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-)
484 Reviews
Like flavored chewing gum, starts amazing but ends tasteless
DaShAg1 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie starts off with a couple waken up by the doorbell early in the morning. The woman Norma Lewis ( Cameron Diaz ) opens the door just to find out no one's at the door. But there is a mysterious box on the doorstep, and Norma brings it in. In the meanwhile Arhur Lewis ( James Marsden ) joins her at the diner table and together they unfold the wrapping paper to find a box with a big red button on top of it. On the box is a keyhole which needs a key to open up the top so you can press the button. They have no idea what it is or what it means but that will soon change.
Later that day a mysterious creepy man is at the door, Norma opens the door and the man presents himself as Arlington Steward ( Frank Langella ). He is creepy in the sense that he has a big open burn mark on his face in the trend of Harvey Dent ( 2-face ) as seen in the Dark Knight. He will ask Norma if she received the box and will explain what it is. Mr. Steward gives Norma a key to open the box, and she can keep the key with the box for 24 hours, in that time she will have to make a special choice. If she will push the button, Steward will give the family a staggering 1 million dollars in cash BUT someone, somewhere in the world will die. To gain her trust Stewerd gives Norma a 100 dollar bill and leaves.
So far so good, the first 30 minutes of this movie are good and interesting, and you will wonder what will happen if they press the button. The story has a great concept and is very promising.
Unfortunately the movie collapse under it's own weight of complexity in the remaining 75 minutes or so. It's not because of bad acting, although Diaz is terrible, Marsden plays OK but not memorable and besides, Langella sticks out with head and shoulders. It's not bad directing either. I loved Richard Kelly's Donnie Darko so we're not dealing with a beginner. The Cinematography and camera-work is good and the atmosphere in the entire movie is really well done. It's just that the plot is turning out to be way to smart, but yet it feels dumb and clumsy. At moments the movie is very predictable, and sometimes you are scratching you'r head about what the hell just happened. You keep on watching because you'll expect that the movie will fall on it's place near the end. Unfortunately this is not happening and the movie ends with questions unanswered. Kelly is probably trying to create something that people will talk about after the movie and on birthdays. But to be honest I didn't care about the characters and the story no more, the last 20 minutes took forever and I remember asking my girlfriend if they could please get it over with.
This movie is comparable to flavored chewing gum. It starts off with an explosion of flavor but as you keep on chewing the flavor is starting to go away and you end up with a dull tasteless piece of rubber in your mouth.
Later that day a mysterious creepy man is at the door, Norma opens the door and the man presents himself as Arlington Steward ( Frank Langella ). He is creepy in the sense that he has a big open burn mark on his face in the trend of Harvey Dent ( 2-face ) as seen in the Dark Knight. He will ask Norma if she received the box and will explain what it is. Mr. Steward gives Norma a key to open the box, and she can keep the key with the box for 24 hours, in that time she will have to make a special choice. If she will push the button, Steward will give the family a staggering 1 million dollars in cash BUT someone, somewhere in the world will die. To gain her trust Stewerd gives Norma a 100 dollar bill and leaves.
So far so good, the first 30 minutes of this movie are good and interesting, and you will wonder what will happen if they press the button. The story has a great concept and is very promising.
Unfortunately the movie collapse under it's own weight of complexity in the remaining 75 minutes or so. It's not because of bad acting, although Diaz is terrible, Marsden plays OK but not memorable and besides, Langella sticks out with head and shoulders. It's not bad directing either. I loved Richard Kelly's Donnie Darko so we're not dealing with a beginner. The Cinematography and camera-work is good and the atmosphere in the entire movie is really well done. It's just that the plot is turning out to be way to smart, but yet it feels dumb and clumsy. At moments the movie is very predictable, and sometimes you are scratching you'r head about what the hell just happened. You keep on watching because you'll expect that the movie will fall on it's place near the end. Unfortunately this is not happening and the movie ends with questions unanswered. Kelly is probably trying to create something that people will talk about after the movie and on birthdays. But to be honest I didn't care about the characters and the story no more, the last 20 minutes took forever and I remember asking my girlfriend if they could please get it over with.
This movie is comparable to flavored chewing gum. It starts off with an explosion of flavor but as you keep on chewing the flavor is starting to go away and you end up with a dull tasteless piece of rubber in your mouth.
Over-ambitious "Box" leaves too many elements to consider
Movie_Muse_Reviews19 June 2010
As a fan of science fiction allegory, social experiment, "The Twilight Zone" and the thriller genre -- no less all those elements combined -- Richard Kelly and his film "The Box" should've at least won me over, but it doesn't. It can't even decide if it wants to remain completely mysterious or explicitly tell us what's going on and any film that has to contemplate that is too complex for its own good.
With any story this daring, there's potential for something meaningful. "The Box" does let you glimpse it and draw a few interesting conclusions, but through intellectual jail bars placed before our eyes by the myriad of plot contrivances. In other words, too many plot elements exist in in the film that keep us from ever putting our mind around what Kelly is trying to say. Although he starts simply by focusing on a couple (James Marsden and Cameron Diaz) and their child making an ethical decision, the scope widens to include everything from Arthur C. Clarke references to mindless drones to some indiscernible notion of the afterlife.
This beginning piece is based on Richard Matheson's story "Button, Button," which was a short story turned into a "Twilight Zone" episode. In "The Box," a mysterious man with a half-burned face played by Frank Langella drops off a box with a button in it at the doorstep of Norma and Arthur Lewis and their son Walter. He later comes back and gives Norma a proposition: don't press the button and nothing happens, or press the button and receive one million dollars and subsequently someone, anywhere in the world, whom they don't know will die.
Well, Norma, a teacher, just lost her teacher tuition discount for her son and Arthur's application to be an astronaut was just denied and despite living in a nice looking house in Richmond, Virginia they apparently have no money, so it's not hard to figure out ultimately what they'll do. After all, don't press the button and there's no film -- not that some people who sit through this would've minded that in retrospect.
As with his cult hit "Donnie Darko," Kelly keeps "The Box" fascinatingly creepy. It starts with the colors, the classic string soundtrack from the band Arcade Fire and some peculiar Easter eggs and moves on to more jarring occurrences. There is never a point where things get so absurd that you don't care what happens in the end, even if there's a chance the end could be terribly unsatisfying. It's one of few saving graces for "The Box," but perhaps even this is only for those intrigued by high concept sci-fi mystery that parallels human nature no matter how vague.
When any thriller collapses somewhere after the midway point, you can usually blame the fact that too many occurrences in need of explaining were written in order for the writer to achieve his desired end. When James Marsden gets hit in a car by a truck and comes out of a giant light warehouse and that ultimately never gets explained, its degrading to the viewer.
The real trouble with "The Box" is how ambitiously it tries to combine the ideas of intelligent life/space exploration with religious notions of life, death and what might come after as well as numerous other elements too many and too difficult to explain. Kelly found that balance between time travel and inter-relationship drama in "Donnie Darko" but "The Box" implodes on itself by severing its little social experiment from the characters with too much unexplained phenomena.
~Steven C
Visit my site http://moviemusereviews.com
With any story this daring, there's potential for something meaningful. "The Box" does let you glimpse it and draw a few interesting conclusions, but through intellectual jail bars placed before our eyes by the myriad of plot contrivances. In other words, too many plot elements exist in in the film that keep us from ever putting our mind around what Kelly is trying to say. Although he starts simply by focusing on a couple (James Marsden and Cameron Diaz) and their child making an ethical decision, the scope widens to include everything from Arthur C. Clarke references to mindless drones to some indiscernible notion of the afterlife.
This beginning piece is based on Richard Matheson's story "Button, Button," which was a short story turned into a "Twilight Zone" episode. In "The Box," a mysterious man with a half-burned face played by Frank Langella drops off a box with a button in it at the doorstep of Norma and Arthur Lewis and their son Walter. He later comes back and gives Norma a proposition: don't press the button and nothing happens, or press the button and receive one million dollars and subsequently someone, anywhere in the world, whom they don't know will die.
Well, Norma, a teacher, just lost her teacher tuition discount for her son and Arthur's application to be an astronaut was just denied and despite living in a nice looking house in Richmond, Virginia they apparently have no money, so it's not hard to figure out ultimately what they'll do. After all, don't press the button and there's no film -- not that some people who sit through this would've minded that in retrospect.
As with his cult hit "Donnie Darko," Kelly keeps "The Box" fascinatingly creepy. It starts with the colors, the classic string soundtrack from the band Arcade Fire and some peculiar Easter eggs and moves on to more jarring occurrences. There is never a point where things get so absurd that you don't care what happens in the end, even if there's a chance the end could be terribly unsatisfying. It's one of few saving graces for "The Box," but perhaps even this is only for those intrigued by high concept sci-fi mystery that parallels human nature no matter how vague.
When any thriller collapses somewhere after the midway point, you can usually blame the fact that too many occurrences in need of explaining were written in order for the writer to achieve his desired end. When James Marsden gets hit in a car by a truck and comes out of a giant light warehouse and that ultimately never gets explained, its degrading to the viewer.
The real trouble with "The Box" is how ambitiously it tries to combine the ideas of intelligent life/space exploration with religious notions of life, death and what might come after as well as numerous other elements too many and too difficult to explain. Kelly found that balance between time travel and inter-relationship drama in "Donnie Darko" but "The Box" implodes on itself by severing its little social experiment from the characters with too much unexplained phenomena.
~Steven C
Visit my site http://moviemusereviews.com
Good film, marred slightly by the usual Kelly tics
tieman6421 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
In the winter of 1967, Professor Charles Goetzinger conducted an experiment in his Basic Persuasion Class, hiring an actor to attend all his classes wearing a large black bag. Strangely, after several days, the black bag began to inspire anger in the other students. Goetzinger's students would pick fights with, taunt and tease the black bag, seemingly unable to recognise that there was a human being within it.
What Goetzinger's experiment showed was that anonymity loosens the restraints on aggressive behaviour, and that when victims are anonymous, and therefore dehumanised, it grows easier to commit violence against them. This echoes the countless bizarre reports of children at Disneyland striking hapless costumed characters for no apparent reason and why most movies, especially war movies, deindividualize the Other in an effort not to implicate their audiences.
Richard Kelly's "The Box", which can be divided into three sections, deals with these themes, but goes a bit further. In its first section (lasting approximately 30 minutes) we have a fairly faithful retelling of "Button, Button", a Richard Matheson short story and "Twilight Zone" episode (1986). This section involves a couple (Norma and Arthur) who are given a box by a strange man named Steward. The box is equipped with one button, and should either Norma or Arthur push it, they will promptly be given a million dollars. The catch is, pressing the button results in someone they don't know immediately dying. Of course Norma pushes the button anyway. Why wouldn't she? The box facilitates disavowal. Modern man, though he knows his actions cause suffering, is himself increasingly isolated from the consequences of his choices.
Steward gives Norma and Arthur their money and then leaves with the box, but not before ominously stating that the box will now be offered to "someone whom you don't know". Shocked, the couple suddenly realise that thousands of these boxes are around the country, everyone given the chance to make easy money at someone else's expense. Norma and Arthur, far from being suddenly wealthy, are now in mortal danger; they may be exploited by any number of button pushers around the world. The message: if everyone is willing to have others suffer in order to facilitate their own personal gains, then all is already lost, the film drawing broad parallels between capitalism, war, human nature, greed and violence.
In the second part of the film, Kelly tells us that the boxes are really a test given to mankind by aliens. The aliens are gathering data, and if humans are found to be selfish and beyond redemption, they will destroy the planet. This is a classic flaw in science fiction films ("Abyss", "The Day The Earth Stood Still" etc), in which advanced beings "teach us not to be violent" by hypocritically "threatening us with violence". I call this "Big stick diplomacy", whereby a superpower negotiates peace whilst simultaneously threatening violence. Throw in a bunch of silly science fiction themes, worm holes, teleportation and the kind of apocalyptic pseudo-religious ending that ALL of Kelly's films have, and...well, let's just say Kelly sabotages his whole film with unnecessary mumbo jumbo.
Luckily the third part of Kelly's film salvages everything. Early in the film Norma mentions Jean Paul Sartre. Later, Norma and Arthur go to a performance of Sartre's 1944 existentialist play, "No Exit", and find the words "No Exit" written on their car window. Sartre, of course, famously said in "No Exit" that "Hell is other people", the implication being that the earth is "made hell" because we become throwaway objects when in the gaze of others.
More horrifically, modern man no longer has the ability to "choose" whether he presses the button or not. In the age of globalization, he has ceased to become a subject and is now a default participant. To escape the global system is to be free, but escape is impossible. This is partially why the film's aesthetic is labyrinthine and confusing, and wholly divorced from the cosy spaces of the 1986 Twilight Zone episode. Kelly recognises that Matheson's world is long gone. The system's labyrinthine tendrils criss-cross in all directions to such an extent that boxes and buttons are now continually overlapping and always unwittingly pressed. The film's way out of this gridlock is essentially what Godard espouses in "Our Music" ("Who are you?"), man encouraged to make empathetic connections born of mutual suffering, rather than either avoidance or blind tolerance.
This notion of "compassion born of mutual suffering" is articulated at the end of the film, when Norma begins to identify with Steward. She has a mutilated foot and he has a mutilated face, and by recognising his pain and suffering she is able to regret having pushed the button.
We then learn that "The Box Test" has a second phase. He who pushes the button must sacrifice themselves for their child, which of course is what Norma does. She allows herself to be shot so that her son may live. The implication is that whilst everyone on the planet has selfishly pressed the button, man is nevertheless inherently good enough to sacrifice himself for his fellowman.
Cue cheesy CGI water, worm holes and silly baptism, purgatory and hell metaphors. Kelly's point: there is "No Exist", no escaping the world, only the fleeting chance of a kind of mutual empathy, a kind of heaven on earth.
8/10 – Ignore what the film says about the acronym HREM. With the film constantly referencing X-rays, it means "High Resolution Electron Microscopy". IE – the box test is an X ray of humanity, the aliens trying to see what we're really like deep down inside.
What Goetzinger's experiment showed was that anonymity loosens the restraints on aggressive behaviour, and that when victims are anonymous, and therefore dehumanised, it grows easier to commit violence against them. This echoes the countless bizarre reports of children at Disneyland striking hapless costumed characters for no apparent reason and why most movies, especially war movies, deindividualize the Other in an effort not to implicate their audiences.
Richard Kelly's "The Box", which can be divided into three sections, deals with these themes, but goes a bit further. In its first section (lasting approximately 30 minutes) we have a fairly faithful retelling of "Button, Button", a Richard Matheson short story and "Twilight Zone" episode (1986). This section involves a couple (Norma and Arthur) who are given a box by a strange man named Steward. The box is equipped with one button, and should either Norma or Arthur push it, they will promptly be given a million dollars. The catch is, pressing the button results in someone they don't know immediately dying. Of course Norma pushes the button anyway. Why wouldn't she? The box facilitates disavowal. Modern man, though he knows his actions cause suffering, is himself increasingly isolated from the consequences of his choices.
Steward gives Norma and Arthur their money and then leaves with the box, but not before ominously stating that the box will now be offered to "someone whom you don't know". Shocked, the couple suddenly realise that thousands of these boxes are around the country, everyone given the chance to make easy money at someone else's expense. Norma and Arthur, far from being suddenly wealthy, are now in mortal danger; they may be exploited by any number of button pushers around the world. The message: if everyone is willing to have others suffer in order to facilitate their own personal gains, then all is already lost, the film drawing broad parallels between capitalism, war, human nature, greed and violence.
In the second part of the film, Kelly tells us that the boxes are really a test given to mankind by aliens. The aliens are gathering data, and if humans are found to be selfish and beyond redemption, they will destroy the planet. This is a classic flaw in science fiction films ("Abyss", "The Day The Earth Stood Still" etc), in which advanced beings "teach us not to be violent" by hypocritically "threatening us with violence". I call this "Big stick diplomacy", whereby a superpower negotiates peace whilst simultaneously threatening violence. Throw in a bunch of silly science fiction themes, worm holes, teleportation and the kind of apocalyptic pseudo-religious ending that ALL of Kelly's films have, and...well, let's just say Kelly sabotages his whole film with unnecessary mumbo jumbo.
Luckily the third part of Kelly's film salvages everything. Early in the film Norma mentions Jean Paul Sartre. Later, Norma and Arthur go to a performance of Sartre's 1944 existentialist play, "No Exit", and find the words "No Exit" written on their car window. Sartre, of course, famously said in "No Exit" that "Hell is other people", the implication being that the earth is "made hell" because we become throwaway objects when in the gaze of others.
More horrifically, modern man no longer has the ability to "choose" whether he presses the button or not. In the age of globalization, he has ceased to become a subject and is now a default participant. To escape the global system is to be free, but escape is impossible. This is partially why the film's aesthetic is labyrinthine and confusing, and wholly divorced from the cosy spaces of the 1986 Twilight Zone episode. Kelly recognises that Matheson's world is long gone. The system's labyrinthine tendrils criss-cross in all directions to such an extent that boxes and buttons are now continually overlapping and always unwittingly pressed. The film's way out of this gridlock is essentially what Godard espouses in "Our Music" ("Who are you?"), man encouraged to make empathetic connections born of mutual suffering, rather than either avoidance or blind tolerance.
This notion of "compassion born of mutual suffering" is articulated at the end of the film, when Norma begins to identify with Steward. She has a mutilated foot and he has a mutilated face, and by recognising his pain and suffering she is able to regret having pushed the button.
We then learn that "The Box Test" has a second phase. He who pushes the button must sacrifice themselves for their child, which of course is what Norma does. She allows herself to be shot so that her son may live. The implication is that whilst everyone on the planet has selfishly pressed the button, man is nevertheless inherently good enough to sacrifice himself for his fellowman.
Cue cheesy CGI water, worm holes and silly baptism, purgatory and hell metaphors. Kelly's point: there is "No Exist", no escaping the world, only the fleeting chance of a kind of mutual empathy, a kind of heaven on earth.
8/10 – Ignore what the film says about the acronym HREM. With the film constantly referencing X-rays, it means "High Resolution Electron Microscopy". IE – the box test is an X ray of humanity, the aliens trying to see what we're really like deep down inside.
Forgettable
laserburn9 June 2021
The movie that ended the career of the director Richard Kelly. It was never a really promising career, Donnie Darko must have been a stroke of luck. The original Twilight Zone episode The Box was way better and all the additional material in this movie does not improve on it, with subplots that don't resolve into anything. The script is just poorly written, with a lot of illogical situations and thin characters. The movie overall is not horrible, just don't have any high expectations from it.
"To understand 'The Box,' you'll have to think outside of the box."
NewKlear_Phil15 November 2009
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."
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."
Press the button and you will lose 2 hours of your life.
darrell-198 February 2010
I know that so many reviews on IMDb are extreme, with reviewers either praising a film to the hilt or inarticulately tearing it to pieces. I find neither of these kind of reviews helpful, and so I do not give this film the awful review I am about to, lightly. The film is art-house science-fiction of the worst kind dressed up as a Hollywood blockbuster. The trailers draw you in by showing you what appears to be a cohesive plot, but is actually just a tiny part of a wilfully baffling series of events which are never properly resolved. I like films which challenge the viewer and I do not need to be spoon-fed a plot, and so my complaint against this film is not that it is too highbrow. No - the film is just terrible. As the credits roll you will feel genuine anger at having wasted your time on Cameron Diaz's wooden acting and a faltering plot-line. Avoid.
Worth A Watch
MrAwesome102211 June 2013
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 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.
Should have been named "The Neverending Story"!...
jcdugger11 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Before you dismiss my post as "not getting it", let me say...I'm one of the biggest Richard Kelly and "The Twilight Zone" fans out there. Donnie Darko is one my all-time favorites and I even thought Southland Tales had it's moments. I'm a HUGE sci-fi fan. I was very excited to see "The Box", couldn't wait for it to come out.
Having said that..."The Box" is terrible. Behind "Drag Me To Hell", this was the worst movie I've seen in 2009. And it just simply WILL NOT end! Whenever you think you've reached the end, another change in the plot and you're off to more torture. I was actually groaning in the theater by the end of the film...I could hardly take it anymore.
The biggest problem with "The Box", no matter how you slice it or try to justify it, is that it simply makes little sense. Trust me, I "got it", I understood what was going on. But that doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense looking back on it. Take the basics for example. The main couple...Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, playing Norma and Arthur Lewis. Diaz loses her finances at her job, then bemoans that they are "living paycheck to paycheck". Well, sell that f-ing Porsche your husband is driving then!!! They live in a beautiful 2-story house in a nice subdivision. Marsden is working what seems to be a high-paid job at NASA and Diaz is an accomplished teacher. And, yes, Marsden drives an overly expensive car. But they are somehow living paycheck to paycheck?!? No need to press the button, just cut down your high-priced lifestyle a bit! The movie would have worked better if they showed the couple jobless and in serious debt. Instead, they are seemingly desperate for money...all the while living what I would call a luxurious lifestyle. Like I said...you can understand what's going on, yet it still makes little sense! That's a rare combination.
There was an awful scene in a library that I feel will go down as one of the worst segments in movie history (terribly acted too by the way). It was idiotic, illogical and out of place. I can't even begin to fully describe it actually, so I will move onto a subplot that involves nose-bleeds and body possession by aliens. (Yes, I'm being serious unfortunately). A kid is in Diaz's class with a wicked and smile on his face (a sinister smile that seemingly goes by completely unnoticed by everyone in authority at the school). He starts asking Diaz personal questions, literally embarrassing her in front of her class. No punishment is given to the kid whatsoever...he didn't even get asked to stay after class for a talk! Then Diaz is at a party...and the same kid is one of the hired help...ironed shirt, apron and all! I don't know many alien-possessed kids (who appear to be in Junior High) that also moonlight as a bus-boy at parties sponsored by teachers and school officials...but we found one here! (See what I mean...you can understand it completely, but it still makes no sense...a rare combo!) Like many things in the movie, the kid comes and goes...no real explanation about him, no ending to his character. Moving on... A lady then approaches Diaz in a grocery store, telling her that experiments are being ran secretly and her family is one of the test subjects. Well...hmmm...if aliens possess the powers where they can take over a body remotely...and the aliens don't want to help Diaz...then who was taking over this lady's body and giving Diaz advice?! Again...The lady was trying to help Diaz...and the aliens weren't interested in helping Diaz...so who the hell was controlling her body?! Never explained. Never talked about again. No nothing!! It goes on and on and on like this for, what seemed to me like, 2 weeks. It would not end! I wonder if this movie underwent a massive re-shoot at some point. It was poorly edited. Diaz's accent was there one minute, gone the next. Sub-plots began but never ended. The numerous push-backs of the release date obviously shows the problems the producers had with the finished product. It's truly a train-wreck.
Pass on this one...there's no redeeming value in it whatsoever. 3 out of 10, just because I like Diaz and sci-fi! But it probably deserves a 1 out of 10.
Thanks for reading!
JD
Having said that..."The Box" is terrible. Behind "Drag Me To Hell", this was the worst movie I've seen in 2009. And it just simply WILL NOT end! Whenever you think you've reached the end, another change in the plot and you're off to more torture. I was actually groaning in the theater by the end of the film...I could hardly take it anymore.
The biggest problem with "The Box", no matter how you slice it or try to justify it, is that it simply makes little sense. Trust me, I "got it", I understood what was going on. But that doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense looking back on it. Take the basics for example. The main couple...Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, playing Norma and Arthur Lewis. Diaz loses her finances at her job, then bemoans that they are "living paycheck to paycheck". Well, sell that f-ing Porsche your husband is driving then!!! They live in a beautiful 2-story house in a nice subdivision. Marsden is working what seems to be a high-paid job at NASA and Diaz is an accomplished teacher. And, yes, Marsden drives an overly expensive car. But they are somehow living paycheck to paycheck?!? No need to press the button, just cut down your high-priced lifestyle a bit! The movie would have worked better if they showed the couple jobless and in serious debt. Instead, they are seemingly desperate for money...all the while living what I would call a luxurious lifestyle. Like I said...you can understand what's going on, yet it still makes little sense! That's a rare combination.
There was an awful scene in a library that I feel will go down as one of the worst segments in movie history (terribly acted too by the way). It was idiotic, illogical and out of place. I can't even begin to fully describe it actually, so I will move onto a subplot that involves nose-bleeds and body possession by aliens. (Yes, I'm being serious unfortunately). A kid is in Diaz's class with a wicked and smile on his face (a sinister smile that seemingly goes by completely unnoticed by everyone in authority at the school). He starts asking Diaz personal questions, literally embarrassing her in front of her class. No punishment is given to the kid whatsoever...he didn't even get asked to stay after class for a talk! Then Diaz is at a party...and the same kid is one of the hired help...ironed shirt, apron and all! I don't know many alien-possessed kids (who appear to be in Junior High) that also moonlight as a bus-boy at parties sponsored by teachers and school officials...but we found one here! (See what I mean...you can understand it completely, but it still makes no sense...a rare combo!) Like many things in the movie, the kid comes and goes...no real explanation about him, no ending to his character. Moving on... A lady then approaches Diaz in a grocery store, telling her that experiments are being ran secretly and her family is one of the test subjects. Well...hmmm...if aliens possess the powers where they can take over a body remotely...and the aliens don't want to help Diaz...then who was taking over this lady's body and giving Diaz advice?! Again...The lady was trying to help Diaz...and the aliens weren't interested in helping Diaz...so who the hell was controlling her body?! Never explained. Never talked about again. No nothing!! It goes on and on and on like this for, what seemed to me like, 2 weeks. It would not end! I wonder if this movie underwent a massive re-shoot at some point. It was poorly edited. Diaz's accent was there one minute, gone the next. Sub-plots began but never ended. The numerous push-backs of the release date obviously shows the problems the producers had with the finished product. It's truly a train-wreck.
Pass on this one...there's no redeeming value in it whatsoever. 3 out of 10, just because I like Diaz and sci-fi! But it probably deserves a 1 out of 10.
Thanks for reading!
JD
you have no idea what to expect...
rivertam266 November 2009
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.
Button, button...oh no!
SJinSeaTac7 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Be warned, the next time you see "Richard Kelly" involved in any production, run away. Fast.
Kelly proved to the world after his last movie, "Southland Tales", that he is one pretentious director. It was indulgent and convoluted. In "The Box", not much has changed.
I can picture what his pitch to Warner Bros must have been, and I bet the executives at the studio ate it right up: a full-feature film based on one of Richard "Twilight Zone" Matheson's old short stories.
Big mistake! Do not read any further unless you want this movie COMPLETELY spoiled for you:
Norma (Cameron Diaz) pushes the button.
Turns out that Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) has an Alien using his body as a vessel to conduct "experiments" in which the fate of mankind rests. His face is scarred because he was struck by Alien lightening, which killed him, but then brought him back to life to do all of this red button testing. Obviously since Norma pushes the button, knowing full well that someone may die, she must suffer the consequences for failing to consider someone else's life instead of her own. In the end she and her husband (James Marsden) choose to kill Norma instead of having their son grow up deaf and blind.
Kelly dances around his film's "message", trying to make the audience figure out what the moral of the story is. Obviously, any person with a brain is saying at the beginning, "What if I was the person who dies?". Richard Kelly doesn't even let his character's have this normal, HUMAN conversation. In fact, they avoid it all together. They appear to both be educated, working at a prestigious school and also for NASA, so why wouldn't they both have a better ability to LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX???
If he had the main characters actually have this conversation, the entire movie could have ended right there! Instead, we have to watch weddings go on forever, NASA and the NSA be complacent to Arlington Stewart taking over these government programs, teleportation to show Marsden life beyond our world so it will be "easier" to kill his wife, and drone's controlled by Steward which can be anywhere and nowhere, at any time.
The most painful part of this movie is the pacing. Nothing really happens. Its a muddled mish-mash of ideas that are laughable.
It is insufferable how this film is being marketed. The commercials make it look like "Saw" and even use the music from those films to sell it. In reality what you get is a slow, dull, laughable (yes, half the theater was laughing at the acting and visual effects), and messy film which is neither imaginative, interesting, nor cohesive. At one point, Cameron Diaz and her son are abducted and then suddenly, she is back in the NSA's big black car with her husband on the way home. Where did she go? Why did they take her? Do we really care? Not anymore you won't.
By the end you really won't care what happens to any of the characters. You will be rooting for all of them to die so the film will just end. Go see anything else that's playing. Don't waste your time, or money.
Kelly proved to the world after his last movie, "Southland Tales", that he is one pretentious director. It was indulgent and convoluted. In "The Box", not much has changed.
I can picture what his pitch to Warner Bros must have been, and I bet the executives at the studio ate it right up: a full-feature film based on one of Richard "Twilight Zone" Matheson's old short stories.
Big mistake! Do not read any further unless you want this movie COMPLETELY spoiled for you:
Norma (Cameron Diaz) pushes the button.
Turns out that Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) has an Alien using his body as a vessel to conduct "experiments" in which the fate of mankind rests. His face is scarred because he was struck by Alien lightening, which killed him, but then brought him back to life to do all of this red button testing. Obviously since Norma pushes the button, knowing full well that someone may die, she must suffer the consequences for failing to consider someone else's life instead of her own. In the end she and her husband (James Marsden) choose to kill Norma instead of having their son grow up deaf and blind.
Kelly dances around his film's "message", trying to make the audience figure out what the moral of the story is. Obviously, any person with a brain is saying at the beginning, "What if I was the person who dies?". Richard Kelly doesn't even let his character's have this normal, HUMAN conversation. In fact, they avoid it all together. They appear to both be educated, working at a prestigious school and also for NASA, so why wouldn't they both have a better ability to LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX???
If he had the main characters actually have this conversation, the entire movie could have ended right there! Instead, we have to watch weddings go on forever, NASA and the NSA be complacent to Arlington Stewart taking over these government programs, teleportation to show Marsden life beyond our world so it will be "easier" to kill his wife, and drone's controlled by Steward which can be anywhere and nowhere, at any time.
The most painful part of this movie is the pacing. Nothing really happens. Its a muddled mish-mash of ideas that are laughable.
It is insufferable how this film is being marketed. The commercials make it look like "Saw" and even use the music from those films to sell it. In reality what you get is a slow, dull, laughable (yes, half the theater was laughing at the acting and visual effects), and messy film which is neither imaginative, interesting, nor cohesive. At one point, Cameron Diaz and her son are abducted and then suddenly, she is back in the NSA's big black car with her husband on the way home. Where did she go? Why did they take her? Do we really care? Not anymore you won't.
By the end you really won't care what happens to any of the characters. You will be rooting for all of them to die so the film will just end. Go see anything else that's playing. Don't waste your time, or money.
I liked it.....
trickygirlb22 March 2010
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.
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.
A Nutshell Review: The Box
DICK STEEL30 January 2010
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.
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.
The Box is one film this year that should have been shelved.
Likes_Ninjas9026 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
In 1976 a mother named Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz) lives with her son Walter and her husband Arthur (James Marsden). One night a box is placed on the doorstep of their home and the following morning they cut open the box to reveal a button device that must be opened with a key. By the late afternoon, a man with terrible scarring on his face comes to their door and presents Norma with an offer. This man is Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) and he announces that if they push the button someone in the world that the family does not know will die and they will receive a million dollars in cash. If they don't press it, nothing will happen and the offer will move on to someone else. Norma and Arthur are not allowed to tell anyone including their son about this deal. The incentive for the family to push the button is heightened by their financial difficulties. Arthur, who is currently working for NASA, fails to be accepted into a new job he applies for and Norma, who is a teacher, learns that her faculty funding is being cut.
One's enjoyment for this bizarre sci-fi thriller, based on the short story "Button Button" by Richard Matheson, will be determined by how far they are willing to take this ludicrous premise. The opening of the film is particularly problematic in grounding itself in a sense of realism with the household. Richard Kelly's previous film Donnie Darko cleverly used the condition of schizophrenia to justify its excursion into paranormal activity and parallel universes. Without the dream-like state of that far superior film, The Box and the very thought of a device that can kill anyone in the world, is entirely implausible. That Norma would also accept someone into her house that has almost the same scarring as Two-Face from The Dark Knight and believe this offer, seems equally contrived.
If this sounds unlikely so far, what follows is even more absurd, involving a conspiracy about someone who was struck by lightning, the possibility of alien life or some other Godly being influencing these situations. Scenes involving gateways opening up in public libraries, random nose bleeds and mindless drones stalking the Lewis family, become almost unintentionally comical in their absurdity. To a point, the film could be called intriguing purely to see where it is going. Kelly is occasionally clever in his ability to hold our attention through many of the films contrivances. In one scene Norma is teaching a class and then is asked by a strange boy about her foot. He taunts her about it as she is missing four of her toes. Later, at a rehearsal dinner for a wedding that Norma and Arthur are attending, this same student appears as a waiter and seems to be stalking them. Yet the eventual justification for these all of these oddities is wrapped up in a highly contrived sci-fi revelation that many will find implausible and difficult to swallow.
What is most disappointing about the film is that once the button is pressed surprisingly early on, many of the moral implications that were initially promised are diminished for much of pictures duration. The ending, which won't be spoilt here, resurfaces these moral questions again in the hope of echoing that of a Greek tragedy. While the resemblances can be seen, by this point, given the unlikelihood of so much of the film and the uneven performances, there is little reason to care. Cameron Diaz's Southern accent might be unnecessary but it is surprisingly Langella who is the most disappointing in the film, with a very unsubtly written role, as the mysterious scarred man, who seems to be hiding a military base that would make Dr. Evil proud. It really is just a shadow of his towering performance in Frost/Nixon. There is not a lot for many of the other actors in the film to do; in particular both Norma and Arthur could not be regarded as characters but mouthpieces for Kelly's pastiche of ideas. Underdeveloped and brief conversations, such as where Norma sympathises with Arlington over their deformities and also when Norma and Arthur question whether they really know each other in case the button kills either of them, highlights this.
Since 2001, Richard Kelly has failed to make a film that has lived up to the quality and the imagination of Donnie Darko. Though this film might be intriguing for a little while, it is too absurd and implausible to be fully enjoyed and it would certainly not warrant multiple viewings given the film's rather illogical revelations. Science fiction fans might be able to appreciate it somewhat more and draw their own conclusions, but what Kelly is really trying to say beneath the surface remains cryptic. The Box is one film this year that should have been shelved.
One's enjoyment for this bizarre sci-fi thriller, based on the short story "Button Button" by Richard Matheson, will be determined by how far they are willing to take this ludicrous premise. The opening of the film is particularly problematic in grounding itself in a sense of realism with the household. Richard Kelly's previous film Donnie Darko cleverly used the condition of schizophrenia to justify its excursion into paranormal activity and parallel universes. Without the dream-like state of that far superior film, The Box and the very thought of a device that can kill anyone in the world, is entirely implausible. That Norma would also accept someone into her house that has almost the same scarring as Two-Face from The Dark Knight and believe this offer, seems equally contrived.
If this sounds unlikely so far, what follows is even more absurd, involving a conspiracy about someone who was struck by lightning, the possibility of alien life or some other Godly being influencing these situations. Scenes involving gateways opening up in public libraries, random nose bleeds and mindless drones stalking the Lewis family, become almost unintentionally comical in their absurdity. To a point, the film could be called intriguing purely to see where it is going. Kelly is occasionally clever in his ability to hold our attention through many of the films contrivances. In one scene Norma is teaching a class and then is asked by a strange boy about her foot. He taunts her about it as she is missing four of her toes. Later, at a rehearsal dinner for a wedding that Norma and Arthur are attending, this same student appears as a waiter and seems to be stalking them. Yet the eventual justification for these all of these oddities is wrapped up in a highly contrived sci-fi revelation that many will find implausible and difficult to swallow.
What is most disappointing about the film is that once the button is pressed surprisingly early on, many of the moral implications that were initially promised are diminished for much of pictures duration. The ending, which won't be spoilt here, resurfaces these moral questions again in the hope of echoing that of a Greek tragedy. While the resemblances can be seen, by this point, given the unlikelihood of so much of the film and the uneven performances, there is little reason to care. Cameron Diaz's Southern accent might be unnecessary but it is surprisingly Langella who is the most disappointing in the film, with a very unsubtly written role, as the mysterious scarred man, who seems to be hiding a military base that would make Dr. Evil proud. It really is just a shadow of his towering performance in Frost/Nixon. There is not a lot for many of the other actors in the film to do; in particular both Norma and Arthur could not be regarded as characters but mouthpieces for Kelly's pastiche of ideas. Underdeveloped and brief conversations, such as where Norma sympathises with Arlington over their deformities and also when Norma and Arthur question whether they really know each other in case the button kills either of them, highlights this.
Since 2001, Richard Kelly has failed to make a film that has lived up to the quality and the imagination of Donnie Darko. Though this film might be intriguing for a little while, it is too absurd and implausible to be fully enjoyed and it would certainly not warrant multiple viewings given the film's rather illogical revelations. Science fiction fans might be able to appreciate it somewhat more and draw their own conclusions, but what Kelly is really trying to say beneath the surface remains cryptic. The Box is one film this year that should have been shelved.
Interesting initial premise, then goes off the rails.
youngsteve16 February 2024
This was a short story, which was made into a nice Twilight Zone episode a few years back. This film starts well with the same plot, but unfortunately manages to take another 90 min to resolve it. The film got dumber & dumber, with strange things happening with no answers. I even waited for the titles to come up to see if there was a revelation at the end but no such luck.
The other major problem with the film was understanding what people were saying as the fool director had the habit of thinking it was fun to have loud music in the background to drown out the voices, to make things even more confusing.
Awful film that was good first 30 min then lost the plot. Luckily the director doesn't seem to have been let lose on anything since.
The other major problem with the film was understanding what people were saying as the fool director had the habit of thinking it was fun to have loud music in the background to drown out the voices, to make things even more confusing.
Awful film that was good first 30 min then lost the plot. Luckily the director doesn't seem to have been let lose on anything since.
Like it, or like it not, the truth behind the Box
nikron17 September 2009
This film just opened a film festival in Lund, Sweden, weeks before the official release. Although the film didn't make a massive impression on me, I definitely found it worthwhile.
It is a film that makes you think. The pace is slow, scary at times and gradually building a mood of mystery. Although confusing in the beginning, there is an explanation to it, like it or like it not. Satisfying to some, adding to the feeling of mystery to others.
It would be interesting to see the original short film the plot is based upon, in particular to see how the message could be delivered in a more condensed manner.
James and Frank were convincing, although Cameron doesn't quite deliver, perhaps not her genre.
It is a film that makes you think. The pace is slow, scary at times and gradually building a mood of mystery. Although confusing in the beginning, there is an explanation to it, like it or like it not. Satisfying to some, adding to the feeling of mystery to others.
It would be interesting to see the original short film the plot is based upon, in particular to see how the message could be delivered in a more condensed manner.
James and Frank were convincing, although Cameron doesn't quite deliver, perhaps not her genre.
Jacked, In The Box
Jonny_Numb10 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Young buck auteur Richard Kelly has, since "Donnie Darko," pined to be the Hitchcock of metaphysical sci-fi thrillers (a subgenre over which he holds dominion), which has led to a cult following in some circles, and migraine headaches in others. While not a terrible filmmaker by any stretch, Kelly--in a vein similar to Terry Gilliam--rarely knows when to apply the brakes to his craft. "The Box," an ambitious effort backed by a major studio, fascinates and alienates in near-equal proportion. The director's stream-of-consciousness approach to imagery is seldom less than dazzling--there's nary a shot in "The Box" that isn't gorgeous, fake CG and all; on a purely superficial level, this is arguably the director's most visually arresting effort to date. As based on the short story 'Button, Button' by Richard Matheson, "The Box" is an egregious case of a director mismatched to his material (and Kelly is responsible for the adaptation, as well). While I have not read the story, I have enough familiarity with Matheson's work to know he deals in peeling the layers of sanity and safety away from seemingly banal topics, until fear and uncertainty are the only emotions that remain; matched with Kelly's bombastic narrative complications (NASA, conspiracy theories, trans-dimensional swimming pools...eh), this tale of a husband (James Marsden) and wife (a game--yet wasted--Cameron Diaz) who inherit the titular device that causes a murder only scrapes the surface of being a reflection on morality and sacrifice. A filmmaker like David Lynch (who, despite his excesses, knows a thing or two about subtlety and ambiguity) could have made a sparse, claustrophobic thriller around this theme, but Kelly brings things to a crashing halt in the last 30 minutes, with ridiculous dialog (Marsden's speech about the afterlife; Diaz's confession to Frank Langella's disfigured messenger) that confuses pathos with pretension, developments ripped from a bad '50s B-movie (that bell-ringing Santa), and a desperate attempt (yeah, just like "Donnie Darko") to clarify all the enigmas set forth prior. When is this guy going to just trust the material to carry itself without holding the audience's hand through answers he can't even adequately explain? A little ambiguity goes a long way, and could have transformed "The Box" into a great thriller instead of a frustratingly wasteful night at the movies.
Press the button. Someone dies and you get a million dollars.
Gordon-1113 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This film is about a mysterious box arriving at an American family's doorstep. Inside there is a button, if you press it, someone dies but you get a million dollars.
I haven't seen something so suspenseful and thrilling for a long time! "The Box" employs basic psychology of greed, and effectively creates an unnervingly eerie atmosphere. It maintains an unsettling atmosphere throughout, and surprisingly without the need for shocks or blood. Though there are some unsolved mysteries in the plot, it still keeps me engaged, thrilled and scared. It even makes me ponder on all the possibilities of pushing or not pushing the button.
"The Box" is an exceptionally suspenseful psychological thriller. I would recommend it to others without hesitation.
I haven't seen something so suspenseful and thrilling for a long time! "The Box" employs basic psychology of greed, and effectively creates an unnervingly eerie atmosphere. It maintains an unsettling atmosphere throughout, and surprisingly without the need for shocks or blood. Though there are some unsolved mysteries in the plot, it still keeps me engaged, thrilled and scared. It even makes me ponder on all the possibilities of pushing or not pushing the button.
"The Box" is an exceptionally suspenseful psychological thriller. I would recommend it to others without hesitation.
What's not to understand?
marko-16629 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a solid piece of movie making. It offers a lot of mystery, nice production design and a great atmosphere. I'm always amazed by the lack of tolerance and arrogance of the internet community. Giving this movie the lowest rating just because you don't understand it? That's like saying advanced physics is bad because you have no idea what it is about. Next time just stay away from the keyboard if you have nothing to say!
Actually the story is not that hard to grasp. It becomes quickly clear that the box is a test by a higher power to evaluate humanity. All the details exactly who or why doesn't matter. In fact, I would have liked it if there were less clues and more suspense until the end. Sometimes it's not just the story that provides entertainment, but the experience diving into a mystery.
The movie is not perfect and not as good as Donnie Darko, but it's much better than Southland Tales.
Actually the story is not that hard to grasp. It becomes quickly clear that the box is a test by a higher power to evaluate humanity. All the details exactly who or why doesn't matter. In fact, I would have liked it if there were less clues and more suspense until the end. Sometimes it's not just the story that provides entertainment, but the experience diving into a mystery.
The movie is not perfect and not as good as Donnie Darko, but it's much better than Southland Tales.
Aliens dig Jean Paul Sartre. Who would have thought?
CinefanR28 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Nose bleeds will never be the same again. Seriously.
Spoilers ahead.
Being a "Twilight Zone" fan, I expected an interesting take on the original story (which I found intriguing). Under the "right" circumstances, every person has a price, meaning everybody would "push the button", whether it's for money, love, knowledge, youth or something else. That makes it a good premise, but the movie wants to be "deeper", cooler and more complex. It's complex, alright.
What they do here is take dull biblical concepts like hell, afterlife and "eternal damnation" and mix it with Jean Paul Sartre's existentialism (spelled out like for 10-year-olds), aliens from outer space, dead people resurrected, Arthur Clarke references, a love story, zombies, dumb sci-fi and some simplistic lectures on ethics. Dialogues are bad and the CGI is so obvious, it makes Langella's face ridiculous. This is "Mars Attacks meets The Day the Earth Stood Still meets Saw meets Knowing and God knows what else".
Plot elements are thrown in randomly and nothing makes sense. Why is it set in 1976? Why are those particular families targeted? How does the box work? Why does the babysitter have pictures of the victims in her room? Why do aliens give a sh*t about humans in the first place? If these aliens are so "ethical" (funny idea), then why do they use such sadistic methods? If the purpose of the "test" is only to evaluate people's altruism quotient, than why torture them afterwards with complicated mind games? Why not just wipe them out? Why do aliens use a dead man with a facial disfigurement to perform their "tests"? What about the "lighting"? Who exactly are the "employers"? Why those particular "employees" and what happened to them? Why do aliens want to "save" human kind and yet make people kill each other? Why do they harm innocent children? What was the government's involvement? Was that kid with the "evil grin" and the peace sign supposed to be scary? Or that old lady in the library with a nose bleed? What's up with all that water? How come this supposedly "struggling" family owns such an expensive car? And more important... What was the scriptwriter smoking when he wrote those lines?
More questions arise, and more offensive religious crap paves the way. Why are Women portrayed as the ones responsible for all the corruption in the world? I'm surprised they didn't insert the Devil cliché...oh, wait... Was Langella's character the devil? Is the Devil a Martian? Do Martians appreciate Jean Paul Sartre? Is it possible that Sartre was one of them ? Such complexity is overwhelming.
Spoilers ahead.
Being a "Twilight Zone" fan, I expected an interesting take on the original story (which I found intriguing). Under the "right" circumstances, every person has a price, meaning everybody would "push the button", whether it's for money, love, knowledge, youth or something else. That makes it a good premise, but the movie wants to be "deeper", cooler and more complex. It's complex, alright.
What they do here is take dull biblical concepts like hell, afterlife and "eternal damnation" and mix it with Jean Paul Sartre's existentialism (spelled out like for 10-year-olds), aliens from outer space, dead people resurrected, Arthur Clarke references, a love story, zombies, dumb sci-fi and some simplistic lectures on ethics. Dialogues are bad and the CGI is so obvious, it makes Langella's face ridiculous. This is "Mars Attacks meets The Day the Earth Stood Still meets Saw meets Knowing and God knows what else".
Plot elements are thrown in randomly and nothing makes sense. Why is it set in 1976? Why are those particular families targeted? How does the box work? Why does the babysitter have pictures of the victims in her room? Why do aliens give a sh*t about humans in the first place? If these aliens are so "ethical" (funny idea), then why do they use such sadistic methods? If the purpose of the "test" is only to evaluate people's altruism quotient, than why torture them afterwards with complicated mind games? Why not just wipe them out? Why do aliens use a dead man with a facial disfigurement to perform their "tests"? What about the "lighting"? Who exactly are the "employers"? Why those particular "employees" and what happened to them? Why do aliens want to "save" human kind and yet make people kill each other? Why do they harm innocent children? What was the government's involvement? Was that kid with the "evil grin" and the peace sign supposed to be scary? Or that old lady in the library with a nose bleed? What's up with all that water? How come this supposedly "struggling" family owns such an expensive car? And more important... What was the scriptwriter smoking when he wrote those lines?
More questions arise, and more offensive religious crap paves the way. Why are Women portrayed as the ones responsible for all the corruption in the world? I'm surprised they didn't insert the Devil cliché...oh, wait... Was Langella's character the devil? Is the Devil a Martian? Do Martians appreciate Jean Paul Sartre? Is it possible that Sartre was one of them ? Such complexity is overwhelming.
Intelligent science fiction thriller
napierslogs27 August 2010
"The Box" is not what you're expecting, and that will hold true no matter what you are expecting. I had assumed it was going to be a moral and philosophical exploration of a couple's choice between money or an unknown death. There are moral and philosophical ideas presented, but in such a way that you don't yet understand.
On the surface, it's a thriller, science fiction and creepy in nature. But the word "surface" should not be used because there is nothing superficial about this film. It is not simple or straight-forward. It is a heart-wrenching, suspenseful thriller, told with creepy and supernatural, other-worldly experiences and illustrations. But it's also not an action film, it's closer to a philosophical discussion than action.
To watch "The Box" you must be open to watching a movie that can't be explained, won't make any sense in most interpretations of it, and is slow-moving but thrilling and suspenseful at the same time. Intelligent, science fiction thriller would be the closest categorization. Fans of that genre should definitely watch; also recommended for fans of "Solaris" (2002).
On the surface, it's a thriller, science fiction and creepy in nature. But the word "surface" should not be used because there is nothing superficial about this film. It is not simple or straight-forward. It is a heart-wrenching, suspenseful thriller, told with creepy and supernatural, other-worldly experiences and illustrations. But it's also not an action film, it's closer to a philosophical discussion than action.
To watch "The Box" you must be open to watching a movie that can't be explained, won't make any sense in most interpretations of it, and is slow-moving but thrilling and suspenseful at the same time. Intelligent, science fiction thriller would be the closest categorization. Fans of that genre should definitely watch; also recommended for fans of "Solaris" (2002).
Green Eggs and Ham
work111312 January 2010
Ha ha. - oh no - what to say about this film? Yes - green eggs and ham makes more sense than this movie. Where does one start? A lot of the good stuff has already been said - so I won't divulge into the same territory. I believe you already have the movie summary - so I won't paraphrase the movie.
First - let's start the with good.
1). If you like psychological thrillers that make you think (as I do) the first 29 minutes of this film will be for you - this is one of those films that illustrates the question that you always talked about on long car drives when you were kids like (what if you had to chose one family member live, another to die, or, what if you had to die by drowning or fire) This movie is a great concept - bottom line.
2) The wardrobe group did a fine job with bringing us back to the 70's. Realistically though, how difficult is that to accomplish? .....Okay, that's about all for the good. Let's talk about the bad.
1). This movie feels like a 2 hour "Twilight Zone" episode. This could easily be 90 minutes. That might have made the movie tolerable.
2). Do you remember in the movie "From Dusk til Dawn?". The movie started out interesting, then halfway through the movie it just took a degrading turn? Yep - same thing here. I would venture to say that the writers started with a concept, then had no idea what to do with it. I've gotten deeper thought provocation out of Transformers 2.
3). Yes - we get the dilemma in the film. We understand the philosophical undertones and Utilitarian approach - but the story jumped around way too much, didn't elaborate on the current story arc, and took a(forgive me)completely insulting direction.
4). The ending didn't make sense. Not at all. None.
This movie would make a great term paper in college philosophy 101. If you're board out of your mind, in bed sick, or have ever enjoyed being hit in the face with a pie, and can view this free on-line - by all means, go for it.
If you need to pay anything to view this movie, don't waste your time - you're better off watching old Howie Mandel stand-up on You Tube. You will get more philosophical stimulation reorganizing your sock drawer.
First - let's start the with good.
1). If you like psychological thrillers that make you think (as I do) the first 29 minutes of this film will be for you - this is one of those films that illustrates the question that you always talked about on long car drives when you were kids like (what if you had to chose one family member live, another to die, or, what if you had to die by drowning or fire) This movie is a great concept - bottom line.
2) The wardrobe group did a fine job with bringing us back to the 70's. Realistically though, how difficult is that to accomplish? .....Okay, that's about all for the good. Let's talk about the bad.
1). This movie feels like a 2 hour "Twilight Zone" episode. This could easily be 90 minutes. That might have made the movie tolerable.
2). Do you remember in the movie "From Dusk til Dawn?". The movie started out interesting, then halfway through the movie it just took a degrading turn? Yep - same thing here. I would venture to say that the writers started with a concept, then had no idea what to do with it. I've gotten deeper thought provocation out of Transformers 2.
3). Yes - we get the dilemma in the film. We understand the philosophical undertones and Utilitarian approach - but the story jumped around way too much, didn't elaborate on the current story arc, and took a(forgive me)completely insulting direction.
4). The ending didn't make sense. Not at all. None.
This movie would make a great term paper in college philosophy 101. If you're board out of your mind, in bed sick, or have ever enjoyed being hit in the face with a pie, and can view this free on-line - by all means, go for it.
If you need to pay anything to view this movie, don't waste your time - you're better off watching old Howie Mandel stand-up on You Tube. You will get more philosophical stimulation reorganizing your sock drawer.
Why Wouldn't You Push the Button?
trevor_nemeth15 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Forget about Donnie Darko. I open with this because it seems that a good portion of the reviews I have read on The Box amount to the simple but weak argument that it doesn't hold a candle to Darko. It isn't that I disagree with that necessarily, I just feel that this movie is a different animal altogether and deserves its own analysis. There are points of comparison to be sure, but they are peripheral concerns when you consider that the key to the heart of each movie is different. In Darko, the driving force of the narrative is existential. In The Box, the driving force of the narrative stems from a moral dilemma. Believe me when I say that I understand the inclination to compare an innovative filmmakers'movies by looking for trends and patterns, but for me it is more important to approach each new film as a self contained entity first, and then broaden my gaze afterwards.
The Box is one of those films you get mixed feelings about because it seems to be in some sort of identity crisis. It isn't always sure what it wants to be. The twists are numerous, but easy to follow if not to predict. James Marsden and Cameron Diaz play a relatively believable pair of newlyweds who are in financial straits. A Box containing a "button unit" arrives on their doorstep and they are informed by a horribly burned man that if pushed the button will cause the death of one person whom they don't know, and they will receive one million dollars. One of the things The Box achieves is to conjure up this invisible fear that somewhere out there our actions have moral consequences. Before the button is pushed it has an eerie and seductive quality, alluring yet sinister. Once it has been pushed, events are set in motion that make the two leads question their own morality and deeply regret their fateful decision.
The notion that the Box is an experiment is interesting because for me it provides the movie with a paradox. If there are external beings developing an "altruism coefficient" based on data gathered by couples pushing and not pushing the button, then as the conspiracy unravels, we notice that ultimately it is a forced altruism: Be selfless or the species will be wiped out. I suppose the couples don't know the consequences of their actions when they are faced with making the decision, but they have no reason to suspect that The Box can do anything, so why would they choose altruistically? Is altruism devalued by the fact that we only care about it when presented with a problem in our own lives?
The psychological hurdles in this movie are everywhere. Push the button or don't, it's likely someone is messing with you. Take the money or don't, no one gives anything away for free. Search for the truth, the answers you find slowly reveal your demise.
I propose that The Box is an ironic work because it offers the false choice of free will while revealing that we are trapped in many metaphorical boxes. You can only choose to be free at the expense of another's life, is that freedom? No, it is only another box because then you become trapped in the consequences of your own morality. There is no escape for us because we live on earth and that is another Box. This is precisely why the external beings in the film are ultimately antagonists. They demand we conform to moral standards which rob us of our freedom. We made it to Mars, and we were burned for it and turned into slaves in a sick game.
The references to Jean Paul Sartre illustrate this point rather well. "You can only enter the final chamber free, or not free." Sure, but no matter the form in which we enter the chamber, it is a chamber nonetheless.
Trevor Nemeth
The Box is one of those films you get mixed feelings about because it seems to be in some sort of identity crisis. It isn't always sure what it wants to be. The twists are numerous, but easy to follow if not to predict. James Marsden and Cameron Diaz play a relatively believable pair of newlyweds who are in financial straits. A Box containing a "button unit" arrives on their doorstep and they are informed by a horribly burned man that if pushed the button will cause the death of one person whom they don't know, and they will receive one million dollars. One of the things The Box achieves is to conjure up this invisible fear that somewhere out there our actions have moral consequences. Before the button is pushed it has an eerie and seductive quality, alluring yet sinister. Once it has been pushed, events are set in motion that make the two leads question their own morality and deeply regret their fateful decision.
The notion that the Box is an experiment is interesting because for me it provides the movie with a paradox. If there are external beings developing an "altruism coefficient" based on data gathered by couples pushing and not pushing the button, then as the conspiracy unravels, we notice that ultimately it is a forced altruism: Be selfless or the species will be wiped out. I suppose the couples don't know the consequences of their actions when they are faced with making the decision, but they have no reason to suspect that The Box can do anything, so why would they choose altruistically? Is altruism devalued by the fact that we only care about it when presented with a problem in our own lives?
The psychological hurdles in this movie are everywhere. Push the button or don't, it's likely someone is messing with you. Take the money or don't, no one gives anything away for free. Search for the truth, the answers you find slowly reveal your demise.
I propose that The Box is an ironic work because it offers the false choice of free will while revealing that we are trapped in many metaphorical boxes. You can only choose to be free at the expense of another's life, is that freedom? No, it is only another box because then you become trapped in the consequences of your own morality. There is no escape for us because we live on earth and that is another Box. This is precisely why the external beings in the film are ultimately antagonists. They demand we conform to moral standards which rob us of our freedom. We made it to Mars, and we were burned for it and turned into slaves in a sick game.
The references to Jean Paul Sartre illustrate this point rather well. "You can only enter the final chamber free, or not free." Sure, but no matter the form in which we enter the chamber, it is a chamber nonetheless.
Trevor Nemeth
Odd, unrealistic, confusing ... but compelling
rocknrelics30 November 2020
It kept my interest throughout, but I left feeling unsatisfied and confused.
I'd seen it billed as a supernatural film, it's nothing of the sort, so if that's what you're expecting, you'll be disappointed.
The first hour is a lesson in how to keep an audience gripped, I couldn't take my eyes and ears off the screen, but then it started to get weird, and confusing.
Maybe it'll make more sense on a second viewing, or maybe not..
If you're going to watch it, make sure you concentrate on it, it's not a film where you can afford to do anything else whilst it's on.
I'd seen it billed as a supernatural film, it's nothing of the sort, so if that's what you're expecting, you'll be disappointed.
The first hour is a lesson in how to keep an audience gripped, I couldn't take my eyes and ears off the screen, but then it started to get weird, and confusing.
Maybe it'll make more sense on a second viewing, or maybe not..
If you're going to watch it, make sure you concentrate on it, it's not a film where you can afford to do anything else whilst it's on.
Just horrible
Sportsmen200514 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
First time I ever felt I needed to write a review.
I have seen thousands of movies in my life and I like a wide range of movies. I am reasonably opened minded, and can easily say I enjoyed a movie while still saying "yeah it was not good but I enjoyed it". I can appreciate the mastery of great movies like The Shaw shank redemption, the godfather, and American history X. I can like good movies in a genre like horror, or comedy, even if the movie might not be that great. I can even enjoy a bad movie that just happens to entertain me (Bloodsport). I also will try to rate movie fairly even if I did not like it. City lights by Charlie Chapin was not a movie I enjoyed, but I can appreciate the acting and story lines for the time.
I think some people when they go on this site instead of randomly click a rating, should take a few ideas into account. Try to rate the movie based on how good it actually was. Do not let your personal bias affect the rating. Also look at other moves you rated and compare the movie you are going to rate.
This "movie" was the worst piece of trash I have ever seen. 2 hours of my life where just stolen. The acting was awful, across the board. The scenes where choppy at best. However the real disgrace was the story. The first 20 minutes we actually had a story that tried to make sense and take the viewer from point A to B. However after that it was a nightmare. They kept trying to add new elements but nothing was every explained. Nothing really ever made sense, was steward dead, is he alive, did he hit by lighting, was it really lighting, was it aliens, is he an alien, etc. The ending tied nothing together and really did not answer any questions. The only positive was nobody cared we where just happy to leave the theater.
6.5/10??? What is wrong with some of you? I will admit that the 8 of us where so mad about seeing this, we did think "what would make it better?", and we decide to tell a few of our friends that this movie was good so they would have to suffer and see this movie. What can I say misery loves company. That is really the only reason I can see for a 6.5 rating.
Do not waste your life!
I have seen thousands of movies in my life and I like a wide range of movies. I am reasonably opened minded, and can easily say I enjoyed a movie while still saying "yeah it was not good but I enjoyed it". I can appreciate the mastery of great movies like The Shaw shank redemption, the godfather, and American history X. I can like good movies in a genre like horror, or comedy, even if the movie might not be that great. I can even enjoy a bad movie that just happens to entertain me (Bloodsport). I also will try to rate movie fairly even if I did not like it. City lights by Charlie Chapin was not a movie I enjoyed, but I can appreciate the acting and story lines for the time.
I think some people when they go on this site instead of randomly click a rating, should take a few ideas into account. Try to rate the movie based on how good it actually was. Do not let your personal bias affect the rating. Also look at other moves you rated and compare the movie you are going to rate.
This "movie" was the worst piece of trash I have ever seen. 2 hours of my life where just stolen. The acting was awful, across the board. The scenes where choppy at best. However the real disgrace was the story. The first 20 minutes we actually had a story that tried to make sense and take the viewer from point A to B. However after that it was a nightmare. They kept trying to add new elements but nothing was every explained. Nothing really ever made sense, was steward dead, is he alive, did he hit by lighting, was it really lighting, was it aliens, is he an alien, etc. The ending tied nothing together and really did not answer any questions. The only positive was nobody cared we where just happy to leave the theater.
6.5/10??? What is wrong with some of you? I will admit that the 8 of us where so mad about seeing this, we did think "what would make it better?", and we decide to tell a few of our friends that this movie was good so they would have to suffer and see this movie. What can I say misery loves company. That is really the only reason I can see for a 6.5 rating.
Do not waste your life!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
