The title made you look, didn't it? Well, that was the idea (or maybe it wasn't - I'm not sure), because that's precisely what tickled my fancy when I first heard of it (2009). I had been wary of the film ever since I took a look at some of the reviews on IMDb; moreover, a few of my friends who had seen the film, had made me even more wary by assuring me that the movie is - for better or for worse - well worth its more than mediocre 5.8 mark as indicated by popular vote. And then I watched the film.

Is it just me or are people nowadays too daft to get moral conundrums guised as sci-fi ? Or am I strangely one of the few people alive who is old enough to actually remember when adding emotional ambiguity and that sensation of the chill you get when you feel like someone's just walked over your grave gives you when you finish watching a film and find yourself going "yes, yes, that's fine... buuuuuuut". And then you come up with a ton of questions which, more often than not, boil down to analyzing yourself rather than focusing on the (often necessitated) shortcomings of the story itself? Am I one of the few remaining of the solid old school sci-fi clan who likes stories like Ray Bradbury's The Veldt or Jack McDevitt's Henry James, This One's For You or, heck, even Kafka's Metamorphosis?

Has subtlety become scary or have people such as myself lost our edge and become too simple for today's expectations? I mean - it can't be that bad, can it? After all it's not that big of a step from being 29 to liking Justin Bieber. Why is it, apparently, not the same in reverse? On second thought. Bieber gave me herpes simply by looking at a picture of him once.

Going back to the film itself, The Box deliveres in so many respects, despite falling short in sheer filmmaking craft, that I can't even tell where to start addressing such a measly grade. I think a good starting point would be to dissect the potential target audience and run the traditional "IMDb's rating system is grossly biased" protocol over it, quoting apparent cinematic feats such as the The Lord Of The Rings (2001) films or even The Shawshank Redemption (1994) as the norm (even though I'm quite literally having serious trouble placing the latter two even remotely in the same ballpark while considering Shawshank a grossly overrated movie - which is to say that I don't even know where to start placing the LOTR films; far side of the Moon, maybe?). Fair enough, The Box is no Contact (1997). But it does remind me of a budget-enabled Primer (2004), Cube (1997) or even this thing (I'm not implying The Box is 100 minutes too long - it's not; it's no more than 15-20 minutes too long and actually makes good use of its slow Stepford Wives'y (1975) pacing).

I've had a whopping hour or two to let the juices settle after finishing watching the film, but I can tell right now at first glace I picked up at least three major moral levels, each of which had a pretty nicely honed proper conclusion (succumbing to necessity/temptation; the implication that if more than half of the people in the world open the box, humanity will have failed the test (I especially loved this one); and a rather catchy catch-22). That's three more (sometimes four more) than most films have when watched with more pot in your system than Heidegger ever had. There was some weaker and less important stuff as well, as well as some completely unnecessary stuff. But it was never outright boring (the slow pace did tend to drag in the middle, though - especially during the party scenes). It was also incomparably better than than the recent betwetter Skyline (2010) and, I would argue, had more moral complexity and depth than the very much underrated Monsters (2010). Nevertheless, the 5.8 rating leaves me to either question the sanity of most everyone around me or that of myself (and as much as I would enjoy to question everyone else's sanity, I will refrain from doing that (for now)).

Did you see the film? Did you like it? Why didn't you?

Is it just me or are people nowadays too daft to get moral conundrums guised as sci-fi ? Or am I strangely one of the few people alive who is old enough to actually remember when adding emotional ambiguity and that sensation of the chill you get when you feel like someone's just walked over your grave gives you when you finish watching a film and find yourself going "yes, yes, that's fine... buuuuuuut". And then you come up with a ton of questions which, more often than not, boil down to analyzing yourself rather than focusing on the (often necessitated) shortcomings of the story itself? Am I one of the few remaining of the solid old school sci-fi clan who likes stories like Ray Bradbury's The Veldt or Jack McDevitt's Henry James, This One's For You or, heck, even Kafka's Metamorphosis?

I liked it exactly because it's real sci-fi, in the classic sense of the word (not the modern "sci fi is teh space ship showhs!!" sense of the word).

I didn't even know it was sci-fi when I sat down to watch it - the review I saw made it out to be a boring emotional drama with a thin moral question. I was quite surprised and refreshed to find myself viewing the old-school sci-fi genre of using implausible technology in order to ask philosophical questions. As a classic sci-fi reader, I thought it was brilliant - 4/5 stars.

[edit]Dug up one of the reviews I saw when it came out - interesting to see it's polarising effect works on critics as well as the public:

D: I think he's tried to channel that very intriguing story of this moral decision at its core, into his own particularly idiosyncratic vision of - I do not know what really...
M: But, excuse me, in this it is sort of explained stupidly.
D: No. No. No. Not stupidly. No, not stupidly.
M: Yes. No, the gods of lightning take over the world.
D: It's not...
M: Please.
D: Obviously you did not get onto the wavelength. But, look, I think a lot of people would be really intrigued by this film.
M: ... but the whole does not work. It just...
D: Well, it worked for me. I found it very impressive.
M: And, ultimately, I thought it was a cruel film. So I am giving it two stars.
D: I am giving it four.[/quote]

The premise is okay and the human representative of the aliens was a nice homage (intentional or not) to the Gman (though the Gman is a more effective and compelling character). Beyond that the movie seemed to fail in every respect.

Example:


The ethical test designed by the aliens is extremely simplistic, shallow, and biased beyond reason against humanity. Witness the timing of the offer: the family was in dire financial need and the father had just been denied his dream job as an astronaut. Beyond that, it's pretty obvious that when they push the button they aren't totally convinced the offer is legitimate. When they realize the offer is legitimate, they immediately try to undo the action. But the aliens completely ignore this. Their "moral test" fails in essentially every way it could fail.

It makes no sense for Cameron Diaz's character to die simultaneously with the pushing of the button by the next family because the next family could have chosen not to press the button. The film thereby suggests they didn't have free will, which contradicts the entire idea of the movie.

[edit]Dug up one of the reviews I saw when it came out - interesting to see it's polarising effect works on critics as well as the public:

D: I think he's tried to channel that very intriguing story of this moral decision at its core, into his own particularly idiosyncratic vision of - I do not know what really...
M: But, excuse me, in this it is sort of explained stupidly.
D: No. No. No. Not stupidly. No, not stupidly.
M: Yes. No, the gods of lightning take over the world.
D: It's not...
M: Please.
D: Obviously you did not get onto the wavelength. But, look, I think a lot of people would be really intrigued by this film.
M: ... but the whole does not work. It just...
D: Well, it worked for me. I found it very impressive.
M: And, ultimately, I thought it was a cruel film. So I am giving it two stars.
D: I am giving it four.

[/quote]

I'd have to agree with the negative reviewer. It had solid potential, but it was executed poorly imo. I have nothing against the concept or the general story, but it was just executed really poorly. Parts of the story were entirely unnecessary and the acting was bad.

I do not like movies based on whether or not they are a cool idea that fits my preconceived notions of what a good movie should be; If that were the case I might have liked the happening. I do, however, like movies because they are good. Because of this, thankfully, I despise the happening and found The Box to be lame.

And on Sci-fi. There is no "classic sense of the word" there has always been hardand soft sci fi. They are different, but neither predates the other significantly or is any cheaper than the other when executed correctly.

(I'm not implying The Box is 100 minutes too long

I haven't seen it, but it probably is.

I've probably also seen all the movies that will come out this year, given that Hollywood no longer produces anything original, just watered down remakes of stuff from anywhere between 10-30 years ago.

Antheus - I don't think The Box is a remake in Hollywood terms (even though it's been made as a The Twilight Zone episode in the past). It's an old story and it literally shows, but I haven't been able to find an original like The Last Man On Earth or Omega Man is to I Am Legend (ironically, also from Matheson). However, the fact that you can compress it into 10 minutes on screen doesn't mean you can't expand it to 10 hours. Can't find the short parody, but here's a thread that does the same in the first post. I couldn't really not agree that the LOTR trilogy is 11 hours too long. Because it is. But did it merit the 300M expenses? You decide.


I've seen most of the stuff coming out of Hollywood as well; I've also seen much of the stuff Hollywood used to produce over the prior 100 years (including some of the funkiest sci-fi/horror) and I can say with confidence The Box ain't Hollywood - it's considerably bolder. Aeon Flux is Hollywood. Ultraviolet is Hollywood. By definition The Box is as well (Warner Bros, to be exact). But it's a different breed.

PS - sorry, I didn't finish watching your link yet (too unsober...). Nice find, though - I'm planning to watch it ASAP.

I'm not going to buff up the argument that The Box is underrated or whatnot - its rating is what it is and that's what it's boiled down to. However, I will argue with nilkn's assertion that there's no temporal quality to science fiction. Also, please note that you've omitted the predominant trend today, which is the "sci-fi-for-the-sake-of-sci-fi" (which is neither hard nor soft) trend, and as much as I regret to admit, Alien was the movie that took the 50s horror craze and turned it into a hardcore sheer action sci-fi craze, which has ultimately been diluted down to the abovementioned Skyline, Cargo and Pandorum (the last of which I happen to respect a lot, but for entirely different reasons). The style that The Box portrays is old school sci-fi and it's literally become a niche nowadays (I mentioned Monsters as the latest prime example above) - I'm not sure if you're above this, don't acknowledge this or simply haven't read enough sci-fi to appreciate it (either way I don't mean to offend). In addition to Monsters, Primer (also mentioned above) is another good example. Go back 30 years and about 50% of the original Twilight Zone episodes are prime examples or classic sci-fi. Yet, all of these titles are underdogs. Yes The Box soft sci-fi, but the classification I understand from hodgman is different - it's the to-the-point no-nonsense and please-take-your-head-out-of-your-ass-and-take-a-fricking-leap-of-faith kind of sci-fi that defies contemporary expectation (whatever that really is).

To heat up the pot a bit and gain some perspective, please list 5-10 of your favourite sci-fi films/stories when you reply.

Can I give the movie a 0? Worst film ever, what exactly was the point of the plot? The production was terrible, story sucked and was slow moving. There was no real action/exciting moment. I remember some part where the dude steps in some water and is upside down or something. So dumb.

It makes no sense for Cameron Diaz's character to die simultaneously with the pushing of the button by the next family because the next family could have chosen not to press the button. The film thereby suggests they didn't have free will, which contradicts the entire idea of the movie.

I haven't seen the movie since it first came out but I'm pretty sure the pushing of the button doesn't kill the previous wife. The timing of the two events is just to make that families choice that much more dramatic. Also him saying that pushing the button will kill someone is more of an ominous suggestion, rather than it being fact. She didn't have to die in the end it was her free will to save their son from being blind for the rest of his life, or let him be blind.

It's like they came down and said I can fix your problems, but you're going to have to sacrifice something, I'm just not going to tell you want. And when they said yes, he said wrong, and destroyed they're lives. He then offers the exact same offer, this time he's nice and tells them the outcome.

Can I give the movie a 0? Worst film ever, what exactly was the point of the plot? The production was terrible, story sucked and was slow moving. There was no real action/exciting moment. I remember some part where the dude steps in some water and is upside down or something. So dumb.

it's not an action movie that's why.

it's not an action movie that's why.

There are plenty of non-action movies that don't have the same problem.

w2l2c - arguments like that are precisely why I asked you to list 5-10 of your favourite sci-fi films - to see what standards you judge films by. because I don't think the treatment you're giving this one is a completely meditated one.