Snowpiercer

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.

¨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.

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.

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

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.