Wednesday 30 December 2020
Friday 18 December 2020
"Ooh, matron - take it away!"
Smirks and 'Carry On......' innuendo aside, has anyone else noticed that this year on TV, virtually any mention of Covid on the news has got to be accompanied by long, lingering shots of someone on the receiving end of a jab. Of course, up to now we've always seen brief shots of patients given a pre-injection swab on the upper arm but, as far as I can recall, hardly ever of the needle going in - though now in close-up too - and being held there for several seconds before being withdrawn. It makes me wince seeing it so much now, just about daily, that I have to either look away or change channels. In fact only the other day I changed channels for that very reason from BBC national news to ITV local news and - as you might guess - both sides were simultaneously showing the same procedure. Even Channels 4 and 5 as well as Sky News are doing it now. so that I just want to screeeeeeam!
I have to get a regular such poke for giving a sample of blood to be checked twice a year for my diabetes [type 2] condition, as well as getting the annual Winter flu jab, plus maybe once or twice more for other reasons, but I just get it done and over with as speedily as I can as there's no alternative. I just start looking away and gritting teeth long before the needle goes in. But it's really no big deal. What I do not need is for my nose to be rubbed in it by constant visual reminders of what it's like. Jeepers creepers, we all know!
Every time I go for the annual diabetes check with a nurse at the doctor's surgery it's suggested (every flaming time!) that I really ought to do daily self-monitoring of my own blood to check glucose level, which involves pricking the head of the thumb to obtain a small smear of blood which you can measure on a little thingummyjig they provide you with. About 5 years ago I was given all what's needed to do that very thing myself. When it came to it I just could not give myself the required thumb-jab. Surely I can't be alone in this. It's not cowardice - well, okay, maybe it is - but I've always been a haemophobe (as regards other people's blood as well as my own) which was a major reason why I could stay no longer with St John Ambulance after a two-year stint. My phobia was hindering any effectiveness I might have otherwise had.
As for my diabetes, it hasn't caused me any major problems. Maybe just once a month or so I might get a dizzy spell through having low glucose, but that's put right quite easily by chewing on a few glucose tablets. As to how I'm to know if that level is higher than it should be, well I suppose self-monitoring would have revealed it, but not being able to do so I don't know how to tell. However, so far it's not caused any discernible problems.
Anyway, when it comes to Covid, at my present age and with the underlying condition I have, I'm not expecting to have a long wait before being called for my turn to take the jab - and go I shall, with no hesitation, albeit with just a little trepidation and gritted teeth. What I certainly do not need is to be shown on TV what the experience looks like. If their idea is to show how trivial the whole matter is, I can't be unique in it having precisely the opposite effect on me. (D'you hear that, all you TV companies?)
Tuesday 1 December 2020
Oh, how I do intensely dislike cold weather - and temps haven't even touched zero C yet, though it has been grazed on a couple of nights. No one here in this country has seen any new snow except, perhaps, high on the Scottish mountains.
My antipathy for Winter is exacerbated by having two large rooms to keep warm, living room and bedroom (plus kitchen, of course) not just for me but for my four co-residents who feel the cold as acutely as, or even more than, I do, despite their being permanently enshrouded in their fur coats. The expense of keeping us all from freezing is a challenge every year - and now, as reliable as ever, come the warnings that this Winter will be the coldest, if not since ever, then for many years past. But we hear this doom-laden prediction year after year around this time though it never turns out to be as bad as that - so far.
Perfectly aware that I ought to be grateful that I've got a roof over my head - being homeless for just a short while would see the end of me I'm sure. Any thoughts about the depth of suffering of those unfortunate people cuts deep, as it should. So let's stifle my grumbling - after all, it's just three weeks to go before nights start, even if hardly perceptibly, back to getting shorter. In the meantime, my current mood is - ROLL ON SPRING!!!
Monday 16 November 2020
In my daily watching of the current American political shenanigans [mostly via YouTube] I find myself partly bemused, partly confused, by the frequent hurling of certain words from one side to the other [I won't say which side to which 'cos there's no need], not just in terms of deprecation, but in the expectation that the person to whom such address is made is going to feel utterly crushed by such an imprecation, something which we Brits - [at least the vast majority of us] would not feel in any way cowed by - and, to give credit to our American 'cousins' who are the targets of such, for the most part neither are they.
There's a number of such terms being bandied about as though they were 'terms of abuse' and deemed by the attacking side as being sufficiently cutting enough to close down conversation, including, apart from the word 'liberal' itself, 'socialist', 'anti-capitalist', 'politically correct', 'tolerant', 'non-discriminatory' - and, hopelessly off the mark to genuinely apply to 99% of both British and American politicians, 'communist' [of all the terms!]. I, for one, and I'm sure all those of or close to, my persuasions would feel not only unfazed by but actually quite proud to be referred to in these terms - well, perhaps not 'communist' but only because anyone informed enough can see that it's manifestly wide of the mark.
I bring the subject up because recently in our TV networks' reporting on the recent decisive election result [at least the 'President' part of it] and its needlessly drawn-out aftermath, a number of American politicians from both sides are being invited to give interviews here - and exclusively for the Republicans, their interviews almost invariably descend to 'accusing' the BBC or Channel Four [our most middle-of-the-road channel, some would claim slightly left-of-centre] of being - shock, horror! - a typically 'liberal' or even 'left wing' [!] medium, as though that alone invalidates all questions being asked, the interviewer being expected to deny such an egregious 'slur', which they never do, often while trying to hide the smile on their faces. This happens time and time again.
To give the British Conservative Party its due, its members do not spit out these and similar words with the name-calling venom that some American Republicans do in accusatory tone. If they are used at all it's in the sense of being non-judgmentally factual. And I've also noticed, by the way, that when an American right-wing politician is suggested as being 'reactionary' or even a 'fascist-sympathiser' they rarely, if ever, wish to disassociate themselves from such words. Interesting.
But those I'm talking about here, rather than answer a searching question they'll draw out the argument, usually because the answer is too difficult or they don't have one, by throwing in a time-wasting hostile deflection. Can't they just see that such faux-vituperations have zero effect? Exasperating!
So, to all those to whom I'm referring, pray let me have just one more word..........
Monday 9 November 2020
Saturday 7 November 2020
Taking the current most likely Presidential election result as a 'given', I see that some of the current One-Term-President's supporters, that is the less out-and-out crazy ones, are saying that he'll be back to win in 2024 - when, incidentally, he'd be even older than Biden is now. But if he's not already by then in prison, or up to his neck and beyond in litigations, when was the last time an American President, having completed one four year term, lost an election yet remained as party leader [for whichever party], but then came back to win a second four year term? I can't recall it happening in my lifetime - and my memory goes right back to Eisenhower. Would a party want to retain a 'loser' as leader anyway? I only ask because so far I've heard of no one asking the question. Maybe it's premature to even posit such a situation? Just a-wundrin'.
Wednesday 14 October 2020
Thurs 15th 4.30 a.m. - the numbers just keep on coming. When will it end? (Not before I'm ready, please).
Sunday 27 September 2020
Bit of an alarming experience falling out of bed, even moreso for anyone around my age.
Having now got set into a daily routine of taking a mid-morning nap to make up for the lost hours in having to rise between 3 and 4 a.m. to attend to feline needs by serving them their 'breakfasts' followed by ushering them out and fetching back in where necessary, I returned to bed around 9.30 as is my wont on Sundays, having had my first run-through of the 'Observer', intending to rise in time to catch my weekly compulsory listening to 'Desert Island Discs' (Yusuf Cat Stevens today - unmissable).
More often than not on going to bed there are already one, two, sometimes three pussy-cats before me already snoozing there. Today Bobby and Snowball had already bagged their nicely separated 'territories' and I had to snake my body between them, only to be followed shortly later by Blackso, purring loudly and pounding a lower leg of mine, 'massaging' a calf, in effect. Any shifting around on my part would be unwise if I was to avoid being given a threatening hissy snarl on awakening any of them. Anyway I did manage to sleep for a little while but when the time came for me to leave the three deep sleepers, if I wasn't to disturb them I had to go through a series of contortions to extricate myself, only on this occasion to misjudge my physical centre of gravity and tumble right off the side of the bed with a thump - to look up and find three pairs of wide-open green eyes, censoriously fastened on me sitting there, twisted on the carpet. Now if I'd been younger, or even a sprightlier middle-ager, I would have got up and laughed it off. Unfortunately I'm long past that stage now and just getting on one's feet again in such a situation is no trifling matter. Looking this way and that for something to hold onto so that I could lever myself up, at an age when my muscles feel like they are trying to lift all dead-weight, I was sitting there on the carpet for at least a quarter of an hour, the cats having returned unconcerned to their dozings, my evident distress not being their worth to worry about, and probably with some irritation at me having interrupted their repose. Anyway, after struggling every which way, finally with the help of a door knob as a fixed fulcrum I did manage to haul myself up onto the edge of the bed again, panting and puffing like a steam train, but with considerable relief. When I'd gone down it was onto a hip and I did wonder if I might have injured myself, but it only took a few more minutes to recover from a trifling soreness, and soon I was right as rain again. But for a short while I did have some serious concerns as to my well-being.
It's not by any means the first time such as this has happened, the last time was maybe four or five years ago when I tripped right over in the same room. Simply getting up, and beside the same bed once more, took me even longer to get over than today's mishap. I fear that today won't be the last time either.
Oh, the 'joys' of senility, which I guess most of you haven't started to experience yet! It's a laugh a minute, I tell you!
Friday 4 September 2020
So, after several times declaring that after the cinemas have re-opened my excursions thereto will be far less frequent than in the past, here am I, just three days since the last such visit, back again. Justification? Annette Bening. I'll see just about anything in which she features and here, in the starring role, she is utterly marvellous! With an exceptionally high-standard script by William Nicholson (who also directs) concerning a failing marriage it's essentially a human drama involving just three people, the ageing couple and their 20-something son. The husband is the ever-dependable Bill Nighy who, even if he seems invariably to play much same character, he is perfectly cast in this. Their only offspring is well represented by Josh O'Connor.
The story is based on Wm Nicholson's own experiences as he witnessed the collapse of his parents' marriage, with his own very solid script carrying the conviction of someone who's seen it happen first-hand. (He also penned the award-winning C.S. Lewis play , 'Shadowlands', later filmed by Richard Attenborough).
This was filmed last year in a location less then 30 miles away from where I'm typing this, along the English Channel coast. 'Hope Gap', which I'd never heard of is, I learn, one of this shoreline's local features.
Annette Bening is, unusually, playing English. I can only recall her doing it once before, in Ian McKellan's 'Richard III' of 1995. In 'Hope Gap' although her accent does falter a few times I didn't find it so much as to be distracting.
After 29 years of marriage she remains a non-working housewife while Nighy is a history teacher to teenage pupils, dutifully coming home at predicted times to routine cups of tea over desultory conversation with his wife where his lack of enthusiasm and inability to respond with emotion is, though she doesn't say it outright, getting on her nerves. The nub of the story is that he eventually plucks up the courage, after telling his son, to inform her that he's going to leave the marriage - and why. She's incredulous at first, not understanding why he doesn't want to work at saving the relationship. With sharp words exchanged, nearly all from her own side, he walks out on her, leaving both her and their son distraught. The body of the film concerns her fight to hold on to their marriage and his conviction that it's beyond hopeless to even attempt it. One might have thought there'd be a lot of shouty arguments, but while there are just a few points where Bening does raise her voice, - though there's no yelling, nothing headache-y - Nighy tries to retain sang-froid throughout, and largely succeeds, at least on the surface, he remaining softly spoken right through the personal upheaval.
I think the film works so well and is so convincing because the writer has written of what realistically did happen. Although in no way an 'action' film - very wordy, in fact - my attention never wandered once. One regret I did have is that a key encounter takes place close to the film's end, and the very last words of that exchange are uttered so under-the-breath that I didn't catch them at all, nor can guess what they were despite that moment being so crucial.
Bill Nighy in any film always commands one's attention even if he happens to be a background figure in a scene, though he's never so in this. But the undoubted true star here is Bening who has me going so far as to rate her performance here as possibly the best she has ever given. (Pity that the entire audience at the screening I attended was comprised of me alone).
You will note that the two average ratings stated below are nothing like I suggest. I have indeed seen more than just one being rather sniffy, one declaring the film to be 'old-fashioned', which may well be true. I can only reveal that out of all the films I've seen so far this year (yes, all fourteen of them!) this one has given me the most satisfaction of them all..........8.
(IMDb............6.6 / Rott.Toms.........3.8 out of 5 )
Tuesday 1 September 2020
Not the significant event of a film I'd been counting on as a returning 'welcome back' gesture into a cinema, any cinema, after very nearly six months enforced absence.
For a film of 2 hrs 30 mins length one does expect a certain level of cohesion and cogency but I was, frankly, all at sea within minutes of the start. Just who were these characters? For whom were they working? What were they fighting over? That the entire world was at stake, I got, but the motives and plots behind the story remained a mystery to me throughout. To add to the confusion the final half hour or more is given over to a battle between two armies. Just who was fighting whom, God only knows! There was some race against time with thumping background score to keep us on the edge of our seats, but over what? Amid all the clamorous explosions, gunfire, as well as fist fights (and throwing near-at-hand objects at each other), most of the participants were for much of the time in head-to-foot camouflage gear, and helmeted and visored, so I got completely lost as to just who was who.
An original feature of this film (we are given a number of illustrations of it in the film's earlier stages) is that in several scenes time goes both backwards and forwards simultaneously, the direction of travel depending on the character, not only in the combat scenes but also in an extended car chase with lots of crashes which, in reverse time mode, the vehicles 'de-crash' themselves. And in the culminating noisy confrontation, blown-up buildings reverse their demolition. Presumably such is reflected in the choice of a palindromic word as the film's title. But putting that aside, was the film confusing? You bet! And what was the point of having this time reversal thingy anyway?
The main character - and the principal 'goodie' - referred to simply as 'The Protagonist' is played by the likeable John David Washington (above, so good in Spike Lee's 'BlackKklansman' of 2018) though here he's as invincible and as quickly recovering from injury as 007 would himself be.
So we know that 'The Protagonist' is going to save the world as we can surmise from his otherwise blank name, but the rest of the cast - Elizabeth Debicki, and even Robert Pattinson and Aaron Taylor-Johnson - can they really be trusted as to which side they are actually on even if they are colleagues of the 'Protagonist'? But there's no such ambiguity as to Kenneth Branagh's character, a nasty, sadistic Russian oligarch and megalomaniac (Boo! Hissssss!) who'd easily give Ernst Stavro Blofeld a run for his money. In addition, Sir Michael Caine makes an early two-minute (max) cameo.
I'd been wishing that I'd taken the trouble to have seen this film on an Imax screen, which would have been possible with a little travelling, but I doubt if it would have changed my ultimate opinion of it. But what might have made a difference is that I saw it at a cinema which does not have the best sound quality, making yet more pronounced my frequent difficulty of understanding much of the dialogue. I wish I'd seen it subtitled which I could have done but would have meant going out in the dark which is not feasible nowadays. That should have cleared up quite a bit of the confusion I felt on what the hell it was all about ought.
As you'd expect with this director, there are a number of visually impressive set-piece 'chapters', perhaps the most memorable being at the start in a crowded concert hall. However, I think that around two-thirds through a film which requires an amount of concentration, I was aware of my attention starting to flag and visual and aural fatigue gaining hold.
Despite 'Inception' also having itself many enigmatic strands, some never fully explained, I was at least glued to the screen and intrigued by what was happening throughout - and I paid to see it again on a cinema screen. Not so with 'Tenet'........6.
(IMDb................8 / Rott.Toms...........4.4 out of 5 )
Thursday 27 August 2020
Though now they'll likely be very sporadic.
Booked to see the eagerly-awaited (by me) 'Tenet' at this local seafront cinema next Tuesday, which'll be just two days shy of six months since seeing my last film.
Told you this posting was going to be concise.
Monday 24 August 2020
Tuesday 18 August 2020
With some regret (just a little bit) it would appear that my days of frequent cinema-going are now part of the past. I haven't been at all since last March, and even when it becomes possible again I should think that for me the practice wouldn't be more than a well-spaced rarity. However, on those occasions when it does happen I will still post my thoughts on any film in question as before.
Thus, in order to keep this blog alive so long as I am so myself, I will attempt to post now and again on a miscellany of subjects, hopefully not too weighty but in concise and pithy manner, so you may know there's still life in this old boy yet!
Next post is coming soon(ish). See ya there?
Wednesday 10 June 2020
Sunday 17 May 2020
The selection of these few songs - which included no less than four of the U.K.'s five winners ('Puppet on a String' strangely not making it) - were decided by a panel of 'experts' and celebrities, many/most (all?) of them far too young to having watched the original presentations going back to 1956, unlike myself.
Anyway, the winner was predictable. Though I've been a lifelong ardent fan of ABBA, I do still recall how disappointed I felt way back in 1974 when this came out on top. And in all the years since then my view hasn't changed. There's no doubt that the song made a bigger 'splash' than any other Eurovision song in the contest's history, and did more for the performers than anything else ever did - nothing else comes even close - but as for being a 'great' song I must take issue. In ABBA's own subsequent canon it rates, at best, as only 'middling' and I've never been able to understand why it won.
However, to be honest, it's been very rare when what I rated as the best song was the one that was the ultimate victor. The last time that happened was Norway's 'Fairy Tale' performed by Alexander
Rybak's boy-faced, hottie fiddler in 2009. But more often than not I'm left flummoxed, sore, and even a bit angry, at the choice of winner.
Out of the 19 songs offered which could be voted on I'd have given mine to the U.K.'s 'Brotherhood of Man's 'Save your Kisses For Me', also, incidentally, the most successful Eurovision song of all time in terms of record sales.
Having stated my view that 'Waterloo'was not a worthy winner for the 'greatest' Eurovision entry, it's only fair that I offer a couple of my own nominations for that title -
'L'amour est bleu' which finished a relatively lowly fourth for Luxembourg in 1967 - an instrumental version under the title of (what else!) 'Love is Blue' reached #12 in the U.K. in 1968 but actually topped the American Billboard charts for a full five weeks in that same year.
'Hallelujah' from Israel's group 'Milk and Honey' in 1979 which, although it won, wasn't deemed by the panel of being of sufficient merit to be included in those which could be voted on.
'Tom Pillibi', France's 1960 winner.
And I nominate one which will ruffle a few feathers, but it's honest - for the U.K., Cliff Richard singing - no, not 'Congratulations' - but 'Power to All our Friends', which finished a very respectable 3rd in 1973, the top three in that year being very close in score - and a song being, I think even now, one of the 'greats', knocking spots off most other entries both before and since. Unfortunately, when it came to the actual performance in contest, Cliff distracted from the song by his unintentionally comic leg movements. But it really was a classic song.
There are perhaps another score or more of songs I could offer for consideration, most of them non-winners, but got to draw the line somewhere.
And having got all that off my chest, I feel better now - though could still do without having to listen to that infernal 'Waterloo' ever again!
Monday 4 May 2020
Now, who will join my petition to have this supremely gifted individual canonised? - while still alive, which might be unprecedented but this is a man with unprecedented talents, and a humble and holy man to boot. A sainthood will sit very nicely beside the 'Noble' Peace Prize he's long overdue in receiving (or should that be a 'Wurlitzer' Prize?)
So everybody, three cheers now for this living embodiment of selfless disregard of his own interests and his studious prioritising of the often desperate needs of hard-working American citizens everywhere --------------- HIP HIP..............
Friday 24 April 2020
Following the utterly marvellous 'Superstar' of a fortnight ago, and a most impressive 'Phantom' last w/e - performed in the Royal Albert Hall as a 25th year celebration [so 2011?] including a cast of so many extras which no conventional theatre could have held.
And now today, starting at 7 p.m. [British Summertime] there becomes available a chance to see the sequel to 'Phantom', 'Love Never Dies' a piece I've never heard - not even one single number from it - let alone seen. It didn't have a particularly long West End theatre run, at least not in Lloyd Webber terms, though it has had quite substantial praise from some critics, some even claiming it as being superior to the original 'Phantom'. I'm looking forward to it immensely, as it should also do so to any of the composer's fans to whom it'll also come as something new. I've no idea yet of the cast, though as the production has had A.L.W.'s blessing one can safely assume it's definitely not going to be bad.
Btw: Also looking forward to a showing of his 'By Jeeves' - possibly next w/e? - a pleasant, light-hearted affair with which I'm now fairly familiar, having an audio-cassette of the complete musical, and then actually getting to see it on stage a few years back - and an under-valued piece of theatre I think [even though when I was there a party of about half-a dozen adults in front of me walked out after half an hour muttering "What rubbiish!"] - with lyrics by no less than Alan Ayckbourn, probably still the world's most prolific and successful living playwright.
But I do hope some of you at least will enjoy 'Love Never Dies' as much as I'm hoping to.
(Next day) Well, I must say that after having watched it straight through - it's a bit shorter than 'Phantom' - I found it pretty good, and will take the opportunity to watch it again tomorrow as goodness knows when I'll have another chance.
It's filmed from a theatrical performance in Melbourne in 2011 with an Aussie cast, mostly not bad, though I did have concerns about a lack of consistency in projecting the solo voices which is often so low in comparison with the big chorus numbers, that I decided to watch the whole thing with subtitles - a big improvement, especially for Ben Lewis as the Phantom who has the opening song setting the scene, except were it not for being able to read it I wouldn't have had a clue as to what he was warbling about - and, unfortunately, it is a warble to start with, though his voice does get better as the show progresses. Anna O'Byrne is Christine and she's not at all bad throughout.
The story, now in New York and moved on a decade, is very similar to the original, with the Phantom pursuing Christine and trying to persuade her to sing his specially composed song one last time, that song being the show's title - not a very arresting phrase for attracting attention and lodging it in one's memory, but it is the climactic number.
I was impressed by how much entirely new (and attractive) music has been written, having expected that a lot of it would be a re-hash of melodies already heard in the first part. Though there are echoes of the original, which we'd only expect (and at least one direct quote), Lloyd Webber manages to keep to the spirit of the first while writing a load of original, richly melodic stuff.
The audience in this capture was curiously subdued for the most part that it could well have been performed with no audience at all with little difference - only at the start and towards the end did they make their presence felt.
It's a show I'd like to see live, perhaps in a two-day double-bill with the original (which I've only seen the once - though do try to forget the film version!) but this also stands on its own - and, as I say, good enough to make me want to watch it again tomorrow. I'd recommend it - and, btw, it is available to watch globally (presumably for just the same 48 hours that it's available in this country). The shows must go on - and so do the pleasures!
Sunday 12 April 2020
My first encounter with this musical was [for me] the highly unsatisfactory 1973 film version, widely criticised on release for having such a charisma-lite Jesus, in the person of one Ted Neely whose flyweight presence was emphasised all the more by the bullet-like Carl Anderson as Judas. The leaden direction of Norman Jewison only made matters worse.
But after that, sometime in the late 70s I saw it live on stage and was immediately converted into seeing what a fine piece of theatre it really is - musically, lyrically and [but of course], story. I've seen it in the theatre in all, I think, six times, and they've all made me tear up [i.e. with tears as in 'eye']. I'd love to see it again.
So it was the same effect with this present spectacular production, updated to the present day but with a strong hark back to the 60s in the time of student demonstrations and the like.
Cast here is v.good indeed - led by that present-day Aussie multi-talent-on-legs, Tim Minchin, as Judas, perfect foil to a strong Jesus presence in Ben Forster. Mary Magdelene is [former?] Spice Girl Mel C., actually pretty good - plus the one whose outrageously entertaining song everybody looks forward to, King Herod, well played with sufficient camp without overdoing it, by former BBC [and other] radio presenter Chris Moyles. [Pity that when he's crucified, Jesus' 'crown of thorns' slipped right down over one eye - but that's live theatre for you].
The huge audience didn't hold back from voicing their acclaim, and at the end, the composer Lord L.W. himself came on stage to say a few words and thank the cast. He fully deserved to be well pleased. I was! What a treat! Terrific stuff!
[And I'm ever so sorry again not to be able to provide any stills]
Sunday 5 April 2020
Thanks to so many of your encouraging messages of support, positive suggestions, and (my own) persistence, I've at last got round the biggest problem I've had since last mid-week - (hooray!) - namely. an inability to access the @ sign, now solved as you can see. I'm able again to send e-mails to ask for assistance plus everything else.
If anyone is curious as to know how we've arrived at this point I won't repeat it all here, but it's set out in my previous post under the last comment of 'Anon'. At least I can now return to some semblance of 'normality' (in these abnormal times), even if there's some measure of hiding still some measure of inconvenience of doing so, which may not be apparent, but still small beer when set against the far greater urgency of dodging that blasted virus!
Meantime, thanks again to all who offered their help whether it worked or not. Warmest of hugs all round!
And now I'll probably spend the rest of the day whistling 'Gaudeamus igitur' !
Thursday 2 April 2020
And to cap it all yesterday in my frustration I ill-advisedly decided to 're-set' the lap-top to what it was when bought, as one site recommended I do, with infuriating result that I was unsurprisingly shut out of my regular sites, including e-mails - and because the 'at' key doesn't work I can't now get back in most of them as they require the e-mail address which, of course, needs the 'at' sign. For the same reason I'm unable to purchase any download which claims to solve it. [I only got back onto this my blog-site by sheer fluke and now dare not sign out on it]. At any other time I'd have simply carried this laptop down to our local 'Lap-Top Shop' just a mile away, but of course it's now closed until God only knows when.
So, this is an appeal in desperation that one of you just might have some bright idea[s] without my seriously expecting too much - but if anyone can offer some constructive assistance to help me avoid being in Limbo for possibly months to come I'd be eternally grateful. Thanks for reading, even if that's all you can do.
Sunday 29 March 2020
Btw: This must be the first time I've ever posted twice in one day. Prob'ly won't be the last.
Saturday 28 March 2020
Outside one of the tightly-packed Churches a female member of the congregation was questioned on the wisdom of allowing such large gatherings. Her response:-
"It's not possible to get the virus in a church. It's a holy place."
And her profession? She's a doctor.
I'd like go say they deserve what they get, and I would if it weren't for their taking down so many innocents with them.
So Gawd help us! (but please not them!).
Friday 27 March 2020
Oh dear! Do people around here just not care?
Yesterday evening at 8, despite the chilly outside, I flung open my front window and clap, clap, clapped in support of our National Health heroes - and, as far as I could hear, I was the only one doing so, at least among the houses within earshot. I even turned the T.V. sound off as well as checking out back to listen if anyone may have been in their back garden joining me - Nothing! Not a dickie bird! Particularly disappointing as our area's large general hospital is a mere 3-400 yards away, an imposing structure I see every time I look out of my front window.
Heartening to hear this morning what a success it had turned out to be in other parts - check out JayGee's blog if you haven't already done so - https://disasterfilm.blogspot.com/2020/03/thank-you.html Thank you John!💟
Yesterday, third day of our 'lockdown' went to my local supermarket and, unsurprisingly, found their new policy had been adopted - they're letting in only 40 customers at a time and there was a queue around the perimeter of the car park, each keeping at least 6 feet apart or, at least, that's the idea, Took me 40 mins of waiting to get in but I'm not complaining about that, and when I did managed to get very nearly everything on my list - only rice wasn't in evidence. But now that's done I'll see if I can make shopping a once-weekly effort instead of my usual two, sometimes three, times a week, though I'd hate to put my back out again. then really will be in trouble. If only cat food bought in bulk wasn't so darned heavy - but they don't care a darned fig about my own well-being, so useless to moan.
Fervently hope all you precious blogpals of mine will manage to continue dodging the virus bullet - and we can come through this with a healthy bounce without having to mourn many more of our lost ones, most especially any who may be known or even close to us.
Take special care, my friends.
Tuesday 17 March 2020
Major concern for me now, after attending my long-standing appointment to get toenails cut this Sat (getting urgent) is buying food when stringent restrictions come into play on outdoor movements for certain categories, including me as a 70+ oldie. Tried to see how quickly my local supermarket (Waitrose) could do me a home delivery come the time I need it, and as at today there are no slots available for at least a fortnight, and it's sure to get worse. Oh well. Playing it day-to-day seems to be the only way.
My reviews will resume at the other side of this most troubling time. See ya! (And earnestly hoping you'll all - every single one of you - dodge it!)
Tuesday 3 March 2020
Even now I'm already feeling exasperated at having to write more about the film. I know I ought to have found it more involving, but the fact is I didn't. There are no explicit sex scenes and what nudity there is brief and somewhat coy, though that made not one jot of difference either way to me.
Direction (by Celine Sciamma who also wrote the screenplay) and camera-work is assured and efficient enough, and scenery is as impressive as one might expect, but I'd turn down any request to sit through this again, unless I was handsomely recompensed for doing so - but note below what other sites are scoring, so there must be an awful lot who've gone all gaga over it. My own rating in terms of the 'enjoyment' I derived is a temperate............5.
(IMDb................8.6 - yes, really! - Rott.Toms...........4.3 / 5 - yes, really! )
Monday 2 March 2020
Firstly, dispel any notions of H.G.Wells' classic tale with which this shares its title.
Elizabeth Moss (not a 'beauty' in the conventional western sense, but what an expressive face!) plays a woman locked - no, imprisoned - into an abusive relationship in a large, isolated. mansion-sized modern house (filmed in Sydney, N.S.W.) by a man, an 'optics scientist' (?), who wants her to have his baby - and from whom she's ever so desperate to escape. She achieves this in pre-planned fashion and, convinced that he'll do everything he can to search her out, she takes up residence with a sympathetic single man (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter. Shortly afterwards she's shown a newspaper report that not only has this former abusive partner died by suicide, but he's left to her an enormous fortune to be paid out in instalments over many years, but with stringent conditions attached, one of the most important being that she engages in no criminal activity. She suspects it's a hoax, despite being assured that his body's been cremated. Then when she's alone she gets a feeling of a presence in the same room, objects being moved when her back is turned - plus, inevitably, blankets being pulled off the bed while she's sleeping. Convinced that somehow the 'deceased' is the culprit it's the familiar tale of no one believing her, ascribing these events to her over-vivid imagination - until the happenings culminate in an horrific murder in public which, to the witnesses present, she herself committed - and thus putting her forthcoming monies in suspension, and her likely to be losing it all. Arrest, hospital incarceration, interviews - it's all presented in formulaic though non-plodding fashion.
The suspense of the first three-quarters of this two-hours film is real nail-biting stuff, most effectively done. Although the final half hour turned into expected and guessable cat-and-mouse game it still had its moments - there having been a heavy hint in the film's first half when she makes a certain discovery of how the denouement will finally play out - but even so, it's a satisfying finish - astonishing twists and all.
Elizabeth Moss is simply stunningly credible in the part, rarely off the screen she steals most of the scenes with ease.
Directing, story and screenplay are all by Australian Leigh Whannell who's probably best know for the grisly 'Saw' franchise (I've only seen the original 'Saw' - that was quite enough, thank you!) but I think in this film he does himself proud.
Now for that downside. This is one of those films where a large part of the dialogue is delivered in indecipherable mumbles - and, not only that, also in whispers where, indeed the parties conversing have no particular need to speak in such subdued pitch. Why, oh why do they do this? I think I must have missed at least half of the film's entire script, and sorely wish I'd gone to a subtitled screening, which would have been quite possible. If the film had been trashy it wouldn't have mattered so much but it's a special loss when it otherwise looks to be a good one. I concede that at my age there is bound to be at least some loss in my hearing capacity, though it's still a mystery why I don't experience that lack in other aspects of my life. I always want, at certain points, to ask random members of the audience if they could tell me what had just been said - and the reaction I'd expect in nearly every case would be a shrug of the shoulders and a shake of the head - though it doesn't seem to bother them too much. Maybe it's just me who's too fussy? Or could it conceivably be that the sound reproduction for all my home town's (pop. 110,000) five screens is particularly poor?
This is a damn good film, enough jumps and starts to keep you watching, never monotonous for a moment. Pity, then, that were it not for the aforementioned defect I would have rated it a bit more exalted than a...........7.
(IMDb,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,7.6 - Rott.Toms.............4.3/5 )