Review: The Box

Posted by Dr. Cole Abaius (cole.abaius@filmschoolrejects.com) on November 7, 2009

thebox-1

I can’t imagine that adapting a short story that’s already been adapted into an episode of “The Twilight Zone,” and attempting to extend it into a feature length is an easy task. Especially when the original story has that built-in single-note ethical spin that seemed perfect for Serling and company to weave into their morality tales. There was a chance that Richard Kelly could have built a huge framework for The Box around a single ominous punchline. A chance. But to no avail.

A mysterious stranger named Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) delivers a box to the doorstep of Norma and Arthur Lewis (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) and gives them the opportunity to push a button that will kill someone they don’t know and earn them a tax-free million.

The central premise of the film is a fairly fascinating moral question of how much another person’s life is worth and what lengths you’d go to set your finances in order. But that heavy lifting was really done when author Richard Matheson wrote the story in the first place. In fact, most of the heavy lifting of this film comes not from Richard Kelly, but from either the source material or the original episode. Adding onto the pile, Kelly creates a longer narrative about a middle class couple that spends too much money, drives a really, really nice car, and can’t afford to send their child to private school anymore on discount.

If it seems like I have little sympathy for their situation, you probably won’t either.

And really, without that sympathy – without a true question of what depths one would have to go to before they take someone else’s life – the rest of the story falls pretty flat.

It also falls flat because the acting from Cameron Diaz is about as good as a regional theater actress stumbling her way through a Tennessee Williams play. Her southern accent is atrocious and she delivers almost every line with a incredible lack of emotion. On the other end of the spectrum is Frank Langella who places a quiet, business-like creepiness (even if his CGI scarring helps him sometimes and hurts him in others) onto the table next his diabolical box. Marsden is also a stand out, a great actor in a good role who is only hampered occasionally from some flowery dialog that even he seems to get sick at the sound of.

thebox-2

I also feel compelled to mention the score because of just how incredibly beautiful it is. It’s strange and experimental, beautiful and haunting, but it doesn’t belong anywhere this movie. Even as transcendent as it is, it plunks down into inappropriate times during scenes that almost give a Ba-Bum-Bum! quality to some of the dramatics.

On the whole, the moments before the button-pushing question is answered aren’t played to much intensity. Neither is the rest of the film. It’s also a mess in the same way that plagues all of Kelly’s work and it could use a keen editing knife to help it make more sense. However, unlike Donnie Darko, Kelly seems desperate to overexplain and infantalize his audience. He comes off as if he believes he’s the first person to ever understand his primer on Sartre – the directorial version of the kid waving his hand in the back of your philosophy class just a little too desperate to prove he knows the answer. He achieves this hand-waving through far too many scenes of exposition for things which come naturally out of the context (and even repeats some of the exposition or has random characters enter a scene solely to ask a question that will lead to more exposition and then dip back off-camera only to be seen as “NASA Worker #2″ or “Reporter in back of room” in the credits).

Without those moments, and with some far better acting from the lead, the movie could have been a great, strange entry. Instead, it ends up being fairly tedious with some weird moments that work sincerely and others that really add nothing to the story or the characters (like an abandoned chance at salvation, and a moment where a character is in one place and then another through the magic of editing).

While it seems natural for any movie or story with a moral question at its center to leave audiences discussing the conundrum afterwards, my friends and I stood around in the lobby instead questioning whether or not we should have bothered going to see The Box in the first place.

The Upside: Some good performances from Marsden and Langella, and several scenes that are really rewarding.

The Downside: A muddled story that doesn’t line up, a score that doesn’t line up, and a director who can’t be esoteric without attempting to let you know what he means.

On the Side: Richard Matheson is still alive, so he can watch it!

Grade: C-


Read more articles by Dr. Cole Abaius

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • mamiron
    Its seems that you went into the movie not really willing to like the movie by the way you wrote you article.

    The problem with any Richard Kelly film is that the audience always seems to be split down the middle. Half the people adore it and the other half despise it. In most cases people who don't understand the work tend to dislike.
  • Cole_Abaius
    I go into every movie wanting to like it. Who wants to sit through crap for 2 hours? In fact, I think that's always the one-up that any film has on its chances with me - I go in wanting to be entertained.

    I think it's a bit unfair to split Kelly fans down the middle, especially with the absurd delineation mark being that people that don't like his stuff don't get it. There were elements in Donnie Darko that I didn't get because they were so open ended, but I like Donnie Darko a lot. There were zero elements in The Box that I didn't get because the movie, for the most part, serves it up on a silver platter or over-explains, and I clearly wasn't in love with it.

    I don't think it's a terrible movie. I just think it's pretty average. But I think questioning the intelligence of people who didn't like it (however tacitly) is pretty cheap.
  • mamiron
    Fair enough. Again I was only speaking from my expirience with people in my own circle. But look at the films rating for example on rotten tomatoes it has a 46% rating which splits the audience down the middle.

    When I said people didn't understand it (or get if you will) I wasn't attacking anyone's intelligence. Getting a movie has nothing to do with intelligence. There are movies that I get but hate. There are movies I don't get and like very much.
  • diagobhagi
    last night i went with my friend to watch The Box movie. though i did not have idea to watch it i had to watch because of my friend . omg, it was really fantastic
    source
    http://blog.80millionmoviesfree.com/in-theaters...
  • aaaa
    IN an effort to maintain your high grade crticism which is equivalent in critics terms only to jet fuel, I hope you will acknowledge one point.

    When you deal with a studio, independent financiers, and multiple producers, and a writer/director seldom do the best choices make it to the screen. The keenness of an editor aside, garbage in garbage out my friend.
blog comments powered by Disqus