Let start first by saying I like Nathan Mees. He’s spoke at Western Hills for the Film Festival. We probably text/email each other at least once a week. If you don’t know, here’s a quick intro.
After I wrote my review of Snowpiercer, Nathan decided to give a rebuttal.
Here’s an excerpt. You can read the full review here.
I will not rehash Grant’s excellent overview of the film to save us all time. Rather I want to offer up a different take on the film and hopefully provide some new food for thought. Before that, however, I want to echo Grant’s admiration for the cinematography and plot.
As the film moves from car to car along the seemingly endless Snowpiercer (the name of the train) the colors grow more vibrant, the details more crisp, and the overall madness to this post-apocalyptic world more soul crushing (but in a good way). It is the proverbial onion, layers upon layers, but at the center is a deeply visceral visual experience and philosophical revelation rather than tears…
The plot tackles massive topics–social status and order, economic injustice, political manipulation and corruption–and, as Grant said, it refuses to provide neat and clean answers, and it does all of this on a train (A TRAIN! Who rides a train anymore?!) without the help of a big name star.
And this is where Grant and I cease to be on the same page…