Snowpiercer (2014)

[Goffe]

what if those two kids didn't survive? Curtis didn't know if they would survive

I don't think human extinction is a good solution in any situation.

[Ezen Baklattan]

It wasn't his solution, though, it was Namgoong who decided to blow up the train, and he was so confident in his belief that it would be the key to hope that he didn't realize how deadly it would be. Curtis even tries to stop him.

[Goffe]

It wasn't his solution, though, it was Namgoong who decided to blow up the train, and he was so confident in his belief that it would be the key to hope that he didn't realize how deadly it would be. Curtis even tries to stop him.

it wasn't his solution, but Curtis still help him giving Yona the matches

[Ezen Baklattan]

I may need to revisit the scene, but I'm pretty sure Yona took them.

[The Panda]

what if those two kids didn't survive? Curtis didn't know if they would surviveI don't think human extinction is a good solution in any situation.

He saw that taking a chance for a possibly better future was better than continuing the suffering of most humans.The train was breaking down, that's why the children needed to be in those places, and eventually there'd be no solution It's a hard sci-fi philosophical ending, it makes more symbolic sense then practical sense because it's meant to challenge your thinking like great sci-fi should. It isn't your formulaic Hollywood ending but an artistic one.It leaves you with an open idea for you to dwell on instead of closure that most general audiences are used to.

[Goffe]

He saw that taking a chance for a possibly better future was better than continuing the suffering of most humans.The train was breaking down, that's why the children needed to be in those places, and eventually there'd be no solutionIt's a hard sci-fi philosophical ending, it makes more symbolic sense then practical sense because it's meant to challenge your thinking like great sci-fi should. It isn't your formulaic Hollywood ending but an artistic one.It leaves you with an open idea for you to dwell on instead of closure that most general audiences are used to.

I wasn't talking about the film's message, I was talking about the possibility of anyone surviving the train derailment and how human race would go extinct if no one survived.

[Goffe]

He saw that taking a chance for a possibly better future was better than continuing the suffering of most humans.The train was breaking down, that's why the children needed to be in those places, and eventually there'd be no solutionIt's a hard sci-fi philosophical ending, it makes more symbolic sense then practical sense because it's meant to challenge your thinking like great sci-fi should. It isn't your formulaic Hollywood ending but an artistic one.It leaves you with an open idea for you to dwell on instead of closure that most general audiences are used to.

No. Curtis could have easily replaced Wilford and made things more unequal, kids could alternating shifts or something like that. Even if the train was breaking down like you said, Curtis could have stopped the train easy and slow, no one needed to die, if anything the ending was a bit too Hollywoodish (the need to have a final, big and FX driven sequence).

[Ezen Baklattan]

Since when is killing all but two of the seemingly last humans on Earth a Hollywood ending?!

Edited July 8, 2014 by Spaghetti

[Lordmandeep]

I think the ending was different but something I did not agree with.

 

I really liked the film untill the end. 

[Goffe]

Since when is killing all but two of the seemingly last humans on Earth a Hollywood ending?!

I was referencing the train derailment

[The Panda]

No. Curtis could have easily replaced Wilford and made things more unequal, kids could alternating shifts or something like that. Even if the train was breaking down like you said, Curtis could have stopped the train easy and slow, no one needed to die, if anything the ending was a bit too Hollywoodish (the need to have a final, big and FX driven sequence).

Wilfrod still had power over him and was alive. Symbolically yes, but then again the raging crowd was coming after them, it required rash action.Humanity turned against itself, once the lower class stormed to kill Wilfrod and once Curtis reaches power the higher class storms to kill him. It's a never ending struggle that can symbolically represent things from political parties to capitalism v communism when one side gains power the other lashes back and the conflict continues with the inequality and corruption.The only way to end the inequality and corruption was to henceforth end the human race and make it start anew. With a new start there is now hope for life on Earth to continue and for human survival. (Basically the message is, the train humanity is on board sucks but to truly be able to fix the problems, such as the rich depending on the poor to be poor to be rich, you'd have to destroy the train and that means most of humanity itself.)

[chasmmi]

To me one of the most surprising things about this film was the fact that main characters just died in situations when they would be expected to die.

 

When Jamie Bell has a gun held to his head and you expect Evans to do the Hollywood thing and do what is neccessary to save his life, it doesn't happen. That was quite shocking to me, watching an English language film and thus being in Hollywood mode watching it.

[Rsyu]

 I saw this a year ago so I'm a bit hazy on the finer details but I remember that I enjoyed it a great deal. In a nutshell it shows us the whole world forcibly compressed inside of a train under the special circumstances of a global winter, and the same social classes and inequalities between them that is existent in everyday society today. Every time someone tries and overcome these barriers of inequality, obstacles are thrown in their path causing them to stumble and fall. If they are able climb back up to their feet to overcome those obstacles, if it is manageable then they are accepted and become part of the same system of society. If however the contradictions become too severe and the inequalities between classes too great, then the only option remaining is to break the system, which in this case is represented as the train with the engine in the film being reverently compared to something akin to a king or a god. In the end the train is broken and the old system is gone and we are left with an open ending about the fate of the human race, a continuation of the old system or a new one forged by the sole survivors of the train crash. 

 I also like how Snowpiercer showed us a glimpse of the raw emotion of desperation. How the people in the tail end fought to get on the train, how they cut off their own limbs as food and how they finally, driven to the brink, make a mad charge towards the front of the train. It made for a much more absorbing and edge-of-the-seat-viewing. 

 The acting was great too. Since Song Kang-Ho isn't a prolific english speaker I worried how they were going to cross the language barrier but they did it pretty well with the translator. Since I could understand both the English and Korean version some parts that foreigners wouldn't necessarily find funny made me laugh a few times. Chris Evans-amazing, I preferred him in snowpiercer than in captain america the winter soldier. 

 Overall, I need to re-watch this as I'm pretty certain I didn't get everything the first time but my current grade is B+

[Jack Nevada]

Good, not great.

[Gopher]

What a great year for the sci-fi genre. I saw this, EDGE and APES over the span of 24 hours (this was my favorite).It's delieriously bleak and upsetting and yet this is a simultaneously witty, unexpected, and constantly inventive film. It aptly runs like a well oiled machine that's headed over a cliff. The political allegory isn't entirely revelatory but the script makes it FEEL revelatory to me. I've got literally nothing bad to say about it. Phenomenal score, ensemble (in a narrative where we actually have to meet Wilfred, Ed Harris is perfect casting), cinematography, editing, and most importantly direction. Expect to see this in my top 10 at the end of the year. It ain't going anywhere.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Gopher

[eXtacy]

Great film, I really enjoyed this. Had no idea this even existed 2 days ago. What a good find.

 

A-

[JohnnyGossamer]

what if those two kids didn't survive? Curtis didn't know if they would survive

I don't think human extinction is a good solution in any situation.

Namgoong attempted to close the door to the Wilford's chamber. I think that was his initial plan to keep he and his daughter safe. Open the door, set the bomb, close the door. When he noticed the door would close, he and Curtis ran to one another in hopes of bracing the children for impact.

 

But, more importantly, they didn't know. But, in that moment, both believed the risk was worthwhile. Second, I'm not convinced everyone the train died. Most... Yes, of course. But, everyone? Hmm. Probably not.

[JohnnyGossamer]

No. Curtis could have easily replaced Wilford and made things more unequal, kids could alternating shifts or something like that. Even if the train was breaking down like you said, Curtis could have stopped the train easy and slow, no one needed to die, if anything the ending was a bit too Hollywoodish (the need to have a final, big and FX driven sequence).

Didn't really have much time for thought/discussion with Namgoong already shot. The revelation that the man he admired, Gilliam, shared in Wilford's stratagem/belief of keeping the population in order. Raging drug addicts pushing forward. The fuse to the explosive ignited. And, even then, isolated on the train, how he control the population. He DID NOT believe Namgoong that attempting to survive outside the train was option. He really didn't much believe him until he had no other alternative.

Edited July 16, 2014 by JohnnyGossamer

[Sam]

What a great year for the sci-fi genre. I saw this, EDGE and APES over the span of 24 hours (this was my favorite).It's delieriously bleak and upsetting and yet this is a simultaneously witty, unexpected, and constantly inventive film. It aptly runs like a well oiled machine that's headed over a cliff. The political allegory isn't entirely revelatory but the script makes it FEEL revelatory to me. I've got literally nothing bad to say about it. Phenomenal score, ensemble (in a narrative where we actually have to meet Wilfred, Ed Harris is perfect casting), cinematography, editing, and most importantly direction. Expect to see this in my top 10 at the end of the year. It ain't going anywhere.

Now we can know for sure that B will hate this if he ever gets around to see it.

[Plain Old Tele]

I didn't care as much for the Ed Harris casting as much as everyone else seems to. Or rather, the casting is fine but I didn't think he was directed particularly well. (A good scenery-chewer would've fit better, IMO.)