Snowpiercer as BioShock

I think this is an interesting article: Why it took a Korean movie to craft a successful BioShock story

tl;dr: Snowpiercer is the BioShock of movies (and it's very good).

Watch Snowpiercer.

I actually think it's weird people thought that film was great. I saw it and didn't hate it, but I also thought it wasn't that great. Three parts that cracked me up in that film was the slipping on a fish reference in the middle of the axe wielding fights. Ed fuckin Harris himself cooking up a steak in pajamas. The last scene where they see a polar bear and automatically have their Alan Grant moment of "life finding away". Aren't Polar Bears suppose to be able to survive harsh tundras?

We just need to turn this thread into snowpiercer talk because I'm really, really perplexed by all the love. Even Grantland did an entire piece about why Snowpiercer was fantastic.

I guess I'm not the only one who kept making Bioshock comparisons while watching the movie.

What a dumb comparison. Also while I liked Snowpeircer, the entire concept is stupid and flawed.

Also the movie is based on a French graphic novel written in 1982 called Le Transperceneige.

Dude, me too, regarding everything you laughed at, and then some the classroom indoctrination scene complete with terrible propaganda song was probably the worst for me, though. I thought it was the most ham-fisted and trope-riddled piece of sci-fi trash I've purposefully watched in years. I actually stopped it 15 minutes in the first time I tried to watch it because I couldn't stand the extremely tired narrative of "downtrodden class making due with what they got preparing an uprising and the unlikely hero who is thrust into a leadership role by circumstance", compounded by dialogue like,

"you know, when he dies, that means...you're gonna have to drive this train."

"I'm not ready for that."

This dialogue occurs within the first five minutes. I felt that the film didn't deserve to start where it did without having done any serious worldbuilding, considering how inherently silly so many elements of its world are. I felt like I would have if I had decided to start watching Lost in the middle of season 4, for example: no dramatic weight had been given to the ridiculous old man using a metal pipe as a cane (which is completely moronic given how heavy that cane must be) to show how people of his class are very resourceful, or why Chris Evans' character was even considered a de facto leader besides the fact that he is very handsome and gruff.

Just everything about the movie was unsurprising and already exhaustively explored in this genre. I appreciate that the comic on which it's based came out thirty years ago and that this content may not have been so common back then, but unfortunately, this is what happens to the imitated: eventually they fade into the shadows of their modern impersonators.

@kcin: One thing I will give props to this film is that the film I saw, which I'm assuming is the uncut director cut version was that it was something you don't see in hollywood everyday. Albeit it really, really felt like one of those Syfy Original films but just with a better cast. Not my first time feeling like the odd man out when it comes to director Bong Joon-ho films. I remember back in 2006 all my friends telling me about the South Korean film "The Host" and what a great monster film it was, I watched it and was just left scratching my head. I will admit that I thought his next film "Mother" was great.

Those two people were born on the train and had been taught that life outside is impossible (think about the classroom propaganda song/scene). They had never seen a polar bear before and it represented hope for their survival. When I watched that scene I thought of Adam and Eve parallels.

But they killed everyone else on the train.

But they explain all of that stuff later in the movie... it's more like starting to watch Lost from the first episode and getting a flashback scene to a character's past.

I tried to eat a baby but instead I ate John Hurt's arm. If they talked about this in the begining of the film I'm pretty sure the audience wouldn't feel any empathy towards Chris Evan's character. It's pretty hard to root for someone who almost ate a baby.

Even Lost knew better than to say "smoke monster" or "polar bear" before establishing what was happening or why I should invest in this story or these circumstances. It's a matter of how the story presented its elements, and I didn't feel that the movie had established enough of anything to give the revolution any weight, let alone any of its trappings. Keep in mind that they reveal the "why we should care" about Chris Evans and his class at the very end of the movie. It's not a twist, it's just character development, but it was treated like a twist, which ultimately resulted in me not understanding why I should care about several of these characters too far into the film.

Oh and I forgot about the mute action hero. His character is another example of how this movie doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the significance of buildup. The first time we see him is as a warrior acrobat; I was less wowed and more startled by his appearance. Perhaps if the movie had given itself more time to start, it could have shown him socializing with the others, or being a recluse, or whatever his character traits are (because I honestly don't know him outside of battle). Perhaps they could have alternately showed him doing something tricky or somehow otherwise demonstrated that he is physically adept, and left us wondering, "What's he capable of?" when the shit hits the fan. But instead of being a person, he is an action movie set piece, just thrust in and oh, by the way, he's a mute with words on his body. I guess for lack of a better description, this was very "comic book" in a bad way.

@i_stay_puft: but then the scene where he explains how the people in the back of the train had to resort to cannibalism is less powerful. I had been rooting for Curtis for the whole movie because he was doing everything that he could to help the people in the back of the train. You learn that he is the "reluctant hero" because he wasn't willing to cut off his limbs to feed people like Gilliam had.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND NOT READING THIS POST IF YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED SNOWPIERCER.

Reading these comments I feel like people just watch movies now to poke holes in them.

I am responding more to the critical response heaped on Snowpiercer than I am to the movie itself. I don't consider myself someone who does not align with popular opinion on movies very often, but in this case I completely missed the bus on why Snowpiercer is universally revered. COMPLETELY. It has a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, and ALL reviews I've read state it's a new classic in the genre. I don't get it, saw someone else who didn't get it, so now I am interested in talking about what flaws I saw in the film.

@kcin: I was wondering why Curtis was a reluctant hero for most of the movie and the explanation near the end was very satisfying. Movies are a condensed form of storytelling... Snowpiercer doesn't waste time by explaining every little detail of every scene or character.

That's fair. I understand movies, and I understand restraint in explanation, and how choosing "when" is as important as the details themselves - The Prestige and Mulholland Drive are among my top five favorite films - but I didn't find the explanation or its timing satisfying. Ultimately, I would have just liked more time before the revolution begins, rather than how the movie begins almost as the revolution itself kicks off. I didn't want explanations for everything at all times, I just wanted more context. I feel that the beginning of this film lacks almost all context, and given that it is about a revolution, the circumstances that lead to such a revolt are important. Couple this with the now-trite examples mentioned earlier, and I didn't find this movie compelling.

I suppose I am in a place now where I am looking for truly fresh content. I tried watching Orange is the New Black, but all I saw was "SCENE OPENS with character A describing CURRENT POP CULTURE SUBJECT to character B in a silly way. Character C interjects with off-beat overanalysis of CURRENT POP CULTURE SUBJECT and baffles character A and character B. MAIN CHARACTER walks in..." and other comedy tropes from Weeds. I'd be happy to enjoy Snowpiercer and OITNB as much as everyone else, but I feel like spoilsport Neo, seeing them for the formulas they are.

I uh, I watched the 70's remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers recently. That was good.

Well same thing with games, books, and any form of media. You discuss things you like and things you didn't like, that's what discussions are for. In the comments I've seen people who like the movie and explained why, I've seen people who have commented and explained why they do not like the film. Poking holes in films or any form of media is part of the discussion.

@kcin: The context for the revolution is that the people are shoe-throwingly frustrated of being pushed around by the "government." I liked how the beginning sets up the rest of the movie so succinctly.

Loved the movie.

The film's structure apes the train's. Every new door the revolutions open, new mise en scène ideas appear. Looking back at it, I can remember every encounters. They all feel distinctive and smartly presented. Whereas most action films just have a bunch noisy and samey explosions, Snowpiercer has always introduce original ideas.

The story is nothing incredible and does not hold up to much scrutiny, but I felt the film was self-aware enough to make it work, juggling tone efficiently (which is no surprise seeing who the director is). I also liked that the ending did not give a concrete answer to the conflit, circumventing it completely. It is up to the viewer to make its own mind.

For me, it's the best action film of the year with The Raid 2.

@jimipeppr: That's understandable. I felt like it was the middle or end of a larger saga, on the other hand - one which I would have liked to see more of.

I got all the context I needed from the cramped and disgusting living conditions they were in in the back of the train. That to me was all the context needed to understand why they would be revolting. Not to mention Tilda Swinton's 'shoe speech' and the guy getting his arm shattered. Any more time spent before the revolution would have been unnecessary because there isn't any more to understand about it. The people in the back of the train are treated as prisoners and less than human. Their children are taken from them without reason, they are constantly monitored, they are fed sludge, and the weak are killed. Captain America doesn't think its fair and they revolt.

It does throw you into the scenario but I wouldn't say it was lacking any kind of context. It's very clear who everyone is nd as others mentioned, more is revealed about the early years on the train and the catastrophe as the movie goes on.

Hence the Adam and Eve comparison... they're the only two humans left on the planet.

@spraynardtatum: You're right, it does briefly demonstrate what warrants the revolt. However, I would have liked to see the revolt begin, rather than seeing it already beginning. I also felt that while the black-and-white classism was shown to exist, it was cartoonish in how it was demonstrated. The upper-crust were phenomenally evil: the men in the first 'battle car' wear black masks and evil grins; the woman who chooses the children quantifies them by height alone, feels no pain, and seems to get pleasure out of the soullessness her position requires. In the end, the classism needs to exist for the train (a 'metaphor' for society as a whole so thinly veiled that 'metaphor' feels to strong a word) to continue functioning, and the poor must be sacrificed.

Ultimately, my complaints about how it begins are rooted in how it does nothing to distinguish itself from other dystopian visions besides the setting. Even the message is tired. However, the decision by Curtis to simply destroy society upon learning why the train is how it is was new, I suppose, although not dissimilar from the Ben Richards' decision in the novel The Running Man to suicide bomb the broadcasting tower. I would have liked to see the revolt begin because it would have potentially made the story more interesting to me. As it stands, it was a vehicle for a couple of specific scenes, none of which I found very interesting or unique, honestly. I had to double-check the director's name, because for a second during the battle car sequence I thought it was Park Chan-wook for how similar the cinematography was to the infamous hammer fight in Oldboy.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, because it's apparent it's a matter of others liking something where I didn't, and my not being able to see beyond the tropes that mire this type of story. Perhaps there aren't many ways to execute a dystopian future any more without the viewer needing to accept the tropes that come with it, as there may not be any new elements left to explore in this genre.

Its "cartoonish" nature is what I like so much about it. Curtis and friends are the oppressed lower-class and they're fighting the evil upper-class. Simple, right? But at the end, Curtis learns that the "revolution" was orchestrated by Wilford and Gilliam from the beginning as a way to kill off "precisely 74%" of people and have Curtis learn the struggles of leadership so he can take over for Wilford.

Man... the more I think about this movie, the more I like it...

Also, he did eat a baby. I might not have the quote 100% right, but he said "I hate that I know what humans taste like. And I hate that I know babies taste best."

Hmm, I definitely want to watch it again. I think it's some pretty gnarly scifi. I was wrapped up in it by the end. It hits all the stops (pun intended): crazy villians, it moves, there are a ton of great characters, battles galore, weird dystopian brainwashing, and it isn't stupid.

Here's a different movie that I would be interested in knowing if you liked. What did you think of Elysium? I think that's another movie that has a lot in common with Snowpiercer and was criticized for similar reasons.

@spraynardtatum: I felt that the characterizations were stronger in Elysium (for only a few of the main players, anyway - the protagonist and the military antagonist), and the beginning was more interesting. Granted, what happens to the protagonist to put him in the role of the reluctant hero is more interesting almost by default than what happens to Curtis, given that he ultimately has the same backstory as every other person in the back of that train. Additionally, the build-up to the climax of Elysium is the majority of the movie, whereas Snowpiercer is almost entirely climax. I prefer that sort of structure. We are shown a threatening element (in the case of Elysium, the technology and the bounty hunter), we see the threat demonstrated, and we are left fearing that threat until it is forced into action in the grand finale. I never felt in Snowpiercer that I was really anticipating anything beyond what the conductor was like, but even that wasn't a particularly interesting piece of information given that it was clear he was the industrialist that we had been led to believe he was. It turned out in the end, he was an industrialist just like they said! And he was motivated by rationality over emotion, just as all good industrialist characters are! Oh.

Also, I didn't feel that the people who populated Elysium (the space station specifically) were all willfully evil, just that the rulers were, whereas I felt that the upper crust in Snowpiercer positively relished in their exploitation of the lower class, or otherwise lived in a pleasure-induced catatonia. I don't find that very compelling. There should be an element of humanity in even the greatest of villains - it's what makes villains interesting, after all. If you cannot empathize in the slightest, a villain is just an obstacle or a purpose for the hero, not a character unto themselves.

Lastly, neither movie handled its message very well (in that both were ham-fisted), although Elysium presented a more realistic vision of the future and I therefore found it more fascinating than the more-literal-than-metaphor structure of Snowpiercer. However, I will give Snowpiercer more credit for erring on the side of nihilism. in the end, rather than offering a happy solution.

So, whereas I felt Elysium was a more entertainingly structured movie, I didn't feel that it escaped the tropes of the genre any better than Snowpiercer. It just had way cooler stuff and handled that cool stuff better. If we're looking at them both on a story level, Elysium has it beat just because I felt it handled its tropes more pleasantly; and if we're looking at them as vehicles for action, Elysium simply has cooler action, in my opinion.

For my money, the best sci-fi dystopian revolution film to this day is The Matrix. It is a sci-fi dystopian story through and through, with all of the trappings, but it makes you sympathize with those who facilitate the dystopia's existence, injects fascinating philosophical repercussions into its narrative, has well-written archetypical characters, and is an absolute technical marvel to boot. Additionally, though it does not stray from the monomyth structure that has existed for millennia, it handles every element of that journey with enough panache and originality (in setting alone, at the very least) to make it feel fresh, which it inarguably did on release and, in my eyes, still does today. I'm not hypercritical of every movie that revisits the territory of a movie or book before it, these movies just have to bring something genuinely new to the table to stand out. Elysium and Snowpiercer didn't do that, but The Matrix did.

Watched it. Hated it. Crazily overrated. Some okay action scenes but it's derivative and silly with terrible dialog and acting. Although it is good to know that babies taste best!

@kcin: Well at least we can both agree that The Matrix is incredible.

Kill Wil