The Box
Movie Review
"The Box"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, November 6, 2009
Directed by:
Cast:
Richard Matheson wrote more than a dozen episodes of "The Twilight Zone," which, if you're unfamiliar with his work, should give you an idea of the sort of story he favors: twist endings, moral dilemmas, and monsters on the wings of airplanes. When "The Twilight Zone" was revived in 1985, producers naturally went looking for new Matheson work to adapt, and found "Button, Button," a short story he'd published since the last "Twilight Zone" had ended. In it, a married couple are visited by a stranger who gives them a mysterious box with a button on it. He tells them that if they push the button, they'll get a large sum of money, but someone they don't know will die.
That's fine "Twilight Zone" material, obviously, and one's interest is piqued to learn that Richard Kelly, the writer/director of the incoherent "Donnie Darko" and "Southland Tales," has chosen to make a film version of it. Having conceived his other movies entirely on his own, Kelly might benefit from the structure of adapting an existing source. At the very least, maybe a movie of his will make some sense for once.
Kelly turns out to be a perfect fit for one of Matheson's ironic-twist morality tales. He had to bulk up the story significantly to make it feature-length -- the last part of Matheson's original plot happens about 30 minutes into the film -- but what he added isn't mere padding. It truly expands on the original ideas and fills them out with trademark Kelly weirdness. Except there's a purpose this time, some real direction. It reminds me of the kind of carefully constructed, methodically paced mystery that M. Night Shyamalan used to make, before he went off the deep end.
It's December 1976. The couple faced with the moral dilemma are the Lewises, Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur (James Marsden), both in their mid-30s and happily living in Richmond, Va., with their preteen son, Walter (Sam Oz Stone). Norma is a schoolteacher; Arthur is an engineer at NASA's nearby Langley Research Center. Everyone speaks with a cute Virginia accent. Life is reasonably good.
Until the old deformed man shows up, that is! He is Arlington Steward (Frank Langella), a courtly gentleman whose face is missing its southwest quadrant, a detail that may or may not be relevant but that certainly increases the air of creepy mystery about him. He gives the Lewises the box and the instructions: Push the button, cause the death of a stranger, but get a million dollars. It's insane, of course. The box isn't connected to anything, no wires, no transmitters, nothing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that, and Arthur actually IS a rocket scientist.
Of course, if it's all madness, there's no harm in pushing the button, right?
Two hours of Norma and Arthur Lewis fretting over whether to push the button would be a little tedious, especially since most of the audience will consider this a non-dilemma. The person whose death you cause by pushing the button is guaranteed to be a stranger; tens of thousands of people die every day; the odds are good that it will be someone living in abject poverty anyway; etc. The viewer is thinking, only half-jokingly, that if he were in these people's shoes, he'd have pushed the button before Steward was even finished talking.
How interesting, then, that Kelly makes this mindset part of the story. The fact that so many people would be willing to kill a stranger for a million dollars emerges as a key element in Mr. Steward's work, and in Kelly's larger thesis. Also related, at least tangentially: Sartre's "No Exit" ("Hell is other people"), NASA's Viking program, a childhood accident Norma suffered that left her with a limp, a babysitter (Gillian Jacobs) who lives at a motel, the upcoming wedding of Norma's sister, and a lot of initially unexplained nosebleeds.
I'd be lying if I said my negative experiences with Kelly's prior work didn't make me wary of trusting him this time. The film keeps adding one odd detail after another, and I began to worry: Is this all going to add up to something? Or will we be left with a million loose ends and an unsatisfying conclusion, then have to suffer the film's fans telling us we just "didn't get it"?
But with "The Box," Kelly has finally found a way to be himself (i.e., cryptic and obtuse) while still telling an intriguing story with a legitimate resolution. The film's ideas are dark and thought-provoking, worthy of discussion afterward; there's some real substance in Kelly's dense, twisted universe. It's far from mainstream, but it's not totally inaccessible, either.
The whole story is preposterous, of course. I'm not even sure what genre it belongs to. Science fiction? Fantasy? Conspiracy thriller? Yet even with its occasional lapses into random weirdness, it remains watchable and engaging, often suspenseful, even creepy. Kelly's technical prowess -- he's paying attention to things like shot composition and framing now -- has greatly improved, too. I like where things are going.
Grade: B
Rated PG-13, a little mild profanity, a little violence
1 hr., 55 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 25 comments
November 7, 2009 at 8:01 pm
"... Richard Kelly, the writer/director of the incoherent Donnie Darko..."
"I'd be lying if I said my negative experiences with Kelly's prior work didn't make me wary of trusting him this time."
"...will we be left with a million loose ends and an unsatisfying conclusion, then have to suffer the film's fans telling us we just 'didn't get it'?"
Again, your blunt criticism against "Donnie Darko" will always make me question whether your opinion is analytically assessed or just plain biased.
Same goes for your review of "Sicko".
November 7, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Again, your blunt criticism against "Donnie Darko" will always make me question whether your opinion is analytically assessed or just plain biased.
So your theory is that my anti-Kelly bias is what made me ... LIKE his latest film? Or is your theory that if it weren't for my anti-Kelly bias I would have LOVED it?
November 7, 2009 at 8:59 pm
he would tell you, but then he'd have to kill you. Obviously it's a conspiracy. Kelly and Michael Moore plan to daze and confuse the masses away from truth justice and the american Beck.
or it's just possible I'm tired...sorry,you'll have to guess.
November 7, 2009 at 9:00 pm
I'm not referring to how your anti-Kelly bias gave you affected your expectations on "The Box", which you explained well enough in your review. I'm saying your unambiguous belief that "Donnie Darko" is "incoherent" makes you lose credibility as a critic, seeing how you can't seem to listen to the other side of the argument.
November 7, 2009 at 9:06 pm
I'm saying your unambiguous belief that "Donnie Darko" is "incoherent" makes you lose credibility as a critic, seeing how you can't seem to listen to the other side of the argument.
Is it not possible that I have listened to the other side of the argument and simply do not agree with it? I hope it is possible, for that is what has happened!
November 7, 2009 at 9:58 pm
"Again, your blunt criticism against "Donnie Darko" will always make me question whether your opinion is analytically assessed or just plain biased.
Same goes for your review of "Sicko"."
Again, your blunt criticism against Eric's review of "Sicko" will always make me question whether your opinion is analytically assessed or just plain biased.
Same goes for your review of "The Box".
November 7, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I'm now more confused by these comments than I was by this movie.
November 8, 2009 at 9:05 am
William Goss --
Anyone who dislikes Donnie Darko must be biased, because the only correct opinion was that it was an amazing movie. Even listening to arguments in favor of that movie should be enough to convince anyone who wasn't being willfully defiant or obtuse that Donnie Darko is an excellent movie. The fact that Eric D Snider likes some movies but not others is indicative of a deep-seated antisocial personality disorder that makes him singularly unfit to be a movie reviewer.
There, now we can head off this argument before it gets really started.
By the way, excellent review. I liked the Twilight Zone and I have a feeling that I'll enjoy this movie too when I see it.
November 8, 2009 at 2:22 pm
@William Goss
Let's get a movie director on this, stat! A bunch of critics, everymen, and Richard Kelly himself try to understand Donnie Darko, but end up more confused and drenched in ennui by the end!
November 8, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I think it's funny you said the dilemma is a non-starter because "The viewer is thinking, only half-jokingly, that if he were in these people's shoes, he'd have pushed the button before Steward was even finished talking."
My husband I both initially rejected this movie based on the premise because we thought, "Who in their right mind would ever push that button?"
Having read your review, though, the movie looks appealing. And who doesn't need a little Sartre now and again?
November 8, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I'm with Amp. Assuming you accept the premise of the film, how is pushing the button any different from being a hitman? If the box has the claimed power, then you are causing the premature death of another person, just as surely as if you put a bullett in his head. The only difference is you don't have to see the face of the person you're murdering. That wouldn't be enough for me to do it.
By the way, I remember seeing the original Twilight Zone episode, and I really liked it.
November 9, 2009 at 7:11 am
I think my own reaction would be similar to the times when some other kid used to recite, "Step on a crack and break your mother's back." I stepped on the sidewalk cracks to prove the kid wrong. So I would push the button just to show that it did not work. Of course, I would have felt perfectly awful when I suddenly came into a bunch of money, even if I had no connection to the person who died.
November 9, 2009 at 7:36 am
Eric, Amp, and Paul together demonstrate what made Twilight Zone so awesome. It doesn't sound like it will gain anything from making the trek to the theater, and so it is now added to may Saved Movies queue.
November 9, 2009 at 8:36 am
Loved Donnie Darko, intrigued by The Box, and willing to accept that sometimes the reason that I like a movie will be the very reason that someone else dislikes it. What I want from a reviewer is a good explanation for his or her assessment, which Eric always provides. Then I can look at those reasons and decide, for myself, whether I am willing to shell out money to see the film.
Turns out people are different. Embourgeousieman, clearly, expects all people to be him. I, for one, am glad he is wrong.
:)
November 9, 2009 at 10:46 am
I am old enough to have watched the original Twilight Zone when Bonanza and the Tonight Show were about the only shows broadcast in color. Some of the episodes scared the bejabbers out of me but the premise of The Box seems like and episode called "The Monkey's Paw." That, or my senility has kicked in an it wasn't even on Twilight Zone. Because of your review,I do plan to see The Box when it comes to the dollar flick theater because I am far to cheap to pay $10 to see ANY movie..
November 9, 2009 at 3:12 pm
If you are still looking for a genre, speculative fiction should do you nicely.
November 9, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Lobo (#15), I don't believe "Monkey's Paw" was ever adapted as a TZ episode. Perhaps you're thinking of the segment from the first "RTales From the Crypt" movie, around 1972 or thereabouts.
November 10, 2009 at 2:41 am
I'm pretty sure I remember an Alfred Hitchcock Hour version of The Monkey's Paw. Is that maybe what you're thinking of, Lobo?
November 11, 2009 at 12:35 am
I find it mildly amusing that a twilight ad came up on your site. Tee hee.
November 11, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Actually, it's an ad for a talent agency that claims to be accepting applications online for spots in Twilight. Nothing against Eric or his site, but I doubt anyone that clicks on that ad will be cast in a Twilight movie.
November 11, 2009 at 6:30 pm
They're probably just recruiting extras. I don't think that it's that impossible for someone here to be High School Student #19 or Person At Mall #35 in New Moon.
November 12, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I guess embourgeoiseman was quoting from Snider's review of Donnie Darko. Well, I don't think Snider has any credibility now because he should have made the exact same comments about this movie. Was this totally off (meaning falsely positive) review of this terrible film making up for past harsh reviews? Totally hated this highbrow nonesense. Popular stars like Cameron Diaz should not be emplyed to fool folks into thinking a movie will have mass appeal. Of course mass appeal is not everything but I want to at least enjoy movies I go to. I guess you need to fool enough folks, at least the first week, to get as much money as you can out of a terrible film like this. I have not met a person how likes it yet. And it is not because we were just not smart enough to get it. Please!
November 13, 2009 at 5:18 am
Huh, I wrote a review for the movie too, and basically have a very similar opinion of it... except I was hoping for something more like donnie darko, and was a little disappointed, and you were hoping for something a little further away from it! Well, obviously, that's a gross oversimplification, there were other problems with it... But I thought that's interesting.
November 18, 2009 at 3:26 am
How can you give this movie any stars at all?
The story is lame. Clearly an attempt to stretch material from an excellent short story into a full feature. What were they smoking when they gave this project the green light? I have seen some bad films in my day, but this one is clearly in the top 5 along side such classics as Howard the Duck, Copper Mountain, Attack of the Gryphon, etc. The story is lame, the music does not match the action on the screen - it actually gets in the way of the story. I considered that the music was a choice - you know, since it is set in the 70's use some really bad music. But it is so bad that it actually takes away from any positive action on screen. This film has made me realize how well most producers/directors/editors/ handle the musical portion of the story. This film seems to have run out of budget and so they used some old stock music that was laying around.
Don't spend any money on this film. . . If you gave it any stars at all . . . You need to get into another line of work.
November 24, 2009 at 11:50 am
I completely agree with Scott N. You gave a movie some "stars" (not really since you don't use that scale) when he wouldn't have!
You really need to get into another line of work if you are expressing your opinion and evaluation of a movie. I can't remember what people who do that are called, but you should really look into being one of those instead of what you currently are doing.
Seriously, make sure you check with Scott N next time before you express another opinion.