MovieChat Forums > Snowpiercer (2014) Discussion > Babies taste best ruined the entire movi...

Babies taste best ruined the entire movie


how are we supposed to be cool with the main character when he says all this crap

that line should never have been said he should say we ate people and stuff

why would our main character admit to babies tasting great i can no longer sympathize with him anymore and just don't wanna watch him after that line.

reply

That's kind of the point - he's saying he hates himself for knowing that babies taste the best. He's saying he's an awful person and that he's racked with guilt over what he did when others made the choice to sacrifice their limbs he couldn't. It makes him a more complex character, and not just a bland hero. We aren't really supposed to sympathise with his cannibalism, we're supposed to understand why he's been reticent to take on the position of leader, and why he's so angry with Wilford. When he later almost decides to do what Wilford wants, but then sacrifices his arm to save the boy instead it shows he has grown as a character and redeemed himself to some extent.

I don't think it was particularly artful, the film is really not very subtle, but the backstory made it more interesting, and shed light on his relationships with the others.

reply

I agree flutterby, it added to the traumatic events leading up to being fed protein bars. The simple fact that it rattled the OP means the part did what it was supposed to.

reply

That's kind of the point - he's saying he hates himself for knowing that babies taste the best. He's saying he's an awful person and that he's racked with guilt over what he did when others made the choice to sacrifice their limbs he couldn't. It makes him a more complex character, and not just a bland hero. We aren't really supposed to sympathise with his cannibalism, we're supposed to understand why he's been reticent to take on the position of leader, and why he's so angry with Wilford. When he later almost decides to do what Wilford wants, but then sacrifices his arm to save the boy instead it shows he has grown as a character and redeemed himself to some extent.

I don't think it was particularly artful, the film is really not very subtle, but the backstory made it more interesting, and shed light on his relationships with the others.


This. Great post.

"I'm the ultimate badass,you do NOT wanna f-ck wit me!"Hudson,Aliens😬

reply

That's kind of the point - he's saying he hates himself for knowing that babies taste the best. He's saying he's an awful person and that he's racked with guilt over what he did when others made the choice to sacrifice their limbs he couldn't. It makes him a more complex character, and not just a bland hero. We aren't really supposed to sympathise with his cannibalism, we're supposed to understand why he's been reticent to take on the position of leader, and why he's so angry with Wilford. When he later almost decides to do what Wilford wants, but then sacrifices his arm to save the boy instead it shows he has grown as a character and redeemed himself to some extent.

I don't think it was particularly artful, the film is really not very subtle, but the backstory made it more interesting, and shed light on his relationships with the others.


This. I loved that he sorta redeemed himself when he lost his arm trying to save Timmy.

"I'm the ultimate badass,you do NOT wanna f-ck wit me!"Hudson,Aliens😬

reply

No offense, but youre stupid

reply

Saying 'no offense' doesn't actually make rude comments any less rude, you know.

reply

Saying 'no offense' doesn't actually make rude comments any less rude, you know.


True, but its good to say if you were not intending to be insulting and just pointing out something you think needed to be said(not that I'm saying that the OP is, or is not stupid).

reply

Yeah, that monologue was supposed to be some kind of Oscar reel but I thought it was way OTT and should have been cut.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

I cheered at the line knowing it would be true and the only reason for leaving it out would be to placate the sensitive ones. He said it to illustrate a point.

how are we supposed to be cool with the main character

Do you really have to be?

We've met before, haven't we?

reply

I hated the line for different reasons. Babies are fat and therefore not good eating at all. So I thought the line was stupidity meant to shock that failed to do so. The logic and the statement were both ridiculous to me.

reply

What are you an idiot? Fat is what makes meat tasty

reply

You must be a vegetarian. Anyone who eats meat knows that the fat content is crucial to the taste. Marbled beef, for instance, tastes much better than lean beef. I imagine -- and I'm not speaking from personal experience, I swear -- that fat people taste better than skinny people precisely for that reason.

So the moral of the story? The maternity wad and Overeaters Anonymous...those are the places you should start if you have to resort to cannibalism.

reply

he didn't say babies were most nutritious, plus, haven't you ever heard of veal?

reply

That whole scene was so over the top it just became funny. It was an unintentional parody.

reply

I thought that line (the entire monologue, in fact) was actually some of the best acting ever from Chris Evans. It made the whole movie make sense as an allegory. Fantastically delivered.

reply

Yeah. It was a great line and a great scene.

No one is perfect....Even Heroes. Even Beowulf was kind of a pompous ass....

reply

[deleted]

yes. i agree - also, this was during the part of the movie i was still enjoying before i realized it was a HUGE steaming turd.
very well acted by evans, and started off great but the entire plot made no sense and ultimately it was a huge disappointment for me.

reply

Oh, yeah, Chris' acting in that scene was reallllly good. I think that and the death scene for his character in Sunshine are probably the best I've ever seen from him. I mean, wow. I was like, "man, you'd think this guy was actually trying to push through the unbearable pain of keeping going while having to crawl in and out of subzero liquid." (Also, can we just talk about how a Chris Evans character died from freezing to death? XD Oh, the irony...)

reply

You're not supposed to be cool with it. That's the entire point. The movie was about the extremes humanity has been driven to when facing extinction, and the fact that there's always ambiguity when trying to decide who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Wilford is a monster...who just happened to save humanity (for a while, anyway.) Gilliam saved baby Edgar, and remains with the oppressed of the tail end, but colludes with Wilford. Curtis is a hero, a leader (albeit unwillingly) but committed horrific acts in his past. The movie actually wants you to think. Curtis murdered people and ate babies, but he was in a desperate situation and faced with starvation. Gilliam saved baby Edgar by offering up his own arm as a sacrifice, but helps keep the population in the tail oppressed. And both Gilliam and Wilford saw something in Edgar that made them believe he could take Wilford's place. This isn't a feel-good movie, and it isn't asking you to cheer on Captain America as he fights the Nazis. It's asking you to see that the line between Captain America and the Nazis can be very, very thin.

reply

Curtis murdered people and ate babies, but he was in a desperate situation and faced with starvation. Gilliam saved baby Edgar by offering up his own arm as a sacrifice, but helps keep the population in the tail oppressed. And both Gilliam and Wilford saw something in Edgar that made them believe he could take Wilford's place. This isn't a feel-good movie, and it isn't asking you to cheer on Captain America as he fights the Nazis. It's asking you to see that the line between Captain America and the Nazis can be very, very thin.
Love this point- well said 

"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."

reply