“The Box”

Standard

Richard Kelly is a master at making nice-looking incoherent stuff.  Who can forget that brief period early in the 00s when we thought he was complex? Donnie Darko was “evocative,” “dream-like,” and other adjectives for stuff that makes no sense.  But unlike David Lynch’s style of nonsense, which seems like it would make sense if I just thought about it really hard, Richard Kelly’s gobbledygook just makes me tired.


Which brings us to “The Box,” which is a great name for an arty porn film.  Unfortunately, this is a PG-13 movie, and the only nudity involves Frank Langella’s face-bones.  Lord Langenheimer shows up on the doorstep of a serviceable James Marsden and a terrible Cameron Diaz, who suffers from that common actress affliction known as Inconsistent Southern Accent Syndrome, a disease that even the weakest actresses have overcome.  Half of Langella’s face is burned off, but Diaz’s character has a messed-up foot to go with her ISAS, so it’s all good.  Langella says that if Diaz pushes the button on the box, she’ll get some cash and somebody she doesn’t know will die.  Diaz is riddled with doubt, which she conveys in the accent of an Appalchian hobo: “WHUT DO AH DAY-OOOO??”

So, anyway, the button’s pushed, then (SPOILER TIME) the movie takes a screwball turn into aliens and Mars and what-nots.(NO MORE SPOILERS)  After a while, the story made my eyes cross, and it was all rather incoherent and odd.  Still, MAN, did this movie look good.  I loved the cinematography.  It appears to be shot with that RED digital camera, and it achieves a very cool period look. It looks great and makes no sense.  It’s a Richard Kelly film.

You should see “The Box” (snicker).  Maybe you could make a lasagna while it plays, or re-arrange some shelves in your bedroom while looking through a glass door at the film, thereby obscuring the dialogue. Maybe the Blu-Ray has a dialogue-free track, which would be ideal. The movie’s ludicrous, but you should watch it when it comes on FX in the afternoon in 2012.
Advertisements

My Crackpot Theory Regarding “The Invention Of Lying”

Standard

At the end of my ramblings about The Invention of Lying, I said this:

If I were to guess as a guy with no clue whatsoever, I’d say that the religion stuff turned off the test audiences, so they re-shot and added a bunch of crap to obscure that subplot and re-shaped the movie as a shitty romantic comedy. It’s not good, but it’s interesting to see a film that attempts to discuss big ideas get its balls cut off.

Later on, a friend of mine said that he heard Ricky Gervais talk about that very thing on a podcast, and that’s pretty much exactly what happened:  The religion stuff made goobers poop their pants, so they reshot the film to death.

Now look at this article that came out last week. Supposedly, the issue is budget, but the film is also clearly a Scientology bash-a-thon. I’m wondering if Universal is balking at that aspect as well, especially after the failure of The Invention of Lying, which was made by Focus Features, a division of . . . yep, Chrysler.  No wait shit Universal sorry.

Does the TIL debacle signal the end of religious satire in mainstream films? Has one more avenue of creative expression been closed?  For the sake of my theory based on the unimpeachable source of My Friend Who Told Me A Thing That He Heard, let’s go with yes, absolutely.

(By the way, how awesome would a P.T. Anderson Scientology slam be?  I’d totally watch that, even if it means enduring Philip Seymour “Stop mumbling, you fucking slob” Hoffman.)