Passengers

“You can’t get so hung up on where you’d rather be, that you forget to make the most of where you are.”

Director	Year	Genre	Run time	Rating
Morten Tyldum	2016	Sci-Fi, Action, Romance	116 min

This review is brimming with spoilers, but if you haven’t seen Passengers, know that its negative buzz is unjustified. This is a perfectly fine blockbuster, delivering exactly what you’d expect.

The film is set on a spaceship en route on a 120-year journey to a planet where its hibernating passengers will start a new civilisation. Alas, a meteor storm causes the mechanic Jim’s hibernation pod to malfunction and wake him up, with 90 years still to go.

Why there’s no back-up protocol is one of many baffling plot holes one could easily complain about in Passengers, but they never really bothered me. Logical inconsistencies mostly bother me if a) the film is a masterpiece, in which case all any minor quibbles are relevant in assessing whether the film is indeed a masterpiece, and b) in puzzle films where the point is for the storytelling to be clever and cohesive (like most of Nolan’s movies).

Over the course of one solitary year, Jim quietly goes insane. He almost ends his misery by hurling himself into outer space, in a sequence that would’ve been devastating if not for the intrusive score. Passengers works best early on when it feels like a fresh take on the spaceship movie, as opposed to later where it grows increasingly generic.

Jim’s melancholy evaporates when he sees the journalist Aurora sleeping in one of the hibernation pods. He is instantly taken with her beauty, and grows increasingly attached to her as he stalks her online, and falls in love with her writing. This poses the central dilemma of Passengers, the resolution of which received endless complaints from critics: Should Jim wake up Aurora? He obviously does, and it’s obviously an unethical decision since he condemns her to share his unfortunate fate. The controversy arises when assessing whether the film condones his choice. Many complain it does, because Jim and Aurora end up together. These critics believe that the film is ultimately a love story between a victim and her abuser. In my opinion, however, one can only maintain this view by focusing on the overall structure of the film, while ignoring the specifics. I don’t think that’s fair. The specifics matter, and if you take them into account this story explores the limits of self-control and discipline on one hand, and redemption and forgiveness on the other. Two plot points especially supports this argument.

Firstly, Jim knows that waking Aurora is morally wrong, and summons all his self-control not to do it. Being human, however, he eventually fails. He gives in because he’s a broken man, and the film frames his decision as a horrible mistake made by a desperate person. Secondly, Aurora reacts appropriately when she learns why she woke up. She hates Jim, wants nothing to with him, and almost kills him in a scene where Jim is willing to let her. Aurora only forgives Jim when she’s faced with the prospect of being put in his shoes, and momentarily imagines the hell he lived in for a year. This, combined with Jim’s willingness to die for the safety of others, makes Aurora realise that Jim’s not a monster, but a decent man who succumbed to inhumane pressure.

The film firmly takes the stand that Jim’s decision was a horrible, but human, mistake. I found it to be an interesting dilemma, handled in an engaging and satisfying manner. Additionally, it’s refreshing to have a Hollywood hero that makes a gruesome mistake. Jim isn’t a knight in shining armour – he’s a flawed person who reacts like most of us would.

The film is sexy (prepare for some hilariously framed butt-shots), has gorgeous production design, and thrilling action sequences. In one scene, the ship loses gravity while Aurora is in the pool. It’s an original and engaging set piece that delivers exactly the kind of special effects laden thrills you want from this kind of film.

The last third of the film grows increasingly contrived, and swaps interesting problems and character-explorations for standard “the spaceship is blowing up” stuff. It hits these beats in a fine but formulaic manner. Lawrence Fishburne is clearly having fun as the crew member who wakes up later on. Michael Sheen, meanwhile, is the real revelation, as the ship’s robot bartender. The character has a certain amount of personality, while clearly being A.I. His dialogue is amazing; when Jim asks whether he should wake Aurora, he replies: “Jim, these are not robot questions.”

Something about Chris Pratt’s performance didn’t quite work for me. He clearly made a decision to be less manly and roguish than we’ve seen in Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World, but while I admire the attempt to expand his range, something about Jim’s soft-puppy nature felt wrong. Jennifer Lawrence is great, and it was a pleasure to be reminded why everyone loves her, especially after disliking her previous four films (Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 & 2, Joy, and X-Men: Apocalypse). She sells the determination when Aurora wakes up, the romance when she falls for Jim, and the horror when she learns the truth. Lawrence is beautiful and charismatic; a bona fide movie star. One day, however, I hope she does another indie-drama. Winter’s Bone is still her best performance to date.

I enjoyed Passengers. Sometimes if a film is too hyped up, you’re disappointed by it even though it’s a good film. With Passengers, I went in expecting a train-wreck, and was pleasantly surprised to see a fairly entertaining and interesting sci-fi film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1355644/combined

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passengers_(2016_film)

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/passengers-2016

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=passengers2016.htm