Passengers

WARNING: This review is hidden because it reveals the content of the film.
Click here to show this review. You can get away with a lot if you stick your landing and unfortunately, “Passengers” does not. This science-fiction drama/romance was just a few rewrites away from being a good film.

On the starship Avalon, a hibernation pod has malfunctioned. Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) has been awoken 90 years early. Out of loneliness, he awakes a fellow passenger, a beautiful woman named Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence).

If you’re going to see this film, make it on the big screen, and in 3D. There are many gorgeous shots of space and impressive special effects, along with new takes on the wonder and dangers associated with interstellar travel. While I believe that ultimately, the writing of this film brands it as a movie that's "not good", the production is top-notch. The cinematography, set design, visuals, and camera work are great. The performances are also strong. Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt go through a full range of emotions and their characters have layers to them. I was surprised when I realized that both of these people have jobs, and that they used these skills in realistic fashion throughout the story. It shows me that passion was behind this project and that the ending is more of a miscalculation than a deliberately malicious effort.

What this picture needed was a little push. Without giving too much away, the problem with “Passengers” is that there’s an aura of unease surrounding the romance, a love story that didn’t even need to be there. While the relationship between Aurora and Jim is believable (I thought Pratt and Lawrence had good chemistry) the catalyst that brings them together… it’s problematic. It’s not even that Jim has chosen to wake up Aurora because he likes the way she looks – when you see the film you realize that’s not entirely the case – it’s that it transforms what could’ve been a tough, cerebral story into a soft, traditionally Hollywood one. Compare “Passengers” to 2009’s “Moon”, for example. That picture had teeth. This one does not.

I can’t help but feel as though executive meddling was at hand here. Frequently throughout, I thought to myself “realistically, these characters should talk about X” or “He/She would feel Y at this time” and then it happened. There are little touches (like Michael Sheen as a robotic bartender) that make the Avalon feel real. Ironically, the film could’ve used a smaller budget; this would’ve eliminated the flashy climax and forced a focus on real-life emotions instead and the story COULD'VE worked.

“Passengers” is well cast and acted. The film looks great. It hints at a genuinely thought-provoking story, but that’s it; it only hints. A conventional finish, a soft one that aims to please (and still doesn’t) means that “Passengers” isn’t terrible, but it’s a major missed opportunity. (3D theatrical version on the big screen, December 24, 2016)