hammer flash in the lightning

hello


well, i really don't quite follow the fascination some of you have with all this sort of thing, but here, once more, we are. exactly where we are is, yes, more shopping trolley action for your consideration, and indeed entertainment, look you see.

no, i absolutely totes do not go out looking for this sort of thing. as it happens, i seldom, if ever, go out looking for anything in particular. i suppose these days my eyes are just drawn to sights such as discarded and abandoned shopping trolleys (trollies?), for i know that there are people out there who would appreciate a bit of a gander at such.

it would be fair, and also honest, to say that the trolley pictured above has seen better days. actually, i suspect that it will not see many more days at all, as surely one so damaged is less likely to be saved, salvaged and repaired, and more likely to be beautifying a scrapyard. with the strict rules, regulation and reporting expected of scrapyards these days, this will of course be done in an off the books, cash is tax free way.

as you can (probably) see in the above, this trolley has suffered some severe, likely career ending damage to the front right wheel. there is some reason for this. i am not going to say whether that is a good or bad reason, for that is for you to determine by your own moral code. should you have no quarrel or issue with people retaining their shopping trolley for long beyond the time they used it at the shop which ostensibly owns it, well then yes.

hopefully the video above shows you (reasonably) clearly why the right front wheel was hacked off with little in the way of mercy. that seems to be where the "special magnetic lock" is, which kicks in and stops the trolley being moved beyond a specified distance from the shop of origin. it is quite miserable and unfair of them to do this, for where else are people supposed to be able to get shopping trolleys (trollies?) from?

by the way, yes, if you are reading this in America, shopping trolley is the (correct and proper) way we refer to what you call a "shopping cart". i have never, ever understood the American obsession with the word "cart", but there you go. so far as i am aware, in Japan they call them shoppingukāto, or if you like ショッピングカート. i rather like the Japanese name for them.

the second trolley to be featured here, and pictured above, is indeed unblemished and still in perfectly serviceable, presumably working condition. so i suppose it is quite boring in comparison to the one above, but then for all i know some of you may well prefer to see a trolley as it was intended to be.

not a lot left for me to say here on this subject, and if we are honest that was just as true at the start of this. all i can do is say i hope you enjoy the images and video.



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

pre and post

hi there


in recent times i have, look you see, discovered a most lovely and useful thing. this thing is called a "website", and you find it on something called the "internet", which you may well have heard of, even if only in passing in some periodical or news editorial.

anyway, this website i speak of is called Network, and you may (if you are using this "internet" business) care to visit it yourself. this you can do by "clicking" your "mouse" over these words in a different colour from the rest of this text. up to you, really, but if any of the rest of this post inspires some form of interest then you could do a lot worse than browse away.

for the most part (or if you will predominantly) the site specialises in providing for sale films and televisions shows, mostly of a British origin, which are either rare, obscure, largely forgotten about or just not generally spoken of. they are ones which tend to, or generally, be recalled fondly by a fairly decent number of people who saw them, but not quite so large a number of people to warrant a big, old fashioned whistles and bells release. best of all, perhaps, is that they are made available for sale at most agreeable and reasonable prices. which is how i came to take a chance on two films that i had not, in all truth, ever heard of before.

whereas the precise quality of Commodore 64 mode images renders redundant any need or cause for clarification, yes, the two films shown above are the ones you think. this would be The Man Who Haunted Himself, starring a pre-James Bond (Sir) Roger Moore, and Ransom, starring a decidedly post-James Bond (Sir) Sean Connery. hence the title of this post. due to (presumably) an administrative oversight neither of them were actually official Knights of the Realm at the stage they made these motion pictures, so as callous and as crass as this may be i am afraid for the rest of this post i am obliged to not use the "Sir" title for either. unless i forget and do it by mistake.

the truth is i have misplaced (or lost) the receipt or bit of paper what came with the discs. but, if i remember right, both (as in each) were south of £5 a go, with it being entirely possible that they in practical terms were even south of £3 each. although the two films did sound unusual and interesting to warrant interest anyway, it was this pricing which secured purchase. the two films having a common role like between the lead actors did not come into my thinking, and really only came to mind when i considered writing of them.

is it so that these films are any good? as it turned out, yes, indeed they are. whereas neither is likely to be considered the pinnacle or epitome of the works the Knighted Bonds did away from the role they are most closely (and fondly) associated with, these two films are most agreeable, acceptable and quite interesting viewing. do be careful reading on, then. every care shall be taken to avoid such, but from now on one of those *** SPOILER WARNING *** things are in place.

let me commence, then, with The Man Who Haunted Himself. there are a number of valid reasons for doing so. included in this is the fact that it is the one i watched first, it came out before the other one and represents the work of a Knighted Bond pre-James Bond. should you disagree with my view on this, then yes, absolutely feel free to scroll down and just start reading the other one first.

plot? yes, the film has one. Roger Moore plays a bloke who runs a massive electronics firm. He is involved in a nasty, near fatal car crash. on recovery, strange things happen. people report him behaving erratically and making out of character decisions, whilst some strangers appear to believe they have a (quite) intimate relationship with him. what is going on would be the question posed by the film. does he have an impersonator, or doppelganger, running around, or is he suffering with delusions, or a split personality?

the blurb (or text) on the back of this handsome Blu Ray and DVD combo pack states rather than suggests that The Man Who Haunted Himself presents Roger Moore's "career defining performance". i am not at all sure that i am comfortable with this. but, in fairness, i would also find it a challenge to name what i considered to be such a performance. when i think of any given Bond film he was in, they would be better described as "most iconic" than "career defining". well, you decide what that is, if you are worried, and go with it.

for a film certified PG by the notoriously prudent and easily upset BBFC, a bit of a surprising scene crops up where you can, for about a second, see the partially exposed breast of a lady, and a hint of nipple too. such things usually got censored by the BBFC, or smacked with an 18 (or X) certificate. presumably this moment escaped the ever sharp and ready scissors of the censors for sheer contextual reasons. it has (or sadly had) always been the case that ladies have (or had) a penchant, or proclivity, to disrobe in the presence of Roger Moore. this was just how it was. but, still, even if this was perfectly normal, to accept such was an unusual and rare indication of being progressive and applying common sense by the BBFC.

essentially the film (and yes i am still speaking about The Man Who Haunted Himself here) is a standard 30 minute episode of Tales Of The Unexpected, or The Twilight Zone to give a nearest closest comparison for American / rest of world readers, reasonably and plausibly stretched out across the length of a ninety minute motion picture. this allegation, accusation or if you are harsh criticism of the film is levelled against other movies, with The Sixth Sense always coming to mind.

it is a film well worth watching, both for the plot and story itself and yes, indeed, Roger Moore is rather good in it. how many times, exactly, one could watch the film is a bit debatable. once you have the gist or have seen it and are aware of the "twist", i suspect it is not engaging enough to warrant a repeat viewing. certainly, i have felt no need to watch it again. to this end the lavish presentation of the film on DVD and Blu Ray would seem excessive, but maybe some who do see this as Roger's career defining role appreciate the option of having the film on two variations of optical disc technology.

on to Ransom, then, which i think Sean Connery went on to make after he had finished with all that James Bond business. well, yes, kind of. this film came out in 1975, four years after his last classical performance in the role, but of course this is also before he was somehow tempted ($$$$£££££) back into the role for Never Say Never Again. for those reading this outside of the UK (and nearly all are welcome here), this film got released in the rest of the world as The Terrorists, which makes a good deal more sense as a title.

rather than just being a whole bunch of scenes filmed of Sean Connery walking around in a hat, yes, indeed, this movie does have a plot. the British ambassador to Scandinavia (which is bewilderingly presented as a country here) is being held hostage by a notorious (and very much wanted) terrorist. a slightly less notorious and wanted terrorist (played by Ian McShane) hijacks a plane to help him escape in. enter Sean Connery as the best security man in the whole of Scandinavia to come and sort it all out, with the strict instruction that no one (at least in terms of hostages) is allowed to die.

a most agreeable and enjoyable "action thriller", overall. the plot and script are quite good, and there are some really excellent plot twists and turns which makes the film engaging and compelling viewing. much like The Man Who Haunted Himself i am not sure what value there is in a second or third look at the film (although you only get the Blu Ray here), but then again i could totes see me randomly watching this once every five to ten years, recalling how good it was.

earlier, as opposed to later, i mentioned that Ian McShane is in it. this film is another example of the remarkable career transformation he went under. from the 80s onwards, he is generally regarded as the heartthrob of housewives everywhere, with Lovejoy in particular cementing this position. and yet in the 70s he made an impact on movie lovers with his perpetual skill at playing effeminate, mincing and rarely equalled homoerotic criminals. most would cite his work in Villain as being the personification of this. here, though, in his dapper brown (i think) flared suit, eloquent gloves, cultivated hair and cute high heeled boots, his "gay people can steal planes" performance really is quite superb.

what of Sean Connery? and nudity? yes. for no reason whatsoever, in the middle of all this terrorist and hijack business, we get a needlessly long scene of Sean Connery having a shower, showing off his generous body hair which he appears to have been most proud of. also, we get to see him dabble in a dimension of acting that was denied to him within the confines of playing James Bond. that would be his versatile and dynamic talent for immersing himself in a role via note perfect accents. in Ransom, his deft Scandinavian accent is equal to, or on a par with, his Spanish accent in Highlander, his Russian accent in The Hunt For Red October, his Japanese accent in Rising Sun and possibly his notable Oscar winning American-Irish accent in The Untouchables. here the excellence of Sean Connery perfecting the accent is accentuated and enhanced with some trickery (or cheating) by having exclusively British actors voice all the other Scandinavian characters. also, the tacit or unspoken implication of whatever nationality of character it is that Sean Connery is cast to play is that the character has "Scottish heritage", which explains away any Edinburgh "twang" that seeps into any performance you care to name.

yes, absolutely i would recommend or endorse anyone watching Ransom, or The Terrorists which really does seem to be a better title. a great strength of Sean Connery is that he is always watchable in whatever he does, and usually he selected films that were, at worst, "not bad" to appear in. i can remember renting another 70s film in which Sean Connery saves the day, Meteor, for 50p, off of the video shop at the nearby petrol station, and that one was also good.

an interesting link between the two lead actors in these films (other than the stated obvious shared role one) is that both feature them sporting perfectly cultivated facial hair. for Sean Connery this was, of course, not unusual at all. it seems he made it a point, post being cast in the role, of not being clean shaved in any non-James Bond film he ever appeared in. different for Roger Moore, of course. as the personification of a true English gentleman, he (it seems) saw any form of facial hair as an indication of being lower class, or suspicious, or being a scoundrel. it must have taken some severe coercing to get him to have a moustache in this film, i expect.

sorry to any of you who wanted some screenshots of the actual films, in particular those of you eager if not keen to understand more of the nudity i mentioned. when it came down to it, i simply could not be bothered to do so.

well, there you have it. both films now seem to sell for north of £5, rather than the special price i got them at. no matter, i would suggest both are worth the price, even if you watch just the once. no harm shall befall you and no regret shall enter your life if you elected to watch either or both. rather, i would hope, you get to have a most agreeable and enjoyable entertaining amount of time in doing so.




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

ripples a year (or so) later

who is and who isn't


it was roughly this time last year (if you are reading it around the time of publication, look you see) that Ian Brown firmly established his return as a solo artist with the release of Ripples. an album which reached a very respectable 4 in the album chart, considering you effectively had to buy it online, since neither HMV nor any other store carried stock. yes, indeed you could have bought it at an independent record shop, but mostly only if you had placed an order in advance.

with it being a year (or so) on, i thought well, why not give it a spin? it's not like i hadn't played the record for totes ages, but it had been a few months. whereas friends and family (hello) are quite aware of how unlikely it is that i would ever speak ill of Ian Brown (or his three mates) (four or five, including Robbie Maddix and Cressa), for the benefit of everyone else, then, yes, the album holds up as rather good, in fact great.

there really isn't much point going down the path of "best, greatest and most important" when discussing his albums, for all that he deems worthwhile to do ticks those boxes. however, for the sake of something to write, Ripples stands as an album which is as accessible, fluent and flowing as Music Of The Spheres and Solarized. few, i would think, would argue against a view that them two records what i named are his strongest, at the least as a solo artist.

but, of course, in a world where we have experienced the unlikely scenario of a Stone Roses reformation (or resurrection, if you will), it was the existence of such a thing as a new Ian Brown solo record which caught attention, rather than the album itself.

had the band split up, again? was it "for good", or was Ian Brown just itching to do some new music and had no patience to wait for the rest of the band to be on the same groove? we do and we don't know the answers to these or many other questions.

releasing Ripples came with minimalist promotion. whereas there is no music press any more to have adverts in, there were no interviews, no live appearances, nothing but some download "singles" and serviceable promo videos announced via all that "social media" stuff. whereas a solo gig is coming up - Warrington in May 2020 - still no interviews or what have you.

a speculative guess at why no interviews, etc, would be that he just knew how for every one question about his new solo album there would be a minimum of four about The Stone Roses. in an interview later on in 2019 John Squire kind of mumbled "yes" to being asked if the band were over once again, but then said he and Ian had a pact not to discuss it, and it was a pact that he was not interested in breaking.

you really don't have to go very far beyond a lot of the lyrical content of Ripples to get any sort of comment from Ian Brown about the band he was once in, though. roses are frequently mentioned, not often in a good way and you rather suspect he is not speaking about the flowers. whereas not as angry nor quite cross as the lyrics of Unfinished Monkey Business, there is not a lot in the words to suggest any more Roses antics any time soon.

which is a bit of a shame for a dream of mine. only recently, as it happens, the great taboo, the unwritten law, was broken. in years gone by hip, popular, treasured, era and genre defining Manchester musicians were not allowed to do a Christmas record. now that Noel Gallagher has done one in the form of the very, very good Wandering Star, the stage is all set and clear for them to get together and, at last, do that third album, Christmas With The Stone Roses by The Stone Roses. it would be excellent, man.

back in the real world, and as to what happened with The Stone Roses, why it ended, why the wheels fell of and perhaps why it has all happened again, Mani answered it years ago in seven straightforward words, "four different people doing four different drugs". no matter how much we want it to be something mystical, it probably is not.

i am quite content having Ian Brown back as a solo artist, thank you very much. with this i am clearly not alone, which just goes to show, yes, somewhere out there still exist people with a fine ear and good taste. so, either dig out your copy of Ripples and give it a spin, or go and buy a copy. well, if the shops now sell it.



who is and who isn't

you've got to roll with the punches to get to what's real

heya



so, yes, then. a new month so a new calendar update it is. this is a leap year, look you see, hence Van Halen's Jump being used for the title. so there is one day more than usual for this time of year, which is, you know, great. none of us get paid one extra day more, so far as i am aware. well, i guess you do if you are on a daily contract or something like that.

i am fairly confident that i have covered the origins of the name of the month before, and indeed this whole leap year business (nonsense, perhaps). with respect to the latter, a leap year happens due to either our planet or the Sun being a bit petulant (think Greta off of Sweden on a planetary scale) and not respecting the magic of the Gregorian calendar, which means it does not take exactly 365 days precisely to do an orbit or rotation or whatever. so, to balance the books, we have a leap year every four years, except for once every 100 years, when we do not, unless the year which falls on the 100 year marker is perfectly divisible by 400. compare calendars for 1900 and 2000 for more insight into this.

up in the kitchen of our home one will find a Star Wars calendar, since Poundland opted against stocking Winnie The Pooh ones this year. well, at least they did this in respect of the branch i went into for a gander. yes, that is indeed Darth Vader on display.

one of the (frequently) overlooked events to happen in a leap year is that february tends to, for a change, get a decent picture on calendars. with such a short number of days it is common for the calendar makers of the world to use a rather sh!tty and dull image that they are for some reason contractually obliged to include. on non-leap year calendars, for example, usually february on Star Wars calendars will feature something like the gay robot and his mate the bin robot, or perhaps even that annoying frog which cannot speak properly. the extra day of a leap year sees them consider it worthwhile bringing out one of the better know (and more well liked) characters.

anything of consequence worth noting the date of in February? sure, plenty of things. well, one or two, i guess. here are some for your consideration.

3 - this was the day on which, in 1959, the Big Bopper, Richie Valens and Buddy Holly died in a plane crash.

7 - now is a good day to read a long and needlessly convoluted novel to celebrate the birth of Charles "Charlie Chas" Dickens, who was indeed born on this day in 1812.

11 - a day of the unexpected, really. on this day in 1990, Nelson Mandela is released from prison, and James "Buster" Douglas knocks the absolute f*** out of "Iron" Mike Tyson. kind of. many newspapers around the world reported these two things in unison, with the (admittedly) clever headline Down And Out.

14 - a number of people who disagree with the business ethics of Al Capone are brutally gunned down on this day in 1929. for some reason a decision was taken to commemorate this event as Valentine's Day, with people now celebrating it with cards and gifts such as flowers and chocolates.

18 - on this day in 1973 David Bowie played a gig at The Tower, Philadelphia. more here.

18 - The King, Elvis Presley bestowed His justice unto miscreants who attempted to get onto His stage during His gig on this day in 1973. more here.

18 - a tennis court is not a usual place for one to see a Rolling Stones gig, but this was 1973, and Australia. more here, from a time when Rolling Stones gigs were not all about funding the very latest in Ronnie Wood divorce costs.

18 - class band The Sweet were at number one in the UK chart with Blockbuster!, which is a really, really good song. more here.

22 - a very happy birthday indeed to Den Dennis out of Bad News. or if you prefer Neil out of The Young Ones. or if you insist Nigel Planer, born 1953.

29  - on this day in 1940 Hattie McDaniel won one of them Oscar things for her performance in Gone With The Wind. no, never seen it, but looks all right.

29 - a very happy birthday to Gehad Grisha, Egypt's best, greatest and most important referee.

29 - down in that there Cardiff, look you see, Middlesbrough slayed Bolton in 2004 to win the league cup, widely considered to be the best, greatest and most important trophy in all of all sports, except of course for the Ashes.

29 - Prince Harry is stopped from shooting people in Afghanistan by the British military over concerns for his safety on this day in 2008. skip forward a couple (or so) of leap years to now (2020), and he's just Harry, with slightly less concern about his safety being in place.

29 - the great Davy Jones out of The Monkees passed away on this day in 2012. let us not forget, if nothing else, if it were not for Davy Jones we would not have had David Bowie, just David Jones.

but, as standard, i am keen (eager) to stress that this is far from a comprehensive list. for the most part you are better off just finding your own reasons to celebrate days in the month, and go right ahead with whatever you feel to be appropriate celebrations.

is it that the leap year thing is unique to the English way of doing things, or do all nations around the world include (or celebrate) it in their calendars? how about New Zealand? well, in that respect, we can just go along and ask Mr New Zealand Calendar, can we not.

yes, as you can see, yes they do. well, it would be quite silly for any country not to include the date of february 29 on any leap year calendar, as doing so would leave them terribly out of sync for the remainder of the year, and beyond, with the rest of the world what did think on and planned to include it.

right, well, there we have it. i trust this glimpse at the calendars enables (or allows) you to plan the month ahead. best, presumably, if i now leave this here, and let you just get on with the month. or crack on, i suppose, if that is a more comfortable way to describe it in the lexicon of your choice.



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

fake text message from ee, or more on how to spot phishing scams

hello there


just another of them "public service" posts i try to do as and when i get chance, look you see. never, ever forget that not everyone knows what you know, and that not everyone out there can see through a blatant scam as easily as you might think. i believe it is important to share information like this; if it stops so much as one person getting scammed well then i have done some good in this world.

an important note first. under no circumstances should you visit any of the web addresses which feature in this post, and you should certainly not call the telephone number listed. that all seems like it is really important, so once again in bold - under no circumstances should you visit any of the web addresses which feature in this post, and you should certainly not call the telephone number listed.

right, mindful of the above, a text message landed for me today. one that i am aware of having been received by a number of people today. here it is.

this looks like it might be legit, at a glance. the company name is right there, and look it even has one of their website addresses in place, "ee.uk". we will break that down in a moment, but my suspicion was instantly raised by the fact that EE would have absolutely no reason at all to send me any sort of bill or invoice. first tip for scam busting, then. if you have no business with the company be suspicious of any message suggetsing that you do.

right, the address. a quite simple confidence trick, which relies on our westerner eyes reading from left to right to be a success. yes, there is the "https" certificate which means it is a secure site, and yes, there is says "ee.uk". so, surely this means that all is legit and correct?

no. whereas you should not transmit any financial or personal data over any website which does not have the "https" security in place, please don't think that having "https" in a web address automatically makes it safe and legitimate. all it means is that they have paid for the security certificate settings. literally any website can have it bought and installed; there are no checks to make sure the website using it is legal or real.

so, the address. the actual website you are visiting is always the one before the last domain in the address. the domain part is the .com, or .co.uk, or .uk, or .net or similar. anything that looks like a domain before the last one is a sub-domain, basically an extra page on the website.

when we read this address from left to right, the con artists want us to just read "ee.uk" and assume it is real, clicking on it and handing over bank details. in reality, the website being visited above is "billing05.com".

above is the registration details for this "billing05.com" website, taken from who.is, an excellent and useful tool to look up the details behind any website.

it would appear that this "billing05.com" only came into existence on the day they started sending out text messages warning people about a "problem with their account".

other than being a dutch, or if you like Netherlands registered website domain name, as you can see in the above whoever has registered this site has gone to great lengths to keep their business details all private. which would be a very strange thing to do for a company like EE.

should you ever get a message - be it an email, a phone call or a text message - suggesting that there is a problem with your account or asking for money, double check it, quadruple check it or just triple check it. there is no harm or shame in asking - if you don't know then ask.

this blog of mine is an advert free, not for profit, i do not make a single penny from it thing. i just try to provide stuff that's amusing, or passes the time of day, or might help someone. the latter is the case here. if you think you might now of people who will find this information helpful in avoiding being scammed, please share it.



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

a brief look at 2038

hi there


well, it seems that we have another "whoopsie did not think of that" moment ahead (rather than behind) of us, look you see. once again them what innocently built all them computers and that, which we have foolishly fashioned our society on the foundation of, have to a certain (slight) extent betrayed us.

once again, then, we have a computer issue that is connected to our date system year commencing with "2" (or even "20") rather than "1" (or for the sake of being complete "19"). some of you, of a certain age at the least, shall fondly recall the infamous "Y2K bug" panic. that was when, at the stroke of midnight marking the arrival of 1 January 2000, all computers would stop working, planes would fall out of the sky, etc.

this variation is called the Year 2038 Problem, rather than bug. and yes i have linked to Wikipedia, since i am one of the ones which listened to their appeal and donated (roughly) the price of a cup of coffee to them for all their hard work and efforts.

i would really recommend that you click on that link for more information, as it all seems a bit too clever for me to interpret in a more general way as to what it is. but, basically, at a specific time on 19 January 2038, some computer things will reset (or revert) their date to 1 January 1970. basically, or essentially, it seems to have something to do with certain microchips (or whatever) not having enough "space" to calculate (or report) the time and date beyond that point. so, either they reset themselves, or they become self-aware, trigger missiles and that, then send a massive naked austrian back in time. my view is that the reset works best.

by that point, perhaps, all computer or electronic machinery which could be affected shall be gone from our society, and no harm will befall. this is likely, possible but in no way assured. even now, in 2020, we have some computers running around the world that are not, as it were, Y2K compliant. or software and that on them which is not. so, it is kind of worth noting this one.

credit where it is due for this

there you go, a nice simulation thing of how we are all going to be f****d, of how this Year 2038 problem shall hit and wipe out life as we know it. maybe.

a major problem in dealing with this, or taking it seriously, is the stealing, hijacking or other such cultural appropriation of the term "binary". this is very much a binary issue, but our understanding of that word (or term) has been polluted and diluted. rather than being just a computer term, the precious, the petulant and the pious of our society (not just Greta but certainly no exclusion for her here) have brazenly used the word "binary" to decry anything they do not like in society, particularly election results and decisions. the simpler, less polarising times of the late 20th century meant that pretty much everyone could grasp what a "Y2K" issue was. now, alas, sensible types are going to see the word "binary" and simply turn the page on news of the issue, assuming it is the latest nonsense by someone having a temper tantrum over the world not operating precisely as they wish it to.

right, then, there you go, or even have it. that some may choose to ignore this issue is one of them things, all i can do is just relay what is known for the sake of expanding information. so, if devices what are computer related are sort of totes knacked in 18 or so years, this might well be why this is so.




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

his ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong

g'day


strewth, fair dinkum, it's Australia Day, look you see. a day which weirdly, and perhaps a little frustratingly, does not get much acknowledgement or celebration around the world outside of the place, but here we are.

because everything on the internet must be true, and as for some reason people come here for information along those lines, a brief background on this date. many would assume that the date marks the arrival (and yes, some would say "invasion") of what we now know to be Australia by Captain James Cook. not quite. it rather marks the date of the first "proper" settlement (or if you are of such a mind occupation) of the British, with this date being the day (in 1788) that the then British flag was first flown in Sydney.

aye, yes, to be sure, that is i, resplendent in my boys brigade uniform, with my first and much beloved walkman on, in Australia. probably (or possibly) around one early 80s Australia Day (if so most likely 82 but maybe not).

perhaps (and this goes to the thinking in the brackets above) we don't celebrate or acknowledge Australia Day as much as we should, here in the UK at the least, due to the origins of the date. many say such a celebration would be a legacy of our "colonial past"; the "days of the Empire" and so forth. well, you know, fine, ok, that sort of makes sense, but also very much rejects the idea that Australia has done much of anything in some 200+ years of existence, and implies that the nation lives in the past too. no, it does not.

that there above is one of the most 100% purely Australian (except for the skateboard bits) albums one could play and enjoy to mark Australia Day in a subtle, dignified way. perhaps, maybe, yes, there are "bigger and/or better" Australian bands, and indeed it is possible that INXS did some work which was superior to this. but, for the sake of simply enjoying a solid rock album which never ever lets up in quality from start to end, Kick is extraordinary and excellent.

yes, it would be most splendid if those of a mind to culturally appropriate the assumed pain and suffering of people they did not know, dead long before they were born, could somehow get over themselves and live in the present. then we could just get on with celebrating all that is ace off of Australia. but, of course, they will not. getting outraged, angry and of course "offended" on behalf of others is a foundation of modern life. which is a shame, but whatever gets people through life, i guess.

it would be amiss of me not to reference Split Enz in any sort of celebration of Australia, despite the fact that the band are not particularly Australian. rather famously they are Kiwis off of New Zealand, but for some reason get associated with the nation next door. certainly it was in Australia that i became aware of them, for the group were (rightly) bloody massive there.

from Crocodile Dundee (with an ace song by Mental As Anything, top band) to Kylie, and of course also all the way from Castlemaine XXXX to Fosters via superb love, appreciation and performance in cricket, there is extremely little what Australia has thrown back at Britain (or if some wish to opt out, England) after raising that flag what we have not embraced. why would we not acknowledge such?

speaking of acknowledging, yes, that is indeed Spiros, the greatest legal mind of his generation, above. here he can be seen paying homage to a statue of Arthur Phillip, widely regarded and usually generally accepted as being the first Governor of Australia. one of the reasons why Spiros maintains a presence, or if you like "footprint" in London is because of this statue. at least i think that was what he said about it.

for some reason there are a few here in the UK (specifically England, once again, i suppose) who take it upon themselves to "join in" with our friends in America on their celebrations on 4th July each year. erm, yes. whilst we do indeed have good relations with them over the pond, i suspect that those who on the English end of the Atlantic engage in such a celebration might have missed the historical significance of it all. or, maybe not, as i have given up trying to understand how the modern world works, it is tricky enough just trying to deal with it. but, again, i am baffled as to why Australia Day gets routinely disregarded as a cause for celebration.

why not finish off this post with a gander at the greatest (non-cricket playing category) Australian of the modern era, which of course is widely agreed and accepted to be Jason Donovan. he is class him, and not just because he pioneers and popularised citrus based infused shampoo.

right, well, anyway, bruces and sheilas, i have taken up enough of your time in making whatever point it is i have here. many thanks indeed, as ever, for your reading and consideration of it all.




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

quite satisfactory reading

heya


and so the time has come, look you see. i have gone right ahead and finished reading not just one, nor as many as three, but two novels. as i really do not know what to do about this other than share (or air) my views on them here, well, here we are.

for the sake of conformity with previous posts such as this, a look at the two (not just one or as many as three, or four even) books what i read, followed by a brief, sort of "executive summary" overview of them. this is for those of you who wish to avoid them spoiler things, or are in a bit of a rush.

to start off where i did, whilst If We Were Villains was slight, skimpy and superficial in its telling of a relatively small story, the novel proved to be thoroughly absorbing reading. moving on, and The Sentence Is Death is one of the bestest ever novels what i have read in quite a few years. it was excellent, really. but please, learn from my folly - this is book two, seek out the first, i believe called The Word Is Murder or similar as i dare to speculate it is just as good but, alas, this one that i read has spoilers for it.

right, then, follow me for a closer look at the two. well, if you want to. but, if you do (and i hope so), please bear in mind that a *** SPOILER WARNING *** is well and truly in place. yes, obviously, of course i shall try not to, but such are perhaps inevitable.

it was only just mentioned, by me, that the first of these two what i read was If We Were Villains by M L Rio. so, that is probably the correct and proper place to start all of this, whatever this is.

provenance of my copy? a bit different from the usual, for me at the least. i sourced and purchased this off of the internet, a renowned and well liked seller of previously owned novels and texts called World of Books. this was done after a very good friend recommended the book. not that they had read it, but rather as they felt it was "my sort of thing". quite kind of them to consider me so. actually, they have made several recommendations in the past, sadly not acted on, but fortune and time favoured such in this instance.

but what, you may ask, of the plot? well, the "action" starts with a chap just about to be released from prison, having served ten years for murder. the copper, or detective, or member of the constabulary who helped put him away meets him. it turns out that he has, for ten years, held suspicions that the wrong person went to prison. he requests that the recently released bloke tell him the real story, free of fear of repercussions, what with the copper now retired. and, for reasons never really made clear, he does.

how best to describe this? well, probably something like suggesting you take The Breakfast Club and mix it with the darker (but not as dark) late teen school age stories of Bret Easton Ellis' early novels, throwing in a bit of the underlying elements of works such as Brideshead Revisited and maybe Another Country too, and rounding it off with a dose of being informed by Dead Poets Society. yes, a lot thrown in there, and probably one or two i have neglected to mention.

it's intriguing and engaging reading as it goes, but fundamentally not rewarding. whilst some of the reasons, motivations and causes of the crime at the heart of the plot are explored, the actual point of the novel never is. the curious copper, for instance, is strictly one dimensional in presentation, and we never ever get a clue as to why, out of presumably so many cases, this one "bugs" him. likewise, the imprisoned confessor. why a confession after the fact is freely given is never explicitly cleared up, or even tacitly revealed.

make no mistake, though. i would indeed thoroughly recommend this novel. although i could feel it was going to be shallow and not explore what it could, what it gave is what counts, and it really was an excellent read.

the only hesitation i have in suggesting that you, the people, go and read The Sentence Is Death is that one i gave above, which is to say you should find the first of them before reading this. oh, how i wish that i had.

yes, i know, you want the provenance of this novel. well, from what i remember, it was Tesco, and one of their decreasing book deals. either it was £3 or £3.50, i doubt that it would have been 50p south of the lower price. the lower price was not the sole motivating factor, of course. no, i was reasonably, fairly sure that i had read an Anthony Horowitz novel before, likely one of his takes on James Bond, and found it to be good.

plot? well, it took me by surprise to find that the narrator, or indeed if you will protagonist, happens to be novelist and screenwriter (if tv series writing is a screenwriter, i believe it is, so yes and this has been a waste of brackets) Anthony Horowitz. yes, a quasi (or semi) (i presume) fictionalised version of the author of the novel itself. if it is a novel, and not a non-fiction work and i somehow missed the references on the back of the book or on the inside cover.

in a retrospectively hasty move, Horowitz signed a deal to write three books covering the adventures and exploits of an ex copper turned private detective frequently hired by the constabulary, Hawthorne. after the first one (presumably (The Word Is Murder), the writer clocked that he does not particularly care for the detective, the politics which seems to come with the police hiring him or being made to feel a fool at not being able to work out "whodunnit", despite such plots being his business. yet, still, he feels an inexplicable compulsion to try and understand his subject.

this novel was, frankly, as many variations as you care to name of brilliant, and then even better. i really loved this one. everything about it was, or is, compelling, interesting, engaging and all made for truly compulsive reading. despite me knowing how it all goes, i may well yet seek out the first of these, just for the presumed joy of reading it. certainly, all future Anthony Horowitz books i spot shall be purchased and read. except maybe these Alex Rider ones as i suspect that i am not the target audience.

let me leave my acolyte celebration of this novel there, then. please, just go read it.

right, well, anyway, that's about that for these two books what i read. both, as indicated, were thoroughly enjoyable and did all one could reasonably ask of a novel. obviously, though, i somewhat liked one of them a good deal more than the other.

as usual, or again, if any of this has been of the slightest or most remote of interest or use to any of you out there, well then so much the better.



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

theatre washington seventy six

hello there


just a sort of broad overview, look you see, concerning some of the dynamics and aspects of visiting (or attending ) a theatre in Washington (DC) during the year of 1976. this is not something i have ever experienced personally, and no i have not ever been to the place at all in any year. if for some reason you have a partial, passing or maybe vested interest in this subject, well then here you go.

one of the main considerations to, well, consider when going to the theatre in Washington is by what means of transport to get there. this is as true of 1976 as it is of any year. also, it is true of any variation of Washington, and not just the DC one. but i am not certain that there is a theatre as such in the UK equivalent of Washington. maybe.

i quite like the cultural perspective element of the above, even if it must (i suppose) be seen in the context of 70s America. to consider Mercedes Benz as a "similar" luxury set of wheels to a Rolls Royce would surely be seen as comical over here in the UK, then and now. perhaps Americans in 76 had a very, very loose sense of the differences between class of cars, seeing them as all "European". for the record, then, whereas a Rolls Royce speaks of sophistication, class or simple rock and roll excess, Mercedes Benz is basically announcing you are middle class, middle management. 

but yes, i suppose either car would have got you to the theatre. i would like to think that the Rolls Royce would have been the more impressive way of arriving, but i simply don't know enough about the values of Washington society in 1976 to say. 

exactly what would one have seen in the theatre in Washington in 76? well, watched, rather than seen, i guess. going on my extensive research, which was one magazine, it seems that the theatre circuit in this place and at that time was dominated by Dick Robison. no, me neither, and also it seems there is little about him out there on the internet. so, if nothing else, maybe this image is of use to someone.

perhaps the biggest issue here is that Americans, then as is the case now, seem keen to spell the word theatre as "theater". i have no idea why, and it is like what they do with proper words like colour ("color"). some might consider a look at these spelling differentials as an interesting, insightful and informative thing to do, but such is not happening here.

as far as i am aware there is no specific (or pacific) law which has ever stated that patrons of a theatre (or theater if you must) had to eat Spanish food after a performance. well, not a judicial law, or statutory one, at least. in terms of social laws, or etiquette, it appears it was an expectation, though.

finest Spanish cuisine is also if not an oxymoron then a misnomer, is it not? rather like asking someone what the best ever punch in the face they got was. one such unfortunate incident will of course stand out, and linger longer in the memory, vividly so, but that in itself does not make it all that great. this was all 1976, you must remember. a time when Spanish cuisine effectively amounted to "English style fish and chips" to cater for the influx of British tourists. now they have probably added pizzas or similar to the menu.

not going to the theatre in Washington (DC) in 1976 probably meant you found yourself instead at some form of formal, "black tie" ambassadorial event, invariably held with both the blessing and presence of Henry Kissinger. i have never had reason to attend such, and so far as i am aware have not ever received an invitation for one. no doubt they are quite smart. this is probably particularly true as there were no intrusive smoking laws back then, so you could have enjoyed a cigarette at any stage of the evening.

whereas it strike me as unlikely, absolutely wonderful stuff if anything in this post has been of the slightest interest or use to any of you.




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

strangely specific scarf

hello there


in our brilliant, bold and brave new world, we have constructed our understanding of football, look you see, so as the actual game itself is not the primary focus. nor is it secondary, or even tertiary (if that is the right way to say "thirdly"). all that really matters in the current concept of it all is financial considerations and exploitation.

as many, perhaps a majority, even, seem stunningly satisfied with this, well, there is no ground nor reason for me to raise a complaint, a gripe or any suggestion that it is all in some way wrong. but such a stance does not, i trust, preclude me from making an observation here and there, or now and then, when one is presented before my eyes.

like, for instance, when someone decides to manufacture and market a very precise and specific match based scarf ahead of a football game.

no, i am not picking on Wolves or Man Utd here, for yes i have seen such scarfs (scarves?) made for other teams and other matches. it is just when this one cropped up that i remembered a wish, or if you like an ambition, to comment on them.

just who is it that goes and buys a match specific scarf like the one at the top? plenty must, as they seem to keep making them, but why? i mean, if it was a cup final or something, then it would make sense. but, really? a fairly straightforward third round tie in the FA Cup, played between teams in the same division so would play each other at least twice in the same season?

perhaps these are aimed at "first game" attendees at matches, so that they may remember their first ever game. or those who are only likely ever to be at one match, such as them what fly in from Asia or similar regions to be part of, in this case, the "magic of the cup". but then, surely, just a regular, standard scarf would hold such sentimental value?

the above is the official, unbiased, objective review of this particular football match from the BBC. one knows it is such as i have described, for they are not permitted to show bias; this is in their charter and they shall jolly well lose their franchise or license if they are guilty of such foolery.

by all accounts the match was a disgrace, the players all disgraced themselves and should be arrested. which is all well and good, but it does create yet more questions about the wisdom of the scarf designed, manufactured and presumably sold in advance of the game. i am unable to ascertain any sort of reason as to why anyone would wish to recall or remember this match, let alone declare proudly "i was there" by means of such a scarf.

for as long as people purchase items such as this i suppose it will be that they shall be made, but i really struggle to see the sense in either end of this. maybe i am missing something.



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



UPDATE - for historical references, indeed Manchester United won the replay 1-0. and by all accounts the second match was just as dull, dreary and dreadful.

x-ray reasons

heya


today, it being 18 January (2020), look you see, is the 124th anniversary (or "birthday") of the first ever display of what we now know as an x-ray machine. or x-ray generator, if you so wish. as i have absolutely nothing else to write about at the moment, i figured sure, why not, let me mark this relatively important device coming into being.

a history of x-ray machine generation stuff? right. it is a chap called Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen who, if you are of a mind to do so, we should thank for the existence of the device. yes, i agree, his name sounds more like he should be the frontman for a smart yet only moderately successful metal band, but here we are, he did science instead of thrash.

for a first x-ray he decided to do one of his wife's hand, and it is stated that this image above is one of those initial x-rays. in respect of provenance or credit, the above is lifted off wikipedia, and the text suggested it was free for common use. anyway, i did make one of those "price of a cup of coffee" donations to them, so much like the BBC licence thing i suppose i am allowed to do what i will with that which i have paid for. traffic cones too, but that is another matter and not really x-ray related.

was there any particular reason for this splendidly named chap going right ahead and inventing the power of x-ray? some, but the real motivation is never discussed. there is a clue in the fact that Röntgen, possibly "for a laugh", tested it all out on his wife first. yes, then, like most artistic and scientific discoveries or inventions, the main driving force to create it was probably just to excuse or in some way justify an ambition to see people naked.

every single time there has been a dramatic, or significant leap in artistic, technological, medical or scientific endeavour and achievement, somehow it has amounted to being used mostly as a means of seeing other people naked. cave paintings, oil paintings, plays, medical examinations, surgical treatment, cameras, motion pictures, the internet, etc - all just conduits to carnal enjoyment. and why not.

well, why not, really. everyone seems to shy away from the point above, no matter how true it happens to be. a legacy from the Victorian era that we appear unable to shake off is that we should not discuss such things, at least not in an open, non-private way. such shaming is what causes it to become a problem, or at the least contributes to it.

the era Röntgen found himself in was particularly challenging in this regard, or in respect of this. he was around at the time of the height of the Victorian prejudicial approach of being all pious, prudish and puritan. one may not have glanced at so much as the ankle of a fellow human in its natural state without the fear of being arrested and having either a custodial sentence or death penalty imposed on them for something quite natural.

despite absolutely no evidence whatsoever existing to suggest such, it is entirely possible that Röntgen was just testing the waters with a hand x-ray, with the intention being to ask his wife if she would mind, "for a laugh", posing for an x-ray of another part of her anatomy. it is simply not possible to ascertain or establish if this happened, as no one has confirmed or denied that any such sort of x-ray image of this nature exists.

how does the existence of x-ray machines (or generators) affect modern day life, here in 2020? well, ostensibly, it is heralded as being of vital importance to the medical professions, which it is. using an x-ray machine can let doctors and so forth see what parts of a person (or animal, if vet) are knacked without cutting them open, unless of course they really wish to. mostly, however, x-ray devices get used to enhance efficiency at mail sorting offices and airport baggage facilities. if the staff can x-ray parcels, suitcases and what have you, then it makes everything faster and easier for them to steal items of value, rather than having to rip everything open.

in terms of the probable real reason we have x-ray, again we are at airports. they now have "full body" x-ray generators, where everyone walks though. people who really, really like to look at other people naked all day, every day, tend to gravitate towards a career operating such magnificent security devices.

right, then, that's about all i would imagine anyone probably needs to know about this x-ray stuff. all that remains is for me to wish it all a most wonderful anniversary, and continued success. may each and every single one of your own x-ray adventures be truly functional.




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

king of films

heya


let me describe a film for you, look you see. if i were to tell you that i had recently watched a 90s science fiction film in which a future is presented where everyone is plugged into some giant, malevolent, controlling network, you might suspect you know what i had watched. should i give more details - like, for instance, that the film was created by brothers, special effects are showcased, the obligatory and ostensible "big bad" is played by an Australian, and that the ostensible lead male hero actor is a wooden, inept and dire talent, you'd be certain that i had just watched The Matrix.

not so. instead i watched a film, or if you like a movie (motion picture, perhaps) that was made some five years prior to that particularly iconic one. actually, i would suggest (or speculate) one that was heavily influential on it. yes, indeed, i watched Plughead Rewired : Circuitry Man II. which i am guessing is a sequel to a film what i have never ever heard of but would be bold enough to speculate was called Circuitry Man.

yes, that is indeed the DVD menu screen. also yes, that is unmistakably, although you may not have recognised him, Australian acting legend Vernon Wells. it is his presence in the film, as the partial titular character of Plughead, which is how i came to take custodianship of this film.

provenance of my copy? it was a most generous Christmas gift from His Excellency, the Viscount of Stockton. and many other titles he has, but he does not like a fuss to be made or attention to it all drawn.

if for some reason you wished to have (fairly) immediate proof of this film being made by brothers, well then the above image is for you. this is one of the first moments in the film that s Plughead Rewired Circuitry Man II where you get a sense that every chance exists of the Wachowski brothers (now sisters i believe) might have watched this film just before having their entirely unique, original idea to make The Matrix.

let me be honest here. i have taken far, far too many pictures, images and screenshots of this film to showcase here in relation to what i could possibly say of the movie. but, i will try.

there is a shot from the opening credit sequence. as you can (relatively) clearly see, that's Traci Lords and Vernon Wells, being prepped for some sort of operation or surgical procedure. it kind of makes sense for them to be shown together early on in the film, as the DVD cover has their names most prominently, indicating they are the stars of the show. well, film, not show.

something of a trick is missed in regards of this marketing. well, sure, yes, Vernon Wells is A grade box office and brings in an audience. also, there is a certain, specific market for Traci Lords films too, and this is not just limited to those who appreciated that one time she sang with the Manics. but an entirely different audience could have been reached, as we shall see as we go on. if you keep reading.

above is what i take to be the plot, or if you will synopsis of the film. most useful and handy for those of us what had never ever heard of the first film, but for some reason have found ourselves watching this, the only sequel to it that i am aware of.

perhaps a *** SPOILER WARNING *** sort of thing should have appeared in this post by now, or at some stage of it. not so, i believe. the main motivating factor (other than Vernon Wells) in watching this film is shown in the next picture, and believe me there is no relevance whatsoever to the plot. also, knowing the entire story of the film will not blemish your extraction of pleasure.

indeed that is Deborah Shelton, of fame from my much beloved Body Double. also she was in Dallas for a little while, and some other stuff, probably. here she is pictured with that rather wooden, stale and inept male lead i mentioned earlier. no, it is not Keanu, but i think when they more or less remade this film as The Matrix Keanu ticked all the boxes for a similar acting ability to this chap.

there was no stage of the film at all where i was entirely confident that i knew what the plot, or the story, was. perhaps it is fitting then, that i would appear to be writing of it in a decidedly non-linear way. if you are confused about how my comments are structured, well, this is better preparation for you for watching the film. no need to thank me.

maybe it was meant to be that this film was just addressing the (presumably many) loose ends or unanswered questions from the first Circuity Man film. having not seen it, i simply do not know. this would, however, explain the 20 or 30 plot lines that seem to be on the go, featuring ill defined characters doing stuff for no apparent reason.

like, for instance, these two. the film appears to expect audiences to know who they are, and just maybe those what saw the first one do. i did not. all i know is that they were in some sort of weird Brazil prison, where they were hammering wooden sticks or poles of some material into the ground, and then they escape and head off, apparently in pursuit of Plughead.

another two characters i do not know about form 66% of the above picture. to be specific, it would be the fairly obviously male 66% you can see. as far as i could work out, they were fbi agents or similar, and were also quite keen on catching this Plughead fellow. no, at this stage i had no idea at all as to what Plughead may have done that was so naughty or wrong.

the most interesting element (or aspect) of the above scene was that them two chaps were securing a vehicle for use in chasing Plughead. one of them, from what i recall the one without a hat, had to pay for such transportation by giving the lady you can see in the image his shoes. this is a rather interesting and partially fascinating glimpse into how money works in the future according to this film, but is a concept which is never again touched after this scene.

what of Vernon Wells, you may ask. if you did, i shall try and answer. in this motion picture event, Vernon has been at last elevated to the echelons of his natural peers. just like Brando in The Godfather and Hopkins in the silence of the lambs, here Wells is pivotal, embracing minimal screentime to give the maximum, dominant performance in the film. prejudice, presumably, and modesty perhaps precluded him from Oscar consideration for his sentimental portrayal of the titular character.

much of the motivation, purpose and reason for his character is somewhat lost in the film. this is due to them never quite explaining who he is or why he is doing anything, but maybe that was all made clear in the first film. certainly, one driving aspect of his performance is a wish to impregnate Traci Lords. this, however, tends to be a basic plot premise of every film what Traci Lords is in.

yes, that is Deborah Shelton out of Body Double, along with the inept, wooden actor in a strait jacket, about to be transported (to Brazil, i think) in some fancy mail teleporter device. the Spanish looking chap operating the machine is, i suppose, quite like the Laurence Fishburne / Morpheus character what was created for Matrix, although Morpheus was way better, man.

one of the more interesting elements (aspects, maybe) of the whole teleporter concept was how they paid to use it. cash, basically. well, i think so. in the future, then, according to this film it remains that cash is king, that cash is tax free, that cash is the absolute best way to secure goods and services which one does not wish to have any official trace of the transaction for.

this point, or notion, or concept, or theoretical idea, or premise (or similar) is emphasised, illustrated, compounded and explored with the juxtaposition of the above scene. here we find our two fbi (or whatever) agents heading to Brazil (or wherever) in the vehicle which they purchased with the apparently recognised currency of the future in the guise of shoes. from what i recall some valid reason was given for them having to wear the white overalls or jumpsuits, but i have forgotten what that was. i suppose i could look it up, or watch the preceding scene which featured them and explained it all, but i am not particularly interested.

in terms of scenes which appear relevant to the plot, and also showcase the vast, dynamic range of the talents of Vernon Wells, there was the below. although contextually this part of the film made no sense as Vernon (or Plughead, i suppose) was all of a sudden in a suit and doing some business, all the same it was very entertaining indeed.

well, when i say entertaining, that's on the basis that everyone is like me and is just in awe of what an amazing actor Vernon Wells is. here he directly evokes Brando in Godfather, as he sits brokering a deal, offering the chap a cigarette and conducting the sale of something or other which appears to give the chap more life than he anticipated having. unlike Brando, Wells did not need to use a prop such as a cat to accentuate his performance, unless the cigarettes were intended as a metaphor for a cat in channeling that memorable scene out of The Godfather.

from what i could work out, the Vernon Wells character owns, controls or directly influences this massive network thing what everyone can or does "plug" in to. this is perhaps not as evil or as sinister as it may sound, and it does not seem as negative as it was presented in The Matrix. at one stage, for instance, several people are shown plugged in to a big massive joint virtual reality rave thing, where sex and drugs and mediocre music flow freely.

at several points during my screening of Plughead Rewired : Circuitry Man II yes, it was true, i was quite tempted to switch it off, due to it being a load of f*****g rubbish. however, the rather talented directors clearly anticipated this, and found the means and ways to renew an engagement with the audience and the subject matter. the dominant, or if you like most effective of these was the perpetual, gratuitous, unnecessary and yet extremely effective and welcome cleavage shots of Deborah Shelton out of Body Double. on seeing such well crafted scenes i felt compelled to keep watching, my interest in the plot being refreshed and renewed.

how does Vernon Wells get on with his ambition of impregnating Traci Lords? quite well, from what i could ascertain. as far as i was able to understand it, the original ideas were for Traci to get pregnant off of Vernon by that fancy looking procedure at the start, or by means of this "plugged in" Matrix inspiring network stuff what Vernon appears responsible for. or in control of, at the least. for whatever reason this appears to be unsuccessful or displeasing, so an "old school" (in the context of the motion picture) approach is embraced.

one of the biggest challenges for Vernon Wells in his portrayal of Plughead must surely have been the inability to rely on the generally natural homoerotic overtones he is so fondly associated with. in this film he was seemingly stopped from using his go to tools of the trade. from what i could work out his trousers, for instance, were just regular and perfectly serviceable, and were neither leather nor had is arse hanging out of them, as was the case in Mad Max 2. also, he is completely clean shaven, and does not wear any butch macho man chainmail, meaning we don't perceive him as the big bushy moustached man love machine he was in Commando.

a quite controversial trend in modern arts is that of "subverting audience expectations". in present times, this catch all comment is used to deflect valid criticism when something that should have been good turns out to be totally and utterly sh!t, infuriating both the paying and pirating audience. this exceptionally lame and pathetic excuse has most recently been used to laughably defend rubbish such as the final series of Game Of Thrones and The Last Jedi. here, though, you get audience expectations subverted exactly as they should be. seeing Vernon Wells play a purely and unequivocally heterosexual character was quite a shock for audiences, and a mostly (or partially) successful one.

my interest in the film falling away was once again anticipated by the directors of Plughead Rewired : Circuitry Man II. apparently they knew that a point in the film was reached where people were likely to go "no, this is cr@p, i am turning it off", so threw in a scene where Deborah Shelton out of Body Double and that wooden actor encounter some "warriors of the wasteland" tribal types. no, they are not really as smart as the ones in Mad Max 2 and the scene is not very interesting, but the directorial decision was made to have Deborah Shelton out of Body Double take further items of clothing off for the scene, so i kept on watching.

do i have any interesting "going back", as it were, and watching the original Circuitry Man? yes, as it happens, i do. i suppose i could watch it now, after seeing the sequel, and view it as some form of elaborate prequel. from what i recall i watched Rocky III long before i saw the first or II and that did not have an adverse affect on my enjoyment. however, a quick browse suggests that the original (or first) film is very rare indeed, with copies selling for just subliminally south of twenty pounds, cash. even magazine adverts for the first film are listed at around ten pounds, which is more or less five times the price of another copy of this sequel.

yes, i suppose i could see if it is available on one of them "streaming" services, or simply pirate it, but to be honest i simply cannot be bothered to exert all that much effort into it. if i was going to use all that much energy, i would probably do so to find Circle Man (or Last Man Standing), starring Vernon Wells.

the above is a scene which is just a fraction of a millimetre of a second before the moment in which it became perfectly clear that Plughead Rewired : Circuitry Man II was in fact king of films as the tile of this post suggests. a scene which i shall never forget, and one which meant that this motion picture ranks as (at least) one of the ten best motion pictures i have ever seen. yes, Deborah Shelton out of Body Double has a topless scene in this film. allow yourself a moment to consider this.

exactly what the thinking was in not exploiting or drawing attention to the above in marketing the film remains a mystery. the DVD box does not even mention that Deborah Shelton out of Body Double is even in the film, let alone has such a pivotal, important scene in it. had they made all of this clear when they released it, i would probably think that Plughead Rewired : Circuitry Man II would have been the first ever motion picture to make over one billion dollars on its theatrical release, and no way would they have dared "borrow" the plot details for The Matrix or anything else.

just a final image from the film, then, with a final look at Vernon Wells, resplendent in some sort of fancy make up and special effects, at the devastating conclusion of the film. well, i think it was devastating. i am not sure. everything after that pivotal scene with Deborah Shelton out of Body Double is a bit of a murky blur, in truth, with me not being particularly interested, for i was satisfied that this film was excellent, despite it being a load of complete and utter f*****g rubbish.

would i recommend audiences seek out Plughead Rewired : Circuitry Man II at all? no, perhaps, maybe, yes, absolutely. the merits and interesting points of the premise and plot (whatever they actually were) are all elements which were probably better handled in the quasi remake of it as The Matrix. but Vernon Wells, man. also, that key, pivotal and brilliant scene featuring Deborah Shelton out of Body Double. i suppose whether or not you would enjoy or appreciate this film comes down to what exactly you want a movie to do.

if they ever do a blu ray release of this film, or one of them 4K UHD restoration things, then yes i would purchase it. also, if they re-release it on Beta, or VHS, then i would also buy it on those formats. for now, i may just go and buy loads and loads of copies of the DVD, which generally you can get for 1p south of £2, in the hope that it boosts attention on (or for) this quite remarkable, landmark, genre and era defining motion picture.




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