I'm Still Here (2010)

On my blog, I try to make each day about something completely different to the day before. I can say that unequivocally, I'm Still Here is completely opposite to the Peter Sellers movie from yesterday. I almost went to pains to illustrate that Sellers was a man with a strong sense of self, that he hid in characters and impressions. Joaquin Phoenix on the other hand is a actor whose personality is so much a part of all the parts he plays, like him in Signs isn't such a jump from him in Gladiator. Maybe. My point is that he never really mixed it up that much- he always played troubled young men. So the idea of him playing a vastly over-the-top version of himself is mixed blessing.
Because he is so terrible and broad in trying to act as this monster-version of himself - it's distracting but then he's never really worked and challenged himself like he's done here. Like playing a beloved legend in Walk The Line would have been a cake walk compared to this. and he really deserves credit for that. It's like when your favourite musician(s) bring out some shit that's too leftfield (probably acustic or folk...) for your taste and you have to write it off as artistic growth. Hmmph.
In the parlence of my blog's spiritual godfather, Nathan Rabin and his Year Of Flops- I'm Still Here is very much a Fiasco, as opposed to a Failure or Secret Success; it verges of the latter 2 but is very much a creative fiasco because it's full of good ideas and thesis but the Joaquin Phoenix character is so wrought with broad characteristics, it's exhausting to watch. His guy is like schulbby hybrid of Zack Gilifinakis and Jonah Hill- this obnoxious stoned beardo with no sense of self. He's horrible to the people around him, he spouts shit and takes no craft in making the rap music he professes to wants to make. Now to outsiders, that might seem perfectly reasonable for a successful actor to be expected to be like but he and director/co-writer Casey Affleck are so intent of reminding you every minute, it's exasperating!
The story of Phoenix giving up acting to rapidly is one we're all versed-in. We're watching this to find out what the behind the scenes story was and they think we're interested in what it would be like if Joaquin Phoenix was a dick. Well... i already saw the news and internet videos that you passively orchestrated so I know what that would be like. I think if you're still interested in this story after the YouTube clips end, you'd be much more interested in seeing how you captivate the world with a prank on such an epic scale. But no, Phoenix and Affleck want to make their comedy story which is parts Sacha Baron Cohen and Curb Your Enthusiasm but not quite as funny.
I'm generally conflicted about a lot of what I watch and am more then happy to overthink the likes of Sucker Punch and I'm certain that I'm Still Here is very original... it's just that it's not at all consistent or we'll made...

I watched I'm Still Here (2010), on DVD via LoveFilm.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Gainsborough (2010)...

Lonesome Jim (2005)

Lonesome Jim is directed by Steve Buscemi. That's good enough for me.
It also features Casey Affleck and Liv Tyler, who are good too, which sweetens the deal.
I know it won't set the world alight. I'm sure it'll be a fairly withdrawn, intimate affair similar to his directorial debut, Trees Lounge.


Meh. Lonesome Jim was a major snore fest.
I'd love to know what attracted all the talent to work on it. Cos i can't imagine it was the weak script or mild subject matter; the 'loner goes back home' theme has been run into the ground since forever.
I'll accept that there are a few laughs in Lonesome Jim but not enough to actually care about what's going on.
I'm sincerely curious about where the missing link is in the success of this film. As much as i hate to say this, i might have to level some of it at Buscemi cos it's just not very interesting to look at or watch. 
It is shot on digital, but it's more that it looks more like a skate video than a feature film. It's a micro budget film, i accept that but i don't see why that should be an excuse. It's impertinent of me to bring this up but everyone here could have made a lot more money or better spent their time doing more high-profile gigs... and i have no idea why they didn't.
Not that i'm blaming Affleck but it's not even that, his character is dislikable. It's worse. I was totally uninterested in him this film, which would be a problem since he's the main character and in almost every scene.
Liv Tyler here- the love interest, another snore. I don't want to rag on Liv Tyler. I had the biggest crush on her when Sleeping Beauty came out (shout out to Bertolucci and Mr. Skin) and she is one of the founders of the Manic Pixie Dream girl movement in movies but her performance here is soo dull.
Kevin Corrigan's in this and he does his grumpy loner bit, which i love but the only good performance and it's really good, is Mary Kay Place playing Jim's mother. You really empathise with this woman who's coddled her kids and given then everything they want but they've just developed these incredibly unhappy personalities and can't understand why.
I mean what I don't get is, i'd imagine it's very hard to get people to produce your script, even at the lowest end of the scale- you're still talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds/dollars required and you need to enthuse hundreds of people about it from actors to producers to executives so
1. Who read this and liked it?
2. Who thought 'ooh,someone needs to make this into a movie - ooh, JAG marathon on Sky3!'
But in the end, you kinda just wanna give everyone in this movie a slap and tell them to buck up! and if we're looking for a moral from this situation-even if Buscemi does want to direct you in his movie, read the fuggin script before you commit.

I watched Lonesome Jim (2005), on BBC I-Player.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Please Give (2010)...