Reviews Nov 03 2008 @ 08:50 am
REVIEW: Transsiberian
Directed By: Brad Anderson
Written By: Brad Anderson, Will Conroy
Starring: Woody Harrelson, Emily Mortimer, Ben Kingsley, Kate Mara, Eduardo Noriega
Running Time: 111 minutes
Rated R for some violence, including torture and language
This review was originally published September 3rd, 2008.
It turns out Ben Kingsley still can make a good movie — consider me pleasantly surprised. After his embarrassing turn in The Love Guru and the disappointing The Wackness (not to mention Elegy, which I haven’t yet seen but have heard mixed things about), I was starting to lose faith in the ol’ guy. Then I saw the surprisingly entertaining thriller Transsiberian (a coproduction of Spain, the U.K., Lithuania, Germany and China), and my faith was restored. Don’t let me oversell it — Transsiberian is far from being a great film, and I certainly wouldn’t recommend it to everyone — but it was a nice little surprise.
The film is a somewhat typical thriller that takes place on the Transsiberian Railway (which runs between China and Moscow), playing out about like a mash-up of Murder on the Orient Express, Detour and Fargo. The latter is present right down to the Middle American stereotype played by Woody Harrelson (Natural Born Killers, No Country for Old Men) — the accent’s not as exaggerated, but the rest of it is there: he’s protestant, white, middle class, and generally dorky and clueless (essentially a live-action Ned Flanders). The film kicks off when he and his former “bad girl” wife Jessie (Emily Mortimer, Lars and the Real Girl) finish a short-term mission trip to Beijing and decide to ride the rails across Asia. Here they make the acquaintance of a mysterious Spaniard named Carlos (Eduardo Noriega, Vantage Point) and his American girlfriend Abby (Kate Mara, Brokeback Mountain) — who may or may not be all that they seem.
Of course we are talking about a thriller here, so I can’t say much more without “spoiling” it, but expect the requisite twists and turns. Visually, this is the same sort of anti-noir that the Coen brothers and Christopher Nolan pioneered with Fargo and Insomnia, respectively: astonishing aerial and tracking shots where the screen is filled with white, not black: miles and miles of barren, snowy wasteland, driving home the isolation of the characters (particularly those who “have somebody”). Paired with a mournful string soundtrack, it makes Transsiberian a somber affair, even in its most shocking and most humorous moments.
Thematically, it could best be described as post-feminist neo-noir, with Jessie playing the tragic hero, here led astray by the combined forces of fate and the “homme fatale” Carlos. Her sexual and romantic frustrations make for a tense first act — one which concludes with one of the most shocking, devastating acts of violence I’ve seen on screen in a long time. (And which should please — or possibly offend — film snobs, by inverting some key iconography from Béla Tarr’s Satantango.)
And then, sadly, it all falls apart.
Director Brad Anderson (The Machinist) has chosen an unfortunate two-act structure for this film, with this violent moment acting as the bridge between them. It’s not necessarily a bad idea, but in practice, it makes for a first act that’s impossible to follow up. He’s also elected to make some subversive, Hitchcockian decisions in whom to kill off, and while Hitch could probably have made it work, for Anderson it merely deflates the tension. While the first half of the film chugs along, powered by sexual sparks, constant back-stabbing and general suspense, the second half derails (literally) and becomes a mess of drug politics, graphic torture, and gee-whiz action sequences, all of which attempt to top the earlier crimes of desperation, and none of which do. (And unfortunately for him and his highly rehearsed Russian accent, this is when Kingsely shows up.) It’s not hard to tell where it’s going, and it takes no interesting twists or turns getting there.
This is all frustrating, since the first half promises a masterpiece of neo-noir; sadly it was not to be. Still, the film is arguably worth seeing for the first half alone — not to mention Mortimer’s excellent performance as the girl who can’t escape her past and Kingsley’s very good work as the crooked cop. With another rewrite or two, Transsiberian could have been a serious contender; as it is, it’s just another foreign film with some vaguely offensive stereotypes of Midwesterners. The choice is yours.
on Sep 03 2008 @ 9:31 am 1. Sam Juliano said …
Beautifully written review Luke, and I mean it in every sense of the word. I didn’t like this film, and I agree it completely fell apart at the mid-point. While you aptly make comparisons to MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS, DETOUR and FARGO, I also thought of Hitchcock’s THE LADY VANISHES (1935) upon which it evinces some modest paralells. I do agree that is showcased some shocking and devastating acts of violence (some of the most numbing we’ve seen on screen–again as you say)and that your description of it as a kind of “post-feminist” neo noir has some validity. But the word “convoluted” has rarely had a stronger anchor than it does in this film, despite admittedly very fine performances by Ms. Mortimer and Mr. Kingsley. Of course the setting gave opportunity for some striking widescreen cinematography.
on Sep 03 2008 @ 9:31 am 2. Evan Derrick said …
When did you see this? I wasn’t aware it was playing around here.
I really, really dug The Machinist, probably way more than I should have. So this gets an interested nod from me in that regard. Your piece indicates this is prime guilty pleasure rental material – I can dig that. And who doesn’t like to watch a gritty Ben Kingsley chew up the scenery? It’s been far too long since Sexy Beast came out.
on Sep 03 2008 @ 9:39 am 3. Nick Plowman said …
Oh, this one, I want to see it, but when? Whenever I want I guess, I have it on a screener disc, but I have no time.
on Sep 03 2008 @ 9:44 am 4. Evan Derrick said …
That’s always the problem, isn’t it, Nick? Not enough time for anything.
on Sep 03 2008 @ 9:54 am 5. Luke Harrington said …
Evan, it’s currently playing at the AMC Southroads. It must have just opened on Friday. Your summary there is pretty much dead-on. Nothing to write home about, but not a bad genre flick, and LOTS of scenery chewing from Kingsley. (To be honest, I kind of hoped he’d shout “Moose and squirrel!” sometime…sadly, no.)
Sam, I actually haven’t seen The Lady Vanishes, which is shameful since I’ve occasionally claimed to be a Hitchcock fan. I’ll definitely check it out…sometime (I have time issues too). Thanks for the praise, though.
Nick, the film’s worth seeing, but if you never get around to it, you won’t miss that much.
on Sep 03 2008 @ 10:51 am 6. Andrew Wyatt said …
Good review, Luke. Your impressions weren’t quite quite the same as mine–I was with Anderson from beginning to end, but overall the film was pretty forgettable–yet we arrived at the same middling assessment.
My full review here:
http://gatewaycinephiles.com/2008/09/02/they-caught-a-bad-bad-train/
on Sep 03 2008 @ 5:40 pm 7. Luke Harrington said …
Thanks for the thoughts, Andrew. I read your review, and I can’t really argue with what you say. I think what did it in for me was (SPOILER!!!!) the fact that the dynamics between the four characters were so tense for the first half, and then he killed off the one that was the source of nearly all the tension.
I will say that you do a much better job of dissecting Harrelson’s character than I do. Perhaps I shouldn’t have merely written him off as a Ned Flanders knock-off.
on Sep 03 2008 @ 6:14 pm 8. Andrew Wyatt said …
Thanks for the kind words, Luke. I really liked your formulation–”post-feminist neo-noir”–because it gets at one of the things I found unexpected and exciting about the film. Admittedly, Harrelson’s character was kind of irksome for me, but it wasn’t a defeating factor since I think he was supposed to be irksome: the oblivious, reliable main squeeze to Mortimer’s conflicted hero(ine) with the shady past. Jess’ many deceptions makes a kind of sense, given the dual tensions of not wanting to disappoint Roy’s glossy assumptions about her, and also knowing that he’s not the sort of person who would empathize with her moral plight. The first tension suggests that the flaw in their marriage is Jess’ fault (her ethical failure), while the second suggests it’s Roy’s (his simple-minded righteousness). Admittedly fascinating stuff, despite the film’s flaws.
on Sep 05 2008 @ 6:01 pm 9. Matthew Lucas said …
Kingsley was great in THE WACKNESS, but you’re right about it being disappointing.
He’s also quite good in this – a smaller role in a superior film, but he is definitely a bright spot. This is one of those suburban nightmare in a foreign country films that actually works, unlike the HOSTEL movies. They went for a very Hitchcockian vibe, that they actually pull off for the most part. It didn’t take the direction I expected it to take, and that’s always a plus.
on Nov 03 2008 @ 2:15 pm 10. Alexander Coleman said …
An excellent review, Luke. I am in just about complete simpantico with your opinion.
I found it disappointing as well, particularly after, as you note, the mid-point act of violence.
on Jan 13 2009 @ 6:11 pm 11. [review]: Transsiberian « …yet made of stars said …
[...] 13, 2009 Cross-posted at: MovieZeal • Tulsa [...]