smokingboot: (porcupine)
[personal profile] smokingboot
is unforgettable if that town is Oldham. Never again.

Oldham is a peculiar place; bombed in the war I presume, or very poor or under-invested...dotted with streets of beautiful victorian houses against a backdrop of dereliction and demolition. Not that the centre isn't convenient and easy to walk around. Doubtless it has its Next, its Gap, its Starbucks, its Asda, its generic wahwah...I couldn't tell you. All I've seen are its pubs, and I saw a lot of those.

Twas a friend's birthday, and out we went, first to a cheap pub, then to a very expensive pub, then to a pub that gave you tubes of undefined alcohol, then to a pub with music and a dance floor; I said my goodbyes at the stage of going to a nightclub because I was out of money, and anyway, I wanted out because it was all so weird.


They don't have their heads shaved close unless they are gay and wearing the Oldham Gay Uniform; a vest showing off perfect abs and muscles, a tan, major tribal tats down one arm and across the back, and camos. The Oldham Straight Uniform consists of a very short square haircut on a very short square head, some jeans, a dark t-shirt underneath a white short-sleeved M&S shirt worn open (the daring may have a tiny print pattern but let's not go wild here) and a pint attached preferably to their favoured arm so they can't use said arm in pocket billiards while watching the girls dance.

I walked into the first pub and almost walked out again, badly shaken by the moose factor. I have never seen so many ugly people in my life; these people need more greens in their diet, badly. And it carried on, though we had a fine time; I first realised that I wasn't getting drunk, despite the best efforts of all around me, because however much I drank the people didn't get prettier.

OK, there is something nice about that arrogant feeling of walking into a room and thinking, 'Oh wow, you bet I am the sweetest looking creecha in here!' This works if you've been feeling a bit rubbish about yourself, but it can't continue for long once you realise that 90% of your admirers can blow bubbles through their noses, and are drunk enough to try to prove it to you. If you danced, they clustered around you like carnies round a hot dog.

It was all a bit horrible, though not as horrible as being chatted up by them. The time-honoured method of smiling, saying 'What? Can't hear! Must find the loo!' preferably with added hand-gestures, didn't work, which is why I found myself escaping to the Ladies' toilets with posses of other women trying to flee the expanding puddles of sub-standard testosterone...and perhaps why all the girls held each others hands on the way, in order to escape being grabbed by some likely lad slurring 'Jushwondanshgwanpleashahcummon...ehwellfuckoffthenifyergwantobelikethat!'

We had our own dramas as a party; our hostess kissed some cromagnon from the counselling course, at which point his girlfriend burst into tears and hassle started. All I could think was how ugly tongues look if you stick them right out. There's something about the nodules on the underside that's a bit disturbing, particularly when they are licking someone's head; the effect can be disturbingly snail-like. The hassle was sorted, and I came home, wearied in mind. I enjoyed the dancing, but that was about it; lovely though my Oldham friends are, there are some scenes where one just doesn't belong. When I returned, I reeked so badly of cigarette smoke, it took two showers with heavilly perfumed soaps and shampoos to get rid of it.


The remainder of the weekend consisted of more mellow activities; meeting up with marvellous chums all round; Bruce and Vickiy sans lj, and their charming little boy Garrett, [profile] larians, [profile] bluesandtwos, [profile] lauremer, [profile] velvet_the_cat and Dan sans lj; late sunday night saw me happy and relaxed.

Now come monday morning, I must take stock of my new found knowledge; Kingdom of Heaven isn't bad actually; garden centres are dangerous places; kids can be quite fun when you have the option of handing them back; and, now and forever, just say no to Oldham.

Date: 2005-12-12 11:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ephraim.livejournal.com
You are so very wrong about Kingdom of Heaven! I've seen more exciting excrement.

Date: 2005-12-12 11:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] smokingboot.livejournal.com
There are some pretty astonishing turds out there!

With Ridley Scott, I never know whether I'm just watching for the beauty or the story. Maybe I was just in love with all that lush kit/trebuchets etc, and certainly the period is a fascinating one. Saladin had just the right kind of face.

The script, I concede, wasn't one of the film's strong points!

Date: 2005-12-12 12:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ephraim.livejournal.com
I think what really drove mke mad was the boy blacksmith teaching the poor confused Arabs about irrigation! Utter bollocks.

Date: 2005-12-12 12:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] smokingboot.livejournal.com
That one definitely slipped under my radar - but then the film was full of wincible holes like the mass knighting etc. I liked the little touches howerver strange and unlikely, cups full of ice, the leprous prince of Jerusalem, his debauched sister whose return to simplicity and virtue could be charted through her ever lessening reliance on eye-shadow...

Fantastic setting, story needed, er, work.

Date: 2005-12-12 01:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thru-her-lens.livejournal.com
Agreed :)
Beautiful film, some nice touches, but yes it needed work.
All in all I still liked it enough to maybe watch it again.

Date: 2005-12-12 03:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] smokingboot.livejournal.com
I think for me it would be one of those films I fastforward to the cinematic bits a lot. I am desperate for someone to re-make El Cid, it's the nearest I have found that satisfies my need for glittering historical fantasy. But there are no new Hestons out there...

Date: 2005-12-12 09:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lauremer.livejournal.com
What the film really needed was a better leading man. Orlando Bloom just cannot hack it. I thought the film was pretty but uninspiring.

Re leading man

Date: 2005-12-12 09:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] smokingboot.livejournal.com
I think he was all right; he was very earnest. But I suspect he doesn't have the star quality to 'carry' a film.

Re: Re leading man

Date: 2005-12-12 09:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lauremer.livejournal.com
Of the recent(ish) ancient battle movies - I did not think much of the leadership abilities of Orlando or Colin Farrel (Alexander) but I would of happily followed Russel Crowe (Gladiator) or Bernard Hill (LotR) in battle.

Re: Re leading man

Date: 2005-12-12 10:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] smokingboot.livejournal.com
Bernard isTheoden. I would sooner follow him into battle than Maximus or even Aragorn, despite all his pessimistic speeches. He's my idea of what a king should be. But of course, he couldn't play a young, embittered but actually idealistic blacksmith come knigget.

Crowe could, but but the leading man/idealistic hero is a sharply drawn template; I'm not convinced his adventuring crusader would be that different to his adventuring naval captain or his adventuring gladiator.

Alexander was by far the worst movie I have seen these past 2 years. Farrel was fortunate to be rescued by Sin City.

Re: Re leading man

Date: 2005-12-12 11:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lauremer.livejournal.com
Crowe does get the odd different part eg John Nash that makes me think he is a bit more of an actor that orlando.

I have seen worse than alexander - I do go and see plenty of films though. I thought it handled the battle seen very well but never showed what made alexander great

Re: Re leading man

Date: 2005-12-13 12:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] smokingboot.livejournal.com
I thought Crowe was magnificent as John Nash; but Nash doesn't fit the hero template at all really. A once in a life-time role.

Alexander was this strange jolting montage of scenes that told neither history nor his story. I don't know what Stone was trying to achieve with it.

Re: Re leading man

Date: 2005-12-13 12:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] larians.livejournal.com
Was Colin Farrel in Sin City? Are you mistaking him for Clive Owen?

Re: Re leading man

Date: 2005-12-13 12:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] smokingboot.livejournal.com
Damn it, I am!

*blinks in confusion*

Re: Re leading man

Date: 2005-12-13 12:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] smokingboot.livejournal.com
Honey, can you phone me back asap? You'll never guess what's happened!

Profile

smokingboot: (Default)
smokingboot

December 2025

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 45 6
789 10 11 1213
141516 17181920
2122 2324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Dec. 24th, 2025 06:10 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios