User reviews

I just came across it again after-hours on TV and rewatched the whole thing, although i have seen it twice back in 2013. For the ones who'd want to check it out and dont mind a dark violent social commentary this is a treat. Good cast, good acting (Chris Evans and Tilda Swinton are a highlight), good action and relentless pace. Probably most are familiar with the story of snowpiercer, the train that holds the last of humans and keeps going around the world, while its people are split in sections in the train. That story itself constitutes a great -but not new- metaphor about society. I would keep the metaphor in the background as the backbone of the story and focus on the other exciting elements of the film, which are very rewarding. Good film, 8/10

This film reminded me of many lost occasions in cinema where script themes were extremely compelling but poorly executed (think about In Time). The smart idea behind the movie (which comes from the graphic novel La Transperceniege) representing capitalism as a self fuelling train riding across a desert world where no alternative could survive is mostly shadowed by bold action sequences and cliches. This trend reaches the climax in the last 30/40 minutes, as the ending shows us the trite scene of the "final encounter with the villain" along with very predictable events. The characters are hollow, rigid and stereotypical as their dialogues are. Differently from his masterpiece Parasite, neither personal nor societal introspection is here elaborated. Unfortunately, Mr Joon-Ho had a visionary novel that he decided to transpose in an average Hollywood style action movie.

I don't like movies as art. I like movies that have rules and internal logic, and the premise of this movie is idiotic from both a scientific and common sense angle. It really works though. Like it really works. If you can just suspend disbelief and accept that a train can run forever and sustain some sort of biodome indefinitely then this movie is a masterpiece.

I see reviews where people basically complain about how the premise impossible, or that the themes are cliche, and I'm totally with you guys there. Both of those things are true, so if you need realism then you probably won't like this movie. But if you can just accept the premise as it is then this movie is something really special. One of the better movies I've watched in a really long time

This film tells the story of a self sustaining train which has been running for 18 years, on board with all the survivors after an apocalyptic event.

A few minutes into the film, it already becomes clear that "Snowpiercer" is a film that reflects the societal inequality, oppression and cruelty. As the group moves up the train, the carriages becomes more luxurious. The metaphors are very obvious - the film screams to the audience to wake up from the unjust society. However, towards the middle, the plot gets out of hand, and it becomes confusing and even ridiculous. There are too many unexplained moments, such as a kid climbing into the structure jutting out from the front of the train. No follow up was given after this scene is shown. There are also too many ridiculous subplots, such as the party goers suddenly turning violent. The ending is one big confusing mess, and I did not enjoy "Snowpiercer".

Snowpiercer could've been a great film (and it is probably a good story), but it turned out to be a 2hr long collection of weird scenes, pointless action, overacting and slo-mo.

The ideas are there. And...well, at least 2 characters are in the film. Can't really say about other 5 people who we know nothing about even in the end. It looks like a lot was lost in the adaptation for the screen. I mean, some characters are distinctive enough to be memorable, and they are probably important for the story, but since we have no time for them they just mostly die and we can't care cause we don't know anything about them. It's like they wanted to show all the important characters from the reference material but they had no time for them anyway.

This could've worked on a purely thematical level if they would go a little more symbolic on this.

Buff the run time a little, make it somewhat more boring, remove the pointless action (leave only the starting one to reference revolution and violence). Make each of the cars count (some of them were significant, like the education part, the aquarium had important dialogue and stuff but the sauna one was just a waste of time). Dwell more on interesting dialogue (which is there), develop the characters, make us care.

Instead a miscast Chris Evans embarks on a journey that never really affects him, tells his life story in an expository monologue and ends up taking stupid decisions that lead to horrible consequences. No interesting twists, nothing. The Korean guy barely even talks, the girl is supposed to represent a younger generation but she has nothing to do in this film.

I think the above mentioned is the only way this film could've worked. Going grounded and realistic with this can never work, there's just too many plot holes to take.

For all the great production design and value, this film ends up being a waste of 2 hours of your time.

I agree with some reviewers that there are some (unnecessary) plot holes and illogical stuff going on (food supply just one of the main issues, as there are hundreds of people on board, and if you dare to count there are more people like guards, crazies and rich people than on our poor rebels side) but that left aside, Snowpiercer got a refreshing perspective on the postapocalyptic genre/tales and provides some unique ideas and combines them with some solid acting and a pro production.

Verdict: not brilliant and no masterpiece but a good and entertaining flick - if you like the genre and want some action on your screen.

Snowpiercer was a surprise to me. I thought it would be just another "social commentary" dystopian film trying to ride the coattails of The Hunger Games craze. Instead what I ended up getting was one of the best post-apocalyptic films I've ever seen. A smooth roller coaster of action and quiet, dark dialogue.

And don't get me wrong, it is another "social commentary" dystopian film, and yes, perhaps it's riding The Hunger Games craze just a little bit. But, when that riding ends up producing a film of this quality, is it a bad thing? And it's not like The Hunger Games invented the idea of alternative future where the poor are trying to usurp the rich people that are controlling them from their towers of ivory. These are both just variations of Orwell's 1984, which draws heavily from the age old tale of the underdog, David versus Goliath.

It's the execution of an idea that makes or breaks a film and here that execution is nigh flawless. Everything from the design of the train to the A-list cast of actors to the storyline that keeps up the relentless pace, but still has time to reflect on the motives, histories and moods of the characters.

Snowpiercer is simplistic art. It doesn't try to win you over with limitless of details, high explosives or flashiness. Rather it takes a central idea and fills it with as much quality as possible. Highly recommended for all fans of science fiction out there.

¨Know your place. Accept your place. Be a shoe.¨

I was pleasantly surprised at how well Korean director, Joon-ho Bong, made the transition to this his first English language film because the style and tone of the film still felt entirely Korean despite starring some well known Hollywood actors. I enjoyed this film so much that I ended up watching it twice and that is something I rarely do. Based on the French graphic novel, Le Transperceneige written by Jean-Marc Rochette, Snowpiercer is an ambitious dystopian sci-fi film that despite having a very absurd premise works really well thanks to Bong's direction. It has some great performances with memorable characters, several exciting action scenes mixed with bizarre comedic moments, and a thought provoking metaphor on classicism. It is a bleak film but Bong handled the material so well that it kept me engaged and interested. Unfortunately the film does suffer from a rather unconvincing final act, but for most of its running time I was so entertained that I wasn't too disappointed.

Snowpiercer takes place in 2031 after a failed global-warming experiment has frozen all of Earth and wiped out all life. The only survivors are the passengers of a super train traveling across the globe with a perpetual-motion engine. Designed by Wilford, an engineer who knew the experiment would fail, the train has been running for 17 straight years and a social class system has developed as the passengers of the rear end live in extremely poor conditions. Here we are introduced to a young man named Curtis (Chris Evans) who is trying to come up with a plan to get past all the security guards in order to reach the front section where Wilford is presumed to be. He isn't alone on this quest as most of the passengers are upset for the abuse they've suffered and the extreme poor conditions in which they are forced to live in. A wise old man named Gilliam (John Hurt) who helped Wilford design the engine, has been helping Curtis rally the men together. Curtis's good friend, Edgar (Jamie Bell), is also awaiting the moment to begin their revolution as things begin to get worse once the guards take a few kids away from them. Tanya (Octavia Spencer) and Andrew (Ewen Bremner) are among the victims whose children have been taken away from them so they are also eager to attack. The first step of the plan involves freeing Namgoong (Song Kang-ho), a prisoner who has a special gift for unlocking the doors to each section, but the task won't be easy as the guards will do what it takes to make sure they stay at the rear section of the train.

Bong has directed several successful Korean films like The Host and Memories of a Murder, and in his first English language film his style remains untouched. Despite having some scenes that borderline in the ridiculous he somehow manages to balance those moments really well. For example there is this huge action scene that he has set up between the rebels and the guards who are awaiting them with axes. The bloody and violent confrontation begins, only to be interrupted as the train is approaching a bridge which serves as a landmark for the New Year. The fighting stops for a few seconds as everyone begins the countdown and admires the view of the outside world from inside the train, then the violence and mayhem continue. There are several moments like this where Bong perfectly balances these gorgeously crafted choreographed scenes with moments of quirky comedy and twisted sense of humor. The best example of this type of humor comes from the two characters played by Tilda Swinton (who is unrecognizable in this film) and Alison Pill who are terrific and steal the few scenes they are in. I really loved that classroom scene that felt completely out of place with the dark tail section of the train. I think it was those goofy moments that I enjoyed the most in this film. It was a great sensory experience to get to follow these characters through each section of the train and I have to give Bong credit for his visionary style because as our heroes progress to the front of the train things begin to get more and more bizarre and you never know what to expect. The film is short of being a masterpiece because the final 30 minutes are disappointing, but as a social satire Snowpiercer worked better than other recent sci-fi films like Elysium. It is a very weird and strange film, but it is really good and I enjoyed it even more on my second viewing.

Quite underwhelming; it isn't as brilliant as I expected it to be. When actors like Chris Evans, Song Kang-ho, Tilda Swinton, John Hurt, Octavia Spencer and Ed Harris are associated with the first international project of an acclaimed Korean Director like Bong Joon-ho, one is bound to be excited by its prospects. I've loved Joon-ho's work, especially 'Memories of Murder' and 'Mother'. Though he proves to be an able Director with his first International venture, the movie doesn't have the usual touch of humanity his movies usually possess; you rarely sympathize with any of the characters or situations. The script has an overwhelming number of plot-holes; these could have been overlooked if the characters were properly developed. Many would say it's an interesting portrayal of class-division in society, but that doesn't compensate for the weak storyline. It keeps you interested till the end, but the ending doesn't give you the proper finish it leads up to. The acting is commendable, but the characters lack proper depth.

The complete artistic setting of the train, the action sequences and the weird characters keep you intrigued throughout. But overall, the movie didn't have the impact I expected it to have. Hope Joon-ho's future international ventures are as charming and brilliant as his earlier works.

After graping the global movie universe's attention with "The host" (2006), Korean director Bong Joon-ho serves up his first offer in the English language with "Snowpiercer", a futuristic, sci-fi fable as well as a hybrid of art house and mainstream thriller.

The micro depiction of the macro human race is through the titular vehicle (literally meant) – a train that circles the post-apocalyptic world, a frozen hell resulted from the backfire of an over-executed maneuver in battling global warming. Secluded from the outer world, the survivors are stratified by social class, the highest at the front (a perpetual-motion engine) and the lowest at the back. The linear (in more ways than one) story is quite simple, the underprivileged bunch at the back fighting its way, car after car, all the way to the front to gain control of their own destiny. Through the allegory progression, the audience witnesses a rich pageantry of environments – rough workplace, lush greenhouse, giant aquarium, plush lounge, and more.

The impressive cast is well assembled. Chris Evans sheds his "All American" heartthrob image to play this perhaps his first heavy-weight role as an earthy leader of the revolution. John Hurt is the semi-disabled wise old man, a rich reservoir of knowledge. Other key members of the group include Jamie Bell as the young follower, Octavia Spencer as a mother searching for a missing child "drafted" by the ruling class for some obscure purpose, and Song Kang-ho as a Korean security expert. The show-stealing personas, however, are on the opposite side. Most delicious is Tilda Swinton, barely recognizable with ingenious makeup (essentially of a dental nature) playing the spokesperson for the dictator. Allison Pill (so impressive as Zelda Fitzgerald in "Midnight in Paris") is another manifestation of eccentricity, a pregnant kindergarten teacher, all sweetness until she produces a gun and starts shooting. The dictator is competently played by Ed Harris.

The movie is quite long (a little over 2 hours) and does not hurry itself as most blockbuster thrillers would do. Instead, it takes its time with careful, well-crafted character development. But it does hold the audience's attention with excellent acting and artsy photography.

After Bong Joon Ho found international fame and a best director Oscar for Parasite.

Watching his English language debut Snowpiercer from 2013 leads to inevitable comparisons.

Both movies look at class. The haves and the have nots that also leads to a mystery.

Snowpiercer is an allegory. Set in 2031 after an ice age. The survivors or on a loop that takes a year to complete.

The underclass are at the back of the train living a miserable existence. Some have had their children stolen from them.

Curtis (Chris Evans) and Edgar (Jamie Bell) lead a revolt and plan to reach the engine room and confront the mysterious Wilford who developed this train.

As they go through the carriages, they see the better off people. School were kids are indoctrinated about the system and Wilford as the saviour. The train has nightclubs and avantgarde restaurants.

Curtis learns that the system is not just the perpetual motion of the train but perpetual conflict as well. Sacrifices have to be made by the underclass.

Snowpiercer is a thoughtful if flawed film. It has some offbeat performances, most notably by Tilda Swinton with a broad Lancashire accent. She seems to be channeling Jane Horrocks.

Off course Curtis should had just listened to Gilliam (John Hurt) and not let Wilford talk to much.

Let's get this out of the way. Yes, this is my first review. I've watched about half of IMDb's top 250, and did like most of them. Somebody brought this movie to my attention, and as a 7/10 I didn't have high expectations. Honestly, though, knowing this is at least an attempt at some sort of allegory, most of the plot holes are kind of petty and minor. Comparing Snowpiercer to "The Room" (don't watch that) because you couldn't tell how someone would have an Irish accent, or realized that the premise of this movie is brutal and inconvenient - is kind of realizing the problem with 99% of all movies altogether.

For anyone brutally bothered about plot holes, tell me, is The Hunger Games more logical? Ant-man? Even Inception, the Dark Knight, or Lord Of The Rings? You can't blame a movie for plot holes, rate it a 1, and then ignore those same plot holes in every other movie in existence. By that token, any and all of the Star Wars movies should be rated a 2.

No. People here are nitpicking, and that's a nice way to put it. You don't know how the cockroaches kept spawning? Jesus, maybe they breed fast. I have no idea. But then you should point out that Yoda's aches and pains should have technically kept him out of commission years ago, Jack Sparrow should be dead, Captain America has no sources for his morals, Harry Potter makes no sense, and any and all plot holes about Mordor that you can find online.

But do they? Nope. Most of the negative reviews here are a one-show, leading me to think there's someone with multiple accounts and a large amount of time to hate this movie.

I've seen quite a few sci-fi films - I'm no newbie to the genre. But their are always plot holes in those films, at least technical ones. Faulting Snowpiercer (an allegory, of all things) for having plot holes that are granted in other movies is just not right.

The opening scene was psychedelic and the ending was insane. It was a great black humorous movie. The resonance of the kindergarten song burst into flames, satirizing the instant sensation. The rule of the old class needs the maintenance of cockroach protein. The change of the new class begins with the awakening of cannibals. If it were you, how would you choose?

This isn't bad at all but I enjoyed Daveed Diggs and Jennifer Connelly's TV show adaptation more, maybe that's just because I watched that before the movie. I already knew the concept so it felt like a fun little game to see were the story was going and what differences the movie had. One of the cases were both the movie and series are great, so if you only watched one of them I highly recommend the other.

Just like the Golden Campus' and His Dark Materials' or The time traveler's wife' movie and tv series adaptation, I think the snowpiercer tv adaptation is better as it has more time to explore the story, add depth and let you get invested in the characters even more, the movie does all that but feels pressed for time in comparison. Still pretty good though and both are amazing concepts, on the surface it's an ice age apocalypse story, but below that it explores sociological hierarchies, politics and a fight to equality all on just one train, the show also has more developed love stories and interests in the side plots. Not many movies or series, more so sci-fi's, successfully attempt to address that while still being a fun watch. You wouldn't be wrong to be concerned that the story is already told in the movie, but the series is going to season 4 now and it's amazing how they keep churning out new stories, twists and developments; that's why I rate the series higher because the acting, cast and production are on par but to consistently maintain thrill and interest for that long sets it apart from the movie. Still watch it though.

Absolutely amazing. A cinematic microcosm of society. For those of you uninterested in topics like '1984' and 'Animal Farm', watch this film for a hazard course in understanding the human condition. From start to end you see a small-scale depiction of society from it's most basic 'proletariat' level, right up to the elite, in perfect order. And we see the evolution of civilisation from simple beginnings to science, education, quality, luxury, then hedonism, wastefulness and eventual demise, in exactly that order.

All of that can be overlooked, however, if you're just the average movie-goer who simply wants a good story with a hero, an adventure and an end goal. In which case I say the film is a good one but nothing special in that respect. Certainly there were parts where I thought, "eh?", until it clicked later that it was all part of the Director's greater cinematic design.

But for the arty film student types, this film is sure to be the topic of many, many essays for years to come.

Clearly every part of the film was deliberate - every shot, every line of script, every item in the background. It was true art. None of that quick-buck profit-incentive Hollywood stuff.

In conclusion I recommend this film to everyone, particularly people who want to learn something or gain some insight from what they watch. For the everyday movie-lover, go into this with an open mind and have a really long think about how you can compare it to the world today.

Top stuff, 10/10

It manages to combine frenetic camera work, well choreographed action scenes a la Oldboy, and tense dialogue. Yet something feels missing.

It takes itself seriously, but always seems to be aware it is based off a comic book, never shying away from just a little hint of pulpy entertainment when suitable. The acting is brilliant, and most of the characters suitably weird to maintain that fine line between charming comic book movie and gut wrenching, soul crushing dystopia. It does what it sets out to do, and well enough.

Worth a watch, worth recommending to a very specific audience- the sort of audience that sees "korean sci-fi dystopia based off a french comic" and immediately adds it to the Netflix watch list.

First I want to say that this is one of the best (and entertaining as hell!) social commentary films I've seen since Terry Gilliam's Brazil and Paul Verhoeven's Robocop.

Yes there are a lot of plot points that don't make much sense if looked at from the perspective of our "reality."

But this film does NOT aim to be "realistic." In fact, I'd say the goal of the director is to make it as "surrealistic" as possible.

And I applaud him to be so successful in that: in many moments during the film, I felt I was experiencing a fevered dream of a fried fish. -- That's how insane this film is.

It takes great genius to present something as insane as the plot of Snowpiercer.

This film will be remembered, analyzed and revered for a long, long time.

The icing on the cake is that the social commentary content is actually intriguing. The film is decent enough to leave enough ambiguity so that the audiences can make their own conclusions.

9 out of 10.

This movie is so full of heavy handed surrealism, it's hard to really evaluate it. If one looks at the realities of the plot, you give up in a minute. I almost did. But then you accept the fact that some guy has built a train that goes on endlessly, filled with multi-generational passengers who represent a sort of caste system. The have nots are in the back and the haves are in the front. In between are groups of military types, junkies, a preppy school, and on and on. The poor folk live on things that look like tar like Jell-o jigglers but manage to maintain their health. Why they are being kept alive is a mystery at first, but ultimately the bad guys are going to be seen for what they are. The world has been launched into an ice age through human stupidity and bad science, so no one can leave the train. The battle is never clear because it seems that its a suicide mission, but there are so many inconsistencies and plot holes that we can only look at this like a futurist "Pilgrim's Progress" with a lesson to be learned. Previous viewers have put forth list of these failings so I won't go into them. Suffice it to say that it's one of the most unique films I've seen, and that makes it worth our time.