Snowpiercer

[K. A. Pital]

Perhaps the most overlooked - but not underrrated! - science fiction film of 2013. This is what Elysium should have been, but couldn't be and will never be since Hollywood touched Blomkamp after the success of District 9 and poisoned him, removing talent.

I'm glad that we have a director who is not afraid to experiment in Bong Joon-ho. If you haven't seen it, go see it. And if the English-speaking countries get a cut version, I'd rather boycott that and just see the original one with subtitles.

[Gaidin]

80% english anyway? Is there a lot they could really mess with? That's one of those movies I plan on seeing. As for comparisons to Elysium, it just always looked like those two movies took a concept and went two radically different directions anyway.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't mean cut language-wise, Weinstein Scissorhands wants to remove 20 mins of the film.

[Gaidin]

Eeesh. That's pathetic. Are there any rumors on fighting between people on how much and what to cut? Or is it just so far that Weinstein wants to cut 20 minutes and that's all we know?

[Azazal]

Weinstein being a dick

Apparently negotiations between Snowpiercer director Bong Joon-Ho and producer Harvey Weinstein have broken down, because Playlist is reporting that Weinstein refuses to release the movie in North America at all unless he gets to give it what many in the industry call "the full Blade Runner."

The irony that Weinstein would be cutting 25 minutes (out of an 126-minute movie) of what pure character development (according to BFI's Tony Rayns), and then demand to awkwardly spell out that character development via these new voiceovers seems to be lost on him. He even wanted Neil Gaiman to write the voiceovers, as if that would class up this infinitely classless move in the slightest.

Harvey Weinstein doesn't just think you're too stupid to see Snowpiercer, he thinks you're too stupid to understand any movie where actors try to convey their thoughts and emotions through mere acting. Obviously you need to have it told directly to you, lest your brain explode trying to process the crazy "moving pictures" on screen without some kind of storytelling hand-holding.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Instead of creating a new thread, I've decided to bump this one up (there's no other thread on it, and I feel this constitutes an update). This thread was created in January, back when the movie's US release was indefinitely delayed by the disputes already mentioned, here. Well, those were apparently resolved to some fashion, and the movie's official US release was on June 27, but limited to only a few theaters. The past few weeks the movie has really hit social media, and I've seen people talking about how much they loved it non-stop all over Twitter, Facebook, etc. Apparently a recent announcement was also made that it would receive wider release at some point later this year.

I only just got around to watching it tonight. And ... I am angry. Angry at having wasted 2 hours watching it. It was one of the worst movies I've seen in years, and I watched "Sharknado." I am honestly amazed at all the hype this movie has been getting, with it being called the best sci-fi movie of the decade by some sources. I almost didn't even bother finishing; after about a half hour I got so frustrated with it I almost turned it off.

I think "Elysium" is a good comparison for it, but to be honest I think "Elysium" is actually a better movie (and I didn't like "Elysium"). The premise is neat, but the plot is ridden with inconsistencies and plot holes you can drive a truck through. And watching Tilda Swinton and John Hurt mail in performances for their bland, boilerplate characters didn't improve things much. There isn't a single thing about this movie that I enjoyed besides some of the cinematography. The entire movie is just a romp through various cliches and incredibly simplistic metaphors/allegories that seem to think they are a lot more clever than they are. I can't remember the last time I have been so disappointed, and so thoroughly revolted, by a movie that has been so widely hyped.

So, that rant aside, is there anybody else that has seen it now that it is generally available for American (and presumably other Western) audiences? Am I the only one who wasn't charmed by the rickety, predictable plot?

[Kingmaker]

It reminded me a lot of Iron Council, i.e. a neat premise but ham-fisted delivery and disjointed storytelling. I was also unconvinced by the world building.

On the other hand, they threw me for a loop when the train owner turned out to be Ed Harris. My friends and I were predicting that he'd either been dead for years or was a robut.

I was entertained, but I don't know if I'd classify it is as a good movie.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I was entertained, but I don't know if I'd classify it is as a good movie.

The one sequence of the movie I found enjoyable was the long fight scene that climaxed in what the weird bathroom/steam-room car of the train. It was well choreographed and some neat lighting tricks ... though even that scene was frustrating, in that one moment the protagonists and villain are like 20 cars apart, and five seconds later they are fist-fighting in the same room. It was perennial problem through the movie; they couldn't keep consistent about how long the train was or where the characters were in relation to each other on the train.

Not to mention the inconsistencies with the world-building; like in one scene the temperature outside is so cold that it freezes a man's arm solid in minutes, but the twist at the end (*SPOILER ALERT*) is that the temperature outside has warmed up enough over the years to allow people to survive outside again. Even though we just saw a man's arm freeze solid in a matter of, what, 90 seconds? It was just an insulting level of discontinuity.

[gigabytelord]

Damn what I'm hearing about it is disappointing. What's interesting is that rottentomatoes is giving it a rating of 95%. I wonder if the massive edits that were made for US viewing simply changed to much. Of course that's if they were ever even made. But I swear I heard somewhere that it's US distributors refused to show it until it was dumbed down

[Cykeisme]

Not to mention the inconsistencies with the world-building; like in one scene the temperature outside is so cold that it freezes a man's arm solid in minutes, but the twist at the end (*SPOILER ALERT*) is that the temperature outside has warmed up enough over the years to allow people to survive outside again. Even though we just saw a man's arm freeze solid in a matter of, what, 90 seconds? It was just an insulting level of discontinuity.

Well, with regards to this particular point, there was a throwaway line that went something like, "at this altitude, 7 minutes should be sufficient" when they made the dude stick his arm outside the train. So apparently at that point in time the train was at a higher altitude than normal, plus uh wind chill factor or something maybe.

Critically examining the premise still causes brainhurt. Why the hell does the train have to MOVE all the time, and how the hell can they be sure the rails will always remain perfectly serviceable?
Why not just stop the train in the remnants of a city (it's shown to pass through the middle of several cities), then try to make insulated heated suits to send expeditions into the cities to get stuff?

Considering they never stop, that means apparently they've been lasting for 18 years, solely on whatever was on board the train at the start?