The Box (3 Stars)

Amazon Friday #17

I admit that I chose this film today because I watched "Donnie Darko" earlier this week. "Donnie Darko" was the first film made by Richard Kelly. "The Box" was his third and final film. I bought it when it was first released on DVD, which was 2010. I watched it once before I started writing my blog in September 2010, so I never recorded my thoughts in writing. All I remember is that I didn't like it, and it was one of the DVDs that I gave away before moving to Germany to 2016. It's offered with Amazon Prime now, so I could give it another chance.

The story's premise is fascinating. A mysterious stranger gives a married couple a box with a button. They're told that if they press the button they will be given a million dollars, but at the same time a person they don't know will die. The film is set in 1976, so it would be a value of $4.8 million today.

How would you react if you were given a deal like that? How would I react? Is the life of a complete stranger worth a million dollars? Would I have a clear conscience, because it's nobody that I know? According to the statistics, 7000 people die in America every day, so one more person wouldn't make a difference. The stranger doesn't even say that the death will be in America, so it could be someone the other side of the world. Who cares? There are no consequences.

I honestly don't know how I would decide. It depends on so many factors in my life. At certain times in my life I might have decided one way, at other times the other.

The lesson of the film is that there are always consequences. Pressing the button is committing murder. Just because I'm not holding a gun in my hand, it doesn't mean I'm not a killer. The button is my murder weapon. In the film punishment comes swiftly. The person who dies is someone who previously pushed the button. The stranger doesn't tell anyone that.

I would have preferred the film if it had stuck with the moral questions. It adds too many ideas, and in the end it's not satisfying. I don't regret giving away my DVD. I've forgotten who I gave it to. Maybe the person who owns it now enjoys the film more than me.

Success Rate:  - 0.9

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Counselor (2 Stars)

I feel so annoyed when I look at the title of this film in my blog. The systematic spelling mistakes made by Americans are an eyesore. Everyone knows that the correct spelling is "Counsellor".

I often remember watching films in the cinema, especially if I was in a special place or with a special person. This is one of the rare cases where I remember not seeing a film in the cinema. The Birmingham Film Group went to see the film, but I was unable to go. I had a cold or some other trivial illness. I said I would go watch it by myself a few days later. The next day I asked my friends, and they were unanimous in their opinion. "Don't go to see it, it's awful". That puzzled me, because it's a film directed by Ridley Scott, and his films aren't awful. He's made some outstanding masterpieces in his life. Nevertheless, I listened to my friends and didn't go. I know them. I know their tastes. There are some that I don't listen to, because I know they think differently to me, but there are others whose opinions I take seriously.

It's only today that I've returned to this film, whose name I refuse to write again. It's one of a few films that I've found on Netflix that star Bruno Ganz. As I found out when I watched it, it's only a small role, a single scene lasting less than 10 minutes, but I watched the film out of principle. I'll watch any film that he appears in. But let's describe the film itself.

The film is about an American attorney who wants to make extra money from a drug deal, buying cocaine in Mexico and selling it in Chicago. He already has contacts both sides of the border, presumably criminals that he's got to know through his job. He only wants to do one job, because it promises a profit of $20 million. His contact in Mexico says he'll get a taste for the easy money of the drug trade and will want to continue. His contact in America tells him it's a risky business and advises him not to do it unless he has a rock solid escape plan.

The deal goes badly. That's all I'll say.

My first impression of the film, based on the opening scene, was that it's a poorly written erotic thriller. Don't get me wrong, I'm a very sexual person and I enjoy watching films with sexual scenes, but the opening scene with Michael Fassbender and Penelope Cruz wasn't erotic, it was just silly. The poor dialogue was delivered without any passion. Instead of A-List actors, it looked like a shoddy high school project.

The film continued with less eroticism, just talking and drama, but that made things worse for me. It's a pattern I know well. If a film is dull and the director knows it's dull, he puts an erotic scene at the beginning to get the viewer interested.

From then on the film plods from one scene to another. In the hands of a better director it could have been a good film, but wait... shouldn't Ridley Scott be one of the better directors? If I hadn't seen his name on the credits I wouldn't have recognised it as one of his films. I would have guessed that it was made by Brian De Palma, but even for him it would have been a weak film

I would probably have watched the film eventually, even if it hadn't starred Bruno Ganz. I like Ridley Scott. I'm glad I've got it over with. There's no reason for me to ever watch it again.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

The Mask (4½ Stars)

This is another one of the films that I've had neatly alphabetically sorted in my bookcases in the cellar for the last eight years. Neat, tidy and forgotten. I don't remember exactly when I bought this film, but it was probably one of the first films I bought after purchasing my first DVD player in 2003. I know I watched it several times, as was usual for someone with only a small number of films, but I haven't watched it at all since September 2010. That's when I started writing my blog, which is also my diary of what I watched and when. I wish I'd kept a record of my exact viewing habits since 2003. Oh well. Better late than never.

"The Mask" was made in 1994, and it's doubtlessly the best of Jim Carrey's comedy films. I emphasise the word "comedy", because I find his non-comedy films better. He started his career as a comedian, and he's never been able to shake off the comedy tag.

The film is based on comics published by Dark Horse Comics since 1991. The comics are satirical in nature, with a lot of violence. The original screenplay for the film was faithful to the comics, but it was considered that it would be too violent for the cinema. For this reason there was a mood shift, making the film a comedy and keeping the violence to a minimum.

The main character is Stanley Ipkiss, a shy young bank clerk who finds a wooden mask floating in the river. When he puts it on he gains self-confidence and he can do just about anything. He has increased strength and speed, but that's not all. He effectively takes on the characteristics of the Hanna-Barbera cartoon characters, talking and moving in a surreal way.

It's wrong to call him a super-hero when he dons the mask. He has a feeling for what's right and wrong, but he's still selfish. He robs a bank (the bank he works in) to get spending money for his excessive new lifestyle.

The film is a ridiculous farce, but it's highly entertaining. It was a huge box office success and was highly praised by critics. How often does that happen? It's definitely worth watching more than once every eight years.

Success Rate:  + 13.3

	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (4½ Stars)

In 2000 "Charlie's Angels" earned $264 million at the box office, making it the 12th highest earning film of the year. Since the film was so successful a sequel had to be made. In 2003 "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" earned $259 million at the box office, making it the 12th highest earning film of the year. This was considered a flop, so no third film was made. Am I missing something? Do the studios make such a fuss over a measly $5 million? The film made a profit anyway, even without including the DVD sales.

The same three Angels return as in the first film, Dylan, Natalie and Alex. Before you say that's nothing special, remember that in the original TV series there were four different line-ups in five years. The only thing that remained consistent was that there were always three Angels, so as soon as someone left a replacement was hired.

On the other hand, this film has a new Bosley, who is presented as an inexperienced newcomer. In the first film Bill Murray plays John Bosley, in the second film Bernie Mac plays Jimmy Bosley. I wonder if they're supposed to be related. Whatever the case is, the Angels are two much for Jimmy to handle. He quickly covers his lap when the girls snuggle up to him on the couch. He has to remain professional.

If the Angels are too much for Jimmy Boswell to handle he has to look for love outside of the office. It looks like Melissa McCarthy is more his type. His eyes are all over her, and she likes it. I wish there had been a third film to show us how their relationship develops.

The Angels are always ready for action, with or without clothes. Judging by her stare Alex isn't very happy with Natalie. She's probably thinking, "Why didn't you tell us it would be so cold?"

I've given this film the same rating as the first film, but if anything it's slightly better. The action is goofy and over-the-top, comparable with the Roger Moore James Bond films. I say this as praise, not criticism. The three Angels are larger-than-life superwomen. They pick a fight with 50 soldiers, and the soldiers don't stand a chance. This is true female empowerment. There should be a continuing franchise of Charlie's Angels films. There's no need for the actresses to commit themselves on a long term basis, the rota can change any time. I'd like to see a new Charlie's Angels film every year. Wouldn't you?

"Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" has only been released on DVD in England and America. In Germany it's available on Blu-ray. The default language for the film is English, and even the disc menu is in English, so if you prefer to watch films in high definition order it from Amazon.de using the link below.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Charlie's Angels (4 Stars)

I love this film. It's based on the TV series with the same name, but it goes much further in style and action. It was difficult for me to accept the original Angels from the 1970's as independent women. They seemed to be Charlie's puppets. The new Angels, played by Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu and Cameron Diaz, might still work for Charlie, but they're powerful women in their own right. They do their job because it's what they want to do, and they have fun every step of the way.

The only caveat I have is the personal relationships of the Angels: Dylan (Drew Barrymore) with Chad, Alex (Lucy Liu) with Jason, and Natalie (Cameron Diaz) with Pete. These men are so far below their levels, both intellectually and emotionally, that it's difficult to see why they bother with them. Dylan is even weak enough to fall for the charms of the bad guy. In today's society there's a lot of talk about women being strong and independent, but you don't see what a woman is really like by looking at her at work. You have to look at her at home, in her relationship with her husband or boyfriend, if she has one. If she wants a man she'll have a strong man in her life who takes a subordinate role to her. She won't be happy with a wimp (like the three Angels) or a macho who'll attempt to rule over her.

I'm not in favour of women's equality. I never have been. Women are superior by nature, so they can only become equal by lowering themselves to man's level. This isn't just about domination and sex games. This is about the woman's whole life. She should make the decisions about what car to buy, where to go on holiday, which school the children go to, and all the other small choices made in day to day married life. That doesn't mean the man should go unheard. He can tell his wife his opinions and offer arguments to support them if he disagrees with her. Maybe he'll convince his wife and she'll change her mind, but the important thing is that she makes all the decisions in family life.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (4½ Stars)

"American audiences can accept Tom Cruise breaking into a highly secured vault, but Cameron Diaz doing the same thing must be presented as a campy joke" (Scott Mendelson, film critic).

When I read that quote my first impulse was to reach for my phone to hire a hit man to take out Mr. Mendelson. After my initial flush of rage I calmed down and read his words more carefully. He's not saying that he sees it that way, he's saying that the American public sees it that way. Right. If he's making a social commentary he's correct. His life is spared.

Today's society claims to be liberated, but the idea of a woman being powerful is still thought of as something ridiculous. It has to be a joke. Women have a long way to go before they're considered equal to men, even in Hollywood representations. The two Charlie's Angels films offer some help in achieving this, despite being exaggerated and campy. These aren't three women who are just sexy, they aren't three women who are just strong, they're both.

"Charlie's Angels" was one of the most successful films of 2000, earning $264 million at the box office, making it the 12th most successful film of the year. So we had to have a sequel! Strangely, "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" was considered to be a flop, so a third film was never made. The reason why I say "strangely" is obvious when you look at the statistics. "Full Throttle" earned $259 million at the box office and was the 12th most successful film of 2003. It's difficult to understand why the film studios made such a fuss. There was hardly any difference in the earnings, only 1.8% less.

Critics also rated "Full Throttle" less favourably. They made remarks like "it's like a 90-minute music video". Even if that were the case, so what? Music and action go well together.

I was fortunate enough to see this film on the big screen. Back in 2003 I rarely visited the cinema, unlike now, when I go twice a week at least. It's a film worth seeing in the cinema. The stunts and special effects are amazing. They are even more exaggerated and unbelievable than in the first film, but does that really matter? This is fantasy escapism at its best. In the opening scenes the Angels fall off the side of the Great Wall of China and are caught by a helicopter. That's not very realistic, but it looks good.

Cameron Diaz as Natalie

Drew Barrymore as Dylan

Lucy Liu as Alex

Maybe the biggest factor in the films' success is the chemistry between the three actresses. They're having fun, and it shows. I already said in my review of the first film that I didn't like the 1970's television series. After the second film (supposedly) flopped it's been a long wait, but now it's finally been announced that a new film will be made with new actresses. Only Elisabeth Banks has been cast so far. The film has been called a "reboot", but that over-used word doesn't apply. The Angels were frequently exchanged in the TV series, so having new actresses in the next film will just be a continuation, "Charlie's Angels 3". Whether it will be good or not is another question. Let's wait and see. The first two films will be difficult to beat.

One last question for my readers. If you were a bad guy, who would you rather have beat you up? Tom Cruise? Daniel Craig? Or these three girls?

Charlie's Angels (4½ Stars)

I never liked "Charlie's Angels" as a television series. That might come as a surprise to the people who know me. I like tough girls, and I like sexy girls, and the Angels were both. I'm not sure what it was that prevented the series clicking with me. I'm old enough to have watched it when it was first broadcast in the late 1970's, and I gave it another chance when it was repeated in the early 2000's, but I still didn't like it. Maybe my problem was that I couldn't take the girls seriously. They were supposed to be tough in the series, but they weren't credible to me, unlike Diana Rigg in "The Avengers" who you just knew was tough.

Imagine my surprise when I saw the film. It was released in 2000, but I didn't see it until two years later on television. To me it was everything that the TV series wasn't. The three actresses, Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz, were awe-inspiring as they jumped and kicked their way through the movie. The action was over-the-top, even more camp than the TV series, but it was perfect for what it was: light-hearted escapism. After the first 15 minutes of the film I felt more for the three girls than I had for the original Angels in all the episodes I had watched.

I forget when I last watched this film. I just know that it was before September 2010, otherwise I would have written about it in my blog. I have too many DVDs and Blu-ray Discs. I don't have time to watch them all as often as I would like to.

Being John Malkovich (4½ Stars)

I have been to the dark side, I have seen a world that no man should see.

Craig Schwartz (John Cusack) is an unemployed puppeteer in New York. He lives in a basement apartment with his wife Lotte (Cameron Diaz) and her many exotic pets, which include parrots, iguanas and chimpanzees. He takes a temporary job as a filing clerk. One evening, while working late, he finds a secret door hidden behind a filing cabinet. This door leads into John Malkovich's head. Anyone who enters can see through John Malkovich's eyes for 15 minutes, after which he's thrown out onto the grass at the side of the New Jersey Turnpike.

This seemingly absurd film throws up so many philosophical questions. The first time you watch it you have to laugh. You could mistakenly think you're watching a Woody Allen film. After you see it the second time you begin to see the bigger issues. It's a film about reality, identity, gender roles and control.

When I first saw this film I gave all the credit to the writer, Charlie Kaufman. He's written several amazing films, including "Adaptation" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". I paid no attention to the director Spike Jonze, who has made his career directing music videos. After seeing "Her" earlier this year, which Spike Jonze both wrote and directed, I can look back and see his influence on this film.

This message appeared at the end of the credits. All the characters portrayed in the film are fictitious? That's strange. I thought that John Malkovich really existed. Wikipedia says he does, but sometimes Wikipedia lies.

What is this strange power that John Malkovich exudes?

The Other Woman (4 Stars)

Carly Whitten is a highly successful lawyer in New York. She's been dating men for years, but she's never found one who lives up to her high standards. Finally she meets a rich, handsome businessman called Mark, and it just clicks. After eight weeks together -- a long time for her -- she decides to take the relationship to the next level: she invites him to meet her father. At the last minute he makes a suspicious excuse to back out of the meeting. She goes to his home in Connecticut and finds out the truth. He is already married.

Being a good girl, Carly decides to break off the relationship. But before she can inform Mark, his wife Kate comes to visit her. Soon they become friends, and they want to team up against Mark. Before they can do anything they discover that Mark has another girlfriend, Amber. She joins the team, and the three women make plans to make Mark suffer.

This a beautiful little revenge film which plays for laughs from the beginning. For the first hour I could hardly stop laughing. After this the film became more serious, when it deviated into financial matters which I won't discuss here to avoid giving spoilers. This was unfortunate, but the comedy picked up again in the last ten minutes.

Overall it's a very enjoyable film. The strongest appeal comes through the on-screen chemistry between Cameron Diaz (Carly) and Leslie Mann (Kate). Kate Upton (Amber) doesn't seem to fit into the trio and seems like she's just tagging along for the ride. The film would have succeeded without her. I was disappointed that Nicki Minaj, who plays Carly's secretary Lydia, didn't have more screen time. In the few minutes that we see her she displays a selfish bitchy attitude which should have been developed. Apart from that, she's the sexiest woman in the film.

The Green Hornet (4 Stars)

My main problem with this film is Seth Rogen. He is the wrong person for the title role. I can't think of any other film where the miscasting is so extreme. There isn't one thing in his favour. Just about anyone could have played this role better. Pick any white Hollywood star between 20 and 50 at random. Keanu Reeves, Tom Cruise, Jack Black, Brad Pitt, Nicolas Cage. Robert Downey Jr is my personal choice, but anyone could have done it better.

Having said that, the film itself is good, and the final car chase and battle are a masterpiece. Britt Reid is the son of a billionaire newspaper owner. When his father dies after being stung by a bee he dons a mask and becomes the Green Hornet. In order to prevent being targeted by criminals he pretends to be a criminal himself, claiming his campaign against crime is to set himself up as crime lord. An interesting concept.

The Green Hornet's archenemy, Chudnofsky -- what a name! -- is admirably portrayed by Christoph Waltz. Supposedly he's made almost 100 films, but the first time I ever noticed him was in "Inglorious Basterds". Judging by these two films he must be one of the best actors alive. I really need to check out his other films.

Let's hope there's a sequel. And let's hope for a more suitable lead actor.

Knight and Day [Guest Writer] (4 Stars)

June Havens (Cameron Diaz) finds her everyday life tangled with that of a secret agent (Tom Cruise) who has realized he isn't supposed to survive his latest mission. As their campaign to stay alive stretches across the globe, they soon learn that all they can count on is each other.

I had some mixed feelings about this movie if I'm to be honest because I'm a bit biased against the starring actors. I'm not the hugest fan of Tom. I think his acting is somewhat bland although I have a few scenes from a few good movies that I have enjoyed him in. Cameron Diaz is a sweetheart and I loved her from the moment that I saw her in "There's Something About Mary". I think everyone saw that film and fell just a tiny touch in love with Diaz and her quirky, off-brand sense of humor. This movie kind of felt like it was half serious and half humorous, meshing these two characters and actor personalities together. I'm not sure if it was meant to be completely funny or completely serious or maybe just meant to be what it turned out to be but whatever the case is, it was a pretty nice film. I have to admit there were some times where I was scratching my head and wondering what the heck was going on as Tom did his shifty spy work trying to be secretive since we are pretty much seeing this movie from Diaz's perspective so we are about as clueless as she is throughout the film. There were also parts that had me laughing up a storm as Diaz went through her silly antics and shaking my head saying, "Oh Cameron, you're so crazy!" Overall a pretty good film with a bit of love, laughter and action. No complaints here.