Did anyone see SNOWPIERCER? It's a brutal political allegory for our time.

[yurbud]

It seems pretty straight forward at first: the world has gone cold and the survivors live in a long, long train that is constantly circling the earth, with the people divided into classes, with the poor in the back, living miserably and eating protein jello made of ground up bugs, and the wealthy living in style and comfort up front.

The engineer who designed and runs the train is so far removed from everyone they don't even know what he looks like.

The poor start a revolution, and move forward to take over the train.

When the leader of the revolution finally meets the engineer, he realizes their lives were even more controlled than they imagined, and even the successful outcome of the revolution was accounted for to fit into the system (I'm trying to write this without giving too much away).

That interaction wasn't the end of the movie, but the end had a ring of truth for how things will turn out for us (not just as Americans but the world).

I wonder what anyone else thought of it.

[braddy]

1. I saw it, polar bears killed off the human species, weird.

[librechik]

2. not true

Polar bears were the first survivors spotted at the end. No indication they ate the humans. It was hopeful after the ghastly rest of the film.

[braddy]

9. There is serious dispute about that, I believe it was a young woman and a boy who had never set foot

out of the train (except for the drug addict female as a young child), and suddenly they were the only humans left, in Arctic conditions and the first thing outside of the train that they set eyes on, and which sets eyes on them, is a Polar Bear.

It didn't look very hopeful to me, it looked impossible, we are to think that when the boy got old enough to procreate that those two were still alive, and repopulated the earth?

[azmom]

15. I think the bear ate the two.

[braddy]

17. You aren't alone, this is one blogger's take.

"The movie fades to black before we see the polar bear eat those two kids, but let’s not fool ourselves: those two kids are not going to wander off into a new Eden and repopulate the earth (and not only because there are only two of them, though that lack of genetic diversity is one of humanity’s many death sentences here). Nature is about to eat the children that were just saved from being eaten by the train. A polar bear is not a sign of hope, because polar bears eat people, and, anyway, how is a pair of children who have never been off the train—have never even seen dirt—going to be able to live on what is basically Antarctica? Those kids are already dead, in days, if not hours, if not minutes."

[handmade34]

21. ...

the polar bears represent the positive chance of life surviving outside the train... it is seen with optimism!

"outside the train, life is actually returning"

[d_r]

35. thats how i took it, too

[yurbud]

49. yep

[alarimer]

57. This was my take, too.

I think life will bounce back on earth only when humans are gone.

[handmade34]

22. no n/t

[azmom]

24. "My friend, you suffer from the misplaced optimism of the doomed,”

[handmade34]

28. Ah... "misplaced optimism of the doomed"

the movie is not the graphic novel...

the directors quote...

...it's a very hopeful ending ... But those two kids will spread the human race ... I don't really feel everyone must die. I hope there were other survivors who lived through the avalanche, I just didn't have the means to shoot that ... You realize later on that the kids are the ones keeping this engine going, and this machinery intact. The engine is itself is on its way to extinction along with cigarettes, and other goods. Extinction is a repeated word throughout the film. But outside the train, life is actually returning. It's nature that's eternal, and not the train or the engine, as you see with the polar bear at the end.

[yurbud]

48. the premise was nothing could live outside the train, so the polar bear a hopeful sign

but the train was destroyed.

[librechik]

67. exactly n/t

[Recursion]

66. The only source for everybody else having died was Ed Harris

So, I mean, should you believe the power-mad dictator that his solution was the only one, or is it possible that pockets of humans survived in a lot of places?

[Orsino]

68. A silly-ass premise saved by good acting.

Tilda Swinton and the dungeon-crawl feel kept me from taking it too seriously. The ending is bleak as hell, and seems nearly hopeless.

[BainsBane]

4. No, people injected something in the atmosphere to ward off global warming

and it send the planet into a deep freeze. There is nothing in the film about polar bears killing off the human species.

[Agschmid]

71. It's about your interpretation of the end...

Polar bears are carnivores...

[BainsBane]

72. I saw that as an affirmation that life would survive on earth

Polar bears survived, which meant the woman and the child could too.

I do have a question. What was her relationship to the security guy she was in the prison car with? Was that her father, partner? Did we ever know?

[hunter]

27. That was my favorite part of the movie. Polar Bears survived!

I'm absolutely serious.

The polar bears did not eat the people.

One loses one's taste for human flesh in an environment where frozen human corpses are the go-to food of last resort. That's a fact. Quite a few humans have learned that, maybe some of your ancestors, in very well documented ways.

I'll bet the polar bears were more interested in the insect grubs they were feeding to the passengers in the back of the train.

It also seems doubtful there were only two human survivors of the train wreck, or of humanity in general.

Spoiler: At the end of the Hunger Games trilogy, Katniss Everdeen puts an arrow through the Evil Emperor's head.

[Zorra]

47. +1

[braddy]

52. Hope springs eternal, but the ending is widely mocked.

[snooper2]

75. are you, are you, looking at the screen? they made, four movies, you just needed three

More Greatness

[Bluenorthwest]

3. I liked it very much.

Highly recommend the film.

[valerief]

5. Too much fighting to entertain me. The oppression of the masses by the privileged by using

lies and force isn't new and sadly isn't obsolete. The idea was good, but it was hurt by too many action scenes. Action scenes are the "skipover" scenes in a movie for me.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. I couldn't get my mind around it.

Watched the whole thing though.

[JaneyVee]

7. It was a really good surreal sci-fi film about class war and climate change.

I enjoyed it, for all its bizarre surrealism, like the New Years Eve scene for example.

[azmom]

11. Not just that scene. The

Whole movie was bizarre. It was entertaining.

[JaneyVee]

18. Yeah it was. That scene when they find out what their protein bars are made of.

Really good underrated scifi movie.

[glasshouses]

8. I didn't expect it to be as violent as it was

[azmom]

10. It was bad in a good way.

I laughed so hard. I would recommend it.

[leveymg]

12. "Children of Men" on a smaller, darker stage.

Both are examples of how relentless, grimy dystopia -- dirty, no laughs, without a lot of elaborate Special Effects -- doesn't sell a lot of tickets, but deserve to be universally viewed.

[jwirr]

13. When is it on and where?

[azmom]

16. Netflix

[Warren DeMontague]

14. It was a bit overrated, in my opinion.

I think people got excited that there was a movie dealing with topics like global inequality. But despite the fact that it was capital-A Allegory (a fact that was whacked over the audience's head in ham-fisted manner repeatedly, lest anyone miss it) it still felt too cartoonish, for my taste. I understand stylized, but maybe I just haven't been steeped in the universes of cartoons and graphic novels enough to enjoy that sort of over-simplified narrative. It just seems cheesy, to me.

It wasn't as bad as Sin City, which felt to me like being beaten on the face for two hours with a cartoon side of beef, but I wasn't that impressed given the high praise the thing received.

[JaneyVee]

20. I think the cartooney was because it was taken from a graphic novel.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Yes, as was Sin City IIRC.

I felt for the gushing praise from hipsters, etc--- both were really not that great. Snowpiercer was maybe a 4 out of 10, although Sin City I'd put at a 1.

Again, I do think people were psyched it touched on a topic normally ignored. Understandably.

Still, I found it a bit tiresome and repetitive by the end. And my suspension of disbelief only goes so far; it was so far removed from anything that could actually happen, it was essentially The Polar Express for the dialectical materialist set.

[Bonobo]

42. I find it unwatchably bad. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

44. I think people wanted to like it for the philosophical pretensions. Hell, -I- wanted to like it.

But my wife and I watched it and we wanted our two hours back.

[Recursion]

46. Same. I liked what it was trying to do

And that it was at least trying to do something, but it just fell flat for me.

[zappaman]

19. I loved it and you might find this interesting...

Do not watch this if you haven't seen the film.

[BainsBane]

30. That was cool

I liked the insight into the film.

[zappaman]

31. Yeah, it's subtle when you watch it.

But once it's pointed out, it's pretty damn cool.

[Inkfreak]

34. Very neat insight! (nt)

[blkmusclmachine]

23. It was OK.

[librechik]

25. political allegory is exactly what it was.

and the ending was explosive. Tee hee

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

26. yes, and liked it...Made me think of what the 99% is capable of if they really thought about it

[NV Whino]

29. I loved it.

I had no idea what to expect and was rewarded with an engaging film. I saw the end as hopeful. Doesn't matter if the polar bear ate the children. Life returned to Earth, which is probably better off without people anyway.

[NutmegYankee]

41. I don't know why people think the polar bear aTe the children.

To be such a healthy polar bear, there has to be other prey it was feeding on. If anything, it symbolizes that nature healed itself while man literally went in circles.

[kentuck]

32. I thought it was a good movie.

It kept my interest.

[L0oniX]

33. The lady with the glasses reminded me of Hillary.

[msanthrope]

37. Tilda Swinton did an excellent job. nt

[randome]

59. She was the best thing about the movie.

I thought the movie didn't hold up in many ways but I enjoyed her performance.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bjorn Against]

70. I believe her character was actually inspired by Ayn Rand

[msanthrope]

36. I loved it. nt

[Telcontar]

38. Loved the part when they paused the fight to shout Happy New Year

Sure, we're fighting to the death with pipes and axes, but that doesn't mean we can't still celebrate together.

[krawhitham]

40. OP forgot to mention the best thing about the movie, Sir John Hurt

[Recursion]

43. Oh, yeah, the movie that says the proles just need the right white men to lead them?

I thought what it was trying to do was interesting, but it fell for the Avatar/Last Samurai "mythical white savior" problem, at least for me.

[yurbud]

50. except the savior didn't save them--the revolution was planned for

[Recursion]

51. If you believe Ed Harris, which I'm not sure you should (nt)

[Tsiyu]

53. Meh

Some people are spoiled by seeing too many movies

and dissecting them to seem intellectual.

Sometimes an escape is just an escape, a story is just a story.

It does strike me as hilarious that people who have very base humor in some areas ( not speaking of you at all ) are all about trying to find every nuanced flaw in a film for the masses.

I loved the movie, and felt the end was a 50/50 sort of deal, which was a mirror of the "us vs. them" theme of the film.


My final take: A very cathartic film if one is a have not; perhaps not so sublime and comfortable for the haves?

[Recursion]

54. But more have-nots than haves died. And nobody on this board is a "have not" globally.

Last edited Mon Jan 26, 2015, 07:15 AM - Edit history (1)

By world standards we (us posting on an Internet board) are all in the front cars

I think if you were able to watch that movie, and identified with the rebels, you aren't being honest with yourself.

[Tsiyu]

55. You are assuming much

that's all will say.

And yes, I did identify with those at the back of the train. Rather honestly, too.

[Recursion]

56. No, not if you saw a movie and can use a toilet

About half of the world considers both of those dream-worthy luxuries.

[yurbud]

61. does that mean we should be happy with our lot in life?

[Recursion]

64. I think being mindful that we're in the global 1% is probably good

The cut off for the global 1% is about $25k. So that's about 2/3rds of Americans. And nobody in the US is in the global bottom half, or even bottom two thirds (literally nobody). Is that still unsatisfying? Probably, just like the first billion dollars seems to not satisfy people.

[yurbud]

73. Those at the top need the lesson in gratitude more

[randome]

63. How many human limbs have you eaten?

If the answer is 'None', I'm not sure how you can identify with the have-nots.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[yurbud]

69. if his character was lying, he was doing it so well that it confused Chris Evans and showed that the

train couldn't be fixed.

[LanternWaste]

62. No doubt we often see what we want to...

"the movie that says the proles just need the right white men to lead them..."

No doubt we often see the superficial layer as the intended meaning-- advertising our lack of understanding much more than our opinions of a movie...

[Recursion]

65. Nobody likes admitting they're in the front of the train, but anybody with safe drinking water is

We had a postwar prosperity that was largely predicated on keeping the developing world poor. That assumption has failed over the past two decades, and the top 25% of the world (ie, the US working class) can't shove the bottom 75% back down fast enough.

[elias49]

45. Is it too late for a spoiler alert? nt

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

58. I thought that the Ed Harris character was similar to

John Galt and that the film was very much an anti Ayn Rand fable. The ending was a little weak but because we only saw two characters at the end does not mean there were no other survivors. I guess this is the half full/half empty scenario. I showed it to my film history class last semester and many of the students really enjoyed the film in spite of the ending.

[yurbud]

60. I thought the point of having two survivors was it was just enough to start over.

[snooper2]

74. This is why you shouldn't come up with movie plots while smoking crack

LOL

[olddots]

76. I'll try it again

couldn't get past the comic book visuals but If you people saw something I will give it another try .

[DetlefK]

77. First, you DID spoil the movie. Second, the intellectual dishonesty struck me hardest.

The engineer was trying to make an argument how the system has to be kept in place, how they cannot risk wasting ressources by feeding the poor people better. We are all in this together and everyone has his place.

What about not wasting ressources on a standing force of guards, steam-baths and drug-filled orgies???

[yurbud]

78. yep. if they evenly distributed resources everybody could have had a decent standard of living.