Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

Title: Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

Director: Spike Jonze

Stars: Max Records, Catherine Keener, Mark Ruffalo

Written by: Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers, based on the book by Maurice Sendak

Review:

Spike Jonze is one of those filmmakers who takes his time to make his movies, but when he finally comes out and makes one, you just know it’s going to be something special. I still have not been disappointed by this auteur, so the expectations for Where the Wild Things Are were very high for me. Through productions pictures and clips and finally the trailer, I could see that Jonze was headed in the right direction with this one and that the film was going to prove to be something special indeed. So how did it turn out?

Its Tantrum Time!

Where the Wild Things Are tells the story of Max, a young boy desperately in need of some attention. Like every little ten year old boy, he wants people to spend time with him and acknowledge his existence. Problem is, everyone in Max’s family is so caught up in their own world that they ignore him. So he goes on these fits of anger where he starts destroying things and biting people. One day, when Max can’t take it anymore he runs away. He gets on a boat, and starts traveling to a mysterious fantastical island inhabited by wild creatures. Who are these creatures and how will they help Max overcome his anguish?

 

So yeah, this movie had lots of production troubles because it was never really clear what tone the film was going to have. This happens a lot with films that are hard to categorize. Should the film be for kids or for adults? Normally, this uncertainty in a production spells certain doom for it. It happened with The Monster Squad (1987) and Howard the Duck (1986) two movies that the studio didn’t know how to market. Are these movies made for adults or children? As a result, both of these movies, though fun and entertaining ended up confusing audiences and tanking at the box office. Not becaue they were bad, but because the studio didn’t know how to market them, which is the kiss of death for any production. Often times, the main problem with this kind of film is that studios fear that the film isn’t childlike enough. They either don’t want the film to be too graphic or violent, or they don’t want characters spewing profanity. But most of the times they just don’t want the film to be too scary for kids, because then they can’t sell it to kids.

But what happens when a film touches on child like themes, but isn’t necessarily a movie for children? Then the studio has to make a decision. In the case of Guillermo del Toro’s Pans Labyrinth (2006) they decided that the film was not for kids. That it was a fantasy film for adults, so they marketed it as such. And that worked wonders for the film because it was a critical and box office success. The same dilemma popped up with Where The Wild Things Are. Studio went through a process, until they finally decided that it was not going to be marketed as a film for kids, and that it was a film about childhood, but for adults. I think children could have seen this movie just fine, maybe they wouldn’t have found it to be a “fun movie”, but I don’t think they would have found it too scary. A 10 year old kid could take this movie in just fine. I don’t necessarily think that the movie was too scary at all; maybe the real problem would have been that the movie was too cerebral and symbolic for them, or not fun enough. And kids don’t really enjoy that, so the studio went with the “not for kids” thing. Which is fine by me. This movie works just fine as a fantasy film for adults.

This is one of those films where the kid cant take the realities of the world and escapes to a fantasy land in his mind, where he can work out his issues and hopefully come out of it with some sort of a solution that he can apply in the real world. On this one the issue is that he feels ignored, he wants people to talk to him, play with him. Problem comes when he doesn’t know how handle rejection and looses control of his rage. When he travels to his imaginary world, he meets the Wild Things, which of course represent people and situations from the real world. There is one of the Wild Things named Carol (voiced by James Gandolfini) who is a mirror image of Max. He is wild and has these anger tantrums where he starts breaking everything. So Max immediately takes a liking to him. And like in many films of this kind, ends up realizing what is wrong with his life and how to work on his problem.

One of the most interesting aspects of this film are the creatures, which were done by Jim Henson’s creature shop. Those Jim Henson guys are experts at making big hairy creatures that look like giant stuffed animals. The Jim Henson guys were perfect for this; with the Wild Things they created these creatures that bring to mind Ludo, the big dumb hairy creature that accompanies Jennifer Connely in Labyrinth (1986) or the giant guys from Jim Henson’s excellent childrens show Fraggle Rock. Big hairy lovable looking creatures. The only thing is that these Wild Things aren’t necessarily so cuddly and cute; they actually want to eat Max at one point! The creatures are certainly interesting to look at. Consequently, they are also interesting to listen to, the creatures were voiced by the likes of James Gandolfini, Paul Dano and Forest Whitaker.

Spike Jonze as a director did a fine job with this movie. He managed to make a movie that’s not overtly sugar coated like some children fantasy movies can be. This movie deals with the dark side of Max. Max sees himself in some of these creatures, and the creatures are wild and violent at times. But at the same time, the island where these creatures live is an extremely beautiful place. The movie does a fine balance between dark and light. There’s a scene where the creatures and Max run to the edge of a cliff and start howling together (something that the creatures love to do) and the scene is like these creatures basking in the glory of nature and all its splendor. At the same time they are celebrating being together and alive, same as any family should. I loved the symbolisms in the film. The creatures like to sleep in piles, one on top of the other in extreme togetherness, representing the togetherness that a family should have. So the film isn’t all gloom and doom, it actually has a very positive vibe to it in spite of dealing with the dark side of a child’s psyche. Where the Wild Things Are also reminded me of one of Spike Jonze’s music videos for Weezer called “Island in the Sun” which was filled with scenes of the sun shinning and the band playing with a bunch of exotic animals. For a movie that was deemed to dark by studio heads, this movie is filled with lots of sunlight and beauty.

Spike Jonze, spending some time on the set with actor Max Records

If you ask me, this movie goes down as a great childrens movie. Right up there with the great fantasy flicks like Labyrinth, Pans Labyrinth, The Wizard of Oz and others of its ilk.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Bride (1985)

Title: The Bride (1985)

Director: Franc Roddam

Cast: Jennifer Beals, Sting, Clancy Brown, David Rappaport

Writer: Lloyd Fonvielle

Review:

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is one of those timeless works that has been adapted to the silver screen on countless occasions. The Frankenstein mythos has gone all around the place, its even been translated into science fiction form by the likes of Roger Corman who directed Frankenstein Unbound (1990), a film in which a time traveler transports himself to the time when Dr. Frankenstein was doing his famous experiments with the undead. The Frankenstein Monster was even turned into an E.T. like character in Fred Dekker’s The Monster Squad (1987) a film in which the Frankenstein monster befriends a group of kids who team up with him to destroy the forces of evil, just to mention two of the most off beat examples. But one thing is for sure, the Frankenstein Monster, a.k.a. “The Creature” is frequently portrayed under a positive light. He is always the misunderstood monster, always looking for a friend, and always getting the cold shoulder from everyone because of his looks. This is primarily the way in which the creature was portrayed in Franc Roddam’s The Bride. How did the filmmakers behind The Bride treat the Frankenstein mythology?

The story is pretty much a retelling of Mary Shelly’s novel. The film picks up pretty much half way through the story, when Dr. Frankenstein is already creating “the bride” for his creature. Problem comes when she turns out to be extremely beautiful and Dr. Frankenstein and the creature begin to battle for the brides attention. The Dr. and The Creature duke it out for a couple of minutes until finally the creature decides he has been betrayed and runs away from his creator. Rejected. Betrayed. What horrors await the creature out in the world? How will The Bride react to being brought back to life? Will the creature ever reunite with his Bride?

So this movie has a great opening sequence which takes place inside of Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory. In this early stage of the film, it has a real horror movie feel. With Dr. Frankenstein and his servant trying their best to bring The Bride to life. Lots of lightning, a furious storm outside and a dark brooding castle. Let’s not forget there’s a mad scientist performing some mad experiments! I loved the art direction on these opening sequences; Dr. Frankenstein’s lab is filled with morbid half complete experiments. Disembodied heads inside of jars, headless bodies floating in liquid. These opening sequences felt very much like a horror movie. But, don’t let yourself be fooled. If you were expecting a horror movie from this re-telling of the Frankenstein legend you are sorely mistaken my friend. Though this opening sequence does give us a glimpse of the horror roots within the Frankenstein mythos, this film isn’t a horror movie. And that’s really what sets it apart from the rest of the Frankenstein movies.

In reality, this film has many interesting themes that don’t really have a lot to do with horror. The filmmakers opted to go with a story about true friendship, and the “sexual politics” between men and women at the time. You see, Dr. Frankenstein decides that he wants to teach The Bride (who is later named Eva, after Adam and Eve) good manners and proper behavior. But he is also interested in creating a woman who is equal to man in terms of freedom to speak her mind and do as she pleases. Problem is that when he gets what he wants, and Eva starts doing things her way and speaking her mind, he can’t really take it. So this tension between man and woman is something that dominates one half of the film.

The other half of the film concerns itself with the story of the creature roaming the country side looking for a new life. Along the way he meets a little person called Rinaldo who is on his way to Budapest to join the circus. Rinaldo is a midget who is constantly made fun of by people in the street. But he soon befriends the creature and even gives him a name! Rinaldo decides to name the creature Viktor. Together, they become the best of friends. This part of the film is really my favorite because of the friendship they develop. Rinaldo likes having Viktor around because he is a huge hulk who can protect him. And Viktor likes Rinaldo around, because Rinaldo is smart, and doesn’t take crap from anybody in spite of his size. Together, they go searching for fame and money in the circus. Best parts of the movie for me are those were Viktor (the creature) finds happiness out in the world on his own. Of course, he also encounters a couple of low lives and has to learn the hard way that the world is filled with individuals such as these. But Viktor never forgets the lady of his dreams. And Rinaldo always reminds Viktor to follow his dreams. So eventually Viktor makes his way back to the castle searching for his promised “Bride”.

The themes of the movie are many, but this film doesn’t focus so much on not being able to accept death as a natural part of life. This is really what most Frankenstein movies are about. Not being able to accept our own mortality. But not The Bride. The Bride is more about the family dynamics between parents and their offspring. The creature is essentially a child who is in discordance with his creator and runs away from home to face the big bad world all on his own. To learn to survive on his own merits. He goes out and learns all about good and evil. While The Bride Eva remains in the castle with Dr. Frankenstein. The Dr. ends up wanting to mold her into what he considers a woman should be like. She naturally rebels against her creator. She wants to be free to do things her own way! I like how this film addresses the fact that a parent can mold their child into whatever they want during those early formative years. A parent has a huge responsibility in shaping that life into what it will eventually become. The question the film asks is: What if we don’t like who our parents turned us into? What then? Learning to go our own way and take our chances in finding our own path in life is what this film is really all about.

A lot of people felt disappointed with this film because it wasn’t a horror film in the true sense of the word. This movie doesn’t really concern itself with having the creature killing people left and right or anything like that. It took a very different route then your typical Frankenstein film, but that’s really what I enjoyed about it. It has all the things you might expect from a Frankenstein film, but then it also has many that you won’t expect. It has the castle, the storms, the angry towns people, the blind man, the gypsies, basically every staple that you might expect to see in a Frankenstein movie is there. But thematically speaking, the film is different then most Frankenstein tales. Sting does a fine job as Dr. Frankenstein, playing him with an air of pompousness and evil. David Rappaport should have never blown his head off the way he did because he was a damn fine actor in everything he was in and his performance on The Bride is one of the most endearing things about the film. A ray of light in the evil world that the creature inhabits. The creature by the way was played by Clancy Brown, whom some of you might remember as playing The Kurgan in Highlander (1986). In my opinion, this film is one of his finest days as an actor. The only downside to this movie (according to some) was Jennifer Beals, but I don’t subscribe to that point of view. I think she has a naïveté to her character that fit the story perfectly. The film has great production values, great script and and some wonderful moments. I recommend it if you want to see a slightly different tale based on Mary Shelley’s book.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

Title: The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

Director: Robert Fuest

Stars: Vincent Price, Virginia North

Review:

There’s a passage in the bible in which the Israelites (who were a nation of slaves to the Egyptians) ask the Pharaoh to let them go into the desert so they can worship their god. The Pharaoh refuses this request and does not allow them to do this. Moses, the leader of the Israelites (and best buddy with god) warns the Pharaoh that if he doesn’t let the Israelites go, that god almighty would inflict Egypt with ten deadly plagues. The Pharaoh doesn’t believe him so he doesn’t let the Israelites go. And of course God then proceeds to curse the Egyptians with the ten biblical plagues. Many films have used the premise of the ten biblical plagues for example, Charlton Heston played Moses in The Ten Commandments (1956); a film which showed the ten biblical plagues in all their deadly glory. Most recently director Stephen Hopkins’s directed The Reaping (2007) which used the ten plagues as a plot device as well. And in 1971 Vincent Price starred in The Abominable Dr. Phibes, a film that also uses the ten plagues as a plot device to tell its tale of revenge.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes is about this crazy organ player who wants to exact revenge upon the nine doctors who were incapable of curing his wife from a deadly decease. He executes his revenge by killing these nine doctors by using the ten deadly plagues from the bible. Will the bumbling English cops ever capture Dr. Phibes? As you can see, the plot is incredibly simple. Whacked out doctor wants to get revenge for his wife’s death. As far as I’m concerned, this film is nothing more then a campy slasher with Dr. Phibes as the main villain.

What I didn’t like though is how the movies script is so lazy. I mean, if your going to do a movie about the ten deadly biblical plagues, then at least get them right! There were no rats or bats involved in the ten plagues mentioned in the bible. But, the filmmakers decided to have Dr. Phibes killing some of its victims with rats and bats anyways. So is this movie about Dr. Phibes using the ten biblical plagues to execute his revenge or not? If it is, then the film does a pretty bad job of sticking to its basic premise.

It looked like the filmmakers simply replaced some of the biblical plagues with something that was easier to shoot, or something the considered more interesting. The filmmakers probably thought that the plagues dealing with flies, gnats and deceased livestock would be harder to shoot, so they went with something easier to shoot. Hence the replacement of certain plagues for rats, bats and a brass unicorn statues. If that last sentence failed to make any sense to you, then welcome to the club. I have no idea what the hell killing off one of the doctors with a brass unicorn has anything to do with the ten biblical plagues. Then, as if that weren’t enough, there are 9 doctors. Yet the biblical plagues were ten! They didn’t even stick to using all the plagues with this movie. Why not make them ten doctors and that way you could have used up all the ten plagues? I was a bit disappointed with the carelessness this movie displayed with its premise. To make things worse, they actually have some sort of a priest name the ten plagues one by one, and even the priest gets them wrong! I don’t know what bible that priest read, but there are no rats or bats in the ten plagues! Go back to priest school you bumbling idiot! Oh well, I guess I chalked this one under the “lazy script writing” department. How did the film fare in other areas?

What we all want to see with this movie is Dr. Phibes killing people off in various interesting and morbid ways, right? So how did the deaths turn out? They were nothing spectacular. Problem for me with this movie is that they never showed the actual deaths happening. This is the type of movie in which they do this whole set up for a cool death sequence, right up to the death itself. And then when the actual murder is going to occur, the film cuts away to something else and we don’t get to see the death itself. We only get to see the results of the deaths when the cops come and check out the scene and you see how it all turned out. But the actual killings always happen off screen. You just see the results.

I took in consideration that this film was made in 1971, but if I remember correctly there were a lot of gory horror films coming out in that era, so I’m not going to blame the fact that this movies deaths were bloodless and boring to the fact that this movie was filmed a long time ago. Nope, this movie just plain old chickened out of showing us the goods! Which sucks because what we came here to see were some cool deaths, not set ups to cool deaths. And then some of the deaths were just so lame...like that scene with the rats. Did anyone notice that those rats seemed absolutely harmless? They were just sitting there on top of the actor not looking the least bit menacing. Actually, the rats looked kind of lazy and comfortable. Not deadly the way they should have been! On the plus side I will say that I did love the fact that they used real bats for the bat plague instead of the usual puppet bat with strings which they tend to use back in those days in some horror movies. The deaths were probably not graphic in nature because this was never the style of horror films that American International Pictures made. When you look at it, AIP made relatively harmless horror pictures. And horror films were going through that transition, from the more classy "harmless" horror films of the 60s like the horror films Hammer Films and AIP made to the more graphic horror films that were emerging during the early 70s.

 At least Dr. Phibes had hot assistants!

For me, Vincent Price is the only real saving point in this picture. He plays a very interesting and twisted character. He is this world renowned organ player whose wife died and is now obsessed with avenging her death. Don’t ask me how an organ player ends up being able to create robots who do his bidding (and play old jazz songs for him) and don’t ask me how he manages to speak without lips or how he manages to drink wine through the back of his neck. He just does. Don’t ask me where he got that strange assistant who helps him do the killings, because she isn’t explained at all either. Many things in this movie aren’t well explained or developed at all. On The Abominable Dr. Phibes, the ideas where half assed and not taken to their full potential, or where just lamely executed all together. I remember watching this movie and trying to understand why this one is considered such a classic, but alas I didn’t find any real reasons for doing so. The movie seemed to be a silly mess. Many things bothered me about this one, the lameness of the deaths, the unexplained plot holes (of what exactly did his wife die off?) and the inaccurate script just made me feel a bit disappointed with this one.

On the positive side of the spectrum, The Abominable Dr. Phibes has managed to influence many modern day horror films. The biggest and most obvious one to me are the SAW films. Let’s see, lonely old guy who wants to show others the evil of their ways by using strange mechanical devices of his own creation to kill them with? Check! Give them a certain amount of time in which to escape from said traps? Check! Put a key inside of someone so you would have to cut him open and get it to escape? Check! The similarities where too obvious here! It seems to me like the filmmakers behind Saw were watching these old Dr. Phibes movies one day and decided to do an update on them! David Fincher’s Seven also has some similarities with this one because of the whole gimmick of using biblical themes to tell a horror story. And lets not forget, the main villain also wants to show its victims a lesson.

But dont go on thinking I totally despise this campy horror flick cause I dont. There were a few things I did like about this movie. For example, Vincent Price playing Dr. Phibes. Vincent Price is a fun actor to watch, specially on cheesy, campy horror movies like this one. I also enjoyed some of the visuals, like that scene where Phibes takes off his mask and we can see him in all his rotting glory. Or seeing Dr. Phibes playing his giant organ. Visually, the movie does have its moments. The artistic design is also worthy of mention. This is something that I always enjoy about these old American International Pictures, their sets always look interesting. Dr. Phibes castle is an interesting place to look at. But as a whole I just can’t bring myself to say that this movie was excellent. It was enjoyable, but there are better Vincent Price movies out there to see.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Crazy Heart (2009)

Title: Crazy Heart (2009)

Director: Scott Cooper

Stars: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Robert Duval, Collin Farrell

Review:

Jeff Bridges has never won an Academy Award in his whole career. He has been nominated on five occasions, but never won. Sad but true. If you ask me, he should have won it back in 1991 for his portrayal of Jack Lucas in Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King. But he didn’t. He wasn’t even nominated for that one! Which goes to show you just how much the “members of the academy” don’t know. But here we are, the 2010 Academy Award Nominations are finally in and aren’t we all glad that Jeff Bridges got an Oscar nomination for Crazy Heart? Yes we are! This is his fifth nomination! You know how this Oscar thing goes…sometimes they wont give an award to an incredible actor (even if they deserve it!) just so they can keep him sweating it out for years and years. It’s the academy’s way of saying “we know you are good! Keep cranking out good movies and in a year or two…we’ll think about it!” And then they go and give them an award for their least amazing movie. Which is probably what’s going to happen with Crazy Heart. Its not Jeff Bridges greatest performance to date, but it will more then likely be the one he ends up winning an Oscar for. Still, Crazy Heart isn’t a bad movie, we’ve seen it a thousand times before, but it’s not a bad film.

Story centers on Bad Blake (Bridges) a country singer who has seen better days. He used to be ultra famous, cranking out hit after hit of country songs, until a life of booze and complacency destroyed his former glory. Now he simply exists instead of living the life. This is kind of sad because he is an extremely talented guy, and everyone knows it, except himself. One day, a young female journalist requests an interview with him. This young journalist ends up being Maggie Gyllenhaal, he lets her in and gives her the interview, but only so he can get in her pants! She decides to let him in, and pretty soon old Blake is back trying to redeem himself. Trying as hard as he can to establish a relationship with her. You know, go back to being the man he used to be. But you know how it is, old habits die hard and pretty soon his old habits get in the way. Will he ever make it back from his drunken stupor?

Here’s the thing, I actually despise country music. It’s not that my ears explode when I hear it or anything, but I just don’t like it. Period. I’m pretty sure that I’m not alone in this. So why did I end up seeing a movie about the life of a country singer? This movies incredible cast! That’s what drew me to it! Jeff Bridges plays Bad Blake, a very down on his luck kind of guy. Used to have it all; doesn’t have it now because he is a drunk. Bridges wallows in the self loathing and self pity very well. Bridge’s had done it before in characters like Jack Lucas in The Fisher King were he also played a guy who used to be famous, but isn’t anymore. He also played a happy looser in The Big Lebowski. One of the Coen Brothers funniest masterpieces. So he’s no stranger to playing characters like Bad Blake. Characters that have hit rock bottom. Maggie Gyllenhal turns in a solid performance (as usual) but in my opinion, she still needs a film that truly makes her shine on her own. Robert Duvall plays Bad Blake’s bartender buddy, who always backs him up. And finally, Collin Farrell plays it cool as Bad Blakes protégé. The guy whom Bad Blake taught all the secrets of country music to. So a solid cast elevates this movie to higher ground. Higher then this movie had any right to.

The big problem for me with this movie is that it’s nothing original. At all. In fact, my favorite movie of 2008 -Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler- did the same thing a million times better then Crazy Heart ever did. Sadly, what Crazy Heart does is follow the formula set by The Wrestler too damn closely. You almost feel like you are watching the same damn movie! Right down to Bad Blake wanting to reconnect with his estranged son, and getting the cold shoulder while at it. You kind of get the idea that Bad Blake has abandoned writing and singing because of how he ignored his son. Yet the film never really explores this, we never even get to see Bad Blakes son. You also get the feeling that Bad Blake has never really had it bad, he gets payed every now and then, he isnt really hitting rock bottom, he is just being stubborn. So this movie is really about a stubborn dude, who wants to drink for drinking sake. The one big tragedy in his life, having ignored his son his whole life is set aside, like some unimportant side story. When in fact it should be crux of the film. So its like The Wrestler, only not as good.

Much like The Wrestler, Bad Blake tries to make things right, but old habits die hard and you know how it goes, pretty soon, drinking and boozing get in the way of happiness and he messes things up yet again. Problem with this movie is that Bad Blake isn’t half as charming as Mickey Rourke’s Randy the Ram. You watch Randy the Ram going down the rabbit whole and you feel a certain kind of compassion for him, but I have to say I didn’t really warm up to Bad Blake as much as I did to Randy the Ram. All Bad Blake has to do is sit back and wait for the royalty checks and go to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. They also compare this movie a lot to The Big Lebowski, saying that this is “The Dude” all over again, but instead of having a weed obsession he has an alcohol obsession. I don’t agree with that either. The Dude is one funny guy, again, he is a looser but he is extremely likable. Bad Blake feels like a character who’s life has been sucked out of him. Save for some scenes where he is being ultra sweet to Gyllenhaal’s kid, he is lifeless and charmless character. Except when he wants to get into a lady’s pants or wants some free booze, then he charms the hell out of anyone. Which kind of makes you hate him a bit. But hey, here’s looking forward to some much deserved recognition for Jeff Bridges! In my own personal crazy heart he isn’t going to win an Academy Award (if he wins) for this movie. If he wins it, it'll be for all the countless other great performances he's given us through time.

Rating: 3 out of 5

The Box (2009)

Title: The Box (2009)

Director: Richard Kelly

Stars: Frank Langella, James Marsden, Cameron Diaz

Review:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” - Arthur C. Clarke

Arthur C. Clarke is one of my favorite science fiction authors; I’ve read most of his books and enjoyed them. Many of Clarke’s works focus on how amazing, vast and unexplored the universe is. He also addresses -many times through out his body of work- the issue of the existence of God and the validity of religion. He was quoted saying that he was fascinated by the concept of God. So it came as no surprise to me that Richard Kelly’s new film The Box based a lot of the films ideology’s and logic in the famous Arthur C. Clarke quote that is posted above.

This films premise is not really as complicated as some make it out to be. Basically, a strange and mysterious man visits a household and makes a very unusual proposal to them. He hands them a small box with a red button on it and says to them that they have a choice to make. They can press the red button, at which moment someone whom they don’t know will die, and at the same time, simply for pressing the red button, they would get a payment for a million dollars in cash. The household that is presented with this premise is a poor one, a couple that is struggling to make ends meet. Of course the offer of receiving a million dollars for simply pressing a red button seems like one they should at least consider. All their present economical troubles would vanish, but somebody they don’t know would have to die. To press the button or not to press it? That is the question.

The following review will be sprinkled with many spoilers. This is not going to be one of my regular reviews where I try and avoid spoilers, on this review I will be giving my own take as to what I thought the film was about, so if you don’t want the particulars of the story spoiled for you, read no further. On the other hand, if you have seen The Box and you are open for a discussion of this films themes; then read on my friend!

I have read many reviews on this film that make it out to be a confusing film. And in a way, a confusing film is the kind of film you are to expect from writer director Richard Kelly who was responsible for directing the “mind fuck” films known as Donnie Darko (2001) and Southland Tales (2006). I agree, both can be extremely confusing (yet enjoyable) films. But I don’t think The Box is as convoluted as Kelly’s previous films. It does have some confusing elements to it, but they are not really pushed to the max as in previous Kelly films. The Box plays with many of the themes that Richard Kelly loves to explore Like interdimensional travel or traveling through time. Donnie Darko has Donnie, a depressed and neurotic teenager discover that he can travel through time and space, and he can even see where his destiny is headed. On Southland Tales he dealt with similar themes of traveling from one dimension to the next, and maybe stumbling upon another version of you from some other point in time. Even though these films might prove to be confusing, they made for truly interesting films to watch, the mystery of it all always keeping you glued to the screen.

Director Richard Kelly, trying to stick to his artistic integrity, while directing a commercial film

The Box is similar in this way. It’s got that strange aura of mystery to it all the time, you will be intrigued through out its duration. In this way, once again Richard Kelly shows us how much he admires David Lynch. This movie feels like a Lynch movie even more so then Southland Tales and Donnie Darko did. In fact, a couple of scenes from The Box were swiped from Lynch films, mainly Lost Highway (1997). So even though this film might prove to be “too confusing” for some, some might also delight in that constant vibe of strangeness that the film evokes every step of the way.

So heres where we start talking about the movies themes. Did anyone out there get the vibe that this movies premise was simply that of God putting a common family to the test? Testing them to see if they would do what is right? Frank Langella played the mysterious Mr. Arlington Steward, the man who knocks on the Lewis household and presents them with a moral dilemma. I thought the dilemma in this film was interesting, considering the times we are living in where a lot of people suddenly face themselves with the fact that they have to struggle to survive, to put food on their tables, to pay the rent. The Lewis Family is living on a “pay check to pay check” situation as Cameron Diaz’s character puts it; so I liked the fact that the film is asking people out there these questions. Things might be bad, but if push came to shove, would you be willing to kill others so that you could be okay?

The fact that this film is about “doing what’s right” and making the right choice is really what drives me to believe this movie was all about the Lewis family getting a visit from God. The biblical allusions are there plain as daylight. The option to press the button or not is similar to temptation, same as the situation the biblical Adam and Eve were in when God puts the tree of “good and evil” in paradise and tells them not to eat from it. The Box is more or less the same story. The Box is the tree of good and evil, and pressing the button on the box would be the equivalent of eating from the tree that God told you not to eat from. The answer to pressing that red button or not, should be an automatic “no” simply because of the fact that somebody would be dying if you press it. Doesn’t matter if you don’t know the person, or if you won’t see that person die, you’re still supposed to be killing someone if you press it. And all for a million dollars, for monetary gain. If you press that button, you are making the wrong moral choice, breaking one of the ten biblical commandments “though shall not kill” and as is shown in the film, the Lewis family ends up paying for “sinning” in such a big way.

Which is really what Arlington Steward does in the film. He makes the Lewis family pay for having committed the atrocious crime of pressing that red button. Arlington Steward might not really be God himself, but he has god like powers and is certainly connected to the supreme being in some form or another. For all intents and purposes, he represents God in the film, spewing judgment left and right, making evil doers pay. But how does Arthur C. Clarkes quote fit the rhyme scheme of this film? Well, I’m thinking that this film was taking the route of Alex Proya’s Knowing (2009) which presented us with the idea that maybe angels are really aliens, and that we humans, not fully understanding them see them as angels. We see them as something spiritual (or magical) because we do not understand their scientific nature. This is something that movies do when they tackle religious themes, because in this way you present both sides of the tale, in this way avoiding audience alienation. The Box has a science fiction angle to it with the whole teleportation thing, the traveling through dimensional doors thing. So it has that ambiguity to it. It’s not an openly religious film, but its religious connotations are there. I’m thinking this was just Kelly’s way of being as indirect as possible with the biblical references in the film.

The people who work for Mr. Steward -the god like character in the film- are an allegory for religious individuals. They act strange, they all seem to be mentally connected somehow. They don’t like outsiders meddling in their business, asking questions and doubting things. One scene has Marsden’s character Arthur Lewis searching for information about Mr. Steward past history. Trying to see where he comes from and what makes him tick (same as one might search for the truth behind the idea of God) and what does he confront himself with? Stewards followers! They question him and his purposes, and then they make him choose between “eternal damnation or eternal enlightenment” which should be enough information to let anyone who is watching this film know how much it’s commenting on religion and faith.

I liked the idea that Mr. Steward refers to the whole box thing as an ongoing experiment. He tells them “the experiment continues” with another family who will be presented with the same choice. To me religion is a social experiment, placed upon society by governments to regulate and control peoples moral and ethics. I also find it interesting how Mr. Steward goes from door to door, presenting the family with this experiment, same as many preachers do with their teachings, spreading the teachings of the bible from door to door. After watching The Box I came to a conclusion. In my opinion, religion has demonstrated itself to be a failed experiment, bringing more evil then good to the world. It should be eradicated, and people should be taught to be good simply because they choose to be, because its what’s best for them and their fellow man. Not because they are afraid God is watching them, and he is going to make them pay. But thats my own personal take on religion, so dont take it personal if you think differently. The Box is a dark, mysterious and at times terrafying movie. I found it to be an intriguing flick, with great themes, but not as complex as some make it out to be.

Rating: 4 out of 5