The Box

Richard Kelly's latest supernatural thriller "The Box" is creepy, strange and overall sinister, yet not very coherent or focused. One's opinion on the movie depends on whether one accepts its peculiar concept or not. I must say that I was initially enthralled by the movie's strange old-fashioned tone resembling sci-fi movies from the 1970s Kelly pays homage to. The movie handles its mystery rather well with Frank Langella's uniquely scary performance being the obvious highlight. Given that, the movie falters at the end when its otherwise intriguing concept gets bogged down by the series of ridiculous events that feel as if they were taken from a different movie. While The Box tends to approach the wrong territory and is rather unfocused, one can't help but acknowledge Kelly's ability to attract the viewer's attention. His obsessions may not be shared by very many people, but he manifests them in a richly textured manner. That's just enough to enjoy this movie despite its shortcomings. 6.5/10 (B-)

The trailer goes nowhere near and only scratches the surface of the film and rightly so too, not because it has that obligation to keep its real narrative under wraps, but because what actually transpires, will provoke entirely different lines of questioning, some of which are frustratingly not answered in the film, leaving you to your own devices to interpret the series of events. Which of course means plenty of material for an after-show discussion.

Metaphorically, the box refers to how us humans tend to subconsciously hole ourselves into situations or things in everyday life, and how our enclosed thoughts tend to see things from a certain perspective, seldom out of the box. There's a speech made near the end by one of the characters that will leave you pondering over this fact, which governs the basis of the entire film, and even threading on existentialism, where our bodies are mere vessels for the soul, and from cradle to the grave we put ourselves in more boxes in a way of life fashion.

What I disliked about the film, is how it tried to sound intelligent through the frequent name dropping of covert government agencies like the CIA and NSA, as though there's something overtly clandestine about these agencies that we should be aware of. They serve little purpose other than to put every action and every person under scrutiny, that nobody can be trusted, wrecking havoc in a sense to both the characters and the audience as we try to keep up with trust issues to aid in the interpretation of the narrative. Having it set in 1976, against a NASA backdrop of manned space missions, and in Langley, Virginia, also provided that heightened sense of wary that will sap your energies as you sit through it patiently.

Based upon the short story Button, Button written by Richard Matheson and made into an episode of the Twilight Zone, the story follows the Lewis family, where husband Arthur (James Marsden) works at NASA and develops a prosthetic foot for his teacher wife Norma (Cameron Diaz), and you'd think it's all happy family with their son Walter (Sam Oz Stone), until one day a mysterious man called Arlington Steward (Frank Langella in a Two-Face inspired facial effect) whom we are preempted of in the opening, comes knocking and giving them a Deal or No Deal button in a box. Plunge the button and they'll get a million bucks (we're talking in dollar terms of the 70s here) although a stranger out there will die. If they don't, well the deal's got an expiry date.

The story would dictate a deal be made, which of course sparks off a mysterious sequence of events that unfold, with even more shady characters (who nosebleed) appearing, some whom are inexplicably zombie like, apparently all under the influence, or employment, or Arlington Steward. Whether or not Steward is Death, a clandestine government employee, a messenger from God or a representative of Aliens after an anal probe, remains unanswered, so whichever way you look at it, it's as if he's delivering something expected, just begging that mankind will shake off its innate greed so that his work can be cut short and to return to wherever he came from.

If you need a little distraction from the disparate scenes which make up the narrative, the production sets and art direction are gorgeous in recreating the 70s look, as you try to figure out the mystery of the consequences that stem from a result of not fully understanding the fine print. It's full circle this examination of human nature, of our greed for immediate gratification, manifesting its result in longer term pain, confusion and further choices that we'll make based on real sacrifices. Nifty special effects come into play as well, though it just leaves more room open as to the genre of the film.

So is it horror, science fiction, or a mystery thriller? It's everything rolled into one actually, together with a sprinkling of the philosophical. Just don't go expecting a straight narrative film with clean and easy answers at the end – this is like an X-Files episode on steroids.

It seems that most either hate or love this film with nothing in between. I have seen people say it was "hateful" or "they didn't understand the ending" I will simply say, a number of people just did not understand the film at all.

I personally thought it was better than Donnie Darko, as Kelly went out of his way to be weird for the sake of it in that film. This seemingly had a bit more meaning behind it.

To those who found the script hateful, it simply isn't do not allow that opinion to keep you from watching this movie. If anything the script shows you that greed and the error of our ways do have consequences and could harm those we love. That isn't hateful, but more of a message alerting us that our every decision is indeed important.

Do not be scared away by those who ranked the film at four and below, this is a movie for those who want to be challenged to think outside the normal boundaries of everyday thought. If you're up to that challenge it's worth seeing, although certain areas could be done better.

It was nice to see Cameron do a serious role, but she did seem at times rusty at portraying some of the emotions needed for such a role. At others she nailed what she needed to deliver. James Mardsen (Arthur Lewis) and Frank Langella (Arlington Steward) both delivered consistent performances.

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."

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.