I just came across it again after-hours on TV and rewatched the whole thing, although i have seen it twice back in 2013. For the ones who'd want to check it out and dont mind a dark violent social commentary this is a treat. Good cast, good acting (Chris Evans and Tilda Swinton are a highlight), good action and relentless pace. Probably most are familiar with the story of snowpiercer, the train that holds the last of humans and keeps going around the world, while its people are split in sections in the train. That story itself constitutes a great -but not new- metaphor about society. I would keep the metaphor in the background as the backbone of the story and focus on the other exciting elements of the film, which are very rewarding. Good film, 8/10
1,117 Reviews
There is always an alternative
unbrokenmetal17 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I read about 20 from the currently 350 reviews here and as far as I've seen, nobody seems to mention 2 key scenes which seemed very important to me, so I'd like to add my two cents here, a different attempt of interpretation.
First key scene: the teacher scene. We witness how completely the children absorbed the doctrine of Wilford. The train manager became a benevolent deity, the system is never questioned, and the train must go on forever. The teacher is a sycophant, very much like Mason. What future do the children have if they are not allowed to think critical?
Second key scene: Wilford's monologue when he explains how sacrifices have to be made (only by others, i.e. the lower class). If the system can only continue by murder, then mankind survives by inhuman means, although Wilford sees himself not as the leader who created the train and the system, but as just another cogwheel in the machine. Therefore he expects that a younger man might replace him when he is too old, without any change to the system. He cannot imagine any alternative, but others can.
In conclusion, what matters is that the train must be stopped somehow to get out of this treadmill. Other reviewers have asked: is it possible to survive in the cold outside, wouldn't it be safer to keep going with the train. I think they fell right into the trap here that the movie makers prepared. Because just like the train is going in circles, returning every year to the same places, we are living our lives in circles, safe but in a society that loses its social qualities, as you can see quite often in the treatment of children or elderly people, for example. The revolution, as the film makers describe it, wants to break the circle and start a new life that may be less safe, but challenging and more human. I think people who ask: "wouldn't they freeze to death outside?" take the allegory too literal again. The frozen world outside represents the unknown, something you take careful glimpses at from the window, but whether it's 5 degrees below zero or 25 is hardly the point. The train itself was a better allegory than a ship or an airplane, because these do not strictly stay on the same tracks when they sail or fly around the planet. The polar bear at the end shows that life outside is possible, but one must try and face the unknown instead of continuing the same old evil.
I liked 'Snowpiercer' a lot as it gives much food for thought, but I wouldn't call it a flawless masterpiece (voted 8 of 10). The killer shooting through the window, the decadent upper class passengers in swimming pools or the traitor among the lower class passengers are too much of movie clichés. The question of how food is produced was answered much more terrifyingly in 'Soylent Green' decades before, in 'Snowpiercer' it was just good enough for a quick shock effect. But don't these little niggles stop you from watching this very interesting movie.
First key scene: the teacher scene. We witness how completely the children absorbed the doctrine of Wilford. The train manager became a benevolent deity, the system is never questioned, and the train must go on forever. The teacher is a sycophant, very much like Mason. What future do the children have if they are not allowed to think critical?
Second key scene: Wilford's monologue when he explains how sacrifices have to be made (only by others, i.e. the lower class). If the system can only continue by murder, then mankind survives by inhuman means, although Wilford sees himself not as the leader who created the train and the system, but as just another cogwheel in the machine. Therefore he expects that a younger man might replace him when he is too old, without any change to the system. He cannot imagine any alternative, but others can.
In conclusion, what matters is that the train must be stopped somehow to get out of this treadmill. Other reviewers have asked: is it possible to survive in the cold outside, wouldn't it be safer to keep going with the train. I think they fell right into the trap here that the movie makers prepared. Because just like the train is going in circles, returning every year to the same places, we are living our lives in circles, safe but in a society that loses its social qualities, as you can see quite often in the treatment of children or elderly people, for example. The revolution, as the film makers describe it, wants to break the circle and start a new life that may be less safe, but challenging and more human. I think people who ask: "wouldn't they freeze to death outside?" take the allegory too literal again. The frozen world outside represents the unknown, something you take careful glimpses at from the window, but whether it's 5 degrees below zero or 25 is hardly the point. The train itself was a better allegory than a ship or an airplane, because these do not strictly stay on the same tracks when they sail or fly around the planet. The polar bear at the end shows that life outside is possible, but one must try and face the unknown instead of continuing the same old evil.
I liked 'Snowpiercer' a lot as it gives much food for thought, but I wouldn't call it a flawless masterpiece (voted 8 of 10). The killer shooting through the window, the decadent upper class passengers in swimming pools or the traitor among the lower class passengers are too much of movie clichés. The question of how food is produced was answered much more terrifyingly in 'Soylent Green' decades before, in 'Snowpiercer' it was just good enough for a quick shock effect. But don't these little niggles stop you from watching this very interesting movie.
Wastes too much time on pointless action instead of developing its ideas
kuarinofu5 January 2020
Snowpiercer could've been a great film (and it is probably a good story), but it turned out to be a 2hr long collection of weird scenes, pointless action, overacting and slo-mo.
The ideas are there. And...well, at least 2 characters are in the film. Can't really say about other 5 people who we know nothing about even in the end. It looks like a lot was lost in the adaptation for the screen. I mean, some characters are distinctive enough to be memorable, and they are probably important for the story, but since we have no time for them they just mostly die and we can't care cause we don't know anything about them. It's like they wanted to show all the important characters from the reference material but they had no time for them anyway.
This could've worked on a purely thematical level if they would go a little more symbolic on this.
Buff the run time a little, make it somewhat more boring, remove the pointless action (leave only the starting one to reference revolution and violence). Make each of the cars count (some of them were significant, like the education part, the aquarium had important dialogue and stuff but the sauna one was just a waste of time). Dwell more on interesting dialogue (which is there), develop the characters, make us care.
Instead a miscast Chris Evans embarks on a journey that never really affects him, tells his life story in an expository monologue and ends up taking stupid decisions that lead to horrible consequences. No interesting twists, nothing. The Korean guy barely even talks, the girl is supposed to represent a younger generation but she has nothing to do in this film.
I think the above mentioned is the only way this film could've worked. Going grounded and realistic with this can never work, there's just too many plot holes to take.
For all the great production design and value, this film ends up being a waste of 2 hours of your time.
The ideas are there. And...well, at least 2 characters are in the film. Can't really say about other 5 people who we know nothing about even in the end. It looks like a lot was lost in the adaptation for the screen. I mean, some characters are distinctive enough to be memorable, and they are probably important for the story, but since we have no time for them they just mostly die and we can't care cause we don't know anything about them. It's like they wanted to show all the important characters from the reference material but they had no time for them anyway.
This could've worked on a purely thematical level if they would go a little more symbolic on this.
Buff the run time a little, make it somewhat more boring, remove the pointless action (leave only the starting one to reference revolution and violence). Make each of the cars count (some of them were significant, like the education part, the aquarium had important dialogue and stuff but the sauna one was just a waste of time). Dwell more on interesting dialogue (which is there), develop the characters, make us care.
Instead a miscast Chris Evans embarks on a journey that never really affects him, tells his life story in an expository monologue and ends up taking stupid decisions that lead to horrible consequences. No interesting twists, nothing. The Korean guy barely even talks, the girl is supposed to represent a younger generation but she has nothing to do in this film.
I think the above mentioned is the only way this film could've worked. Going grounded and realistic with this can never work, there's just too many plot holes to take.
For all the great production design and value, this film ends up being a waste of 2 hours of your time.
A big confusing mess
Gordon-1130 June 2014
This film tells the story of a self sustaining train which has been running for 18 years, on board with all the survivors after an apocalyptic event.
A few minutes into the film, it already becomes clear that "Snowpiercer" is a film that reflects the societal inequality, oppression and cruelty. As the group moves up the train, the carriages becomes more luxurious. The metaphors are very obvious - the film screams to the audience to wake up from the unjust society. However, towards the middle, the plot gets out of hand, and it becomes confusing and even ridiculous. There are too many unexplained moments, such as a kid climbing into the structure jutting out from the front of the train. No follow up was given after this scene is shown. There are also too many ridiculous subplots, such as the party goers suddenly turning violent. The ending is one big confusing mess, and I did not enjoy "Snowpiercer".
A few minutes into the film, it already becomes clear that "Snowpiercer" is a film that reflects the societal inequality, oppression and cruelty. As the group moves up the train, the carriages becomes more luxurious. The metaphors are very obvious - the film screams to the audience to wake up from the unjust society. However, towards the middle, the plot gets out of hand, and it becomes confusing and even ridiculous. There are too many unexplained moments, such as a kid climbing into the structure jutting out from the front of the train. No follow up was given after this scene is shown. There are also too many ridiculous subplots, such as the party goers suddenly turning violent. The ending is one big confusing mess, and I did not enjoy "Snowpiercer".
Refreshing
Tweetienator10 March 2019
I agree with some reviewers that there are some (unnecessary) plot holes and illogical stuff going on (food supply just one of the main issues, as there are hundreds of people on board, and if you dare to count there are more people like guards, crazies and rich people than on our poor rebels side) but that left aside, Snowpiercer got a refreshing perspective on the postapocalyptic genre/tales and provides some unique ideas and combines them with some solid acting and a pro production.
Verdict: not brilliant and no masterpiece but a good and entertaining flick - if you like the genre and want some action on your screen.
Verdict: not brilliant and no masterpiece but a good and entertaining flick - if you like the genre and want some action on your screen.
I Didn't Think I'd Like it
iamtheslickguy16 May 2019
I don't like movies as art. I like movies that have rules and internal logic, and the premise of this movie is idiotic from both a scientific and common sense angle. It really works though. Like it really works. If you can just suspend disbelief and accept that a train can run forever and sustain some sort of biodome indefinitely then this movie is a masterpiece.
I see reviews where people basically complain about how the premise impossible, or that the themes are cliche, and I'm totally with you guys there. Both of those things are true, so if you need realism then you probably won't like this movie. But if you can just accept the premise as it is then this movie is something really special. One of the better movies I've watched in a really long time
I see reviews where people basically complain about how the premise impossible, or that the themes are cliche, and I'm totally with you guys there. Both of those things are true, so if you need realism then you probably won't like this movie. But if you can just accept the premise as it is then this movie is something really special. One of the better movies I've watched in a really long time
Quite underwhelming; it isn't as brilliant as I expected it to be.
akash_sebastian18 April 2014
Quite underwhelming; it isn't as brilliant as I expected it to be. When actors like Chris Evans, Song Kang-ho, Tilda Swinton, John Hurt, Octavia Spencer and Ed Harris are associated with the first international project of an acclaimed Korean Director like Bong Joon-ho, one is bound to be excited by its prospects. I've loved Joon-ho's work, especially 'Memories of Murder' and 'Mother'. Though he proves to be an able Director with his first International venture, the movie doesn't have the usual touch of humanity his movies usually possess; you rarely sympathize with any of the characters or situations. The script has an overwhelming number of plot-holes; these could have been overlooked if the characters were properly developed. Many would say it's an interesting portrayal of class-division in society, but that doesn't compensate for the weak storyline. It keeps you interested till the end, but the ending doesn't give you the proper finish it leads up to. The acting is commendable, but the characters lack proper depth.
The complete artistic setting of the train, the action sequences and the weird characters keep you intrigued throughout. But overall, the movie didn't have the impact I expected it to have. Hope Joon-ho's future international ventures are as charming and brilliant as his earlier works.
The complete artistic setting of the train, the action sequences and the weird characters keep you intrigued throughout. But overall, the movie didn't have the impact I expected it to have. Hope Joon-ho's future international ventures are as charming and brilliant as his earlier works.
It's commentary, not plot holes.
katycrit4 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I noticed that people seemed to rate this film either quite high or extremely low and reading the reviews, I can see that those who rated high and those who rated low were watching completely different movies.
A huge part of the negative criticisms for this movie is the prevalence of plot holes. These are absolutely undeniable. The concept is far-fetched, the execution bizarre, and the upper class characters quite comical. The key to appreciating this film is understanding its purpose. Snowpiercer is clearly a social commentary, but going into it expecting a Hunger Games sort of dystopian social commentary, you are absolutely going to find it ridiculous.
Instead, a much better genre match to this film would be Brazil. Its absurdity makes it even more horrifying. The fact that there is no true logic, the contrast between the dingy tail section and the bright colors and extravagance of the front, and the utter hopelessness of the plot make this movie, yes, bizarre to watch and difficult to relate to. However, the alienation of this world from ours brings out the social commentary and the cautionary tale within.
Another up-side was the diversity presented in the train and the framing of women WITHOUT the male gaze! All in all, I was pleasantly surprised by this film and my only real criticism is that it was way too long.
A huge part of the negative criticisms for this movie is the prevalence of plot holes. These are absolutely undeniable. The concept is far-fetched, the execution bizarre, and the upper class characters quite comical. The key to appreciating this film is understanding its purpose. Snowpiercer is clearly a social commentary, but going into it expecting a Hunger Games sort of dystopian social commentary, you are absolutely going to find it ridiculous.
Instead, a much better genre match to this film would be Brazil. Its absurdity makes it even more horrifying. The fact that there is no true logic, the contrast between the dingy tail section and the bright colors and extravagance of the front, and the utter hopelessness of the plot make this movie, yes, bizarre to watch and difficult to relate to. However, the alienation of this world from ours brings out the social commentary and the cautionary tale within.
Another up-side was the diversity presented in the train and the framing of women WITHOUT the male gaze! All in all, I was pleasantly surprised by this film and my only real criticism is that it was way too long.
Cold and derailing
ptrzanetti21 February 2023
This film reminded me of many lost occasions in cinema where script themes were extremely compelling but poorly executed (think about In Time). The smart idea behind the movie (which comes from the graphic novel La Transperceniege) representing capitalism as a self fuelling train riding across a desert world where no alternative could survive is mostly shadowed by bold action sequences and cliches. This trend reaches the climax in the last 30/40 minutes, as the ending shows us the trite scene of the "final encounter with the villain" along with very predictable events. The characters are hollow, rigid and stereotypical as their dialogues are. Differently from his masterpiece Parasite, neither personal nor societal introspection is here elaborated. Unfortunately, Mr Joon-Ho had a visionary novel that he decided to transpose in an average Hollywood style action movie.
Dark social science fiction
Vartiainen2 October 2014
Snowpiercer was a surprise to me. I thought it would be just another "social commentary" dystopian film trying to ride the coattails of The Hunger Games craze. Instead what I ended up getting was one of the best post-apocalyptic films I've ever seen. A smooth roller coaster of action and quiet, dark dialogue.
And don't get me wrong, it is another "social commentary" dystopian film, and yes, perhaps it's riding The Hunger Games craze just a little bit. But, when that riding ends up producing a film of this quality, is it a bad thing? And it's not like The Hunger Games invented the idea of alternative future where the poor are trying to usurp the rich people that are controlling them from their towers of ivory. These are both just variations of Orwell's 1984, which draws heavily from the age old tale of the underdog, David versus Goliath.
It's the execution of an idea that makes or breaks a film and here that execution is nigh flawless. Everything from the design of the train to the A-list cast of actors to the storyline that keeps up the relentless pace, but still has time to reflect on the motives, histories and moods of the characters.
Snowpiercer is simplistic art. It doesn't try to win you over with limitless of details, high explosives or flashiness. Rather it takes a central idea and fills it with as much quality as possible. Highly recommended for all fans of science fiction out there.
And don't get me wrong, it is another "social commentary" dystopian film, and yes, perhaps it's riding The Hunger Games craze just a little bit. But, when that riding ends up producing a film of this quality, is it a bad thing? And it's not like The Hunger Games invented the idea of alternative future where the poor are trying to usurp the rich people that are controlling them from their towers of ivory. These are both just variations of Orwell's 1984, which draws heavily from the age old tale of the underdog, David versus Goliath.
It's the execution of an idea that makes or breaks a film and here that execution is nigh flawless. Everything from the design of the train to the A-list cast of actors to the storyline that keeps up the relentless pace, but still has time to reflect on the motives, histories and moods of the characters.
Snowpiercer is simplistic art. It doesn't try to win you over with limitless of details, high explosives or flashiness. Rather it takes a central idea and fills it with as much quality as possible. Highly recommended for all fans of science fiction out there.
Snowpiercer
Prismark1016 May 2021
After Bong Joon Ho found international fame and a best director Oscar for Parasite.
Watching his English language debut Snowpiercer from 2013 leads to inevitable comparisons.
Both movies look at class. The haves and the have nots that also leads to a mystery.
Snowpiercer is an allegory. Set in 2031 after an ice age. The survivors or on a loop that takes a year to complete.
The underclass are at the back of the train living a miserable existence. Some have had their children stolen from them.
Curtis (Chris Evans) and Edgar (Jamie Bell) lead a revolt and plan to reach the engine room and confront the mysterious Wilford who developed this train.
As they go through the carriages, they see the better off people. School were kids are indoctrinated about the system and Wilford as the saviour. The train has nightclubs and avantgarde restaurants.
Curtis learns that the system is not just the perpetual motion of the train but perpetual conflict as well. Sacrifices have to be made by the underclass.
Snowpiercer is a thoughtful if flawed film. It has some offbeat performances, most notably by Tilda Swinton with a broad Lancashire accent. She seems to be channeling Jane Horrocks.
Off course Curtis should had just listened to Gilliam (John Hurt) and not let Wilford talk to much.
Watching his English language debut Snowpiercer from 2013 leads to inevitable comparisons.
Both movies look at class. The haves and the have nots that also leads to a mystery.
Snowpiercer is an allegory. Set in 2031 after an ice age. The survivors or on a loop that takes a year to complete.
The underclass are at the back of the train living a miserable existence. Some have had their children stolen from them.
Curtis (Chris Evans) and Edgar (Jamie Bell) lead a revolt and plan to reach the engine room and confront the mysterious Wilford who developed this train.
As they go through the carriages, they see the better off people. School were kids are indoctrinated about the system and Wilford as the saviour. The train has nightclubs and avantgarde restaurants.
Curtis learns that the system is not just the perpetual motion of the train but perpetual conflict as well. Sacrifices have to be made by the underclass.
Snowpiercer is a thoughtful if flawed film. It has some offbeat performances, most notably by Tilda Swinton with a broad Lancashire accent. She seems to be channeling Jane Horrocks.
Off course Curtis should had just listened to Gilliam (John Hurt) and not let Wilford talk to much.
Now that is how you make the transition from a Korean to an English language film without losing your personal stamp and style
estebangonzalez1015 April 2014
¨Know your place. Accept your place. Be a shoe.¨
I was pleasantly surprised at how well Korean director, Joon-ho Bong, made the transition to this his first English language film because the style and tone of the film still felt entirely Korean despite starring some well known Hollywood actors. I enjoyed this film so much that I ended up watching it twice and that is something I rarely do. Based on the French graphic novel, Le Transperceneige written by Jean-Marc Rochette, Snowpiercer is an ambitious dystopian sci-fi film that despite having a very absurd premise works really well thanks to Bong's direction. It has some great performances with memorable characters, several exciting action scenes mixed with bizarre comedic moments, and a thought provoking metaphor on classicism. It is a bleak film but Bong handled the material so well that it kept me engaged and interested. Unfortunately the film does suffer from a rather unconvincing final act, but for most of its running time I was so entertained that I wasn't too disappointed.
Snowpiercer takes place in 2031 after a failed global-warming experiment has frozen all of Earth and wiped out all life. The only survivors are the passengers of a super train traveling across the globe with a perpetual-motion engine. Designed by Wilford, an engineer who knew the experiment would fail, the train has been running for 17 straight years and a social class system has developed as the passengers of the rear end live in extremely poor conditions. Here we are introduced to a young man named Curtis (Chris Evans) who is trying to come up with a plan to get past all the security guards in order to reach the front section where Wilford is presumed to be. He isn't alone on this quest as most of the passengers are upset for the abuse they've suffered and the extreme poor conditions in which they are forced to live in. A wise old man named Gilliam (John Hurt) who helped Wilford design the engine, has been helping Curtis rally the men together. Curtis's good friend, Edgar (Jamie Bell), is also awaiting the moment to begin their revolution as things begin to get worse once the guards take a few kids away from them. Tanya (Octavia Spencer) and Andrew (Ewen Bremner) are among the victims whose children have been taken away from them so they are also eager to attack. The first step of the plan involves freeing Namgoong (Song Kang-ho), a prisoner who has a special gift for unlocking the doors to each section, but the task won't be easy as the guards will do what it takes to make sure they stay at the rear section of the train.
Bong has directed several successful Korean films like The Host and Memories of a Murder, and in his first English language film his style remains untouched. Despite having some scenes that borderline in the ridiculous he somehow manages to balance those moments really well. For example there is this huge action scene that he has set up between the rebels and the guards who are awaiting them with axes. The bloody and violent confrontation begins, only to be interrupted as the train is approaching a bridge which serves as a landmark for the New Year. The fighting stops for a few seconds as everyone begins the countdown and admires the view of the outside world from inside the train, then the violence and mayhem continue. There are several moments like this where Bong perfectly balances these gorgeously crafted choreographed scenes with moments of quirky comedy and twisted sense of humor. The best example of this type of humor comes from the two characters played by Tilda Swinton (who is unrecognizable in this film) and Alison Pill who are terrific and steal the few scenes they are in. I really loved that classroom scene that felt completely out of place with the dark tail section of the train. I think it was those goofy moments that I enjoyed the most in this film. It was a great sensory experience to get to follow these characters through each section of the train and I have to give Bong credit for his visionary style because as our heroes progress to the front of the train things begin to get more and more bizarre and you never know what to expect. The film is short of being a masterpiece because the final 30 minutes are disappointing, but as a social satire Snowpiercer worked better than other recent sci-fi films like Elysium. It is a very weird and strange film, but it is really good and I enjoyed it even more on my second viewing.
I was pleasantly surprised at how well Korean director, Joon-ho Bong, made the transition to this his first English language film because the style and tone of the film still felt entirely Korean despite starring some well known Hollywood actors. I enjoyed this film so much that I ended up watching it twice and that is something I rarely do. Based on the French graphic novel, Le Transperceneige written by Jean-Marc Rochette, Snowpiercer is an ambitious dystopian sci-fi film that despite having a very absurd premise works really well thanks to Bong's direction. It has some great performances with memorable characters, several exciting action scenes mixed with bizarre comedic moments, and a thought provoking metaphor on classicism. It is a bleak film but Bong handled the material so well that it kept me engaged and interested. Unfortunately the film does suffer from a rather unconvincing final act, but for most of its running time I was so entertained that I wasn't too disappointed.
Snowpiercer takes place in 2031 after a failed global-warming experiment has frozen all of Earth and wiped out all life. The only survivors are the passengers of a super train traveling across the globe with a perpetual-motion engine. Designed by Wilford, an engineer who knew the experiment would fail, the train has been running for 17 straight years and a social class system has developed as the passengers of the rear end live in extremely poor conditions. Here we are introduced to a young man named Curtis (Chris Evans) who is trying to come up with a plan to get past all the security guards in order to reach the front section where Wilford is presumed to be. He isn't alone on this quest as most of the passengers are upset for the abuse they've suffered and the extreme poor conditions in which they are forced to live in. A wise old man named Gilliam (John Hurt) who helped Wilford design the engine, has been helping Curtis rally the men together. Curtis's good friend, Edgar (Jamie Bell), is also awaiting the moment to begin their revolution as things begin to get worse once the guards take a few kids away from them. Tanya (Octavia Spencer) and Andrew (Ewen Bremner) are among the victims whose children have been taken away from them so they are also eager to attack. The first step of the plan involves freeing Namgoong (Song Kang-ho), a prisoner who has a special gift for unlocking the doors to each section, but the task won't be easy as the guards will do what it takes to make sure they stay at the rear section of the train.
Bong has directed several successful Korean films like The Host and Memories of a Murder, and in his first English language film his style remains untouched. Despite having some scenes that borderline in the ridiculous he somehow manages to balance those moments really well. For example there is this huge action scene that he has set up between the rebels and the guards who are awaiting them with axes. The bloody and violent confrontation begins, only to be interrupted as the train is approaching a bridge which serves as a landmark for the New Year. The fighting stops for a few seconds as everyone begins the countdown and admires the view of the outside world from inside the train, then the violence and mayhem continue. There are several moments like this where Bong perfectly balances these gorgeously crafted choreographed scenes with moments of quirky comedy and twisted sense of humor. The best example of this type of humor comes from the two characters played by Tilda Swinton (who is unrecognizable in this film) and Alison Pill who are terrific and steal the few scenes they are in. I really loved that classroom scene that felt completely out of place with the dark tail section of the train. I think it was those goofy moments that I enjoyed the most in this film. It was a great sensory experience to get to follow these characters through each section of the train and I have to give Bong credit for his visionary style because as our heroes progress to the front of the train things begin to get more and more bizarre and you never know what to expect. The film is short of being a masterpiece because the final 30 minutes are disappointing, but as a social satire Snowpiercer worked better than other recent sci-fi films like Elysium. It is a very weird and strange film, but it is really good and I enjoyed it even more on my second viewing.
Don't Think Too Hard; Go Along for the Ride
Hitchcoc28 November 2014
This movie is so full of heavy handed surrealism, it's hard to really evaluate it. If one looks at the realities of the plot, you give up in a minute. I almost did. But then you accept the fact that some guy has built a train that goes on endlessly, filled with multi-generational passengers who represent a sort of caste system. The have nots are in the back and the haves are in the front. In between are groups of military types, junkies, a preppy school, and on and on. The poor folk live on things that look like tar like Jell-o jigglers but manage to maintain their health. Why they are being kept alive is a mystery at first, but ultimately the bad guys are going to be seen for what they are. The world has been launched into an ice age through human stupidity and bad science, so no one can leave the train. The battle is never clear because it seems that its a suicide mission, but there are so many inconsistencies and plot holes that we can only look at this like a futurist "Pilgrim's Progress" with a lesson to be learned. Previous viewers have put forth list of these failings so I won't go into them. Suffice it to say that it's one of the most unique films I've seen, and that makes it worth our time.
Plot holes galore
mikkepost22 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The only reason I am writing a review right now, is because of how stunned I am at most of the user reviews. While its good that you enjoyed the movie, I am surprised at how most people here are overlooking some of the pretty terrible choices. I will be going through what I thought worked, and what kept me from enjoying the movie. Needless to say; MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD.
The good: I like the plot, for the most part. Although I find the idea of a train being humanity last home extremely weird, it makes for a nice backdrop. The tone of the movie reminds me a lot of The Hunger Games. Chris Evans does pretty good. The wagons themselves have amazing character. The Art Director should be praised the most out of the entire film crew.
The bad: Well, let me sum it up in questions. Questions keeping me from loving this: 1. Why divide the train into classes? This makes no sense. The train ecosystem would function fine with some rules regarding population control.
2. Their great plan is to have a regular uprising to kill off people and keeping the population down? WHAT? See my first point.
3. They used to eat people and babies, but are now disgusted by eating protein bars made by cockroaches? How does that work? And furthermore:
4: WHERE did all those bloody cockroaches come from?
5: If you've invented perpetual motion; why the hell use it in a train? Why not use it to power a generator in a camp, or heat a underground city? The train is death on tracks, with ice regularly blocking the path.
6: Why is everyone on this train ready to kill? Seriously, 90% of EVERYONE is ready to throw down here.
7: People take loosing their limbs SHOCKINGLY well in this movie. Like it's just a flesh wound, really.
8: What the hell happened with that one bad guy who got stabbed through his guts and choked? He just gets up? Why did the korean guy stop his girl from stabbing him? And the korean girl later misses him by 7-8 shots? Furthermore: Tilda Swinton gets a knife through the leg, but walks fine right afterwards.
9: Those weird antics of the characters. The woman in the yellow dress licking her blood off her fingers. Tilda Swinton with her strange comedic performance (although I did like the character, I found it a bit distracting), that incredibly weird Korean couple acting all over the place, things like the masked guy just smiling at Evans when they are sitting down. Sometimes I felt like I was watching Charlie and the chocolate factory.
10: The starved people of the tail takes out an army of axe wielding fighters with night vision? After apparently yelling for help through the entire train, and a kid lighting a torch, and running up to them in no time? Stretching it thin, movie!
11: The soldiers had bullets, but they weren't using them at the ONE PLACE they needed bullets? Are you serious??
12: The shootout between Chris Evans and what I can only assume was Terminator. On opposite sides of the train, probably 1000ft from each other. Sniping with a submachine gun. Through a blizzard. Nice aim there, fellas.
13: Mr. Terminator shooting his comrades all the time. Seriously. What was to be gained from that? He did it several times. Who is this guy??
14: The only way the train can function is to stuff small kids down small holes to keep the engine running? Really? Was the train designed to stuff small kids down there, or did it just appear to be the perfect solution? How convenient.
15: The wagon closest to the engine is the RAVE-CLUB where all the freaks go to party? Incidentally, the elementary school is next to the slaughterhouse.
16: There is no policy on drugs on this finely tuned train? Everyone just goes buck wild with this incredibly potent drug next to the engine room? And furthermore...
17: The drug of choice is basically C4? And it just lies around everywhere - again - next to the engine room?
18: Why not pay attention to what the korean guy is doing to open the doors and then open them themselves instead of having him slow them down?
19: The people with axes putting fish blood on their weapons before fighting? That was random.
20: The other wagons are TOTALLY unaffected by the explosion in the first wagons. Wow. They don't really notice until they derail. What a masterfully crafted train.
21: I know it fits with his story, but did Mr. Evans really need to sacrifice his arm to pull that kid out? He could probably stop the machine with something else than a limb and take better care of that child.
22: The people who jumped off the train still haven't been covered up by snow after 15 years in a never-ending blizzard?
Those were some of the things that stopped me from loving this movie. It just got too dumb. There was definitely something here, and I feel this could have become an excellent movie with more thought put into it. It came off extremely unrealistic. And in sci-fi, it's all about fooling the audience into thinking it could have happened. That's the "science" part.
All in all though - probably an entertaining movie if you'e not a nitpicker like me. Thankfully a lot of you aren't :)
EDIT: Someone corrected me in that the couple were korean, and that one of the bad guys never takes a bullet, like I thought he did. Sorry about that, but it still seems far fetched.
The good: I like the plot, for the most part. Although I find the idea of a train being humanity last home extremely weird, it makes for a nice backdrop. The tone of the movie reminds me a lot of The Hunger Games. Chris Evans does pretty good. The wagons themselves have amazing character. The Art Director should be praised the most out of the entire film crew.
The bad: Well, let me sum it up in questions. Questions keeping me from loving this: 1. Why divide the train into classes? This makes no sense. The train ecosystem would function fine with some rules regarding population control.
2. Their great plan is to have a regular uprising to kill off people and keeping the population down? WHAT? See my first point.
3. They used to eat people and babies, but are now disgusted by eating protein bars made by cockroaches? How does that work? And furthermore:
4: WHERE did all those bloody cockroaches come from?
5: If you've invented perpetual motion; why the hell use it in a train? Why not use it to power a generator in a camp, or heat a underground city? The train is death on tracks, with ice regularly blocking the path.
6: Why is everyone on this train ready to kill? Seriously, 90% of EVERYONE is ready to throw down here.
7: People take loosing their limbs SHOCKINGLY well in this movie. Like it's just a flesh wound, really.
8: What the hell happened with that one bad guy who got stabbed through his guts and choked? He just gets up? Why did the korean guy stop his girl from stabbing him? And the korean girl later misses him by 7-8 shots? Furthermore: Tilda Swinton gets a knife through the leg, but walks fine right afterwards.
9: Those weird antics of the characters. The woman in the yellow dress licking her blood off her fingers. Tilda Swinton with her strange comedic performance (although I did like the character, I found it a bit distracting), that incredibly weird Korean couple acting all over the place, things like the masked guy just smiling at Evans when they are sitting down. Sometimes I felt like I was watching Charlie and the chocolate factory.
10: The starved people of the tail takes out an army of axe wielding fighters with night vision? After apparently yelling for help through the entire train, and a kid lighting a torch, and running up to them in no time? Stretching it thin, movie!
11: The soldiers had bullets, but they weren't using them at the ONE PLACE they needed bullets? Are you serious??
12: The shootout between Chris Evans and what I can only assume was Terminator. On opposite sides of the train, probably 1000ft from each other. Sniping with a submachine gun. Through a blizzard. Nice aim there, fellas.
13: Mr. Terminator shooting his comrades all the time. Seriously. What was to be gained from that? He did it several times. Who is this guy??
14: The only way the train can function is to stuff small kids down small holes to keep the engine running? Really? Was the train designed to stuff small kids down there, or did it just appear to be the perfect solution? How convenient.
15: The wagon closest to the engine is the RAVE-CLUB where all the freaks go to party? Incidentally, the elementary school is next to the slaughterhouse.
16: There is no policy on drugs on this finely tuned train? Everyone just goes buck wild with this incredibly potent drug next to the engine room? And furthermore...
17: The drug of choice is basically C4? And it just lies around everywhere - again - next to the engine room?
18: Why not pay attention to what the korean guy is doing to open the doors and then open them themselves instead of having him slow them down?
19: The people with axes putting fish blood on their weapons before fighting? That was random.
20: The other wagons are TOTALLY unaffected by the explosion in the first wagons. Wow. They don't really notice until they derail. What a masterfully crafted train.
21: I know it fits with his story, but did Mr. Evans really need to sacrifice his arm to pull that kid out? He could probably stop the machine with something else than a limb and take better care of that child.
22: The people who jumped off the train still haven't been covered up by snow after 15 years in a never-ending blizzard?
Those were some of the things that stopped me from loving this movie. It just got too dumb. There was definitely something here, and I feel this could have become an excellent movie with more thought put into it. It came off extremely unrealistic. And in sci-fi, it's all about fooling the audience into thinking it could have happened. That's the "science" part.
All in all though - probably an entertaining movie if you'e not a nitpicker like me. Thankfully a lot of you aren't :)
EDIT: Someone corrected me in that the couple were korean, and that one of the bad guys never takes a bullet, like I thought he did. Sorry about that, but it still seems far fetched.
Fusion of art house and mainstream
harry_tk_yung6 December 2013
After graping the global movie universe's attention with "The host" (2006), Korean director Bong Joon-ho serves up his first offer in the English language with "Snowpiercer", a futuristic, sci-fi fable as well as a hybrid of art house and mainstream thriller.
The micro depiction of the macro human race is through the titular vehicle (literally meant) – a train that circles the post-apocalyptic world, a frozen hell resulted from the backfire of an over-executed maneuver in battling global warming. Secluded from the outer world, the survivors are stratified by social class, the highest at the front (a perpetual-motion engine) and the lowest at the back. The linear (in more ways than one) story is quite simple, the underprivileged bunch at the back fighting its way, car after car, all the way to the front to gain control of their own destiny. Through the allegory progression, the audience witnesses a rich pageantry of environments – rough workplace, lush greenhouse, giant aquarium, plush lounge, and more.
The impressive cast is well assembled. Chris Evans sheds his "All American" heartthrob image to play this perhaps his first heavy-weight role as an earthy leader of the revolution. John Hurt is the semi-disabled wise old man, a rich reservoir of knowledge. Other key members of the group include Jamie Bell as the young follower, Octavia Spencer as a mother searching for a missing child "drafted" by the ruling class for some obscure purpose, and Song Kang-ho as a Korean security expert. The show-stealing personas, however, are on the opposite side. Most delicious is Tilda Swinton, barely recognizable with ingenious makeup (essentially of a dental nature) playing the spokesperson for the dictator. Allison Pill (so impressive as Zelda Fitzgerald in "Midnight in Paris") is another manifestation of eccentricity, a pregnant kindergarten teacher, all sweetness until she produces a gun and starts shooting. The dictator is competently played by Ed Harris.
The movie is quite long (a little over 2 hours) and does not hurry itself as most blockbuster thrillers would do. Instead, it takes its time with careful, well-crafted character development. But it does hold the audience's attention with excellent acting and artsy photography.
The micro depiction of the macro human race is through the titular vehicle (literally meant) – a train that circles the post-apocalyptic world, a frozen hell resulted from the backfire of an over-executed maneuver in battling global warming. Secluded from the outer world, the survivors are stratified by social class, the highest at the front (a perpetual-motion engine) and the lowest at the back. The linear (in more ways than one) story is quite simple, the underprivileged bunch at the back fighting its way, car after car, all the way to the front to gain control of their own destiny. Through the allegory progression, the audience witnesses a rich pageantry of environments – rough workplace, lush greenhouse, giant aquarium, plush lounge, and more.
The impressive cast is well assembled. Chris Evans sheds his "All American" heartthrob image to play this perhaps his first heavy-weight role as an earthy leader of the revolution. John Hurt is the semi-disabled wise old man, a rich reservoir of knowledge. Other key members of the group include Jamie Bell as the young follower, Octavia Spencer as a mother searching for a missing child "drafted" by the ruling class for some obscure purpose, and Song Kang-ho as a Korean security expert. The show-stealing personas, however, are on the opposite side. Most delicious is Tilda Swinton, barely recognizable with ingenious makeup (essentially of a dental nature) playing the spokesperson for the dictator. Allison Pill (so impressive as Zelda Fitzgerald in "Midnight in Paris") is another manifestation of eccentricity, a pregnant kindergarten teacher, all sweetness until she produces a gun and starts shooting. The dictator is competently played by Ed Harris.
The movie is quite long (a little over 2 hours) and does not hurry itself as most blockbuster thrillers would do. Instead, it takes its time with careful, well-crafted character development. But it does hold the audience's attention with excellent acting and artsy photography.
A welcome, odd little thing
jlawrie-712193 June 2019
It manages to combine frenetic camera work, well choreographed action scenes a la Oldboy, and tense dialogue. Yet something feels missing.
It takes itself seriously, but always seems to be aware it is based off a comic book, never shying away from just a little hint of pulpy entertainment when suitable. The acting is brilliant, and most of the characters suitably weird to maintain that fine line between charming comic book movie and gut wrenching, soul crushing dystopia. It does what it sets out to do, and well enough.
Worth a watch, worth recommending to a very specific audience- the sort of audience that sees "korean sci-fi dystopia based off a french comic" and immediately adds it to the Netflix watch list.
It takes itself seriously, but always seems to be aware it is based off a comic book, never shying away from just a little hint of pulpy entertainment when suitable. The acting is brilliant, and most of the characters suitably weird to maintain that fine line between charming comic book movie and gut wrenching, soul crushing dystopia. It does what it sets out to do, and well enough.
Worth a watch, worth recommending to a very specific audience- the sort of audience that sees "korean sci-fi dystopia based off a french comic" and immediately adds it to the Netflix watch list.
For most of the 1 star reviewers, this is their only review.
kolt-2810123 June 2016
Let's get this out of the way. Yes, this is my first review. I've watched about half of IMDb's top 250, and did like most of them. Somebody brought this movie to my attention, and as a 7/10 I didn't have high expectations. Honestly, though, knowing this is at least an attempt at some sort of allegory, most of the plot holes are kind of petty and minor. Comparing Snowpiercer to "The Room" (don't watch that) because you couldn't tell how someone would have an Irish accent, or realized that the premise of this movie is brutal and inconvenient - is kind of realizing the problem with 99% of all movies altogether.
For anyone brutally bothered about plot holes, tell me, is The Hunger Games more logical? Ant-man? Even Inception, the Dark Knight, or Lord Of The Rings? You can't blame a movie for plot holes, rate it a 1, and then ignore those same plot holes in every other movie in existence. By that token, any and all of the Star Wars movies should be rated a 2.
No. People here are nitpicking, and that's a nice way to put it. You don't know how the cockroaches kept spawning? Jesus, maybe they breed fast. I have no idea. But then you should point out that Yoda's aches and pains should have technically kept him out of commission years ago, Jack Sparrow should be dead, Captain America has no sources for his morals, Harry Potter makes no sense, and any and all plot holes about Mordor that you can find online.
But do they? Nope. Most of the negative reviews here are a one-show, leading me to think there's someone with multiple accounts and a large amount of time to hate this movie.
I've seen quite a few sci-fi films - I'm no newbie to the genre. But their are always plot holes in those films, at least technical ones. Faulting Snowpiercer (an allegory, of all things) for having plot holes that are granted in other movies is just not right.
For anyone brutally bothered about plot holes, tell me, is The Hunger Games more logical? Ant-man? Even Inception, the Dark Knight, or Lord Of The Rings? You can't blame a movie for plot holes, rate it a 1, and then ignore those same plot holes in every other movie in existence. By that token, any and all of the Star Wars movies should be rated a 2.
No. People here are nitpicking, and that's a nice way to put it. You don't know how the cockroaches kept spawning? Jesus, maybe they breed fast. I have no idea. But then you should point out that Yoda's aches and pains should have technically kept him out of commission years ago, Jack Sparrow should be dead, Captain America has no sources for his morals, Harry Potter makes no sense, and any and all plot holes about Mordor that you can find online.
But do they? Nope. Most of the negative reviews here are a one-show, leading me to think there's someone with multiple accounts and a large amount of time to hate this movie.
I've seen quite a few sci-fi films - I'm no newbie to the genre. But their are always plot holes in those films, at least technical ones. Faulting Snowpiercer (an allegory, of all things) for having plot holes that are granted in other movies is just not right.
One of the movies that friends can talk about for hours after the movie
TaylorYee9422 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Whether you like the movie or not, it lets audience contemplate on many topics. I watched with one of my friends, and we debated about the movie's quality and discussed about how 'Snowpiercer' portrays the society.
I see many reviews complaining about the ending, but in my opinion, it is the ending that can happen only in the movie, giving the most hope for the remaining two (Yona and Timmy). In real life, complete reconstruction of one society never happens because shifting the whole paradigm requires so much energy just like bombing the thickest gate in the train. Sometimes coup and revolution succeeds, relocating the head the tail, or the tail who works hard and dirty to get to the top becomes the head itself. However, the director is smart and creative enough to change the vertical and linear journey from the tail to the engine to the whole new dimension and universe, taking us outside of the train at the ending. I understand people's disappointment though because what they have pursued as the 'goal' or the 'end' for an hour and a half becomes not that important. I am rather disappointed at the pace of the story not the ending. The first half of the movie is slow paced, a little boring and stretched while the last half of the movie hastefully rushes to the closing, creating a leap of logic. For example, Yona suddenly decides to lift up the floor tile to tell the audience where kids work OUT OF NOWHERE. Wilford explains the whole concept of the train and its analogy to the society so tightly in very short time.
The movie succeeds in describing our society with honesty to the level of blatancy and inhumanity. Economic bottom suffers the pain equivalent to cutting of own arm in our everyday lives. Politicians and capitalists do their best to keep the status quo in more delicate and tender way than Wilford's. What Wilford says must be disgusting but it can also be true. The head wants to regulate how the resources are distributed and one's position in the society. It can be hurtful, painful, and unjustifiable if you are at the tail section, but what if you are one of the first class passenger? Don't you want to help Wilford to keep the way things are like Minister Mason or Teacher? The deeper I dig in with the questions like this, the more inhumane I feel.
I see many reviews complaining about the ending, but in my opinion, it is the ending that can happen only in the movie, giving the most hope for the remaining two (Yona and Timmy). In real life, complete reconstruction of one society never happens because shifting the whole paradigm requires so much energy just like bombing the thickest gate in the train. Sometimes coup and revolution succeeds, relocating the head the tail, or the tail who works hard and dirty to get to the top becomes the head itself. However, the director is smart and creative enough to change the vertical and linear journey from the tail to the engine to the whole new dimension and universe, taking us outside of the train at the ending. I understand people's disappointment though because what they have pursued as the 'goal' or the 'end' for an hour and a half becomes not that important. I am rather disappointed at the pace of the story not the ending. The first half of the movie is slow paced, a little boring and stretched while the last half of the movie hastefully rushes to the closing, creating a leap of logic. For example, Yona suddenly decides to lift up the floor tile to tell the audience where kids work OUT OF NOWHERE. Wilford explains the whole concept of the train and its analogy to the society so tightly in very short time.
The movie succeeds in describing our society with honesty to the level of blatancy and inhumanity. Economic bottom suffers the pain equivalent to cutting of own arm in our everyday lives. Politicians and capitalists do their best to keep the status quo in more delicate and tender way than Wilford's. What Wilford says must be disgusting but it can also be true. The head wants to regulate how the resources are distributed and one's position in the society. It can be hurtful, painful, and unjustifiable if you are at the tail section, but what if you are one of the first class passenger? Don't you want to help Wilford to keep the way things are like Minister Mason or Teacher? The deeper I dig in with the questions like this, the more inhumane I feel.
Who cares if 'that's not how trains work'?
marksevers-371488 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I rarely write reviews and will keep it brief. It's a fun movie! It's by no means the best, but an enjoyable story to watch. A lot of the bad reviews really do bang on endlessly about it not being believable. It's not, it's science fiction, why does it need to be believable? Seems like there are a lot of train fans getting their point across such 'the under carriage would need to be serviced'..... for those less uptight about train stuff, give it ago. I nearly skipped it because of the low reviews, glad I didn't; the higher star rating is definitely earned.
Snowpiercer (2013)
Stefan_Loves_Movies14 March 2022
1984, Animal Farm, and now Snowpiercer.
s-aitken8817 August 2013
Absolutely amazing. A cinematic microcosm of society. For those of you uninterested in topics like '1984' and 'Animal Farm', watch this film for a hazard course in understanding the human condition. From start to end you see a small-scale depiction of society from it's most basic 'proletariat' level, right up to the elite, in perfect order. And we see the evolution of civilisation from simple beginnings to science, education, quality, luxury, then hedonism, wastefulness and eventual demise, in exactly that order.
All of that can be overlooked, however, if you're just the average movie-goer who simply wants a good story with a hero, an adventure and an end goal. In which case I say the film is a good one but nothing special in that respect. Certainly there were parts where I thought, "eh?", until it clicked later that it was all part of the Director's greater cinematic design.
But for the arty film student types, this film is sure to be the topic of many, many essays for years to come.
Clearly every part of the film was deliberate - every shot, every line of script, every item in the background. It was true art. None of that quick-buck profit-incentive Hollywood stuff.
In conclusion I recommend this film to everyone, particularly people who want to learn something or gain some insight from what they watch. For the everyday movie-lover, go into this with an open mind and have a really long think about how you can compare it to the world today.
Top stuff, 10/10
All of that can be overlooked, however, if you're just the average movie-goer who simply wants a good story with a hero, an adventure and an end goal. In which case I say the film is a good one but nothing special in that respect. Certainly there were parts where I thought, "eh?", until it clicked later that it was all part of the Director's greater cinematic design.
But for the arty film student types, this film is sure to be the topic of many, many essays for years to come.
Clearly every part of the film was deliberate - every shot, every line of script, every item in the background. It was true art. None of that quick-buck profit-incentive Hollywood stuff.
In conclusion I recommend this film to everyone, particularly people who want to learn something or gain some insight from what they watch. For the everyday movie-lover, go into this with an open mind and have a really long think about how you can compare it to the world today.
Top stuff, 10/10
If you watch one, watch the other
AfricanBro3 November 2022
This isn't bad at all but I enjoyed Daveed Diggs and Jennifer Connelly's TV show adaptation more, maybe that's just because I watched that before the movie. I already knew the concept so it felt like a fun little game to see were the story was going and what differences the movie had. One of the cases were both the movie and series are great, so if you only watched one of them I highly recommend the other.
Just like the Golden Campus' and His Dark Materials' or The time traveler's wife' movie and tv series adaptation, I think the snowpiercer tv adaptation is better as it has more time to explore the story, add depth and let you get invested in the characters even more, the movie does all that but feels pressed for time in comparison. Still pretty good though and both are amazing concepts, on the surface it's an ice age apocalypse story, but below that it explores sociological hierarchies, politics and a fight to equality all on just one train, the show also has more developed love stories and interests in the side plots. Not many movies or series, more so sci-fi's, successfully attempt to address that while still being a fun watch. You wouldn't be wrong to be concerned that the story is already told in the movie, but the series is going to season 4 now and it's amazing how they keep churning out new stories, twists and developments; that's why I rate the series higher because the acting, cast and production are on par but to consistently maintain thrill and interest for that long sets it apart from the movie. Still watch it though.
Just like the Golden Campus' and His Dark Materials' or The time traveler's wife' movie and tv series adaptation, I think the snowpiercer tv adaptation is better as it has more time to explore the story, add depth and let you get invested in the characters even more, the movie does all that but feels pressed for time in comparison. Still pretty good though and both are amazing concepts, on the surface it's an ice age apocalypse story, but below that it explores sociological hierarchies, politics and a fight to equality all on just one train, the show also has more developed love stories and interests in the side plots. Not many movies or series, more so sci-fi's, successfully attempt to address that while still being a fun watch. You wouldn't be wrong to be concerned that the story is already told in the movie, but the series is going to season 4 now and it's amazing how they keep churning out new stories, twists and developments; that's why I rate the series higher because the acting, cast and production are on par but to consistently maintain thrill and interest for that long sets it apart from the movie. Still watch it though.
A Crazy Parable
chestburster24 March 2014
First I want to say that this is one of the best (and entertaining as hell!) social commentary films I've seen since Terry Gilliam's Brazil and Paul Verhoeven's Robocop.
Yes there are a lot of plot points that don't make much sense if looked at from the perspective of our "reality."
But this film does NOT aim to be "realistic." In fact, I'd say the goal of the director is to make it as "surrealistic" as possible.
And I applaud him to be so successful in that: in many moments during the film, I felt I was experiencing a fevered dream of a fried fish. -- That's how insane this film is.
It takes great genius to present something as insane as the plot of Snowpiercer.
This film will be remembered, analyzed and revered for a long, long time.
The icing on the cake is that the social commentary content is actually intriguing. The film is decent enough to leave enough ambiguity so that the audiences can make their own conclusions.
9 out of 10.
Yes there are a lot of plot points that don't make much sense if looked at from the perspective of our "reality."
But this film does NOT aim to be "realistic." In fact, I'd say the goal of the director is to make it as "surrealistic" as possible.
And I applaud him to be so successful in that: in many moments during the film, I felt I was experiencing a fevered dream of a fried fish. -- That's how insane this film is.
It takes great genius to present something as insane as the plot of Snowpiercer.
This film will be remembered, analyzed and revered for a long, long time.
The icing on the cake is that the social commentary content is actually intriguing. The film is decent enough to leave enough ambiguity so that the audiences can make their own conclusions.
9 out of 10.
the unsustainability of system
shiguangmimi9 May 2020
The opening scene was psychedelic and the ending was insane. It was a great black humorous movie. The resonance of the kindergarten song burst into flames, satirizing the instant sensation. The rule of the old class needs the maintenance of cockroach protein. The change of the new class begins with the awakening of cannibals. If it were you, how would you choose?
Lame, ridiculous and illogical
verminhater31 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Very disappointed would be a good summation for this film especially considering it's early rating here. Once the review process has exhausted the fans and people who haven't seen or heard of the comic are reviewing it I expect it'll fall like a stone.
The major flaws as I see them (spoiler alert!). The whole concept of a train being the last salvation of mankind on a frozen planet is just beyond belief. Where does the train stop for servicing to it's undercarriage etc. without any stations? Who maintains the track? An engine that runs on magic as much as anything! Why not make it nuclear or at least something believable. If you were to set up a society in a closed environment why wouldn't everyone have a purpose with controlled breeding rather than be lugging around many people with no contribution to the whole. Why would you engineer a rebellion to control population? There are many better ways. Why would you expect some rebel to want your top job doing things your way? The very word rebel suggests that a change of system is wanted.
Major flaws aside there are other issues with the film. The characters are not believable. They belong in the comic it's based on. Nobody has made any effort to translate them to film or realised that some adjustments are even necessary. Film requires a different approach and nobody who made this film understands that. A great example of how to do it right is Dredd. This is a great example of how to do it wrong. The film tries to open up great philosophical issues but fails to do so due to the setting they are working in, ie a comic book. You continuously think that none of this is real and so pay no attention to the great moral dilemmas they are trying to foist on you. It's akin to being lectured by a 10 year old.
On top of the major flaws there are many minor ones. I'll just give the one example of the hero of the piece stuffing his arm in a moving machine to save one child (didn't bother to look for anything better suited to the task such as a steel bar) whilst then dooming that child to death with everyone-else.
The one redeeming quality of the film is it's well made. It's not remotely enough to save it from being a turkey though.
The major flaws as I see them (spoiler alert!). The whole concept of a train being the last salvation of mankind on a frozen planet is just beyond belief. Where does the train stop for servicing to it's undercarriage etc. without any stations? Who maintains the track? An engine that runs on magic as much as anything! Why not make it nuclear or at least something believable. If you were to set up a society in a closed environment why wouldn't everyone have a purpose with controlled breeding rather than be lugging around many people with no contribution to the whole. Why would you engineer a rebellion to control population? There are many better ways. Why would you expect some rebel to want your top job doing things your way? The very word rebel suggests that a change of system is wanted.
Major flaws aside there are other issues with the film. The characters are not believable. They belong in the comic it's based on. Nobody has made any effort to translate them to film or realised that some adjustments are even necessary. Film requires a different approach and nobody who made this film understands that. A great example of how to do it right is Dredd. This is a great example of how to do it wrong. The film tries to open up great philosophical issues but fails to do so due to the setting they are working in, ie a comic book. You continuously think that none of this is real and so pay no attention to the great moral dilemmas they are trying to foist on you. It's akin to being lectured by a 10 year old.
On top of the major flaws there are many minor ones. I'll just give the one example of the hero of the piece stuffing his arm in a moving machine to save one child (didn't bother to look for anything better suited to the task such as a steel bar) whilst then dooming that child to death with everyone-else.
The one redeeming quality of the film is it's well made. It's not remotely enough to save it from being a turkey though.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
