Death at a Funeral

* April 16, 2010

* Comedy

* Directed by Neil LaBute

* Written by Dean Craig

* Produced by Sidney Kimmel, William Horberg, Chris Rock, Share Stallings, Laurence Malkin

* Executive Producers Jim Tauber, Dean Craig, Glenn S. Gainor

* Cast – Loretta Devine, Peter Dinklage, Danny Glover, Regina Hall, Martin Lawrence, James Marsden, Tracy Morgan, Chris Rock, Zoë Saldaña, Columbus Short, Luke Wilson

Directed by Neil LaBute, Death at a Funeral is a hilarious day in the life of an American family that has come together to put a beloved husband and father to rest.   As mourners gather at the family home, shocking revelations, festering resentments, ugly threats, blackmail and a misdirected corpse unleash lethal and riotous mayhem.

The only real reason I got to watch this movie is James Marsden, a great and underrated actor. Just look at his diversity:

• First major role was Cyclops of the X-Men franchise, he nailed it.
• Was in the vastly popular film, The Notebook.
• The prince of Enchanted, the funniest character of the movie.
• Lois Lane’s husband in Superman Returns. The movie sucked but he pulled off a sympathetic role.
• The lead actor of 27 dresses, One of my favorite romance movie. People might say it’s chick-flick but who frigging cares.
• The funniest character in the funniest film of 2008, Sex Drive.
• Sci-Fi thriller in 2009, The Box.

Anyways, you get the point and you can guess how much I like him.

Richard Kelly has something of a checkered history already and he’s only on his third film!  Debut film Donnie Darko was largely ignored on its release in the US, only to make a big critical and (relatively) big box office impact in the UK leading to the re-cutting and release of a Director’s Cut in America.  The cult and critical feting which followed Donnie Darko led to follow-up Southland Tales going to Cannes and bombing in the sort of reception which can kill a career.  Despite being recut, the film was a complete mess.  Now, he is back with what should be the ultimate high concept water-cooler movie based on a short story by I Am Legend scribe Richard Matheson…

In The Box, a couple (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) are awoken in the early hours of the morning in 70s Richmond, Virginia  only to find a mysterious box with a note saying the man who left the box will return later in the day.  Sure enough Frank Langella’s disfigured Arlington Steward returns with a $100 bill and to explain that the box has a button.  Should they choose to press the button, they will win a million dollars but somebody somewhere in the world that they don’t know will die.  Should they press it?  The moral questions that revolve around this central premise should be enough to fuel a tight thriller and for 30-40 minutes, this is certainly the case.  However, Kelly is unable to stick to the central premise.

The main problem with this film is the sheer number of sidelines and blind alleys which Kelly insists on taking the film down.  There is a whole sub-plot about the fact that Diaz’s character lost some of the toes on one of her feet – a sideline which leads to nothing in particular and another sideline about Marsden’s character wanting to be an astronaut and other regarding the “employers” of Arlington Steward who may or may not be governmental forces.  It leads to a middle 40 minutes of this film which is very baggy and utterly confused.  Despite that Kelly does manage to make an effective ending but by that point some of what has gone before just completely undermines it.

There are things to like in this film – both Diaz and Marsden perform pretty well and the 70s Virginia setting is nicely realised.  Likewise, Frank Langella is suitably spooky and mysterious as the main man with the box.  It’s just a shame that Kelly clearly lacks control and restraint in his own work.  Another director may have been able to pare this down to 80-90 minute film.  I found things to like but I must admit, I can understand the poor reviews and to some extent, they are justified.

4/10

BRYAN SINGER Returns To 'X-MEN' Franchise

Read more HERE.

——-
——-

It’s interesting the kind of films that are coming out recently, specially with the high-anticipated James Cameron’s Avatar (2009). I usually try to see more films than the ones that everyone expects and tend to avoid the “almost-only-girls-fans” films like New Moon. So, last Sunday I went to see a film that intrigued me when I saw the trailer, and now I admit it’s one of the rarest films I have ever seen.

The Box (2009) is a science fiction-horror film directed and written by Richard Kelly (who also directed Donnie Darko (2001)), and it’s on the 1970 short story Button, Button by Richard Matheson. The film stars stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as a couple who receive one day a strange black box with a red button on it. According to the man who delivers the box to their house, if they press the button they will receive one million dollars but at the same time, someone they don’t know will die.

Probably the most attracting thing about this film is the plot. The offer presented of one million dollars just by pressing one single red button is illogical since the beggining and also quite impossible. Since the moment Norma (Diaz’s character) talks about the box with her husband, people in the audience starts to think what would they do if they were in the same situation. I think this is the best feature of the film: it manages to link the audience to the story (at least at the beggining). It gives only two options: you get the money, or you continue with your normal life.

Now the acting. Cameron Diaz surprised me a little, because it’s not the normal role she’s used to play in other films. It’s a bit funny to see her crying face after (which appears almost at the beggining of the film and continues through the whole movie) and I have to say I got a WTF face when she told Mr. Steward she had felt love for him (the old man did the same face). James Marsden fills with excellence the role of Arthur and it’s thanks to his character that we see the both human thoughts about the dilemma. Norma wants the money, because she believes they need it for being more happy. On the other hand, Arthur thinks they can manage their lifes without one million dollars offered in such a strange way, and we can deduce he knows something weird is going on since the beggining.

Mr. Steward’s character, played by Frank Langella, is also well done and acted, at least until 3/4 of the film. His presence makes you feel sometimes stressed and also indifferent. The way he offers the money and the box to the couple it’s too dry and lifeless, and this attitude continues throughout the whole movie everytime he appears. We start to lose faith in him after the library scene, where weird and paranormal things begin to happen.

I confess I didn’t expect the science fiction element on the film and I think most people didn’t either. The problem here is that the change in the story is so unexpected that it loses strength and even confuses the audience. Some scenes, specially the one of the library and the three portals aren’t wuite clear and they needed to focus more on an short explanation that just on a silent scene. Walter, the couple’s son, is also another strange element in the plot. His presence is absolutely indifferent. Nothing is explained to him and at the end he’s the victim of his parents’ choices.

Music during the film its well settled, and also the dressing and the film’s time. The Box might not a brilliant film of the season, but manages to keep the spectator on its sit during the whole movie. It offers an ethical ending and deals with money, happiness, sacrifice, and crossroads during someone’s life. The box’s explanation given by Mr. Steward it’s also relevant. We human beings spend our lifes in boxes. We live in one box, move from one place to another inside another box and we end our life buried in a box too. Many people will identify with the protagonists in some moments of the film and leave the room asking themselves the same question: “What would you do with the box?”

Good morning. You just have to push the button.

The Box receives here a 3.5 rating out of 5. Feel free to comment!

CLICK HERE TO VIEW

Theatrical Release:Nov 6, 2009 Wide

What if someone gave you a box containing a button that, if pushed, would bring you a million dollars…but simultaneously take the life of someone you don’t know? Would you do it? And what would… What if someone gave you a box containing a button that, if pushed, would bring you a million dollars…but simultaneously take the life of someone you don’t know? Would you do it? And what would be the consequences? The year is 1976. Norma Lewis is a teacher at a private high school and her husband, Arthur, is an engineer working at NASA. They are, by all accounts, an average couple living a normal life in the suburbs with their young son…until a mysterious man with a horribly disfigured face appears on their doorstep and presents Norma with a life-altering proposition: the box. With only 24 hours to make their choice, Norma and Arthur face an impossible moral dilemma. What they don’t realize is that no matter what they decide, terrifying consequences will have already been set in motion. They soon discover that the ramifications of this decision are beyond their control and extend far beyond their own fortune and fate. –© Warner Bros

Note: Anything after the first paragraph contains heavy spoilers. This is not a review, but a discussion.

There is something special in ‘The Box‘, and I can’t quite place what it is yet. Richard Kelly has taken the source material, the story Button, Button by Richard Matheson, and embellished it far into the opposite direction. Whereas the original story ends with a minor twist, which is a hint of what is next, that only encompasses the first half of the film here. The story falls off the deep end and plummets through the ground, down and down until it is unrecognizable as the same movie.

‘Donnie Darko’ was decent, but lacked any real tangibility on a large scale. ‘Southland Tales’ was on a scale much too large and tried to force-feed us an incoherent story. I am one of the few who admires ‘Southland Tales’. ‘The Box’, Richard Kelly’s third try, takes the family premise of ‘Donnie Darko’ and puts it on a much larger scale. Some of it works, some doesn’t.

The big problem with the film is not the resolution or the ridiculous Mars-ordered lightning-struck Arlington Steward, but the pacing. The movie often takes too long to go from point A to B, and as far as that jump may be sometimes, it shouldn’t be a drag. I’m referring mainly to the pushing of the button (the family needs money and their dreams are crashing, we get it) and in the third act (that long stretch before the final couple scenes, where it comes together). The “employees”, in their zombie-like state, grow tiresome. I don’t mind that Steward can control people and have them in on it — I don’t even mind that he has many people under his control — but the absurd amount is unnecessary.

What is the whole point of the library scene, anyway? This could have easily been condensed and done some other way, and I’m sure it would have been less of a chore to watch. Norma feels love for Steward because of his burn (so she says), and Arthur picks the right “door” to avoid eternal damnation, but… by this point we are well aware of Arlington Steward’s past and don’t need to find the archives. Whether the characters do or not is insignificant and doesn’t need to be shown.

But with that, it is a fun movie to watch. It is also eerie and creepy. Would you push the button? Maybe, maybe not. But what if your spouse did, and because of that you had to kill them. Those are the rules. Again, that seems so simple, and with only that premise this could be a thriller, but the looming presence of Steward and his lackeys (the babysitter and the busboy come to mind) turns this into a horror film. One that will be studied for ages? Unlikely, but I know that Richard Kelly should be proud to put this on his resume.

By Critic Jasper Pennies

Hey folks. I was going to give you a famous “Jasper Pennies Discount Dollar Review” but unfortunately I was interupted before I could even get to my car.

This bizarre man with a face like molten jelly came up to my door. He said, “Jasper Pennies, I have an offer for you.”

Then he got out a weird black container with a button in it.

“Press this button and one person will die, but you’ll get one million dollars. All you have to do is—”

He couldn’t finish his sentence ’cause I grabbed that button thing out of his hand and thonked him good right in the head.  He fell to the ground unconscious and I took the briefcase and its billions of dollars.

So anyway, for that reason, I wasn’t able to give you a review of The Box, which I think is a feature-length commercial for the U.S. Postal Service’s flat rate shipping program.

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world…

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Frank’s laptop to be watched?”

Nah, just joking. And pretentious.

The Box is shit, though.

Chances are most of you know Richard Matheson’s short story Button, Button. It’s a clever little morality tale about a couple offered the chance to press a magical button and earn themselves a fat lump of cash while ‘someone whom you don’t know’ will die. It was later adapted for the Twilight Zone, and now Version 3 is with us; this time re-worked by Richard Kelly, a man who, if he offered to prepare you a meal, would do so by taking 3 sticks of butter, 2 cups of sugar, 17 fish heads, half a gallon of sun tan lotion and a week-old bus ticket, mixing them all together in a washing up bowl, then serving it to you in the discarded shoes of homeless people.

Oh, Richard Kelly. You’re so unconventional. 

You might also know O. Henry’s short story The Gift Of The Magi, in which a man sells his watch to buy his wife a set of combs only to discover she has sold her hair to buy a chain for his watch.

If Kelly reworked O. Henry’s story for the big screen, it’s a safe bet the ironically unlucky couple in his iteration would turn out to be malfunctioning robots from a parallel universe ruled by genetically engineered hyper-intelligent giraffes who (despite their intellectual advances) all wear lederhosen and backwards baseball caps. Turns out, the robots are on a secret and heroic mission in our world to find a way to rid their own reality of a domineering prankster God who exists in the form of a giant watery hand (that looks suspiciously like a cheap CGI effect) and derives his pleasures from floating around parks on sunny mornings inserting his enormous wet digits into the sexual orifices of passing joggers, thus causing painful and possibly catastrophic reproductive problems.

Also, there is a monkey or something.

More seriously, fans of Kelly defend his inarticulate brain farts by citing his ambition and unconventionality. Fair enough, but there’s this other guy – his name is Charlie Kaufman – with a similar taste in idiosyncrasy and mind-bendery, but his films, unusual and challenging though they may be, always have a clear and well articulated point, a consistent tone, and no small amount of insight into his oddball but distinctly human characters. Kelly, I now firmly believe, doesn’t even know what these things are, let alone which shop sells them in ten pound sacks for use in his films.

And a nude man attempting to climb Mount Everest is ambitious and unconventional, but that fucker is never getting anywhere near the summit.

Kelly had a chance with The Box. After allowing his addled ramblings to run riot and scribble over everything with crayons in Southland Tales, here was an opportunity to tackle a simple story about the dangers of greed, but the guy just can’t help himself. It’s bad enough The Box sees his lunatic, crayon-wielding brain-monkeys once again on a chaotic rampage, but he can’t even remember the point of the story he’s adapting.

If I was this bad at my job, I would be sacked. So would all of you.

Richard Kelly currently has a new film in development.

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+

WARNING! Spoilers for Richard Kelly’s The Box, and semi-sort-of-not-really spoilers for John Sayles’ Limbo…

Richard Kelly is now three for three. In terms of bad movies pretending to be thought-provoking artistic statements marrying SF, philosophy, pop culture, and visually uninteresting motifs, that is. His notorious and oft-lauded feature debut was Donnie Darko, a TERRIBLY MYSTERIOUS SF thriller about a boy, a weird rabbit, and something about time-travelling through an Einstein-Rosen bridge, all wrapped in pilfered Lynchian atmospherics. It also featured the line “Go suck a fuck”, which annoyed me so much at the time I think it made my brain come unglued in my head. That said, it also featured some interesting ideas.

Kelly was smart enough to take the filmmaking capital he earned with that movie and instantly spend it on Southland Tales, a love letter to Los Angeles that doubled as a hyper-stylised satire of the political state of America post-9/11, with surveillance culture running out of control and alternate fuel technology creating some kind of instability in the space-time continuum. Seeking to comment on every hot-button political issue at once, it ended up saying nothing. It didn’t help that Kelly couldn’t keep his imagination-dick in his brain-pants, and thus saturated the movie with dozens and dozens of TERRIBLY MYSTERIOUS events that remained unexplained by the time the credits rolled, even if you read the bewildering graphic novel he wrote as a prologue. It was a 21st Century Wild Palms, only 3000 times more self-indulgent and, regrettably, not co-directed by Kathryn Bigelow.

It was a critical and commercial disaster, premiered in rough cut at Cannes to an audience that hated it and then unleashed on a world that just didn’t care about it. As with any visionary SF movie a cult sprung up around it, but even though I have been known to champion all kinds of flawed but ambitious projects, Southland Tales made me livid. Kelly tantalises us with yet more interesting ideas, but these are left unformed or unexplored, leading to a finale of desperately opaque meaning. Either Kelly created an intentionally vague movie to cynically provoke discussion, or he doesn’t know what the hell he is doing. This interview features a telling paragraph:

As “Southland Tales” was going down in flames at Cannes, Mr. Kelly was still sorting through the details of his back story. He wrote the first book before the shoot and completed the second just before Cannes. He wrote the third while re-editing the movie. Working on them simultaneously helped clarify the big picture. “I needed to solve the riddle in my own mind,” he said.

I’ve heard most writer-directors say they figure out what story they are telling during the editing process, but I always thought that was a metaphor. This disjointed, sprawling nonsense – Short Cuts, as directed by a cross between Philip K. Dick and Cartman — is the work of someone with no concept of discipline. His magnum opus turned out to be little more than a bloated Pez dispenser filled with dreary hallucinations, alt-rock standards, and misunderstood quotes from T.S. Eliot. Other than entertaining performances from Seann William Scott, Amy Poehler, Wood Harris and (especially) The Rock, it was worthless.

And yet I’ve been desperate to see The Box ever since it was announced. During a recent Twitter conversation about Donnie Darko, I said that what had disappointed me most was that it was exactly the kind of movie I would make if I had been given a camera and lots of money when I was younger, but seeing it onscreen showed me that my ideas were too woolly and unformed to be committed to celluloid (be grateful I’m just a blogger with a bug up his ass, film fans). Nevertheless, you can tell Kelly has a restless mind, and if he could focus that energy and that imagination into a coherent narrative with a beginning, middle, and end, we might get something truly special. As The Box is based on a classic Richard Matheson short story (“Button, Button”), it seemed like Kelly had learned his lesson and was going to tell a simple but effective SF story with a philosophical dimension.

Sadly, that simple story has been expanded to become another intentional vague and melodramatic conundrum, this time about aliens, the afterlife, and bad 70s wallpaper. As with Matheson’s story, struggling parents Norma and Arthur Lewis (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) are offered a chance of a lifetime by a mysterious stranger, Arlington Steward (Frank Langella, with a CGI hole in his face). This chance comes in the shape of a box with a red button on it. If pushed, someone they do not know will die, but they will be given one million dollars. Wracked with uncertainty about their future, Norma pushes the button, and instantly they both regret this decision. What happens next is certainly challenging, but ultimately silly, baffling, and emotionally empty, no matter how hard Kelly tries to convince the viewer otherwise.

That said, The Box did give me an insight into Kelly’s filmmaking style. Or should I say, artistic sensibility, as he once called it at the bottom of this article in Variety. There are ten simple rules to making a Richard Kelly movie:

1. Make everything in the movie look as ugly as possible. Film in grey and orange exclusively. A complex palette is your enemy.
2. Overlight every shot. No shadows. Shadows are for those other film directors who have no artistic sensibility.
3. Hipster music is essential. It will either lend flat scenes an energy they don’t deserve (Southland Tales) or will totally overwhelm your visuals (Arcade Fire’s soundtrack for The Box).
4. Direct your female cast members as poorly as possible (see Diaz and Celia Weston in The Box, Mary McDonell in Donnie Darko, and Mandy Moore, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Nora Dunn, and Cheri Oteri in Southland Tales).
5. After your first edit, remove five scenes at random to create the illusion of mystery in your story.
6. Include visuals about water and bland CGI space-time tunnels or vortices or something. These are your THEMATIC CONSTANTS and are TERRIBLY MYSTERIOUS!
7. Cast Holmes Osborne in a supporting role. He’s an okay enough actor, but it’s fun to have someone be in all of your movies. Proper directors do things like that.
8. Quote clever people like Eliot and Sartre. This is what artists do.
9. If David Lynch does it, it’s okay to do it too (e.g. have people standing around staring like zombies, or slowly zoom in on people cackling). That bit in Lost Highway with Robert Morse telling Bill Pullman he is in two places at once? Do a pastiche of that. Lynch won’t mind. He obviously enjoys putting TERRIBLY MYSTERIOUS things in his movies for no reason and everyone loves him.
10. If you’ve spent more than a couple of weeks editing your movie, you’re doing it wrong. Just slap it together. The audience enjoys puzzling this shit out. Anyone who demands more coherence from their movies is a fraud and an imbecile.

These concerns are mostly surface annoyances with Kelly’s stubborn adherence to a set of stylistic tics. Even a humbling experience like Southland Tales‘ reception couldn’t dissuade him from reusing them. Nevertheless, it’s also worth breaking down the narrative dead-ends, holes, and ambiguous complications in Kelly’s “plot”, as they provide evidence that he has no idea what he is doing. Certainly he squanders that fantastic, thought-provoking central premise: would you press the button even though it would kill a stranger? Matheson certainly uses this starting point to make a wry comment on whether we ever really know anyone, even our loved ones, and Kelly addresses this original ending in a hilarious, poorly written philosophical debate between our protagonists (he also alludes to the alternate ending from the Twilight Zone episode that Matheson disowned).

Of course, Kelly — who has never written a recognisably human character when he can create a thinly-sketched caricature with a wacky name instead — is never going to make a movie that truly ponders that question, not when he can throw in “creepy” shots of mind-controlled humans standing around being “creepy”, or repeatedly cut to a poster of Edwin Austin Abbey’s Quest of the Holy Grail which also features Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law. That only seems to have been included to allow Kelly to add all sorts of visual splurge with the excuse that hey, it’s alien and advanced so it can look like however I want. He can also add a reference to Purgatory because then he’s making challenging movie about aliens being God and this plane of reality being a form of punishment, or something. Because, you know. Deep.

Yes, Kelly can’t just tell a morality tale. He has to tell a morality tale with added aliens. Again, this is worryingly close to the sort of hare-brained nonsense I sometimes think would make for good drama when drifting off to sleep. As far as can be deduced from Kelly’s maddeningly tortuous plotting, the button is created by an alien intelligence, one that has arrived via lightning to take control of Arlington Steward’s dead body to test the morality of humans by giving them the opportunity to chase instant gratification at the expense of another’s life. As he’s doing this one couple at a time, with a large group of brainwashed minions who gawp and haemorrhage through their noses (a TERRIBLY MYSTERIOUS visual image, that), it suggests this alien has the patience of a saint. Why test us? If we fail, we are obviously on a slippery slope to destroying ourselves, and therefore the aliens will annihilate us. Why can’t they just leave us to it, then? It’s hinted that it’s because of our exploration of Mars, but as this is not stated outright, this is mere conjecture.

Norma and Arthur’s decision to press the button sets in motion a series of ill-defined yet terrible events (including the pretentious graffiti shown above) that hint they are being punished for their decision, just as many others have in the past. That’s pleasingly neat, though it does make explicit something the Twilight Zone adaptation only hinted at, to greater effect. However, the initial morality test only really works if you believe pressing the button will kill a person. Norma and Arthur have no reason to believe it does, simply because it’s an empty box given to them by a stranger with half a face, and that belief that the button will do nothing seems to inform Norma’s decision to press the button. What happens next seems awfully cruel considering they did it half-thinking they were the butt of a joke.

The chain of bizarre events that follows lead to a heavily telegraphed finale in which Norma and Arthur’s child Walter is kidnapped, though with one unexpected development: the alien intelligence renders Walter blind and deaf. They are then given another choice. If Arthur shoots Norma in the heart, their child will be cured. If not, he will remain impaired. As Norma suffers from a deformity and what seems to be a fear of disability, the choice is easy to make. Arthur shoots her at the same time another couple presses the button, as happened earlier in the movie. It has the air of being very well thought through, though it’s rich to try to turn the movie back to being about wrenching philosophical quandaries when the middle section of the movie sees Arthur travelling through water-portals and Arlington’s brain-controlled minions stalking Norma or congregating in sinister groups. That are “creepy”.

Any emotional charge that the final scene could have conjured up is dissipated by the nonsensical plot convolutions, untied loose ends, and dreary effects sequences that brought us to that point. As with Russell T. Davies on the recent Torchwood: Children of Earth mini-series, Kelly has come up with what he sees as a fascinating moral quandary (how far would we go to protect our children?), but to get to that point has to mash any plot together. Again, the end result is a plot that resembles a blob of Silly Putty squished in a fist instead of rolled into a nicely linear sausage. Without a sturdy narrative framework to give these characters a believable reason to face this problem, it has zero heft, and the tearful, super-dramatic finale is not earned.

The issue is muddied further as another button is pushed by another woman at the same time Marsden fires. Are we to assume he has no free will? If so, where’s the tragedy? If not, and he fires of his own accord, then the button has nothing to do with the killing, and Arlington is potentially skewing the results of this game so that he can report back to his “employers” that we are doomed, and then justify their plans to destroy us. This is the most interesting idea thrown up by the film, and one that makes me think Kelly is actually onto something. Arlington even seems fond of Norma and Arthur: his final scene is riven with regret. In that case, maybe he has already made his mind up that humans are beyond saving, and Norma and Arthur are unfortunate casualties of this. If that is the case, I like the movie a little more.

However, these moments are less than ambiguous, and more like inconclusive, and this explanation has a whiff of fanwankery. Am I constructing a coherent explanation from clues left by Kelly? Or writing an alternate explanation using supposition and exaggeration from my own misinterpretation of the plot “tea-leaves” Kelly has swirled around the bottom of the teacup that is his movie? I’m all for pondering the meaning of a vague ending, but only when I think the writer or director is using inconclusive plotting to muddy their otherwise clearly expressed intentions. Compare any of Kelly’s endings to one of the truly great unresolved endings ever: John Sayles’ infuriating but brilliant Limbo. That movie has no concrete ending because Sayles is making a point about how real stories and lives have no satisfying ending. It invites speculation from the viewer, but offers no hints. It’s just the mystery of the next moment of our lives rendered in more dramatic — and humbling — style. (See also several open-ended Coen brothers movies.)

Kelly’s endings tend to mean less than nothing. Not “Oh the world has come to nothing and we must bear witness to the pointlessness and randomness of it all”. I mean “there is no ending as I couldn’t think of one. But there are a lot of TERRIBLY MYSTERIOUS things that have already happened, so mix-n-match those until you have something that seems logical. Jane’s Addiction roolz!” We’re not given enough concrete information to make up our minds what is happening, and so we can spin hypothetical explanations until the cows come home. A great way to keep your movies in the minds of your acolytes, but a boring and frustrating experience for those of us who think Kelly is a fraud who would rather namecheck Kurt Vonnegut or Jean-Paul Sartre than finish any of his potentially interesting ideas.

For example, Darko ended with a Christ-like sacrifice from Donnie, but left the reasons for the events unclear, though eventually explained by Kelly as a form of gibberish about Tangent Universes that seem to be describing a movie he made in his head while making an entirely different movie in the real world. Southland Tales ends with the return of Christ being thwarted by a disaffected asshole with a rocket launcher while two alternate versions of Seann William Scott create a portal that will something something. I think the world was doomed. Again, I had to finish the story for Kelly, coming up with my own interpretation. Same with The Box. Arlington’s actions make sense when I make them make sense, but then a bunch of other events make that interpretation false. Perhaps further viewing will make this interpretation clearer.

Nevertheless, this is the kind of faux-intellectualism that appeals to stoners who have read A Brief History of Time and Slaughterhouse 5 and think the universe is looping in on itself so that time is just space turned into a twelfth dimensional gas, man. In a way that could be appealing or forgivable. Gaspar Noé’s Enter The Void (one of my favourite films of the year, and one that has a couple of similarities to the inferior Donnie Darko) is woolly-headed and naive, but it is such a mesmerising and beautifully rendered rush of sound and image that any silliness is forgiven. Kelly doesn’t have the technical skill to pull this kind of thing off, relying instead on dispiriting compositions, eye-scorching overlighting, bombastic music, and indifferent art direction. Imagine Altered States made by the director of a straight-to-DVD sequel to American Pie after he’s eaten a bad batch of ’shrooms. That’s what this feels like.

Even worse, he doesn’t know what to do with his actors. Diaz gives yet another terrible performance as Norma, overplaying her big scenes, underplaying her quiet ones, and speaking with an accent oozing with so much Southernness I spent much of the movie waiting for her to raise a lace-gloved hand to her forehead and bellow, “Well ah do declayuh!” She’s never been good at doing anything other than be goofy (she was likeable enough in the first Charlie’s Angels movie), but after her unforgivably bad, tension-killing overacting here and in Nick Cassavetes’ disastrous My Sister’s Keeper, hopefully now filmmakers will stop casting her in dramas. Shades of Caruso favourite James Marsden fares better, probably because he’s a much better actor, but every so often a ludicrous, over-written line of dialogue will defeat him. It made me want to rewatch his triumphant turn in Enchanted for the ten millionth time, just to remind me of happier times.

Frank Langella’s impressive work is no surprise: the man is usually the best thing about every movie he is in. Though he is an eerie presence for much of the movie, even he is undone during a scene opposite Diaz in which she proclaims something about how “you wey-uh yo pay-un uh-pon yo fay-uss!”, and Langella’s look of regret is either brilliant acting showing Arlington’s sadness over the effect of his test, or Langella momentarily revealing his horror at Diaz’ continued employment. He is similarly unable to save a terrible, pretentious speech triggered by an NSA agent asking him why the alien morality test involves a box, which sounds like Kelly anticipated some confusion from the more curious members of his audience. Unfortunately his rationale is that we live in boxes, drive in boxes, watch boxes, and end up in boxes, so why not? Langella intones this monstrous wodge of contrivance as if he were playing King Lear, but the outrageous profundity-lite still reduced me to amazed giggles.

It would have been nice for Kelly to pose more questions about his authorial decisions, either to provide more amusement or to actually explain why anything happens in the film. How many people are in on Arlington’s plan and who why? How culpable is the government in this? Are they working with Arlington or against him? Why is it only women who ever seem to press the button? Why is there a rehearsal dinner and wedding in the movie? Is it just to get our characters in large groups where they can be menaced by creepy teenagers who laugh creepily? Why does Arthur travel through a portal in the middle of the movie? How much of this was just mood-setting, and how much necessary to the plot? Why is disability so important to the plot? Etc.

Actually, there is a potential answer to one question that threw me: why does NASA feature so prominently? We know Kelly’s father was a NASA scientist, and the movie is set one year after his birth, so is this somehow autobiographical? I’d be much more interested in it if that were the case, and that would certainly make the movie more than just a mixture of The Quatermass Experiment, The Astronaut’s Wife, and the pulp SF that gets namechecked in a mid-movie segue. For the first time we would see a connection to humanity amidst these dreadfully self-conscious exercises in intentional vagueness and poorly orchestrated atmospherics. The fact that all of these movies feel of a piece with each other, sharing similar motifs and concerns, make me wonder if Kelly is trying to tell a single story and failing no matter which direction he attacks it from.

It’s as if he once had a dream about water and tunnels and time travel and is constantly trying to figure out what it meant by telling different stories. Who knows, perhaps there really is a coherent story being told here about Living Receivers and how water is a Fourth-Dimensional Construct but he has yet to figure out how to make the pieces fit together. It’s this suspicion that brings me back to his movies even though I dislike all three of them. Perhaps one day Kelly will figure out how to tell this one story coherently, or to create some kind of key that makes all of the stories fit together, or just learn to modulate his glaring and annoying lighting scheme or find out that just referencing religious themes is not the same as fleshing out an SF story with a spiritual dimension. Either those revelations or he will get over his weird phobia of water. It’s just liquid, not a portal to the Nth dimension where the Judgemental Dream Aliens live, you crazy son of a bitch.

At that moment I will give him a break, and happily take back every negative thing I have ever said about him. Hard though it may seem after this lengthy rant, but I’m really rooting for him. I want that alternative explanation for Arlington’s test to be true, not just because it would justify spending money on his previous movies, or the countless hours I will inevitably spend pondering his ill-defined ideas, but because it would show Kelly has improved as a storyteller and has managed to hide a jewel of an idea at the centre of a tedious labyrinth. The tragedy is that, after sitting through so much uninspiring and downright exasperating chaff, I cannot believe Kelly has managed to pull off that feat. It’s a crying shame.

The Box is a 2009 science fiction/thriller based on the 1970 short story by Richard Matheson called ‘Button, Button.’ It was adapted before into an episode of the 1980s version of the Twilight Zone.

The film was written and directed by Richard Kelly (Donnie Darko). The films stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden. They play a couple who receive a box from an unknown man who then offers them 1 million dollars if they press the button. But they are told that somebody that they dont know will die.

I have to say that i really enjoyed this film. I felt that it started really well and had a very good ending which worked well. The only disappointment was during the middle- some parts becoming slightly ridiculous and unbelievable. I felt that the plot was a very clever idea and i also thought that both Diaz and Marsden gave very strong performances. The film is creepy, mysterious and interesting and i was pleased that i went to see it.

Film Rating: 7.5/10

The first trailer for “Death at a Funeral (2010)” has been made available for viewing pleasure. Making its way out via the film’s official website, the snippet gives sneak peek at the funny things happen when family and relatives gather at a funeral.

The film is a re-imagining of the 2007 Frank Oz-directed British comedy of the same name. Taking place in an urban American setting, the upcoming movie centers on a funeral ceremony that leads to the digging up of shocking family secrets, as well as misplaced cadavers and indecent exposure.

Uniting two top-notch comedians, Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence, “Death at a Funeral (2010)” also has “Star Trek” beauty Zoe Saldana among the cast ensemble. Joining them as the film’s stars are Tracy Morgan, James Marsden, Kevin Hart, Danny Glover, Luke Wilson, and many others. Directed by Neil LaBute, the movie will be released in the U.S. on April 16, 2010.

Screen Gems has released the official trailer for their new movie Death at a Funeral.

The film a re-imaging of Frank Oz’s 2007 comedy which centers on a funeral ceremony that leads to the digging up of shocking family secrets, as well as misplaced cadavers and indecent exposure.

Death at a Funeral stars Chris Rock (Good Hair), Tracy Morgan (30 Rock), Martin Lawrence (Bad Boys), Loretta Devine (Grey’s Anatomy), Ron Glass (Lakeview Terrace), Danny Glover (2012), Regina Hall (Law Abiding Citizen), James Marsden (Hairspray), Zoe Saldana (Star Trek), Columbus Short (Armored), and Kevin Hart (Soul Plane)

Death at a Funeral hits theaters on April 16, 2010.

First of all I want to start this post off with a song…

(Clears throat) “Beauty is her nameee“!

Man. Halle Berry is a timeless beauty. She is seriously gorgeous. Girl crush?

Possibly.

Here she is at the premiere of “Death at a Funeral” looking fab. Click thumbnails for larger pictures.

Check out the movie trailer for “Death at a Funeral” …Looks interesting …In theater’s April 16, 2010

Death at a Funeral looks like a good look with an amazing cast. Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Danny Glover, Tracy Morgan, Loretta Devine, Ron Glass, Regina Hall, James Marsden, Zoe Saldana, Columbus Short, and Kevin Hart come together to make this a smash

The original Death at a Funeral was only made back in 2007 by Frank Oz. It was an okay comedy, well more of a farce really and I’ve never been that big a fan of those. However, it made me laugh in places an had some good performances. Peter Dinklage as the person who gets it all started was excellent (as he always is).

As you may or may not know Chris Rock decided to remake it and the trailer is below.

The remake stars Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Tracy Morgan, Danny Glover, James Marsden, Luke Wilson, Zoe Saldana and Peter Dinklage in the exact same role he played in the original.

It is directed by Neil Lebute and is out on 16th April 2010.

I think Martin Lawrence’s expression in the above photo sums it up.

ok i love my movie 27 dresses>>>my friend steve thinks i hate it tho….im sorry steve i was just drunk and tired…anywhoo…

MAN CANDY!!!!

i adore JAMES MARSDEN!!!!

CHIC BETCH!!!

Short film review I wrote.
Published in Independent Weekly Nov. 11, 2009 issue.

THE BOX—Writer and director Richard Kelly’s enigmatic Donnie Darko attained cult classic status after its little-noticed 2001 release. His latest, The Box should attain that status, too. It stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as Norma and Arthur Lewis, a couple whose lives become a labyrinth of uncertainty and danger after they are sent a box by a mysterious, disfigured stranger (Frank Langella). This man tells them that if they press the button on the box they will receive a $1 million. The catch? Someone they don’t know will die. This ethical quandary proves to be the first test in a labyrinth of trials meant to assess their ethics. Marketed as a horror film, The Box is more of a thriller with its impeccable use of Hitchcockian suspense and Twilight Zone-like twists. While the totality of Kelly’s effort is something less than the sum of the parts, most viewers will find it a hair-raising experience nontheless. Rated PG-13. —BD

1. “Date Night” is a comedy featuring Tina Fey (“30 Rock”) and Steve Carell (“The Office”). They try to revive their marriage by going out on a date. Hilarity ensues after they are mistaken for another married couple who owe people money. If, like me, the comedic veterans aren’t enough to convince you to watch the movie, “Date Night” also stars rapper Common, Mila Kunis (“That ‘7os Show”), Mark Wahlberg (“Four Brothers”) and James Franco (“Pineapple Express”).

2. “Did You Hear About the Morgans?” also centers on a marriage on the rocks and a married couple on the run. This time around, though, Hugh Grant (“Notting Hill”) and Sarah Jessica Parker (“Sex and City”)  are placed in the witness protection program after seeing a murder. I’ve seen this trailer in theaters several times and every time, someone reacts to the last part of the trailer. Indeed, the laughs start once they relocate to Wyoming …

3. “Kick Ass” follows newcomer Aaron Johnson as he decides to become a superhero even though he has no powers. The tone of the film is similar to the humor in several Owen Wilson movies, such as “The Darjeeling Limited.” Christopher Mintz-Plasse, of “Superbad” fame, also stars. Johnson can also be seen in the John Lennon-film, “Nowhere Boy.” Its trailer is over here.

4. Acclaimed actor James McAvoy can next be seen in “The Last Station,” which focuses on the life of famed author Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer). The trailer doesn’t reveal much else, but the film does have a 7.3 star rating on IMDb.com. The film’s early release is supposedly a ploy to secure Plummer an Oscar nomination in next year’s weak Best Actor race. McAvoy’s real-life wife, Anne Marie Duff, as well as Oscar favorites Helen Mirren and Paul Giamatti co-star.

5. Focus Features is set to release “Babies,” a documentary which chronicles one year in the lives of different newborns around the world, namely Tokyo, San Francisco, Mongolia and Namibia.

Edward Norton, Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller, Robert Pattinson, Vanessa Hudgens, “Toy Story 3,” romantic comedies (Amy Adams! Nicholas Sparks!), potential Oscar nominees (George Clooney! Emily Blunt!) and more after the jump.

6. Hollywood takes another stab at “Beauty and the Beast” with the adaptation of Alex Flinn’s novel, “Beastly.” The teaser trailer is so abrupt that I’m not excited to see it in theaters. Relative unknown Alex Pettyfer and Vanessa Hudgens (“High School Musical”) star.

7. “Season of the Witch” reteams Nicolas Cage with “Gone in 60 Seconds” director, Dominic Sena. This heart-pounding action movie takes us with a band of knights who are tasked with moving a powerful witch to a monastery. Ron Perlman from “Hellboy” co-stars.

8. Amanda Seyfried (“Mamma Mia”) sure knows how to pick movies — at least, chick flicks that I want to see. First, there was Nicholas Sparks’s “Dear John.” Now, there’s “Letters to Juliet.” Seyfried stars as a girl who’s engaged to Gael Garcia Bernal (“Science of Sleep”) but goes on an adventure with Christopher Egan (“Eragon”) and Vanessa Redgrave after she finds Redgrave’s letter to a long lost love.

IMDb.com states that Hugh Dancy was originally cast in Bernal’s role but dropped out, which is a shame. Anyone who’s seen him in “The Jane Austen Book Club” knows that Dancy would have been perfect in this movie albeit in Egan’s role. Oh, well. Cue Taylor Swift’s “Love Story.”

9. Noah Baumbach (“The Squid and the Whale”) once again gifts us with his zing-damn-oh snap (!) dialogue in “Greenberg.” Ben Stiller tries his hand at drama as a man in a mid-life crisis. Jennifer Jason Leigh (“Single White Female”) and Rhys Ifans (to be seen in “Harry Potter 7″) round out the cast.

10. “Crazy Heart” is another film with an earlier-than-scheduled release date. Again, the movie studio is trying to nab its star, Jeff Bridges, a Best Actor nod. Bridges (“Iron Man”) stars as a country music star who’s down on his luck until his path crosses with a journalist (Maggie Gyllenhaal).

11. According to IMDb.com, “Remember Me” is up by 658 percent in popularity this week. The most probable reason? Robert Pattinson (“Twilight”) is the star. He is joined by Pierce Brosnan (“James Bond”), Chris Cooper (“The Kingdom”) and Emilie de Ravin (“Lost”).

12. In “Leaves of Grass,” Edward Norton plays twin brothers who plot to kill their small town’s drug lord. The supporting cast includes Susan Sarandon (“Stepmom”) and Keri Russell (“August Rush”).

13. “Extraordinary Measures” is based on the true story of John and Aileen Crowley who race to find a cure for their dying child. Brendan Fraser (“The Mummy”), Russell (“Felicity”) and Harrison Ford (“Indiana Jones”) star.

14. “In Ireland, women can propose to men on the 29th of February.” This is the premise of “Leap Year,” in which Amy Adams (“Enchanted”) takes it upon herself to propose to her longtime boyfriend. Fate intervenes when she lands in Wales instead and runs into Matthew Goode (“Chasing Liberty”).

15. In “Grown Ups,” five childhood friends reunite after 30 years. The movie’s cast is a who’s who of comedy, namely David Spade (“The Benchwarmers”), Chris Rock (“Down to Earth”), Adam Sandler (“Spanglish”), Kevin James (“Hitch”), Rob Schneider (“Hot Chick”), Maya Rudolph (“Away We Go”), Salma Hayek (“Frida”) and Maria Bello (“Coyote Ugly”).

16. After failing to impress the girl of his dreams, Michael Cera (“Superbad”) decides to rebel in the comedy, “Youth in Revolt.” Justin Long (“Accepted”) and Zach Galifianakis (“The Hangover”) also star in the movie. Trailer no.1 and trailer no. 2 follow:

17. Soon there won’t be another Sparks’s novel to film, and the world as we know it will come to an end. “The Last Song” is Hollywood’s latest try at the author’s romantic novels. Miley Cyrus (“Hannah Montana”) stars as a rebellious teenager who, along with her younger brother, is sent to spend the summer with her estranged dad. Cyrus, also a musical prodigy, falls in love and makes amends with her father.

I guess that means two things. 1) We can look forward to Cyrus-filled soundtrack. 2) Supposedly, the studio thought Mandy Moore in two Sparks’s adaptations would have been too much. Nonetheless, Greg Kinnear (“Little Miss Sunshine”) and Kelly Preston (“Jerry Maguire”) lend the movie some credibility.

18. Maybe you’ve heard of James Cameron’s (“Titanic”) latest venture, “Avatar.” An adventure in another world and another time pits  human soldiers against an entirely new species. Sam Worthington (“Terminator: Salvation”), Sigourney Weaver (“Alien”), Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) and Michelle Rodriguez (“Girl Fight”) star.

19. It’s just a teaser trailer, but “Clash of the Titans” looks pretty amazing. Whoever created the score is some kind of genius. Liam Neeson (Batman Begins”), Ralph Fiennes (“Harry Potter”) and Worthington  are all part of the remake.

20. Catch the “Toy Story 3″ teaser and full trailers below:

21. Emily Blunt is “The Young Victoria.” From the looks of the trailer, Blunt (“The Devil Wears Prada”) will give another powerhouse performance as Queen Victoria. She is paired with Rupert Friend (“Pride and Prejudice”) as her Prince Albert. The ensemble cast includes Paul Bettany (“The Da Vinci Code”) and Jim Broadbent (“The Chronicles of Narnia”).

22. Clooney may have cinched another Oscar nomination with his performance in “Up in the Air.” In fact, director Jason Reitman (“Juno”), actresses Anna Kendrick (“Twilight”) and Vera Farmiga (“The Departed”) all have Oscar buzz surrounding them. Clooney is the guy that companies hire to travel all over the globe and fire people for them.

The film was originally meant to be a satire like Reitman’s “Thank You for Not Smoking,” but the recession called for a revamping of the movie. The first trailer below tells you more about the story, but the second trailer is by far the better one. Fasten your seatbelts …

Personally, I’m looking forward to “Up in the Air,” “The Young Victoria,” “Leap Year” and “Letters to Juliet” although I’d probably watch some, such as “Avatar” and “Did You Hear About the Morgans?” if my friends want to see them. What about you? Sound off in the comments!

//

Norma en Arthur Lewis, een jong stel dat in de buitenwijken woont, krijgen een simpel houten doosje cadeau. Een vreemdeling komt langs met het bericht dat de eigenaar van het doosje $1.000.000 zal krijgen als die op een knop drukt. Maar de druk op de knop zorgt er ook voor dat ergens anders op de wereld iemand sterft, iemand die ze niet kennen. Met de doos maar 24 uur in hun bezit, zitten Norma en Arthur met een dilemma.

De film is van de hand van Richard Kelly, regisseur van het fantastische ‘Donnie Darko’. Zijn vorige film ‘Southland tales’ flopte nochtans grandioos en haalde ondanks zijn selectie voor het Cannes Film Festival 2006 vrijwel nergens de bioscopen in ons land. In ’The Box’ acteren o.a. James Marsden, Cameron Diaz en Frank Langella. Een trailer van de film kan je hier vinden.

De trailer geeft helaas een verkeerd beeld van de film. Er wordt geïnsinueerd dat de film is opgebouwd rond de keuze die het koppel uiteindelijk moet maken, terwijl veeleer de gevolgen van hun beslissing in beeld worden gebracht. Dan nog is deze prent geen makkie voor mensen die van hapklare dingen houden. De film haalt nergens het niveau van ‘Donnie Darko’, daar is dit verhaal (dat losjes is gebaseerd op een aflevering van The Twilight Zone), écht wel te mager voor. Nochtans zitten er best aardige momenten in de film (de bibliotheekscène bijvoorbeeld), maar de regisseur tracht te vaak David Lynch te plagiëren en zoals iedereen ondertussen weet is het origineel meestal stukken beter dan de kopie. Zo dacht ik een paar keer bekende Twin Peaks koppen te herkennen, de meest frappante was toch wel een agent die op het einde tijdens de inval te zien is, die leek als twee druppels water op Deputy Andy Brennan. Heeft de regisseur het erom gedaan? Geen idee.

Mijns inziens houdt de acteerprestatie van Frank Langella de film uiteindelijk nog recht. De uitwerking van het scenario had volgens mij beter gekund. Met ‘Donnie Darko’ maakte Kelly reeds een meesterwerk, met ‘The Box’ zal hij dat kunstje wellicht niet kunnen herhalen. Het is allemaal té middelmatig, te gewoontjes. Hoogstens voor een gezellig bioscoopavondje, helaas is het geen klassieker geworden!

Watched this movie with 3 of my pals, and let me just say that is what I call a good time!!!

Determined to lose his virginity, 18-year-old Ian (Josh Zuckerman) grabs two pals (Clark Duke and Amanda Crew) and drives from Chicago to Knoxville, Tenn., to meet Danielle (Katrina Bowden), the girl of his dreams … or at least that’s what she seems like on Facebook. Sweetening the deal is the fact that she’s offered to go “all the way,” as long as he can make it all the way to see her, of course. Seth Green and James Marsden co-star.

This is one of the overly-sexed up raunchy teen comedies like Harold & Kumar, and Superbad. And I think it’s safe to say to put this one in that same category as those two greats as well.

The one thing I didn’t like about the film was that it didn’t have the heart like those other two did. The characterization of our main character isn’t that well put out, and you sort of just walk into this character as a horny, geeky, 18 year-old. Also, his pal Lenny bones chicks left and right and it takes about the 100th one to know that’s not how you act, especially with chicks most of the time.

I can see why so many people thought it was so bad, but really I wasn’t expecting anything else other than a raunchy, sexed up, teen road trip comedy. I watched the trailer right before and I knew what I was getting myself into, so I accepted it for what it was, and I actually enjoyed a lot more cause of my acceptance.

There are a lot of things that happen in this movie that are hilarious, although some are better than others but really who cares. The gags were funny and a lot of the things that these characters said were perverted, but really funny and I will probably catch myself in the near-future using one their catchy lines.

The first three acts are very very cliched and predictable. And basically the film can be very predictable but it is really funny when the moments actually happen. As me and my buddies were watching this we were always guessing what came next and I’m not going to lie 90% of the time we were right, but we still had a lot of fun laughing and predicting.

Probably the best thing about this film is that it actually does feature a good cast. This new kid, Josh Zuckerman plays the geeky and nerdy Micheal Cera that we all know and love, but he doesn’t over-do the awkwardness and actually seems a bit believable. The best are the little side characters such. James Marsden plays this very uncharacteristic jock who is such an ass, but is so funny at the same time, and after watching this I can almost forget that he was ever in Enchanted. Seth Green probably has the greatest cameo of all in this movie as the free-spirited Amish man, who is so cool and funny that I wanted more of him, but really just didn’t get enough. And another problem I had with this film was that it didn’t feature enough cameos to keep the story fresh and exciting, cause I always wanted to see someone new but never got that.

Really this film is meant for a bunch of dudes to watch. There are boobs flying everywhere, and really if any dude that hasn’t enough a good firm laugh in a long time for about a week, this will probably cure you have that problem.

Consensus: Though a bit predictable and less heart-felt as other films of this nature, Sex Drive is a hilarious, and fun take on the raunchy teen-comedy genre, and actually does feature some great stuff but some are just better than others.

8/10=Matinee!!!