy aimed quite directly at girls, but in this enlightened age no one is allowed to be who they are no more, with everyone having to be absolutely everything. which probably, in the end, means it was just perfectly fine for me to get it, or pick one up. 

ostensibly, i suppose, this item is quite the "homage" to the celebrated Kinder eggs, where one gets a toy in a capsule, with the outer being an egg shaped chunk of chocolate. perhaps to stave off any sort of complaint of proprietary breeches (or whatever lawyers argue for), instead of the Kinder outer milk chocolate and inner white chocolate, here (as you can see above) you get one half of each. not bad, if you were looking for a review of that aspect. 

but, of course, the real (or at least primary) reason for spending all of 89p on this item was to see the toy inside. mindful of the (at the time i wrote this) brand new, wildly celebrated film based on all things what are Barbie, i was hoping for a little toy Ryan Gosling. admittedly, owing to the size of the egg, such an item would have been rather small, yet still, would have been cool. 

no such wonders awaited, alas. it wasn't even a little Margot Robbie (or whoever) one, either. instead i got what them what made this considered to be a quite class toy, which, as you can see above, turned out to be a Barbie necklace. oh, right. going on the "collect them all" strip of paper i got with it, at the least it seems i got one of the more better ones. still, hardly a Ryan Gosling effigy. 

exactly what, or which, secrets have been revealed here is something for you to determine. i suppose the title is not the best what i have ever gone done, but it just felt right. presumably the hidden treasure inside the chocolate egg was kind of a secret, since the packaging didn't give much of a clue as to what you might expect to find inside. clearly i was optimistic in this regard. 

will i be purchasing (or buying) any further Barbie 'surprise' eggs? no. actually, now that i think, i was hoping that they had some Scooby Doo ones, as the Scooby (and gang) figures in them are quite smart. but, now that i think, i believe i used to pick them up at another shop. 

right, well, that's pretty much all i can say on this one. 

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

new mug

greetings

whether i happen to be really, really good at titles or am just relaying details of things which are if not mundane then boring, yes, pretty much all of this post is right there in the title. so, it has come to pass that i have acquired another new mug, look you see. as i have little else to share here, i figured why not do the usual and show it off. 

did i (or was it the case that i) needed (or required) a new mug? not really, not really, no. as point of fact, and forgive any unintended bourgeois showing off, i have far more than i need, or can practically store in my place of exile. presently i need to maintain a sort of triple balance between them all, with some on the shelf in a cupboard, some on the drying rack and some (not many) in the sink waiting to be washed. yet procuring another proved irresistible. 

so, as you can (kind of) see in the above, presented in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode, my travels took me to the whims and ways of Stonehenge. indeed, the Stonehenge, as in the one famously celebrated by Spinal Tap in song. my understanding of it all is that the place was kind of celebrated and considered important before Spinal Tap gone done a song about it all, but obviously it's only in the era of history after they did the tune that anyone really paid much attention to it. 

indeed, this post is going to be considerably more boring that previous (rather than future) ones concerning me obtaining similar. which is a new mug. one simply needs to look here and, if they so wish, here to see examples of other adventures. sadly, or alas, my social interaction is not of such a nature to do that sort of thing (not that sort of thing) in my present reality. from what i recall it is spoken that a lie becomes a truth simply by being repeated three (3) times. the instances of me being told i shall die alone, full of lament and regret, has been said to me more than that. oh. 

being in such whimsical solitude did indeed allow me to build a "set" of sorts to showcase the new mug. some may well refer to such as a "diorama" but this isn't an actual scene being recreated. well, at least not that i know of. pictured here with the previously mentioned mug, then, are some scale replicas of bits off of Stonehenge, with a massive (and very expensive) postcard (two, actually) opened up around it. hopefully one or two shall appreciate the effort made. 

at this moment in time, which is to say as i compose (write) this, i've not actually used it. from habit i have washed it on returning to lodgings, and now it sits waiting for designation. which is an interesting point of departure for one of them infrequent looks at the English way of doing things. just about every house has loads and loads of mugs which are theoretically (bar the design on them) same difference, but get kept and used for either tea or coffee but not for use of both. at different times. when someone comes along and uses a mug one normally only uses for tea for coffee, it causes a panic. generally i don't have all that many (if any) visitors, but yes, certain mugs are for certain things. 

for those interested, or wishing to in some way impersonate me (good luck with that one), up to now i use my mugs celebrating The Prisoner, The Shining and of course Body Double, for tea, whilst other mugs, such as my smart Lenin one off of Spiros and my Bowie Aladdin Sane one, not to mention the scene from Alien done as puppets, are for coffee. mind, there is some flexibility, as i have one which is most smart as it is the poster off of Aliens, and i have used that for tea and coffee. not at the same time, obviously. 

oh. no. or eh oh, even. the Teletubby, Po, wasn't picked up from Stonehenge. so far as i am aware, no, he, she, it, whatever, is not a traditional aspect of the place. i picked the Po effigy up at a market rather closer to lodgings, for all of 50p. of the traditional, or classic, four (4) Teletubbies, Po is my favourite, yes. but, from the whole "expanded universe" of it, my favourite is of course Noo Noo. as they did not have a Noo Noo available, well, Po it is. 

my thoughts on Stonehenge itself? well, i saw it from the road, about four (4) times. certainly it is one of the more impressive arrangements of rocks, or if you will stones, that i can recall seeing. little wonder that Spinal Tap elected to honour the place. and yes, it's quite surprising just how close to the road it, them, or if you will Stonehenge, is. but if you are interested, it's probably best to head to the official visitor centre and do the tour and that, so you can learn the mystical secrets of the place what inspired the song. 

to be honest, no, i hadn't harboured any particularly strong desire or wish to see Stonehenge. of course i am very glad that the accidental opportunity arose (so to speak) to do so. not sure i would rush back, as it is ever so far away, but one never knows. 

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

i'm standing here

howdy pop pickers

weirdly, despite all of my trips to that there London (innit) of late, it appears to have taken me quite some time to think to have gone and done this. as for what's this, that would be to go and pay homage to place where David Bowie stood for the cover photo for the album The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders From Mars. which is usually just referred to as Ziggy Stardust for the sake of saving words, look you see. 

indeed, for regular readers, it was very much my attendance at the celebrated concert film screening what prompted me to go "hang on" (to yourself) and seek out the location. yes, truly, i am disappointed in not thinking of, or consider thinking about, doing this sooner. no matter, it is done. 

and there is the plaque, or sign, what they have put up to honour the spot. it's changed somewhat in the last fifty (!) or so years. merrily, or happily, the whole square where it is located appears to have become a tribute to Bowie. it's just off (i think) Piccadilly (or close by), and there's pubs with Bowie related names there. also, the official Bowie store, i believe, which was closed. hence me still having some money in the bank, i suppose. 

not as many people as you might think were hovering around it. sure, it's iconic, but it's not, say, zebra crossing on Abbey Road iconic for the tourists. most people in the area of it, when we visited, appeared to be merrily getting quite sh!tfaced in the pubs or bars, seemingly somewhat not so worried about the named links to Bowie yet delighted with the alcohol available. and why not. 

certainly i should have given some warning that a selfie was to appear, for i know some of you may well be rather horrified at actually seeing me. well, done now. many thanks indeed to a chap, no, good friend called Paul what took this image of me. nice one, man. 

does this mark the start of me (moi) going off to various places where Bowie posed for album covers and having a picture taken? unlikely. not sure many of them are recorded, or noted. also, i don't believe the set for The Man Who Fell To Earth even exists, or is accessible, so there's about two gone. not all album covers were even photos, or in places. but, still, nice if i can visit more. 

there you go, above is an image of the sign they have put up (not one of them official blue plaque ones, but still) to mark the spot, but not presented in the greater good and glory of Commodore 64 mode. as for the equally famous back cover, well, i believe the Bowie store has a red telephone box for people to pose in. unsure if it's the telephone box, but how lovely if so. 

more as and when it happens, or when i have chance to write of it. 

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