As some of you may have heard me say before, this time of year is great for hacking away at the ever-growing Netflix queue. The downtime around the holidays is spent at my house catching up on films whether on DVD, Blu-Ray, or on the ol' TiVo (we're always catching something that needs to be seen, but never enough time to see them all). This one arrived from Netflix the other day...and since we had our first freeze of the season here in Northern California, it seemed like a good time to watch this film about a future Ice Age.
Directed by Korean director Bong Joon-ho, this story of a dystopian future revolves around a failed cure for climate change--a substance was released into the atmosphere to reverse greenhouse gases but something went wrong and a second Ice Age was created. All life, according to the film, perished, except for a few thousand people on a speeding, closed-eco-system train that circles the globe. Now, I am a fan of dystopian future and sci-fi films, but I was a bit lost on the premise with this one. Why did it have to be a train? What a waste of resources. Wouldn't it have been smarter to burrow below ground and create a subterranean world away from the ice above? And of course, there has to be a societal hierarchy for there to be a dystopian future: the haves vs. the have-nots. And this takes the form of all the wealthy people in the "front" of the train who live like pampered royalty, against the ones who are not lucky enough to possess great wealth. These unlucky survivors live on "protein bars," a disgusting jelly-like substance, and wear filthy rags while a set of armed guards keep them in the "tail" of the train. I got it, and I understand and appreciate an end-of-the-world/ rebellion-against-the-overlords story...but none of it made sense to begin with. I am stuck on "Why a train?" and if you are going to keep a handful of humanity alive to start again, wouldn't it be smarter and more successful to choose people who could contribute to the future instead of the idle rich and their addled, empty-headed children? Just a thought...
I have since learned that the film is based on a French graphic novel series called "Le Transperceneige," and it seems there is a bit more explanation in the printed form of the story. As usual, it is possible that the book is better than the film. But Chris Evans did a fine job in the lead role. He has proven that he has acting chops to carry off more subtle and sensitive moments that he does not get while playing Captain America. Tilda Swinton is marvelous, as always, in a bizarre role that borders on caricature with a hideous wig and fake teeth. Looking frighteningly like Ayn Rand (the costume designer claims this was unintentional), Swinton's presence and talent rescue the character from being too over the top, and her masterful control adds a bit of extra-dark comedy here and there. John Hurt and Ed Harris show up to play too...
Not a bad film, but not an altogether convincing film either. Like I said, I am down with the whole sci-fi/social fiction-possible dystopian genre (I adore Margaret Atwood's books), but the off-kilter dream logic (not in a good way) of the premise kept me from stepping all the way into this film.
Recommend? I guess if there is nothing else on, give it a whirl. But don't go out of your way. Oh, except if you are a Tilda Swinton fan like I am. THEN you should see it. (Hi Tilda!)
http://snowpiercer-film.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment