Snowpiercer

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".