Here is a film which I first read about and saw the trailer for maybe a year and a half ago. It looked pretty good and then it completely disappeared. Usually that’s a bad sign for a film, so I’m glad it’s finally seen the light of day on DVD, although I can’t see it being much of a financial success.
I am a fan of post-apocalyptic sci-fi as it always gives the moral message that we need to change our ways as a species in order to avoid near extinction, and how the real monsters are usually the survivors (see the Mad Max trilogy (1979-1985), or The Walking Dead (2010 onwards)).
The Colony is set in the not so distant future after scientists built weather manipulation towers to curb global warning and cool the Earth. However it went too far, it started snowing and we entered into another ice age. The human race is now living in underground colonies with limited resources, there’s a declining population and even an outbreak of the flu can result in hundreds of deaths.
Colony 5 releases a distress signal and Colony 7’s leader, Briggs (Laurence Fishburne), organises a team to investigate, including our protagonist Sam (Kevin Zegers) and the eager Graydon (Atticus Mitchell), whilst leaving his trigger happy former Army comrade Mason (Bill Paxton) behind to watch over a couple in quarantine with flu-like symptoms.
After a two day journey they reach Colony 5, only to discover a lone survivor locked away and an unexplained murderous hoard.
To put it bluntly this film is 30 Days of Night (2007) meets The Walking Dead (2010 onwards) with a bit of a vibe from The Thing (1982): but it just isn’t in the same league. It seems like it was shot on a limited budget but excels in scope compared to others in this genre. The sets are dingy and lived in and the special effects are great, especially when showing the barren frozen wasteland. I will say that the opening does a great job of setting up a believable world.
The acting is decent, but once again Fishburne is typecast as the leader (a la Morpheus frim The Matrix (1999)), Paxton is playing a one dimensional angry man with a gun and Zegers expressionless character isn’t convincing as our would-be hero. Everyone else is forgettable, which seems like a shameful waste.
This film follows a tried and tested format where the hero receives a call to adventure and a lot more is at stake than first appears. Thankfully I didn’t go into this film expecting more than a low budget sci-fi and as such I enjoyed it for what it was. The filmmakers set up a world where humanity is on the brink of survival and asks how we hang on to the face of humanity in these desperate times.
Mason believes they must be tougher and less forgiving towards anyone who’s ill, in case one man’s cold wipes out an entire colony, however this point is rather forced. In the film if anyone is ill and doesn’t get better after quarantine, they have the choice to walk or take a bullet. Mason takes this choice away early on and it resonated with me as without choice, what are we?
This brings me to the films monsters’. In Colony 5 they discover a bunch of barbaric cannibals who infiltrated the colony and are there mainly to be fodder in the film’s action sequences. Think of any primitive blood lusting tribe where the leader is seemingly invincible and a foot taller than everyone elsem and you’ve got it. They act more like a feral pack than mindless zombies, although they do seem to lack any intelligence. As such they’re unthreatening, predictable and you’re better off watching 28 Days Later (2002).
One thing this film doesn’t explain is why they are like this. A primitive survival or pack instinct? Madness caused but little sunlight and exposure to nature? Or even an effect of one of the weather towers? Who knows? Usually in horror films the scariest element is when a killer has no motivation for their actions, but this film needed a bit of explanation and more importantly closure. I’m not sure if the filmmakers intended for a sequel or just lacked the budget to give it a truly happy ending, but maybe that’s the point of this film. It’s not supposed to make complete sense or have a happy ending. It may be bleak but there is hope in the quest to survive.
However you have seen variations of this film before and I don’t feel any urge for a repeat viewing. It just doesn’t add anything new to the genre and it would have been better with some tweeks to the script, like characterization and a bit more backstory. I also completely zoned out at some unintentionally silly moments, such as where a character starts throwing animals in cages at a cannibal. Appetisers anyone?
The disc includes a generic behind-the-scenes Featurette, which all in all is worth a watch. Bill Paxton says that there’s a bit of Aliens (1986) in this film, which I suppose he is right about to a degree, but Aliens (1986) wipes the floor in comparison.
Interestingly the interior scenes were shot in a decommissioned Norad base, which is great and adds a believable and claustrophobic feel of a post-apocalyptic society living underground. The DVD gives an interesting look on how the director of photography worked with the set designers and special effect teams to plan the bridge sequence, despite limited resources.
Overall Verdict: Ultimately this is a by the numbers’ film which blends elements of horror, sci-fi and post-apocalyptic drama with a shallow environmental message. It has a good set up and quite thrilling in places and the grand scale of it actually works for an independent film, but is let down by its third act.
Reviewer: George Elcombe