Movie Review: The Box

WTF?

Starring James Marsden, Cameron Diaz, and Frank Langella. Directed by Richard Kelly. Based on the short story, “Button, Button,” by Richard Matheson.

Instead of a straight-forward review of the film, I have chosen to write an open-letter:

Mr. Kelly

I’m a freelance blogger and movie reviewer. In my articles (or posts) I usually give a rundown of the film, likes/dislikes, and why they should (or should not) go to see the movie I reviewed. Two days ago I watched your latest film, “The Box,” and found myself with the problem of not being able to logically break down the film and make it sound worthy of theatrical attendance. For my review of “The Box” I am posting this open letter to you and I have to ask:

Dude, what were you thinking?

Before I go too much further let me offer my thoughts. You’re an interesting director and let no one say that you’re not original. I liked “Donnie Darko.” I wasn’t smitten with the concept but I liked how you wove time-travel and destiny into a thought-provoking storyline. “Southland Tales” spoke to me because of its spiritual-based undertones and the segment where Justin Timberlake lip-synced to The Killers’ “All These Things That I’ve Done.” While it was a mess of a movie, I really did like it. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when it came to “The Box.”

I had good expectations for the movie. First off, I’ve read Matheson’s “Button, Button.” It’s definitely a dark short story as well as an interesting premise: what if you were given a box with a button on it that, when pressed, you were awarded a cash amount and someone that you don’t know dies. In the original story the husband died because his wife, who pressed the button, didn’t know him. Dark comedy; gotta love it. Somehow you wanted to take that dark comedy and twist it so that it wasn’t funny, amusing, ironic, or even at a base level, entertaining. What we, the moviegoer, experience is the “haunted object” sub-genre where evil continues to perpetuate ad nauseum because the entirety of humanity is vain, shallow, and greedy. Maybe this wouldn’t have been so bad if there was as long a discussion about the moral principle of the box in the movie as there was in the original short story. Then again I’ve seen this movie formula in such fare as Joe Carnahan’s “Blood, Guts, Bullets, and Octane,” about a car that brings death to every owner it has, and even further back to the “Twilight Zone” episode, “From Agnes With Love,” about a computer that begins to have feelings for whatever scientist works on it, driving them to the edge. No offence, the formula probably goes back further than that.

There are so many problems with this movie that film school students could spend years dissecting it and still not figure out where it went wrong. Here are a few questions that I have:

– What was the motivation behind the alien inhabiting Mr. Steward? He gives the couple $1 million and we see it’s because of greed yet, when a wife is chosen over a son/daughter, he makes a statement about the $1 million being put into a bank account that the child cannot touch until he/she turns 18. Why would that matter? If he really wanted to see greed destroy someone wouldn’t he just give the kid the $1 million?
– Why have the three portals (one to salvation, two to damnation) if they’re not going to make any real difference in what happens in the end?
– Why the crème-colored lens? I know the idea was to make it look like 1976, but not all films shot in the Seventies used it; just a lot of the bad ones e.g., “Burnt Offerings.”
– How was the alien able to control everyone? I know that the idea probably sounded good on paper and in a Seventies/Eighties sci-fi/horror sense it may seem a good idea, but no, it didn’t work. It just made me feel like I was in a bad M. Night movie.
– What was the deal with the creepy student/waiter Charles?
– Who exactly is supposed to be the audience for this movie, outside your family and friends?

These are just a few of the questions off the top of my head. I know that you’re a capable filmmaker who has an interesting take on sci-fi, but this is too away-from-base for me. I had hoped that you were taking a good Matheson short story and crafting a great movie, not taking a better story and cinematically destroying it. I will give you credit for the ability to create suspense in a few scenes, and a little wonderment at the possibilities I saw, but for the most part as a movie watcher I was disappointed and let-down. I’m not asking for my $9 back but I do hope that you’ve read this.

My grade for your movie, sir: D+

Movie Review: Frost/Nixon

The movie based on the Broadway play based on the TV interviews.

 

Starring Frank Langella, Michael Sheen, Sam Rockwell, Kevin Bacon, Toby Jones, and Oliver Platt. Directed by Ron Howard. Screenplay and play by Peter Morgan.

 

Nota bene: this review is based on the movie. I have not seen the original Broadway play, nor was I alive when this occurred on television.

 

With all that said, I enjoyed this movie.

 

The film takes place in two time periods: the days surrounding the Frost interviews of Nixon and some point in the “future” (sometime in the Eighties). The very beginning shows clips of footage from original news reports of when Nixon resigned from the Oval Office, as well as showing Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon for any transgressions. The American public was outraged and wanted a conviction; wanted Nixon to ‘fess up to allegations of wrongdoing.

 

Fast forward into the future of those involved with the interviews that took place. The characters reflect back upon what happened, how almost impossible it was, etc. But what did happen?

 

Flash back to the Seventies and as I said before, President Richard Nixon (Langella) resigns from office before he could be brought up by a Congressional committee to find out the truth behind Watergate. He has a stroke and lays in a hospital bed while Ford pardons him, which then puts him out of reach from any lawmaker or investigator.

 

Cut to Australia where British-born talk show host David Frost (Michael Sheen) has an idea: get an interview with ex-President Nixon. Frost is the definition of the “Swingin’ Sixties”: women, parties, celebrities, and personal jet planes. He had a show in the U.S. but it was canceled. Moving on to Britain he finally settled in Australia. When he proposes the idea to his producer, the producer has the kind of reaction we would have if in the same situation: why would an entertainment interviewer/performer want to interview Richard Nixon? What would he have to gain? How much would he have to lose?

 

Enter Swifty Lazar (Jones), media rep for Nixon. Swifty has already made book deals and a ’60 Minutes’ interview with Mike Wallace for Nixon. It doesn’t take long to figure out that Swifty is out for the money and coerces Nixon into accepting the interview and extorts $600k out of Frost for it. A meeting is setup with Frost, his producer, and female companion Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall). Everything goes well and the TV show is off and running.

 

Unfortunately he hits roadblocks. No American network wants to show an interview with the ex-Prez and a British talk show host and not have any control over it. He cuts deal after deal before finally getting one in which he pays everything up front. This puts him in debt with his friends.

 

To make matters worse people think that Frost is a “puff-piece” pushover. To solve this Frost hires Bob Zelnick (Platt) and author James Reston, Jr. (Rockwell). Reston pushes for Frost to take Nixon to the mat, pleading for him to give Nixon “the trial he never had.”

 

What follows is one of the best “chessmatch” films. Like Frederic March and Burt Lancaster in “Seven Days in May,” or Deniro and Pacino in “Heat,” we are given a bonafide “David v. Goliath” fight. Nixon is calm, cool, and collected, knowing Frost’s background and having a personal spin team and military officer Jack Brennan. He has nothing to prove but why he did what he did and doesn’t have to answer to anyone, much less an “easy going” journalist who is paying for the interview. Frost has everything to prove, not the least of which is the fact that he has to come up with actual hard-hitting questions if he wants to be taken seriously.

 

And therein lies the core of the movie: two guys sitting across from each other in a rented house verbally sparring until there can be only one victor. There are minor victories and setbacks and times when either could win. And in the end one walks away victorious while the other slumps into disgrace.

 

Ron Howard did an excellent job adapting from the original Broadway play, but he also hired the original actors from the Broadway play as well as the playwright. And all involved do a great job. The person to surprise me most was Sam Rockwell, who fit his character better than any other I’ve seen him play. From this movie alone he may get more offers.

 

The overall feeling from this film is light-hearted, somewhat like of “Charlie Wilson’s War.” There are a few somber moments, a good bit of humor, and the editing keeps it interesting. And I swear that for 5 minutes Langella WAS Nixon, if not channeling him from beyond.

 

My grade: A