by     Posted 175 days ago


Sci-fi can be a harsh mirror.  It doesn’t just expose the human condition.  It can expose our past and present with a serious warning with regards to our future.  Bong Joon ho‘s Snowpiercer is incisive science fiction that cuts into the historical narratives of revolution by keeping a sharp eye on not only class conflict, but how that conflict manifests itself in insidious ways far beyond the living conditions of the haves and have-nots.  Although Snowpiercer is at times brutally dark and pitiless, it also keeps a thrilling pace inside a rich, interesting world filled with compelling characters.  The movie can be a bit blurry around the edges and shaky with its thematic conclusions, but Snowpiecer is a constant force to be reckoned with.

In an attempt to stop global warming, humanity launched CW-7, an effort to cool the Earth back down to sustainable temperatures.  The project was a catastrophic failure that caused a second ice age, and killed most of humanity.  The last of our species is on a train powered by a perpetual motion engine.  The poor survivors live at the back of the train and under the tyranny of the rich passengers, who reside on the front of the train.  In the year 2031, seventeen years after the failure of CW-7, Curtis (Chris Evans in an amazing performance) rallies the other poor passengers, and stages a revolution to move all the way to the front and take the engine.  However, as he begins to move further along the individual cars, he discovers both the sacrifices required to progress and the revelations that lie ahead.


Before Snowpiercer even really begins, it forms an intriguing central mystery without ever having anyone vocalize it: Why keep the poor passengers alive at all?  They stay huddled in the back and do no work.  The movie then adds another mystery regarding the forceful removal of certain children from the poor, but not explaining why only a few kids are taken and for what purpose.  These two mysteries run the length of the movie, and the payoff is worth the wait, but you have to trust it’s there.  Snowpiercer earns that trust with the breadth of Bong’s vision.

The level of detail running throughout the movie is remarkable.  The structure of the plot and the setting allow Bong to literally and figuratively compartmentalize a new world of class warfare.  Production Designer Ondrej Nekvasil put a stunning level of detail into each car, and Bong fleshes it out by showing how these characters function within their socioeconomic station.  The filmmaker sees the intersection of how geography defines culture and vice-versa.  It also provides a clever assist to the script as certain cars lead to particular scenes, such as the children’s classroom showing indoctrination but also providing exposition.


There is one major compromise Bong has to make in his specific vision, which is to cut out media and entertainment.  Although we see opiates such as the wealthy worshiping the engineer’s designer, Wilford, as well as passengers using the drug “Kronol”, the movie omits the opiate of entertainment, which, in keeping with a view of history, would supplicate the lower classes.  Additionally, a news service would inform the wealthier cars about the coming revolution.  But it makes sense why Bong would leave out entertainment since it’s difficult to critique what you’re providing.

Snowpiercer isn’t a tirade or agitprop.  It’s entertaining, and features some thrilling action scenes that are both grand and intimate.  Bong knows how to keep us on our toes not just with the brutality of the violence, but with how far he’s willing to go in forcing his characters to continue onwards.  He has no hesitation about making us care about characters and then killing them off because this isn’t a revolution in the abstract.  Although Bong has broadly drawn the sides of the poor people are good and the rich people are bad, the revolutionaries have personal lives beyond the revolution.  These aren’t just people looking for a better life.  They’re friends.  They’re family.  And their deaths have meaning.


Sacrifice is a huge theme in Snowpiercer, and Bong never shies away from what people are willing to do in order to disrupt a status quo that imposes cruel living conditions and steals children.  There’s no turning the revolution back, but whom will be left to move forward?  Even Curtis doesn’t want to lead; he wants that responsibility to lie with his mentor, Gilliam (John Hurt).  Curtis is the rare revolutionary: He’s reluctant to lead, he doesn’t spout treatises on the class warfare, and he rallies people through personal relationships rather than demagoguery.  Again, this may not fit perfectly into a believable historical paradigm, but we can suspend our disbelief because the larger conflict connects.

Although I don’t agree with all of Bong’s thematic conclusions, he makes a fairly strong argument, and it’s also an admirable one that’s as unflinching and unforgiving as his movie.  Snowpiercer may wear the guise of a sci-fi action-thriller, but it’s as dark and damning as any straight drama.  The genre trappings, along with the excellent performances, are what stop the film from being a depressing slog.  The tension is always taut as we root for these characters to succeed even though as a present-day audience we’re well aware that the wealthy usually win.


Except Snowpiercer isn’t just a critique of the über-rich.  It’s an indictment of those who choose to neglect the less fortunate and our unwillingness to sacrifice our comfort while others suffer.  I doubt Bong wants us to give up our material possessions and become socialists, but he also wants us to acknowledge the severe dysfunction of our social strata instead of ignorantly coasting along in our cushy compartments.

Snowpiercer is a challenge in a movie landscape where sci-fi action rarely challenges us.  As we’ve seen in films such as Prometheus and Transcendence, sci-fi in modern films usually amounts to Icarus stories.  Bong Joon ho forces us to look deeper and done so with a film that can be harsh, but never hateful.  It’s a cold, grim world, and yet the fire and fury of his characters and their story keep this unique vision burning bright.

Rating: A-


Like Us


FB Comments

  • Josh Tarpley

    I really want to see this! I hope it expands wide enough for me to see it in my city.

  • Sweet Pea

    Nice review, good grade. I’ll look out for this.

    • The Flobbit

      Meh review. Not a single word on the acting other than “amazing performance” from Chris Evans.

      • Sweet Pea

        Tell it to the reviewer pal. Not that casual reviewer of the review. It gave me what I needed.

      • The Flobbit

        I guess thats all a review needs to do.

        The acting is stellar, though. Chris Evans is a beast.

  • mattinacan

    i implore everyone, PLEASE go see this instead of transformers this weekend. let that crap die already.

    • MIXTER


      If people don’t go to see it, the series may end, then if your a fan of Transformers, give it a year and Hollywood may reboot it anyway, so you’ll still get your film, but maybe without Bay, and more like the Transformers you really liked. Maybe that time they’ll resemble transformers too and not metalic rubble.

  • computerbenefit

    I have seen this movie and a lot of people were talking about how amazing Tilda Swinton is (and she absolutely is), but she has a very showy character, so that gives her more space to do a lot. Chris Evans, on the other hand, just absolutely blew me the hell away. I had no idea the guy could be this good of an actor. His character is very restrained and doesn’t talk much, but even with that he was able to give such an incredible performance where for the first time I sat back and went, holy crap this guy CAN really act. And the film overall is a near-masterpiece.

    • Jeremy Flores

      I think it’s the best sci-fi film since Children of Men.

      • MIXTER

        Now, I am intrigued! Loved Children of men!

      • GrimReaper07

        Yeah, I think it might be too (and Children of Men is one of my favorite movies of all time).

      • DoremusJessup

        Damnit. I was pissed about a reply you left on one of my comments, but I check this post and find that I couldn’t possibly agree with your opinions any more then I do here. Kudos my man, good stuff.

      • GrimReaper07

        Hahaha fair enough

      • The Flobbit

        District 9 may have something to say about that, but Snowpiercer is up there with Minority Report, Children of Men, and 12 Monkeys. And incredible, brilliant film.

      • Jeremy Flores

        Definitely agree with all those films. I hope Blomkamp rebounds with Chappie since Elysium was such a disappointment.

      • The Flobbit

        To clarify: Elysium was only a disappointment because District 9 was so damn good. As a standalone film, it works quite well.

      • James

        To clarify: Elysium was disappointing because it was overwrought satire with boring action. Never properly kicked-off, and just limped towards its ending.

        (It sucks to post opinions as facts, dun’t it?)

      • abbeysbooks

        Please. I like to read you. Elysium was so full of cliches I could have put them in the freezer and snacked on them all year.

      • The Flobbit

        Sure, cliches, but it had its moments. I liked Sharlto Copley, and the set design was interesting. To each his own…

    • mhyder1

      I knew Chris Evans had it in him after I saw Sunshine. Great movie with a not so great ending. But Evans held up his end of the bargain.

  • GrimReaper07

    Good review. I adored this movie. It’s a blockbuster without the Hollywood trappings and the courage to say something about today’s society. The fact that it looks gorgeous, has amazing performances and terrific action scenes also helps.

  • JCubs79

    I really wanna see this but it’s not playing at any theater near me which sucks! I’ve been looking forward to this movie for a while.

    • Doug_101

      It’s going to expand wide in the coming weeks. It’s not showing in my area until the 11th. Double feature of Snowpiercer and Dawn of Planet of the Apes!

      • JCubs79

        That’s good to know. I’ve been checking for showtimes near me everyday! If it came out the same day as Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, I will be doing the same thing haha

  • The Truth

    Been out for a year

    • Neven

      Not in the US. I actually feel sorry for you guys… I saw it months ago and loved it.

  • im mister manager

    I would definitely agree with the review and that grade. I loved this movie and it was so close to being just about perfect for me. Still one of my favorites of the year though.

  • Mike

    Critics are loving this movie but if you go over to imdb’s forums for it there is an unbelievable amount of hate for it. It would easy to brush that off as just dumb, explosion addicted viewers, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. I’m cautious.

    • Neven

      Never trust IMDb users. Never.

    • GunzOfNavarone

      Don’t be, I thought it was excellent and I recommended it to my mate who watched it and thought it was excellent. Make up your own mind.

    • Never Compromise

      Those children on iMDB have been hating on this movie, and pointing out “inaccuracies” since its European release. And they are pretty much wrong for the most part.

      They are attempting to undermine and are refusing to accept the serious storyline of this film because of its fantastical elements – and yet most would be more than willing to sit through another decade of Harry Potter and LoTR/Hobbit films and complain when detractors say they can’t buy into such fantastical universes themselves.

      Don’t believe the ass-hats.

      • MJ

        “Don’t believe the ass-hats.”

        Ah, now it’s clear to me what type of audience this movie was made for. Enjoy it, my friend, as you are its target audience.

        This movie is proporting itself as science fiction, not a fantasy film. I’d have a different opinion of it if had been done and marketed as a fantasy….then, I would suspend more disbelief instead of asking what-the-fuck questions like where is the infrastructure and everything else needed to make this train run, etc.

      • Never Compromise

        YOu must be a really boring individual to actually worry about such things.

        Name me ONE sci-fi movie that explains how any of that shite works – Silent Running is considered a pretty hard-core sci-fi narrative, that doesn’t explain how shit all works. Certainly not in any viable, do-able sense, so what’s your point?


        (Transformers is out by the way, “Enjoy it, my friend, as you are its target audience.” Or failing that, I’m sure you can go catch a midnight screening of Marmaduke, you sonovabitch.)

      • MJ

        Silent Running is self consistent and is logical. Big difference. This movie just say, trust us, we made a magic worldwide train between 2015 and 2032…wallah! LOL

      • Never Compromise

        Silent Running just says “we made space stations with entire plantations of Earth’s forests on them.” LOL. Yeah, that’s not just some sort of pseudo-science MAGIC, is it? Totally one hundred million percent definite. I don’t even need to suspend my disbelief…

        Snowpiercer is self-consistent and logical within its own created world. Surely you must understand that. If not, then I’m afraid you may be retarded.

      • MJ

        If I am retarded, then I am “Rain Man” retarded.

        Dude, in Silent Running, they go through the trouble to show the entire space plantation infrastructure, and how it operates in the movie. Come on, that is hard scifi.

      • Never Compromise

        They do that in Snowpiercer. You go through the train.

        They are both wholly unbelievable. The explanation isn’t meant to be true to anything other than the film-world. They don’t show you everything. And it is inconsistent in Silent Running, it wouldn’t work in the real world, we couldn’t even HOPE to have something as daring as that… You can’t choose one and not the other just because Silent Running delivers its exposition in a more in-your-face “this-is-how-it-works” manner whereas Snowpiercer hopes to transcend such debate because IT DON’T MATTER EITHER WAY; that’s unfair.

      • MJ

        But this super-train is supposed to have been built in the next 10 years? I just can’t make that leap of faith. Maybe if they said 2132 in 2032, I’d be able to go with this.

        So in the next decade, we can’t fix a weather technology problem we create, but we ALL OF A SUDDEN we can develop perpetual motion machines that enable super-trains that circumnavigate the globe, and require no apparent infrastructure to operate…AND THIS IS ALL ACCOMPLISHED IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS?

        Really ???

        PS: If perpetual motion machines could be developed, then that would obviously make energy universally cheap and available, and people could live easily on even a snow covered earth still with and infinite supply of heat and energy.

      • Never Compromise

        What an arbitrary comment.

        Did I dislike Rise of the Planet of the Apes because of its imminent future-predictions regarding intelligent monkeys/apes? Did I dislike Edge of Tomorrow for the same reason, but instead involving an alien invasion (there world was pretty much the same, ‘cept for those amazing mech-suits,riiiiiiight?)?

        You didn’t like Snowpiercer because it set-up a fictional world with a fictional past (similar to ours, I’m sure) and a fictional future, and even though it’s a fictional-film you’re gonna bash it because of that? Because it has conviction for its own fiction?

        arbitrary arbitrary
        arbitrary arbitrary

        (The film doesn’t say WHEN Wilford built the train, it seems as if it was around from years before the disaster. Alas, the film doesn’t say whether it was, or wasn’t, as it doesn’t matter – and most audiences would understand that…)

      • MJ

        Saying arbitrary over and over isn’t that compelling.

        Thanks for bringing up the Apes movie, because Dawn completely proves my point. It establishes how the apes were genetically modified to become intelligent in a manner is reasonably plausible given obvious extrapolation of advances in gene therapy, etc. An objective person would believe that conceivably something like that could happen in our near future consistent with trends pointing towards near-future science. It’s therefore SCIENCE FICTION

        However, an objective person looking at the Year 2032 as present in Snowpiercer, and seeing this “magic perpetual train” (perpetual motion machines are physically impossible) that operates without any evident support infrastructure, with barely any information on how we got from today’s world to the magic train in 2032, would not buy into that scenario. He might very well still enjoy this FANTASY movie though.

      • Jeff Baxter

        If the SnowP world had developed perpetual motion technology, then you will have ubiquitous infinite energy for all. You could easily keep cities heated and rebuild the world normally — even use the technology to reheat the atmosphere.
        Moreover, space travel would be solved; colonization of the solar system would be easy. It would be the single greatest technological discovery since fire.
        Forget the laughable train idea. You’d never need to do that. It would be a waste of time.

      • MJ

        “If the SnowP world had developed perpetual motion technology, then you will have ubiquitous infinite energy for all. You could easily keep cities heated and rebuild the world normally — even use the technology to reheat the atmosphere….Forget the laughable train idea. You’d never need to do that. It would be a waste of time.”

        E X A C T L Y

        Somebody is finally getting it. Duh !!!

      • Never Compromise

        “Silent Running is self consistent and is logical”

        Just ’cause you say it, doesn’t make it true.

      • abbeysbooks

        Now I will have to see it and review it for myself. I am always way on the outside of everyone else. Please read my review of The Rover which I loved. It’s all about love.

    • GrimReaper07

      80% of the complaints are because they think the premise is stupid or because of “plot holes” which are actually scientific inaccuracies. Honestly though, complaining about that in a sci fi movie just seem idiotic to me.

      • Never Compromise

        Yeah, like complaining about the “perpetual engine” that drives the train – I don’t understand why they would need someone to go through the science and mathematics of that (or how it would enhance the story in ANY way) to facilitate their enjoyment of the film… The premise isn’t any more, or less, ludicrous than half of the films we see at the American box office.

        I think they’re just nitpicking in an effort to distance themselves from the harsh social commentary of the film. Or they don’t like films that make you think in any way. Or they just like bad, take-you-by-the-hand, you’ve-seen-it-all-before movies.

        Sad, anyway; this film rocks.

      • MJ

        “Or they don’t like films that make you think in any way.”

        No, that actually is the point. Not a lot of thought went into making the concept believable as a science fiction premise.

      • U R A MOron

        Yeah it did. They showed all the people on the train. There you go. They said there was a perpetual engine. There you go.

        What do you want? Schematics?

        I believed in the concept because that was the world of the film and the film was set within that world. Not our world. It was an allegory for our world, set in their world.

      • MJ

        “They said there was a perpetual engine.”

        This is suppose to be built in the next 10 years, as the year is 2032. I am not buying this.

        But let’s say I did, then who maintains the tracks, who provides the infrastructure, what about operations issues that trains have to deal with, etc. etc. etc.

        The only train I could ever seeing doing this would be Thomas the Train, from kids fantasy stories. Thomas could do this. LOL

      • U R SPR FAIL


        There is NO NEED for that. IT IS A FUCKING SUPER TRAIN.
        And it shows you how it deals with the kind of “operations issues that trains deal with” – they SMASH THROUGH THE FUCKING ICE, which if you had half-a-brain, or had it switched-on while you were watching the film, you’d realise was another piece of writing that was TELLING YOU SOMETHING ABOUT WILFRED AND THE NATURE OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE.


      • MJ

        What’s with all the different sock-puppet names here, dude? Be a man and stick with one identity. It’s so fucking obvious that you are posting under multiple identities here.

        Why are you lacking confidence in your own ideas and thoughts?

      • &Tomorrow I’ll Be Someone Else

        I don’t need to “stick to one name” to make a point, you tool.
        I’m sorry if it’s confusing you. I don’t think it is…

        “Why are you lacking confidence in your own ideas and thoughts?” – funny comment that, considering you’ve given up your own defence to say that my lack of a consistent name is letting mine down… Be a man and stick to the conversation, or shut up.

      • MJ

        I don’t need to become a hybrid of Sybil and The Class Clown to get my point across here.

      • U R SPR FAIL

        Thomas the Tank Engine also wouldn’t have a problem wrapping his feeble mind around the idea of a perpetual motion engine, in a (seemingly) unstoppable train *OH SPOILERS* that travels round the world at the rate of once-a-year.

        Because the film told him such things as facts. Thomas understood that was the world of the film. Because Thomas wasn’t a complete silly-billy.

      • MJ

        “80% of the complaints are because they think the premise is stupid or because of “plot holes” which are actually scientific inaccuracies. Honestly though, complaining about that in a sci fi movie”

        Then you simply don’t understand the difference between science fiction and fantasy.

      • GrimReaper07

        The purpose of science fiction is far from being depicting science in a realistic manner. Terminator’s plot is ridiculous and the science in it is easy to tear apart, but that doesn’t even remotely take away from the movie’s merits.

      • MJ

        The science and concepts on Terminator are infinitely more believable to me than this silly Global Amtrak meets the The Road Warrior movie.

      • GrimReaper07

        Power to you I guess. Sad to see you’re so narrow minded that you find the premise of a sci-fi movie unrealistic and therefore unworthy of you. There’s a very intelligent, complex, character-driven and imaginative movie for those who can go with it.

      • MJ

        Not in general. Just in this particular movie, the train thing was just too silly to take seriously. There were some people in my auditorium snickering and laughing at some of the scenes, so perhaps that did not help.

        Any my friend said, why wouldn’t they just live underground where they could get infinite energy and heat from the earth’s crust?

        If this would have marketed as a fantasy, say like Up, then I think I would have liked it a lot more. It’s not even close to Children of Men though — that movie you felt like it could actually happen someday.

      • GrimReaper07

        Who cares if it’s sci-fi or fantasy? It’s totally sci-fi, but anyone who enjoys films shouldn’t give two ****s about such a minuscule distinction or what the marketing was like. If people were laughing, its because the movie actually has plenty of intentional humor in it, despite being really dark.

      • MJ

        Good. Let’s call it a fantasy then and move on. I agree.

      • Jerry Dingwinger

        But they’re still totally unbelievable, right?

        Whether ‘more’ or ‘less’ they are still impossible. Both of them.
        It’s called suspension of disbelief, and you do it all the time. I struggle to see why you wouldn’t be able to get your head around this one?

      • MJ

        Where is the worldwide infrastructure to keep the train operating?

      • No one did

        Who said it needed a “worldwide infrastructure”?

      • MJ


      • MJ

        Like I said, just don’t insult my intelligence by marketing it as serious sf like Children of Men. It’s a fantasy — just go with that, and I am fine. Again, people were snickering at some parts in the auditorium this afternoon where I saw it at, including a couple outright laughs.

      • Jerry Dingwinger

        What the fuck? The marketing has nothing to do with the film, or the people involved. That’s done by distribution companies to try and bring in the biggest crowd.

        You can’t say “I didn’t like this film, it wasn’t like the advert” – that’s pig-headed.

      • Jerry Dingwinger

        From a guy who is “looking forward to [Rise of the Planet of the] Apes big time” I don’t suppose you’d understand the hilarity in imagining that you have NO problem in believing in a world struggling to contain an army of radicalised walking, talking and gun-toting apes and monkeys, over a perpetual train running around a track that goes around the world?

        You couldn’t just think, “Hey, Snowpiercer’s climate disaster probably happens in our future [even though it's a film, so it's really a sort of 'no future' anyway, like how Planet of the Apes is a 'no future' populated by walking, talking, gun-toting apes and monkeys] and by then there may be a luxury cruise-train that circles the Earth at the rate of once-per-year that uses technology that doesn’t exist in our world, but for the purposes of this film exist and work in such a way as explained by the very film I’m watching.”

        That’s a cop-out. You didn’t like the film because of something else – I’m calling bullshit on it being “couldn’t get my head around a perpetually-moving train” – you have an imagination, you understand the concept of a fictional narrative. Quit being a gimp.

      • MJ

        “From a guy who is “looking forward to [Rise of the Planet of the] Apes big time” I don’t suppose you’d understand the hilarity in imagining that you have NO problem in believing in a world struggling to contain an army of radicalised walking, talking and gun-toting apes and monkeys”

        No I don’t, because it’s all explained in logical, self-consistent way. Unlike the silly train deal.

      • Jerry Dingwinger

        It’s not ‘logical’ at all, mate. Give me the scientific papers you’ve read, or helped with research on, that show we could develop a drug that MAKES MONKEYS TALK!

        Snowpiercer’s world has its own ‘logic’ too (not saying it’s ‘logical’ – let’s just assume you’re getting your wording messed up on that one, I hope) and is self-consistent within the rules it establishes. You can’t agree with one and not the other when they are both heavily-fictionalised versions of an IMPOSSIBLE future scenario. It’s hypocritical at best…

    • Mike

      Came back to say I really enjoyed it. It had a few moments that I didn’t think worked perfect and I don’t understand 1 part right towards the end, but overall the film was pretty damn great.

      I’ll never look at babies the same way

  • tarek

    Loved Tilda swinton’s character. It was inspired by Jeunet universe.

    • WibbleDibble

      “Inspired by [the] Jeunet universe”? Said who? You’re just pulling that outta some dirty orifice on your body.

      I can see how you can see how it would connect well with some of the characters within the films he creates, but your phrasing is off.

      • tarek

        you can see my dirt? so you’re an @ss sniffer. aren’t ya ?

      • WibbleDibble

        You are just awful. Are you gay-bashing?

      • tarek

        No. I’m just sh*t-bashing.

      • WibbleDibble

        I thought I was shit-bashing when I noted the lack of evidence behind your original comment…

        And you still haven’t clarified- though it looks like you won’t be up to that task, so perhaps I should help?

        So, was it; A) “inspired by [the] Jeunet universe” and you have evidence of this?
        Or was it; B) not “inspired by [the] Jeunet universe” – but ‘looks’ to YOU as if it shares some of the same quirk and caricature that his films often contain?

      • tarek

        You forgot:
        C) I don’t give a damn sh*t of what you think.
        I’ll stick with the latter brah.
        Move along.

      • WibbleDibble

        You are a wholly unpleasant little creature, tarek. I was merely attempting to point out that grammatically your sentence posits itself as a fact, not an opinion.

        But it seems you are announcing those two things to be one-and-the-same in your world – God forbid anyone disagreeing with your opinion. Though I imagine you have few people to talk to if you hold your own brain-farts in such high regard and hold such contempt for anyone calling you up on such high-minded and aloof silliness.

      • tarek

        I got your point since your first assaultive comment.
        But since it smelt like sh*t, it helped me to get rid of my severe constipation.

        You are a good remedy for constipation brah. You should file a patent on yourself

      • WibbleDibble

        I’m sorry you took my first comment to be an assault – I didn’t intend it to be. It was a frank and open invitation to clear your brash and uneven comment, I posed a question to you which you refused to answer or clarify your position on. So I apologise for pointing out what I thought may have been a flaw in your writing which leads to your point being read as a statement of fact, as opposed to a sentiment or opinion (as it probably should be.)

        But from there you’ve acted like a big-headed and mean-spirited imp with little regard for the feelings and opinions of others. I only wished for a simple elaboration on your behalf of what I thought was a somewhat under-explained opinion – so I don’t fully understand what “point” you think I was trying to get across, I only wanted to understand your original point; and am still struggling to do so because of your reluctance to type anything more than poo-based unpleasantries.

      • tarek

        yeah, because saying to a person ” You’re just pulling that outta some dirty orifice on your body.” is an elegant and civilized way to point out a flaw ?
        We don’t share the same values then brah.

      • WibbleDibble

        It was a nicer way of saying “you’re talking shit as fact” that was meant to be taken in a light-hearted and jovial manner it was written in, sorry if that didn’t translate. I followed it up with a comment that should have made it somewhat clearer that all I was asking for was a clarification of your point.

      • tarek

        That’s undeniably a very uncommon “nice talk”…

        Usually, I avoid to use any “sh*t” reference when I talk to someone, especially for the first time. But we are probably from two different generations. Young people have an ease in using disguised insults in their everyday talk.

        Now, if thou want me to clarify my point, yes, I find that the character shares a lot with the Jeunet universe. Or the Gilliam Universe.
        See, we could have solved the mystery quickly and in a more civilized way if only…
        Anyway, let’s put behind us this shameful episode.

      • WibbleDibble

        “Young people have an ease in using disguised insults in their everyday talk” – and the old seem to have an ease in both dismissing an entire group of people younger than themselves, as well as insulting them directly it seems, because they were too priggish and concerned with themselves to simply clarify their original (poorly written) comments.

      • tarek

        you pulled the wrong trigger. It is called backlash.
        End of the story.
        File status: closed.

      • MJ

        Closing this file…Tarek 50, WibbleDibble 0

      • Matt Goldberg

        This comment was posted 8 more times, I assume by error. That’s why there’s a string of deletions.

      • tarek

        It wasn’t me. Probably some kid enjoying himself with this childish play.

      • tarek

        you pulled the wrong trigger. It is called backlash.
        End of the story.
        File status: closed.

      • AJMutineer

        grow up the pair of you. ridiculous.

      • tarek

        ok daddy.

  • DjangoBro

    I absolutely love this god damn movie and Tilda was excellent. Seen it twice.

  • Pengroves

    Just watched this yesterday, best movie I’ve seen so far this year. Tilda Swinton was great.

  • Cog

    Was long and silly.

    • Goc

      Ridiculous, innit? The amount of FICTION in our FICTION films these days.

      I hate fiction films that spread around REAL philosophical and sociological ideas in a template of science-fiction as if they have something to offer. It’s absurd. How can I take anything seriously that is even partly fictionalised. It’s disgusting. I blame Obama.

      • Cog

        Seems you hate a lot.
        Enjoy your misery.
        If a drive in movie like this gets you worked up,
        might I suggest counseling.

      • GOC

        No. I just hate it when people offer an opinion consisting of four words and expect anyone to give half a shit.

    • MJ

      Agreed. Not a lot of thought went into it. Good sf I like. This was a fantasy movie.

      • Jezebelly

        Yeah, nothing like 2001: A Space Odyssey.


        And one day I will be a baby in a bubble in space. JUST LIKE HOMER SIMPSON.

        It’s all fantasy, you plum.

      • MJ

        “Yeah, nothing like 2001: A Space Odyssey.”

        Agreed. We don’t compare Spam to Steak.

      • Jezebelly

        ha, godbless, you must be one of many who still regard Stanley Kubrick as the cinematic second coming of our lord and saviour.

        over-rated, mate.

        and your comment offers nothing in the way of intellectual debate. you just wanted to drop some cine-cred by pretending to enjoy the esoteric works of a man who hated the rest of humanity. you probably watch The Shining (the best film he made, that one is good) and go with all that Room-237-documentary-conspiracy-bollocks instead of watching it for the (mundane) horror of a family unit pulling itself apart (an allegory for divorce, perhaps?)

      • MJ

        OK, sure, whatever you say…..

        ….for what it’s worth, I am not a big Kubrick fan. 2001 is really the only film of his that I love. A lot of his other work, including The Shining, is overrated. AI, finished by SS, is good as well.

      • Jezebelly

        You love it? Cool. Blade Runner’s the best film ever isn’t it?

        (P.S: No one will take you seriously if you say that about A.I. It has like twenty/thirty minutes of good ideas. And then there’s the rest of it…)

      • MJ

        You seem to fashion yourself as the guy who is going to successfully employ some not-so-clever sarcasm and word play to criticize my tastes in movies.

        It’s not working, mate.

      • Jezebelly

        You don’t even know what word-play is, clearly.

      • MJ

        Dude, I am just happy for you that you have found your true love.

        What a pity though that you can’t marry yourself.

      • Jezebelly

        I’m happy you have a repertoire of shite insults to throw at people. I’m so hurt! I’ll never go on the internets again!

        MJ, you think far too highly of yourself.

      • MJ

        Your practice of pushing your weight around with your elitist facade and adolescent-level sarcasm doesn’t work with me.

      • Jezebelly

        And it was an allegorical satire that had more to say about the world we’re actually living in than half of the movies (Godzilla, Cap 2, Transcendence, Edge of Tomorrow) you’ve recommended on another line of comments further down.

      • MJ

        Oh please. Like class stuggle satire hasen’t been done 1000 times over in much better movies. Children of Men, Gattaca, Blade Runner — REAL SF FILMS that deal much more profoundly with these issues. Hell, Murphy and Akroid’s Trading Places had a better class struggle satirical message than this bombastic film.

      • One Way Ticket

        Shame you saw such a surface-level idea of the message/s of the film. I thought the class warfare bit was merely the grounding. The film is much, much deeper than that and says a lot, lot more about a load of issues affecting us as a civilization today…

        Oh well, each his own in this case.

      • MJ

        OK, well I’ll give it another chance on Blu-Ray. It was good enough to warrant me getting the disc at some point.

    • The Flobbit

      Said your wife.


      • Cog

        Poor Flobbit..did your mom raise a nasty little name caller or do you want to pretend to be civil.
        You act like a bully.

    • The Flobbit

      Said your wife.


  • BulletProof

    Didn’t like it most of the times. had some very good Scenes thoue, but most of the time it was Kind of boreing and …. well just didn’t like it.

    • Joey Nobluss

      please,for the love of jebus,elaborate! I can’t take an opinion seriously that consists of “well, it was boring wasn’t it?”

      HOW was it boring? WHY was it boring? WHEN was it boring? WHAT made it boring? You want to criticise, be a critic; use critical language and critical thought. Don’t toss off some half-assed opinion and leave it at that, how is anyone meant to respect it?

      I WANT to know what you mean beyond “well just didn’t like it” – nothing should be summed up so simply.

      • MJ

        Who is Jebus?

      • Joey Nobluss

        Wondering whether to dignify with response, or sarcastic comment that underlines the point that this comment was pointless…?

    • Aaron

      Wow, wow….. woooooooow!!! you don’t like this film, because it’s simply boring. Jesus christ, this is the worst reason to criticize the film without any explain, but boring. Wow.


    Count me in!

  • MJ

    It was good on visuals, but I could never buy the idea of the train going round and round the world. If the world is dead, you’d need a massive infrastructure and many people “on the ground” to keep this working. Just didn’t pass my personal bullshit filter. It’s more of a fantasy movie versus science fiction.

    If you’ve seen the classic Runaway Train, then you can skip this one.

    • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

      Wow man, you seem to always have a great time at the movies.

      • MJ

        Loved Godzilla, Cap 2, Edge of Tomorrow and Transcendence so far this year. A lot of other stuff has been disappointing. Looking forward to Apes big time.

      • Asshat

        Nah, I could never “buy the idea” of a recurring loop of one day in Edge of Tomorrow.

        Nah, I could never “buy the idea” of a man’s entire conciousness getting uploaded into a computer network in Transcendence.

        Nah, I could never “buy the idea” of a gigantic super-lizard born out of the radiation of atomic testing in Godzilla.

        Nah, I could never “buy the idea” of a super-soldier frozen solid for around half a century returning to fight Robert Redford’s Nazi-leftovers in Captain America 2.

        Just didn’t pass my personal bullshit filter. Like your comment.

      • MJ

        Godzilla and Cap 2 are fantasies. Never intended to be taken seriously. Big difference.

        I do buy the time loop in Edge, because it is explained with a self-consistent logic, and you see the alien mind that creates it. And Transcendence was hard scifi — enough said. These films are completely unlike this movie, which you are just supposed to be a moron and believe in this magic continuous worldwide train that is apparently self automated, requires no infrastructure support, and doesn’t need energy…yet was built in the next 10 years. LOL You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. LOL

        If they had marketed this as a fantasy, like Up, or The Adventures of Baron Munchheusan, I would have enjoyed it a lot more. But they are marketing this as a more serious scifi film, and that simply is not what it is.

      • Asshat

        But the marketing isn’t the film.

        The marketing has little to do with the actual film – I mean, in terms of the creation and artistry of any film, the marketing is merely a means to an ends regarding the BUSINESS of cinema.

        You can’t blame the marketing for not selling the film as it should have done (if it were being truthful) to you. That’s absurd.

        You SAW the film, so you know now that it isn’t a straight sci-fi, in the same way that one of the director’s previous films wasn’t a straight monster-movie, and you have no basis to assume that the director and writers crafted, wrote and designed a ‘straight sci-fi’. And the film explains it’s own self-consistent logic; so you can go with it for Edge of Tomorrow, but are just gonna shrug your shoulders with a consistent “whatever” for Snowpiercer? You are illogical.

      • MJ

        Tell that to the people who mis-marketed John Carter. :-)

        I hear your point, but I went in expecting something more serious given all the reviews such as Matt’s above. My expectation going in was something like Children of Men, but the movie was more like Road Warrior on a magic train.

      • Asshat

        “Tell that to the people to mis-marketed John Carter. :-)”

        No. You go tell ‘em.

      • Diego Fernando Salazar Proaño

        So, you bought a giant monster bigger than skyscrapers fighting another giant monster as big as the other one; a man transformed into a super soldier via a serum (not to say a computer who plotted almost the entire later half of the 20th century); a man’s brain uploaded into a computer and genetically altered super smart apes, but you can’t buy the idea of a train moving around the world perpetually? You puzzle me man.

  • Pingback: From Collider: Snowpiercer Review | Sci-Fi Talk

  • Steven Fox

    I`ve seen it, it`s that good. Above B anyway. I`d give it a B+. One of the best Sci/Fi`s I`ve seen in a long time and smart too.

  • The Flobbit

    This goddamn movie hit like a donkey kick to the chest. I was left wandering around in a daze for two days after this movie. Only two movies have done that for me. The other is The Matrix.

    That is how good this movie is.

  • justkiddingnobutseriously

    Go see this movie. The Children of Men comparisons are apt. For w/e reason I also got a District 9 vibe to it too. Possibly the best sci-fi this year. Until Interstellar.

  • Gollum

    Snowpiercer was kind of ruined for me when the mentioned the train was
    powered by a perpetual motion engine. If they really had that
    technology, which would provide easy limitless engergy for all, you
    could heat the frozen cities, repopulate the world, etc. etc. You
    wouldn’t need some farcical last resort global train..

    • MJ

      I completely agree. It obviously is a fantasy movie. I felt a bit cheated when I saw it, as reviews had been calling it to science fiction, and making comparisons to Children of Men. It’s much more in the vein of a fantasy with social commentary, like Disney’s Up of Terry Gilliam’s The Adventures of Baron Munchhausen. The world building was simple not credible as science fiction.

      Good fantasy movie though.

      • Guardian

        I’ve lost count at the number of posts you’ve used to express your utter indifference to this film. I’d hate to see you cranked up over something you truly hate.

  • appolox

    Man that 3rd picture with all the kids looks extremely out of place compared to all the other one’s. Lol

  • Pingback: TOP 5: TRANSFORMERS: AGE OF EXTINCTION, FURY Trailer, Shane Black Directing PREDATOR Sequel, SNOWPIERCER, First Trailer for LIFE AFTER BETH

  • Pingback: Snowpiercer la crítica | Habla Sci-Fi

Click Here