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.

Mrrogersbestneighbor When I was looking at the negative reviews, they seemed completely focused on the fact that there are some major plots holes. I'll list some of the major ones with potential explanations at the bottom. But I find the plot holes completely irrelevant (even for ones you can't possibly come up with any creative explanation for), considering this obviously isn't a movie to be taken 100% seriously. If it was, why did they insert a comedic bit mid film? Hell, the entire plot is the last of humanity is surviving on a train that goes across the entire globe... Why anyone would think that a movie with a plot such as this is meant to be taken completely seriously as a realistic possible doomsday scenario is beyond me. Even in the biggest movies, like Star Wars, you could list dozens of plot holes. Like just one example, what is the point of lightsabers when you have guns that shoot lasers? The answer is because they're cool and F off for taking that movie completely seriously when it's clearly one of those great movies that you need to suspend disbelief to enjoy the universe it creates. Plot holes imo, are usually only a major problem in a film when they involve interpersonal interactions (like when characters lack all communication skills to artificially move the plot forward, like a character somehow doesn't think to say something EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that would have solved or prevented a problem) or if the movie is attempting to be true to reality as something that is probable. There are no such plot holes in this movie. With that out of the way, the movie has all the great elements of most movies. Character development, the pacing is great, a bit of action, comedy and creates an interesting surreal dark world that is entertaining to watch unfold. It almost has some elements of "The Hunger Games" and "The Signal" in style. A huge proportion of the characters are completely insane and it works great for a movie like this (which again, why would you take it seriously in the first place after reading the plot synopsis?) If you aren't looking for plot holes or explanations for the entirety of the movie and are capable to suspend disbelief, enjoy a bit of dark comedy, some violence and a fairly unique apocalyptic political dynamic among A LOT of crazy people in the unique universe it creates you're in for a ride.NOW FOR THE PLOT HOLE EXPLANATIONS. SPOILERS: 1. People frozen out the window haven't thawed. How can they then survive outside of the train. It's clearly still extremely cold. Potential explanation- The people that jumped the train left at the wrong time. The train goes up and down in altitude and crosses all over the planet where places will be warmer or colder depending on where you are. Also, people have discovered frozen people in mountains before. You know that right? Just because someone is frozen, doesn't mean it isn't possible to live anywhere if you have clothing that is sufficiently warm. Once you're dead, your body doesn't produce any heat. When your alive, it does. Completely possible for people to be frozen and the climate to still be viable to live in. 2. Couldn't they just have had a policy limiting the number of children they produce to control the population? There's a couple explanations you could come up with to explain that. 1) Like in China, perhaps they did, but it never worked. Turns out people still have sex when you have a population control policy. And birth control is something you could easily run out of with limited resources (shouldn't need that explanation, since it's pretty obvious). And 2) It's been pretty well documented that depression and suicide rates go up when a population isn't at war. When there isn't anything to fight for or any crisis, a substantial amount of people lose meaning in life. Having this artificial crisis can provide meaning for a population who would likely be VERY prone to depression, when the entire purpose of their life is simply to survive in a train.

MichaelMRamey This was a fun film to watch because of its linear simplistic story. You get a good understanding of the plot at the beginning and it's literally getting from the back of the train to the front, while going through different unique and sometimes visually pleasing train cars. I would go as far as saying the is the best performance of Chris Evans I've ever seen. Would highly recommend just based on the good Sci-Fi plot.

Invader Xan This movie was... interesting. There were some nice ideas and concepts in there, but ultimately it just made a big mess inside my head. And I'm not going to pick out plot holes because hell, just read any of the other reviews on this page. But combined, they felt a bit distracting.The art and style is great. The whole thing is interestingly designed, and certain motifs like the big W logo come together at the ending when the main plot twist is revealed. Some of the character design may be a little goofy, but it fits with the overall tone. A lot of this movie is very visually attractive and the actors do a good job of keeping the narrative going. The choice of bilingual dialogue is an interesting one too, and not something which is used often enough in cinema, in my opinion.The trouble, the way I see it, is that most of the tropes in this film, dystopian or otherwise, have been handled better in other films.The population is controlled by both the top level and the bottom level being controlled in unison, leading to regular revolts by the lower class which are ultimately doomed to failure while still allowing room for the cycle to continue. That's basically the same premise as the latter two Matrix films.A dystopian society is subdivided into a starving and oppressed lower class who live in abject poverty and a flamboyantly dressed upper class who seemingly do little else but engage in mindless hedonism. That's essentially the worldbuilding from The Hunger Games.Brainwashing people with pseudo-religious propaganda to believe the person in charge is some kind of benevolent and merciful overlord... I can't think of an example offhand but I know I've seen that before.I was honestly surprised when those protein blocks the lower class were eating weren't rebranded soylent green. Though I have to wonder where they got all the roaches from. Were they farming them?All that said, a lot of good plot setups and payoffs are there in the writing. The drug is an explosive, the matches save the day twice, the uncomfortable regularity of characters losing limbs, and so on. Most of the plots and arcs are well constructed and you genuinely do feel empathy for some of the characters, making for some sad moments when they met their ends. The trouble is that the ending felt... Derailing. Pun intended. Giving it a full on Blake's 7 ending made a lot of the movie's main conflict feel a little pointless in hindsight. And why was there a polar bear on top of the mountain? They hunt seals.Additionally the whole thing about Curtis not wanting to lose his arm as a character arc feels a little tacked on TBH. But that's probably what happens when you squeeze most of a character arc into the final act of a story. Also, dammit Chris Evans, what is it with you getting limbs stuck in machinery at the end of movies?Overall, this movie feels more Waterworld than Fury Road, as far as dystopian stories go. It's worth watching as an entertaining and slightly larger than life action movie, as long as you don't pay too much attention to the finer details. But it certainly won't be for everyone.