batman unmasked exhibition

hello there

great scott, or cor blimey. this is a post which might be of some actual use or interest to people. especially them wanting information on the Batman Unmasked exhibition in that there London (innit), look you see. so far as i am aware thiis event runs all the way to the penultimate day of this year's December (2024), so you may well be here wanting info. 

failing that, of course, you are more than welcome to have a look at some of the pictures of took. well of course you are welcome, if you were not then i should not have put them here online. speaking of all things online, here's the link to the official site for the Batman Unmasked exhibition. 

it would not, i would think, be unreasonable to assume you are aware that this exhibition is indeed dedicated to the subject of Batman. however, for clarification, it's specific in being the motion picture era, stretching from 1989 to 2022, or kind of present day. with respect to the latter, the outfit what the character of the Penguin in the most recent film (The Batman) wore is on display here, presumably fresh from being used in that Penguin TV series. alas not too much in regards of the classic 60s series, then, despite Adam West appearing on the poster. 

let's get to the crux of info. of all the things what i have read online about this event the number one comment appears to always (and forever) be that it is "quite short". yes, actually, it is. we were in it for around about an hour, including the gift shop bit at the end. try as you (or one) might there's really no way of padding it all out for longer than an hour. 

quality over quantity is the key here, mind. you get to see some really amazing stuff, such as the celebrated "batpod" off of the Christopher Nolan films. i would presume (or even imagine) they would have been able to "pad" this all out with all sorts of sh!t, like for instance a display along the lines of the call sheet for the third assistant director on day X of filming Y. undoubtedly something which is important to making the films, but it would take a rather niche fan to wish to see such. 

cost? again, i shall side on quality over quantity, from what i recall tickets for one adult and one child was just south of £50. there's little which comes to mind as being a fair comparison, but at no stage did i feel cheated, ripped off or what have you with that. but yeah, that's me. the value for me was that William wished to go, and it was a pleasure to take him. 

and there indeed is an all too rare glimpse of one of my (known) children for you, posing in a picture that if i am honest i have long wished to recreate. so yes, there's kind of a nod to the Adam West era of Batman that you can do this. cost of getting one of these pictures? from what i remember it was £22 to get one pose printed, and that allowed you to spend an extra £8 to get all of the pictures in a digital form. there was, i believe, a fee you could pay to remove the watermark, which i take as being the thing in the bottom left. why would one want that removed? 

since on the subject, the gift shop is not too bad. i have every confidence (or hope) that my wallet shall cease bleeding from its @r$e eventually, mind. doing that wonky thing of trusting my memory, t-shirts were £30 or £35, jumpers or hoodies were £55. i seem to remember those being prices being asked for similar at any number of gigs i was at this year. much like the scenario with gigs, i do believe these are garments exclusive to the exhibition, so you can't get them anywhere else. a range of them "graphic novel" things were available, priced between £15 and £25 or so, and i absolutely would not have the faintest idea if that's a good or bad price for them. so far as i was able to ascertain none were exclusive to the exhibition. 

now then, if that's just about all the practical (and potentially useful) information i can offer, then there's little else for me to waffle on about except Val Kilmer. so yes, that is indeed the Batman mask, or cowl as they seem to prefer calling it, what the legendary actor wore in his one and only stint in the role. indeed cowls from (i think) all the other actors are there, i just really admire Val. no, that's not me claiming he was the "best" in the part, as i think every actor to play Batman (and Bruce Wayne) has brought their own differing qualities. i just like Val. 

yes, liking Val is also why i took the above image, showing off his Batbelt. i do find it incredibly satisfactory to look upon and admire things what Val Kilmer has touched. doubtful there would be all that much of a market for it, but would love to see a Top Secret! exhibition like this one. 

no, you are (absolutely) not allowed to touch any of the exhibits, hence a picture of the most recent incarnation of the Batmobile on its own, and not with either William or myself in it. most of the exhibits are in sturdy casing anyway, hence me not touching any of the items what Val had touched. to be fair these are all the real deal, actually used in the films props and costumes, and thus worth a bit

oddly (or strangely) one item (below) was kind of open to being touched, which suggests that it was there as a sort of "example" thing and not from any actual film. 

indeed, a pretty decent (if blood covered) looking tape based ghetto blaster. William is fairly sure that this was actually in Batman (1989), possibly handled by Joker or one of his contemporaries. if so then i would have imagined it would have been glass cased too. should it be off of that film, then happy days, for i have now casually brushed a tape player what was in close proximity to Jack Nicholson. 

warning, selfie coming up.

behold, for above (other than me) you can see the Mr Freeze outfit from the not overly loved motion picture Batman & Robin. i believe that outfit would fit me just fine, which i take as meaning i can claim that i have the same physique (more or less) that Arnold Schwarzenegger has. no you cannot argue that one or enter into a (mass) debate, that's not how logic works. 

sure, it is so that Batman & Robin is considered the least (or "fewer") greatest of the films, but i think i would be correct in saying both i and my (former) (considerably) better half shall forever have a soft spot for it. this was one the one we deemed "safe" (allowing for skipping over the Bane transformation scene) for the boys to watch at a young age, and we had spells of them playing it on repeat. you know what i may well just pick up the video (or disc) of it for the nostalgia. 

perhaps i should have put one of them spoiler warnings ahead (or above) of the above picture, but it all seems widely reported. so yes, then, all of the films from 1989 on are represented, hence you getting to have a glimpse at what they state is the actual mask (or "cowl") from the brilliant Lego Batman movie. maybe not worth the admission fee in itself, but still. 

there would, i suspect, be little question that some of the Batman films have featured brilliant, legendary and iconic performances. all the years that have passed, for instance, have affirmed that Tim Burton was quite right to insist on Michael Keaton playing the part when the pressure was on for a more established "action hero" to do it. few would argue, however, that for the most part it is the celebrated Christopher Nolan films which feature some of the greatest performances ever seen in any sort of film, let alone Batman ones. and one in particular, so i need not say much more than above is an image of a few of the items as used by Heath Ledger. 

and to conclude the images being shared here, yes, that's one of the (quite) memorable outfits what the much missed Heath wore in The Dark Knight. for me being able to see items like this made the entire trip worthwhile, but more importantly William was absolutely thrilled by it all. 

right, well, that's that i think. indeed i could shove a whole load more images on here, but i dare say there's a stack of much more better ones around the internet. we had enormous fun attending this and  have every confidence William shall find something similar for us to go to. actually, he has mentioned that he would not mind going to that Harry Potter thing again...........

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

11

ELEVEN

11

ONE LOUDER

ELEVEN

11

11

ONE LOUDER

11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

eleven

11

ELEVEN

11

11

ONE LOUDER

ELEVEN

11

ONE LOUDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dr strangelove

greetings

no, no, this is not (overtly) about the much (and rightly) celebrated Stanley Kubrick film. well, yes, i suppose it (kind of) sort of is, look you see, but it isn't. rather surprisingly i got the chance to go to the theatre down in that there London (innit) for a second time this year, with it being the stage adaptation of Dr Strangelove that i got to gone done go see. 

quite a few reading this will, i know (and appreciate) wish to know if this production is any good without having to go through all my usual waffle to find that out. yes, it very much is rather excellent, as it happens, with Steve Coogan's taking on of four (4!) roles being nothing short of spectacular. that said, as i shall continue with (if you stick around), the entire cast are astonishing. whilst there is no doubt who the "star" is, this is the personification of an outstanding ensemble cast. 

plot? it would be unexpected to find anyone reading this presently sans familiarity with the film, but there's always that chance.  a US military type, General Jack D Ripper, takes it upon himself to order an attack on Russia (or contextually the Soviet Union) mostly based on a theory involving ice cream. when a somewhat hapless RAF officer fails, despite deploying the English way of doing things, to stop this, it falls to the (ahem) great minds of the American government to limit or manage the mess. the assistance of the mysterious Dr Strangelove is called on to do this.......

not sure how much point there is me writing of the sheer brilliance of Kubrick's film, for many times it is that this has been spoken of, probably in more better ways than i could do. by no means was it the first of its kind in terms of this, but it has become the personification of "dark comedy", its genius residing in how it full tilt exploits the sheer absurdity of the premise of humans willingly creating the means to bring an end to our entire species with humour sometimes equalled and seldom surpassed. 

my view, then, from the cheap seats balcony. cost of my ticket? a straight (or flat) £15, believe it or not, which is indeed £5 less (or fewer) than the absolute bargain ticket i got for Fawlty Towers earlier (rather than later) in the year. the ticket came with a warning that it was a "very restricted" view and also had somewhat restricted legroom. as it turns out it was "only" the far right (so to speak) corner of the stage i could not see, where nothing happened (much) anyway. rather than seats the balcony is one long couch, which was incredibly comfortable. sure, i could not see the back projection, but they had large screens on each level so you could see what was going on. down below you can see the seats which cost, at a minimum, ten (10) times what my ticket did. perhaps the best review of my accidental choice of seat is that at the interval one or two in more expensive seats moved to empty ones near me, believing them to be both more comfortable and offering a better view. 

so that's now twice i have managed, at (very) short notice, to get tickets to what i would consider to be grade a, high demand shows at a comparatively (or indeed actually) reasonable price. not sure, or convinced, that i could ever offer practical "tourist" guides, but still. if one is in London (innit) anyway and fancies a show, it can be done. avoid the many touts on the go, avoid the third party ticket sellers. just use your phone (or what have you) to search for the theatre of a show you want to see and it's likely you will pick up tickets on the cheap for a performance that day or the next. obviously there can be no certainty you will get tickets for a specific show you have in mind, although actually yes i did. 

when one considers that there London (innit) a common thought is "expensive". or even, if you have a penchant for clarification, that it is all "f*****g expensive". this can indeed all so often be true, but as a further sort of guide thing, the programme was (as it was at Fawlty Towers) £5, and this ice cream, bought as a friend insisted i have one, was £3.50. no idea on drinks at the Noel Coward theatre as the upstairs bar was closed, but these two (2) prices didn't feel overtly excessive. the programme was somewhat disappointing compared to the Fawlty Towers one. where that one had a piece by John Cleese and featured some great articles, this one is mostly (or for the most part) adverts for other shows. in regards of content relevant to the play, a reprint of a Kubrick interview from the 60s and some brief notes on the cast and crew. 

right, the play itself. whereas overall it was excellent, a reversal of Fawlty Towers. the first act of Dr Strangelove is a frenetic, almost exhausting, breath-taking joy to behold, the second act somewhat and very surprisingly drops a lot of the energy as it strolls to a conclusion. a change in pacing that i would not immediately recall being the case in the film, but "different medium", etc. when the interval came i was absolutely buzzing at how great the performance was, but did have some kind of peculiar inkling that there was no way it could keep up for the remainder. this was partially correct. 

yes. as you can (kind of) see in the above, i did elect to sneak a picture. well, it was when the cast took a well deserved bow at the end of the performance, so i figured if the (very friendly) staff were going to kick me out for it the worst that would happen is that i would beat the crowds leaving. that is the presidential table in the war room in the background. huge, huge, massive applause to the crew for the amazing way they with precision changed the sets. 

for the unequivocal star of the show, what a privilege to see Steve Coogan, surely one of the greatest talents our little island has produced, take on doing this. there would have been little, if any, sense in him simply doing a Peter Sellers impression, and indeed he does not. but still, remains true to the incredible performance in the film. the biggest" change he did to the characters was perhaps the most straightforward thing to do - accents. for Mandrake (the RAF captain) he had a quasi HMKC3(PO) tint to the voice, for Dr Strangelove he went more camp than i expected, and for the president a rather more statesman like figure was cut. not a phrase i like using, but at first this does kind of "subvert expectations". for the non-Sellers part, the bomber pilot Kong, one gets the feeling that Coogan had immense fun taking on this role, and rightly so. 

warning, as an obligatory, needless and upsetting for some selfie follows. 

the greatest thing this production does, and believe me there is much great, is that the entire weight of success is not rested on Mr Coogan's capable shoulders. make no mistake, he is the star, it was and is a very big deal that he took this on, but it is not simply a matter of let's all celebrate how excellent Steve Coogan is. each and every part is cast to perfection, all of the performances make this what it is. whereas it feels desperately unfair to single out some of the actors i shall do so anyway. particular praise goes to John Hopkins for his portrayal of Ripper - if taking on a part made famous by Peter Sellers is a challenge then so too is that for a role played by Sterling Hayden. and bravo too to Giles Terera as Turgidson, whose energy and performance carried the war room scenes to perfection. 

how much does the play deviate from the film? not greatly, and remains true to the time in which it was set. which may confuse some "younger" audiences when needing change for a payphone is a rather crucial (and funny) key to the plot. a few extra bits of dialogue crop up. Strangelove makes some truly hilarious references to his "previous employer" that there's no way Kubrick could have got away with in the early 60s, and the never seen Russian president has a decidedly "Putin" feel to him. any and all changes to dialogue feel very much within the essence of the original. 

right, i think that's that. well there's probably (likely) loads more i could write if i thought about it, but it is somewhat late in the day for me to all of a sudden start thinking prior to taking to the keyboard. not sure if i shall get to another show (but who knows), i just hope that all fortunate enough to go and see this one enjoy it as much as i did. 

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

just the twinkling lights of heaven

howdy pop pickers

yes, yes, every single year i write "no, i am not going to mark anniversaries no more", figuring that i had written all that i could write. but, well, here we are, look you see. on this day today, as in when this is published or "goes live" on the internet, it's a staggering 33 years since i last saw Bowie, or if you will that amount of time since i saw tin machine.  

to write what i (more or less) normally do, if you go back through this blog of mine it is mostly so that on the 5th November of each year i commemorate this, a distinct highlight of my life. make of that statement what you will. usually i include a snippet, video or audio, of bootlegs of the actual gig i was at. these are things people have very kindly given me over the years. 

for a slight change, this is all from some of the promo stuff the band did for both the album, imaginatively titled tin machine ii, and the tour on which i saw them. the images here, and the first of two (not three) videos, are from their neither memorable nor celebrated appearance on Wogan, which was of course presented by the much loved, much missed Terry Wogan. 

here, or rather below, is their "performance" (i believe it may be mimed) of You Belong In Rock N Roll, which was the lead single for the album. and a top tune. i have had to quasi recompress an already compressed video to be able to add it here, so apologies for the likely poor quality. 

some years ago i added the above, plus the interview with "Woges", on that you tube thing. you are here now so you might as well click on the above, but if you are really keen and want to see a more better version then search away on that you tube thing. 

indeed it is so, and you are not mistaken. should you have watched the video and thought something along the lines of "is that a lady massage device (ahem) what Reeves Gabrels is playing the guitar with", yes it us. no idea how they got that one past the BBC, except for reasons of being David Bowie. 

don't believe the myth, rumour or stories that tin machine were in some way "rubbish", by the way. please go and explore both their albums. sure, one or two songs (mostly those where they let Hunt Sales sing) are a bit below average, but there's some amazing stuff on there. 

one never really knows if an anniversary they are celebrating is going to be the last time they are able to do so. just in case, then, i have borrowed a bit of video from a previous post. below is the end of the gig i was at, with David saying goodnight to everyone. 

quite likely i wrote similar to this on the original post, but anyway - you feel free to "keep" this video, and play it every night before bed. there are far worse things one could do in this life than have David Bowie say goodnight to them daily. 

i'm a hurt, i'm a hurt, i'm a hurting

tolerate, next

hello there

really it is so that i have no wish for this all to be "what about" or "told you so". just observations, look you see. indeed some shall see this as a whine, whereas others might (or may) see one or two valid points being aired. or not. oddly i suspect a lot of it will affirm decidedly different views. 

as for what this is about, mostly it's the latest (for want of a better word) curious idea from our reasonably recently elected government here in the UK. their latest, somewhat ambitious plan to "fix" the nation is to give what is casually referred to as "fat jabs" to the unemployed. no, not injections to make them fat, but rather the opposite (lose weight). if you are unaware of this plan, or doubt that it is so, well you can read more on it via clicking here. 

for the most part (or mostly) i think this is yet another early doors example of the great dangers when one votes against something rather than for (or in favour of) something. it was very much the case that Labour, specifically Sir Keir, didn't offer much other than "not being the Tories". kicking the Conservative party out of power was, if we are honest, a necessity. unfortunately the gamble made on this is that (virtually) anyone else "could do no worse". 

where does one even start unpicking this latest sh!t. normally the Labour party are heralded as the compassionate ones, the ones who want tolerance and acceptance of everyone. many are the things i neither like nor understand of this century, but the drive to have greater understanding for mental or psychological wellbeing has been excellent. and now we have a government that are prepared to tell all the people not gainfully employed that it is because they are fat, and they shall either force or coerce all of them into getting injections to "fix" this. fix this with an injection of something which isn't actually designed or intended to cause weight loss, but appears to do that anyway. 

having read up (slightly) on these miracle injections (i am not naming brands, i have no wish for a cease and desist notice) there also appears to be anecdotal (or incidental) indicators that they can also in some way "control" behaviour and deal with addiction. fascinating. we are casually going into the dangerous territory depicted in works such as A Clockwork Orange and 1984, then. 

yes, it was indeed with interest that i saw claims that 'obesity' now "costs" the NHS more than what smoking apparently does. this does not appear to have been followed up with any increase in tax on foods deemed to be unhealthy, nor has it led to bans on advertising, age restrictions or limitations on where one may eat such. do not be surprised if such starts to flow, assuming they get away with this idea and by some chance it does not work as intended. 

just where, exactly, would the government get the idea that they can go around injecting the people who elected them with something that are certain "might" work? oh yes, the great plague of a few years ago. the covid vaccinations were, of course, heavily encouraged but not compulsory and certainly not enforced. well, yes, some high profile businesses went "no vaccination, no job", but that wasn't adopted as a law. indeed there were some wild conspiracies about those injections, often featuring a strange idea of some computer dude taking control of people, but beneath the weird perhaps they were right, be careful of giving those in power the power to go around injecting you with stuff. 

should they go ahead with this idea it will be interesting to see what happens when it does not work. what shall they gain, exactly, from telling people they are fat and need not to be to work, giving them these injections, have them lose weight (assuming it works) and still they cannot get a job, and still our country remains "broken"? maybe i am being pessimistic in this one. well, why not just give us all these injections and have us all be one and the same, exactly like Sir Keir and his crew believe we should be. surely it could be all no worse than it is now. 

generally i would have thought it is only an idiot or a dictator believing themselves to be infallible who(m) would go ahead and attack their own people. a far from complete list of people Sir Keir has taken a full tilt assault approach on now features children, the elderly, smokers, anyone working for anything other than rail companies and now the unemployed, presumed to be overweight. in regards of the only people he actually seems interest in the welfare of, i note with some interest that the railway employees, in particular the law unto themselves lot at Transport For London, he has given all that money to are to go on strike again for even more money. who saw that coming. 

we're nothing, and no one will help us. 

adventure in the forbidden zone

howdy pop pickers

so far as i am aware (or can recall) this is now the second post i have done on vibes that is not to do with the new tape (which they are releasing on tape) off of The Cure, which i had foolishly expected to be the next one i did. my assumption was that no further tunes would come along in that time, look you see. i was, and no not the first time and unlikely to be the last, wrong. although this one is, kind of, very much of The Cure and certain contemporaries. 

i don't quite rightly know when i first became aware of a gig by someone called Sanctum Sanctorium happening within walking distance of my place of living in this era of exile. rather likely that it was on an advert in a game on that social media thing. however my awareness came to be i am jolly glad that it did come to be, as it was one hell of a fun gig. 

prior to me going "off on one", let me link away to Sanctum Sanctorium (The Dark Side Of The 80s) for those interested. here's their official website and here is the facebook thing for them. should chance permit, yes, oh my, i thoroughly endorse going to see them. 

everything about the videos i have attempted to film (or take) with my phone at gigs suggest i should really not bother. so, i have not. also not all that many pictures. well, i did find myself front row centre at this gig, so it felt quite rude to get the phone out and be a teenager. being honest, i was also having far too much fun "dancing", or jumping up and down with a bit of a shuffle, to worry too much about documenting it all. 

what's the band all about, and why (if interested) the title? very much that "dark side of the 80s" that they give themselves a tagline of. a Sanctum Sanctorium gig is built on some of the finest songs gone done by bands diverging away from the beaten track of 80s pop classics. you know, the music of The Cure, Bauhaus, Siouxsie And The Banshees and The Cult, among others. other such as The Damned and similar. music from them that one seldom heard on Radio 1, or saw on Top Of The Pops. yes, indeed, nearly all of them featured on that show at some point, but with more popular songs than what were on offer at this gig.

a peculiar quirk of my time, if not my generation, is that few i knew had elder siblings. often it felt, to my teenage mind (or what have you), that we were a "next generation" thing, bereft as we mostly were of the influence of elder brothers or sisters. of those few ("less") older brothers and sisters of friends, well, i am not sure if they have any awareness (or care) of the influence. music has long since been my passion, even before the teen years. i vividly recall one older sister of a friend telling me that i was "not allowed" to be a fan of certain bands, which age 8 or 9 i took quite seriously. whilst my mid 80s was very, very much the likes of Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Duran Duran, Sigue Sigue Sputnik and what have you, every now and then i went off and sought out those bands i was "banned" from liking. 

quite a pleasant surprise, then, for me to find that i actually knew (and was familiar with) most of the songs what they did at the gig. by no means all, but overall a lot. it was most impressive, for instance, that they commenced with A Forest off of The Cure. partially i was thinking that it was a major song to be starting a show with, but then it dawned on me that they had at their disposal a wealth of similarly outstanding tunes to fill the set with. 

highlights? there were no down moments. both lead singers are gifted, and get all full tilt into character for the songs. well, yes, all right, being right at the front and surrounded by some amazing ladies, all resplendent in fine goth / indie attire, all of us dancing away and digging the vibe, was brilliant. musically it may be that my knees never, ever recover from the excessive jumping up and down with joy at She Sells Sanctuary off of The Cult. now that i think, that might explain why my right calf muscle has felt totes f****d for the last week or so. 

certainly Hong Kong Garden was a brilliant part, with it of course being that song being a highlight of any day or evening. yes, true, i would have loved Peek A Boo, one of my all time favourite songs ever, but that was somewhat (slightly) outside of the "darker side" stuff, and as amazing as all of the band were, probably a nightmare to try and do live. 

bonus points, indeed, for how the gig all ended. it was very much an iconic rock moment that i had always dreamt of. for some reason the band really, really like smoke machines. during the gig there were one or two members of the audience coughing and spluttering, so ramped up the machines were. for some reason it seems i am quite fine with inhaling vast quantities of smoke (sorry). anyway, as the last song approached, they kept ramping up the smoke machines. a lady with a torch kept sneaking on to the stage to turn them down and the band were very much like (in a nice way) "f*** off" and turned them back up. so much so that, in the end, either fuses were blown or the smoke alarms were fired off and the power to the stage was cut. a fine Spinal Tap moment. 

two somewhat different variations exist in terms of life. some say you should never do as a job that which you love as it will destroy your love, others will argue that if you do what you love for a living then it doesn't feel like work. at some stages of this gig i found myself reflecting on what a total and utter f*****g sell out i have been all my life, like them i should have followed my passion for music. oh, i don't have a single ounce of talent or ability musically, but still. i was always fascinated by the likes of Peter Grant, Malcolm Mclaren and, yes, Ian Faith. perhaps i really should have used my life as a rock and roll manager, with (of course) a cricket bat. 

best gig of the year so far? well, no, i saw Suede twice. and the Manics that amount of times. certainly this was way, way better than the James debacle. if it means anything at all as an endorsement, it is very much that i shall actively be seeking the chance to see Sanctum again. 

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

yet more new shoes

now then

well, as the post says, more shoes. indeed it has not been all that long since i last purchased a pair, look you see. however, i have managed to put a hole in the top of one of them (the right one, if of interest) and this, it turns out, has greatly undermined the scant waterproof qualities they had. now is not the time of year to be wearing shoes what get your socks wet, no matter what Traffic or Neil Pye have to say about it. 

at the risk of the accusation of being some sort of fashionista or trendy, yes, i went and bought some Nike ones this time. no matter what you may think, or "know as fact", the only reason for this was that they were the only ones which fitted me. and fitted exceptionally well. 

for purposes of complete disclosure, and surely all actual disclosure is complete or it is not disclosure as such, where was i, oh yes, these shoes (or trainers, or whatever people call them now) are of the named style "defy all day". no, i have no idea what it is i, or these shoes, shall defy all day, and i cannot find any documentation in respect of what they may do on a night. 

going on what it says on the label, and indeed how they look, it is the "triple black" style of this type of quality footwear off of Nike. i have never really considered it, but am now sure that Nike define a shoe as consisting of three bits, and in each instance all of them on this shoe are black. admittedly yes i did have a think about some what had a white bottom part (tread, i believe), but up to now my interesting three quarter life crisis has not delved so deep into insanity. 

size 13 for me, which apparently is a 14 in America. my feet would not be cursed with such an unlucky measurement if i were on the other side of the Atlantic, then. provenance is indeed Sports Direct, and once again quite the farce with price. as you can (vaguely) make out, they were "supposed" to be £59.99, but were rather clearly marked as £48. when i got to the till of course the price came up as a straight, if not flat, £50. briefly i remonstrated, drawing the attention of the cashier to the marked price. he consulted with a colleague, and they had a debate about "incorrect labels", and muttered stuff along the lines of how it was the "table stock only" which should be marked such, with the shoes stacked either next to or under the table being slightly higher. a few moments of this were enough, i just said f*** it and agreed to pay the £50, as i wanted/needed the shoes and getting the absolute f*** out of Sports Direct that bit quicker was easily worth £2.

just why does this keep happening at Sports Direct? i do find it fascinating that i always seem to get hit with these "unexpected" higher prices at the till, and would speculate i am not alone. could it really be their highly regarded, much admired owner loves "getting one over" people to that extent? had it been a case of the shoes being marked £50 i would have bought them anyway. baffling that they appear to relish, or get some thrill from, overcharging at the till. especially such a relatively negligible amount. 

indeed my preference would have been for further Sketchers, despite the fact that they don't seem to hold up at all well to a (lit) cigarette being dropped on them. sadly they had none of the "proper" Sketchers in my size, just those ridiculous "slip on" or "lace free" ones, which are slippers and i am not walking around the world in them. actually not buying Sketchers for a while may well prove a good idea. this little incidental no choice boycott might send a signal to them about the silly lace free ones, and teach them a lesson about using Jamie Redknapp to promote them. probably not, but still. 

don't really have that much else to say on the subject. have i done the size thirteen (13) shoe jokes? likely, but still, go on then. it is true what they say about men with big feet; we need big socks and big shoes. feel free to use that one in conversation. or just randomly fax it to people. 

if you were hoping for any sort of practical review then i suppose you haven't read many of my other posts here. the top bit is a leathery like (or leather) tough material. i am assuming this shall prove more resilient to a cigarette (or two) being dropped on it, unlike that mesh material on the other pair. 

right, let me go for a stroll in them. or just stand around looking all cool. 

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

roll 'em over the bridge

ow do

every now and then i get to do a sort of (kind of) tourist like thing when down in that there London place. mostly, predominantly (or even ostensibly) i am there for concerns of verk, look you see. at the least i am when not being struck by sleeping drivers. whilst not really there to take in the sights, once in a while there is an incidental possibility to do so. 

this very thing happened not so long ago. it was the early (ish) throes of October of this year (2024) when it was so that the only practical way to get somewhere for verk was via the historical site of Tower Bridge. well, not me as such, but my driver, or if you will co-pilot. just to be clear, all images and video (yes, we have got a video) were taken by moi from the safety of the passenger seat. 

had it been, or were it so, that you hoped for some sort of "proper" images and video here, well, no. i opted to use VHS mode for it all. this is how you would have captured the scenes of Tower Bridge if you were reasonably wealthy in the 80s, or at any point in the 90s when VHS cameras, or if you will camcorders, became more affordable. 

when one finds themselves in the south east area of London (innit), be it by choice, misfortune or a direct instruction, they become aware of just how difficult it is to get back across to the northern side of the river, as it is affectionately known, or the Thames. effectively to do this you must pay, be it cash, fines or a lot of time. one could use the celebrated dartford crossing, which costs money as it is a toll and takes you around the M25 to get somewhere. the blackwall tunnel is about to become a toll too, thanks to that awful mayor. an option for regular (as in not commercial) vehicles is something called the rotherhithe tunnel, but cross that in anything but a car and you get a fine. so, tower bridge it is. 

one suspects, if not fears, that restrictions and costs shall some come the way of tower bridge. that it is presently free of such suggests that the mayor has simply forgotten about it. with the heavy traffic on it as it is, and the likely increase in such from 2025 on, undoubtedly it shall soon have "structural damage", needing urgent fines and repairs (in that order). 

for those of you who really, really like moaning about the shocking state of London roads, hold on as there will be a bit more later. right now, though, some of that video which was mentioned. yes, of course it is all VHS mode. did they even do a Betamax camcorder? 

my experience of crossing tower bridge was more or less like that of doing a fairground or theme park ride. there was an hour or so of waiting to go on it (surrounded, of course, by impatient, ignorant and quite often entitled people), the experience of being on it lasts somewhere south of two minutes and one was left wondering if it really was worth the effort. the bridge, i suppose, was slightly cheaper than one of them rides, in coins of money terms at least. sat in that traffic is an hour i am not getting back, and is not really how i would have necessarily expected to spend such time. 

some of the lengthy delay was due to roadworks. these are a never ending thing in that there London. it is almost as if absolutely no one takes them to task, or has any sort of deadline in place. one really cannot blame them doing the work, for left unchecked why would one (anyone) not simply drag it all out forever and ever so as to ensure they perpetually got paid. from experience it is only them what do the actual job they are paid to do that get any attention, and then bewilderingly negative. 

a view of the Thames above, for you, then. this is (of course) off of the left hand side as one travels from south to north. west, i suppose, then. unless there is some backward thing and going south to north in this way meant i was looking to the east. don't think so, but bases covered if so. 

certain other things caused extensive delays to getting to the bridge and crossing it. one such matter was vehicles of a service nature parked here and there. a temptation exists to call them "ignorant, inconsiderate f***heads" and indeed people do this. however, presuming that people want their houses or things in them fixed and want deliveries (to homes or shops) they have to park somewhere, and of course no one has provided any space to do so. sure, some of the parking endeavours were based on pure selfish ignorance, or perhaps even spite, but not all. 

roughly three quarters of a million japanese tourists milling about the bridge certainly didn't help the flow of traffic. as is pretty standard for japanese tourists they all seemed mesmerised (or perhaps even hypnotised) by it all, aimlessly wandering in and out of the road, taking images on all sorts of devices. for all i know this is a rite of passage for japanese people; that they must contribute to the chaos of tower bridge at least once in their life and document such. this would certainly account for the roughly three quarters of a million japanese tourists staying at the same hotel i was in. 

what next for tower bridge? at least so far as vehicles go? i would not be at all surprised if the mayor of London announces a full tilt ban on all "commercial" vehicles, forcing them onto crossings which are well out of the way and are, of course, ones you have to pay to use. undoubtedly he will use his celebrated co-incidental interpretation of "science" to do it, rather than an actual, causal one. it shall not be a surprise if this is where he first introduces the "pay per mile" scheme everyone knows is his dream. a wish of many is that he would care a little less about milking motorists and a great deal more about concerns such as children stabbing each other, but they voted for him.

do i recommend, or suggest, going along to tower bridge? not really. well, if being in an overcrowded place and adding to existing chaotic confusion is your thing, off you go. also apparently if you are a japanese tourist this is a formality. essentially it's a semi-functional bridge and serves that purpose in a vague way, with it being a curiosity that it looks different from others. the actual Tower Of London thing near it is more than likely worth a visit, in particular if you are into history and such. 

by the way, if any sort of soundtrack struck you in the videos, what you are (or were) hearing is (or indeed was) Dead Against It off of David Bowie. should it be so that you've not heard it then i suggest you go and source a copy of the album it is off, The Buddha Of Suburbia, as soon as possible. 

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

blossoms before the cure, then

howdy pop pickers

well, what do you know. yes, i know the answer to that is probably more than me, look you see, but still. the last time i gone done a post on vibes was Now 18, and i rather foolishly said that it was rather unlikely for me to have any other new tunes before the much lauded return of The Cure. i at the time had no idea that i would take ownership of an album off of someone called Blossoms, something aided by the fact that i had not a clue they had a record out. or how many they have actually done. 

so, there i was, as usual (when chance permits) browsing the Oxfam music shop in Ealing. from time to time it is so that record labels (or their hired pluggers) drop off a few copies of a new release as a donation, for them to sell at whatever price they feel appropriate. which is exactly how i came to own the most recent Kaiser Chiefs album, before posting it on to Dad as he seemed rather keen on it. 

prior to picking up this tape (yes, for £1.99, which admittedly was the selling point) i don't believe i had ever knowingly heard anything off of them. quite likely that i have heard them, via the crime of listening to Zoe Ball every now and then. she will have had them on and been drooling about them as they are rather handsome lads and that's her way. beyond that my working knowledge of Blossoms would be that they did some covers of The Smiths songs with Rick Astley, and they are one of several bands enthusiastically lobbying to be on the support bill for the imminent Oasis legal costs tour. 

currently i have this tape (disc), Gary, on. it is quite likely the 10th time i have played it, since it's all of 30 minutes long, and i am not sure it shall ever be played again. this doesn't necessarily mean it is bad, just pretty meaningless and apparently designed, as is so much of this century i detest, to exist and be forgotten fast. 

my best possible description of this Gary album, and perhaps Blossoms all together, is that it is all surprisingly and remarkably anonymous. no, it's not the bland, beige, soulless stuff like what Coldplay and The Killers do, all designed just to fill stadiums. there's very, very clearly some talented musicians here, and some passion for great music. which makes it somewhat curious that it's all restrained, there's no risks, no exposing themselves (not like that), no saying much of anything. bar the titular track i suppose, which i believe references a stolen statue of a gorilla (or similar).

a bit of a strange phenomenon with the 30 minute (or half an hour) running time. whereas this length seems to be the "new normal", going on Kasabian and the previously linked Kaiser Chiefs records being of this same time, this feels longer. it's not like it is dragged out, it appears not to be as punchy or as free flowing as the other two. 

the best parts of this album (and i have no idea if this is standard for whatever else they have gone done) is when they sound quite like a breezy, whimsical Serge out of Kasabian on a particularly psychedelic day. nothing wrong with that, except of course we already have a Serge out of Kasabian what does that sort of thing. massive, huge alarm bells on the admittedly catchy song Perfect Me, where they appear to be trying to sound like ELO and Ringo Starr doing some generic thing that they know would sell plenty to people of a certain age and disposition. you are young lads, stop it. 

i find myself in a weird position here, as much of anything i can think of to write is going to sound like an attempt to knock them (or knock them more) where i generally have no wish to do so. again, there's clear quality, passion and talent lurking in this band, but they are flat refusing to let it come to the fore. my immediate comparisons are, oddly, Seven & The Ragged Tiger off of Duran Duran and Pop by U2. as in albums by bands who could and would do much better, but delivered what they could get away with when a foolishly planned release date was looming. 

oh dear, something called Cinnamon has come on. it's a nightmare flashback to all that quasi acoustic sh!t off of America which plagued the world around the turn of the century. it's even worse than that one where they try to sound like ELO, as much as that gets you Radio 2 airplay. 

yes, this album, Gary, is both the first and the last Blossoms album i shall ever own. i have every confidence they can do much, much better but i simply don't have the compulsion to explore. rather likely that the band shall survive just fine without my interest, which is a good thing. 

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

kind of sort of not bad

hello there

well, a bit of a rarity for me these days as chance allowed me to watch something on that Netflix thing. indeed i do pay for it, look you see, but as they have "locked down" stuff i leave the account for them at the house to watch whilst i rely on videos (discs) for the most part in my place of exile. so, for reasons i shall not disclose, time at the house meant that i got to watch Beverly Hills Cop 4, or as it appears to be called Beverly Hills Cop Axel Foley. 

again i am loathe to call anything of this nature what i write a "review" as such. presumably all that wish to see the film, or avoid it, will have comfortably done so without my input. but, for those in a rush and wishing to avoid "spoilers", it's enjoyable as far as being the ultimate personification of what they call "fan service", but overall deeply flawed and shockingly poorly made. 

by "fan service" i mean we are well and truly, somewhat unexpectedly, in Lethal Weapon 4 territory here. there's a vague, marginal plot, but overall the film is effectively a quasi reunion home video shot on the fly. happily, or luckily, all of the lead actors remain true to their characters as they are so fondly remembered (The Last Jedi this is not, perhaps there is a god) and so little of that matters. 

to pick up on the flaws is to nitpick, but here we are. firstly, the "plot", basically about police corruption. we, the audience, are expected to accept that Rosewood and Taggart would fall out over whether one high ranking copper (Kevin Bacon) is corrupt or not to the extent that Rosewood quits the force. if this is unlikely in the "Beverly Hills Cop universe" then it is all the more unlikely that Taggart would have not spotted the copper in question very much is corrupt, be it the expensive shoes or the fancy rolex watch giving the game away early doors. 

one early source of amusement is also a bit of a flaw. i am reluctant to say "plot hole" as that generally implies a plot exists to feature holes. most, if not all, of the opening credits are of Axel Foley driving around Detroit, being told to "f*** off" or "f*** you" by most of the city. yes, amusing, and a lovely self-depreciating touch by the affable Eddie Murphy, but it does somewhat undermine that his legend is that he's one of the best undercover cops the world has ever seen. 

for poorly made, well, i am not sure if it was all lazy or sloppy or everyone involved went "it doesn't matter, people will be thrilled to see the beloved characters and too busy laughing". in one of the earlier chase scenes, and there are many, a stunt double (or stunt actor) falls into a fountain. presumably they were supposed to look like they had been knocked in, or taken into it with momentum. nope, they just fall into it for no apparent reason. 

sadly this sloppiness (or what have you) quite ruins the return of Serge. it wasn't so long ago i rewatched the original, and my word has it held up well. of the many moments of genius in that film there was the perfection of comic timing. when, in the original, Axel said "get the f*** out of here" the split second Serge response of "no i cannot do that" was comedy gold. an attempt is made to recreate that, but there's too much of a gap between the two talking for it to work. rather deflating. 

it was somewhat disappointing to have, at long last, Kevin Bacon back in a major film title only to see his talents wasted. whereas in the original Steven Berkoff absolutely rose to the extremely well constructed part of the villain, Victor, here Kevin Bacon is expected to just stand around and be Kevin Bacon whilst everyone else gets on with whatever. 

but still i enjoyed it. Eddie Murphy, the now sadly late John Ashton and Judge Reinhold played their parts once more to perfection. so what at, if times, it was like watching some videos of them messing around? that's where a lot of the love for the original (and second one) came from. i would rather this existed than it did not, and would take the film all day every day over some dreadful remake. but no, rather unlikely i would watch it again. 

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

i was always looking left and right

now then

at the risk of indulging the theatrical, or even simply being disposed to the dramatic, that was something of a close call, look you see. in respect (or regards) of what was a close call, that would be finding myself, moi, being involved in a reasonably significant automobile incident. or a crash, to be sure. 

this happened not too long ago, at least in terms of time of writing. recently, even. for those hoping to learn of some physical harm to me, alas none was incurred. i was (perhaps to state the obvious) left in some distress, if it pleases you to consider me so. 

nothing has been confirmed (as such) but i suspect them what are responsible for the vehicle, as in whoever it is verk has handle such things, shall declare it a write off. to be fair my mode of transport had reached an age where they usually take it off the road. indeed i shall miss her, for in total we did enough miles to go around (circumnavigate, i believe the proper word is) earth just slightly north of ten times. we have had some quite jolly adventures. 

what, exactly, happened? i was driving along as usual when i noted the car going (or coming) the opposite way was weaving rather badly. mostly they were staying in their designated lane, but with nowhere to turn off (as such) i elected to keep as far to the left as possible. with left being the proper, correct side to drive on, no matter what the Americans or French think. as it turns out it was wise to do so, as they veered right into me, somewhat or contextually "thankfully" colliding mostly with the rear, or back, as you can see in the above. 

it is good to be able to advise neither of us involved were (physically) hurt or injured. quite the tank, my vehicle, and in general the safety of cars has advanced somewhat over the years. the police were in attendance relatively quickly, and the other driver admitted to them that they had fallen asleep at the wheel. my sense is that it would be inappropriate to comment any further. 

my main regret here, overall, is the "last song" played. obviously i had no idea that it would be the final ever (unless they deem it worthwhile to repair), but still i would have had a preference for something a bit cooler than Come Back And Stay off of Paul Young. oh well. 

since this blog is, after all, ostensibly called superstition is all we have left, it would be rather amiss not to give some consideration to the matter of a smashed mirror. the second mirror to get smashed on me during the year (2024) when prior to that i had experienced none. a question of "luck" is posed. from what i recall if you smash a mirror then seven (7) years bad luck is on the way. however, i didn't personally or directly smash either, yet i was the (ostensible) custodian of each. we shall see how all that sort of thing goes, then. 

yes, there is the temptation for speculation. had the collision been more to the front then it could have been all rather bad for me. but then had i not been there at all it's likely the car was heading straight into a house. so as to give a final thought, if you feel for any reason that you are in no fit state to drive, please give thought to not driving.

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