Snowpiercer

Bong Joon-ho's post apocalyptic thriller, Snowpiercer, took a long time to get an American release. The film first premiered overseas almost a year ago. It seems odd that anybody would stall releasing a film starring actors such as Chris Evans, Tilda Swinton, Octavia Spencer, John Hurt and Jamie Bell, but despite the worldwide acclaim the film had received, the US release was held up due to the Weinstein Company, who bought the US distribution rights. Initially, the Weinsteins planned to edit the film down into what they considered a more marketable, action oriented cut, (did they learn nothing from the infamous Battle of Brazil?)* Thankfully, they relented and agreed to release the film unedited in the US, but the trade-off is that the film would only get a limited release.

Seeing as how, these days, films rarely get the chance to jump from small art-house releases to nationwide roll outs, if Snowpiercer isn't playing in your neighborhood, you might have to wait for it to come out on video, but it is worth it. The film takes place in a future where an attempt to curb global warming disastrously fails, plunging the Earth's temperatures to uninhabitable levels. The last survivors of the human race are on a train that endlessly circles the world.

It's an absurd premise, but other filmmakers have taken more believable movie premises and made them into outrageously implausible movies, and Snowpiercer's premise makes more sense once you realize it's a class conflict allegory. The very back of the train is a cramped, squalid slum whose inhabitants are not permitted to leave the car. Meanwhile the rest of the train's inhabitants are free to move about and live in luxury. One of the tail section's inhabitants, Curtis (played by Chris Evans,) decides to lead a revolution to take the engine.



Once the tail section's inhabitants make it into the main body of the train, the environment shifts from being a dark, gritty slum into a surreal and luxurious wonderland. All of the cars are extremely purpose-specific and instead of being cars adapted to fit certain functions, they are instead built like rooms in buildings on stable land. There's a nightclub car, a spa car, and even an aquarium car complete with an underwater tunnel. There's a particularly bizarre scene in a schoolhouse car, featuring a overtly pure and wholesome teacher.

In spite of strange environments of the various train cars, the movie itself doesn't feel too weird or surreal, because the protagonists remain firmly rooted in the environment of the ghetto they're trying to escape from. It's a dynamic similar to The Hunger Games, in which the Capital's residents live ostentatious lifestyles, and only look upon residents of the outer districts with disgust. The over-the-top nature of the luxury cars on the train only reinforce how out of the way the train's upper class go to live the lifestyle they want, at the expense of those in the back.

In case you're wondering, the film does address why the most bizarre aspect of the film's premise occurs, namely why the train keeps going on an endless loop instead of just staying in one place. The reason given may not be the best, or most plausible, but if the train just stayed still we'd all be denied the visual spectacle of intense battles in tight environments, or the strangeness of luxury amenities cramped into train cars. Snowpiercer balances it's surreal and realistic moments extremely well, allowing you to enjoy its stranger moments, while maintaining a very clear and focused plot.

Balance is actually a central theme to the story in Snowpiercer. The characters constantly remind the tail sectioners that the train is a closed environment, and one way or another it's an ecosystem that must be maintained. There are a few scenes sprinkled throughout the movie that argue that the way things are in the inescapable ark are the way they must be for humanity to keep on surviving, but usually before you can consider buying into the argument, the film hits you with a grisly revelation that keeps you rooting for the tail section.

Personally, I saw Snowpiercer as being a dystopian drama with elements of action, and not a straight up action movie, like the Weinstein Company saw it as. However, there are some pretty intense action scenes in the film, so their plan to edit the film into an action flick isn't completely unfounded. There's a pretty intense scene early in the film in which the tail sectioners, armed only with pipes and other blunt instruments, open a car door to find the next section is full of guards all armed with axes and pikes. The scene that follows is inevitably brutal and gripping, and somewhat reminiscent of the infamous hammer scene from Oldboy.

This isn't a soulcrushingly dark movie, though. To contrast the grittier aspects of the film, there's plenty of humor running through the movie. Some of it comes from the peculiarities of the front end of the train's inhabitants, and some from the tail sectioners being hopelessly outmatched by their combatants. Bong Joon-ho seems to fully acknowledge how crazy the premise of the movie is, and plays up the absurdity without going overboard, similar to the films of Guillermo Del Toro.

However, like I said earlier, this film is at its heart a drama, and the cast delivers some incredible performances. Tilda Swinton throws herself into the role of Mason, a mouthpiece for the head of the train. She's so quirky and unrecognizable in the role, its the kind of immersive performance one usually associates with Johnny Depp. However, the actor who really gets a chance to show what he's capable of is Chris Evans. He's obviously best known for roles in action movies, and a few romantic comedies as well, but I get the sense he's been trying to take on more serious roles as well, even if most of the ones he's had so far have been in movies that have gone largely unnoticed. That may change, as near the end of Snowpiercer, his character delivers a monologue about what it took to survive seventeen years in the tail section of the train that's a bit chilling at parts, but definitely shows he's capable of taking on a more dramatic role in a film not full of gunfights and explosions. This movie may also prove to be a breakout film for actress Ko Ah-sung, one of the surprisingly few Korean actresses in this South Korean movie. She has a supporting role in the film as a character that's oddly indifferent to the revolt she's partaking in, and is also responsible for some of the best moments in the movie.

It's a shame that the Weinstein Company opted to give this film a small release in the middle of summer, because it probably would have done quite well if released nationwide between January and March, which is a time of year often seen as a dumping ground for mediocre movies, and would have been the perfect time for a film like this to stand out. Fortunately, although Snowpiercer presents a very unique visual spectacle, it isn't one that necessarily needs a massive screen and killer sound system to be enjoyed at its best.

If this film does have one thing going for it's American release, it's that despite being a Korean film, it's primarily in English and has a cast primarily made up of Western actors, so it's unlikely that this version of the film will be undercut by an American-made remake way too soon.

*For those of you who didn't click through the link, and are unfamiliar with the so-called Battle of Brazil, Terry Gilliam's 1985 sci-fi dystopian film, Brazil, faced a similar situation as Snowpiercer regarding it's US release. Universal, which had bought the US release rights to Brazil wanted to recut the film, trimming down its running time and making it more upbeat overall. The US release was held up until Gilliam held private screenings of his original version in the US, ultimately winning Best Picture award by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association. The original version still didn't get released in the US, but Gilliam approved of a considerably less invasive cut of the film. 

Her

Upon hearing the premise of the film Her, it's easy to get a misconception of what this movie is about. You may have gotten the impression it's about a pathetic loser who is so hopeless at interacting with people that he develops a relationship with the operating system on his phone. Yes, the film is about a man who falls in love with his phone, but he's not some sort of loser with social issues. Rather, Her is a movie about how our relationship with technology is changing, and the strange consequences that result from us trying to make technology easier to interact with. It's a story about falling in love with an artificial intelligence that's advanced enough to have a self aware consciousness.

The film is set in a near future where technology has changed how we interact with people. It doesn't really cast judgement on whether those changes are good or bad. Bluetooth earpieces make a comeback. People actually talk in chat rooms with their voices instead of typing. They send handwritten letters to each other, but they outsource them to a website called Beautiful Handwritten Letters.com. The main character, Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), is a man going through a divorce. He upgrades the operating system on his phone and computer to a new one that uses artificial intelligence. After it personalizes itself to him, it takes on a female persona that names herself Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson).

The film does an excellent job of making this seemingly absurd concept feel plausible. When Samantha and Theo first start talking, she comes off as just an easy to interact with operating system. She offers to help sort organize his emails and calendar. Then Theo finds himself talking to her about things that have nothing to do with organizing his life, and soon they find themselves attracted to each other.

Their relationship undergoes similar highs and lows as any human/human relationship would, except at its low points, Theo and other characters in the film do call attention to the fact that it is a relationship with a computer. It's because of moments like that, where the characters question the emotions they're feeling from technology (and the technology itself questions the emotions it feels from humans) the movie has a sort of prophetic feel to it. Her joins the ranks of other sci-fi classics such as Gattaca and Minority Report that are in many ways so on the nose with their premises that it feels like less of a question of "Could this happen?" and more of a question of "What do we do when this happens?"

Lets face it. We are actively working on making computers easier to interact with, and we're working on making artificial intelligence convincing enough to pass a turing test. I wouldn't be surprised if the first time most of us interacted with a true artificial intelligence it would be in the form of an operating system. Think of how big a deal Apple made about Siri on its iPhone. Imagine what a selling point it would be if a company came out with a computer you could actually converse with. The easier computers are to talk to, it's not too hard to imagine people feeling a bond of friendship with them, especially if computers are capable of showing friendship back.

Her is actually a much tamer film than you'd expect from writer/director Spike Jonze. Jonze's previous films have been unabashedly strange and surrealistic, such as Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, (both of which were written by the unquestionably strange Charlie Kaufman.) He's also known for music videos such as Fatboy Slim's "Praise You" and "Weapon of Choice." And of course there's his work in advertising, making ads such as the "Tainted Love" ad for Levi's and the greatest Gap commercial ever.

Considering how strange Jonze's filmography is, Her feels surprisingly down to earth. Yes, the film does have moments of quirkiness, such as having characters play unusual video games, and having high waisted pants be the go-to fashion trend, but it's light on the weirdness, so as not to distract from the characters.

Jonze made a brilliant choice in not giving Samantha a face. She's represented through abstract imagery on computers, but most of the time her only visual presence is as the phone or an earpiece. I think this is what sells the story the most. It shoots past the uncanny valley by not giving her some sort of faux human digital representation. Instead Samantha sounds like a woman Theo is having a conversation with on the phone. There were actually moments in the movie where I forgot that she wasn't somebody Theo was having a long distance relationship with over the phone, but rather the phone itself.

Of course since we never see Samantha, this means most of the dialogue between her and Theo involve long shots of Joaquin Phoenix staring off into space as he holds his end of the conversation. It does take some getting used to at first, but it also helps immerse you in his character.

The film also takes the high road in not representing the future as bleak, or our first encounter with a conscious AI as being apocalyptic. Considering that "future dystopia" and "robot uprising" are two of the most common tropes in science fiction, not using either one in a film set in the future, about computers, seems downright revolutionary. Her felt so grounded in a plausible reality, that when I saw the trailer for the upcoming film Transcendence, a thriller where a man's consciousness is uploaded into a computer and then turns evil, that premise felt hilariously absurd.

Her is an unexpectedly heavy and emotional film. You wouldn't think a movie about a man talking to a phone for two hours could emotionally resonate with you in the way a movie about a more conventional romance would, but Joaquin Phoenix's performance, and Jonze's writing and directing really drive it home. The relationship between Theo and Samantha feels real enough that as the logistical problems of a human and a program being in love present themselves, the tragic aspect of the story slowly creeps forth. Although the aesthetics of the movie may seem dated in a few years, I believe that the core story of Her will definitely age well.

The Kings of Summer

The premise of The Kings of Summer is a fantasy I suspect a lot of people have entertained at some point in their lives, namely the idea of running off to live in the woods. Whether it's to break away from civilization, or to prove to yourself that you could truly rough it, it's a fun idea to entertain, and The Kings of Summer crafts a fun movie out of it.

The film is about three high school students named Joe, Patrick and Biaggio who decide they want to run away and build a house in the forest. It starts when Joe, unable to put up with his widowed father, runs out one night to go to a party with friends. On the way home, he gets lost and comes across a clearing in the woods. He goes back with his friends, and pitches them the idea of living there. At first they pass it off as just a fun idea, but then decide they want to do it for real.

The Kings of Summer does a great job of balancing out its characters. On the one hand, you get why the boys decide to run away. To them, their parents are unbearable to be around. For example, Joe is constantly butting heads with his dad, who comes off as gruff and over-intrusive. On the other hand, the film doesn't try to vilify the parents, it just makes them the sort of parents a teenager would want to rebel against.

Something about this film reminded me of the movie Adventureland, and I think it's that both build upon the idea of having a truly memorable summer, without feeling as if the filmmakers are being nostalgic for their own youth. Kings of Summer is a fun story that does a great job of building upon its premise. Yes, there are bits of drama in the story, (after all, it is a film about kids running away from home,) but overall its a lighthearted, fun, escapist comedy. It's the perfect movie for a warm summer night, or alternatively, a freezing cold night in the dead of winter when you want to watch something to remind you what the warm summer sun feels like.



There were two stand out performances in this movie. First, there's Nick Offerman as Frank, Joe's dad. Okay, I'm guessing I already lost a few of you at the mention of Nick Offerman's name, as you likely just left to check showtimes to see when this movie is playing next. For the rest of you, Offerman does some well balanced acting. I haven't actually watched him on Parks and Recreation, but I know his character on that show has earned him a pretty big following, and from this movie, I can see why. He delivers some hilariously deadpan insults to the other characters, especially at one of the cops who's trying to find his son. However, despite how intolerable he is to the other characters, you still end up feeling sympathy for him.

The other great performance was by Moises Arias, who plays Biaggio, the third kid in the trio. His character is the kid everybody knew in high school that just lurks about, and seems incapable of doing or saying anything that doesn't come off as completely weird. (I suspect some people I went to high school with might accuse me of being that guy, but lets move on, shall we?) I don't think I've seen somebody do as good a job at stealing every scene he's in since McLovin in Superbad. Biaggio does everything with an insane level of intensity, while at the same time being somewhat absurdly dressed in about every scene. I'm sure we're going to see a lot more of all three of the actors who play the boys in this movie, but I think this movie will be a breakout film for Arias.

So far, Kings of Summer has been among the best movies I've seen this summer. It's been a while since we've seen a movie become a true sleeper hit, jumping from the indie cinemas and working its way up the box office rankings, and it would be awesome if a movie like this pulled it off. I think the only reason this didn't get a wider initial release was because it was the debut film for both the director and writer. However, it's such a polished film, you wouldn't know it. We'll hopefully be seeing more from them in the future.

Trance

I remember the first time I ever saw a Danny Boyle movie. One of my friends had come over with a copy of Shallow Grave, and simply said, "We're watching this," as if the matter wasn't up for discussion. The film turned out to be a chilling, disturbing psychological thriller that felt like something Hitchcock would have done if he could have gotten away with it in his day. Since then, Boyle has gone on to make films of varying genres, such as crime, romance, horror, family films and stories of personal struggle, sometimes mashing the genres all together. Yet, he hadn't returned to doing a straight-up psychological thriller until Trance.

Trance revolves around three central characters. There's Simon (James McAvoy), an employee at an auction house, Franck (Vincent Cassel), ringleader of a group of thieves, and Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson), a hypnotist. The film opens with Simon explaining to the audience the security procedure for when somebody tries to steal from an auction house. If possible, take the most valuable pieces of art, and drop them into a time locked vault. Don't be a hero. He reiterates a mantra, "No piece of art is worth a human life."

Yet, when Franck tries to steal a painting from under Simon's nose, Simon violates his most basic rule. He tries to attack Franck, but instead takes a severe blow to the head for his efforts. Franck runs off with a case containing the painting, but later realizes that all he has is the frame. Simon is the only person who knows what happened to the painting, but because of his head injury he can't remember what he did with it. Franck then hires Elizabeth, the hypnotist, to help him remember where he put it.

It quickly becomes apparent that there's more going on to the story than initially appears, especially since Elizabeth, a professional, shows little reluctance to assisting a gang of thieves with locating a piece of stolen artwork. Even though Simon, Franck and Elizabeth are working together to figure out what Simon did with the painting, they may be trying to manipulate each other for reasons that aren't initially clear.



The story gets increasingly twisted as the film progresses, and I mean that in two different ways. It's twisted in the sense that the film is loaded with plot twists, and twisted in the sense that there are some rather disturbing moments of violence peppered throughout the film. It may not come across in the ads for the film, but consider yourself forewarned about the violence. It's not constant, but when it happens it can be rather cringe inducing. Hell, while I'm giving you a heads up about things, there's a fair amount of sex in the movie too. Just trying to spare you a few moments of awkwardness that might come up if you were planning on seeing this with your family.

But getting back to the plot twists, sure you might be able to figure out a few in advance, but there are plenty that are going to catch you off guard, even if you've got your eye out for them. They're well thought out too. No cheap shots are pulled here. I don't want to say too much and risk spoiling things for you, but I will say it merits a second viewing to get a better understanding of what you missed the first time around.

Of course, being a Danny Boyle movie, Trance is filled with slick editing and plenty of techno music. It works for the film, but I worry the music may make the film feel a bit dated later on down the road. Going back to the other Boyle film I mentioned earlier, Shallow Grave, there are moments that serve as a time capsule for what must have been the height of mid-90's house music in the UK, and somewhat distract you from the horrifyingly intense thriller you sat down to watch. I don't recall the music in Trance as being that overt, but then again, 10 years down the road it might start to stand out from the rest of the story.

Overall, Trance proved to be a genuine, unexpected surprise. I say unexpected, because as a guy who follows movies intently, I didn't really hear anything about Trance until about a month or so before its release. It was rather nice to see a trailer for a movie I was excited about, and not have to wait months for it to hit theatres. I say genuine, because it's a movie that was clearly thought out front to back and back to front. It somehow manages to be a mix of fun, suspenseful and disturbing all at the same time.

Safety Not Guaranteed

This film has one of the more unique stories behind its genesis. It was inspired by an ad that first appeared in the back of a magazine, then spread like wildfire across the internet. The ad is written by a person looking for somebody to accompany him traveling through time, who must bring their own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. The ad is only seven sentences long, but it's seven sentences that undoubtedly spark the imagination of anybody who reads it. It just so happened to spark the imaginations of a few indie filmmakers enough to make a full length movie out of it.



In Safety Not Guaranteed a reporter and two interns go in search of the author of the ad. Jeff, the reporter, is actually using the story as an excuse to try to reconnect with an old girlfriend, leaving Darius, one of his interns, to do all of the research on the story herself.

Like any good indie comedy, it shifts between laugh out loud moments and very poignant ones. The author of the ad turns out to be Kenneth, a grocery store clerk, who is actually serious about going back in time. As Darius works to gain his trust, she lets herself buy into his story, but at the same time realizes he might be dangerous. There's also elements of a buddy road trip comedy thrown into the mix as Jeff works to get the other intern he brought along to loosen up and go wild.

At its heart, Safety Not Guaranteed is a movie about characters trying to fix what's wrong in their lives, focusing on either how things are going wrong for them now, or how they messed things up in the past.  The time travel aspect of it is really just a plot device to expose what the characters want to change about how they've lived their lives. It sounds gimmicky, but it's subtle in its execution. The filmmakers never hit you over the head with how Jeff is metaphorically trying to go back in time while Kenneth is trying to do it literally.

As a side note, the author of the original ad has actually come forward and explained himself. It turns out he's not crazy. He was just trying to fill up ad space. You can read his story here.