Snowpiercer : Le Transperceneige

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".

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.

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.

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.

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