"Is This Thing On?" - Good Question

Alex Novak (Will Arnett) is undergoing a separation from his wife Tess (Laura Dern), and decides to do stand-up at an open mic night when he cannot afford the door charge, and in talking about his life he gets a few laughs, and finds a new lease on life.

(Credit: IMDB)
The third directorial effort from Bradley Cooper could have been 90 minutes and a relatively strong, low key debut from a new standup or aspiring filmaker, or even a sweet much-needed and long-overdue character piece and leading role for Will Arnett (who, to be fair, is fantastic in this and the reason I watched). Instead Cooper has gorged himself on a self-indulgent platter of budget mumblecore mediocrity and boredom, sustained only by the good graces of Laura Dern (as most movies are) who is a miracle worker pulling her part out of the depths of "dickhead" and a rather excellent Arnett. The script wants to be an intimate slice of life and 70s "anti-rom-com" where the characters have scenes of them simply getting along as they make breakfast, chattering with their kids, doing the school run, together but not and trying to capture that intimacy which once was; so that when Alex turns to stand up, we see his life blossom from the misery he was in, and thrive anew as he realises what was important.
Unfortunately the script is drowning in the cum of its self-satisfied writers (Cooper, Arnett and Mark Chappell): Laura Dern at one point is made to deliver the line "You don't love me, you love the idea of me" and it's like watching her recite Oasis lyrics at gunpoint: though she is Larua Dern so she does manage to come out of this with some dignity, it's still rough. You can feel every "future acting class" seep through the celluloid, aided in no small part by Cooper's direction.
I hate this.
There were sparks of brilliance in the work: the stand up scenes capture that anxiety, that swell of the crowds, the heaving underground clubs, and the thrill as it takes off. Those are where it shines, though I can see some pretentious wankers responding well to the catnip of the facsimile quasi-spontaneous discourse. But if that's what you're after, watch something like "Drinking Buddies": it just makes Arnett's performance infuriating, as it's in service of this overlong dirge in the trenches of Cooper's exceeded reach. A trio of supporting characters stop the film dead during one of its many detours, led by Christine (a particularly odious encapsulation of everything wrong with the scripting, right down to her sitting down and delivering fancy theatrical monologues to Laura Dern. No hatred to Andra Day in the part, she's not the problem here) just to sing "Amazing Grace" whilst placing plates down. For you see, dear viewer, Alex and Tess once were lost, right, but, get this, now they are found!

This isn't "A Good Person", but the alarm bells began ringing. There are enough little bits like that to really rustle my jimmies: the volleyball comparisons (get it? She was a volleyball player in her prime, right, and much like the ball her marriage has come back down to Earth), the use of "Under Pressure" for the finale (because "Give Love a Chance", "This is our last chance". Though much like that fairly dreadful album "Hot Space" it is the token soaring highlight) and the constant conversations about marriage. I get it, I want a diet of more emotionally engaging, knotty, interesting movies - I've complained about it here multiple times and it's a common refrain. I appear to be in the minority here, and it's fine.
Oh, and Cooper plays Balls (har-har), the husband of Christine and the kooky comic relief support character and best friend, who is supposed to be funny and charming (delivering the big turning point advice in the final act): but Cooper is not charming enough to pull it off.
I slept on this film after seeing it because I was tired and not expecting it to be 2 FUCKING HOURS LONG, thinking that I'd be nicer. But holy fuck my sleep has just refilled my bile tanks.
Yes, Cooper's not good in the part and I realised that I don't like him: he's been something on the periphery existing for a while now, vaguely there but not something I'm interested in. He's the equivalent of bean bags.
And yes, this has made the penny drop and have me go "fuck I don't like this guy." however his character is a little emblem of the film: middle class smugness and mediocrity as wealthy shitheels vent about their non problems to fellow wankers rather than going to therapy. And Will Arnett does go "Oh Jesus Fucking Christ" when Balls arrives at his flat, in the most relatable part of the movie.
OH and ANOTHER THING!
"Is This Thing On?" refers not to the microphone but their marriage, get it? Get it? DO YOU FUCKING GET IT?!
I loved Arnett and hope that he gets a shitload of work off the back of this, and I liked Chloe Radcliffe as the comedian-magician: I want an indie movie from her.
"Wild At Heart" was playing in the same cinema at the same time I saw this, I should have watched that.
Fuck me.

"Rental Family" - Review

Actor Phillip Vanderploeg (Brendan Fraser) lives in Japan, 7 years after he found success there in a toothpaste advert, seeking his next role. After an unusual job comes up, he is invited to the business of Shinji (Takehiro Hira) - that of "rental families": clients will seek the services of a child, parent, sibling, or even just a friend, in order to fulfill a missing part of their lives. Hesitant, but in need of steady work, Phillip tentatively dips his toes into the world as their "token white guy". In helping people with their lives, Phillip learns more about his own along the way...

(Credit: Nerdist)
I saw director Hikari's previous film "37 Seconds" a couple of years ago, and rather enjoyed it: a wonderfully observed, low stakes little tale of a woman with cerebral palsy attempting to lose her virginity in order to make her doujin work better; though I feel it strayed too far in the final act and became about something else entirely. "Rental Family" has no such problems: it doubles down on the strengths of her works (low stakes, emotional beats and themes of being adrift and alone, and attention to detail with softer character beats) whilst working on the final act a little more and tightening the reins. It's a gentle, warm film about discovering a little about yourself, and the importance of human connection and those tiny moments we take for granted: I really enjoyed the little scenes of Phillip with his bearded client playing video games, and his time with a sex worker (Tamae Ando, who gets a sweet moment with a fortune teller). There are well shot parallels with a mirror and a funeral, and the supporting cast come together wonderfully: whilst it's a showcase for Brendan Fraser, I really enjoyed Mari Yamamoto as his colleague, and Takehiro Hira ("Tornado" is pretty good) as Shinji: who got a 3rd act joke so good it honestly will be the thing I remember most from the film, perfectly timed and immaculately executed.
The film is well directed by Hikari: she weaves between two lovely stories about fatherhood, where the tension comes from knowing exactly how this is going to end, and simply believing that knowing a person helps one to know oneself in those moments. She makes the film feel intimate yet also adrift, a fine balancing act and tightrope to walk. I feel like Phillip in this movie: I'm in this city, very "Rear Window" gazing at my neighbours, briefly glimpsing true happiness when I speak with and glimpse these characters around him, only to then return to my own life, perhaps slightly changed from watching it...
It's warm and sweet and none too saccharine, light stuff and well done. I feel it's a palette cleanser before "Primate"...

The Van Dammeathon - "No Retreat, No Surrender"

Part 1, let's do this!
We begin our Van Dammeathon with "No Retreat, No Surrender", a movie I am only familiar with due to finding a copy of the unrelated cash-in sequel starring Cynthia Rothrock. This was an early effort from one Keith Strandberg, who apparently had never written a script before (Not to tip my hand too early, but we can tell...) and rewrote it over the course of filming, on set. But he's not important, in the greater scheme of things. For my purposes we are more interested in director Corey Yuen. An absolute legend of Hong Kong cinema, masterful choreographer and:

He's had something of a mixed/bum rap in Western films: his last effort as a director was the masterpiece of trash cinema "DOA: Dead or Alive", and his best work was with Statham in the fight scenes of "Transporter" and "Transporter 2", he's essentially the reason we have "Matrix" and "John Wick" movies (themselves influences on action movies today) now; like a Russian nesting doll of stylish violence.
So far we have all of the ingredients for successful fun: any script can be elevated by being given to a hungry unknown young star (Van Damme's big beautiful face is all over the box)

(Photo credit: Amazon. Fun fact too, my copy is a 12. Presumably everybody saw sense.)
Directed by Corey Yuen? What better way to start off the marathon by showing us what Van Damme can do!
Premise:
The film focuses on a young martial artist and Bruce Lee fanatic by the name of Jason Stillwell (Kurt McKinney), forced to move to Seattle after his karate instructor father (Timothy D Baker) has his leg broken and jimmies rustled by some mobsters out to shake down the various dojos.

(They also look like a slightly melted Serpico and are led by a machine-washed James Remar)
Van Damme plays the otherwise mute trump card of the mob, Ivan, and Jason must rise to the challenge of becoming a worthy warrior to defeat him!
Concept:
What we have here is a rather atrocious knock off of "Karate Kid". You'd think that the movie would be a coming of age tale, or a dude learning to channel the warrior spirit, but somehow the makers got confused and told the cast to play it as a romance between a city slicker and his new black neighbour R.J.

Seriously, the scenes feel like something out of a Canon Film (later a huge ally and backer of Van Damme's career), but I get ahead of myself. The big man himself is only at the very start of the film:

(Admittedly he does this pretty sick jump kick) Where he fights against a budget John Saxon lookalike:

And then only reappears again right at the very end, in the final battle, which to be fair remembers that he is the main villain.
So, casting JCVD in a supporting villainous role in a "Karate Kid" knock off where he's not even the main bad guy?
Concept: 1 Point
So, onto Execution.
The movie disregards the conventions of cinema and feels like a facsimile of a homosexual romance, punctuated by fights scenes peppered through with the grace and coherence of a concussed emu reciting "Finnegan's Wake":

Be they birthday parties.

Homosexual grappling festivities enacted by Tommy Tallarico

His mother would be very proud.
Or dance offs:

It's not exactly the finest hour of Yuen for all of his talents, and seems to struggle to weave its script together into anything coherent, though we get some good young Van Damme kicks and fights in the aforementioned final act. You may not get that far, however, because the sound design is atrocious.
Is that the best I've got? Sound Design? Well, who the hell gives a shit about sound design and audio in the greater scheme of things on this hellish island?
Nobody!
So imagine why I noticed this horseshit? Every piece of dialogue was recorded in a bin they used to play the drums on "St Anger", and every sound effect from their bootleg VHS tape recordings is drowned in a swathe of synthesisers which make the scenes spooky for some reason.
Execution: 2
Charm
I cannot help but enjoy this Canon-Spawn progenitor of a movie. It's like a rough translation of a competent martial arts film, punctuated by some of the most ludicrous figures in cinema, but played with such confident earnestness by everybody except Van Damme (who remains stoic and deathly serious, here to show off his chops and prove that he belongs)

There's some sort of cartoonish, ridiculous over the top stylings to it all. Like, within moments of meting his gay lover R.J, our hero Jason is beset by a bully and chase scenes of R.J being hunted down by the large fellow ensue, and I swear that there is a moment when he pauses to do this:

(His name is Scotty and we shall get to him)
Seriously, the ludicrous sillines of it really works for me. It's a great time if you get some friends round and have a few beers to watch it with. And on one final note, the movie has the gall to be pure Brucesploitation (briefly: a genre so odious I cannot help but respect it, where lower budget movie makers capitalised on the death of Bruce Lee by making movies about it or featuring him as a character) by having his ghost arive to give advice to our protagonist after his beatdown.

Well, I say the ghost of Bruce Lee, it's more like a crayon-drawing of the man:

Charm: 3.
Villain.
Hooo boy.
So Van Damme is the main villain, right?

No, our main villain is a large kid named Scotty. I love his energy. He's like a Stephen King bully made manifest, then unleashed into a Saturday morning cartoon. His pursuit of R.J reads less like a grudge and more of an attempted lynching, especially when later (having immediately taken a disliking to our "Bruce Lee Freak", and deciding that violence against the martial artist teenager is a good idea) he tracks him to a car park and surrounds him with a bunch of other kids to attack, and then lies about the subsequent ass kicking in order to sic the local Tommy Tallarico lookalike on him in the karate studio (like I said, this movie's confused about villains and writing), but then we're expected to feel bad when the Russian annihilates the team of Seattle at the end, and he rushes to help one out of the ring.
I have so many pictures of this kid, I love him.

It was so hard to only pick one.
But I do have to deduct points because he is supplanted by the Tommy Tallarico lookalike in the confusing plot, who is then taken out by Ivan who saves the film again:

Man, Van Damme fucking rules in the finale, and really shows the star power he would later have, he's a natural here, and even gets to be a bit crazy when not forced to be stoic.
Villain: 4.
Final Score: 10 out of 20.
Bonus points!
We don't get any later alumnii for JCVD's later works, they probably would not wish to have come back, and I doubt he would have been on set long enough to make future allies, though I am gutted Yuen never came back to coreograph his later works.
So no points there.
No brotherhood either. Our lead guy Jason doesn't even have one. What the hell are we even doing here?
Groin!
This we can allow:

No dong, but hot holy hell, we get peak splits!
Bonus Point: 1.
Final Score: 11.
Not the strongest showing. But I suggest if you have the right kind of friends and enjoy trashy bad kung fu flicks, you'll get a laugh out of this. And Van Damme is the best bit, think of it as a taster for his later works.

"Marty Supreme" - Review

The year is 1952 and Marty Mauser (Timothee Chalamet) is determined to be the greatest table tennis player in the world. All that stands in his way are a lack of funds, a domineering mother (Fran Drescher), a pregnant girlfriend (Odess A'zion), crippling poverty, and Abel Ferrara.

(Photo Credit; Vanity Fair)
I went into this fucking movie solely because the 4th on the billing was crack fiend, cult director, maniac, true-blue New Yorkian legend Abel Ferrara, and that insanity being in service of a gritty, wild, exciting, see-sawing free-wheeling adrenaline shot to the soul is simply a bonus.
The movie is a frenetic, frantic good time, bouncing from place to place in a picaresque adventure, where Chalamet is absolutley on the form of his life and the first performance where he is not only having fun and relishing the chance to go nuts, but it truly charismatic as well, a far cry from the introverted "Bones and All" and subtler Paul Atreides. The movie has a ground's eye view of people and places and relationships, and uses its cast wonderfully: as usual A'zion is on a tear (though, for fun, imagine her lines said as Bobby Hill: "My dad says ping pong's a bastard sport." "That's my paddle! I DON'T KNOW YOU!") between this and "Hellraiser", and Gwyneth Paltrow has put down her snake oil and decided to act again, I honestly like her in this.
But I'm here for my man Ferrara, a truly inspired piece of casting, and between the collapsing bathtubs, con-games, hustling (Tyler the Creator is fantastic here) and bullshit spin; Ferrara spikes the madness as an unpredictable, incredibly dangerous maniac with a dog. It's like "John Wick" but on heroin when he's here. I love him.
Watch "The Addiction" and "King of New York".
Anyway the movie's great, it flies by.

"Song Sung Blue" - Review

A recovering alcoholic by the name of Mike Sardina (Hugh Jackman) is about to come on stage as a last minute Don Ho impersonator, but refuses to do it. When Patsy Cline impersonator Claire Cartwright (Kate Hudson) tells him he'd make for a pretty good Neil Diamond impersonator, an idea takes root...

Based upon a documentary, which I am sadly unfamiliar with, about a Neil Diamond Diamond tribute act (though they would much prefer the term "Neil Diamond Experience") by the name of Thunder and Lightning; the film's pretty good and elevated by the two central performers. It has a pleasant attention to character details and little moments (a bit with a coffee cup comes back wonderfully) whilst focusing on a pair of extremely decent people trying their best in the world to get by and make art, perform and be themselves. It's the inherent likability of the larger than life "Lightning" (complete with a lightning bolt on his tooth, and a habit of saying "I'm huge!" whenever asked how he is) and "Thunder" (a wholesome single mother, upbeat and cheery) and the two excellent performances on display which bolster the film. There are excellent supporting turns from Ella Anderson and King Princess as the two artists' daughters, a fun part for Michael Imperioli (whom I wanted more of) and another for Fisher Stevens (plus Mustafa Shakir turns up! Heck yeah); and the film's focus on home life is admirable and fairly well shot. When the film takes a turn in the second half (as you know it will) Hudson is the one who rises to the challenge, and is excellent.
My favourite scene was the one in a Chinese restaurant, as an adoration of music transcends language and allows people to just bond. The film also does a fine job of showing that Thunder and Lightning were legitimately fun. Even if you've seen a lot of these sorts of biopics before, the execution is good.

The Van Dammeathon - Part 1 (Introduction)

I want to try something which has been brewing in my mind for a while now, a long term project idea which has rattled around my cranium like a pinball. I've started long term stuff in the early days of this blog (I promise I'll return to "Live a Live") but this one feels different.

I love the action movie icons of the 80s and 90s, the idea of an "action movie" and an "action movie star", relics of a bygone age - their task of headlining big punchy testosterone fuelled action movies for dads held in the capable hands of two survivors by the name of Jason Statham (for the big leagues) and Scott Adkins (for straight to DVD fare), both admirable.
But two of the titans are still going, two juggernauts of cinema and pop cultural mythos are still making movies. Dolph Lundgren and Jean Claude Van Damme: the B-Listers and undercard to the wars of Arnie and Sly; the Muscles from Brussells and the Swedish Limits of the Metric System. Two (literal) titans representing the apex of masculinity, destroying all in their path in critically reviled works of bloodless mayhem and videotape-bound dreams of misogynistic power fantasies: things to be parodied so thoroughly and derided so often that they have entered pop cultural cul-de-sacs of fossilised dreams of a generation gone bye, throwbacks to them either embarassing or outright parody (check out "Far Cry: Blood Dragon" for a rather good one) because that's the only way you'd get away with making one in this day and age.
I adore Van Damme and Lundgren movies for what they are. I love sitting down with a brainless action movie, finding joy in its carnage, charm in its nonsense.

You know, all of that good shit! I think it's about time I put down, in writing, my thoughts on the filmographies of both men, whom I have studied more than is healthy or necessary and subjected my fiancee to the works of both, in order to categorically rank both of them and their works.
I've watched more Van Damme movies than a teenager with access to a video shop in the 90s, and I'm making it everybody else's problem.

Let's do this!
I shall begin with Van Damme first, for he is the more famous, better known and better regarded of the two (rightly or wrongly...) and for other reasons which may make themselves apparent in time.
I shall go through the works of him, splitting them into distinct eras:
1. The Early Years and his rise to fame in the sort of cult, wonderfully pure martial arts kickathons which showed off his talent
2. Hollywood Calling: his best-known works, when he was top of the pile, a household name, and an easy target...
3. The Dark Ages: When he went to that perpetual purgatory of action movie stars: the direct to DVD bin, which I am going to make an impassioned defence for.
I shall be grading his movies not in the traditional sense, for that would be against why I love his works. I shall be grading them on the passion, the drive, how well they work as action movies for the intended audience. For fun, I'll even mark them out of 5 for each category, so we can even have a fun time choosing "the best Van Damme" movie!
Category 1: Concept
How good an action movie concept is it? How fun/trashy an idea is it? How much does it play to Van Damme's strengths? Is it just a good movie idea in general? Rated from 0 to 5
Category 2: Execution.
How good or competent is it as an action film? Do we get lots of fight scenes? Is it ieasy to follow and competently made? This may not be as important as one may imagine... Rated from 0 to 5.
Category 3: Charm.
The man is a goofball. I love it, you will come to love it. How fun is the movie? Does it land? Is it enjoyable even as a bad movie? Do we get suitable ludicrousness? Does Van Damme do the grin? Does he dance? Rated from 0 to 5.
Category 4: Villain.
An action movie is only as good as its villain. Some of these are going to have belters... Rated from 0 to 5.
These should come together for a total score of 20, so we can categorically decide which is better, "Timecop" or "Sudden Death"; "Enemies Closer" or "Wake of Death"?
But wait!
There's more to this contest nobody asked for!
We have bonus points up for grabs:
Alumnii.
One extra point for each JCVD movie alumnus who stars in this. It'll become clear as we go along.
Brotherhood.
Central to all of his Golden Era movies (and beyond...) is the central idea of brotherhood. We'll be awarding a point for a brother as a central plot point. Two if they are twins.
Groin.
Does he do the splits? A point if he does. And an extra point if he shows ass or dong. Expect this score to come up a lot.
And that should do it!
See you soon for our our first entry.

"The Housemaid" - No, Not that One

Determined to confuse a blogger with the wild, horny 2010 film of the same name: broke drifter Millie Calloway (Sydney Sweeney) takes a much-needed job at the home of wealthy Nina (Amanda Seyfried), to care for her home, husband Andrew (Brandon Skelnar) and daughter Cece (Indiana Elle). But amongst the chattering, spiteful harpy wives and ideallic middle class veneers, something is wrong...

(Credit: Everyman Cinemas. Check out their cinemas: they're great. I saw "Kid Detective" there and honestly cinema is downhill from that)
Paul Feig continues his trend from the excellent hysterical parody "A Simple Favour" in adapting serpentine Stepford thrillers to the big screen. Based on the runaway obsession novel by Frieda McFadden (obligatory: I have not read it)

This aims for a slightly more serious tone than "Favour" and indeed goes for it, but still remains playful and fun. The cast all get a chance to be hysterical, crazy and campy, and Michele Morrone from the meme-movie "365 Days" appears as a groundskeeper in a cute nod to this sort of thing, and it basically throws back to the "erotic thrillers" of the 90s like "Jade", "Disclosure" and "Fatal Attraction", but adds the twist of being watchable and knowing rather than rinsibly embarrassing (except "Showgirls" - that movie is magical): there are enough saucy shots and titillation to keep it knowing and nudging and rather cheky and tantaising rather than vulgar or crass, and the twists are suitably gasp-inducing rather than making one wince (well, not in that way... there is an effective part with some pliers...); yet the entire affair dances on just the right side of a knife edge. The entire thing is just the right amount of playful, funny, fun and delightful: the cast have fun with it, but not too much. If it were 10% more serious or 10% funnier it would have lost me. Its "Gone Girl"-esque second half (Oh, "Woman on the Train" and "Woman in the Window" are two more there! Only one of those was good) is strong; "A Simple Favour" goes completely goo-goo-bananas off-the-reservation, queerer and crazier and is better for it in my eyes, but this is a far more rock solid, accessible entry to the genre.
Also, between this and drop: don't go to a restaurant with Brandon Skelnar. Even if he's a nice dude, it's going to end horribly.