Review:
Snowpiercer
is on one hand a cool sci-fi film built on impressive visuals and great
dystopian themes, but on the other hand it is a fairly ludicrous narrative that
seems to leave a lot to be desired from a logic standpoint.
Global warming has become so bad
on Earth that collectively the planet’s governments have decided to shoot a
chemical into the atmosphere to cool down the planet. It backfires causing an
eternal winter that is far too cold to sustain life; however, a brilliant man,
Wilford, who loves trains, knew the consequences of the chemical. Prior to its
use, Wilford built a global rail line with a train that runs as a
self-sustaining system. Those onboard the train during the chemical’s dispersal
are Earth’s only surviving humans, as the chemical agent immediately caused
Earth to descend into a world-ending global winter, killing almost all life.
Fast-forward seventeen years. A class system has developed on the train and the
poorest live in terrible conditions. Lead by Curtis, the poor plan to violently
revolt. They want to storm the rest of the train and take the engine and hold
it hostage to stop their oppression and change their fortunes.
There are many things to like in
writer-director Joon-ho
Bong’s Snowpiercer, especially for sci-fi fans. The train is structured in
such a manner so that to some extent it mirrors both the evolution of humanity
from beast ravaging in the muck to elevated sophistication and the layers of
today’s global class system. The train, from back to front, begins with the
ultra-poor who are oppressed and abused. The poor live in darkness and are
completely subservient to the upper classes for their food, healthcare, and all
other manner of basic human needs/rights. In turn, they are treated with almost
no regard, as if they are a subspecies. As one moves forward through the train,
there are sections dedicated to incarceration, science, education, polite
society, hedonism, and finally an all-powerful man at the front who controls
the engine (the life force of the train and the society).
In this way, the film acts as a
metaphor for our own society, one that sees the wealth and control of the very
rich grow at the expense of everyone else. This metaphor works reasonably well
and Bong uses it as the central driver of his narrative. The people in the back
of the train are fed up at having nothing and revolt against the system that
actively tries to keep them in their place – something our own class system
also does very well (with programs like “the war on drugs” which effectively
does nothing to lessen drug use, rather it efficiently keeps the poor
centralized and impoverished). It also comments on the perception of the
different classes. The people in the back of the train seem like honest hard
working people who have just never been given a real chance, while those in
front are more or less shown as ridiculous caricatures who lead frivolous
lives.
In addition to the grand metaphor
of the piece, Bong also does a good job making the film entertaining. The
action scenes in particular are quite enjoyable, utilizing the great style of
modern Asian fight sequences/choreography. Bong paces the film to continually
move forward as well. There is narrative momentum, as Curtis and his people
push their way up the train – each car offering something new. All this keeps
the film engaging throughout.
The characters are overall reasonably
well-done. It is easy for the audience to root for Curtis because of his
station in life and drive to improve it. That is a very human want, relatable
to everyone. The main supporting characters are not developed thoroughly, but
are all given enough business to stand out and make an impression. They are
each different enough to not blend together and feel bland.
Bong gives the audience almost
everything they need: characters to root for and against, action scenes that
are fun, interesting sci-fi themes, and a clear narrative goal; however,
Snowpiercer has a few issues that take away from the film (although, I will say
that these issues may not matter for many viewers; especially when the film is
approached as pure entertainment). Mainly, the film seems to constantly test
the limits of plausible believability and logical sense. There will be some spoilers that follow: characters
seem to make decisions that make no sense – a few examples: Wilford claims that
the train’s engine is a self-sustaining system and yet he requires children to
perform tasks once equipment starts to breakdown. Eventually all the equipment
will breakdown, which means that either Wilford is delusional about the future
(due to some sort of religion-like mysticism surrounding the engine/system he
has created) or just does not realize that this is not a permeate solution (due
to mental detrition from prolonged isolation and claustrophobic conditions – it
is probably a bit of both) . Either way, the train is eventually doomed. Namgoong
Minsoo, the man who Curtis helps to escape from detention in exchange for
helping him open the door between cars, also has his own plan. He believes that
the weather outside is becoming warmer and that humans can now survive the
elements. Thus, he wants to stop the train and go outside. This seems
reasonable until his plan to do that becomes apparent. His plan is to
forcefully blow the door off the train to both allow exit from the train and
also to cause an avalanche to hasten the melting of the snow, the combination
of which has an almost absolute probability of also destroying the train and
all life onboard. Here again is the problem. His plan essentially leads to the
end of humanity (just more rapidly than Wilford’s slow demise as things degrade).
But maybe this is the point of
the film? Bong presents modern society though the microcosm of the train and
then concludes that no matter what humanity is doomed regardless of its
choices. When Curtis arrives at the engine, he has achieved his goal to reach
the engine but his people have mostly been killed and it is clear that nothing
will change onboard the train. All his effort is essentially fruitless. In
humanity’s history the same is true. Regardless of wars, revolutions,
technology, and so on, there has always been a global class system (although
the percentage distribution of how many people inhabit each class shifts constantly
up and down – though more or less holds its same overall shape). There are
always those with a lot who oppress those with little. All the actions in the
film thusly appear to be in vain, leaving the film lacking a meaningful
resolution.
Bong’s ending showcases the train
being wholly destroyed by the avalanche caused by Minsoo’s bomb on the train
door; however, Minsoo’s daughter and another young boy survive and brave the
cold together. They seem to be able to handle the chill, but Bong ends on a
shot of a polar bear that notices the two young survivors. Does the bear suggest that life can be
sustained and goes on and that these two young people will work to repopulate
the Earth or is the bear just going to eat them? It is unclear, as Bong leaves
it open-ended. End of spoilers.
The logic of the film’s characters
and ending will take many viewers out of the narrative. It seems to inherently make
no sense, because it is contrary to our own survival instinct (something that
is at our core as humans) and it is contrary to the initial premise – get to
the front, make things better. It feels like a letdown on the promise of that
premise.
Bong does employ what could have
been an interesting twist to corrupt the initial premise, but by the time the
twist is revealed it is too late. The narrative has already run its course and thus
what could have been a powerful dramatic turn ends up making a minimal
emotional impact on the audience (though, does effect Curtis’s final
decisions).
Even more than the Snowpiercer’s
character logic or the impotence of the twist maybe it is that the film feels a
bit pointless at the end that is its greatest nemesis. Yes, it is entertaining
and plays with some potent sci-fi themes and style, but if the audience feels
indifferent at the end then it is all for nothing. Again, I do not think that
everyone will be pulled out of the narrative by its issues, but they are prevalent
enough to noticeability take away from the overall effectiveness and quality of
the film as a whole.
Technical,
aesthetic & acting achievements: Joon-ho Bong has a great style to
his films. He does well garnering good performances and can also shooting
engaging action. He has all the tools to make good films (like The Host and Mother);
however, with Snowpiercer, he might have relied too much on trying to make a
statement about humanity than actually making a fully compelling narrative, as
the film completely loses all its momentum by the end and sort of goes out on a
whimper. Even so, I am looking forward to seeing what he does next.
Marco Beltrami
provides an adequate score that matches the tone of the film well. Kyung-pyo Hong’s
cinematography is very good, as his lighting wonderfully gives the film a
dystopian look and clearly differentiates each section of the train. Ondrej Nekvasil’s
production design too is top notch. His sets for each section of the train are
fantastic (I especially liked the school and the aquarium).
The cast is strong overall. Vlad Ivanov,
Alison Pill,
and Ewen
Bremner are great is small supporting roles (each exhibiting a wonderful
madness). Ah-sung
Ko is good as Minsoo’s daughter Yona. She blends presumed-innocence with sudden
maniacal brutality well. Tilda Swinton
is brilliant as Mason, the mouthpiece for Wilford and the people in the front.
Her whole character is so exaggerated and yet feels honest and dynamic, which
speaks to her skill as an actress. Ed Harris
sort of does his typical confident/unmovable yet slightly beaten down by circumstances
authoritative figure performance with Wilford (it is something he does well and
often). Kang-ho
Song is great as Namgoong Minsoo. He gives the character a fun reluctant
swagger. He does not seem to really care, but if pushed might be the toughest
of them all (he sort of takes on the role type made famous by Charles Bronson’s character
Harmonica in Once
Upon a Time in the West). Chris Evans
is very good as Curtis. He is sort of an everyman, which pulls the audience in
and makes him relatable, but then he has a darker side and backstory to him,
making him interesting.
Summary
& score: Snowpiercer is ambitious and does a lot right, making it in
many ways a good sci-fi film, but ultimately it loses too much momentum by the
end and just sort of feels inconsequential in its final moments. 6/10
