Blog Search

Categories

• Film Production (3)
• Movie Reviews (12)
• Team Journal (7)
• Tips & Tricks (1)

Archives By Date

• May 2011 (1)
• March 2010 (1)
• January 2010 (1)
• December 2009 (3)
• November 2009 (5)
• October 2009 (5)
• September 2009 (3)

Archives by Blogger

• Amelik (3)
• Enrique (2)
• MiamiMovieCritic (12)
• Tim (2)

Links

Follow Us

Subscribe

Why moviegoers are wrong about THE BOX

November 19th, 2009 by MiamiMovieCritic in Film Production, Movie Reviews

I was really taken aback when I learned that American audiences had declared THE BOX one of the worst movies of all time. CinemaScore, the Las Vegas-based research firm that compiles responses from the movie-going public, reported that Richard Kelly’s new film had received the lowest possible grade: an “F”. That makes it the fourth least-popular film of the decade – after BUG, WOLF CREEK and DARKNESS. Sheesh!

Only one of those movies is genuinely bad: DARKNESS. (Is it a coincidence that they’re all horror movies?) What the remaining three have in common (besides the horror element) is that they all happen to be exceptional works of filmmaking. Greg McLean’s Australian shocker WOLF CREEK may be a brutally unforgiving experience – one of the female protagonists ends up as a “head on a stick” – but you can’t fault the movie for its scare tactics; on the contrary, they’re extraordinarily effective. And BUG is arguably William Friedkin’s best movie since THE EXORCIST, with unforgettable performances by Ashley Judd and the great Michael Shannon (WORLD TRADE CENTER, REVOLUTIONARY ROAD).

That leaves us with Kelly’s latest offering, THE BOX – which, as I mentioned in my review, may go down as the best-directed bad movie of 2009. Technically, it’s a terrific achievement – imaginative makeup and special effects, period-perfect production design (the story takes place in 1976), and superb cinematography. Visually, it’s a throwback to some of the best thrillers of the 1970s, like Alan J. Pakula’s THE PARALLAX VIEW and Brian De Palma’s THE FURY. The only thing missing from Kelly’s new film is a good story.

Frankly, I’m a little shocked that an auteur like Kelly doesn’t receive a few brownie points for creating a superlative sensory experience. Instead, the public response seems to be based solely on a gut reaction – on whether the film is, well, crowd-pleasing. It’s the movie-going equivalent of voting for the politician you’d most like to have a beer with. (I’m generalizing, of course – obviously, there are some very sophisticated viewers out there – but the CinemaScore grade is nothing if not a generalization.)

Here are some other recent films and the CinemaScore grades they received:

Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince: A-
Bruno: C
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: B+
The Proposal: A-
The Hangover: A
Up: A+
Star Trek: A+

The two that stand out for me are TRANSFORMERS and THE PROPOSAL. Savvier viewers know that, as a piece of filmmaking, Michael Bay’s TRANSFORMERS sequel is a headache-inducing train wreck. There’s simply too much going on in the frame and, with each shot lasting about 2 seconds, too little time to absorb it. THE PROPOSAL is at the opposite end of the spectrum – in pictorial terms, it’s like watching paint dry.

So if THE BOX is an epic fail, then what are we to make of the good-to-excellent grades given to THE PROPOSAL and TRANSFORMERS? Simply that average moviegoers don’t factor in superior filmmaking when assessing their likes and dislikes. I’m not saying they should have loved THE BOX – I didn’t – but, for crying out loud, an F?!