Skip to main content

Passing Time with Passengers


          It’s ironic that one of the production companies behind Passengers is called Original Films, because that is certainly not what this movie is. Don’t get me wrong, its basic premise and set-up is incredibly fascinating but the way it goes about telling its story is often clichéd and contrived. Yet despite that, this film isn’t quite as bad as its 30% on Rotten Tomatoes would have you believe.
          Set during what’s presumably the last stage in a Civilization game, a massive ship called the Avalon is on a one hundred twenty year mission to a planet called Homestead II to colonize. Thousands of passengers and crew are on board in stasis, however due to a slight malfunction, Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) awakens ninety years early with no power to re-enter stasis. One year later, another passenger Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence) awakens as well, and a romance develops between the two doomed to spend the rest of their lives alone on this spaceship.
          The visuals are really good, and not just in the CGI effects, but the production design is terrific. You get a real feel for this ship, its vastness and variance. Though the outer corkscrew design is funny at first, it is fairly unique, and the interior looks great. If you had to be trapped on a ship for the rest of your life, this isn’t a bad one. It’s highly technologically advanced, and diverse in recreation and faculties, all of which is shot wonderfully.
          Also the characters are decent enough. Though neither is all that interesting, Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence perform their desperation well, and are as usual pretty likeable. They have alright chemistry. The portion early on where Jim is on his own is very well done, you feel his hopelessness, and Pratt shows he can perform serious drama as well as charming comedy. Michael Sheen plays a robotic bartender called Arnold who keeps them company, and he’s the most enjoyable character. What then, is the major problem with this movie?
          Well simply enough, it’s the story. Though the idea is really promising, the execution doesn’t live up to potential. It also has an unfortunate tendency to handle curious story facets poorly. Early on, there’s a moral dilemma that permeates the rest of the film and it’s a very interesting one. I actually like it a lot, and the hypothetical it poses the audience. But I feel like it would have worked a lot better narratively if it was a twist revealed later on. Because of its placement in the story, it lessens the tension as you’re just waiting for the expected to occur. And there are a few clichés in this movie, some regarding the romance, others with the state of the ship itself. 
          Hints are repeatedly dropped that whatever woke these passengers early is affecting the ships’ functioning capabilities as well. And this comes to a head in the last act where the movie needs to become a thriller. But the romance and thriller elements don’t really work together and it’s quite distracting. There’s a new element introduced late in the film that’s incredibly pointless and a pure plot device, just as hastily and conveniently done away with. Which is a shame because taken in another direction, it could have led to something much better, some drama you could really sink your teeth into. The climax is pretty frustrating, it’s way too repetitive, not nearly as gripping as it should be, and is trying too hard to wrap up both the thriller and romantic elements that neither is fully satisfying. 
          And of course there’s a lot this film is borrowing from other science fiction. Every time the characters leave the ship to float outside it’s very reminiscent of Gravity. There are elements of The Martian, Alien, and 2001 in there as well. The design of Arnold’s bar is pretty much a direct rip-off of The Shining with Arnold dressed in the same outfit as that films’ ghostly bartender Lloyd. And then the last act ship malfunction and attempt to fix it is akin to dozens of episodes of Star Trek, only done with a better budget.
          Technically, Passengers isn’t a good film. It’s story is pretty sloppy, it doesn’t know how to balance certain elements, and has a poor and fairly predictable last act. But I am still glad I saw it. This movie was directed by Morten Tyldum who previously made The Imitation Game and while Passengers isn’t as good, it has a few more memorable elements to it. The idea behind the story and the set-up itself is really intriguing to me, and the good effects, production design and performances make it believable for a lot of the runtime. Even with the expected plot points and early twist, I appreciated the first couple acts and was curious where it was going to go. In the end, it doesn’t work as a whole, but it’s not quite a waste of time. Just don’t pay full price.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, emphasizing

The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973) Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestiv

Pixar Sundays: The Incredibles (2004)

          Brad Bird was already a master by the time he came to Pixar. Not only did he hone his craft as an early director on The Simpsons , but he directed a little animated film for Warner Bros. in 1999, that though not a box office success was loved by critics and quickly grew a cult following. The Iron Giant is now among many people’s favourite animated movies. Likewise, Bird’s feature debut at Pixar, The Incredibles , his own variation of a superhero movie, is often considered one of the studio’s best. And for very good reason, as the most talented director at Pixar shows.            Superheroes were once the world’s greatest crime-fighting force until several lawsuits for collateral damage (and in the case of Mr. Incredible, a hilarious suicide prevention), outlawed their vigilantism. Fifteen years later Mr. Incredible, now living as Bob Parr, has a family with his wife Helen, the former Elastigirl. But Bob, in a combination of mid-life crisis and nostalgia for the old day