FORUMS: list search recent posts

Snowpiercer

COW Forums : TV & Movie Appreciation

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Scott Roberts
Snowpiercer
on Jul 9, 2014 at 7:26:43 pm
Last Edited By Scott Roberts on Jul 9, 2014 at 7:27:31 pm

The director of the new film America (currently at 11% on Rotten Tomatoes), the latest documentary from best selling author/filmmaker/attention craver/republican guy Dinesh D'Souza, recently complained (and lawyered up) about how his movie was getting blatant lack of exposure, despite it being in over 1100 theaters in the country and is the first thing you see on basically any Fandango listing you look up. Meanwhile, I had to drive to Country Club Hills to see Snowpiercer, as it was the only theater playing it in suburban Chicagoland. If you're not from around here, Country Club Hills sucks and their AMC smells like pee. Snowpiercer only played in 250 American theaters and made almost half the money America did (that's aside from the $80 million it made overseas), while basically receiving none of the American advertisements or complaining about lack of exposure. I don't know where I'm going with this, but I just read an article about how D'Souza thinks he's getting the short end of the stick; meanwhile he has a documentary that's playing in 1100 theaters and I had to drive an hour to downtown Chicago last year to see Blackfish, which is no doubt a better documentary without even having seen America. I think I'm just trying to say "F that D'Souza guy"; I don't even want this to be in a political context: nobody's movie is important enough to publicly complain about how much *you* think everyone deserves to see *your* own movie. Especially to the extent that he's doing. It's a freakin' movie. I (and the rest of the country) had the option to see your film at basically every theater around us, and I (and the rest of the country) *chose* not to watch it, and I (personally) chose to sit in a urine soaked theater and watch a sci-fi action film about a futuristic train that, truth be told, probably created a better metaphor for a global society than your one-sided, self-appreciative, pandering documentary ever could. AND it had axe fights.

Ok, completely random ranty intro paragraph aside, I went into Snowpiercer with basically no concept of what it was about or who was in it, only excited to see it based on hype and word-of-mouth, and that was probably a good thing. But if you need a synopsis, here's the vaguest possible description I'm willing to give. It's the future, the government tried to combat global warming and it worked *too* well, so now Earth is covered in unlivable snowy conditions. The last remaining humans now exist on a constantly moving luxury train, named the Snowpiercer, which travels in a year-long loop all around the world. The poor people are in the back, the rich people in the front. That's all you really need to know about the plot going into it.

Now, I guess if you want to hear more details about it (I suppose I can't end the review there), well, it's super violent and full of great, surprising characters. The acting is good, and ranges from the borderline whispers of Chris Evans to the cartoonish, loud intentional overacting of Tilda Swinton. She looked like she had fun with the role, but her mouth area really bothered me, as she's purposefully talking around her dentures the whole time. The cinematography is pretty good, and it moves at a great pace. It's two hours that felt like 90 minutes. I doubt a movie like this would garner any awards praise, but the production design is genius. There was one moment that I don't want to ruin, you'll know it when you see it, when they open one of the gates and it's just a perfect blend of visuals, music, and terrifying implications that it just made me tense up inside with joy at how much I love these kinds of movies. If there were like four more of those moments, this would have been a certified masterpiece.

From a logical standpoint, there's about as much to question as there is in any ole' sci-fi movie. Spatially, the train makes no sense. There's no possible way that there are literally thousands of people living in it (as they mention), there's simply no place for them to sleep, especially the rich folk. Unless it's implied that a bunch of train cars that we didn't see were sleeping cars, or that we should assume that the train is bigger than the film could possibly show, it doesn't have much logic to it. Even just looking how narrow the cars are, there's just no freakin way that that many people are existing on it. Not to mention that for some people to go from point A to point B, they would have to walk through some pretty crazy theme cars to get there. But I'm willing to let a lot of that slide because it's an earnestly entertaining movie. Am I a hypocrite for not caring about the logistics of Snowpiercer, and then ripping something like Transformers to shreds? Maybe. But I think exceptions need to be made for movies that actually *attempt* to elevate themselves above a series of loud things smashing into each other. You've gotta do something more with your action movie. And Snowpiercer does. Otherwise, you're just adding to the pile of CGI scrap metal.

But for me, the best part of this movie is the sense of exploration. Going from car to car, discovering each new element of how a fully functional society could possibly live on a giant train unfold one gate at a time was enthralling. I haven't watched the trailer, but I assume they give away a bunch of the train car surprises. How could they not? I wouldn't bother watching the trailer if I were you. I don't know how the film will do on repeat viewings (I mean, it's still really good and I'd watch it again), but the most exciting thing about it is the vast amount of discovery involved. I did not know what was coming next, or where the plot was going. For two hours, I was completely engaged in the universe that Snowpiercer had created. And it's a film that doesn't always take the easy way out, and isn't afraid to kill off whichever characters it wants.

Check it out if you can, it's probably my favorite movie of the year so far. And I doubt Bong Joon-ho is being a crybaby about only getting a limited release in America. Sorry, that D'Souza b-hole really rubbed me the wrong way today.

9 out of 10


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Snowpiercer
on Jul 9, 2014 at 8:07:50 pm

[Scott Roberts] "it's probably my favorite movie of the year so far. And I doubt Bong Joon-ho is being a crybaby about only getting a limited release in America."

Proper reply later, but I noted with pleasure that it's already available On Demand on Time Warner cable. I'll definitely be checking it out.


Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: Snowpiercer
on Jul 9, 2014 at 8:16:45 pm

Can't wait to see it, not on my local screens yet.

Thematically, it seems like it has some parallels to this old TV turkey, one which gave Harlan Ellison fits...







Return to posts index


Stephen Smith
Re: Snowpiercer
on Jul 10, 2014 at 5:42:47 pm

Scott, are you saying you don't like Dinesh D'Souza? I can't tell from your comments :-)

Stephen Smith

Utah Video Productions

Check out my Vimeo page


Return to posts index

Scott Roberts
Re: Snowpiercer
on Jul 10, 2014 at 6:17:02 pm

He's D'Worst!


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Snowpiercer
on Jul 21, 2014 at 9:42:00 pm

THIS MOVIE IS ON YOUR CABLE OR SATELLITE ON-DEMAND RIGHT NOW. I all but guarantee it.

No kidding. No excuses. SEE IT.

And yes, Scott, one reason Bong Joon-ho isn't crying over the limited theatrical release for Snowpiercer is that IT'S EVERYWHERE. SEE IT RIGHT NOW.

AND the filmmakers get a bigger slice of On Demand, easily making up for the smaller revenue from everyone in the house getting to see it for a lot less than even a single ticket at the movie theater.

SO YOU CAN SEE IT NOW. WITHOUT WAITING. SO DON'T WAIT.

Especially if you liked The Matrix, this is a braindead simple pick for the exact same reasons: stunning visuals, stupendous art design, a core of absolutely perfect performances, and a compelling, thoughtprovoking idea, wrapped in an explosively singular artistic vision.

Now then: I hated The Matrix. LOL If you liked The Matrix, I have to automatically mark down any of your recommendations to me by a full letter grade.

I'll think about my own letter grade for Snowpiercer when I'm less annoyed, but I doubt it will be higher than a D.

That said, I know I'm in the insane minority for both The Matrix and Snowpiercer. I've never claimed to be anything else. And the fact is, I can even imagine people who DON'T like The Matrix liking this quite a lot.

Regardless, Snowpiercer is a cultural phenomenon, and I think people will be talking about it in 20 years. Probably much longer. And they'll be loving it.

And unlike the Wachovskis, I can easily imagine Bong Joon-ho having more than one great one in the tank.

AND YET....

SPOILER ALERT.

ALERT: SPOILERS AHEAD.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS.

AHEAD: SPOILERS.

SPOILERAMA

SPOILER.

SPOILE.

SPOIL.

SPOI.

SPO.

SP.

S.



YES, this is me mocking spoiler alert spitbubblers. Yes, it's over the top. Yes it's borderline offensive in its condescension.

Which makes it the perfect introduction to my feelings about this movie.




-- John Hurt as "Gilliam?" Among the many examples of Snowpiercer's ham-handedness. Yes, this is a Terry Gilliam movie from stem to stern, minus the sly self-awareness and additional layers of intelligence in even the least gelled of Terry's movies. At first I thought the reference was cute, but then it really bugged me.


-- Once Chris Evans breaks down in his speech on being a cannibal -- VERY moving, btw. He completely nailed it -- I don't buy that he's still all weepy and immobilized. At that point, catharsis complete! Energize!

Yes, that's how almost every other movie does it. THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT.


---------And yes, for this review I will only be referring to his character as Chris Evans. I LOVE Chris Evans. I want him and Hugh Jackman in every movie. (Ewan McGregor too, but I know that that's too much to ask.) He does a terrific job in this. I can't think of anybody better.

But I did in fact think of him only as Chris Evans. I don't have a problem with this. Mission accomplished, I'd say.



-- The only reason I can think of for NOT letting Chris Evans use his confession to spur him to the climax is because they wanted to set up that Chris Evans was so unhinged, and no longer thinking clearly, that he could ONLY do something really, really stupid.


-- Also stupidly ham-handed: "Boo-hoo-hoo, it's Timmy, now I have to let my arm get cut off." I found that downright offensive in its obviousness.


-- EXCEPT THEY BARELY SHOWED HIS ARM AFTERWARD. Not that we needed to SEE it get cut off. The filmmakers gratefully spared us those sort of visuals throughout the movie...but at least cradling a bloody stump in center frame? Not too much to ask. LOL


-- Chris Evans didn't save at least two bullets for once he got to the engine? Ostensibly for a double-tap to Ed Harris (also using his name as the name of the character, also in a good way), but as it turned out, one each for Ed Harris and Batgirl, whoever the hell she was supposed to be.

It's like one of those movies that ends in the first reel if the hero has a cell phone. This SHOULD have gone, one in the face, one in the face, and his hero's journey is complete. This becomes a post-apocalyptic Braveheart/Moses moment. But noooooo. Chris Evans has to listen to Ed Harris.

And listen.

And listen.

-- AND WTF. Ed Harris's speech is EXACTLY the Architect's speech from The Matrix, one of the most boring, blathering, stupid, ultimately gutless speeches in film history...and this is nearly as bad...AND I LOVE ED HARRIS. I don't blame him for the horribleness of this scene.


-- I do get that Ed Harris and Gilliam didn't expect Chris Evans to make it to the front of the train. They not only expected him to fail, but Ed says they NEEDED to him to fail.

BUT WAIT. Ed Harris ALSO says that both he and Gilliam had been grooming Chris Evans to be the next engineer. And well they should have! It's Chris Evans! No longer Capt. American, but Capt. Humanity -- captain of the whole dang train!!!

But both can't be true. Don't try to tell me that Chris Evans becoming the engineer IF he succeeded was Plan B. Chris Evans becoming the engineer was EITHER Plan A, or it wasn't. Plan B was NEVER suggested as an option.

"Well now, since you're here, howzabout becoming the engineer?" Nope. No. Noperini.


-- Duuuuuuude, Chris Evans's WHOLE GOAL, his ONLY GOAL, had been to take over the engine, and Ed says, "GOOD. We WANT you to. We've been waiting your whole life for this. PLEASE DO."

So why doesn't he EITHER cap Ed, OR say, "Cool. Now feed everybody in the back of the train, motherforkers. You'll do a better job keeping them in their place if they don't have a reason to leave. We've got plenty of food for everyone. ESPECIALLY now."

Because Chris Evans isn't stupid. He would have already figured out that chaos is a real threat. He lived through it, and in fact, food is a great cure for chaos. The lack of food was the only reason for chaos in the first place.

So Chris Evans got to his goal...AND BAILED ON IT. It's the ultimate failure of nerve. Chris Evans boo-hoo-hooed humanity clean out of existence.

And they'd given us no reason to believe that that was even a possibility for Chris Evans, even AFTER his emotional confession.

So...basically obliterating humanity except for a multi-race couple of kids...hmmm, I wonder his point was THERE...he asks ham-handedly....for no other reason than Chris Evans SNATCHES THE END OF FREAKING HUMANITY out of the jaws of VICTORY.

"Here you go, Chris Evans. Take over the train. Yeah, we may have orchestrated this from the time you first ate a baby -- nom nom nom, amirite?" OR, "You might have surprised us, Chris Evans, OR NOT and I'm just saying this because it's convenient...but well done, lad! You win!!!! Have a steak! It's probably not even made from a human baby!"


-- Speaking of which, what were the protein bars supposedly made of? Insects or something? Too murky to tell, at least on my "should easily have been big enough" TV.

Besides, duuuude, no protein to speak of in insects.

SLURM on the other hand, PACKED with protein.


-- AND THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS: people who attempt to disrupt a grinding, dehumanizing, cannibalism-inducing class order are TOO WEAK TO DO CREATE A MORE HUMANE ENVIRONMENT....AND/OR, they will INEVITABLY DESTROY HUMANITY....AND/OR....Chris Evans is a spineless, simpering wimp.

EXCEPT HE'S NOT. HE'S CHRIS EVANS. And you've shown us for TWO HOURSS that he's FEROCIOUS.


The lightning round:

-- Day-yum, his beard was trimmed to within an inch of its life. Best-trimmed beard in movie history?

-- Also had a lovely haircut. How? Of course, it doesn't matter. He's Chris Evans. Chris Evans will always have a lovely haircut.

-- When Timmy walks out of the train with a fur coat that they stole from the decadent disco, yes, the hem is very long because he's like 5 years old...BUT THE SLEEVES ARE PERFECT.

-- Dude, they leave the train with NO FOOD??? Is it that they see the polar bear in the distance and think, yeah we can drop him with...oh yeah, no weapons either. Of course, I can see why a 17 year old wouldn't think "Bokay, where's the bazookas?" -- OH WAIT, NO I CAN'T, not after she'd been through war to get there, and we know that there's at least one gun in the engine car -- but no way they trudge into the snow without some peanut butter or Twizzlers or something. There was food RIGHT THERE.

-- So how are we thinking that she and Timmy are going to survive for the 10 years or so before Timmy's reasonably fertile? And what're they going to feed the baby when it's ready for solid food? Polar bear?


-- And yeah, the polar bear is filling the place of the dove in Noah's ark, and yeah, it's getting warmer...but if it's me, I'm not thinking, "Oh look, there's a polar bear. He looks happy, so I guess we're gonna be fine."


-- Last but not least, Tilda Swinton, reflecting on the movie's timelessness and it's certain legacy as an all-time great, calls it a "forever movie."

I call it a "forever movie" because that's how long it took from the time Chris Evans meets Ed Harris to the ridiculous, ridiculous end to a movie that COULD have been really great....but was really, really not.

Sure looked good, though.

And not just Chris Evans.


Return to posts index


Scott Roberts
Re: Snowpiercer
on Jul 24, 2014 at 2:02:29 am

Alright, points well taken! I actually agree with you on a lot of things, and it seemed like the main focus of your displeasure was on the ending. And I never thought to compare it to the Matrix, and I forgot the Architect scene even existed, and yeah, Ed Harris scene was pretty much the same thing. That was a pretty spot on comparison, actually! I noticed a lot of reviews I read after I wrote mine seemed to target the ending as the worst part of the movie, and I'd agree, it's full of flaws and over-talkityness (whoa, that's not a word, Scott). BJ-h kind of promised to surprise us with something great at the end of the train, and it was a tad underwhelming, I suppose. The journey was better than the destination for this one, but I was cool with that.

THAT BEING SAID... Really look at this film... It had the balls to take its concept, which is completely outrageous and ridiculous, and just roll with it without flinching. The opening text info tells you what's happening, and that's just how it is, and you're going to have to accept that, or you ain't gonna enjoy the movie. AT ALL. Frankly, I'd rather have a movie that dives headfirst into it's concept with complete confidence, than a movie that wastes valuable time along the way trying to justify everything. That's how you get awful scenes like the Senate debates in The Phantom Menace. I'd rather have one film with the confidence of Snowpiercer than 50 films without the balls to just do whatever it wants to do without trusting the audience to just get it.

But yeah, as I even said in my review, Snowpiercer isn't without its many, many little things to question. I guess I chose to overlook most of them to enjoy the rest of the quality provided instead.

The Martrix: Reloaded sucked. I just wanted to say that to say it.



[Tim Wilson] "-- Speaking of which, what were the protein bars supposedly made of? Insects or something? Too murky to tell, at least on my "should easily have been big enough" TV. "

Yup, lots of crickets and cockroaches and things, I got full detail on the big ole' theater screen!



[Tim Wilson] "-- When Timmy walks out of the train with a fur coat that they stole from the decadent disco, yes, the hem is very long because he's like 5 years old...BUT THE SLEEVES ARE PERFECT."

That raver guy could have had short T-Rex arms! Like Peyton Manning!


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Snowpiercer
on Jul 24, 2014 at 12:26:23 pm

[Scott Roberts] "Alright, points well taken! I actually agree with you on a lot of things, and it seemed like the main focus of your displeasure was on the ending."

Now wait a minute. You're making it sound like the ending is something different than the movie. In this case, the ending is like 20% of the movie. LOL Maybe less, but I'm being generous. It FELT like a THIRD of the movie.

I need you to give me our secret code word to prove to me that Damon Lindelof hasn't hijacked your COW account. The ending IS the thing, and if the ENDING sucks, the THING sucks.

If my car crashes, I don't care that the traffic was light and the scenery was great. A good trip became a bad one. End of story. This isn't T-ball. You don't get a prize for a good movie because "only" the ending sucked.

Especially not when the ending is so long.

BUT, my grade does in fact reflect the "A" that the first part of the movie earns with the "F to the power of Z" that the end earns. "D" is pretty generous.



[Scott Roberts] "Really look at this film... It had the balls to take its concept, which is completely outrageous and ridiculous, and just roll with it without flinching. The opening text info tells you what's happening, and that's just how it is, and you're going to have to accept that, or you ain't gonna enjoy the movie. AT ALL."


Dude, I SERIOUSLY object to that. I talked PLENTY about how much I enjoyed the premise. I praised the art direction and called the performances flawless. What am I not rolling with? The only part of the PREMISE that I had an issue with is that there's enough protein in insects.

And srsly, THAT's the worst thing you can think of to make food out of?

If it was me, I'd have made it be leftovers and other detritus from the rich people. Heck, go for it. Poo. Play to win, right? LOL See? Something metaphorical. If we didn't throw you our garbage, you'd still be eating your own limbs.

But that's the ONLY part of the premise I didn't buy. I was all the way on board with the PREMISE.

I rolled with everything until the movie drove ITSELF off the rails.

See? "On board." "Rolled with it." "Off the rails." Dude, I'm allll about the train.

It was like the last part of the movie was written by a guy who hated the whole rest of the movie, and came in to "fix it." It certainly seems written by a guy who didn't care much for the audience.

DEFINITELY written by a guy who thinks that a teenager and a preschooler are more likely to eat a bear than be eaten by it.

"Well, no, the bear was a symbol that there's life outside the train." Yeah, friggin ARCTIC life. AND A BEAR.



[Scott Roberts] "Frankly, I'd rather have a movie that dives headfirst into it's concept with complete confidence, than a movie that wastes valuable time along the way trying to justify everything. That's how you get awful scenes like the Senate debates in The Phantom Menace. "

I'm sorry, I think you made a typo there. You meant to type "That's how you get awful scenes like the Architect's speech in The Matrix."

I'm sorry, I think *I* made a typo. I meant to type "That's how you get awful scenes like Ed Harris in the engine."

(Interesting that I don't recall ever hearing the word "locomotive" in the movie. Just "engine." I like it.)

Here's the worst part. The Architect has to justify a ridiculously overthought, overwrought, ultimately indigestible TRILOGY, so it's a relatively small portion of the proceedings.

AND, the whole IDEA of The Matrix, is that you don't know what you're looking at. "It's an illusion, so here, let me explain it to you."

The whole "illusion" in Snowpiercer only applied to ONE CHARACTER.

Every single other part of the movie is accounted for. The train was exactly what we thought it was. The journey was exactly what we thought it was. Things were bad, somebody had to do something, so Ed did THIS.

Think about it, Scott. We learned literally NOTHING from the speech.

Okay, we learned one thing. He wasn't using kids for anything creepy. Tah-dah! Thanks, Ed Harris!

So if Ed Harris wasn't going to tell us anything new about himself, or the story as we understood it to that point, why bother?

Because he needed to tell us something about Chris Evans we didn't know. And the speech even fails on THAT count!

Yes yes, it was cool to discover that the guy we thought was a hero started as a heel...but the guy who was so tough that he ate people's limbs and BABIES, who showed enough sack to befriend the guy whose arm he ate and become a man of principle and leadership, is actually too loopy to say "Thank you" when HE ACTUALLY WINS?

NOBODY gave us a reason for his failure of nerve. Not Chris Evans, not Ed Harris, NOBODY. The filmmakers didn't just manufacture a stupid ENDING out of thin air, they manufactured a stupid CHARACTER out of thin air.

Or is the revelation supposed to be that Ed Harris and Gilliam were wrong all along, and that Chris Evans would have made a TERRIBLE engineer?

Terrible, terrible movie. Doesn't matter that there were good things about it. I'm even rethinking giving it as high a grade as D.


Return to posts index

Scott Roberts
Re: Snowpiercer
on Jul 24, 2014 at 4:12:18 pm

[Tim Wilson] "I need you to give me our secret code word to prove to me that Damon Lindelof hasn't hijacked your COW account."

SMOKE MONSTER! SMOKE MONSTER!


[Tim Wilson] "If my car crashes, I don't care that the traffic was light and the scenery was great. A good trip became a bad one. End of story. This isn't T-ball. You don't get a prize for a good movie because "only" the ending sucked.

Especially not when the ending is so long. "


Well, I don't know, like I said in my last post, sometimes the journey is better than the destination. And, of course, given my score of the film, I didn't think the ending completely ruined everything to the point that it made the entire film awful. I merely thought it was a little bit of a slowdown in contrast to the rest of the movie. I assume they were going for a little irony in that there's all this excitement to get to the engine, and when they get there there's just Ed Harris with a matter-of-fact speech waiting for them. But even the speech, as long as it was, didn't completely ruin it for me. It had good elements in it. Even as you said, Chris Evans (nobody remembers his character name, haha) nailed the emotion of his eating people/watching a dude cut off his arm speech. And I was enjoying all the cutaways to the two Korean characters trying to detinate explosives as well. I hated the Architect scene, and I think I literally fell asleep during it at the theater, and Ed Harris' speech is in the same vein IN A LOT OF WAYS, but at least I knew it was at the end of the movie and we were getting some kind of closure. The Architect scene was a long and smelly fart noise in the middle of the second act.

Sure, it would have been a lot better and a lot crazier and a lot more in line with the rest of the film if he had opened the engine room door and there was a giant mechanical Ed Harris face that eats children for fuel and shoots lasers from its eyeballs, and Chris Evans has to blow it up, and no explanations were given. But that would have been so crazy and weird that most people would have just said "Uh, well, that was the weirdest movie I've ever seen. (coughs into hand)". The film built up the promise of an explanation, and they gave an explanation, and we deserved *some* kind of explanation. Whether or not that explanation totally bored the viewer (like it did you) is subjective. And whether or not it totally ruined the ending for the viewer is also subjective, as is pretty much any movie. But with a 94% RT score, a 77% Audience score, an 84 Metacritic score, it seems like the ending didn't totally ruin it for everyone. For MOST people, actually. And I love your opinions Tim, they are always entertaining, but I think when it comes to Snowpiercer, I'll be quietly shuffling over to the big crowd with my head down and my hands in my pockets, hoping you didn't see me walk over there, but knowing deep down you did and you're disappointed in me. Hey, I'm part of the popular kids now! But I joined them with good intentions, i.e. I genuinely enjoyed Snowpiercer. Enough that I'm probably going to buy it on Blu-ray. But sorry for those other kids on my side throwing hard-boiled eggs at you, I don't hang out with them. They're jerks.


[Tim Wilson] "Heck, go for it. Poo. Play to win, right?"

Admittedly, that would have been better.


[Tim Wilson] "DEFINITELY written by a guy who thinks that a teenager and a preschooler are more likely to eat a bear than be eaten by it.

"Well, no, the bear was a symbol that there's life outside the train." Yeah, friggin ARCTIC life. AND A BEAR."


I, personally, left the theater without the impression that these two survivors were going to actually survive in the long run, at all. It was merely an implication that humanity *could* have gotten off the train if they weren't so committed to the idea. Kind of like an "OOPS! Maybe we did the wrong thing with this isolated society after all..." bit of hindsight. Those two be dead in like 2 days. MAYBE. Probably within about 10 hours realistically. I doubt there would ever be a sequel to this film, so we aren't *FORCED* to assume that these characters *have* to go on to create a new society. Sometimes everyone dies at the end. BUMMER.


[Tim Wilson] "Think about it, Scott. We learned literally NOTHING from the speech.

Okay, we learned one thing. He wasn't using kids for anything creepy. Tah-dah! Thanks, Ed Harris!

So if Ed Harris wasn't going to tell us anything new about himself, or the story as we understood it to that point, why bother?"


So you even said it right after that, about how we learned of the motivation for Chris Evans' rage in the first place, the horrific twist that the rich folk made the poor folk do in eating themselves, and how Chris Evans hates himself for eating babies and whatnot, and he went from villain to protagonist. Then we learned, in an almost comical twist, that they need children to replace an extinct engine part. Then we got an explanation that everything is done to keep a level of population control on the train, or life couldn't exist on it overall. Life is unfair, ya know, both on this imaginary train, AND for the people watching a movie about this imaginary train. Then we watched Chris Evans choose to make a stupid decision to save one life over the thousands (and the rest of humanity) because he was being stupid and emotional. I didn't consider his actions to be a failure of nerve, more just a stupid decision. People have made as stupid, or stupider decisions in movies before.

And if you look at the entire film, maybe he was just stupid the entire time? He didn't really have a plan for when he got to the engine, he just wanted to get there and hope that it would make everything better. Once he did, he was asked a question, "What was your point?" Did he want to overthrow the conductor? Did he want to *become* part of the rich crowd? I don't think he *ever* knew, he was just a leader of a mob; a leader he didn't even want to be. To say that there aren't people like that in real life (look in American politics) who just aggressively get their way to the top with abrasive, almost malicious actions, only to have no real plan once they earn their power, would be ridiculous. The whole movie is a reflection on society, and without the ending and Ed Harris' speech, it would have just been an insane action movie about a futuristic train, which as I say it wouldn't be *that* bad, but I think they were going for something more. Actually, I *know* they were going for something more, that's pretty obvious. And that's what separates a movie like Snowpiercer from a movie like Transformers. So, uh, yeah! I wouldn't say we learned literally NOTHING. Or something like that. HEY, LOOK OVER THERE! (runs other direction when you turn your head)


Return to posts index


Stephen Smith
Re: Snowpiercer
on Jul 28, 2014 at 10:20:10 pm

Tim and Scott, if you don't get along about Snowpiercer then you will both have to watch The Lone Ranger as punishment!

Stephen Smith

Utah Video Productions

Check out my Vimeo page


Return to posts index

Scott Roberts
Re: Snowpiercer
on Jul 29, 2014 at 3:11:43 am

[Stephen Smith] "Tim and Scott, if you don't get along about Snowpiercer then you will both have to watch The Lone Ranger as punishment!"

But I think we'd *both* like the train scene from that movie!


Return to posts index

Stephen Smith
Re: Snowpiercer
on Jul 29, 2014 at 3:46:46 am

They show all the coolest train parts in the trailer making it a let down by the time you finally get to see it....that is one long movie. Just realized that I just admitted to seeing the movie :-( Now Tim is going to minus a number from all of my ratings.

Stephen Smith

Utah Video Productions

Check out my Vimeo page


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]