Author Topic: Snowpiercer  (Read 5321 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kellen

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Respect: +60
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2013, 06:55:53 PM »
0
Don't screw this up Harvey.

Mel

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Edgy TV show-watching Russian bodybuilder cartoon.
  • Respect: +168
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2014, 01:40:53 PM »
0
Perfect for what it is. I had huge kick out of watching it.

Spoilers

It is a mixture of so many genres, yet it does in a such way that it is hard to put finger onto it. It starts as escape from prison/heist type of film, till they reach nothing else than prison section of the train. Then massive medieval-like battle with sharp objects erupts. Next thing you know, rat pack is picked up and they continue their tour, but not for long. Violent action sequences  are interrupted by very quiet moments, sometimes retreating just to close-up.

I love how they chewed up whole concept of "the chosen one", not leaving much at the end. First their turned him in anti-hero, then they made him just a pawn in the game. At the same time minor characters became much more interesting than lead. Ending is very rewarding, it gives hope, but it isn't happy ("no white dude survives" - so it can be happy, depending how you look at it - I'll champion it for this reason alone).

There is a class war element, but film goes beyond it. In the end, I didn't care much who wins, I wanted the train to be destroyed. I think question what price are you willing to pay to continue is central to "Snowpiercer". Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but ending gave me a vibe: revolution within old walls isn't possible, everything has to be destroyed.

I don't know why, but I can't stop thinking about Tarkovsky and his "Stalker". Weird, since "Snowpiercer" at very heart is an action film.
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

Lottery

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
  • Respect: +467
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2014, 09:20:21 AM »
0
Oh yeah, this was rather good. Dense with ideas, fun and exciting. Grim. A microcosm of the world.
Neat central idea, expanded on in depth throughout. Some cool little characters (performances from the father and daughter, Swinton and Tintin were great).

SPOILERS

What Mel says about revolution within walls is a cool little thing to think over. By the end, I wanted them off the train because a victory within the train really wasn't much of a victory anyway. It needed to all come down for them to move forward.

Mel

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Edgy TV show-watching Russian bodybuilder cartoon.
  • Respect: +168
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2014, 11:41:13 AM »
0
I forgot to mention it previously: it is claustrophobic experience (in a good way).

Spoilers

What Mel says about revolution within walls is a cool little thing to think over. By the end, I wanted them off the train because a victory within the train really wasn't much of a victory anyway. It needed to all come down for them to move forward.

This element deserves a praise. "Fable with action sequences" (as Ghostboy pointed out), goes to great extend in term of making whole revolt sensible (in this universe at least). Not only decisions made by characters are coherent and make sense, but at the same time audience is digesting it at emotional level. Why not to just escape from the train - this question is answered at very beginning. Status quo was maintained long enough already. Only viable option is to take over the train. Yet at the end whole situation is flipped - there is no much point in taking over. They escape, but this isn't clear cut victory.
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5537
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +429
    • my site
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2014, 05:17:36 AM »
0
they did it pretty good. I think it is the most interesting version of a dystopian class war movie one can make - with a hero who wears his weakness on his sleeves, and isn't half as messianic as most of his recent counterparts.

I don't really care for the burning man look though, and I feel like that look has robbed the seriousness of the violence - be it played for cool or played for serious.

in the end though, bong joon-ho still emerged unscathed. one of the best out there today.
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

N

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Don't forget this fact, you can't get it back.
  • Respect: +119
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2014, 07:53:56 AM »
0
Hopefully I didn't jump on the train too late (haha) to discuss this in real time. I just watched this today and it was great.
I couldn't say anything about the microcosm of society, human condition, meaning of the movie thing better than anyone else here, so I won't try, I'll fuck it up if I try.

Snowpiercer was incredibly entertaining for a scifi movie. I'm typically not a fan of the genre, maybe because I was raised on TV to think Spielberg was the greatest director of all time. This was good anyway, great variations of storytelling. I think it succeeded in every form, in terms of being entertaining. [joke about Tilda Swinton's teeth] If you wanted to be pedantic and criticize the probability of the situation you could. But I don't because it was an awesome movie. Based on real science and stuff. Or is that derogatory here? Interstellar could be good, McConaughey's turning his life around.

Speaking of turning around, Chris Evans wants to quit acting and become a director.
http://au.ign.com/articles/2014/03/26/chris-evans-ready-to-quit-acting-after-captain-america

Might be interesting, it seems like a lot of these guys are trying to break out of mainstream cinema, or at least break out of boring movies.

Mel

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Edgy TV show-watching Russian bodybuilder cartoon.
  • Respect: +168
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #21 on: March 26, 2014, 08:48:31 AM »
+1
Snowpiercer was incredibly entertaining for a scifi movie. I'm typically not a fan of the genre, maybe because I was raised on TV to think Spielberg was the greatest director of all time. This was good anyway, great variations of storytelling. I think it succeeded in every form, in terms of being entertaining. [joke about Tilda Swinton's teeth] If you wanted to be pedantic and criticize the probability of the situation you could. But I don't because it was an awesome movie. Based on real science and stuff. Or is that derogatory here?

Categorizing films as purpose in its own is pointless, but can lead sometimes to surprising conclusions. Lets give it a spin.

"Snowpiercer" is definitely on the soft side of science fiction. It is set in technological dark age - engine is divine relict from previous age. In many ways it shares similarities with space operas - small society in closed capsule surrounded by hostile environment. In the end it is dystopian film focused more on a social than engineering aspects of science.

Yet it is highly entertaining action film that didn't resort to masturbation with gadgets, which is prominent feature of mainstream films set in the future. Didn't take much to make it look original and fresh compared to other sci-fi fables? There is room for films like "Snowpiercer", hopefully we will see more of them.
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

jenkins

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2573
  • Respect: +1563
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #22 on: March 26, 2014, 05:58:59 PM »
0
think it's on the jazzy side of genre. think it's a great movie. 2014 is looking sharp

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +641
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2014, 10:03:23 PM »
0
Red Band Trailer


“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5537
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +429
    • my site
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2014, 07:09:20 PM »
+1
it was the best this type of film that could've been made, but I like Bong the best when he merges genre films with everyday interior lives. the premise for snowpiercer was just too straightforward for a filmmaker to put too much spin on it.
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

jenkins

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2573
  • Respect: +1563

Lottery

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
  • Respect: +467
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2014, 08:38:43 PM »
0
I always miss the good AMAs. This one is nice and in-depth though.

Mel

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Edgy TV show-watching Russian bodybuilder cartoon.
  • Respect: +168
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2014, 05:10:14 AM »
+1


Highlights: adapting little known graphic novel, being comic book fan/graphic novel collector, traveling though different genres, his home TV setup, budget constrains - filming only what is needed and not leaving anything in editing process, VFX - whole aquarium scene was green screened, take on different cuts - media overplaying it, casting Chris Evans - knowing him from "Sunshine", blushing when asked about getting John Hurt, inspiration for look/transformation of Tilda Swinton, POV from Curtis.
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11174
  • Respect: +1474
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2014, 12:34:06 PM »
0
This required fairly severe suspension of disbelief and tremendous cooperation (even by my standards), but it was pretty great.

SPOILERS

I loved how the train itself created inescapable injustices. I loved how, in that final car, we realized along with the protagonist that an egalitarian revolution was impossible in those constraints. A solid metaphor.

The joy of the movie is watching the progression from one car to the next. Those individual worlds were rendered with so much imagination and vividness.

I was kind of massively disappointed by how aggressively unsubtle the social/political allegory becomes, to the point that I had to start ignoring it. The breaking point was obviously the teacher's speech/song/etc.

The plot holes are enough to break the movie if you let them. I chose to ignore them, but they're nagging at me a bit after the fact, even though I know it's silly because it's a fable.

Why does the train have to move at all? What is the point of it going around the world? I honestly assumed the movie would answer this basic question. Even if the answer is just "because this deranged billionaire really likes trains and wants to go fast forever."

If you've invented a perpetual motion machine, or an eternal engine, you've pretty much achieved the ultimate goal. Putting it on a train is the dumbest thing you could do. The engine may be eternal, but at the very least the tracks are going to deteriorate, at least at some point on earth. Just think of the survivalist compound he could have built instead of this claustrophobic, dangerous train.

I would also like to know where they're keeping the cattle for their steak...

Oh, one last thing, the introduction totally lied about "all life" being destroyed. Surely there could have been a way to suggest that probability without simply lying to the audience.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Mel

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Edgy TV show-watching Russian bodybuilder cartoon.
  • Respect: +168
Re: Snowpiercer
« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2014, 01:46:18 PM »
0
SPOILERS

Why does the train have to move at all? What is the point of it going around the world? I honestly assumed the movie would answer this basic question. Even if the answer is just "because this deranged billionaire really likes trains and wants to go fast forever."

If you've invented a perpetual motion machine, or an eternal engine, you've pretty much achieved the ultimate goal. Putting it on a train is the dumbest thing you could do. The engine may be eternal, but at the very least the tracks are going to deteriorate, at least at some point on earth. Just think of the survivalist compound he could have built instead of this claustrophobic, dangerous train.

I remember a vague explanation - in school section of the train if I'm not mistaken. Wilford was obsessed with trains and his ultimate goal was to live in one. It wasn't intended as survival vessel. Yet train had some unique features, since it was going all over the world. Route included Sahara/Siberia, so train was prepared for extreme conditions, when new ice age started. Then they just kept it running.

Not sure if this is video from film or not - short clip introducing Wilford: http://vimeo.com/71321403
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy