vine valuation

hello reader

it is not all that often, from what i can recall, that i give a preview of books i have every intention of reading. well, i am doing so now, look you see, since i made a vague, non-committal gesture of promise to a (very good) friend that i would go and gone done read this one. actually, it might have been that they casually asked if, when it came out in (my preferred) paperback was i going to read it and my answer was of a "yes, probably" nature. 

the book, or if you will novel, is Murder On Line One off of Jeremy Vine, as in (very much) that Jeremy Vine. going on the blurb or write up on the back it seems he has, for what i believe is his debut novel, wisely stuck with that "write what you know" advice, for the protagonist (or "central character") is indeed a radio show host. mostly, i would suggest, i am troubling all who(m) bother to read this post with an update on it to showcase the disparity in pricing across shops. 

during a visit to Morrisons one day was when i first observed that it, the novel, was now out in paperback. generally i have a preference for shopping at Morrisons, mostly as they are (i think) the only supermarket here in the UK what sells tapes, be it in compact disc, dvd or blu ray format. yes i would rather like to go to HMV for such, but hey, convenience. also, in my experience, the Morrisons "loyalty bonus" customer discounts and what have you are second only to Lidl in regards of being the best. 

but, that said, Morrisons generally do not do "cheap" or discounted books. quite strange saying that, what with the "RRP" (which saves one typing out recommended retail price) for this one is £9.99, and to be fair they are selling it for £6, which is a discount of (hang on whilst i p!ss about with a calculator for this) around 39%. from what i recall it is only "proper" book shops that sell novels at the actual listed price on the cover. 

later on in the day, when i required a brief break for both a coffee and the use of a gentleman's restroom facility (not for Spiros reasons), i happened to be at a Tesco. there i saw they also had it for £6, or, as either a "thank you" or a "f*** you" (depending on your stance on Vine) to holders of their club card thing, one could get it for £4. which is a discount of just south of 60% on that RRP thing (no, i am not going to type out recommended retail price again). whereas Tesco are not quite so good with "money off" vouchers as Morrisons their "clubcard" prices are, being fair, really good. but still, Lidl is excellent with money off and discounts. 

none of this, i am rather keen to point out, is any sort of "dig" (or similar go) at Jeremy Vine. whilst i just find some of his talk show / phone in subjects bonkers (as in "have you ever had funny looks when you have gone to buy a chainsaw", as if such was a frequent thing), i do appreciate he is divisive for some. mostly i have a great deal of admiration for him as he has stood up to them hideous "internet trolls", pursuing matters of some rather really vile abuse online all the way through court. well done to him, and i do wish more people would simply not listen to, or pay attention to, people that they do not like instead of feeling a need to hurl abuse. 

purchase decision made, then, and of course the economies of the Tesco price prevailed, or if you like won out. not (too) sure the Fern Britton endorsement made that much of a difference, but still it didn't really put me off. i am somewhat baffled by the (of course slightly redacted) receipt what came with it, at least about the "notus" which appears in the description of the item (the book) purchased. can't work out if this is Tesco saying "not us" as in nothing to do with them, or "not US", as in this edition is not, for whatever reason, allowed to be sold in America. my best guess would be the latter, but no, i would have no idea why they would feel the need to clarify that. possible it's just how the works experience kid in the office programmed the barcode. 

when, exactly, will (or shall) i read this one? eventually, i suppose. over the years the genre of "celebrity novels" has been a bit hit and miss, with (alas) miss more often than not being the result. i suspect the only qualified (or unqualified if you prefer) success for a "celebrity novelist" is them Thursday Murder Club books off of that tall bloke who(m) is the brother of the boss bass player out of Suede and, of course, started off as a backing dancer for Sonia. yet i don't think he ever actively sought fame. kind of hope this one turns out to be decent, mind. 

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

bulgarian bootleg bowie best

howdy pop pickers

well, to be fair, it's actually labelled very best, but to put the full title in would spoil a rather fine bit of alliteration, look you see. should you want (or need) some clarification as to what, exactly, this post is about, it is indeed about a David Bowie (very) best of tape (disc) what i gone done found. one that was very clearly a bootleg and, as it turns out, is off of bulgaria, wherever that is. 

quite some time ago (as in north of five years) i did a "thing" where once a month i posted a good deal of random, meandering thoughts about each of the albums what he (Bowie) did. yes, of course, here is for your pleasure a link to, well, links to the posts for each album. i skipped the numerous "best of" sets and indeed the live albums, kind of intended to do them one day, but so far such a day has yet to dawn. oh well. should you want a quick guide to the best of sets, i think the one i would reccomend most highly is the two tape (disc) version of Nothing Has Changed, although the three disc set is not at all bad. personally i don't like the 90s two tape (or disc) Singles Collection purely because it features the album versions of singles rather than the single edits. 

anyway, this one. David Bowie Very Best appears to be the "official" title. whereas i have seen bootleg sets before (and have a few live bootlegs) i have never really bothered with them. this one was intriguing though, mostly due to someone somewhere considering one specific song to be of his "very" best. so, i picked it up down the market. later research (here) shows that it is of bulgarian provenance, a place where i do not believe much respect for pesky things like copyright and royalties exists. 

for a week or so it has, unexpectedly, very rarely strayed from my stereo. as in, despite my initial thoughts, this is a really good mix. perhaps not quite a definitive "best of", yet a mix that works really well. currently i suspect this is all down to the overtly and entirely random way the songs seem to have been slung together, rather than having them all chronological. if there is some sort of order to all of these, well, f****d if i can work out what it is. 

just for fun, then, i figured that i would go through this one track by track (as it were) to see if i think the songs are indeed the "very best". this is all, of course, my "opinion" or view, and i do indeed appreciate that as such it is by no means a definitive take on the subject. basically any song you love by anyone is deemed the "very best" for you, and that's all that really matters. go on then, i shall use some capital letters for a change, and fancy colours. 

REBEL REBEL :  unequivocally yes. devastating guitar opening hook that immediately gets you bouncing, brilliant lyrics and one of the most passionate vocal performances you could ever hope to hear off of anyone. a best of sans this one is not to be trusted. 

FAME : hmn. i go through phases of liking it and not liking it. possibly just a trifle too repetitive and monotonous musically as it plods on for me, but certainly i appreciate that was entirely the point David was making in respect of the subject matter. were i (moi) to select a song from Young Americans to represent his "very best" i would likely choose the album titular track over this. but, to clarify, no, it's not bad at all. 

LET'S DANCE : any and all Bowie greatest hits are contractually obliged to include this huge selling pop single. loyal fans from the 70s kind of baulked at this overt pop song, but to do such is a great injustice to the lyrical wonders. yeah, it is a great song, it catapulted him from respected artist to true global megastar and to this day it feels so fresh and vibrant. 

THIS IS NOT AMERICA : pretty sure there are meant (or supposed) to be some brackets in the title. difficult one this, for it is a masterpiece. whilst no, i am not a very good one, at heart i am a writer, and we writers (not that i am comparing myself to Bowie or anyone) like to set ourselves what one could deem challenges. i know i keep mentioning lyrics here, but still, the haiku like lyrics to say as much as possible with as few words as possible is damned impressive and highly effective. whereas all day every day i would reference this as being of his "very best", i would understand others leaving it aside for other, perhaps more well known ones. the film this is off, The Falcon & The Snowman, is very much worth your time watching, it was outstanding. 

MIRACLE GOODNIGHT : and so we reach the song that i was baffled, or perplexed, to see included in a "very best" of David Bowie. in what universe, i wonder, is Miracle Goodnight considered in any way superior to any of the noticeable omissions from this set, such as Ashes To Ashes or "heroes". taken from the Black Tie White Noise album, from which the artwork was also "borrowed", one would think that as a minimum criteria to be included on a "very best" a song would at least have to be the best song on that side of the tape or vinyl record of the album it is from. it really isn't. 

DANCING IN THE STREET : previously i have gone off on one (here) at people always so very keen to slate and deride this. i would get the criticism if it had been released as a "statement" or what have you, but it was not. the intention was a bit of fun by two mates, all for a good cause and to celebrate that incredible day when music felt like it could unite and change the world. sold loads of copies, of course, so if "very best" is purely sales based fair enough. musically and artistically, well, there is indeed a limit to which i will argue for this one. 

ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS : just about the only decent thing to come out of the film of this name, with the only other possible plus being Patsy Kensit. a rather good love song, and should it seem effortless well it is really just a slowed down version of Sound And Vision with different lyrics, if we are going to be (entirely) honest about it. of his 80s film songs i am not sure this ranks as high as This Is Not America and i am comfortable saying Cat People is better, although not the re-recorded version of it on the Let's Dance album. you rank Magic Dance as you will. 

DAY IN DAY OUT : you know what, it turns out that the Never Let Me Down album is as bad as it felt at the time. some of the reviews were scathing, with one famously saying "even the font for the track listing is rubbish". it is known that David was hurt, or upset, that much if not all of the album was dismissed without a proper listen, possibly due to the overt (ludicrous) theatrics of the Glass Spider tour which accompanied it. he considered Time Will Crawl as his favourite from the record, but this was a reasonable hit. wouldn't really call it one of his "very best", mind. 

JUMP THEY SAY : a second song from Black Tie White Noise, and yes this is the best off this album. very wise choice as lead single and his first solo single for a few years at the time. one of may overtly autobiographical songs he delivered (i remain convince that Strangers When We Meet is him telling the entire universe a really curious episode), i never did get why so many wished him to do a full tilt autobiography. everything he wished to share with the world he shared, with of course particular emphasis on his sense of feeling about his death. potentially a song that the wider audience of the world neglected or missed and would discover with a "wow that's awesome" sense, but once again considering some of the omissions here i am not sure it's really "very best". 

UNDER PRESSURE : iron clad, carved in stone, gilt edged yes. the origins of this song are the stuff of legend. and to give you that legend, Queen are recording in Switzerland, Bowie just happens to drop by, some (ahem) self medication takes place, John Deacon comes up with an astonishing bassline, Freddie and David have a "competition" to see who can come up with lyrics to go with it. to this end Freddie comes up with some "bedabeda bop" noises, Bowie comes up with cause love's such an old-fashioned word, and love dares you to care for he people on the edge of the night and love dares you to change our way of caring about ourselves, this is our last dance. this is ourselves. famously Charlie Watts once said that Bowie "wasn't some sort of genius". yes, actually, yes he f*****g was. 

FASHION : this is from the Scary Monsters album, the one most quoted by professional music journalists as every album he did after it was described as "his best and most important album since Scary Monsters". legend has it that Bowie got so fed up of read that he actually gave consideration to calling a record My Best & Most Important Since Scary Monsters. also the album is home to Ashes To Ashes, Teenage Wildlife and Scary Monsters & Super Creeps. none of them feature here, all are demonstrably better than Fashion. is it a good, no great, pop song? sure, but if i were doing a mix tape and was making a "very best", this would not make the cut. apologies to those that love it. 

SPACE ODDITY : Bowie's Sound+Vision "greatest hits" tour of 90 was a catharsis for him, for he made it clear that it was being done to "free" himself of being obliged to play the usual hits at every concert, with this one specifically being one he wished to retire. does not change the fact that this was arguably the start of David Bowie as a "thing" and of course it firmly belongs on any "very best" of set. rumour has it that he nearly brought it out of retirement "for fun" for Glastonbury 2000, but elected not to in the end. reasonably sure (and i am happy to be corrected) that he didn't ever do it (so to speak) at a gig between 73 and 83, but still, you can understand him getting bored of it. 

CHANGES : yes, sure. i mean if it was only one off the Hunky Dory album it would be a fight between this, Life On Mars? and (let me censor a bit) Queen B!tch. but this one accidentally (or was it deliberately) anticipated his entire career, for goodness sake. also the Bowie quote from the start of the film The Breakfast Club is off this. much to argue for this being one of his "very best", quite little in the way of conversation to say that it is not. 

ZIGGY STARDUST : iconic brilliance, the concept and character that really launched him to a high level of fame that was to get unbelievably higher. personally i might well have gone with Starman or even Moonage Daydream if it was some kind of "only one song from an album" thing, but it would take a particularly special kind of idiot not to consider Ziggy Stardust as one of his very best. such exist, i am quite certain. 

SORROW : when you do a cover version that people assume is your own thing that's quite the statement. the great Nilsson pulled it off twice with Without You and Everybody's Talkin. i could not tell you who did the original of this, if that means anything. a really, really great song. does a "cover version" really belong on the "very best" of an artist renowned for their own remarkable compositions? debatable, i suppose. all day every day it is that Sorrow could proudly be on any standard "best of", but i just don't see it as his "very best". 

KNOCK ON WOOD : which is another cover, in this instance a live one, specifically from the 1974 David Live album. as in my "least favourite" live Bowie album, right up until liveandwell.com got released as part of the ill-fated, badly named brilliant live adventures series. still, my gratitude goes to those what put this together, for hearing it "in isolation" (or what have you) amplified just how damned good Bowie's vocal performance is on it. that said, if i had to select another cover for a "very best" it would probably be Wild Is The Wind off of Station To Station. or, you know, his bonkers, can barely stop himself laughing cover of Love Missile F1-11 from the New Killer Star single. 

MODERN LOVE : oh, good call! the opening track on the Let's Dance album, i think the third single from it and, i would argue, the best of the lot. whereas it feels like this tends to get overshadowed by the titular track and China Girl (both outstanding) i have noted this one is being "rediscovered" and gets a surprisingly decent amount of play on the radio. should the mandate be "very best" then i would absolutely rank this pop perfection worthy of inclusion. 

HALLO SPACEBOY : hmn. were this the original from 1.Outside then i would argue a case for it, what with its devastating f*** you and f*** your ears drums and startling vocal. lyrically it is the direct descendant of Rebel Rebel so bravo the bootleggers for nice bookends. unfortunately this is the somewhat toned down, perhaps sanitised "subverted" single remix of it done in collaboration with the Pet Shop Boys. never really a favourite of mine in this version, truth be told. 

so, there you go. essentially this is my take on what some bootleggers have randomly taped together and labelled the "very best" of David Bowie. again, i stress, whatever songs you love by Bowie are deemed to be his very best. dig what you dig. 

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

not wanted on voyage

greetings

and so i am, for the first time in nearly a year (give or take, look you see) off on some travels. not too far, truth be told, and just for a night. reasons for this shall undoubtedly follow in a post quite soon, but if you are guessing it's vibes related, oh yes. for those following my occasional medical adventures, the most recent of which was casually being told that my heart might be at risk of "failure", well, no one has explicit said "do not travel or go to gigs". possibly don't "do" gigs like i did in my earlier years, to be fair. i do have some reservations, but hey, if i am going to go (so to speak) they why not in the pursuit, if not advancement, of rock and roll. 

even by my standards that went off at something of a tangent. arguably one could (indeed) suggest a little dark too, although (and this is no brag) i tend to be oblivious to when "dark things" that upset some just come flowing out (again, so to speak). getting back on some sort of point, going on travels means being kind of prepared, and so i have procured some items. which means yes, a lot of this shall be boring. 

the non-new item there is my David Bowie bag, or Bag of Bowie as one (very good) friend calls it. had it for somewhere north of two (2) years now. been on some adventures, that bag and i, the least of which was most decidedly not all the way to New Zealand. purchased it off of the Bowie official store, when they had what they called a "sale" but in reality reduced prices to sensible, normal levels. 

how is the bag? depends on what level you look at it. as a conversation piece it has been f*****g excellent, for lots (seriously) of people have seen me plodding along with it and stopped me to have a conversation about sometimes the bag, always Bowie. quite wonderful to have random strangers come along and agree that Bowie is quite class. functionally it has never let me down, doing all that i would ever ask of it. so long as, for the down side, what i ask is not too much, for it is noticeably smaller than a regular (or conventional) backpack. not quite kids size, but still. a particular annoyance is a lack of a side pocket or one of them mesh things for a bottle of water or similar. one cannot, however, argue with the remarkable amount of cigarettes you can get into it, and if someone (anyone) were to ask me if i would consider it more important to take water or cigarettes with me somewhere (anywhere) then the answer would be cigarettes (sorry). 

it just so happens that the "down side", the size of the bag, is a good thing. this enables me to follow the number one rule of travel, no matter how often (or frequently) i have broken it in the past - travel as light as possible. being a bit smaller means i really have to consider what i am taking wherever i go. which let to the purchases you can see above, being as they are "travel size" toiletries. 

for the item at the top, well, toothpaste is as toothpaste does. i would imagine i shall just grab one of the two toothbrushes i bought earlier in the year, which indeed i did (of course) write about here. no, i didn't expect to be doing so much dental stuff here. quite amused by the branding as "max white" there. it implies that someone out there would be interested in some toothpaste which would make their teeth white (or whiter) but not in a full tilt way. could see any "partially" or "a bit" white toothpaste on offer, so this one shall jolly well have to do. 

regular readers might find my selection of a roll on deodorant confusing if not controversial. that is indeed one of the Lynx ones, specifically "sunset fresh". here is my review of it from last year, with me not being too taken by it, at all. for whatever reason the only lynx roll on types i could find were sunset fresh or africa, and the africa one really is intended exclusively for feral teenagers in the 14 - 16 age bracket. such days are way gone for me. 

pretty sure that's me covered for the basics for travel, then. well, if we assume (correctly) that a supply of cigarettes is already well in place. as for how my adventure goes, as mentioned above i will certainly be documenting it here, so long as i live to tell the tale. which i kind of hope will be a thing. 

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

seven regular videos

heya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

encounter at a train station

greetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hello there

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we can sue if we want to

howdy pop pickers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

andrex betrayal of cushelle

g'day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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