by Andrew Bowcock

Richard Kelly is partially responsible for my obsession with film, as his 2001 cult phenomenon, Donnie Darko, altered my expectations of what films can do.  Ever since I first saw Darko in 2002 I’ve had a difficult time watching films the same way, as I’ve almost always been under the impression that there’s more going on than we simply see on the screen or have told by the characters.  It seemed like a long dry spell before Kelly came out with his follow up film, Southland Tales, an ambitious film that premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 2006 and was met with almost universally poor reception.  Since I was such a big Darko fan, I had a hard time believing the same guy could release something else that wasn’t anything less than brilliant and crafted with incredible precision…but even I initially didn’t know what to make of Southland Tales. After now seeing it several times and having read the preceding graphic novel that Kelly created to accompany the film’s plot, I’ve grown in fondness for the whacked-out, absurd, colorful and entertaining satirical version of the Book of Revelation (though it still has nothing on his first effort).

When I heard that Richard Kelly was going to adapt a short story by the mighty Richard Matheson, I was very intrigued.  When I heard that Cameron Diaz was one of the stars, I was a bit less excited…but figured it still might be not be a disaster when considering that somehow Kelly made the ridiculously bizarre, spotty cast of Southland Tales work to fit its own eccentric mood.

The tale of The Box (based on Matheson’s Button, Button) is about a young married couple in the 1970’s struggling to make ends meet during some personal and financial struggles.  The husband, Arthur Lewis (James Marsden) is a scientist that works for NASA, one who has aspirations to be an astronaut but somehow fails the psychological exam, while his wife, Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz) is a schoolteacher who has been informed that she’ll soon be laid off.  One fateful day a mysterious box arrives on their porch – its contents are simply a small black box with a big red button.  The next day a well-dressed man with formidable and prominent facial scars, Mr. Steward (Frank Langella) appears at their front door explaining the box’s purpose – if the red button is pressed, the couple will receive one million dollars…but the catch is a killer (literally): the pressing of the button will also result in the death of some person somewhere in the world whom they do not know.  They have one day to decide before the box will be picked up by this “Mr. Steward,” reprogrammed, and sent to somebody else who they do not know.

After squabbling over whether or not this whole thing could be real and thinning the list of options, the couple decides to push the button…if anything, out of curiosity.  Mr. Steward returns as he promised, reinforcing what he said before and giving them the money.  However from this point forward Mr. and Mrs. Lewis are met with some bizarre challenges as they try to uncover the truth about Mr. Steward and the purpose of his provisions.  Also, each decision they make seems to be accompanied with counterproductive results, making the pushing of the red button easily one of the worst decisions they’ve ever made.

Just like Kelly’s Southland Tales, The Box has been receiving mixed to poor reviews from critics and it’s understandable why.  Though this film has a somewhat intriguing premise, it feels a bit undercooked by the end.  The mood is a bit reminiscent of Donnie Darko as it has elements of atmospheric horror threaded in with the film’s philosophical quips and sci-fi flavored suspense, but unfortunately the true struggle in The Box doesn’t lie in the choice of whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Lewis will push the button, but whether or not Richard Kelly is actually making a generic film.  The first 20 minutes or so of this film feel pretty lazy…just like they were directed to appeal to as general of a public as you can get.  However, once the film’s plot starts to move, it feels a bit messy…kind of like the rest of the film wanted to stay put whereas the director is trying to pull it in a direction it doesn’t want to go.

There are some minor twists as the film progresses and there are a couple of sequences that I might even deem as “great,” but by the end it almost feels like a good deal of fuss for very little.  However, before I try to beat this film with a criticism stick like most reviewers seem to be doing, I’m actually going to go out on a limb and say that I actually enjoyed this movie…flaws and all.  Maybe it’s partially because I’m a Richard Kelly enthusiast, but I prefer to weigh it in context, so let’s do that:

For me, Donnie Darko was pretty close to being a perfectly constructed film.  It truly just works in just about every aspect whether or not you have a full grasp of what’s going on, so I would call Kelly a great director based just on that one film.  When doing Southland Tales he took on the ambitious feat of creating a film that tried to do everything Darko did but on a much larger scale…and thus (many would argue) he got into trouble trying to make broad strokes while retaining a multi-faceted plot.  With The Box it feels like Kelly’s trying to pull back the reigns a bit, but unfortunately his ambitions for constructing a complex mystery seem a bit misplaced when plugged into this little story.  Though I like some of the things he did with this film visually and conceptually (a key scene set in a library near the last third of the film, in my opinion, was especially amazing, and one sequence near the end stabbed my emotions rather effectively). I feel like his style and imagination are just more fitting when they work by themselves and not in accordance with another story.  When watching The Box it kind of felt like two films – one was Matheson’s story bleeding through while the other was Richard Kelly trying to tell his version of what was going on.  If you appreciate Kelly enough as an artist and philosopher, you might find it enjoyable…if not, it will most likely prod or annoy you.

Is it one of the best films of the year?  Is it Kelly’s best work?  A big no on both accounts, but there is enough for a viewer to enjoy if they’re looking for a simple science-fiction-mystery that’s attempting to be something more, whether or not it succeeds on all cylinders.  I’ll tell you one thing, it’s much more enjoyable than the horribly conceived version The Twilight Zone did of Matheson’s story in the 1980’s.

___________________________________________________________________________

photo sources:

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/
http://alexhluch.files.wordpress.com/
http://justpressplay.today.com/

other resources:

http://www.imdb.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/
http://metacritic.com/

Tal y como se había comentado anteriormente, el actor Hugh Jackman está confirmado para la cinta Real Steel, que comenzará a dirigir Shawn Levy para este próximo año. Si bien originalmente – y para efectos prácticos sigue siéndolo – estaría basada en el juguete Rock’em Sock’em Robots, se agregarán elementos de la historia Steel, de Richard Matheson, que fuera adaptada a la televisión en la serie Dimensión Desconocida. Esperemos que este pequeño cambio ayude a levantar el concepto.

Acabo de ver la película “The Box” una adaptación del libro “Button, button”. Me estaba gustando, pero el final la reventó. De todas maneras me he quedado con mal gusto y voy a leer el libro. Lo he encontrado aquí.

Creo que merece la pena leerlo. Creo que el hecho de que no me gustase la película es porque no es una buena adaptación. Veremos a ver con el libro. Si lo leen me dicen.

[...] E começou a afastar-se. Ficar ali, vendo-a distanciar-se de mim, tinha de ser a experiência mais aterradora de minha vida. Precisei apelar para cada átomo de coragem, a fim de não correr atrás dela, agarrar-lhe o braço e suplicar que ficasse comigo. Somente a certeza de que, agindo assim, a afastaria completamente de mim fez com que me contivesse. Minha necessidade dela era devastadora. Como uma criança amedrontada, continuei parado, contemplando a única pessoa naquele mundo, aquela a quem mais queria, desaparecer de meu campo visual.

Pensamentos do personagem Richard, na obra “Em algum lugar do passado” de  Richard Matheson

The Box is a movie based on the 1970’s short story button button by Richard Matheson adapted for film by Writer – Director Richard Kelly. Richard Kelly is known for complex, multi-faceted and cryptic movies, example: Donnie Darko. The Box is definitely no exception, there are so many twists and turns throughout, as well as small details that, if missed, could affect how someone interprets the film.

The Box stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as Arthur and Norma Lewis, a married couple living in Virginia. They are living a little beyond their means as illustrated by the big house they live in and their fancy car. Just as their fi nancial life begins to crumble they are approached by Arlington Steward, a disfi gured, yet oddly charming man with an interesting and fateful proposition.

He presents them with a box, which has a button. If the button is pushed they will received one million dollars, but someone in the world whom they don’t know will die. They are given 24 hours to make their decision. Obviously they push the button, and consequences follow. Like I said earlier, Richard Kelly is known for complex movies, so if you’re looking for a morality love story quickie, then this movie isn’t for you. It’s a complicated storyline with morality, love story, science-fi ction and a murder mystery all woven together held together in a non linear storyline surrounding this box.

The movie really raises more questions than it answers, even after it’s all over. I’d call it a rental, not because it isn’t good enough to see in theatres, but because you might want to watch it again the next day to try and make better sense of it.

-Dylan Leard (Broadcast Journalism)

Hello! It’s Sunday. And Sundays, well, Sundays are boring, right? Right.

Went and saw 2012 yesterday, as promised. It was, well… Hmm.

My first reaction to it: Ehhhh. Not horrible, but not great. It’s exactly what’s advertised on the tin, I’ll put it this way. You’ve got a lot of real actors doing some cartoon shit while the world goes to hell all around them. The cast, when you think about it, is actually quite impressive. Also, Woody Harrelson’s in the mix too.

My second reaction to it: Why the fuck didn’t this come out in the middle of the summer?

Third reaction: Comedy of the year, hands down.

Especially in a year when, if you think about it, the big comedy was… what? The Hangover? Right? Get serious. I never saw the movie, I won’t lie, but for a lot of reasons. Primarily, things like the trailer. Did you see it? It looks like it was made for retarded boys. But, you know what’s even worse than the trailer? Listening to people who actually liked the movie. They sound like retarded boys, don’t they? Anyway.

But I really feel like 2012 deserves a good proper Counterforce review. It really does. It’s really our kind of movie, and I mean that in the best and worst possible ways. I don’t know that I’m the man for that job. Benjamin Light, I’m looking at you. Are you the man for that job?

Anyway, I went and saw the film yesterday with Conrad Noir and walking out of the theater, still buzzing from all that ridiculousness, we saw this:

And we thought, “Dear God, who gave that man wings.” Much less Wings Of Desire and much more Red Bull: The Movie.

But then we got into a little conversation, talking about this and that and action heroes of the 80s, mostly cause we’ve been watching a lot of that horrendous/wonderful action movie fare from that decade, and we were talking about how action stars back then were so… foreign seeming. And maybe that contributed a lot to their allure. Maybe it also made some of the ridiculousness easier to stand, too?

For example there, Benjamin Light and were discussing a week or so ago what a remake of The Terminator would look like – since the franchise is up for sale, and should be sold to Joss Whedon, of course, cause why not? – And I brought up the question, “Does the killer robot from the future have to be Austrian?” Commander Light emphatically assured he that it indeed had to be. I’m taking his word for it.

Anyway, so Conrad and I, discussing action stars today, talking about guys like Dwayne Johnson, and how, in our minds, he’s not really latched on with America. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the idea of a “non-conventional” action star quite a bit, i.e. a non white guy running around screaming at people, doing high kicks, and blowing copious amounts of shit up. So why hasn’t “The Rock” caught on with us? I posit two possibilities:

1. In a grab for “credibility” or attempting to “not being as big a joke as he is,” he ditched his silly little wrestling moniker, “The Rock,” and went with his real name: Dwayne Johnson. Except, we can’t root for a guy named Dwayne.

2. Not foreign enough? Perhaps? I suggest investigating this has merit. Especially since it seems American action-loving fans get a bigger hard on from a ponce like Jason Statham than Dwayne Johnson.

Then, walking out of the theater, Conrad and I were looking at the various posters on display, the coming soons and the current releases. Part of me still wants to see This Is It. I’m a Michael Jackson fan, I won’t hide it.  But I’m also a huge Richard Matheson fan, and while I have serious reservations about the movie, I also kind of want to see The Box.

But I don’t know that I trust Richard Kelly anymore. Donnie Darko was okay when it first came out, before you put it through any real tests of serious thought or logic and saw through it’s masturbatory philophosizing. It’s a glorified remake of Last Temptation Of Christ that doesn’t fully pan out. But Kelly also went on to make – speaking of Dwayne Johnson – the gloriously bad Southland Tales.

Look, I’m not going to talk about the Philip K. Dick pastiche that was Southland Tales here. I’m just… not. I’m not going to do it. All I’ll say is I went into that movie wanting to like it. And I sit here now feeling like I’m a veteran of that war. It’s like Richard Kelly is George W. Bush and I was some dumb kid who supported the Iraq war until I went into the fucker and got my bits and pieces all cut off. Now I’m shell shocked.

But, yeah, there’s The Box, directed by Richard Kelly, starring Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, based on the Richard Matheson story, “Button, Button,” and was previously adapted into an episode of The Twilight Zone. We’ll see if I ever see it.

And again, here we are. It’s Sunday. Tomorrow’s the start of the “work week.” I’d love to Weeks In Review here at Counterforce, but lately it’s just me rambling and I’d feel bad directing the two and a half readers of this site back to more of me rambling. Poor fuckers. Oh yeah, the season finale of Mad Men was last Sunday. And we had a Friday the 13th happen this past week as well. There you go. Oh, and: Young women having sex with sea creatures. Now there you really go.

But again, here we are. It’s Sunday. Let’s see, let’s see, let’s see… Oh! Tonight was the airing of the latest Doctor Who special over in the UK, “The Waters Of Mars,” the start of the end of David Tennant’s run as #10. You can catch it online if you’re good, if you’re very good, and it’s dark. And a bit sad. And leaves you kind of sweaty and breathless too.

Also tonight is AMC’s remake of the classic 60s show, The Prisoner. I’d watch it, but I’m not sure I want to see my childhood get raped so thoroughly and with such production values. Ian McKellen is a good choice for just about anything, but Jim Caviezel? I think I hate you for that, AMC. Honestly, Jim Caviezel makes Keanu Reeves look like Marlon Brando to me.

Oh well, here we are. The weekend’s almost over. I went to the movies to watch the end of the world as we know it and…

“The Box,” starring Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, and Frank Langella, was a quasi-effective look at morality in modern society.  This film does try to explore some ethical issues and succeeds, but to a limited extent.  Diaz’s character is one the audience can sympathize with, but also one the audience questions the judgement of.  Marsden’s character is a little more interesting and dynamic, but still suffers much of the same characterization pitfalls as Diaz’s character (both question pressing the button instead of flat-out rejecting to press it). This then brings us to Langella’s character, a mysterious deformed salesman who seems a little too unattached to the people he “sells” the box to.

The movie starts out with a view of typical suburban life for the Lewis family, particularly during Christmas time.  Then Norma Lewis (Diaz) recieves a strange package on her doorstep.  Soon after the exposition, the film takes off and morphs into a drama/thriller/sci-fi movie, complete with slightly confusing storyline and surprising plot twists.  The audience soon learns that Langella’s character is working for “those who control the lightening” and thus is taking part in conducting an experiment in ethics involving the human race.  If the humans are selfish and press the button that grant them one million dollars AND kill someone whom they don’t know, then the human race is to be exterminated.  Fortunately, the movie is left at a sort of “cliff-hanger” which allows viewers to decide for themselves whether or not mankind can redeem itself.  The promise of redemption is a thought that plague’s Norma in the film after she presses the button and finds out the consequences of doing so, and both her and her husband wish for everything to go back to normal, which in turn inspires Langella’s character to have respect and admiration for them.

The moral “lessons” of the story seems to be that a human life has no price.  This “lesson” is taken well above and beyond during the film until it is a tiresome necessity of the story’s plot line.  Interestingly enough, it’s always the wife who presses the button, so there are subtle hints of the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve doomed mankind by eating the forbidden fruit.  Thankfully, Diaz’s character learns that she made a huge mistake and is willing to end her life to save her son (the only selfless thing she has done the whole movie).  Unfortunately, this leaves Marsden’s character in a bind, considering he has to shoot his wife in order to restore his son’s hearing and vision, and in so doing, has to go to jail.

The strange parts of this movie occur when Diaz’s character is teaching and is humiliated by a student, and when both Diaz and Marsden are in a records building/library and Marsden is transported back home in a tall column of liquid.  The obvious science fiction elements don’t lend much to the story besides heightening the superfluity of having them in there in the first place.  If all the sci-fi elements were taken out, as well as the action sequences, then this movie could lend itself well to a stage play.  The most compelling parts of the storyline are the family issues and the question of ethics, which could be taken more in-depth and converted to a dramatic adaptation for stage.

Overall, I would give this movie 3/5 stars since the plot line was a bit confusing to follow, what with all the random details added in (seemingly on a whim), and because the acting is so-so.  I would still encourage you all to see this film because of the general message it tries to convey.  But don’t take my word for it!  Go see it for yourself!

No hay finales sin principios, y a petición de diversos lectores (Gonzalo, Radagast, etc) aquí da comienzo este espero que curioso TOP TEN rebosante de nostalgia por un tipo de cine que no volveremos a ver. Quiero dejar claro que a veces los realizadores optan por poner los rótulos de crédito en la secuencia inicial, otras no. En algunos casos están realizados y concebidos por los propios directores, y en otras no. Por eso, indicaré quién elabora los títulos cuando sea preciso. Para comenzar esta selección quiero hacerlo de una forma un tanto retórica. Si comenzamos elegiendo diez finales y ahora vamos a hablar de inicios, pues quien mejor que Chistopher Nolan para abrir fuego. Fue este arriesgado director que se atrevió a poner el final de la historia al principio del largometraje. Así pues, vayamos pues hasta el año 2000 cuando se estrenó “MEMENTO”.  Estamos ante un final y un principio, todo en uno. Mejor forma de empezar esta selección de comienzos de película no he podido encontrar. Ojo, a pasar de que me gusta mucho, este no cuenta. Se trata sólo de una forma de comenzar, allá vamos…

INICIO DE MEMENTO

En el puesto número diez tenemos… el inicio de “LA GUERRA DE LAS GALAXIAS“  dirigida en 1977  por George Lucas. Los títulos de crédito fueron obra de Dan Perri, creador también de los de “El exorcista” o “Taxi driver”. Este es uno de esos comienzos que uno tiene grabado a fuego en la memoria. Era un niño que deseaba verla. Había visto por la tele que habían estado en el festival de San Sebastián C3PO, R2D2, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, La princesa Leia. Tengo el recuerdo vago de verlos posando ante las cámaras en la playa de Donosti. Desde ese mismo instante quise verla. Tras mucha turra en casa y diversos intentos, conseguí que me llevaran a verla. Lo recuerdo perfectamente aún, fue en los cines Roxy de la calle fuencarral de Madrid, en sesión de noche, estaba abarrotada la sala y nos tocaron de las últimas filas A pesar de que era canijo y alguna cabeza me tapaba parte de la pantalla me fue absolutamente indiferente. Al oir los maravillosos acordes de Williams, entré en un fascinante mundo del que todavía creo que no he salido.

INICIO DE STAR WARS: UNA NUEVA ESPERANZA

En el puesto número nueve tenemos… el comienzo de “SEVEN“, dirigida por David Fincher en 1995, en este caso fue el siempre genial Kyle Cooper quien se encargó de los títulos de crédito. En su currículum hasta ese momento tenía “Breaveheart” de Gibson y “Quiz Show: El Dilema“ de Redford. Me parece fascinante la maestría con la que resuelve este inicio, y por eso lo he elegido. La secuencia inicial incluye los títulos de crédito y nos describe perfectamente la mente y el modus operandi de este asesino en serie. Destacar tanto la fotografía de Darius Khondi y la música de Nine Inchs Nails, y la barroca voz de Trevor Horn.

INICIO DE SE7EN

En el puesto número ocho tenemos el inicio de una gran adaptación literaria… “LAS AMISTADES PELIGROSAS“ realizada por Stephen Frears en 1988. Impresionante me parece la labor de Stephen Frears en cómo plantea esta secuencia que engloba los rótulos de crédito. Hace una descripción física y psicológica de los personajes inmejorable. Todo acentuado por la increible suite de George Fenton, que recalca el momento histórico. Maravillosa la actuación de Glenn Close y John Malcovick.

INICIO DE “LAS AMISTADES PELIGROSAS”

 En el puesto número siete venido de la Tierra Media tenemos… “EL SEÑOR DE LOS ANILLOS“ dirigida por Peter Jackson en el años 2001. Todo un gran comienzo para una obra épica que consta de tres partes. Estamos una vez más ante una magnífica adpatación, y se me ponen aún los pelos de punta con la música de Howard Shore y la narración en off, es brutal.

INICIO DE “EL SEÑOR DE LOS ANILLOS”

En el puesto número seis tenemos… el comienzo de “BLADE RUNNER“, concretamente el de la versión de 1982. Film dirigido por Ridley Scott, contaba para sus rótulos de crédito con la colaboración de Vangelis, que le componía un score de lujo que te dejaba noqueado en la butaca. Esta es una de esas secuencias que ningún amante del séptimo arte olvida. Esa belleza postindustrial, llena de coloridos neones y llamaradas. Esos encuadres que parecen sacados de una viñeta de cualquier historia del “Metal Hurlant” merecen todo un respeto. Eso por no hablar de los increíbles efectos y fotografía obra de los desaparecidos Douglas Trumball y Jordan Cronenweth.

INICIO BLADE RUNNER VERSION 1982

En el puesto número cinco tenemos nada más y nada menos que los…“RESERVOIR DOGS“ dirigidos en 1992 por Quentin Tarantino, le enfant terrible de la industria de Hollywood. Cinéfago, cinéfilo, inclasificable, esos pueden ser algunos de los adjetivos con los que podemos calificar a este director norteamericano. De dialogos contundentes y salvajes tanto por duración como por temática. En el inicio de su ópera prima tenemos todas las claves de lo que veríamos con el paso del tiempo a lo largo de sus ocho películas como director. Brillante y delirante comienzo donde los haya.

INICIO DE RESERVOIR DOGS

En el puesto número cuatro… “ABRE LOS OJOS” dirigida por Alejandro Amenabar en 1997. El creador de los rótulos de crédito del film fue Carlos J. Santos, pero estos no llegan a estar incluidos en la secuencia inicial van tras la segunda secuencia. Su trabajo es de sobra conocido, ha hecho también los de “Acción mutante” de Alex de la Iglesia, “Familia” o “Torrente, el brazo tonto de la ley”. Creo que este es uno de los inicios más inquietantes del cine español. Considero que esta es su mejor película, y que no creo que vuelva  a realizar nada Amenabar a la altura de esta. Maravilloso el plano con la Gran Vía vacía.

INICIO ABRE LOS OJOS

En el puesto número tres tenemos… “EL DIABLO SOBRE RUEDAS” realizada en 1971 por Steven Spielberg. A pesar de ser un telefilm consiguió traspasar las fronteras de lo catódico y lo cinematográfico y consigió venderse si mal no creo en el festival de Cannes, y en Europa se distribuyó en cines con este título. Os recuerdo que el original es “DUEL”, que podríamos traducir como “Duelo” y está basado en un relato corto de Richard Matheson, otro viejo conocido de la videoarena.

INICIO DE “EL DIABLO SOBRE RUEDAS”

Y esta lista no puede acabar sin la gran labor de dos grandes genios. En primer lugar, aquí tenéis a un viejo amigo del blog, hablo de mi tocayo Alfred Hitchcock, así que en el puesto número dos tenemos…“LA SOGA“ realizada en 1948. En esta secuencia inicial plantea las múltiples lecturas que posee este largometraje. Por la forma en que está rodada, por la actitud de los personajes, por miles de cosas, pero es algo más que un asesinato, es el final de un trio sexual. Soberbio. Cómo se enciende el cigarro, aprece que acaba de echar el polvo de su vida como dice el detective Nick Curran en “Instinto básico”. Atentos y no dejar que se os escape ningún detalle. Y sobre todo los remordimientos que quedan después. Soberbio el maestro una vez más.

INICIO DE “LA SOGA”

Y para finalizar en el puesto número uno tenemos al otro gran maestro, Stanley Kubrick y su… “LA NARANJA MECÁNICA“ realizada en 1971. Se dice, se comenta, que los rótulos de crédito iniciales fueron elaborados por otro de los grandes, Pablo Ferro, pero no encontréis acreditado este trabajo por ningún lado, y eso es raro en Kubrick, así que le pasaría como a Alex North en “2001″.  En esta secuencia inicial comprenderéis la función y el sentido de un travelling. Es maravillosa la forma en la que describe el entorno y a los personajes. Su simplicidad es sólo igualable a su efectividad. Arropándolo con todo el mimo del mundo estan los estupendos acordes de Wendy Carlos. Además, en la pasada edición de Sitges Malcom McDowell recogió el premio por su labor en este film. Os puedo decir hasta cuando la vi por primera vez, porque luego le siguieron unas cuantas. Fue con dieciseís años en el extinto cine Torre de Madrid en la sala dos en la sesión de siete de la tarde. Desde entonces la tengo taladrada esta escena en mi cabeza. Mi madre no quería que la viera, ella consideraba que era ultraviolenta. Lo curioso es que con el paso del tiempo ya no lo parece tanto. Pero a pesar de todo, es impresionante.

INICIO “LA NARANJA MECÁNICA”

Evidentemente ardo en deseos de saber los vuestros Mister Crowley, Redrum, Homo Insanus, Mister Lombreeze generadores del invento, así como los de  Miss Darko, Eulez, Marchelo, 39 escalones, Ramón, Victor Guybrush, Empantallado, Gine, Álvaro, Ricardo, Mapoto, Fantomas, Dick, Miss Watflech, Varelax, Luis Cifer, Mister Frost, Alberto, que obviamente no es obligatorio contestar ni continuarlo porque sé de sobra que algunos de vosotros estáis muy liados, este post surge por la curiosidad de algunos de los lectores de este blog.

The following book reviews which will be on the BookBanter site with the next update.  I’m hoping it’ll be later tonight, if not some time tomorrow afternoon.

The World in Six Songs by Daniel J. Levitin

Stephen Colbert’s Tek Jansen

The Box: Uncanny Stories by Richard Matheson

Hell Hollow by Ronald Kelly

Flesh by Richard Layman

Alcatraz Versus the Knights of Crystallia by Brandon Sanderson

The Waking: Dreams of the Dead by Thomas Randall

How about some old school sci-fi? Last man on Earth is based on the Richard Matheson science fiction classic “I am Legend”. It was later remade as “The Omega Man” with Charlton Heston.

It’s not often that you come across a movie that has a scene which, for all intents and purposes, says “begin tripping now,” but Richard Kelly’s The Box has just a scene. So, gentle reader, be advised that when James Marsden stands in what appears to be the Induction Room at the Richmond Public Library (apparently it has such a thing), and must choose which floating column of water to step into—it’s time to have your ecstacy tabs handy. Who would have thought we’d arrive at this place in a movie based on a Richard Matheson short story. Well, anyone who’s seen a Richard Kelly movie I guess.

The Box is indeed based on the Richard Matheson short story “Button, Button” which was also adapted into one of the better episodes of the 1985 re-launched Twilight Zone. It’s a devilishly simple little thing: a man approaches a young couple and offers them a wooden box with a red button set into the top of it. The man tells them that if they press the button two things will happen. They will receive a million dollars, and someone—someone they don’t know—will die. The couple debates the decision, argues, bickers, and ultimately presses it. The next day, the strange man returns with the money. He takes the box, but as he leaves he assured the couple that the box will be given to someone else. Someone, they don’t know.

In the film, the couple is played by James Marsden and Cameron Diaz as Arthur and Norma Lewis. He’s a NASA optics technician and she’s a literature teacher at a nearby private school where their son also attends.  The movie’s  time frame is established as 1976 in a series of borderline-fetishistic era-details (pretty much every bad ‘70s sitcom, commercial, and ugly fashion trend is thrown up on screen). Arthur and Norma are decent folk—much more sympathetic than the suburban monsters in the Twilight Zone ep—but have hit some money problems.  Arthur’s “astronaut application” was turned down (really? Becoming an astronaut entails filling out an application, like working at a mall food-court Arbys?), and Norma’s school informs her they will no longer be extending tuition waivers to the children of faculty.

So when a disfigured Frank Langella (playing a character with the irresistible moniker Arlington Steward) appears on their doorstep with the box, they’re a little more inclined to let him in and hear his sales pitch. I mean, I can only assume that’s the reason, since he shows up in a black suit and is missing most of the flesh around the left side of his jawline. And he’s Frank Langella! He could seem sinister sipping a banana daiquiri and played Bejeweled on his iPhone. I wouldn’t invite the dudue into my home with an intact face, let alone one which looks like he and Harvey Dent got shaves at the same barber.

So they do it. Then the movie delves into their post-box life, as Arthur and Norma immediately regret their decision and strive to undo it. This portion of the film manages a little suspense, as they learn that the box and Steward are part of something much larger than just a million bucks. The movie introduces a lot of narrative strands that—surprise, surprise—actually do come together into something like a coherent explanation. It’s just not a very good one. And here I’m going to spoil the movie, so you may want to skip past the second picture (but if you want to read, I’m using Inviso-Text so just click and drag).

It’s aliens. They reanimated the corpse of Steward after he was hit by lightning, and have been using him to test humanity’s altruism. The NSA, NASA, and probably the CIA are all in on it, but are pawns to Steward, who operates out of the kind of underground lair Howard Hughes would have had if he were a Connery-era James Bond villain.  And he can control people and make them do his bidding, and he sends out to different destinations through the pool at a cheap motel off of I-495. So not making that up.

Kelly had a great movie that he never understood with Donnie Darko, and followed it up with the sprawling mess that was Southland Tales. The Box avoids many of Tales’s missteps—i.e. trying to do satire; letting his canvas escape him—but it has none of Darko’s charm. Where DD seems to tell a surreal, yet tragic story (the one Kelly thought he was making was actually quite a bit different), The Box wants to tell a paranoid morality tale, and Kelly just doesn’t know how to create that mood. He touches on it a few times, but never really cranks up the suspense or mystery. Even the consequences of pressing the button never quite come across as tragic. The Damocletian Sword that Matheson’s story posits as hanging over our heads seems more like the end of a Rube Goldberg device than the consequence of our own disconnectedness.

The other big problem is that Kelly once again indulges in his habit of making the mystical a real, tangible phenomena. In DD it was time travel and tangent universes, and here it is the afterlife, Heaven, and damnation. Kelly does his best to sell this twaddle, but by the time Marsden appears floating above Diaz’s bed in a giant, levitating box of water, I’d pretty much checked out of Chateau de Crazypants.  And when Marsden explains the afterlife as a place “where despair has no hold on the human heart,” I gave back the towels I stole.

Oh, and I didn’t even get into the telekinetically-controlled humans, the spate of domestic murders, the Mars Viking project, and the fact that Diaz’s Norma only has six toes. But they’re in there.

It’s tempting to say that any explanation of the mystery surrounding Langella’s Steward, his test, and the box, would be a disappointment. That sentiment, however, seems lazy and too much like a convenient alibi for a dearth of creativity. I have to think that a truly trippy explanation could have been  dreamed up by someone. Or at least an explanation that wasn’t copped from a dozen Star Trek episodes.

“Cualquier tecnología suficientemente avanzada es indistinguible de la magia”

Arthur C. Clarke.

Estamos de enhorabuena porque por fin se ha estrenado el nuevo trabajo del siempre inquietante realizador norteamericano Richard Kelly, conocido en nuestro país sobre todo por habar realizado “Donnie Darko”, considerada a estas alturas una obra de culto. En Estados Unidos también es famoso por haber realizado “Southland tales”, a la que en Videodromo ya le dedicamos un extenso monográfico. Para este fenomenal retorno ha optado por adaptar un curioso relato llamado “Botón, botón” escrito por ese genio de la ciencia ficción que es Richard Matheson, y del que creo que no precisa presentaciones, pero para los más despistados os diré que es el autor de “Soy leyenda”.

Este pequeña historia fue llevada en 1986 por Peter Medak a la pequeña pantalla en uno de los capítulos de la revisión de Spielberg de la mítica serie “Twillight zone”, traducida al castellano como “En los límites de la realidad”. El guión de Kelly nos traslada al año 1976. Norma Lewis es profesora en un instituto privado y su marido, Arthur es ingeniero de la NASA. Son la típica pareja norteamericana con éxito. Tienen un buen coche, una gran casa, y llevan una vida acomodada y normal en las afueras de la ciudad con su hijo joven.

Esto será así hasta que reciban la visita de Arlington Steward. Este les ofrece un trato muy especial y sólo tienen 24 horas para decidirse. Les entrega una caja, que en su interior hay un dispositivo. Si aprietan el botón recibirán un millón de dólares a cambio, pero la consecuencia es inmediata, una persona a la que no conocen morirá. Norma y Arthur son despedidos de sus respectivos trabajos y así llegarán a la tesitura de cuestionarse si lo hacen o no.

Estamos ante un nuevo thriller de misterio y ciencia ficción creado por uno de los directores malditos de la industria de Hollywood. El largometraje posee todas las constantes de su particular universo. En primer lugar, hace una vez más una dura crítica a la sociedad norteamericana. Para ello se sirve esta vez de esta pereja a la que les pone ante un juego, un dilema moral, que realmente esconde el dilema del prisionero, no hay escapatoria. La razón destapar esas ansias de buscar el éxito de forma rápida y sencilla, porque lo único que desean es tener una posición cómoda en la sociedad. Así Kelly emparenta esta historia con la primera referencia literaria, el relato existencialista de Jean Paul Sartre, “No exit”.

Publicado con el nombre de “Huis Clos”, que se podría traducir como “en la cámara” o “a puerta cerrada”, fue estrenado en el Vieux-Colombier mayo 1944, justo antes de la liberación de París durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Además, es la fuente de la cita más famosa del autor francés “El infierno son los otros”. Así esta pareja pasa de vivir en un mundo sin complicaciones a estar en el verdadero infierno, al que entran por culpa de la tentación de Norma, así este personaje no deja de ser una suerte de la bíblica Eva, segunda referencia implícita del relato. Entrando en un juego sin fin y que posee una caducidad, veinticuatro horas. Y que por supuesto, salir de él es una tarea ardua.

Así liga la trama con la tercera referencia “la divina comedia” o el infierno visto por Dante. Hace que uno analice por qué cada personaje ha llegado hasta allí. Otra característica es que si hurgas un poco en esa típica familia norteamericana te encuentras unas relaciones ciertamente malsanas y patológicas. Unos padres que ignoran por completo al hijo, que además es el único que posee en cierta manera parte de la clave. Así la cita de Sartre puede modificarse a “el infierno no son los demás, es la familia”. Además, rodeando al matrimonio tenemos toda una galería de frikis, tan característicos de las películas de David Lynch, y que además poseen todos un físico un tanto atípico, como por ejemplo la bibliotecaria, el vecino, etc.

Eso por no hablar de la verdadera marca de la casa: la tecnología, el agua y las puertas dimensionales. A todo ello hay que sumar que el director consigue crear unas atmósferas malsanas con colores cálidos y una estética de los años setenta, y por supuesto muy inquietantes como la increíble escena de la biblioteca o la de la piscina del motel, que me recordó mucho a “Vinieron de dentro de…” del realizador canadiense David Cronenberg o a “la invasión de los ultracuerpos” de Philip Kauffman.

A pesar de todo creo que estamos ante la película más digestiva y digerida de Kelly, más cercana en forma y espíritu a “Terciopelo azul” de Lynch. Por primera vez me siento identificado con Enrique Dueñas cuando decía aquello de me siento tan sólo, en este caso un servidor apoyando a este formidable director. Como se ha estrenado a la vez a ambos lados del Atlántico, me ha dado tiempo a leer algunas críticas y disiento totalmente. Los motivos son principalmente porque la labor desempeñada por el montador habitual de Kelly, Sam Bauer en este caso es muy lineal, no presenta ninguna innovación, ni provoca ninguna confusión en el relato que avanza con suavidad.

Lo que es realmente “The Box” queda claramente explicado, es un experimento llevado a cabo por terceros, que no quiero desvelar quienes son. El señor Arlintong trabaja para ellos desde su infortunado accidente y es su representante. Cada vez tengo más claro que para entender a este realizador hay que haber vivido en su tierra, y conocer verdaderamente su sociedad y sus costumbres, así como su dinámica. Así la feroz crítica surge como un estilete y es en ese preciso instante cuando uno lo degusta por completo, y comprende a dónde quiere ir a parar. Porque fui a la sesión de madrugada, que si no me hubiera metido de nuevo a verla.

Para concluir, quiero destacar la gran labor de todo el reparto, y aquí especial mención a una maravillosa Cameron Diaz, que da vida a Norma, sobre todo porque consigue crear química con James Marsden, que interpreta a su marido Arthur. Crea momentos muy conmovedores y auténticos. Evidentemente no podemos finalizar sin hacer mención de uno de los mejores personajes, el inquietante señor Steward, magníficamente interpretado por Frank Langella, que dirige este relato de suspense muy clásico, de aromas hitchcocknianos, en fondo y forma, de estructura circular, y cuya grandeza reside una vez más en las múltiples capas y lecturas que esconde.

Frank Langella really needs to buy himself a better razor.

(Warner Brothers) Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella, James Rebhorn, Holmes Osborne, Sam Oz Stone, Gillian Jacobs, Celia Weston, Deborah Rush, Lisa K. Wyatt, Mark Cartier, Keith Robertson, Michelle Durrett. Directed by Richard Kelly

Our lives are often a test, one in which we are called to make choices between short-term self-interest and the long-term benefit of the entire species. It is a test we continue to take over and over again, not always successfully.

It is 1976, and the Mariner project is sending data back to NASA at their Langley research facility in Virginia (and if you’re not sure what state you’re in, the filmmakers helpfully tell you in big bold letters at the beginning of the film). Arthur Lewis (Marsden) is a scientist who worked on that project (he helped design the camera that sent back those shots from the surface of the Red Planet) who dreams of being an astronaut, dreams which are dashed when he receives a rejection letter from the powers-that-be.

His wife Norma (Diaz) is a teacher at a ritzy private school where their son Walter (Stone) also attends. Norma walks with a limp and has to take pain pills because of a doctor’s who left her foot under an x-ray machine until it charbroiled. She’s just been told that the school is eliminating employee discounts for student tuition, which means that the already-financially strapped family (since when does a rocket scientist not make enough to make ends meet?) will have to live even more within their means.

Enter the Mysterious Man, in this case Arlington Steward (Langella). With a severely disfigured face that looks like one of his zits might have had C4 in it as a teen, Steward bears a mysterious wooden box that contains nothing except a glass dome that can only be opened with a key, and a large red button. He gives Norma the key and explains, in clipped cultured tones, that pushing the button will accomplish two things. First, someone unknown to Norma and Arthur, somewhere in the world, will die as a result of them pushing the button. Second, they will be paid one million dollars, tax free, in large crisp hundred dollar bills. In order to demonstrate his sincerity, he gives Norma one of them “for her trouble.” The two of them have 24 hours to decide whether or not to push the button – otherwise the offer is withdrawn and the box will be given to someone else.

The couple goes back and forth. Their conscience dictates that it is never all right to kill, even for a large sum of money but their immediate needs say that a million dollars can make their lives a hell of a lot less complicated. As the minutes tick down to the deadline, one of them will make an impulsive decision that will change their lives forever, put them all in mortal danger and introduce Arthur to a mysterious conspiracy between the NSA, NASA and other governmental organizations that may affect the future of the human race.

This is based on a short story by the great Richard Matheson (and was later developed into an episode for the 1986 version of “The Twilight Zone,” albeit with a different ending) who has given us stories that have become movies like I Am Legend, What Dreams May Come, Somewhere In Time and numerous episodes of “The Twilight Zone” and “Night Gallery,” to name a few. He is one of the most imaginative writers of the 20^th century. Here what he has is a morality play that is as relevant now as it was the day it was written – the battle of short-term gain and long-term care. In other words, doing the right thing vs. doing the easy thing.

Director Kelly has an affinity for science fiction and, well, creepy stuff. He creates an atmosphere in which anyone at any time can be “an employee” as Steward terms it, his eyes and ears on the subjects of what he labels “a test.” I know I’m being a bit vague, but I don’t want to ruin any of the twists that give the movie some of its spice. One of the things I can talk about is that he nicely re-creates the era.

Langella is fabulous as the mysterious Arlington Steward. He is creepy and not quite normal but at the same time urbane, polite and charming. He tips his fedora at a jaunty angle and walks with the deliberate pace of a man who knows exactly where he needs to be and is quite sure he isn’t in a hurry to get there. Marsden also does a fine job in the lead role of the disappointed rocket scientist who goes from financial problems to fighting for his survival.

I’m not usually a big fan of Cameron Diaz – for some reason she seems a little neurotic to me usually – but she does a solid job here. There are some nice supporting roles here too, particularly the veteran character actor Rebhorn as Arthur’s boss.

One of the biggest problems with the movie is the score. Members of the Montreal-based rock band Arcade Fire are responsible for it and I was frankly quite disappointed. It’s intrusive, overbearing, somewhat cliché in places (I don’t know about you but I am quite tired of having an Important Event or a Big Scare announced with screeching strings) and comes damn close to ruining the movie. I would have preferred something toned down a bit; a bit more minimalist.

Kelly, who wrote the movie, chose to flesh out the script with a good deal of business involving the government agencies mentioned above as well as a series of nosebleeds, slack-jawed observers, a wind tunnel and mysterious gates that may very well lead to Eternal Damnation. These sideshows, while visually effective, tend to take the focus from what was the main crux of the original short story, to the detriment of the film. That’s a shame because it might have gotten a higher rating otherwise.

There are elements of science fiction, horror, political thriller and historical drama here, so you can’t say that you didn’t get your money’s worth. What you can say about The Box is that it’s got the best use of Sartre I’ve ever seen in a horror/science fiction/thriller/drama before. Hell is other people according to Sartre but in Richard Kelly’s vision, we are all caught in our own boxes that we are stuck in until we’re planted in a pine box, and what we make of it can be Hell – or it can be something else. It’s a test that the human race continues to take – and fail.

REASONS TO GO: You can’t go wrong with Richard Matheson. A modern morality play that is an essay on human nature that is even more true and contemporary now than it was when the original short story was written. Langella gives a marvelously creepy performance.

REASONS TO STAY: An overbearing score is intrusive and nearly ruins the film. Some of the action is a little bit over-the-top. It feels like the script was fleshed out with some unnecessary business.

FAMILY VALUES: Some horrific images and a few good startle scares are sure to give the little ones nightmares. Okay for teens though.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Director Kelly is best known for directing the cult classic Donny Darko.

HOME OR THEATER: There are a few grand effects shots and a couple of other sequences that would look better on the big screen but otherwise just as effective at home.

FINAL RATING: 7/10

TOMORROW: He’s Just Not That Into You

La possibilité d’un choix est-elle la garantie de  la liberté ou ne sert-elle qu’à dissimuler son absence  ?  Ce n’est pas une moindre qualité, pour un film de genre, de brouiller les sources de l’angoisse qu’il distille. D’en effacer les traces quitte à détourner l’attention, susciter des indices qui ne mènent nulle part, se jouer de la logique. En admettant que le procédé ne soit pas involontaire, cette manœuvre est d’une efficacité redoutable en terme de manipulation : elle consiste à créer l’illusion de la multiplicité là où il n’y a pas d’alternative. Plus précisément, il s’agit de faire croire à la possibilité d’un choix alors même que l’unique voie est déjà tracée. En l’occurrence, en tant que démonstration morale, The Box est un film tout à fait déterministe.

Le point de départ est un dispositif assez simple : une boîte. Face à cet objet banal : un couple américain standard, classe moyenne, un enfant. La boîte en question, apprennent-ils, peut leur valoir un million de dollars. Il suffit d’appuyer sur le bouton (en quoi elle consiste), lequel signifie  la mort d’une tierce personne (inconnue, éloignée). Aussi simple. Ils ont 24 heures pour se décider, ensuite l’appareil est réinitialisé  et présenté à quelqu’un d’autre. La boîte ne s’impose pas sans la découverte de quelques contrariétés dans la vie du couple: Norma, suite à un accident médical, a perdu les orteils d’un de ses pieds; elle boîte. Son mari, Arthur, ingénieur à la NASA, est déclaré psychologiquement inapte à devenir cosmonaute. Bien sûr, l’argent fait défaut, malgré le confort manifeste  (la maison “idéale”, la télévision dans chaque pièce, la voiture coûteuse).  Dilemme : appuyer ou ne pas appuyer sur le bouton ? Accepter l’argent et, indirectement, assumer la responsabilité d’un décès, ou rendre la boîte à son propriétaire (Janus à double visage), ne pas y toucher, renoncer à un million de dollars  ? Tel est le choix que pose/impose le film.

Sur cette base stratégique, inspirée par une nouvelle de Matheson, Richard Kelly se dédouble, lui aussi. Dans les grandes lignes, il développe une intrigue à mi-chemin entre La quatrième dimension et X-files, avec tout ce qu’il faut de rationnel et d’ésotérique, de science-fiction et de théorie du complot,  de fantasme apocalyptique et de mauvaise conscience humaniste, de métaphore politique et de symbolisme new age. Ce serait assez divertissant sans cet étau moral(isateur) décidément  trop lourd. L’imaginaire fantastique se nourrit d’ombres et de brumes, d’ellipses et d’ambiguïtés – registre sensible que la mécanique sophistiquée de Richard Kelly congestionne par excès de bonne volonté. Les événements s’enchaînent de façon démonstrative et, comme si cela ne suffisait pas, le texte surenchérit dans la redondance, avec en fil rouge la figure tutélaire de Sartre (façon Huis-Clos pour les Nuls).

Par chance, Richard Kelly se fausse compagnie. En marge de son discours christiano-sartrien,  il reste encore le réalisateur trouble de Donnie Darko. Cela se traduit par des détails qui, pour la plupart, ne servent à rien, ne mènent nulle part. Bref, des détails complètement excentriques. L’étrangeté du quotidien (dont Lynch est le plus grand maître) se manifeste dans l’imperceptible :  l’angle d’un escalier, un alignement de verres à vin, l’opacité des fenêtres, la façade d’une maison, la neige, le père Noël, etc. Le traitement du corps contribue également à cette dégénérescence interne du scénario. Le pied mutilé de Norma et le visage brûlé de celui qui offre la boîte (dont la chair détruite révèle l’ossature et la mâchoire), laissent entrevoir, dans la façon dont la monstruosité s’expose et fascine, une jouissance presque sexuelle, qui contraste, par exemple, avec l’apparente chasteté du couple marié… Aussi, le fait que l’action se déroule dans les années 70 débride l’image, sert de prétexte à une surcharge hallucinante au niveau des décors. Papiers peints aux motifs géométriques étouffants, dominance de couleurs terreuses, rétro-futurisme en carton-pâte : c’est le côté jubilatoire de ce film, avec sa musique omniprésente, bavarde et obsolète, sa facture parfois maladroite et  ses petites obsessions inavouables. A cet endroit-là, le film échappe à l’auto-censure, refoule vers des zones totalement dysfonctionnelles, malpropres, interdites… Lorsque Cameron Diaz marche vers la caméra avec un regard de velours, boucles dorées, petite robe noire,  halo de lumière – radieuse parce qu’elle vient de revêtir la prothèse d’orteils que lui a fabriqué son gentil mari, c’est à la fois hilarant, ironique et cruel, et décidément ce mélange de malveillance perverse et de candeur nous intéresse incomparablement plus que les grands discours sur l’état moral du monde.

Richard Kelly, “The Box”, avec Cameron Diaz, Karl Marsden (USA 2009, durée 1h55)

A voir, “Donnie Darko” (2001), de Richard Kelly, avec Jake Gyllenhaal

They both kill things, that’s the answer you’re looking for. In the new movies, THE BOX and THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS, both methods, may not be explicitly used in the death of another person (or animal), but they are tools.

THE BOX is writer/director Richard Kelly’s third foray in to feature filmmaking. DONNIE DARKO, his initial movie about a young boy who might be the only one who can save the world was a huge cult-sensation (though not a financial success, initially). It showed us a new mind that broke out from the normal constraints of sci-fi movies. His second, SOUTHLAND TALES, was so complex, or just down-right incomprehensible (maybe less so, if you read the comic book prequels), that the only thing it had going for it was a musical number with Justin Timberlake, and The Rock dressing up as Donnie Darko. It’s otherwise strange casting of ex-SNL alumni (Jon Lovitz and Cheri Oteri?!), the strange characters with white hair (especially Wallace Shawn), and already mentioned obtuse plot, really made this movie fairly unpopular, even with Kelly’s more loyal fans (I think. I can only really speak to the view of myself and a number of my friends, who liked DD, but not ST.)

But, THE BOX looked intriguing nonetheless. I’m not one to write someone off just because of a misstep or two, and the casting, the premise and the fact that the movie is adapted from a short story by Richard Matheson (I Am Legend, and various The Twilight Zone episodes), had me pretty interested. The movie’s story is about a family, the wife a school teacher – who seemingly took the job at this semi-prestigious private school, for the faculty discount; the husband a rocket scientist (or camera developer, not really sure) who has ambitions of going to space, who works at NASA. And their young son. One day they’re delivered a number of blows: the faculty discount has been discontinued starting the following semester, the husband is denied his chance at being an astronaut, and finally a strange man appears at their door with a package. Inside the package is a box, with a bubble-top and button underneath it. The deal is, you push the button and someone, somewhere in the world, dies; but the family is then rewarded with one million dollars.

The movie builds up like the tension might be mounted in this family’s discussion on whether to push the button or not. But, in really one of the most violent, and jump-inducing, moments in the movie, the button is pushed. What happens from there, is conspiracy, intrigue and lots of creepy people staring at the main characters. The story covers a lot of ground. We get to see inside what this “experiment” with the box is setup to do, some clues as to who is behind it, and most importantly the reason why the box is continually being passed around.

The casting for the movie is all pretty solid for the leads. James Marsden as Arthur Lewis is pretty good in his role as the wannabe astronaut. We’re shown that he’s a good man, who doesn’t tend to take things lying down and loves his Corvette. Cameron Diaz, who plays Marsden’s wife, Norma, shows that she actually can act – though her southern accent, at times was a little grating. But, she has a very interesting character trait, as Norma, that helps to make her empathetic to the stand-out character in the movie. And that is Arlington Steward, played wonderfully, by Frank Langella. In the movie he’s dressed very dapper, even with a little bowler hat, but a good portion of his face is missing, due to a run-in with a freak lightning strike. Steward is the man with the box. He gives us, and the Lewis’ the rules and warnings about the box; he explains as well as he can, the experiment with the box; and even though he could essentially be seen as “the villain” of the piece, is never threatening, menacing or anything other than genial and seemingly benevolent. (which of course, can be all of those villainous things in their own right.)

The climax of the movie comes with the over-lapping of the three stages of the experiment surrounding the box. One, from the previous possessor; two of the Lewis’ who are at the critical stage; and three, another family who have just been given the same choice and what they choose to do. The movie, in its entirety is much deeper than I thought it would be, and I have to say might take the place of DONNIE DARKO as my favorite Richard Kelly movie. Maybe that’s to do with the guiding hand of Matheson’s initial story, or maybe it just shows a maturity in Kelly. Either way, this is a great movie that will have you thinking about it, and discussing – if not arguing, as was (practically) the case – with your friends.

THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS, is directed by Grant Heslov (co-screenwriter of GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK), with a screenplay by Peter Straughan (HOW TO LOSE FRIENDS & ALIENATE PEOPLE) based on a book by Jon Ronson. The story follows Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor), a news reporter working in Ann Arbor, Michigan, who decides that he needs to go to Iraq and come up with a real story. His wife has left him, his coworkers are dying and he’s done nothing with his life. During an interview with a man who claims to have killed his hamster with his mind (the man, played wonderfully by Stephen Root), gives Bob his first bite of what might very well be his destiny.

In Kuwait City, waiting to be granted access to Iraq – and being shunned by his peers who have already been to the war-front – he meets the very man that Root’s character had mentioned. When this connection is mentioned, Lyn Cassady (George Clooney) gets up and walks away. Bob follows him and is almost shooed away, when Lyn sees something that Bob had been drawing. This his in, into Iraq and the secrets of how to become a Jedi Warrior.

I’ve described this movie as possibly the best STAR WARS movie made – and definitely better than the prequels we did get; in case you didn’t know, also starring Ewan McGregor. The story follows the basic premise of a rambunctious young man (or slightly older, naive reporter) who knows he’s meant to do something special with his life. In the ensuing adventures Lyn and Bob have together, they’re taken hostage by some Iraqi kidnappers (careful not to call them terrorists, or Al Queda. Not all Iraqis are one or either of those things.), run over a man and hit the only exposed rock in the desert, and of course find salvation (literally) in the middle of the desert. Along the way Lyn tells the story of the New Earth Army, founded by a Vietnam veteran who dreamed up a new way to approach military conflict; through mental and psychic powers.

Via these flashbacks, we are introduced to Bill Django, played magnificently by Jeff Bridges who manages to venture back into his Dude days from THE BIG LEBOWSKI, but not repeat himself. He is given permission by the government to explore alternate means to fight our battles, this gives us a montage of seeing Django getting high, getting hand jobs and even falling from great heights (which he does numerous times throughout the movie). When he returns, he’s sporting a long pony-tail, hands out flowers to his recruits and teaches them how to dance. Clooney’s character eventually appears, mop-topped and soon shows his aptitude for mental prognostication. We see him seemingly psychically work out the location of a kidnapped diplomat, guess the contents of a random box and even, yes, kill a goat with his mind. Soon, another big-wig is brought in, in the form of Kevin Spacey’s character, Larry Hooper. Hooper is supposedly a great psychic (and spoon-bender) and gets extremely frustrated when he’s outpaced by Lyn. This leads to him using multiple nefarious means to get even. Eventually, it’s Bob’s turn to become a Jedi master (all without Clooney being cut in half by Darth Maul!), turn the tables on a contracted, personal military outfit, and finally reach his destiny.

The casting, acting and the humor/satire of this movie are all fantastic. The story seems to drag a little in certain moments, but then it pops right back with something fairly screwed up (like the convoy of mercenaries, led by Robert Patrick, that Bob and Lyn get stuck with). And the laughs are enough to keep you interested. Clooney is great as this burned out, fully believable character of a man that believes he has psychic powers. And there’s enough stuff that goes his way to maybe lend credence to that. McGregor, who’s putting on that generic American accent, is maybe a little too naive in parts of the movie, and is really at his best only in the few times that he really starts questioning whether the situation he’s in is just too crazy. Spacey, in his few minutes on-screen manages to chew up the scenery (not unbelievable), and also be down-right hilarious (especially during the climax of the movie).

Overall, it’s a great comment on the situation in Iraq, but it doesn’t take itself too seriously and isn’t beating anyone over the head with any outright political agenda. I think that what agenda there is there, comes really just from knowing who these people are in real life. It’s definitely worth seeing. I don’t think that it’s as conversation stimulating as THE BOX was, but it’s a fun entertainment, nonetheless.

(And you’ll agree, I’m sure about this being the best STAR WARS movie!!)

When I was a kid, I found a button on a wall in my grandparents’ house. Guess what happened next? I pushed the button. The house alarm blared and within minutes police officers were at the door. The moral of the story? Not all buttons are meant to be pushed and that fact couldn’t be more obvious when it comes to The Box. Do yourself a favor, think twice about giving into foolish curiosity and leave The Box’s button untouched.

Click here to read more.

if i presented you with the proposition to press a button that would kill someone, somewhere in the world that you did not know for one million dollars, what would you do?

i’d press the button and be on my way.

it is that question of morality that the film the box plays on.  and i have to say through about three quarters of the film it is a well acted, well produced and well directed   unfortunatly it had a fourth quarter to go.

let me discuss the things about this movie i liked.  it is set in the late 70’s and looks, sounds and feels like a film out of that era.  the wall paper is terrible, the wide men’s ties are atrocious and the soundtrack is killer.  any time you can fit “bell bottom blues” by eric clapton into a film, i’m a happy camper.  the original score is excellent as well.  it could very easily have been lifted from a 1976 film noir.

i was on imdb.com today and everyone seems to have a good time bashing cameron diaz’ accent.  which may not be the best virginia accent in the world but it beats the hell out of tom cruise’s german in valkyrie.  i’m not a big cameron diaz fan, but i thought she did a pretty good job considering the script she had to work with.  james marsden is pretty spot on too.  and i can never get enough frank langella.  that old dude just rocks.

the film is based on a short story by richard matheson called “button, button.”  matheson also wrote the story the film i am legend was based on.  and that movie pretty much rocked up until the final quarter too.  i need to read some of his work to see who i need to blame for the ending of his movies sucking.  but on this one i’m gonna go ahead and blame richard kelly.

richard kelly was the dude that directed donnie darko, so he’s a little out there anyway.  but come on dude.  just because you think you are so smart don’t mean you are.  just leave him as the mysterious man with the box.  that would have been much more better than that thin attempt to explain what’s going on.  sometimes we don’t need to know.  our imagination fills in the holes in your otherwise weak screenplay.

but whatever, that’s why i work at a movie theater and review movies on my blog.  because i’m so smart….

i don’t think this is going to be the movie to see this weekend.  i’ve not had the chance to screen the men who stare at goats or the fourth kind or disney’s a christmas carol.  thought i’m pretty sure how that last one goes.  it should still be fun to watch jim carrey’s animated old scrooge in 3D.

i did find it interesting that the button was only pushed by women…

one and a half cameron diazes out of five.