Ryan McNeil
A weird guy knocks on your door one morning and offers you a box. It’s got a bright red button covered by a locked lid. Weird guy tells you that if you press the button, two things will happen: you’ll be given one million dollars cash (tax free!), and somewhere, someone who you do not know will die. Seems like a cool movie doesn’t it? Too bad it doesn’t end there.
Allow me to fill in a few details. The couple who’s door gets knocked are Arthur (James Marsden)and Norma (Cameron Diaz). They have some slight financial burdens, but I emphasize the word slight. The weird guy is Mr. Steward (Frank Langhella). A polite, well dressed, soft-spoken man, with about a quarter of his face horribly disfigured. Arthur and Norma hum and haw for a few hours, but since the only have a day to press-or-not-press, a decision has to be made. Norma presses the button. True to his word, Steward returns, takes back the box, and gives them the cash. When asked what will happen to the device now, he says that it will be reprogrammed…and given to someone, somewhere, who Norma and Arthur do not know. (Dun-dun-duhhhhhhhhhhh….).
Friends, if this movie ended with that, I’d probably be raving about it. Unfortunately, at this point the story takes us by the hand and leads us down a rabbit hole that includes strangers who silently stare, random nosebleeds, wet gateways to other dimensions, and a fatal incident caused by Santa Claus. Yes, really.
The WTF factor of this movie is so far off the chart that when the weird went pro in the final act, I found myself shrugging and saying “Sure. Why not?”. I mean really, after Norma wakes up in her bed to find Arthur hovering over her in an invisible cube of water (which then disintegrates, dropping Arthur, and drenching half their house)…what’s another bleeding nose stranger, or five?
Talking to people about this movie, I got a lot of sneer’s at how bad Cameron Diaz must be in the film (wow is she ever unpopular these days!). I myself am also not a fan, but I have to quote the great science fiction writer and report that her work in THE BOX is “mostly harmless”. Speaking of acting, the only bright spot in the film has to be Frank Langella, who will charm your pants off and give you the heebie-jeebies all in one go. The man is a consummate pro, and for him to rise above this steaming pile of peculiarity without so much as a brown smudge is a true testament to his acting chops.
The blame for this skidmark must go to writer/director Richard Kelly. I’ve never been one to demand that every ounce of a movie make complete sense. I’ve actually often compared absurd film plots to songs whose lyrics don’t make sense. Think about it; you probably don’t have the foggiest idea what tangerine dreams and marmalade skies are…but they sure sound pretty when John Lennon sings about them, don’t they?
The difference, I believe, comes down to whimsy and elegance. Kelly must have combed the deepest corners of his imagination for the sci-fi oddities that unfold in this movie. However, none of them – the glowing water portals, the cryptic messages, the devil’s bargains – inspire or amuse. All they do is confound and insult. Kelly’s adaptation is not a fable with twists added in an effort to be imaginative. It is weird for the sake of weird, and it belittles its audience.
Admittedly, the story of the button experiment did spark my interest. When I looked into it, I discovered that the film is based on a short story from 1970 written by Richard Matheson. That story had a radically different ending (look it up – it’s pretty good). The story was then adapted into a teleplay for an episode of “The Twilight Zone” in 1986. The ending for that adaptation does happen in this movie, but it occurs long before most of the oddity shifts into high gear. In my research, I discovered that Matheson was never pleased with what happened to his story when it got adapted for “The Twilight Zone”.
If he didn’t like that TV show, I can only imagine how much he despised this movie!
When I first heard about this film, I had no intentions of seeing it. After reading this review, my feelings are still the same.
As much as I love Donnie Darko, after enduring Southland Tales I started to wonder if maybe Richard Kelly was a one trick pony. I was thinking of giving him another chance with The Box but… maybe not.
aw, i like cameron ;(
and i will still watch it, although your review was really entertaining to read 🙂
Ditto Norma Desmond's comment. Southland Tales was awful, but I hoped maybe it was a "sophomore slump" kind of movie since I liked Donnie Darko. I wasn't sure if I should see The Box, so thanks for helping me make the decision not to! Sorry you had to sit through it!
@ Zach… Avoid it like the plague. I didn't even pay to see it and I still feel ripped off!
@ Norma… He sure is an imaginitive guy, he just needs to learn how to use his powers for good instead of evil.
@ Topanga… Have fun! Don't say I didn't warn you.
@ Alex… I'll survive. I've sat through worse.
"The WTF factor of this movie is so far off the chart that when the weird went pro in the final act, I found myself shrugging and saying “Sure. Why not?”."
That sums it up perfectly. I totally LOL'd.
Sad to hear its bad, I was kind of hoping for Richard Kelley to make a come back. I mean, I loved Donnie Darko, still do.
And then he did that mess of a movie, Southland Tales, which was as incomprehensible as they come. So I was thinking The Box was going to be his big budget comeback commercial film.
It looks like it was a missed opportunity.
Lol. Even though I actually really loved The Box (i know, i'm weird like that) I pretty much agree with everything you say in this review. The film is just bizarre for no reason other than being bizarre – it kinda felt like Kelly was trying to live up to his reputation for making confusing movies (don't necessarily know why he would want to)
Can I ask, were you bored, or just confused? I kind of went the weirdness because I thought it was at least interesting
I like how in Roger Ebert's review, he compared it to "Knowing", saying that although it's really really bizarre, at least it does something we haven't seen before. Then again, I hated "Knowing" :p
@ Megan… Funny ain't it? You dug the movie, I didn't, but yet we agree on something like that.
@ Connoisseur… A pity. Even when it comes to a movie like this, I always sit down hoping to enjoy what I'm about to see. I was quite disappointed.
@ Tom… Don't be afraid to be the salmon swimmin' upstream – I have more respect for someone tryin' to say the crap is fun, than those that say the birlliant actually sucks.
As for your question, one thing I certainly was NOT was bored. (Anyone bored by this flick needs to give their head a shake). I wasn't even confused. I followed the story quite well…I just wasn't buying it. It actually gave me some laughs, but for all the wrong reasons.
The main reason why I had a feeling that this was going to be reasonably good was because it was directed by the same dude who did Donnie Darko. I wanted to but now I dont't.
I agree, I wasn't impressed at all. I thought Cameron Diaz was painful and the movie just took a ridiculous turn.
@ CMrok93… Don't be influenced by Darko. I'm really starting to believe that it was Kelly's only trick worth seeing.
@ Nicki… Diaz really didn't bother me! Strange, since I know she can be very hit-or-miss. No, I was too distracted by the random strangers who tried giving us the willies by blankly staring.
WTF???
Hmm… think I'll avoid this one then!
This movie actually looked quite intriguing, but your review, along with the other mixed reviews I've read, have convinced me to hold off on this one.
Like Tom, I'm a defender of The Box (and will always be a fan of boxes), though not quite as staunchly as he was.
My point is this: sure, Southland might have rubbed people the wrong way, but for those that have seen all three of Kelly's works, can you really say that Donnie is any different than the other two? It's just as nutso as The Box, ain't it, if not moreso?
Kelly deals with big, BIG ideas, and it seems that he alienates his audience (including me) more times than not, but even haters like Hatter can't say that they were bored. For someone with The Mad Hatter as an alias, I'm disappointed in your unwillingness to not embrace insanity. 😉
All I am saying…is give Box a chance. (repeat ad nauseum)
@ Captain D… You're welcome!
@ Danny… It might be fun on DVD, but at the moment there are so many better films to spend your time watching.
@ Fletch… You have no idea how hard it was to stay classy and refrain from a boatload of "box" jokes.
As for the disappointment in my alias, touché. Truth is, that was why it got 1.5 stars – I hated it, but lord knows I'll always remember it! Kelly landed with a bellyflop in my eyes, but his form on the way to the water sure was kick-ass!
As for the soundtrack, how the hell could I have forgotten about that!!?? I have to wonder if I would like it if I listened to it on its own, and didn't let it serve as a background score.
@ Everyone… Pretty sure this review has netted me the most comments of the 102 reviews I have posted on this blog over the last 2+ years. As a guy who digs interacting with his meager audience, you have no idea how happy this has made me!
It's too bad that your review is turning people away from the film Hatter – I thought it was pretty damn spiffy.
OK, there are some holes (I think), some very awkward dialog, some iffy acting in spots and two main characters that I didn't care a whole lot for, BUT…As Fletch said, the film is reaching for some grand ideas. It's actually the kind of sci-fi that I wish would show up more often.
And it's not just the individual decision that's at the core of the film, but a broader look at all of humanity and how we look at responsibility and consequence. It pulls in different ways of looking at "the box". Our cars/homes/bodies are all restrictive and box us in. As well, we tend to worry more about their outward appearances – the husband's Corvette, the disfigurements, etc.
Given the framework of the film, the tie-in to the Mars Viking project and Arthur C. Clarke's quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", I don't think the WTF moments are actually that far out. The portals, the helpers, the bloody noses – they all fit into the story (there's lots of stuff that flies by quickly – the point about couples with only one child, the reason for the bloody noses, the Boston connection, etc.). I love how it starts with one decision and ends with another one – an awful one.
So avoid H1N1 like the plague, but not this.
Bob I agree I liked The Box quite alot, despite it's flabby middle.
Though I can definitely see where Hatter's frustration is coming from, I was intrigued enough to go with it.
http://thingthatdontsuck.blogspot.com/2009/11/box.html
Then again I found nice things to say about Southland Tales so I suppose what I have to say on the subject of Kelly should be taken with a grain of salt.
@ Bob… Heh, you and I are disagreeing quite a bit lately, aren't we?
I was with this film every step of the way for quite a while. Essentially, right up until they get to the motel. I was alright with a bit of creepiness and weirdness, but when those strangers started silently following him around in a pack, I was reminded of that stupid FIDO commercial trying to sell us a friends and family cell phone package.
You're right – the humnaity, the focus on appearances, the nature of consequences, that's all good stuff that I was digging. Sadly it all got drowned by some unneccessary celestial water.
In conclusion Bob, let me re-iterate…Santa Claus.
@ Evil Dead… I know what it's like to be a big fan of a director's work that other people don't get. So kudos for looking past the flab…I just found it too weird.
The most over-directed movie I've seen in years. Blame mainly falls on Kelly, although Diaz was horrible too.