Movie Review: "The Box"

The Box

directed by: Richard Kelly

starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella

Rated: Rated PG-13 for thematic elements, some violence and disturbing images.

The writer and director of Donnie Darko, Richard Kelly, is a gifted filmmaker who brings original concepts, characters, and alternate realities to life while relying on a more classical, Hitchcock-like styles of storytelling. When watching his latest film, The Box, his talent really shines through: an incredible concept, filled with possibilities and moral dilemmas, supernatural imagery, and subtlety that keeps you on the edge of your seat. Unfortunately, his subtlety is also his greatest weakness, which is also apparent in The Box. With more relaxed editing and more definition to what is happening on screen, The Box would be one of the best sleeper-hits of the year. Instead, we’re left with a vague impressions and ideas of what may (or may not) have actually happened in the story. It’s as if the Kelly fits pieces of the puzzle together, but it still doesn’t resemble a picture. The last act is so crammed with sudden-supernatural imagery and plot that one starts to question what is truly happening rather than feeling the punches our heroes are taking. Kelly made many right choices (James Marsden is the real deal) and his subtly on some of the “answers” is a good thing. However, I ended up having to access a spoiler-filled interview with him to explain what happened and why. The Box is a brilliant premise that feels wasted, simply because we can’t follow Kelly’s train of thought. It’s a good thing that Kelly thinks outside the box, but he can’t forget that those whom he is telling his stories too simply don’t understand him.

Archive Analysis: "Twilight"

Don't worry; it isn't one of my favorite films...

Twilight

directed by: Catherine Hardwicke

starring: Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart

Rated: PG-13 for some violence and a scene of sensuality

I feel a certain amount of apathy toward reviewing Twilight, simply because minds are already made up about the movie (and books.) While girls in high school (or high schoolers at heart) swoon over the romantic gazes of Edward and Bella, pre-teen boys over the vampire fight scenes, and the haters gawk at the poor acting and script (“you are my brand of heroin”), I looked at the movie with a certain amount of grace. Sure, it’s corny, with little production value, and with no conflict until the last third of the movie, but it’s no different than High School Musical, or other teen-geared films; they're all painful to watch, for me. Twilight is a re-packaged Romeo and Juliet story, minus good writing and replacing it with vampire fangs. We are suckers for forbidden romances, and every decade has had it’s take: the 1990s’ had Titanic, the 1980s’ had Dirty Dancing, and the 1970s’ had Love Story. I'm not a child of the 2000s, but it's no-surprise to me why the film is popular: original premise, plenty of action, and enough teen-romance to make prom. And, while I’m certainly not lining up to see the sequel New Moon, I certainly can knock the essence of what it’s trying to be. Unfortunately, it comes across too juvenile.

Movie Review: Where the Wild Things Are

A Little Too Wild

Spike Jonze’s Wild Things adaptation is a little too faithful


Where the Wild Things Are
directed by: Spike Jonze
starring: Max Records, Catherine Keener
rated: PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language.

In the children’s section of my hometown library, there hangs a huge painting from Maurice Sendak’s book Where the Wild Things Are. It captures a mystical forest where a giant, bull-like creature lies fast asleep. I remember being enchanted as a kid, staring at the picture and imagining all sorts of stories and adventures to coincide with the painting. I guess I was much like the book’s protagonist, Max, a child with a vivid imagination and a taste for mischief. Thankfully, Max is a lot more understandable and likable in Spike Jonze’s movie adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are. Like the book, the film follows Max, a child in need of some discipline, who leaves the troubles of the real world to discover a realm of his imagination, inhabited by creatures who behave and react more so in a manner he can understand.

Spike Jonze (Adaptation, Being John Malkovich) remains very faithful to the book, making sure to capture the beauty and subtlety of Sendak’s classic. Because of this, most of the movie will go over kids (and some adults) heads, but I, for one, was fine with that. The cinematography and scope were simply breathtaking, accenting shots with golden lens flares, almost like exclamation points to scenes.

Jonze also fleshed out the character of Max (a terrific performance by Max Records), giving a certain understanding to his sinful behavior. Max acts out of a fear of losing the love of those around him, especially his mother (the terrific Catherine Keener), and the lack of this security drives him to be a disobedient child. We don’t excuse his actions, but he’s certainly a more likable character than his literary counterpart.


Jonze’s faithfulness does have it's drawbacks; like the book, the story has little external plot. While in most movies, the plot forces character flaws to surface, Wild Things makes the character flaws, themselves, the plot of the movie, making it difficult to feel much for Max's imaginary creatures. After all, their actions cause the harm in the story, and not any outside antagonist, leaving the plot to feel prolonged. It’s a series of temper-tantrums instead of a consistently building plot, which becomes very frustrating. Sure, the creatures are images of Max’s own issues and insecurities, but after an hour and a half, even he grows tired of them. It took me half of that time.

Although unfair, I couldn’t help but compare it to the Steve Zaillian film Searching for Bobby Fischer. Both films are children’s movies for adults, are visually stunning (thank you, Conrad Hall), and have themes of the insecurity of losing one’s love. However, Bobby Fischer’s plot gives the characters room to grow, fail, and find redemption. Wild Things forces this growth to become the plot. That concept can work with short films, but becomes tiresome for a feature. Unlike most adapted picture books, Wild Things hits the emotions of the book with plenty of style and beauty. Unfortunately, it also takes an hour or so longer to tell.

Archive Analysis: "Once"

Movie #26, (500) Days of Summer, was already reviewed on this site. So, we’ll skip ahead to #25…

Once

directed by: John Karney

starring: Glen Hansard, Marketa Irglova

Rated: R for Language

Musicals are often mocked for their campiness and unrealistic nature. (How many people break into song while walking down the street?) These factors don’t apply to Once; it’s the antithesis of the musical. It handles the music in more realistic settings, captures downtown Dublin in documentary style cinematography, and has a story that is compelling yet still realistic. The chorale musical numbers and crazy dance sequences are replaced with heart: pure, simple, all-out emotion. Although the indie-folk soundtrack is incredible, I think it’s the emotion of the music that audiences seem to connect with; it’s a movie that expresses what people feel without it being over dramatic or too original. It’s as if the characters (both of who are unnamed) are more representatives then actual characters, themselves. And that connection gives Once a strength that is missing from most movies, which are more interested in an original story than making that connection. It’s truly a unique and powerful movie, one that’s worth viewing more than once.