I'm Still Here

Wascally wascals Joaquin Phoenix and Casey Affleck have played a joke on America. Only the joke isn’t funny and short of some publicity on Letterman and Access Hollywood, did anyone really care?

I’m Still Here is a mockumentary filmed by Affleck and Phoenix. According to the film, Phoenix decides to retire from acting and break into the rap game. On the road to rap stardom he completely falls apart; his breakdown accompanied by drugs and prostitutes. Surprise! It’s fake. Hilarious, right? Not really. The concept is clever; I’ll give them that. The resulting film is just hard to watch. It’s slow-moving, hard to follow, and at times, really gross. This movie reminded me a lot of Pauly Shore is Dead. Interesting concept, but in the end, nobody wants to watch.

Some critics believed the hype; this was the real Phoenix having a breakdown. Even one critic, whom I hold in high regard, seemed to believe it. In his review he says the film is pointless; watching Phoenix spiral out of control is pathetic. I agree that it is pointless, but that’s how you know it’s fake. Who would make a movie showing their buddy falling apart and doing drugs? It would be pointless and cruel. Also, wouldn’t there be legal ramifications if Phoenix really took that many drugs on screen? Phoenix does an insane amount of drugs on screen. What celebrity would really do that unless they were on Dr. Drew? Affleck is married to Joaquin’s sister, Summer. What decent human being would film their brother-in-law in such conditions, knowing that the family would see? What would be the point? This film only makes sense as a hoax; it only works as a celebrity spoof. Unfortunately it didn’t work for me.

There are moments where it seemed as though 12 year old boys got hold of the camera. It bounces around the room, in and out of focus, while the little boys giggle. You can’t even tell what the actors are saying half the time. And let me tell you, there are just way too many poop, vomit, and full frontal shots for my taste.

The one outstanding scene, which required some terrific acting on Phoenix’s part, is when he appears on Letterman to promote his new rap gig. Unfortunately, everyone already saw this part. I would have really liked to see the green room footage, or maybe something backstage with Letterman. They could have staged a fight or something; just something additional to what everyone saw already.

It takes a lot of talent to play yourself, and it takes a lot of guts to portray yourself in a negative way. So I admire Phoenix for that. I admire both Phoenix and Affleck for trying something different. The concept is a pretty good one, but I think it takes a dark turn. I would have enjoyed a movie about Phoenix becoming a rapper. That has comedy written all over it. Film the crowd reacting to the outfits and hilariously bad raps; leave the nudity and drugs out of it. The secret to a good lie is to not overdo it.

2 weird beards

Surfer, Dude

Having not seen a single preview for this movie, my sole reason for watching it was to find out what that comma is doing in the title. I'm still not entirely convinced.

Surfer (comma) Dude stars Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, and, because there's weed, Willie Nelson. McConaughey plays a famous surfer named Steve "Add" Addington. Add makes his money on surfboard endorsements but somehow gets involved with an evil businessman. This evil ex-surfer is bent on getting Add to live in a reality TV house and put his likeness into a virtual surfing game. Add would rather surf real waves than virtual ones but unfortunately there's a wave drought all over the west coast. Does he go against the surf gods and sign with this gremmie, or does he remain true to the surfer (comma) dude image and wait patiently for some tasty waves?

The plot seems like something you might see on The Simpsons. I can totally see these people drawn as Groening characters. I can see the TV Guide entry now: Sunday, 6:30 pm. Matthew McConaughey guest stars. Bart needs to help him defeat Comic Book Guy, who wants to make a surfing videogame. The difference is that The Simpsons is a funny and intelligent show. Overall, this story was very obscure and for lack of a better word, minuscule. I wouldn't expect that of a feature length film.

The ending was extremely weak as well. Had this been a television show, I might be able to accept the ridiculousness of it. But this is a film, and after sitting for an hour-and-a-half waiting for the climax, you come to expect a little more. Add overcomes the evil businessman in such a simple way that you'd think a kid wrote it. And what happens is not even possible.

I can't really tell if this movie was meant to be funny. I think it's more attempted quirkiness. There were some humorous bits though. Add walks everywhere barefoot, so when the pavement is hot, he walks kind of funny. There was that, and um... some funny thing about goats. I didn't get it, but goats are funny. They eat cans.

McConaughey and Harrelson are pretty good at portraying the partying surfer duo, although, I don't think surfers smoke that much weed. They did a fine job and were quite funny. Add reminded me more of McConaughey's goofy role in Dazed and Confused rather than the A-list scarf-wearing charmer we've seen lately. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past? Really?

The actress who plays Danni, Add's girlfriend, is just awful. There's one scene where Add teaches her some cool surfer lingo. He explains that, "It's going off, dude," is a really cool thing to say when you're about to go surfing. Of course she repeats this back to him later on in the movie. But the way she says it is so corny and hilarious. You can really tell she's acting when she asks questions or makes sad faces.

Basically the movie isn't very good. It's dull, slow, and sometimes weird for the sake of weird. Some of the surfing shots are incredible. But it almost appears as if they were taken from other movies, like wild animal footage. I can't really say what they could do to improve the film, except for rewriting the story.

Oh, and the comma thing - Add is a "surfer dude", no comma. That should be the title. However, there's actually a line where Add says, "I'm a surfer, dude." So maybe the title was taken from half of that quote? Or the writer just likes punctuation. Either way it should have been called "Free Surfer", the name of the videogame. To me, that would have been the obvious choice. It references a major element in the story and is extremely meaningful. After all, Add just wants to be a surfer.

2 Surfers, dude.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a conniving addict, Ethan Hawke is a walking nervous breakdown, and Marisa Tomei is a naked person in this quite lengthy "dramaction". In the film, two brothers plan to rob their parents' jewelry store in order to solve their money problems, but alas, they mess it all up. And we have to watch the mess over and over again.
I have to admit, the first 6 hours of this movie were pretty good… but the last 10 were awful. I keep thinking of that line from The Jerk, where Navin says, "I know we've only known each other four weeks and three days, but to me it seems like nine weeks and five days." The movie is only two hours, but feels like a million.
I was okay with the beginning lasting so long. We're talking character development, interesting flashbacks, intense dramatic tension, and Marisa Tomei topless for a majority of the time. "I really like this movie," I said out loud. However, the second half took nine weeks and five days to end. I think I could have watched the entire Star Trek* series in the same amount of time and I'm quite sure I would have enjoyed myself more.
Don't get me wrong, I love me a good long movie - when it needs to be long. But if you can cram your story into a 90-minute timeslot, do it - especially if your movie is boring. I think Before the Devil Knows You're Dead should have been 15 minutes. If I did the math correctly, 15 minutes would have seemed like 90. Perfect.
Let me jump back and explain one of the major themes of the movie. We have a traditional crime story, but its parts are out of order. We see the end before the beginning - similar to Pulp Fiction. After we see each piece of the story, we flash back and witness the same story from other characters' perspectives until we have a good understanding of how each major character relates. Cool right? Like I said, the first half was cool, but then we begin to flashback into the lives of the minor characters. Maybe I'm on my own here but I really don't care what the neighbor's dog thought about Hoffman's pasty white ass. Of course it didn't care; it just wants a cookie. That doesn't really happen, but you get my drift. We see a lot of perspectives that don't really matter.
I do think the actors played their roles fairly well. That's a positive. Both Hoffman and Hawke were great as neurotic losers. I actually felt sorry for Hawke and the sour relationship he had with his daughter. But after a while I grew bored of that and tried to remember the other movies I liked him in. Remember Explorers? Good movie. Marisa Tomei just played a woman. But hats off to her… or should I say clothes off… nice.
The movie ends, eventually. And even though I was a little groggy from my nap, I started to get into the adventure again. The action started to pick up, tensions were mounting, and without giving too much away, I was impressed with the Shakespearean tragedy of it all. Maybe that gives too much away. C'est la vie.
But, of course, they made a huge mistake. They forgot about a character. Hawke runs away and… nothing. I realize that some writers assume they've written enough and they assume their audience is clever enough to figure out what happens. I really tolerate most open endings. I'm usually satisfied with my own interpretation of what happens. But what happened here? I can't think of anything plausible. Did Hawke build a spaceship with River Phoenix and blast off into space to find a crazy cartoon-obsessed alien? I don't think the writer intended for there to be such an open ending. I think he just wanted a cookie and forgot to finish the script.
Anyway this movie was so dull and felt so long that I died while watching it. And because it went on long after my demise, the Devil eventually found out.
*Star Trek is stupid.

2 Devils

Brick

I should probably watch this movie again before I give it a grade, but, I don't feel like it. In fact, my lack of interest in this movie carries a heavy weight. The fact that I enjoy watching movies over and over again should tell you something; something other than me being a big nerd.
Brick is a Fox Focus feature starring Joseph Gordon Levitt as a fast-talking teen on a thrilling mission to find his missing ex-girlfriend. You may not remember him from the hilarious interstellar sitcom Third Rock from the Sun. Levitt was also in 10 Things I Hate about You, a Shakespearean tale for teens.
Brick, is a film-noir for teens. When I was in school, a lot of kids liked to drop the phrase "film-noir" whenever they talked about "film". While the word sounds cool and complicated, it's secretly an easy concept. Picture an old detective movie with guns, classy dames, and cigarettes. The atmosphere is always dark and gritty. There is always high contrast between the dark and light areas on screen – lots of shadows. The overall feeling is bleak and gloomy, and the characters seem lost in their webs of deceit. Those are the basics. Obviously, there is a little more to film-noir than those few things. Otherwise what would film students talk about?
Brick attempts all these aspects and is about half successful. The most obvious noir-ism presented here is the dialogue. In film noir, characters usually talk a certain way. It's overly dramatic, often over-explanatory, and sometimes slang replaces every day words. Brick does a lot of this, especially the slang. It's interesting at first, seeing high school students talk this way. You have to suspend reality a little to believe it, but you already do that with Laguna Beach. Trying to figure out what the Brick characters are saying is kind of fun. But, when you get to hour 2, it's a little trying. Levitt does a wonderful job of acting tough and bleak. He plays a very convincing angst-ridden teen. Levitt would be flawless, if not for the fact that he's so quiet. I believe the problem isn't of audio quality, but that his sentences are just too long and he's required too speak very quickly. As a result, all the slang is meaningless. Most of what Levitt says is plot summary. He's constantly updating the viewer on what he's doing and why. So because he's so quiet, the already confusing plot becomes even less clear.
The atmosphere of film-noir is my favorite aspect. I like how the directors play with shadows to create suspense. The majority of Brick takes place outside in the bright sunlight. The sun is so bright that the scenes are nearly bleached out. Is this a reversal of dark and light - using extreme lighting to replace extreme darkness? Perhaps… but I doubt it. Also, this movie is in color. I would have loved to see it in black and white.
There are two things I really like about Brick – the editing and the action. There is plenty of fist-fighting going on in this movie. Levitt gets knocked down about 20 times (Did someone say drinking game?). The way the fights are edited make them even more entertaining. I won't go as far to say they're Matrix style… but they aren't boring either.
The editing of the entire film is worth noting. There are lots of visually interesting flashbacks and dream sequences. I read somewhere that the editing was done on a personal computer. That's neat.
Overall, Brick is a decent movie. The concept was great - a detective story brought into the high school world. Of course, the story is entirely implausible, but I'm willing to set that aside for entertainment's sake. The action was great, the acting was pretty good, and there were a few funny jokes that made the movie watchable. I couldn't understand the entire plot though, and I still don't really get it. But if you're not willing to press the rewind button every few conversations and/or you're not willing to watch the movie a second time, I wouldn't bother. There are plenty of movies we all need to watch a second time to understand, but for me, Brick isn't one of them.
For a recent film-noir rent The Man Who Wasn't There or Memento.



2 bricks