Let's get this out of the way. Yes, this is my first review. I've watched about half of IMDb's top 250, and did like most of them. Somebody brought this movie to my attention, and as a 7/10 I didn't have high expectations. Honestly, though, knowing this is at least an attempt at some sort of allegory, most of the plot holes are kind of petty and minor. Comparing Snowpiercer to "The Room" (don't watch that) because you couldn't tell how someone would have an Irish accent, or realized that the premise of this movie is brutal and inconvenient - is kind of realizing the problem with 99% of all movies altogether.
For anyone brutally bothered about plot holes, tell me, is The Hunger Games more logical? Ant-man? Even Inception, the Dark Knight, or Lord Of The Rings? You can't blame a movie for plot holes, rate it a 1, and then ignore those same plot holes in every other movie in existence. By that token, any and all of the Star Wars movies should be rated a 2.
No. People here are nitpicking, and that's a nice way to put it. You don't know how the cockroaches kept spawning? Jesus, maybe they breed fast. I have no idea. But then you should point out that Yoda's aches and pains should have technically kept him out of commission years ago, Jack Sparrow should be dead, Captain America has no sources for his morals, Harry Potter makes no sense, and any and all plot holes about Mordor that you can find online.
But do they? Nope. Most of the negative reviews here are a one-show, leading me to think there's someone with multiple accounts and a large amount of time to hate this movie.
I've seen quite a few sci-fi films - I'm no newbie to the genre. But their are always plot holes in those films, at least technical ones. Faulting Snowpiercer (an allegory, of all things) for having plot holes that are granted in other movies is just not right.
