Snowpiercer – Film Review
Director: Bong Joon-Ho
Starring: Chris Evans, Jamie Bell, John Hurt, Song Kang-Ho, Go-Ah Sung, Octavia Spencer and Tilda Swinton
Release Date: Nov 1
In the year 2031, the Snowpiercer, a massive train that contains the last of the world’s population, constantly races across the Earth’s frozen, abandoned landscape. This is Snowpiercer.
While the more privileged classes enjoy a luxurious life in the front compartments of the train, Curtis (Chris Evans) plans a revolution with the impoverished back end passengers, to take control of the train and its seemingly immortal engine. Based on the French comic Le Transperceneige, this is the first English language film to be directed by Bong Joon-Ho.
There are two words to describe this film: “High Concept”. In film, “High Concept” is a wonderful thing and very much a big part of the essence of cinema. In a lot of ways the idea for this film just doesn’t make sense but it doesn’t matter because it only has to make enough sense for you to believe it over the movie’s 2 hour run. This movie has an eccentric setting but a very simple goal for its main characters.
But there is something odd about its eccentric setting and the faintly lingering question that goes with it is: “Why a train?”.
This isn’t a bad thing but a curious detail that makes the film more endearing. But the odd note on which this element of the film strikes you, somewhat represents much of the film overall. That is to say, the film has a slightly offbeat feel throughout, similar to its strange concept.
Snowpiercer does rely a little on its audience to have some previous knowledge of survival and dystopian based movies, of which it is derivative. The simplest description would be that it’s The Warriors meets Titanic… except on a train.
However, there are elements of other films involved, which I won’t mention in order to avoid spoilers. But I pick those two films as examples because they are the ones that sound like they wouldn’t exactly gel.
The thing about Snowpiercer is that the various elements of its world, both derivative and original, ultimately don’t feel like they fit together very well. Some contradict each other slightly and others simply do not blend in well by themselves.
An early established element of the film is that we are watching events take place on the train 17 years into its perpetual journey around the world. However, you find yourself not quite believing that the people on screen have been living there for that long.
Being set entirely on a train, there’s a very strong element of claustrophobia that works well in establishing the film’s atmosphere. And yet, at the same time, that sense of limitation does make it hard for the film to establish typical, and essential, story beats and as the film chooses to go with reasonably conventional methods of storytelling, this leaves the world a little questionable.
As stated, this is a “High Concept” film, but it seems that it would’ve done better to have taken a more heightened and surreal approach to its story. John Hurt’s character’s name in the film is Gilliam, arguably a reference to director Terry Gilliam, as the film has some possible influences from the filmmaker’s work.
This left me thinking how Gilliam himself is a director who could make you believe more in such an eccentric world by making it somewhat more unreal and dreamlike, but admittedly that is an unfair contrast to make. It seems less likely that Terry Gilliam would make such a violent and adrenaline packed kind of action film.
On that note, the action is quite good, and even great at times. The tension of the action sequences is a little mild, but there is still something satisfying and exciting about the collection of brawls throughout the film. The tightly knitted location, and the simple back vs front or left vs right set up of the brawling is reminiscent of old beat-em up arcade games, like Double Dragon or Streets of Rage.
The cast is one thing that really holds the film together, as everyone provides a solid presence. Chris Evans, as the lead, plays a very sharp and followable strong silent type, with Jamie Bell as the younger more talkative sidekick (done in a good but marginally questionable Irish accent).
John Hurt typically provides the old wise man and Olivia Spencer provides a good supporting performance, which was rewarding to see from an actress who typically plays a lot of small roles and bit parts. A lot of these characters sound like cliches, but there is still a very organic sense of chemistry in how these character band together.
The performance that outshines them all, however, is Tilda Swinton, who gives a truly mesmerising and darkly hilarious performance as Mason, a thick glasses-wearing, buck-toothed, geordie-accented, near cartoon-come-to-life, with the aesthetic of a strict school teacher (with a shade of Thatcher too).
It sounds mad to say, but I honestly could have watched a whole film that centered around her character. The truth is though that there’s no bad performance to speak of and, frankly, too many good ones to mention.
Despite the fantasy and story based flaws previously mentioned, it needs to be said that Snowpiercer still holds strong as a Sci-Fi action movie. While a better film would have come from filling its gaps, there are still elements of wit, pace and character development that make up for what it loses.
There’s a genuine quirkiness to the band of the characters that is subtle, but gives the movie a very nice personality. Any sci-fi or action movie fan will find a unique enough viewing experience in Snowpiercer, which offers a smart spectacle with some clever ideas of its own and a conclusion that is surprisingly very thought-provoking (if not maybe a bit hackneyed).
Ultimately it is a film that’s a bit too serious to be eccentric and a bit too eccentric to be serious, but somewhere in that mix there is still a really good viewing experience with some great set pieces and really cool ideas.
Score: 3.5/5
Written by Seamus Hanly
