GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

hemzyy "Snowpiercer" is a great effort at a dystopian classic, based on a graphic novel and directed by Bong Joon-ho, with a prominent American and British cast. Interestingly, the story spins off from the dooms day effect of global warming and humanity's self-destructive effort to curb it, resulting in a frozen planet with a speeding "Ark" on rails - Snowpiercer. The tail of the train is populated by the poor, downtrodden; under the mercy of the richer class up in the front, led by Wilford (Ed Harris), the owner of the train who "governs" the train with his make-shift ministers and henchmen. Scarcity of food, water and space to dwell holds the tail down under the iron hand rule of Wilford. Rebels from the tail, led by an old veteran Gilliam (John Hurt) and his second-in-command Curtis (Chris Evans) break out in defiance with a plan to overpower the tyranny and bring order and fairness into Snowpiercer, leading to an epic battle of wits, strategy and sheer numbers between Curtis and Wilford. The film boasts of a supporting cast with the likes of Jamie Bell, Octavia Spencer, Tilda Swinton and Song Kang-Ho, but Chris Evans steals the show as the gritty Curtis Everett in one of his many underrated performances that are constantly overshadowed by his role as the star spangled leader of the Avengers. The movie is consistently engrossing, though the climactic scenes rise up in some sort of crescendo, particularly in terms of the narrative and the characters' back stories. The film also has its fair share of violence, given it revolves around a battle, but shot in the most finished and aesthetic manner - one of the trademarks of South Korean film-making.

david-sarkies This film came very highly recommended, if only from one of those countless number of Youtube sites that seem to deal exclusively with movies. Okay, it was listed as one of the must see movies, though ironically all of these must see movies were basically newer ones. Anyway, the film is based an a French comic book from the 70s and is actually touted as South Korea's most expensive film ever made (and it was directed by a South Korean). This does have the effect of setting it apart from much of the rubbish that seems to be filling our cinema screens these days. So, the story goes that the world is suffering the effects of Climate Change, and they decide to solve it by spraying stuff into the upper atmosphere. It worked, but the problem is that it worked a little too well - the entire world froze. Anyway, this excentric billionaire had build a railway line that circumnavigated the world, and was set up so people could live on it for years at a time, so pretty much everybody scrambled to get on board, though those who were not able to pay the hefty price tag were either denied entry or relegated to the tail section. The film begins in the tail section, which not surprising is overcrowded, and the people are basically poor and are fed things call protein bars. Every so often soldiers come in to hand out the food, but one day they come and take away all of the children, which pushes the people, who is led by Chris Evans (who plays Captain America, though not in this film) to stage a revolt. The whole idea is to get from one side of the train to the other and take control of the engine. The problem is that there happens to be a series of sealed doors between them and their goal, so they also need a technician to be able to break though. This film is clearly a comment on the class culture, but I think it goes much further than that. The way I see it it seems to be a microcosm of the world in which we live. If you happen to live in a poor country then good luck actually getting out of that country to get to a better country. In fact these days there seems to be a lot more borders being closed, and refuges relegated to detention camps in places that are even more inhospitable. I guess the problem is that it is the case of the rich not wanting to share with the poor, and also this idea that the poor are in that situation through either their own fault, or some curse by some divine power. In a sense it seems to be an essence of entitlement, but in another sense many of us who are wealthy simply have no dialogue with the poor. We simply don't understand and don't want to understand. Actually this film goes even further to create this idea that the poor should actually be grateful that they get what they do from the rich. In a way it is a sickening concept, yet I can't claim to be all that innocent of it either. I guess it just happens to be that bubble that we to live in. Another thing that stands out in this film is its quirkiness. This is a trait of many French films, and it seems that the South Koreans have kept with it. I have seen other adaptations of French stories, such as Tintin, and they seem to shy away from it. Well, this isn't the case here - they embrace it with open arms. This is something that I find great about this film - the characters have their little quirks and oddities, particularly the ones from the front of the train. It seems that this is also a nature of the divide, where wealth and luxury actually breeds these quirks, whereas the poor are simply struggling to survive. However, in the end, the old addage still holds true - he who dies with the most toys, still dies.

dumpthatstuffhere Let me explain. In case you haven't figured it out yet, the reason that so many critics have given this movie such a spectacular review is because all movie critics, well... It's probably not fair to say "all", the majority must have been born under the same sign, or have studied journalism reading the same books, and have long since forgotten how to think for themselves, or have an original thought. You see... All critics are conditioned to look for and promote something that they have never seen before, something "original." That is their core conditioned value system. If they see something that they have never seen before, that they think is unique, then... THAT is what translates into the highest score. They don't stop to genuinely, or generally ask themselves if they liked what they saw, or if it's entertaining. Why? Because they are conditioned to believe that after tens of thousands of films and television, a story arc can no longer be unique, or original. Thus, when something comes along that has the appearance of being original, absent predictability, then... they (the professional journalists that call themselves critics) wet their pants with anticipation. In this way, their uniform value of what appears to be original, is what makes them (the critics) unoriginal.This is a terrible film. Terrible! Easily one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. It's not even entertaining, it's just stupid. I would almost encourage people to watch it so that they could have a birds eye view into the subculture of our critics. Should someone take a moment to actually read this review, in order to give my review a little depth, here are a few films that I think are spectacular, and would give them the same or higher score that the critics gave snowpiercer. Gladiator, Spotlight, Sense and Sensibilities, Godfather, Forrest Gump... Just FYI, the same metacritics that gave snowpiercer an 88 , gave gladiator a 67. How many Academy Awards did gladiator win?

hbuhary Promised so much at the beginning and failed epically in the end. The movie drags on as well, could cut it down to 90 minutes instead of two hours.