Change Your Image
Mrrogersbestneighbor
Reviews
Snowpiercer (2013)
Spoilers on the bottom, safe to read until CAPS. This movie is a ride, plot holes irrelevant.
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.
Cargo (2017)
Decent zombie flick, negative reviews overly hyperbolic. Spoilers at the bottom.
As someone who mostly enjoys fairly mindless zombie films full of action, i actually enjoyed this. Now was it slow at parts? Yeah. While it's not an AMAZING film, the story kept my interest enough for me to actually want to see it through. A few times I wanted to take a break or two and watch it later, but the story held my interest enough to see it through.
As for the negative comments, they have some merit, but are way over the top in hyperbole. I generally hate movies or shows that are dependent on the profound stupidity of the characters and/or complete lack of communication skills (to the point where you're shouting "JUST SAY ______". How could you not think to communicate this?).
Most of criticism centers around the "profoundly stupid" actions that led the characters to where they ended up. However you'd expect people not to be at peak mental performance after the trauma of a zombie apocalypse, especially when you're low on food and have had to scavenge for it for weeks following. The mistakes made are ones I would expect of people in that context, if you can call them mistakes to begin with. Most of the criticism is just 20/20 hindsight.
The negative comments kind of remind me of people with severe road rage, where they judge everyone driving around them as "profoundly stupid" or completely negligent while ignoring their own mistakes when they drive. I have a job where I'm driving more than half the time I'm working and overall I believe people are pretty awful drivers generally. But I also recognize I make mistakes too. And I'm sure I'd make a whole lot more mistakes in my driving if I was deprived of food and had just gone through the trauma of a zombie apocalypse.
SPOILERS:
Here are the two events that are getting most of the negative reviews.
1. He didn't tell his wife there was a zombie in the small boat he found supplies on.
For one, he never encountered a zombie on the boat. Yes, he heard something that you would strongly suspect is a zombie. But he never saw it.
Second, why would you expect him to think his wife would go back to the boat after he had already scoured it for supplies? Would he expect his wife to not trust that he found everything of value from it?
Third, previously there was dialogue between them where they were explicitly hoping that the zombie apocalypse was only contained in the city they came from. They had hope that if they went down the river further, everything was going to be fine. If he told his wife he strongly suspected he heard a zombie on the boat, wouldn't that deflate any hope she would have? Especially for her daughter. While it is clear the boat wasn't docked and half sunk, just talking about the fact that it was sunk as the result of the zombie apocalypse would kill any hope you'd have that everything is fine where you're traveling to.
2. He swerved into a tree to avoid hitting a zombie.
While the negative criticism addresses the fact that he wasn't sure if it was a zombie or a human, many of them say he should've just hit the guy anyways for being so stupid to stand in the middle of the road, rather than swerving into a tree.
So a few questions:
-When people swerve on the road normally to avoid an accident, do they intentionally hit a tree or telephone pole before they do? I mean when you look at pictures of a car wrapped around a tree, do you think "Hey, why'd they hit that tree? That's pretty dumb of them. I wouldn't ever drive my car into a tree." I mean when people swerve to avoid an accident, do they always have the foresight they're going to run into something else?
-If there's a person in the middle of the road, even potentially a desperate hitchhiker, and your wife has a condition where she needs medical attention (knowing it's most likely hopeless) within 40 hours (the hospital isn't nearly a 40 hour drive, that's a 3000 mile drive nonstop), would you think, "Forget that guy, I got only 20-40 to go" Would you seriously risk killing someone to save a few seconds on your drive to attempt to save someone who has extremely little hope of surviving anyways?
Where that piece of criticism has some merit is that the "swerve to avoid the zombie/person in the middle of the road" has been overly played out. It's a minor annoyance, especially as a plot device to keep the story moving. But it's not a deal breaker to merit a 2 star review.
One of the major criticisms I have is the fact that Vic, the main antagonist, seemed overly comfortable to show the main protagonist the people he kept in cages to use as bait. I mean he didn't have any questions about it and Vic provided no real explanation to justify his actions. He just seemed to be a psychopath who assumed the protagonist wouldn't mind. The writers surely could've given Vic a little more depth and provided a more creative explanation for why he felt justified to do that and explain it to the protagonist (Like he treats them well, or the people he has in the cages wronged him in some way). He merely just said he did it in the name of "survival" which is silly to expect everyone would be onboard with such a minimal explanation. Especially to a stranger who you just met.
Overall, enjoy the film. Don't let hindsight cause you to judge their actions.
It's far from a perfect film, but it's by no means awful. And it might give you a little bit of feels in the end.
Battlestar Galactica (2004)
First two seasons will easily be near the best shows you ever watch. Avoid three and four!
If I had to give one suggestion to anyone thinking about getting into this show, the most valuable suggestion I could give you would be to watch only the first two seasons, minus the last 10-20 minutes of the season finale of season 2.
Why, you might ask? If they had left the show ending at that point in the show, while it wouldn't polish up everything perfectly, it would still leave a fairly satisfying, but bittersweet ending to the show. Not to mention the first two seasons are HIGHLY entertaining to watch and nearly impossible not to binge watch. While the last two seasons are far less entertaining and rely solely on building up your interest with mysterious plot points only to end with an almost hilariously simple/terrible climax, leaving many (if not most) of those mysteries unanswered.
The show delves into various social issues, competing interests, etc... all in the backdrop of a post-apocalypse in space. Overall, it's incredibly thoughtful as well as thrilling to watch. And unlike most of the greatest shows out there, I can't fault BSG when it comes to a show's typical overuse of interpersonal drama that depends solely on character's awful communication skills, rather than character driven balancing of needs and interests (You know, when you see characters get into a dispute and in your head you're shouting "Dude, just SAY _____ AND THIS WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM! HOW COULD ANYONE NOT THINK TO COMMUNICATE THAT?!" But you just let it slide, because otherwise, the rest of the show is that good that you can overlook that.).
The best way to describe seasons 3 and 4 would be like going to a show of a prominent magician who puts on an incredible show with the promise to reveal the audience how his tricks are done at the end (like Penn & Teller's shows). And throughout the show your mind is running through different scenarios as to how each trick could have possibly been performed. You're dying to know how they could have so thoroughly deceived your mind to create such a fantastic illusion. Finally, the show comes to an end, you're about to finally figure out how they did it. And the magician reveals.... they're actually a sorcerer and there was no trick. They simply willed things to appear and disappear and solid objects to pass through other solid objects. (Obviously seeing someone being an actual sorcerer would be incredibly shocking. Not a perfect analogy, I know. So for the sake of this analogy, let's assume sorcery is extremely common and it would be an unimpressive feat?)
Seasons 3 and 4 take the show from primarily a sci-fi show with religion as part of the backdrop, to a show that then relies heavily on supernatural mysticism. And while I have no problem with sci-fis with supernatural elements, it's the laziness with which it was implemented in to tie up the story at the end.
This is the best way I can describe it without spoiling it anyways.
After watching seasons 3 and 4, it'll be clear that the show writers never came up with an ending to the show and that in writing the story and coming up with various ideas for mysterious plot points, they were overconfident in their ability to come up with solutions to them. As a result, the ending feels rushed, is mystifying and completely unsatisfying. There has never been a show or movie that has left me feeling so betrayed at the end after being so thoroughly enthralled with the story. I'd compare it to Lost, but I never really got into Lost. I've heard it compared with it though.
That said, do yourself a favor and only watch the first two seasons, cutting short the season 2 finale by 15-20 minutes. It'll tie up the show far better. Not to mention the first two seasons are far more entertaining than the last two.
If I had to rate the difference between them I'd put:
Seasons 1 & 2 - 10/10
Seasons 3 & 4 - 4/10
Which is why I settled on an 8. Just enough to decrease the overall rating slightly as the show ends abysmally, while still acknowledging that the first two seasons by themselves would probably make Battlestar Galactica nearly the best show I've ever watched.
The Outsider (2018)
Incredibly empty of a movie I had very high hopes with.
First off, does it deserve 1 star? No. But the baffling amount of 7+ star reviews forced me to give this a 1 to balance it out.
The plot itself is what turned me onto the film. However the story has VERY little to do with the plot and instead the movie unfolds like any other movie with typical protagonists who are loyal to each other. With spontaneous jealousy with absolutely no build up thrown in.
There is exceptionally little character development or exploration of the "fish out of water" type of story you will be expecting watching this. Throughout the entire movie, I kept thinking "it's bound to get good soon", but by the end I just found myself laughing and thinking "That's it? Really? I waited 2 hours for that?"
Throughout the movie it was incredibly hard to stay motivated to continue watching it. I kept opening up tabs and opted instead to spend time reading about Japanese tattoo culture, as I found that vastly more interesting than anything the movie presented itself with. It's especially hard to watch a movie that is almost completely absent of a climax or turning point.
The acting was great, but the stars weren't left with anything to go off of. And because of how simplistic the story unfolded, it was extremely predictable. Normally, for me at least, that's not as much of a problem if the movie has a lot of thrilling action or suspense in it. I like very thoughtful developed plots and characters as much as anyone, but I also enjoy mindless action movies. Well, there is no thrilling action or suspense, nothing to get your heart rate going up a single beat in a minute. It just comes in very predictable bursts with nothing on the line to provoke a sense of urgency or intensity. Every time you think it might result in something exciting, it goes nowhere and flat lines. Or it results in tragedy, but because it fails to provide you with any real connection to the characters, you don't feel any sense of loss. Especially because the tragedy didn't begin with an intense fight or any potential way the characters could have fought their way out of it. It just... happens. There are no fights in the movie. Just violence or threats of violence from one individual to another, and the other person just receives it without challenge.
Instead of spending 2 hours watching this, I would highly recommend browsing Google about the Yakuza tradition of chopping off their own fingers, the aftermath of the atom bombs dropped on Japan, corruption in sumo wrestling and the stigma of tattoos in Japanese culture as that is vastly more entertaining. Even if you have absolutely no interest in those topics, at the very least you'd gain something from it.
If you haven't watched many movies in your lifetime at all, or just enjoy atmospheric scenery, you MIGHT enjoy this. As for me, it just left me with a lot of hope but just flat lined and left me feeling deflated and mystified that this has an average rating above 6/10. Perhaps I should've checked the top rated reviews before watching (usually in movies with a 5-7/10 rating, when the top rated reviews are high, I find it at least fairly entertaining. I have yet to enjoy such a movie when the top rated ratings are low. The only exceptions to this are movies based on a book with a huge fan base that I haven't read.).
Black Mirror: USS Callister (2017)
Rating just to spite the negative reviews
I normally don't write reviews for TV shows or movies, but felt compelled to write one after reading some of the negative reviews.
The one thing pointed out by most of the negative reviews (all of the ones I read), is that there are major plot holes. I, for one, get incredible annoyed by gaping plot holes in movies and TV shows. I'm generally a VERY critical person when it comes to any movie or show. When going into any movie, I automatically assume it'll probably be trash, which is why I'm not real keen on going to or watching movies that haven't been extensively reviewed and give me some understanding of what I'm getting into. I don't like wasting hours of my time on churned out movies for teenagers who have not been disappointed enough yet, who will then crack jokes with their friends about how bad that movie was for an hour afterwards.
That said, are there gaping plot holes in this episode? Absolutely. But do they detract from the concepts and psychology of the characters on display (which is entirely the main point of the episode)? Absolutely not.
It's very rare for me to embrace a movie or a show with gaping plot holes, but don't let that turn you off from watching it. As they can easily be overlooked when you provide thoughtful ideas and concepts as well as a strong character analysis, which is what this episode does. The journey itself was just a means of expressing those ideas. On the other hand, if this was a mindless action film (which I thoroughly enjoy from time to time), then the plot holes would matter as the journey is the entire value of the movie.
As I see it, complaining over the plot holes in this episode is like if someone were to make a big deal if someone pronounced a word incorrectly after making a very thoughtful and nuanced statement. Isn't the point of language to communicate an idea or concept? So as long as you understand what the person is communicating, fussing over their incorrect pronunciation is irrelevant to the thoughts or ideas they had expressed.
Is the episode perfect? No. But it certainly doesn't deserve 3 stars or lower because of plot holes which are completely irrelevant to the ideas and concepts communicated in this episode.