The Box

After I heard how terrible this film was, I really wasn't expecting much. I almost didn't even rent it, but I am glad I did. I love Donnie Darko and I think with The Box, Kelly has gone back to the Darko style of writing and directing. I am not sure why it received so many bad reviews, maybe because like Donnie Darko it was too cerebral for the mainstream. It's not a movie you can do three things and watch, you have to pay attention to the little details. I do feel there are missing pieces that weren't explained, but that could be the way the film was edited and may come out later in a directors cut edition, or it could be Kelly's way of keeping the audience guessing. I can see how this movie wouldn't appeal to the masses, especially since it is a cautionary tale of morals and ethics, but if you liked Donnie Darko, you will probably enjoy The Box. I can see this having a cult following like Donnie Darko.

Also I am not a Cameron Diaz fan, but I think she did a great job. I had heard awful things about her performance in this, but in my opinion this was one of her better roles.

Richard Kelly is one of my personal favorite directors. I have only seen his two films, Donnie Darko and Southland Tales. The first is a Masterpiece, and a film like no other, and has fortunately gathered a strong cult following. Southland Tales is the one that is very underrated, perhaps the most unique film of this decade, even more so than Donnie, and deserves a larger fanbase. This is Kelly's 3rd film that I watched, and he does not disappoint. When I originally heard he was making The Box, based on the Twilight Zone episode, I got nervous. Both of his previous films flopped big time, but I still did not want him to make a film too mainstream. After The Box, I think it is impossible for him to ever make a mainstream film. The Box has amazing atmosphere and has very illusionary images and a tense tone to it. Richard Kelly's screenplay is nothing short of original, and even though he made it based on the Twilight Zone, he still added his mark on it. Kelly has always had so many ideas to share, and sometimes, his film's flaws is that they have so much to say. Southland Tales was criticized for that, but I loved it, flaws and all. The same for The Box. Although The Box is not as confusing or as hard-to-categorize as Southland Tales, it does have it's own ideas. This is very much a morality tale, and I thought it made some very interesting points. The screenplay has flaws, and so does the direction. But the flaws is what makes a Richard Kelly film feel special, as was the case with both his previous films, and that is the case for The Box.

The performances from James Marsden and Cameron Diaz are superb. Marsden is very good, but Diaz is the one who steals the show, surprisingly. I never have respected Diaz as an actress before, and when I heard her southern accent in the trailer I got very worried. But her accent, and her performance, elevate the film even more, and she was very strong. I should now give her the credit she deserves. Frank Langella is very creepy and mysterious, and his character has classic Kelly printed all over it. The cinematography is great. The music score, although by itself is great, was used too loud and too dramatized in some scenes, and was a distraction. But overall, The Box is another very interesting and very dreamy film from Richard Kelly, one that as years go by, will be sitting comfortably with Donnie Darko and Southland Tales on my DVD shelf.

The creator of Donnie Darko brings you a twilight zone themed tale of the oddest fashion. The film centers on a middle aged young couple living paycheck to paycheck in 1976. One day a mysterious box appears with a red button. Later on that day a spooky gentleman shows up and tells them that they have the choice to press the button and receive a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. It's a disturbing and provocative question suspensefully outlined in the trailer and TV spots. But let it be known that you just don't know what your in for until you see it. At times pretentious and a bit melodramatic the film is ultimately effective because of it's good performances and intriguing subject matter. It would be unfair to ruin any of the plot twists for you but lets just say the film will deliver on the aspects you expect it to and not completely fulfill others it begins to outline. There's a lot of apparent symbolism and subtext in the film which is both interesting and annoying as it wasn't so evident in his other superior film Donnie Darko. There isn't too much more to say without ruining the film for you. it's meant to inspire lots of cafe chatter afterwards. However, i'd also like to say It's shot well and has an appropriately aged look to it and it's worth a watch. Check it out.

I'm not gonna lie. To say that this movie is confusing is like saying the sun is hot but not really. And if you've seen cult director Richard Kelly's previous films, "Donnie Darko" and "Southland Tales," you know that's gotta mean something. When I went to see this movie, there were about 50 people in the theater. Before an hour into the film, about half of the audience had already walked out. By the end, there were only 15 people left wondering what in the hell did they just see. I for one could only comprehend roughly 40% of what I saw on- screen, and even then it can only be called interpretation. So why did I give this movie a generous seven stars? Because for one, we get some spectacular performances (Marsden's great and Langella returns as a familiar creepy character), and most importantly two, because it's entirely original and Richard Kelly, undoubtedly one of the bravest directors alive, uses his creative vision to tell a story that dares to be different. Quite frankly, it's the ONLY way - only through Kelly's unique style could this story be told the way it's intended.

In the end, if you're not willing to spend some serious thought into an intelligent movie (and even then it may all amount to nothing), stay FAR away from this one. But if you want to watch a deep, rich, complex and thought-provoking piece on spirituality, existentialism, and the predictability of human nature, go see this. Be prepared for lengthy discussions with your partner however.

*Note: If by chance you've read this review, taken my recommendation, have actually seen the movie and STILL believe you've wasted 2 hours of your life, I'd be happy to share my views on the whole meaning and plot of the film. See, that's why I liked it so much - it promotes discussion! As hard as it is though, I'll try summing it up by paraphrasing a rather depressing quote by Langella's character, who explains the significance of the simple box to an employee: "Your house is a box which you live in. The car that you drove to work is a box, on wheels. When you return home from work you sit in front of a box with moving images. You watch until the mind and soul rots and the box that is your body deteriorates, when finally you are placed into the ultimate box... to rest under the soil and earth."

I read the original Richard Matheson short story (Button, Button) that this movie is based on when it was first published in the June 1970 Playboy Magazine. The short story was a relatively simple morality tale. Usually I am not one to compare source material with movies. They are totally separate animals and frequently the movie version is a big improvement on the original material.

In this case, the two cannot even be compared - even the plot is barely recognizable in the movie version. That would be fine if the movie plot were an improvement. Instead we have a mush mash of hints, bloody noses and awkward special effects.

I guess it is still a morality tale, but an overly complicated one. The performers do the best they can.