In this case, he's entirely correct. There really wasn't another choice. They needed the tension, the occasional rebellion and its casualties. To preserve mankind on that train.
@@burntbiscuit898 That's a great way for everyone to starve. Equality is nice, and in normal times it's quite ideal. They're on a train after the apocalypse. Times aren't normal.
I love that Wilford immediately understands the one thing most seductive to Curtis. Not food, but solitude. Of course, the whole "it's noisy" mistake was an unnecessary one. Curtis hates himself so much, and he's come to believe that no one other than the children deserve to live. His people are all dead - he's got nothing to fight for. I'm assuming it was the revelation about how the children are being used that pushes him over the last edge.
@@EternalDawn They were being made to service the engine, from inside it - as a replacement for a part that "recently went extinct" in Wilbur's words. It's one of the arguments used in the idea that Snowpiercer is a sequel to Willy Wonka, and that the "parts" were actually Oompa Loompas.
Sometimes, when you put the "big picture" into a smaller canvas... it actually makes it even more terrifying. This movie is cursed. Leaves you with more questions than answers. And I love it.
It’s really not that complicated. The movie is an obvious metaphor for capitalism and the antagonistic relationship between the proletariats and the bourgeoisie. Him making his way to the front of the train with goal of confronting the conductor being a metaphor for a person who has experienced poverty rising through the social classes and becoming rich with the goal of changing society in mind. Once he reaches the top social class, the 1%, or the front of the train (whatever you want to call it), he is then really one faced with one remaining moral dilemma… That being… “do we continue the oppression and injustice of the status quo, or do we cast it aside and venture out into the unknown, taking a gamble on some new system of commerce.” He makes the obviously necessary decision when he derails the train and frees them all, only to find that the dangers of the outside world were greatly exaggerated…. Just like alternatives to poorly regulated capitalism.
The dangers of the world were not greatly exaggerated. People did freeze to death when they escaped the train in the past. It's the fact that the climate was warming up again. While a polar bear can survive out there, a human probably won't. Curtis, in my opinion, doomed everyone.
Wrap your head around this concept. Curtis just eyeballs the plate in front of him. The man was a cannibal once himself, and has just traveled the full length of the train. No livestock... The movie hints at chickens on board with the egg trolley, and chickens would be plausible within the context of the train. No red meats though, and that steak is a red meat. Curtis already knows he's being served people...
@@BigDaddySlug oh for sure, there's 1001 cars in the series and novel, and even big alice, another perpetual train is 40, film train is also 60 cars according to sources, and those cars are also much larger than the cars of other versions.
He might just be the best monologue deliverer I can think of, his voice and the way he stares right by the camera is amazing. This, A History of Violence, The Truman Show, Apollo 13.
I wish I could’ve seen Wilfred’s face when he realized the outside was habitable again. Then again, someone obsessed like him wouldn’t stop the train even if it it weren’t necessary anymore
Easy to say since you posses Meta knowledge, as for Wilford, he does not, stoping the train comes with a damn high risk, Wilford cannot grant total freedom to everyone, because the ressources on the train do not allow him to, now, he himself, could of course sit in first class and let some of his minions work on the Engine Eternal by his instructions, but he did not, he himself tends to the Engine, people like you exist in a world where ressources are plentiful, easy to point the finger and consider Wilford a tyrant and evil then. In reality, he did the best he could considering the circumstances.
@@1AshramLol the refrain of every tyrant ever my friend. The resources are scarce beyond the point where they needed to be scarce because those in power never committed the necessary resources to look for a better solution than what they had. They had no reason to, they were on top, they weren’t starving or dying of disease. So the risk of stopping the train for them is far higher than the people on the lower end of the train who have very little left to lose to begin with. That’s the point of the story. At one point the restrictions are necessary, but things continued long past the point where it was because people in power found it too comfortable to look for a better solution
@@ravenblood1954 Lmao, that’s some hardcore copium there my friend. Wilford is right. The planet IS NOT habitable. Not for humans anyways. They try and use the polar bear, an animal built to survive arctic temperatures, as an example that humans can survive outside. Spoiler alert: we can’t. It’s only possible with modern technology, electricity, and heat, the last of which just got destroyed with Snowpiercer. And that’s not even counting the temperature drop at night, which literally just a few days before showed is still cold enough to freeze human flesh solid. Even better question, what are they going to eat? What are they going to drink? Where are they going to find shelter? Yeah, turns out survival in a frozen wasteland isn’t so easy, is it? Cherry on the top is that there’s a freaking _polar bear_ roaming around, which if you didn’t know, absolutely will put humans on the menu. TL;DR: The planet’s not habitable, Wilford is right not to stop the train, and you’re reeeeeeeeeeally pulling at straws
He built the train before the world froze over, and he's reached the point where the train is as close to his god as his ego can allow. I think he'd rather freeze the world over again than stop the train.
@@whynot-tomorrow_1945 yea I liked as well. I thought it was a little obvious at the beginning of the movie when the woman did it, because I knew immediately it would call back to it later. The reveal of what it represented was pretty well done.
@@whynot-tomorrow_1945the people saying “we have to take Willard down every other scene, the Willard school, and the giant ass W’s everywhere were pretty subtle
That Revelation that Gillian was working with Wilford THE ENTIRE TIME was truly shocking. And Curtiss didn't believe him until he mentioned this line. 4:10
@@bn-tc2tkthat's not true, the children come out when there is a malfunction and need to manually fix the issue. It was more like luck that a malfunction ovvured St the perfect moment to wake Curtis up otherwise he would have taken the position and had there been enough time before a malfunction Milford night have convinced Curtis using the children was a necessary evil to keep the train live which in turn keeps humanity alive. It's the classic train track thought experiment do you kill 1 person(the child) to save many or do you kill many(save the child but doom the train) honestly with how the film ends Curtis probably should have kept the train going.....after that derailment I doubt many survived the few that did don't know how to survive in an artic environment. If you know anything about the first explorers who tried to reach the artic circle you'll know how easy it is to die in such an environment.
@@thedoge9590 But then the other problem is, like he said, the engine last forever, but not so much all it's parts. And as more and more parts go extinct, how much worse is it gonna look when they have to consider what will have to be done to fix that? Sure, it's just a couple of kids now, but what's going to be needed next time? What if it basically becomes a human meat machine to keep it going at some point?
@@thedoge9590 At the end of the movie they see a Polar Bear, which means A) Probably a bad thing since Polar bears are apex predators haha but B) the more important thing is that it means life can survive outside the train which means human can too and possibly repopulate since it's the Asain child and small black boy left, so technically, they could reprodouce, plus there might of been other survivors, thats my take at least.
@@immie1709 This is... optimistic at best, sorry, 2 children repopulating is a fairy tale, you need 80 genetically diverse people at MINIMUM to try and repopulate, the chances of that from a train stock of apparently 3000 or so people that have since been interbreeding is even slimmer. Now to take it a step further, the people that adapted to arctic conditions are extremely rare and have thousands upon thousands of years of heritage and tradition to survive there, even further they don't compete with polar bears either. So to put it mildly those kids are DEAD and any chance of them even coming close to producing offspring would just mean EVEN MORE DEAD KIDS.
@@pyerack This type of rhetoric happens every day man. Just saw a podcast where some zionist shill normalized the death of 19.000 people and dismissed criticism on the basis of people being 'naïve'
The message simply reading "Train" was powerful. While on the surface it represents Wildord's plans for Curtis, being the new steward, it also conveys a sense of entirety and completion. The Snowpiercer endlessly circles the frozen Earth, is forever sustained by the eternal engine, and is both humanity's last holdout and place of rebirth. Curtis has walked the train from beginning to end, and thus finally understands the world.
3:37 Nice parallel of them both standing in anger and desperation. As much Wilford likes to appear in control and mocks Curtis for getting emotional, he knows that the engine cannot be fixed and he’s only delaying the train’s inevitable demise by throwing people off the brink.
Yeah the more I look at this the more I realize this was the best sequel to Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory to ever exist. The fact that the film shares a lot of the same style choices as the remake makes it even more interesting.
If i had a nickel for everytime Ed Harris has a played a god character who regulates the live of the protagonist, i'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that happened twice.
Also playing god as a sniper in "Enemy At the Gates". Systematically killing everyone around the protagonist to flush him out in a crazy game of cat and mouse.
@@karhu7581if I had to take a guess, it's because in the lore of Dark Souls, Gwyn and the gods all used the humanity of people to kindle the fire to keep the age of fire going, and thus prolong their reign. Humans paid the price, and thus Gwyn's rejection of the age of dark led to the curse that takes place, making people into undead hollows with no humanity left. On the other hand, Gwyn's age also might've prevented a calamity brought on by the dark, since if you look at Oolacile, the people there were tempted (most likely by Kaathe) to embrace darkness, and awoke a primal humanity known as Manus, which led to the spread of the abyss that transformed the people into monsters, driving them mad and in pain. So I imagine the similarity between Dark souls and Snowpiercer as this guy is implying, is that while the age of light requires the gods sacrificing people's humanity to the flame, failing to do so would mean failing to stave off the age of dark, which may or may not be better or worse for humans as a whole if we consider the fate of Oolacile. Similar to how Wilbur and the elites of the train front need to sacrifice the people at the tail to keep the engine going, even if it is scummy (Although in this case, it's weird none of them are really working together as a whole to keep the train going, don't really get why they made a class system in a train, but im not a bog Snowpiercer fan) (I'm sure that's the lore at least. Might be wrong)
2 level monologues are always entertaining. You hear both the message of the character, and the message of the film's creative team. Then you get to decide whether to accept both, just one, or neither.
The fact that this video has less than 1 million views after 4 years says alot. Very underated movie, one of the best movies showing the reality of our society, i would place it pretty close to legendary Matrix 1999.
Saw this while teaching in Vietnam. Profound film. Keep “speaking out against the madness.” Imagine a world where the machine is jailed, assets seized and used to begin undoing the damage they have inflicted and plan on humanity. Be kind. Always. This film should be studied in every high school in the 🌎.
It’s been tried before, repeatedly Each time has been a horrendous failure of famine and genocides Of course proponents of the idea invariably claim otherwise
@@lorentzcoffin4957 The wealthy nations of the world are only wealthy because of famine and genocide elsewhere. The history of empires is a history of extraction.
@@lorentzcoffin4957 the fact you reduce such tragedies to a singular causation to push your ideological agenda kinda spells out you have no clue what you're talking about. Take the communistic famines for example. A lot of people don't know the issue wasn't ideology but mostly due to a single scientist's flawed agricultural theory that was put in widespread practice without any trialling nor peer assessment and resulted in bad yield across the ussr for several years. This was not from ideological influence but a scientific mistake that cost the lives of millions. The same kind of mistake that has occurred countless times within all ideologies. Just cause something specific happens within an ideology doesn't say a thing about the ideology itself unless it's provably inherent to it.
The movie can only make it's point because it has a limited runtime. I haven't seen the series yet, but I imagine the need to keep the story going causes things to meander a bit.
What is this in reference to? Because the opposite is happening in our world and undeveloped countries like India, Nigeria, and Senegambia are the fastest growing while Japan, China, and most of Europe are slowing down.
"Real enemies"? My good man the "Real enemy" is the human condition, not the rich, not the powerful,(Although all of these can be evil) but instead the very humanity that brings us so much good. Is the same humanity that causes us so much suffering. The most terrifying thing? We can never change it, Ever. To change the human condition would be to become no longer human. There is no "Cure" to evil, we can only kill it as it appears. But even then we will still never be safe, because evil is self serving. And self serving ideologies will always appeal to the selfish human nature.
@@John-Doe-Yo Nitpicky reasons that completely miss the point of the film. For example, saying the ending makes no sense because the surviving kids will most likely get eaten. Or that the metaphor is too obvious.
@@Mopark25 Well that's kinda the point, right? I thought the message of the film was that the system is flawed (capitalism/classism) but there's no good alternative. The system crashes and burns (the train) but the remaining survivors will likely die in the elements or from predators
I have a few things to say. 1. No, this is not the best part. The best part is the revelation of the true meaning of the hand gesture. 2. Ed Harris is a wonderful actor, but he did not appear to give himself to this role completely. I imagine that Jeremy Irons would have fit the role a little better, with maybe Christopher Walken as a second choice. The audience needs to see the logic and clarity of thought in the master plan, but they also need to feel revulsion at the implications. Ed's approach is far too flat. We don't get the depravity we need for that from him here. 3. The script is tip-top. Couldn't be better. Absolute mastery on display here.
I think the flat delivery is what it is needed it shows him as totally emotionless and disconnected from it all and the use of cold logic, train space and food is limited therefore people must die. The man kills people and puts kids into passages who will likely die in there he doesn't do it out of malice or some sick derangement or sadistic want to inflict pain on others , just a necessary function to keep the train running which is his only concern. It is the survivors in the lifeboat dilemma the lifeboat has only a certain weight it can hold and only so many seats, take too many on it and you all die what can you do in such a situation? Only take as many as possible that is the logical choice it is seen as cold cause it forces people to drown and ultimately die there is no best scenario here cannot save everyone.
Except for your friends, and your family, and your food, and you house, and your water, and your life. But yeah, except for all those things, the only thing you have to lose is your chains.
hes kinda an anti-traitor tbh he and wilfred had a very specific plan, and it did involve Curtis becoming the leader of the train through his revolution. and Curtis came damn close to going along with all of it
I have always hated the ending. Curtis could have taken over, and made changes. Spread the food etc. Instead, they decide to destroy the train, more than likely the rest of mankind. You know those kids were a polar bear snack.
That's the movie's point, though. If Curtis had taken over, the same brutal mechanisms that the train requires would result in him becoming another Wilford. Kids need to be taken to work the train: in an equal, just society, no one would be able to accept that. So Wilford/Curtis needs to create an underclass, a middle class to keep them in check, and the upperclass to direct things. The system on the train isn't broken: it's working exactly the way it was designed to. The only solution is to break the train.
He'd still have to rely on child labor through all of that. From there it would've just made a domino effect of one thing after another. It would just repeat the cycle. The message of the film is pretty nihilistic and cynical but I still find it very interesting.
I like how pretty much immediately in the show, the train gets hit by an avalanche that just destroyed the movie train and it barely even budges the show version.
Malthusian philosophy, and a Marxist envisioning of the economy of the Train. The worldbuilding of this, well, world, is quite amazing. An excellent Dystopia
Well I see multiple reasons. Train was designed to upkeep a limited amount of passengers with food, water, necesessies etc. If I remember correctly, Curtis told that he and a lot of people forcefully entered the train. more that the train was designed for. So not enough food and water or space. Secondly people in the front were happier of what they had since they could compare to the people of back of the train. And so we see people happily killing and hunting people in the back to keep their positions and preaching basically "for the greater good". Aaaand of course child slavery metaphore. Which would not go so well if a child from the front of the train would be taken. Wilford is crazy, mad even, but he did the necessary evil to keep the population in balace. Even founding Curtis and showing all of the train just to step down from the position as he understands he cant continue due his age. Not something plain evil madman would do.
The thing that really bothered me about the whole idea of the train was that even if this balance had to be maintained why was the back basically just forced to languish? Some of them had jobs but most only had time to stew in their depression. If the back actually had something to work for they probably would of been more content
Ed Harris is a singular talent with awesome technique, but I can't help feeling that his lines were written for a whole different kind of actor, one of those Shakespearean grey eminence types. Also I think Chris Evans really delivers here.
What’s really uncomfortable is that if they planned to replace the front, they must of also have planned to replace the end too. Would make an interesting story for the “revolution” to be the front and back trading places over a cycle. It’s so interesting. That’s as Marxian as it gets.
lol i thought this was some scene i didnt see from the series and i flipped shit XD but its the movie lol. also, for anyone who hasnt seen the series of snowpiercer. it is GREAT its kinda slow paced in the very begining but its a great story and i LOVE how they expanded on everything the movie offered.
I liked the series better but maybe i am biased since its the first ive watched but as a prequel the series changed almost eveything about the movie like snow piercers size and design, the trains speed from 2.0++ revolutions (from what 1 remember) per year to 1 revolution per year, no guns on the train, wilfords ideology from total control to maintaining balance on the train. Maybe the series messed up the movies lore because of the many inconsistencies but i liked it better.
@@cardinal2921 it should be noted both the movie and series is based on a French graphic novel from the 80s. Bong Joon-ho made a lot of changes so that it fits better as a movie.
@@cardinal2921 lore wise, I don't think they are linked. that said, the graphic novel does have 2 "snowpiercers", and the ideas covered in their stories line up pretty well with the movie and series, assumign the movie takes place on the first, smaller, snowpiercer, and the series on its sister, Icebreaker
Charlie Bucket really lived long enough to see himself become the villain of his story
I love that theory
He did, he really did.
@@tomholmes5055all these years later and that theory is just as memorable to me as the movie itself. Such an outlandish idea too.
Got that theory right under this video.
Ever since I watched that video comparing two I watch this movie with a whole new set of eyes. I believe his theory is correct.
Chris Evans needs more roles like this instead of Marvel roles. He has such untapped range.
You should see him in the Scott Pilgrim movie. Dudes hilarious in all of the 7 minutes he’s in the film.
Nah in Human Torch he IS like 70% of the movie the man Carry two movies with bad writing
Not Another Teen Movie
I thought Push was pretty awesome with him in it too.
He's fantastic in knives out
"That's what people in the best place say to people in the worst place." Underrated line.
There's a reason this was directed by the same guy who directed parasite later in his career
@@CaiphexHis whole career has been examining class relations.
In this case, he's entirely correct. There really wasn't another choice. They needed the tension, the occasional rebellion and its casualties. To preserve mankind on that train.
@thisisaname5589 Or maybe, scrap the class system so that everyone can live together, equally?
@@burntbiscuit898 That's a great way for everyone to starve. Equality is nice, and in normal times it's quite ideal. They're on a train after the apocalypse. Times aren't normal.
“There’s not a soul on this train who wouldn’t trade places with you.”
“Would you trade places with me?”
“Fuck you.”
Holy shit, I love that line.
Medium rare
I love that Wilford immediately understands the one thing most seductive to Curtis. Not food, but solitude. Of course, the whole "it's noisy" mistake was an unnecessary one. Curtis hates himself so much, and he's come to believe that no one other than the children deserve to live. His people are all dead - he's got nothing to fight for. I'm assuming it was the revelation about how the children are being used that pushes him over the last edge.
How were the children being used?
@@EternalDawnthey were used as a cogs for engine. Watch the movie
@@EternalDawn They were being made to service the engine, from inside it - as a replacement for a part that "recently went extinct" in Wilbur's words. It's one of the arguments used in the idea that Snowpiercer is a sequel to Willy Wonka, and that the "parts" were actually Oompa Loompas.
@@dirdib69movie is about capitalism and obviously child labor was/is a huge component for capitalism.
@@Patrick-uh8xjWhere does child labor happen the most? Oh that's right, communist China 😂
Sometimes, when you put the "big picture" into a smaller canvas... it actually makes it even more terrifying.
This movie is cursed. Leaves you with more questions than answers. And I love it.
Even with the snowpiercer series it brings up more questions than answers to how it all ended up here.
If you're unable to come to an answer, it means you definitely will accept your role at back of the train.
It’s really not that complicated.
The movie is an obvious metaphor for capitalism and the antagonistic relationship between the proletariats and the bourgeoisie. Him making his way to the front of the train with goal of confronting the conductor being a metaphor for a person who has experienced poverty rising through the social classes and becoming rich with the goal of changing society in mind. Once he reaches the top social class, the 1%, or the front of the train (whatever you want to call it), he is then really one faced with one remaining moral dilemma…
That being… “do we continue the oppression and injustice of the status quo, or do we cast it aside and venture out into the unknown, taking a gamble on some new system of commerce.”
He makes the obviously necessary decision when he derails the train and frees them all, only to find that the dangers of the outside world were greatly exaggerated…. Just like alternatives to poorly regulated capitalism.
@@Me-ke6smAh, the Marxist analysis. The quickest path back to Feudalism.
The dangers of the world were not greatly exaggerated. People did freeze to death when they escaped the train in the past. It's the fact that the climate was warming up again. While a polar bear can survive out there, a human probably won't. Curtis, in my opinion, doomed everyone.
Wrap your head around this concept. Curtis just eyeballs the plate in front of him. The man was a cannibal once himself, and has just traveled the full length of the train. No livestock...
The movie hints at chickens on board with the egg trolley, and chickens would be plausible within the context of the train. No red meats though, and that steak is a red meat. Curtis already knows he's being served people...
Allthough i want to believe this, i dont think they want to hint at the red meat being human meat?
In real life they would die from prions if they did that. Human meat is deadly, increasingly so the more you eat it.
considering the context of the graphic novel and series, cows are on the train.
Cows are definately on the train they skipped alot of trolleys in the movie no way thwy had timw to show them all
@@BigDaddySlug oh for sure, there's 1001 cars in the series and novel, and even big alice, another perpetual train is 40, film train is also 60 cars according to sources, and those cars are also much larger than the cars of other versions.
There's something terrifying about a perfectly calm Ed Harris.
He might just be the best monologue deliverer I can think of, his voice and the way he stares right by the camera is amazing. This, A History of Violence, The Truman Show, Apollo 13.
I wish I could’ve seen Wilfred’s face when he realized the outside was habitable again. Then again, someone obsessed like him wouldn’t stop the train even if it it weren’t necessary anymore
Easy to say since you posses Meta knowledge, as for Wilford, he does not, stoping the train comes with a damn high risk, Wilford cannot grant total freedom to everyone, because the ressources on the train do not allow him to, now, he himself, could of course sit in first class and let some of his minions work on the Engine Eternal by his instructions, but he did not, he himself tends to the Engine, people like you exist in a world where ressources are plentiful, easy to point the finger and consider Wilford a tyrant and evil then. In reality, he did the best he could considering the circumstances.
@@1AshramLol the refrain of every tyrant ever my friend. The resources are scarce beyond the point where they needed to be scarce because those in power never committed the necessary resources to look for a better solution than what they had. They had no reason to, they were on top, they weren’t starving or dying of disease. So the risk of stopping the train for them is far higher than the people on the lower end of the train who have very little left to lose to begin with. That’s the point of the story. At one point the restrictions are necessary, but things continued long past the point where it was because people in power found it too comfortable to look for a better solution
@@ravenblood1954 Lmao, that’s some hardcore copium there my friend. Wilford is right. The planet IS NOT habitable. Not for humans anyways. They try and use the polar bear, an animal built to survive arctic temperatures, as an example that humans can survive outside. Spoiler alert: we can’t. It’s only possible with modern technology, electricity, and heat, the last of which just got destroyed with Snowpiercer. And that’s not even counting the temperature drop at night, which literally just a few days before showed is still cold enough to freeze human flesh solid. Even better question, what are they going to eat? What are they going to drink? Where are they going to find shelter? Yeah, turns out survival in a frozen wasteland isn’t so easy, is it? Cherry on the top is that there’s a freaking _polar bear_ roaming around, which if you didn’t know, absolutely will put humans on the menu.
TL;DR: The planet’s not habitable, Wilford is right not to stop the train, and you’re reeeeeeeeeeally pulling at straws
wtf you talking about? there is NOTHING but snow. no fields, no train, no NOTHING. anyone that survived is polar bear food PERIOD.
He built the train before the world froze over, and he's reached the point where the train is as close to his god as his ego can allow. I think he'd rather freeze the world over again than stop the train.
0:06
It's crazy how quickly and how well he makes that little hand gesture signifying the engine mechanism. It feels like he invented it.
He made the train, that was the plot of the movie
He literally did lol
@@plmokm33 I like how the actor and director got that point across. Not everyone would really notice/care.
@@whynot-tomorrow_1945 yea I liked as well. I thought it was a little obvious at the beginning of the movie when the woman did it, because I knew immediately it would call back to it later. The reveal of what it represented was pretty well done.
@@whynot-tomorrow_1945the people saying “we have to take Willard down every other scene, the Willard school, and the giant ass W’s everywhere were pretty subtle
That Revelation that Gillian was working with Wilford THE ENTIRE TIME was truly shocking. And Curtiss didn't believe him until he mentioned this line. 4:10
Race hustlers
the revelation that oompa loompas were running the train and now they're extinct so they use kids was the best part of the movie
Charlie Bucket discovered Renewable materials@@Aaron-zu3xn
If Curtis hadn't seen the kid inside the engine, he might've taken the position.. But damn.
What do you mean “if he hadn’t seen”? He was going to see a new kid come out in a few hours anyway
@@bn-tc2tkthat's not true, the children come out when there is a malfunction and need to manually fix the issue. It was more like luck that a malfunction ovvured St the perfect moment to wake Curtis up otherwise he would have taken the position and had there been enough time before a malfunction Milford night have convinced Curtis using the children was a necessary evil to keep the train live which in turn keeps humanity alive. It's the classic train track thought experiment do you kill 1 person(the child) to save many or do you kill many(save the child but doom the train) honestly with how the film ends Curtis probably should have kept the train going.....after that derailment I doubt many survived the few that did don't know how to survive in an artic environment. If you know anything about the first explorers who tried to reach the artic circle you'll know how easy it is to die in such an environment.
@@thedoge9590 But then the other problem is, like he said, the engine last forever, but not so much all it's parts. And as more and more parts go extinct, how much worse is it gonna look when they have to consider what will have to be done to fix that? Sure, it's just a couple of kids now, but what's going to be needed next time? What if it basically becomes a human meat machine to keep it going at some point?
@@thedoge9590 At the end of the movie they see a Polar Bear, which means A) Probably a bad thing since Polar bears are apex predators haha but B) the more important thing is that it means life can survive outside the train which means human can too and possibly repopulate since it's the Asain child and small black boy left, so technically, they could reprodouce, plus there might of been other survivors, thats my take at least.
@@immie1709 This is... optimistic at best, sorry, 2 children repopulating is a fairy tale, you need 80 genetically diverse people at MINIMUM to try and repopulate, the chances of that from a train stock of apparently 3000 or so people that have since been interbreeding is even slimmer. Now to take it a step further, the people that adapted to arctic conditions are extremely rare and have thousands upon thousands of years of heritage and tradition to survive there, even further they don't compete with polar bears either.
So to put it mildly those kids are DEAD and any chance of them even coming close to producing offspring would just mean EVEN MORE DEAD KIDS.
Slaughters his people
*calm down bro*
"So tense. What's the matter? You look like a crazy person."
"Chill out lmao. It's not even that deep."
@@pyerack This type of rhetoric happens every day man. Just saw a podcast where some zionist shill normalized the death of 19.000 people and dismissed criticism on the basis of people being 'naïve'
"The McGregor riots"
Always gotta be an Irish man causing a riot! 😅
They ain't going to put up with no shit irish and Mexicans.
Ayo for real
The message simply reading "Train" was powerful. While on the surface it represents Wildord's plans for Curtis, being the new steward, it also conveys a sense of entirety and completion. The Snowpiercer endlessly circles the frozen Earth, is forever sustained by the eternal engine, and is both humanity's last holdout and place of rebirth. Curtis has walked the train from beginning to end, and thus finally understands the world.
3:37 Nice parallel of them both standing in anger and desperation. As much Wilford likes to appear in control and mocks Curtis for getting emotional, he knows that the engine cannot be fixed and he’s only delaying the train’s inevitable demise by throwing people off the brink.
Exactly. They're doomed one way or another.
This is up there but doesn't come close to "THEY'VE GOT NO BULLLEEETTTSSS"
@@Edward_Snatch It's such a great scene though. It gets you so pumped even though you later learn that it was all setup
False. Nothing beats "CHIIIIIICKEEEEEN!"
@@flashyturnip7730 HAHAHA true
FIRE scene was epic
Yeah, best line in the movie.
Yeah the more I look at this the more I realize this was the best sequel to Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory to ever exist. The fact that the film shares a lot of the same style choices as the remake makes it even more interesting.
Lol tin foil hats man
@@Kingkongmental what even is this comment?
@@RomanvonUngernSternbergnrmfvushe's saying you sound friggin nuts. Wtf are you talking about?
I really recommend you guys to watch the video of this theory is obviously not true but the uncanny amount of coincidences is surprising
@@RomanvonUngernSternbergnrmfvusThat people that take that theory seriously have a looser grip on reality than my schizo ass.
Ed Harris can act literally anyone under the table. Favorite part is obviously ”3:38”
What was up with that chick in the yellow's voice? She sounds like an AI or something.
One of those actors that, when they pop up, informs you that the film you're about to watch is gonna be good. Ed Harris never lets you down.
Seeing him act against Hopkins in Westworld was amazing.
He was good in The History of Violence. Not sure if you seen it. but i recommend?
the good ol' keep the cycle or break it question
always break it, if it can so easily be broken, it's not worth keeping, evolution demands it.
@@keithfilibeck2390 what evolution? To stop this machine is to stop humanity from living.
@@keithfilibeck2390 not so black & white in this case. Destroying the train means destroying an entire species, evolution not found.
@@keithfilibeck2390 in this example you just end up getting out of cycle of evolution tho. getting permanently frozen.
In this version. Keep it at all costs.
Ed Harris is one of those actors that always make anything he's in better..
Just when I thought this movie couldn't get any weirder, he gets to the front, and...I see Ed Harris in a bathrobe cooking a steak.
If i had a nickel for everytime Ed Harris has a played a god character who regulates the live of the protagonist, i'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that happened twice.
I mean, he kinda is for the three fellas in Apollo 13, right? Lol
@@williampoole1742 Also he was playing God in a way in the movie The Rock.
Westworld too.
Also playing god as a sniper in "Enemy At the Gates". Systematically killing everyone around the protagonist to flush him out in a crazy game of cat and mouse.
Man on a ledge
Captain America really did some bad ass things before he froze.
and he does like to do badass things on trains in snowy places
“It’s unjust, and requires we take from some more than others, but without it we all fall” is a powerful analogy,
Reminds me of dark souls honestly
i really want to hear how that reminds you of dark souls
@@karhu7581if I had to take a guess, it's because in the lore of Dark Souls, Gwyn and the gods all used the humanity of people to kindle the fire to keep the age of fire going, and thus prolong their reign.
Humans paid the price, and thus Gwyn's rejection of the age of dark led to the curse that takes place, making people into undead hollows with no humanity left.
On the other hand, Gwyn's age also might've prevented a calamity brought on by the dark, since if you look at Oolacile, the people there were tempted (most likely by Kaathe) to embrace darkness, and awoke a primal humanity known as Manus, which led to the spread of the abyss that transformed the people into monsters, driving them mad and in pain.
So I imagine the similarity between Dark souls and Snowpiercer as this guy is implying, is that while the age of light requires the gods sacrificing people's humanity to the flame, failing to do so would mean failing to stave off the age of dark, which may or may not be better or worse for humans as a whole if we consider the fate of Oolacile.
Similar to how Wilbur and the elites of the train front need to sacrifice the people at the tail to keep the engine going, even if it is scummy
(Although in this case, it's weird none of them are really working together as a whole to keep the train going, don't really get why they made a class system in a train, but im not a bog Snowpiercer fan)
(I'm sure that's the lore at least. Might be wrong)
When does he say that?
I have been alone since the pandemic. So Curtis's mere few seconds of being alone still feels like a life time. It's a wonderful movie.
This was an amazing movie. Loved every bit of it.
2 level monologues are always entertaining. You hear both the message of the character, and the message of the film's creative team. Then you get to decide whether to accept both, just one, or neither.
I always thought him claiming Gillian was a participant was a bluff to disarm him. That he was never in control but only wanted the illusion of it.
The fact that this video has less than 1 million views after 4 years says alot.
Very underated movie, one of the best movies showing the reality of our society, i would place it pretty close to legendary Matrix 1999.
Saw this while teaching in Vietnam. Profound film. Keep “speaking out against the madness.” Imagine a world where the machine is jailed, assets seized and used to begin undoing the damage they have inflicted and plan on humanity. Be kind. Always. This film should be studied in every high school in the 🌎.
Nah. It shouldn't.
It’s been tried before, repeatedly
Each time has been a horrendous failure of famine and genocides
Of course proponents of the idea invariably claim otherwise
@@Moloch_the_MAP what? Lol
@@lorentzcoffin4957 The wealthy nations of the world are only wealthy because of famine and genocide elsewhere. The history of empires is a history of extraction.
@@lorentzcoffin4957 the fact you reduce such tragedies to a singular causation to push your ideological agenda kinda spells out you have no clue what you're talking about. Take the communistic famines for example. A lot of people don't know the issue wasn't ideology but mostly due to a single scientist's flawed agricultural theory that was put in widespread practice without any trialling nor peer assessment and resulted in bad yield across the ussr for several years. This was not from ideological influence but a scientific mistake that cost the lives of millions. The same kind of mistake that has occurred countless times within all ideologies.
Just cause something specific happens within an ideology doesn't say a thing about the ideology itself unless it's provably inherent to it.
If you watch the old guy he keeps doing the same motion that the kid in the floor does I think the train has been going longer then we believe
No, he just knows because he built the train
*than
Thank you for this masterpiece.
Ed Harris playing a villain? No way!
i feel like the netfilx show fails to see the point of this movie
Absolutely.
What??? Netflix show
The movie can only make it's point because it has a limited runtime. I haven't seen the series yet, but I imagine the need to keep the story going causes things to meander a bit.
very few woke shows do
@@sofaking1611grow up
Amazing movie ❤ The show is amazing as well.
Ed Harris is always phenomenal in everything he's in.
The people in the 'best position' made this movie.
A reflection of modern life clouded by Doomsday predictions leading to unnecessary suffering of the commons.
What is this in reference to? Because the opposite is happening in our world and undeveloped countries like India, Nigeria, and Senegambia are the fastest growing while Japan, China, and most of Europe are slowing down.
lmao this movie is literally a post-apocalyptic setting, what are you waffling about insect?
Snowpiercer reminding people who the real enemies are.
"Real enemies"?
My good man the "Real enemy" is the human condition, not the rich, not the powerful,(Although all of these can be evil) but instead the very humanity that brings us so much good. Is the same humanity that causes us so much suffering.
The most terrifying thing? We can never change it, Ever. To change the human condition would be to become no longer human. There is no "Cure" to evil, we can only kill it as it appears. But even then we will still never be safe, because evil is self serving. And self serving ideologies will always appeal to the selfish human nature.
who?
The 1%, its always the 1%. Theyre the only reason why the planets getting hotter
@@jojo-ow3tc See my original response to OP.
trains
Love the Yekaterina tunnel reference, didn't catch it until I saw a video about the Ipatiev house slaughter.
I don't see how peple can watch this movie and still say Chris Evans is a weak actor.
There are people on reddit that absolutely despise this movie. I'll never understand them.
Why do people on reddit despise it?
@@John-Doe-Yo Nitpicky reasons that completely miss the point of the film. For example, saying the ending makes no sense because the surviving kids will most likely get eaten. Or that the metaphor is too obvious.
it's reddit
they hate everything as long as other people say they hate it
@@Mopark25Those are fairly realistic nitpicks, and the fact you browse reddit to validate your own opinions says more about you than them.
@@Mopark25 Well that's kinda the point, right? I thought the message of the film was that the system is flawed (capitalism/classism) but there's no good alternative. The system crashes and burns (the train) but the remaining survivors will likely die in the elements or from predators
I have a few things to say.
1. No, this is not the best part. The best part is the revelation of the true meaning of the hand gesture.
2. Ed Harris is a wonderful actor, but he did not appear to give himself to this role completely. I imagine that Jeremy Irons would have fit the role a little better, with maybe Christopher Walken as a second choice. The audience needs to see the logic and clarity of thought in the master plan, but they also need to feel revulsion at the implications. Ed's approach is far too flat. We don't get the depravity we need for that from him here.
3. The script is tip-top. Couldn't be better. Absolute mastery on display here.
I think the flat delivery is what it is needed it shows him as totally emotionless and disconnected from it all and the use of cold logic, train space and food is limited therefore people must die. The man kills people and puts kids into passages who will likely die in there he doesn't do it out of malice or some sick derangement or sadistic want to inflict pain on others , just a necessary function to keep the train running which is his only concern. It is the survivors in the lifeboat dilemma the lifeboat has only a certain weight it can hold and only so many seats, take too many on it and you all die what can you do in such a situation? Only take as many as possible that is the logical choice it is seen as cold cause it forces people to drown and ultimately die there is no best scenario here cannot save everyone.
The entire movie built up the revulsion for the system, the end scene showed that the whole thing is part of the plan.
i just watched this movie and this is not the movie to watch right before a new year 😭
ok found a movie to watch tonight
Before wining oscar, Bong Jon Hoo had a chance to work together with legend Ed Harris
Ed Harris plays such a great villain
Why do villains always talk so much?
Wilford would be very comfortable in Davos.
Hey, this isn't the part where Captain America says Babies taste best.
“We all have our Preordained Position.”
Dang this guy is everywhere
Claude really needs to mind that engine
Never knew i wanted a willi wonka sequel but this was pretty good
I still love the Wonka fan theory
Good movie try watching is sometime
I never saw this scene from Westworld, what season is this?
This movie is a mirrior of our future society wanted by the elites
"The World's population should not exceed 500,000,000" Georgia Guide Stones, Into Being (Circa) 1980.
Yeah those things aged like milk lmao
I base my beliefs on rocks too
man is seriously apa citing some magic rocks
Willy Wonka
This is a journey into the afterlife. Separated by cars and trials. Time and life. This will continue.
Whoa, it’s like the Matrix man but on a train 🤯
That siding on the wall supposed to look like a chocolate bar?
The only thing you have to lose is your chains.
Except for your friends, and your family, and your food, and you house, and your water, and your life. But yeah, except for all those things, the only thing you have to lose is your chains.
@@lemonademan987 So we're equal with everyone else.
@@lemonademan987 At least you recognize the inherent violence of the system.
This movie was so much better than the series, sadly.
Hot take, loved the movie, but still don't quite know if I loved Evans' performance.
“Dear boy”
Snowpiercer, what a concept. Something you'll always seldom reminsce about.
Curtis: Fuck this
**kills all remaining humans**
And on the other side of cinema... "Wonka".
Claude is wicced thicc
I really think marvel killed a lot of talent like poor chris
...what?
3,50 so what do you do if a track ahead is damaged and the train derails?
we all freeze and die
I will forever believe that this is a sequel to Willy Wonka.
Crazy guy is the military industrial complex
Wow I wonder what the things the antagonist is talking about is a thematic parallel to.
the movie train feels like snowpiercer, while the series train feels more like icebreaker
not a theory, just an observation
NIce
Does no one talk about that Gilliam was a traitor this whole time?
hes kinda an anti-traitor tbh
he and wilfred had a very specific plan, and it did involve Curtis becoming the leader of the train through his revolution. and Curtis came damn close to going along with all of it
The caboose was lucky they didn't just get disconnected
They’d be running into it a year later on the track
@@JS-bc5my icebreaker moment
I have always hated the ending. Curtis could have taken over, and made changes. Spread the food etc. Instead, they decide to destroy the train, more than likely the rest of mankind. You know those kids were a polar bear snack.
That's the movie's point, though. If Curtis had taken over, the same brutal mechanisms that the train requires would result in him becoming another Wilford. Kids need to be taken to work the train: in an equal, just society, no one would be able to accept that. So Wilford/Curtis needs to create an underclass, a middle class to keep them in check, and the upperclass to direct things. The system on the train isn't broken: it's working exactly the way it was designed to. The only solution is to break the train.
He'd still have to rely on child labor through all of that. From there it would've just made a domino effect of one thing after another. It would just repeat the cycle.
The message of the film is pretty nihilistic and cynical but I still find it very interesting.
If those bears could survive, have a little faith that so could we.
I like how pretty much immediately in the show, the train gets hit by an avalanche that just destroyed the movie train and it barely even budges the show version.
You mean communism, instead of capitalism
This is what happens when Willy Wonkas fridge door gets left ooen
Malthusian philosophy, and a Marxist envisioning of the economy of the Train.
The worldbuilding of this, well, world, is quite amazing. An excellent Dystopia
Not too different from the world that I am living …it just sugar coated here and there where things are covered just enough.
That's the analogy, its capitalism
What i remember is that chris evans didnt play in this film but instead its the Boyka guy. Is it another berenstein incident?
now scale it back up again, hell is nothing to this because to be in hell you have to be guilty.
everybody thinks they want to know. they really don,t
The only thing I don't understand is why the humans in the rear track were required for this system? Was it just to produce children for the engine?
Without a fresh supply of workers the whole thing breaks apart. Something were going to see in the western world over the next few decades.
More to have destitutes that, if needed, could be sparked into revolution (like Wilson said was needed here.)
Yes, the same way poor people and their children are needed for the worst, lowest paying jobs in society. Yet without those jobs society crumbles.
Well I see multiple reasons.
Train was designed to upkeep a limited amount of passengers with food, water, necesessies etc.
If I remember correctly, Curtis told that he and a lot of people forcefully entered the train. more that the train was designed for. So not enough food and water or space.
Secondly people in the front were happier of what they had since they could compare to the people of back of the train. And so we see people happily killing and hunting people in the back to keep their positions and preaching basically "for the greater good".
Aaaand of course child slavery metaphore. Which would not go so well if a child from the front of the train would be taken.
Wilford is crazy, mad even, but he did the necessary evil to keep the population in balace. Even founding Curtis and showing all of the train just to step down from the position as he understands he cant continue due his age. Not something plain evil madman would do.
Everybody has their preordained position….good quote. Do you really want to be the man on the rolls Royce?
Predestination, True
The thing that really bothered me about the whole idea of the train was that even if this balance had to be maintained why was the back basically just forced to languish? Some of them had jobs but most only had time to stew in their depression. If the back actually had something to work for they probably would of been more content
Ed Harris is a singular talent with awesome technique, but I can't help feeling that his lines were written for a whole different kind of actor, one of those Shakespearean grey eminence types. Also I think Chris Evans really delivers here.
The most absurd movie I've seen.
What’s really uncomfortable is that if they planned to replace the front, they must of also have planned to replace the end too.
Would make an interesting story for the “revolution” to be the front and back trading places over a cycle. It’s so interesting.
That’s as Marxian as it gets.
Ohhhh so the train is our planet and the dinner guy is the governments.
That medium rare lookin more like med-well
All those people came from the party room and they were all pissed off because they took their Kronal drugs.
I still think this is a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory sequel
lol i thought this was some scene i didnt see from the series and i flipped shit XD but its the movie lol. also, for anyone who hasnt seen the series of snowpiercer. it is GREAT its kinda slow paced in the very begining but its a great story and i LOVE how they expanded on everything the movie offered.
I liked the series better but maybe i am biased since its the first ive watched but as a prequel the series changed almost eveything about the movie like snow piercers size and design, the trains speed from 2.0++ revolutions (from what 1 remember) per year to 1 revolution per year, no guns on the train, wilfords ideology from total control to maintaining balance on the train. Maybe the series messed up the movies lore because of the many inconsistencies but i liked it better.
@@cardinal2921 it should be noted both the movie and series is based on a French graphic novel from the 80s. Bong Joon-ho made a lot of changes so that it fits better as a movie.
@@taliyeth ohhh i didnt know that. Thank you for the info.
@@cardinal2921 lore wise, I don't think they are linked.
that said, the graphic novel does have 2 "snowpiercers", and the ideas covered in their stories line up pretty well with the movie and series, assumign the movie takes place on the first, smaller, snowpiercer, and the series on its sister, Icebreaker
Arguing with a friend and he knows he’s losing so he pulls out the nuclear option 4:06
Is this the youngest cult classic movie?