It's done. It's in the can. But we won't be seeing Richard Kelly's The Box until November of 2009 with word now out that Warner Brothers have bumped the film back a good long way. The Box, of course, was meant to be Kelly's way of proving that he could make a low cost, high yield, commercially successful film after Southland Tales tanked hard at the box office, in much the same way that Aronofsky followed The Fountain with The Wrestler, so any sort of bump back or indication that Warners are losing faith in the film is very disheartening as it could have a huge impact on Kelly's future career if this film fails. More and more Kelly is feeling like this generation's Terry Gilliam to me, a film maker who intrigues lovers of film but whose ideas are too big to be cost effective and who lives just far enough outside the mainstream that Hollywood will never properly support him ...
Based on the short story by Richard Matheson, “The Box” stars Cameron Diaz as Norma Lewis and James Marsden as Arthur Lewis, a suburban couple with a young child who receive a simple wooden box as a gift, which bears fatal and irrevocable consequences. A mysterious stranger, played by Frank Langella, delivers the message that the box promises to bestow upon its owner $1 million with the press of a button. But, pressing this button will simultaneously cause the death of another human being somewhere in the world, someone they don’t know. With just 24 hours to have the box in their possession, Norma and Arthur find themselves in the crosshairs of a startling moral dilemma and must face the true nature of their humanity.
Eh, it's ludicrously too soon (and very generous) to label Kelly as the new Gilliam. The guy's made one very good film, and one very bad film. If he isn't successful, it won't be Hollywood's fault, it'll Kelly's for losing the plot.
Kelly's interesting, I don't want to see his career over yet. But I also don't think he's quite deserving of all the aueteur praise he gets. The guy's got terrific ideas, but he's a terrible writer. As much as I like Donnie Darko, the dialouge is atrocious. Southland Tales has brilliant moments, but again, the dialouge blows and that whole 15 minute comic book prolouge was pretty lame.
I think Aronofsky is a good camparison though. Both ambitous indie filmmakers who created interesting, original, HIGHLY flawed films that were overpraised. Both bought into their own hype and made intriguing bombs that couldn't live up to their promise.
Looks like Aronofsky learned from mistakes and matured with The Wrestler, I'd like to see Kelly develop further and do the same.
I dunno; I think SOUTHLAND TALES is a great big inaccessible experiment that is very easy to dislike because its trying very hard to be schizophrenic and obnoxious but I think the sheer scope and the possibility of ideas in it are pretty exciting. Reading the comics and watching the cut that was released (still am dying to see the added 20 minutes of footage restored back into it though with this news, that seems less and likely to happen anytime soon) I couldn't help but feel a Philip K. Dick vibe and not the Dick that most people think of but rather the kind that tended to ramble on paraanoically about religion, incurable mental disease and the end. Sure, he does this cogently in his better known works but when he's looser in stories like THE BLACK BOX, A TERRAN ODDYSSEY and FAITH OF OUR FATHERS, he's all over the map and I think in a very intriguing way.
Put simply, if SOUTHLAND TALES wasn't so sprawling and didn't try to alienate its audience so much, I think people would take a real shining to it. It is, to my mind, an intriguing film to follow DONNIE DARKO with because it is the story of what happens in a world where Donnie fails, where the end of the world isn't averted and everything falls apart. That doesn't mean its not a little hard to take at times but I like it in spite of and sometimes because of that.
Secret box? How about a monkey hand.
Columbia/MGM just spent 200+ million on Quantum of Solace, so calling Kelly out on 20 million for the infinitely more ambitious and smarter Southland Tales is a little silly. It's obvious which is less ethical.
I hope you ate everything on your plate loompanix.
Southland Tales is one of the most ludicrously entertaining things I've ever seen. Loved every second.
Abrams, he wrote the script and that's good enough for me to blame him. Worse writing I have yet to see.
Baltar (may I call you Gaius?), I can't comment as I just said. I haven't seen it. Your argument can't go much farther; we've already established that you don't like it. Congrats. I'm willing to give it a shot but again, have no opinion outside of that.
Besides, Gilliam has had his low moments too--BROTHERS GRIMM and TIDELAND were both pretty lumpy but enjooyable in their own ways--and I have yet to see something by Kelly that I haven't enjoyed in their own ways (both feature films and one of his two student shorts, THE GOODBYE PLACE). So yeah, difference of opinion, obviously.
As a fab if both Domino and Southland tales, yea, I'm looking disappointed I'll have to wait so long to see it.
I'd like to just reitirate what an absolute disaster SOUTHLAND TALES was for everyone involved, and for the majority of people who saw it. A worldwide gross of $374K. Absolutely pathetic. Throw that cast in a room, turn camera on, run a live feed of one simultaneous shot to 20 theaters around the world and I gaurantee you a more successfull outcome. Don't confuse being contrarian with being just plain foolish.