Boarding the Hype Train: Snowpiercer

POLARIZING

Snowpiercer - Polarizing

I'm really not one to buy into hype. I know what I like and while I do seek out films that peak my interest, I seldom bow down to conformity and buy into things that people universally say is good. Namely, I don't like "South Park", I believe that Seth MacFarlane is overrated, the same goes for Zack Snyder, and when people beat on things that are universally "hated" I usually bring up a counterpoint to either pose a challenge that will force the attacker to turn defensive and either call me a dick, or simply slink away and talk sh*t behind my back, which I'm fine with. But as a reviewer, and a contributor to this site, I have to buy into hype sometimes in order to bring an audience to the site. It's all about the views. This brings me to "Snowpiercer" one of the most-hyped films of 2013 that still hasn't been widely distributed. It's a polarizing film, no pun intended, that is full of allegories, pseudo-science, and reminds me of nearly every sci-fi/action film I've seen the past 20 years.

"Snowpiercer" takes place 18 years after the Earth has been frozen over due to a failed experiment that was supposed to solve the Global Warming crisis. The survivors of the world-wide freeze have all been placed on a high-speed train created by the Wilford Corporation that travels around the world on an endless loop. A social system has been put in place where the tail end of the train includes the poorest of the poor, including Captain America himself, Chris Evan, who plays Curtis, a man who has seen it all and is looking to start a revolution with the help of Tin-Tin (Jamie Bell), Kane from "Alien" (John Hurt) and a few other stars that will leave you wondering, "They're in this movie?"

Of course I'm being snarky about this film, because at times it takes itself a little to seriously. And that isn't a bad thing. "Snowpiercer" is supposed to be a social commentary about the folly of science and the way humans interact with each other in the time of crisis. It might even be fair to say that this might be one of the most important sci-fi films since "Children of Men." The downside of "Snowpiercer" is that the commentary is extremely heavy-handed, and at the same time, almost an afterthought in some scenes. It's almost like it's trying to find a balance between the two, but can't decide what kind of movie that it wants to be, and that is where it gets a little muddled.

This isn't to say that the film isn't good, there is actually a lot of good in "Snowpiercer." If you took a Terry Gilliam film, took elements of "Cube," "Children of Men," "City of Lost Children," "The Hunger Games," "Bioshock," "300," and put it on a moving train, ta-da; "Snowpiercer." The acting is top notch for an sci-fi/actioneer, including a performance by Tilda Swinton that SHOULD go down as one of the best of the year. The train itself is also a wonder to behold. You don't often see multiple sets created for a film. It's either done via green screen or practically in a pre-exsisting environment. There is craftsmanship in "Snowpiercer" and that is most appreciated where nothing is built by hand anymore, just computers. The set designer(s) should be highly commended for their work in this film.

However, with all that I like about "Snowpiercer" there are still problems with predictability, unfinished plot elements, and an ending that is simply "meh." It's a film with a lot of big ideas about the folly of science, how man interacts with each other, social hierarchy, and looking for hope in hopelessness, but it kind of boils itself down into an action film on a train that also reminds me of "The Raid."

How will "Snowpiercer" be remembered by the masses? From what I've seen so far, it's quite......polarizing. People seem to love it for it's style, use of allegory, and production value. Other people hate it for it's overuse of allegory and to be honest with you, simply because the film is being talked about by so many people. Sure, it's a cynical perspective, but we live in cynical times where people are going to poke holes in anything that other people might enjoy. "Snowpiercer" isn't perfect, and maybe about 20 minutes too long, but if you look past the idea that the film might be trying to say too much, it's an enjoyable and all together original take on the post-apocalyptic film genre.

Fun Fact: "Snowpiercer" is based on the 1982 French graphic novel "Le Transperceneige."

Read More

London Calling: Children of Men

Children of Men - Captivating

Lately in film, especially futuristic sci-fi fare, the preferred city of devastation is London.  It used to be that Godzilla would stomp Japan into oblivion, but of course we all know that giant lizards bred out of nuclear irresponsibility is completely far-fetched, right?  But putting fantasy away, London has been a hub the past decade or so for apocalyptic visions of the future.  From Rage viruses to an infertility pandemic, I'm not sure "Keep Calm and Carry On" would be enough for even London's strongest citizens to get behind.  This brings me to 2006's "Children of Men" one of the most captivating sci-fi films to be released in recent memory.

Here's the scoop; we visit London in the not too distant future where there hasn't been a reported new birth in nearly 18 years.  Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, the youngest person in the world, lovingly named Baby Diego, has just been murdered.  With the world in mourning, we follow happy-go-lucky Theo, played by Clive Owen.  Theo is the type of guy that loves to get high with his hippy friend Jaspar and get kidnapped by a terrorist group called "The Fishes" led by his former activist wife, Julian, played by Julianne Moore.  The plot thickens when it's discovered that Theo is carrying some precious cargo, namely a baby in the belly of a young refugee girl named Kee.  With the government, crooked cops, and members of the terrorist group hot on his heels, Theo has no choice but to protect Kee and try and deliver her to The Human Project, a mysterious group researching why humanity become infertile so many years ago.

"Children" went largely unnoticed during its theatrical run, which is odd for how good this film really is.  The acting is spot on, the setting couldn't feel more real, and the message is relatively universal.  Sure, there are some preachy moments, and even some of the imagery and names are obvious, case in point, the young girl Kee, (even though it's technically pronounced "chi") who just might be the "key" to civilization's survival.  But those are minor quibbles.

Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, who some might know for "Y Tu Mama Tambien" or to an even wider audience as the director the best Harry Potter film installment "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban."  Some might disagree with that assessment of the "Harry Potter" franchise, but it was the moment that the series went from light-hearted and childish to dark, brooding, and serious.

Cuaron lends that trademark style to "Children" and creates a dystopian London where all hope seems to be lost, refugees are treated like Jews during World War II, and ethnic tensions are slowly coming to a head.  With all of that being said, Cuaron is still able to capture small glimmers of hope in a hopeless world, and some humanity in some of the more monstrous characters.  But the highlights of the film revolve around the long take action sequences which last upwards of 6 minutes.  Even though it has been debunked that these scenes are not one long take, the fact remains that these scenes highlight the film and create the most memorable moments in "Children."

Despite the fact "Children" was critically praised, the fact it didn't bank more at the box office was a crime in and of itself.  It's also a movie I'm always shocked people have never seen; at that moment I slap them in the face, hand them the DVD, and bid them Godspeed.

Fun Fact:  In the Bexhill block scene, Theo can be seen wearing a London 2012 Olympics fleece jacket.

Read More