web
counter
 

The Enemy Within

By Daniel Carlson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (40)



Boxrev.jpg

It’s tempting to say that writer-director Richard Kelly’s The Box isn’t a great film and be done with it, as if that were all there were to discuss, but that would miss the larger point of Kelly’s existence: He isn’t setting out to make great films, but interesting ones that also try to be good, and their quality is derived precisely from the fact that they’re often so confounding, so aloof, so willing to remain unsolved. That’s not to say The Box sacrifices force for aim. It may not be a great film, but it’s certainly a good one. It’s a speedy and wonderfully claustrophobic thriller, one that calls to mind the suspense-filled potboilers of a bygone era as well as the work of everyone from Hitchcock to Lynch. Kelly is coolly efficient at establishing an atmosphere of real dread, and there are horrific reveals that create genuine, unsettling terror in an age when too many genre directors lean on cheap jump-scares and loud music. But the bottom line is that Kelly’s ultimately made another circuitous, willfully confusing sci-fi film that’s as eager to please the cult that embraced his Donnie Darko as it is reluctant to be a prettily wrapped package. The Box is a fine film to worry over, to return to just to relive the simple and often pleasing experience of not quite knowing what’s going on.

Kelly’s screenplay is based on Richard Matheson’s short story “Button, Button,” though the plot borrows both from the short story and the adaptation made in 1985 for “The Twilight Zone” before going off on its own. The essence of the short story is this: A husband and wife are presented with a mysterious locked box with a button on top and visited by an intimidating stranger who tells them that if they push the button, it will cause the death of someone they don’t know, but they’ll also be financially rewarded. It’s a tight little morality tale, and rather than stretch it to feature length, Kelly wisely uses it as a springboard for a larger, sprawling sci-fi tale. In the film, it’s 1976, and the central couple is Arthur (James Marsden) and Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz), raising their young son, Walter (Sam Oz Stone), on the money they scrape together from her job teaching at Walter’s school and his work as a tech at NASA’s Langley Research Center. They wake to the doorbell early one morning to find the titular box and enclosed button unit on their porch. Later that day, Norma gets a visit from Arlington Steward (Frank Langella), an imposing man with a chunk of his face missing and knotted in scar tissue, who offers her $1 million if she decides to push the button. These early scenes are plain masterful for the way Kelly lets a sense of otherworldly mystery slowly build, augmented by an arch, string-heavy score courtesy of Arcade Fire members Win Butler and Regine Chassagne with Owen Pallett. Kelly’s a big fan of the slow camera push, allowing the tone and content of the story to dictate the emotion instead of rapid, misleading cuts.

Kelly plays out the string on the central premise over the film’s first half, letting an atmosphere of unease build through the growing tension Arthur and Norma face by dealing with the moral puzzle of whether to push the button. And of course she pushes it; the film isn’t about avoiding temptation but the struggle for redemption in its many forms. By this point, the larger story is warming up, and Kelly’s begun to build a very weird, very compelling parallel universe stuffed occasionally too full with wonders. Arthur and Norma are drawn into Steward’s world, and their attempts to investigate him invoke his retaliatory spirit, and soon enough the Lewises are under siege from Steward’s seemingly limitless number of “employees” as the tale becomes less about the box and more about who might want to build one and use it on people, and what that group might want. Kelly unleashes some genuine creepy turns in the latter half of the film, as in the sequence where a posse of Steward’s ordinary-looking henchmen shadow Arthur through a public library. They never chase him, and he never runs; they just walk closely behind him, never letting him out of their sight.

The bulk of the film unfolds in ways that wouldn’t even make sense to talk about here, in much the same way that Donnie Darko is twice as tricky to explain as it is to grok in the moment. The Box goes down the well-worn paths of urban paranoia and family-in-danger thrillers, but it’s no accident that Kelly’s tale is tied to the Martian explorations of the late 1970s or the idea that the government might be just as dangerous as you’d want to believe. The film isn’t without its fractures, though. Kelly’s mighty efforts to connect everything from, say, Norma’s prosthetic foot to a ridiculous number of references and performances of Sartre’s No Exit make the film ungainly in places, as if even Kelly isn’t sure which details qualify as referential grace notes and which ones just don’t need to be here. Yet it’s easy to forgive a director so clearly talented and eager to say something his own way. The film is fraught with parallels that Kelly underplays, as well, including the allusions in Norma’s arc to the tales of Pandora and the Lewises to Adam and Eve, and the consequences of self-damnation. Overall, the film is engaging and occasionally mesmerizing, laying out the pieces and letting the viewer make the connections.

Marsden and Diaz provide an energetic heart for the story, and though Kelly unfortunately saddles them with thick Virginia accents to match their Richmond setting, he balances that out with a clear love of the couple and the family they’ve put together. And no wonder: Kelly himself grew up in Virginia, and his father worked on the Mars Viking Lander program as Arthur does in the film. The film works as well as it does because Kelly’s put much of himself into the Lewises, creating the most empathetic protagonists of his feature career. It’s true that Diaz has made some awful, awful films in her time as an actress, but she can, when willing, perform against type and bring to her performances the vulnerability that’s usually never required of beautiful people on the big screen. She did it in Being John Malkovich, and she does it here, creating a likeable Norma with a proven emotional range. Marsden is easygoing, as well, and Kelly mostly resists stereotyping by making Arthur as normal as possible, and Marsden’s happy to oblige. The cast also features Kelly favorites Holmes Osborne and Lisa K. Wyatt, and the presence of the character actors is a nice way to keep the film tied to Kelly’s growing universe.

“I’m doing everything I can to hold onto my sensibility and make the kind of movies that I want to see: one that makes my head spin, and makes me want to come back and see it two or three times in the theater. That’s my ultimate film,” Kelly recently told IFC. There’s no doubt that he’s done that with The Box, creating an enjoyably teasing film that guarantees more rewards on repeat viewings. But it’s also a legitimately good film, broader than Donnie Darko and free of the hyperactive ramblings that made Southland Tales a bit of a chore. It’s a strange but solid story from a filmmaker determined to go to these new places and explore them, unearthing broken treasures and bringing them back for us to see.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a TV blogger for the Houston Press. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.









Will Smith Signs onto Flowers for Algernon | Pajiba Love 11/09/09













Comments

You had me at "Norma’s prosthetic foot." Awesome review, Dan. I'm looking forward to seeing this. I only wish the updated trailers would have shown a little less than what they did. Regardless, I'm putting my ass in the theater for this one.

Yeah, I've got a thing for prosthetic feet. So what?

Posted by: Skitz at November 9, 2009 12:16 PM

It's good to see Ellen Barkin in starring roles again...

Wait, what?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 9, 2009 12:17 PM

So The D-bag is tolerable in this...I may have to watch it.

Posted by: Smokin at November 9, 2009 12:20 PM

I must say I'm pleasantly surprised by this review. After seeing the wretched "director's cut" of Donnie Darko and then Southland Tales I had pretty much written Kelly off.

P.S. I agree that Cameron Diaz has turned in some very good work over the years. She seems to be aging rapidly--and not well, but I gotta give her props for not botoxing herself into Nicole Kidman country.

Posted by: Jerce at November 9, 2009 12:43 PM

I gotta give her props for not botoxing herself into Nicole Kidman country.

Posted by: Jerce at November 9, 2009 12:43 PM

------------------------------------------------

You can't Botox clown face.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 9, 2009 12:45 PM

My wife wants to see this so bad, she’s a Diaz fan.

Posted by: Guess Who! at November 9, 2009 12:56 PM

Interesting. I had written this off as Looks Entirely Too Fucking Stupid. I shall add this to the Netflix queue for future rental.

Posted by: Julie at November 9, 2009 1:02 PM

(record scratch)
Whookie is married?

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 9, 2009 1:13 PM

I heard about this movie on the radio for the first time Friday. I was only half listening to the advertisement and thought they had said James Marsters co-starred. So I googled the movie. You can understand my disappointment when I saw James Marsden instead. I haven't quite been able to get past that. This review helped, but I'm gonna need time.

Posted by: Eyvi at November 9, 2009 1:16 PM

Yes Lindsey, I've been married for fifteen years now. She's my best friend, I’m so lucky to have her. We met on a blind date at the Omni in Miami years ago, I’ve been in love ever since.

Posted by: Guess Who! at November 9, 2009 1:30 PM

I loved the original Twilight Zone episode, which was tight, fast and creepy. I'll be interested in seeing it expanded to a feature film. And of course Frank Langella is a plus.

Posted by: mrcreosote at November 9, 2009 1:34 PM

What a premise. Richard Nixon arrives on your front porch with a box/button, and if you push it, Woodward and Bernstein will die at the hands of David Frost and the Republican National Committee will transfer one million dollars out of an illegal slush fund to your account. And this took place in 1976? Creepy.

Posted by: John Denver's Wingman at November 9, 2009 1:43 PM

Here's the real story of the "the box"

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/44b3d8f432/the-button

Posted by: morganew at November 9, 2009 1:55 PM

That's awesome Guess Who!, I mean it.
I guess I was always too distracted by the 'bangin' my ho's' type comments to pick up on that before. (Because you know I NEVER talk smack on Pajiba. NEVER!)

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 9, 2009 2:00 PM

morganew:
Funny!

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 9, 2009 2:03 PM

Saw it, yesterday.

My first words to my theater mate during the credits were: very Lynchian. I thought the second act was the best; when things got odd, people were weird, you were being immersed into something very strange. By the third act, it just got too weird. I was completely lost. I like Lynch in that he creates people and moods that I am drawn to because they're interesting. Whereas, I found Marsden and Diaz quite boring. I mean, truly, Diaz is awful. She has singular moments where she can be believable but, on the whole, her performances are nearly unwatchable. Marsden is the poor man's Guy Pearce and needs a few more serious roles to galvanize that. He's a decent actor and I really liked him. I just didn't think his character was all that great.

Overall, I was confounded but am unwilling to sit through the first act--which dragged--to get to the really interesting parts of the 2nd and 3rd.

Posted by: gunnertec at November 9, 2009 2:07 PM

Really great review of what sounds like a pretty good movie. One note though, don't use the word grok, Heinlein was a world class ass.

Posted by: jbrader at November 9, 2009 3:15 PM

Is this movie a re-make? Because I believe that I have heard this plot before.

Posted by: Amber at November 9, 2009 3:22 PM

Well blow me down. From the trailers I watched caught on TV, those times I decided not to fast-forward on my TiVo, this looked it was going to be the usual Hollywood let-down bullshit. So glad to see that it's not.

That's, what, the third good sci-fi movie out this year? Is the world really going to end in 2012 and God is just buttering up the sci-fi lovers before the bitter end?

Posted by: stardust (now with 100% less savant) at November 9, 2009 5:15 PM

Now that the movie is out, I swear, if one more GODDAMN person repeats any variant of the fact that this was a short story and/or Twilight Zone episode again, I will not be responsible for my actions against them and their loved ones.

Posted by: Vermillion at November 9, 2009 5:20 PM

I am totally suprised that hardly any reviews have mentioned how sexist the film is. The film basically blames all that is wrong with society on women, and it does this pretty blatenly. For a website that claims that a film like the House Bunny is sexist, just cause the moral was that girls enjoy looking sexy, I'm quite shocked that they let this slide.

Posted by: returnofthesmith at November 9, 2009 5:22 PM

(record scratch)
Whookie is married?

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 9, 2009 1:13 PM
---
So there's hope for us after all?

Posted by: , (TCFKAB) at November 9, 2009 5:28 PM

"The film basically blames all that is wrong with society on women"

Well, we did offer Adam the apple.

/totally, seriously fucking kidding

Posted by: MM at November 9, 2009 5:35 PM

"I am totally suprised that hardly any reviews have mentioned how sexist the film is."

Yup. This shit is pretty overtly misogynistic. "Your wife push the button?" "Yep." "Yeah, mine too." Stupid women, always making hasty emotional decisions!

I don't wanna spoil any more of the movie, but the whole method of redemption at the end is fucked up as well. Pretty disappointed that wasn't mentioned in this review.

Posted by: max at November 9, 2009 5:49 PM

"So there's hope for us after all?"

There's a lid for every pot, Big Daddy.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 9, 2009 6:32 PM

i haven't seen it yet,but maybe he left out the issue of sexism to highlight the film's bigger predicaments.

Posted by: unevan at November 9, 2009 6:34 PM

Vermilion, Do you need a Hug today? I sense that you need a hug.
*Hugs Vermilion*

OK? Better?

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at November 9, 2009 6:35 PM

I really like James Marsden. I don't know what it is about him, but he just has this weird charisma that makes him enjoyable to watch.

His performance as the dick brother in Sex Drive was a thing of beauty.

Posted by: Daniel Hall at November 9, 2009 7:10 PM

@Daniel Hall

Really? I find James Marsden to be one of the more boring and charisma-less actors around. As in: Gossip and Disturbing Behavior. (Note: I haven't seen Sex Drive.) And, for my money, he was one of the worst things about the X-Men films. I mean, James Marsden or Hugh Jackman? Are you KIDDING?

Plus, every time I see his name attached to a project, I think it's James Marsters and I get excited. Then my hopes get dashed.

But, one man's boring actor is another man's enjoyable actor. As my mom says, "There's no accounting for taste."

Posted by: MM at November 9, 2009 7:21 PM

Factoid: this was actually a book...

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at November 9, 2009 7:35 PM

My freshmen students read "Button, Button" every year (and then freak me out with their "I would totally push the button" journals). They always love the story and beg me to find the Twilight Zone episode.

Since the trailer started running on television, I've had dozens of former students dropping by my room or Facebooking me saying, "They're making that story into a movie! I'm so excited to see something I've already read!" I'm excited that they are excited, but at the same time I'm sad that this is the ONLY thing they've read outside of a children's book that has been adpated to the film.

Oh well... they get to feel smarter than their friends for a moment.

Posted by: superEdna at November 9, 2009 8:21 PM

@MM

I know! I said it was weird!

But damn it, watch Sex Drive. Brother is hilarious.

Posted by: Daniel Hall at November 9, 2009 9:12 PM

Daniel Hall, I too am oddly fond of James Marsden. I think he's a competent actor--certainly better than more famous actors like Gerard Butler or Nicolas Cage. I think part of his problem is that he looks so generically attractive (didn't he play a Prince Charming-esque character in Enchanted? He seems perfect for that role) that he gets typecast as generic nice guys.

MM, I'm actually inexplicably fond of three of the actors from Disturbing Behavior, James Marsden, Ethan Embry, and Nick Stahl, and I have a weird love for the movie itself, so I'm biiased, though I don't fid him bland there at all. But Cyclops is supposed to be really bland. He's a straight laced good guy like Superman, but he's also an ass and of course, next to Wolverine, he looks like a giant tool. I thought Marsden pulled that off perfectly.

Posted by: Christina at November 10, 2009 3:50 AM

excellent review although i don't think i will return for a 2nd
and 3rd viewing to wring some of the confusion out of a film
that is intended to confuse. i thought marsden was solid in his
rather underwritten role and i think he is capable of more. diaz is
ok and has shown some acting chops before but i have to agree with the comment mentioning her age. simply put, she got old fast!

Posted by: snake at November 11, 2009 1:29 AM

You have to be kidding me right?! This is easily one of the worst movies of the year. There are a number of unnecessary scenes and far too many references to Diaz's mangled foot. Everyone's performances come off as comic farces. And in a time when many are out of work in real life, it seems hard to sympathize with a NASA engineer and private school teacher when they are having financial troubles.

Posted by: OrlandoSlim at November 11, 2009 5:34 PM

We saw this movie and I'm shocked by this review! Even the bevy of 14 year-old girls we took along with us giggled at it. We laughed where we weren't supposed to, it dragged and dragged and it's potentially interesting but poorly paced center story was destroyed by the silly and irrelevant side story lines. About half-way through the movie I said to my spouse "Can't wait to read the reviews!" and we laughed, imagining it being totally eviscerated in a witty and deserving manner. I expect much more from this site and am shocked that anyone could respect this movie on any level. Not only did it not actually come to a decent conclusion, but it's meanderings were meaningless and the Final Solution was empty, devoid of actual ethical substance and moronic. I totally implore you all to NOT see this movie. It is a waste of time, money and brain cells.

Posted by: Chuck at November 13, 2009 6:43 PM

@skitz (1st comment). Actually, the trailers I felt were misleading and misguiding. I still was shocked when I saw the movie because from the trailers I had pictured it to be something different.

@Pajiba killer review. thank you for the insight and I just imdb'd Richard Kelly and reminded myself of WHY i knew that name before I read the review...I had no clue he made it prior to seeing this film...so i went in expecting little to nothing and being rewarded with an 8 out of 10 film.

_Donnie Darko still one of my favorite and I like to believe I got into it prior to the cult following trend.

Posted by: wolf at November 13, 2009 9:46 PM

Donnie Darko = GREAT

Southland Tales = HORSEPOOP

So if this is a happy medium, I'd be satisfied.

Posted by: RichieRich at November 16, 2009 10:30 PM

Just watched this movie. I had issues with Kelly following his lame attempt to explain Donnie Darko. Either do it in the movie or leave it to stand on its own. I also had issues with Southland Tales. I loved the characters, but did not care for the story. In The Box I think he strikes the right balance of character development and story. It's ultimately infuriating, but that's Kelly's MO. A masterpiece of film making, try to Netflix.

Oh one last thing, it felt a lot like The Man Who Wasn't There in parts, so if you liked that movie you may appreciate what kind of ending you're in for.

Posted by: Jiggles at March 12, 2010 12:19 AM

once it turned into the invasion of the body snatchers it totally lost me. I think they took an amazingly promising premise and turned it into cheap lynch.

Posted by: sara at June 22, 2010 10:58 AM

















mindholeblowers.gif viral_hits.gif
>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time