Today’s quick review: Snowpiercer. Seventeen years after an attempt to stop global warming turned the world into a frozen wasteland, humanity’s last survivors live on a self-sufficient train that constantly circles the globe. Sick of living in cramped squalor at the back of the train while the upper-class passengers live in luxury, Curtis (Chris Evans) leads a revolt of underclass passengers to take the engine by force.
Snowpiercer is a dystopian science fiction movie about a train keeping humanity alive on a dead planet. Snowpiercer uses its unique premise to shine a light on themes of class conflict, self-determination, and the morality of survival. Strong acting, an interesting setting, and the makings of a fine dystopia give the film potential. However, subtle and pervasive issues with its writing and direction undermine much of what it is trying to achieve.
Snowpiercer’s best asset is its cast. Chris Evans delivers a surprisingly compelling performance marred only by rough spots in the material he’s given. The same goes for the supporting cast, which includes John Hurt, Ed Harris, Tilda Swinton, Octavia Spencer, Song Kang Ho, Jamie Bell, and Alison Pill. Their dramatic talent goes a long way towards selling the movie’s bleak vision of the future and giving the audience a reason to care.
But Snowpiercer has a hard time capitalizing on its acting and other strengths. The movie struggles to keep control of its tone, thanks to directorial missteps and lines of dialogue that miss the mark. Every time Snowpiercer gathers up dramatic momentum, it fumbles it. Moments that are meant to be powerful come across as absurd. Touches of satire undercut the film’s serious tone. The errors are subtle but frequent and accumulate over time.
Moreover, Snowpiercer squanders the viewer’s suspension of disbelief. The train is a striking setting but a logistical nightmare, home to a mobile, self-sustaining ecosystem that has no clear source of food or energy. Another movie might have been able to gloss over the details in favor of other aspects of the story, but Snowpiercer explicitly talks about the train’s delicate ecosystem without explaining how it can exist in the first place.
How much you get out of Snowpiercer will depend on the vagaries of taste. The ideal viewer will appreciate its political themes, overlook its stumbles, and invest heavily in its characters. But Snowpiercer makes enough mistakes to turn a critical viewer off the movie altogether, and its bleak vision of the future won’t resonate with everyone. Those interested in the class aspects of its premise will get the most out of it; others should steer clear.
For a more nuanced portrait of a technology-induced class divide, try Gattaca. For a more unhinged tale of class conflict, try High-Rise. For a sci-fi aciton movie with similar political themes, try Elysium. For dystopian sci-fi in the same vein, try Children of Men, The Giver, or Patema Inverted.
7.1 out of 10 on IMDB. I give it a 6.0 to 6.5 for strong acting and a decent premise hurt by weak plot logic and subtly flawed execution.