"Snowpiercer" Is On Demand Right Now, So You Should Just Go Ahead and Watch It and Read This Review Later

Snowpiercer

South Korean filmmakers have been producing some great, memorable films for a long time now but only recently has Hollywood invited them to create English-language debuts.  Unfortunately, the track record of the first releases has been disappointing.  Kim Jee-woon (I Saw the Devil) made The Last Stand, a goofy (in a good way), but underwhelming Schwarzenegger comeback film.  Park Chan-wook (Oldboy) made Stoker, which was certainly a unique and interesting film, but it was pretty much abandoned by the studio.  Now, and this is the most unfortunate of the three, Bong Joon-ho (The Host) has made Snowpiercer, an ambitious post-apocalyptic film that is equal parts entertaining and thought-provoking.  What’s unfortunate about this is that it spent months in limbo as The Weinstein Company considered editing it so Americans could “understand” it (thankfully, the final release is the director’s version) and, despite the film making over $80 million overseas, the widest release the film had in America was around 350 theaters a few weeks ago.  In other words, this film wasn’t given a chance to become traditionally successful in America because it was assumed mass audiences wouldn’t get it, like it, etc.  Here’s where the good news comes in, however.  Rather than expand to theaters nationwide, the film was released on demand (for roughly the same price as a theater ticket).  While I would much rather have seen this on the big screen, I was still very appreciative to get a chance to watch it at all.  More importantly, for those of you who don’t venture to the theater very often, you have a chance to check out a unique sci-fi film in your living room.  Now for the actual review of Snowpiercer.

Post-apocalyptic movies are almost too common these days, so a film in the genre needs to set itself apart.  Snowpiercer easily does that as it’s about the last of humanity on a frozen Earth surviving on a train (the titular Snowpiercer) that never stops.  Because of this premise (based on a French graphic novel), some people might be turned away.  Obviously some suspension of disbelief is required (as it is for nearly all movies, I might add).  The logistics of how it all works could easily distract the viewer from the film, but I was impressed with the world Bong Joon-ho created.  But, if the message boards at IMDb.com are any indicator, some people can’t get past nitpicking the premise.  My advice is to just go with it.

The reason that the film takes place on a train is to allow for an easy metaphor for humanity.  Even with the world essentially dead, there are still social classes on the train: poor in the back, rich in the front.  But the film is more than just a “rich people are evil” metaphor.  We’ve seen that scenario played out in film and reality enough anyway.  Snowpiercer made me think more about humanity in general.  It made me think about how some of us go about our daily grind and try not to think about the less fortunate.  Or decide that people are simply meant to inhabit certain stations of the social ladder.  What stuck out to me more than anything is how the film demonstrates on a small scale how humanity works things out (usually through awful actions) by being only slightly nudged into action.  The conspiracy theorist in me sometimes likes to imagine that there is a small, powerful group of people out there controlling the world and causing wars and atrocity behind the scenes.  That part of me got into this film as it showed that happening on the smaller scale of a train.

The action of Snowpiercer is that of a revolution spearheaded by Curtis (Chris Evans) who has spent equal parts of life on Earth and the train (seventeen years each).  The film opens on the back section at its worst.  People are crammed into the back cars, fed gelatinous “protein bars,” and subjugated by the front section.  Their children are sometimes taken away never to be seen again without explanation.  Severe punishments are doled out for any rebellious action (there is a disturbing limb removal early on).  Life is awful for everyone, and they’ve reached their breaking point.  Not to spoil anything, but a revolution does occur fairly early in the film, and Snowpiercer becomes equals parts action film and social commentary.

 The action and overall look of the film affected me the most.  The world Bong Joon-ho created for this train is amazing.  The cobbled together living quarters of the back of the train contrast greatly with the front cars, which is probably the easiest feat of the film (just look at The Hunger Games, Elysium, etc. for more examples of extreme class differences).  More impressively, this world feels real and lived in.  There is a history of failed revolutions and trying times that is only referenced but feels present in each character.  Since the film takes place on a train, it allows for some great framing in scenes featuring the powerful speaking to the downtrodden.  You get to see all of the miserable faces while someone in power, like Tilda Swinton’s Mason, speaks to them about accepting their place in life…and the train.  All of this is and the excellent, brutal action is set to diverse music by Marco Beltrami.  It all just comes together in a unique way for this film, and all involved deserve credit, like the creators of the source material and co-screenwriter Kelly Masterson. 

Snowpiercer is my favorite film of the year (so far) for three reasons beyond the aforementioned praise I’ve heaped upon it: the absurdity factor, its similarity to the Silo series by author Hugh Howey and the Bioshock video game series, and the unpredictability of it all.  First, the absurd.  As I mentioned before, many people who take issue with this film immediately attack the premise which they find too implausible.  Defenders of the film usually state that you should accept the “problems” so the metaphor of society through train can work, but I defend the absurdity of the premise on the grounds that the film acknowledges it.  There are many moments that could leave you scratching your head (the use of a fish before a fight, a ridiculous shootout across train cars, impromptu holiday celebrations in otherwise serious fights, Tilda Swinton’s strange mannerisms and dialogue, etc.).  These moments gave the film some much needed levity at times, made the film unique, and showed just how messed up the human race could get if forced to survive on a train for years.  That, perhaps, is most important to me: showing that this world is not the old one.  A new, weird, terrible, absurd world has been created.  It’s enough to make you wonder if you want anybody to survive which is certainly a credit to the ideas of the film.  Secondly, the Silo and Bioshock series are near and dear to me, and since there is no film version of either (yet), Snowpiercer appealed to me because I found it to be a spiritual sibling of those stories of failed utopias, world-building gone wrong, and revolution.  Finally, this was a film that I didn’t have figured out early on.  Not that there aren’t movies that completely confuse me (hello, Holy Motors), but when it comes to movies about social injustices or sci-fi struggles, I can usually guess where it’s going to end up and who’s going to end up there.  With Snowpiercer, the majority of my expectations were upended by the end of the film.  I enjoy unpredictability in a movie more than anything because after watching so many, it’s easy to end up on autopilot as you watch, especially if you’re watching at home.  But the surprises of this film kept me glued to it as if I were in the theater.  So I suppose they knew what they were doing when they released it on demand.

My focus on the weirdness and style of the film should not be seen as a slight against the actors.  Chris Evans is still in action mode here, but he gets plenty of strong character moments which he handles very well.  Plus, he pulls off the revolutionary look very convincingly.  John Hurt is perfectly cast in a mentor role.  Tilda Swinton is likewise a great choice for the quirky Mason.  Kang-ho Song and Ah-sung Ko are fantastic as a father-daughter duo.  I could go on and on; the point is that there is not a weak point in the diverse cast.

That’s about all there is to say about this film (as if I haven’t gone on long enough).  I typically don’t like to write this much about a film (I like to keep it about half this length), but when I see a movie that works on so many levels for me it gets me excited about writing reviews in general again, especially since many people might not even be aware of this movie.  So if you’re into sci-fi, social struggle metaphors, cool action, or just weird movies in general, check Snowpiercer out.  You don’t even need to move from your couch to do it, either, so stop reading me gush about it, and watch it for yourself.  

Snowpiercer receives a:

"The Avengers"

Directed Joss Whedon, written by Whedon and Zak Penn, starring Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, and Samuel L. Jackson - Rated PG-13

Captain America: And Hulk...Smash!

This is the comic book movie people have been waiting for.  Anticipation is high for any big name comic book property adaptation (for instance, we still have The Dark Knight Rises on the way), but The Avengers is unique because it is so unlikely.  Take some of the heaviest hitters from the Marvel universe (Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Hulk, etc.) and combine them in one huge movie.  The fact that a studio was able to plan this out after each character had his own film produced is impressive.  But The Avengers doesn’t skate by on the simple existence of itself; instead it soars up there in the higher echelons because it is one of the most enjoyable action films in years.

The Avengers was always a project I was on the fence about.  I’ve always been more of an X-Men and Batman fan, so the crew of this film didn’t excite me all that much.  On top of that, I had doubts that a big studio could come up with a storyline that managed to balance all of the personalities of the film, both in character and out.  How do you justify a scene between relatively unknown characters like Loki and Black Widow when you could just have The Hulk and Thor duke it out for a half an hour?  Why have a scene with Clark Gregg and Jeremy Renner when you can have Robert Downey, Jr. talk smack to Samuel L. Jackson? 

Surprisingly, the filmmakers (writer/director/geek god Joss Whedon and writer Zak Penn) found the perfect balance of star power and character moments.  I cannot come up with a gripe along those lines.  I felt that each actor and character was given just the right amount of screen time.  This is most likely because of Whedon’s involvement (not to take away anything from Penn), but it is certainly because there are only two screenwriters on this film rather than half a dozen.  (I’m sure more than two writers took a crack at the script, but still, only having two credited writers is a good thing.)  Hollywood should take note: you don’t need a dozen writers to hash out a script.  Less can be more, especially when you’re dealing with so much. 

Speaking of balance, The Avengers also finds a great balance between action and comedy.  I cannot remember the last film I watched that had me glued to the action one moment and laughing aloud the next.  I don’t want to ruin any gags; I just want to point out that any joke situation I could think of among these vastly different characters was addressed and it was addressed well.  Thankfully, the film never delves into deadly serious territory (that’s what Batman is for), but instead keeps things light and entertaining. 

This is not simply a comedic action film, though.  The Avengers features some very exciting action sequences, whether it’s a fight amongst the team or a full-on intergalactic war.  The characters complement each other perfectly in battle.  As if it wasn’t already awesome to see Thor and The Hulk fight (both one-on-one and as teammates), the filmmakers managed to hit on every possible fanboy desire while also making the action compelling and easy to follow.  This applies to the entire film as characters have to work together and use their specific skill sets to help each other. 

It’s easy to forget that there are actors inhabiting these characters when you’re dealing with such an action-heavy, funny film; but if you stop and consider it, every actor does a fine job.  I don’t want to waste space and write an individual comment for every performance, especially since almost all involved have played these characters before.  Downey, Evans, and Hemsworth have their respective characters down and it’s a lot of fun to simply watch them talk to each other.  Lone newcomer Mark Ruffalo has some amusing moments as well as Bruce Banner, but it is the CG-enhanced Hulk version that is the real force behind the film. 

It’s not just that the CG Hulk actually looks like the actor portraying him (previous incarnations involving Eric Bana and Edward Norton tried to personalize the face, but failed); it’s that The Hulk has finally found a film formula that works.  First, he’s not just trying to free himself of his power this time around.  Second, The Hulk is so much more fun to watch when he’s only part of the crew.  As ironic as it is, The Hulk is just not capable of carrying his own film.  Throw him in with some other superheroes, though, and you wonder why his character isn’t as popular as the rest.  Just to be clear, though, I still think The Hulk is not right for a full feature film.  Perhaps they can work him into some of the other individual films to keep the audience sated until the next true Avengers film. 

If The Hulk is the bright spot in the line up of The Avengers, then baddie Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is the weak point.  Nothing against Hiddleston, he does a fine job and is obviously having fun as the bad guy of the film, but the character of Loki pales in comparison to the iconic villains of other franchises.  This is hardly a major problem, though, especially when you’d rather spend all of your time with the heroes, anyway. 

The Avengers is nearly perfect in accomplishing what it sets out to do.  It’s a big budget movie that looks expensive.  It’s an action-comedy that provides thrilling set pieces and hilarious gags.  It’s a movie about a team that also seamlessly caters to each individual.  It might just be the best comic book movie ever made, if you’re judging it based on the sheer level of enjoyment it provides.  As of this writing, The Avengers has already broken box office records.  Part of that might be hype.  But a larger part is because The Avengers is simply a good movie.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Everything with Thor and The Hulk was simply awesome.  The Hulk unable to lift Mjolnir, Hulk punching Thor out of nowhere, etc.

I loved how the film acknowledged that some characters don't understand modern references.  My favorite moment was when Captain America spoke up after hearing "flying monkeys."  "I get it! I understood that reference..."

"Captain America: The First Avenger"

Captain America: The First Avenger - Directed by Joe Johnston, written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, starring Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell, and Tommy Lee Jones - Rated PG-13

Okay, we've seen 'em all now, so bring on The Avengers.

The summer of superheroes is nearly over, but Captain America: The First Avenger has been one of the most anticipated films of the season. If you’re not suffering from comic book burnout at this point, Captain America makes for a fun, entertaining summer film that is a bit different than other movies of the genre because of the time period it takes place in. The film may not feature any largely memorable moments and doesn’t really have much in the way of style, but it is definitely worth a watch.

Captain America is an origin story that takes place during World War II. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is a scrawny, sickly man who just wants to fight for his country but can’t get a doctor to let him in. Enter Stanley Tucci as a German doctor with a special serum that can create a super soldier and Steve Rogers becomes Captain America.

That’s enough for synopsis because as an origin story the whole movie is about Rogers’ transformation so to explain it further would ruin a bit of the movie. As for acting, Evans makes a likable and believable hero and Tucci has a few good scenes as a mentor-type. There are many more characters in the film that deserve a mention, especially because the cast of this film is so strong. Hugo Weaving stands out as Red Skull, the Nazi villain of the film. Weaving tweaks his voice to the point that it sounds eerily similar to Willem Dafoe and it fits the character quite well. Toby Jones was a nice addition as Red Skull’s scientist. Hayley Atwell works fine as Rogers’ handler/love interest. But it’s Tommy Lee Jones who steals the show as the cranky colonel. Every scene he was in was entertaining because of his presence.

There are a few other actors and characters that could be mentioned but that would just be exhausting to read and that is part of the problem with Captain America. Some characters take a backseat because of the bloated cast. Take, for instance, Captain America’s team of soldiers. Some of them are portrayed by very good actors like Derek Luke and Neal McDonough but they get almost nothing to do. If this were a sequel rather than an origin story there could have been much more time devoted to that crew, who instead only get small moments usually played for laughs.

Captain America provides quite a few laughs, actually. The best gags involve the reference to Captain America as a character in the movie itself. This gives the filmmakers the opportunity to play with the original uniform and the iconic image from the first comic book of Captain America punching out Adolf Hitler. The film actually works best in these moments because they serve to build the character of Captain America, though they take up a bit too much of the runtime.

Another problem with Captain America is that it takes so long for him to actually become a superhero, and even then he’s kind of a vague hero. This is just the problem of an origin story since you have to spend so much time building up to the character that you, the audience member, already know he will become. It can get a little boring. As for the vagueness, it’s never really explained what makes Captain America all that special. He’s a bit stronger and a bit faster than a normal human, but when compared to other superheroes he comes off as a bit plain and even weak. But we’ll see how he really compares to them when he shows up in next year’s The Avengers.

Captain America can be kind of a plain, straightforward hero so it’s fitting that the action of this film is straightforward as well. There isn’t much in the way of style in Captain America but it does feature plenty of action and it’s the kind of action that is easy to follow. The film is also in 3-D and while it makes a few scenes look decent because of explosions and debris it is largely useless, just as 3-D has been in nearly all of its live-action incarnations.

The film actually looked great overall, largely due to the time period it takes place in. The World War II setting sets this film apart, in a good way. The visual effects were impressive as well, mainly the scrawny version of star Chris Evans. He looks realistic as a 90-pound weakling, but they kept his voice the same, which made it unintentionally funny every time he spoke. But that’s not a deal breaker or anything for this movie.

Overall Captain America is fine summer film that should appeal to many people. It may be a bit anti-climactic and it might be a little plain, but it’s still entertaining and funny enough to watch. You can skip the 3-D, though.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I suppose some might argue my comment about the ending being anti-climactic since there are chases and explosions and plenty of death and whatnot. But I still argue that it was kind of weak. Red Skull is defeated simply by picking up the cube? And it wasn't like Captain America realized that is what he had to do. He only exposed the cube by accident, really. Plus, was there any wonder where this one was going? First off, you get that needless intro showing the shield in the crashed plane. Then, there's the news out there about The Avengers and I had even read a story about how the sequel was going to take place in the present day. With all of that knowledge, more than usual, we know that it is all going to work out.

Back to Red Skull grabbing the cube, though. Is he still kicking, then? It looked like he was just transported to Asgard or something. Definitely interested in seeing where that goes in the future movies.

Next year can't get here soon enough, by the way. I really need The Avengers to tie it all together.

On a more superfluous note, how awesome was Neal McDonough's 'stache?

"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World"

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World - Directed by Edgar Wright, written by Michael Bacall and Edgar Wright, starring Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kieran Culkin, Chris Evans, and Jason Schwartzman - Rated PG-13

This movie isn't for everyone, but it's definitely for me.

Here’s the deal: I saw Scott Pilgrim vs. the World nearly a week after its release. I know it bombed (or at least it didn’t exactly tear up the box office), and I am aware that many critics, especially those of the online persuasion, sang its praises as loud as they could.

Now, with all that out of the way, allow me to fall in line with all the rest. I loved every minute of this film. It was dork heaven. I knew from the very beginning that this film was made for me. Instead of the traditional Universal Studios intro, there is an 8-bit videogame version of the logo with retro videogame music to match. In a word: awesome.

Before I really get into why I love this movie so much, I will acknowledge that this film is not for everyone. In fact, it’s not for most people. First, it’s based on a series of graphic novels. I loved the graphic novels (even if I only read them because I heard about the film project), so the realization of the series as a film was its own thrill. Second, it stars Michael Cera, who is becoming one of my favorite comedic actors. Third, it contains numerous old school videogame references. When an enemy is defeated, coins appear. Scott gets a 1-UP at one point. The main characters have a band called Sex Bob-omb, etc. Fourth, this is a comic book adaptation in the truest sense. When a phone rings, “Riiiinnnnnngggggg” shows up on the screen. That kind of thing happens throughout. Fifth, you have to accept that supernatural fights break out every now and then, and none of the characters seem surprised by it.

After reading that, you have one of two reactions. Either you think it sounds like a garbled mess of a movie or it sounds like an amazing entertainment experience. I, of course, fall into the latter of the two.

If you’re still reading, here’s a quick synopsis: Scott Pilgrim (Cera) is a slacker in his early 20s. He’s dating a high school girl, but soon meets Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), who is literally the girl of his dreams. He has to juggle being in the midst of a battle of the bands while battling Ramona’s seven evil exes.

Scott Pilgrim is not about plot, though. It’s about the little things. That’s how the comic worked and that’s how the movie works. There are so many moments in this film that work so well in their small doses that I can’t recount them all…but I’ll at least name a few. There’s the vegan police, the “Seinfeld” scene, the music (I highly suggest buying the soundtrack), the awesome fight scenes, there’s a bass battle, etc. Once again, that sounds messy, but it works somehow.

I can see someone watching this and getting completely lost, but I watched it and became completely engrossed in it. The editing is jarring, but in a good way. The cuts create a real comic book feeling (and it was nice to see actual panels from the comic used in the film). An example of that is how quickly the movie goes from one location to the next or from night to day. Director Edgar Wright truly captured the spirit of the books. More impressive, he made the best videogame movie ever…and this isn’t even based on a videogame.

I mention the videogame stuff again because the movie is very much inspired by games. If you’re not an old-school gamer, then a lot of the references and sound effects will be completely lost on you. This is why I don’t plan on recommending this movie to most people. But most of my friends will dig the videogame stuff. My common acquaintances, though, I’ll tell them to skip it…or at least watch at their own risk.

The casting is causing an issue as well. Some people out there just hate Michael Cera. Obviously, I am not one of those people. I still think if people check out Youth in Revolt they’ll see that Cera has some chops and isn’t a one-note actor. Scott Pilgrim is another example of his acting ability. He isn’t playing the whiny, dry-humored virgin in this one. In fact, he plays an oblivious, grinning idiot, which is a stretch for him. He completely pulls it off, too. There are moments in this film when he just stares into space with a stupid grin on his face and it is hilarious. I hate to say it, though, but this movie isn’t going to change anyone’s mind about the guy. If you hate Cera, you just hate him. There’s no getting around it, I guess. If your only reason for avoiding this film is Cera, however, I am pleading with you: put aside your hatred of him and give the movie a chance.

The supporting cast backs up Cera quite nicely. Winstead has a kind of beauty that I can’t put my finger on, and she plays cool so well. I can completely understand why Pilgrim falls for her. Kieran Culkin stands out as Scott’s witty roommate. Chris Evans is very funny as the bad actor ex-boyfriend of Ramona. His gruff voice is amusing alone. Brandon Routh (the latest Superman) is surprisingly hilarious as a psychic vegan. And Jason Schwartzman is perfect as Gideon Graves, the most evil of all the evil exes. To be honest, I could just list the entire supporting cast because they all work so well. Perhaps this is just the graphic novel fan coming out in me, but I felt that every actor embodied their comic counterpart.

Now’s the time I’m supposed to tell you what’s wrong with Scott Pilgrim, but I have nothing for you. What some might find messy, I find brilliantly disheveled. The action that some may find outlandish, I found surprisingly well filmed. The music that some may find grating, I found humorous and catchy. I’ll say it again: This film was made for me.