"Passengers"- An average Sci-Fi drama that is sadly more notable for the debate it has stirred about critic and audience perception than it is for its actual quality.

Rating: 6/10 (14 February 2017)

The fascinating thing about director Morten Tyldum's Sci-Fi drama "Passengers" is that it's become more a news-story than a movie. A symbol that perfectly surmises something that had become a highly debated subject by the time of its release in late 2016- that being the difference in opinion between professional film critics and the average movie-going audience. In a year filled with high profile duds that were beloved by fans despite their debatable poor quality and equally poor professional reception (I'm looking at you, "Batman V Superman", and I still am not ready to forgive you for letting me down!) and decent enough releases that were dismissed by audiences despite positive critical reception, the disconnect between what critics enjoy and what audiences love has turned into a hot-button topic. Even skimming through the first few pages of reviews here shows plenty of people whose focus seems to be more on "disproving the critics" than discussing the film itself. It's become such an issue for so many that people are more obsessed with the Rotten Tomatoes score for the film than with the film itself.
As a genre fan, I've always found these debates pretty fascinating, since many of the films I enjoy tend to be those that are often looked down on and dismissed outright by the mainstream. But I can understand why and accept that everyone's tastes are different. And in the case of "Passengers"... well, I hate to say it, but the film is almost more fascinating for raising these discussions and debates than anything else. On it's own, it's merely an enjoyable but very average Sci-Fi drama that boasts strong performances in the service of a very standard and even bland storyline.
Chris Pratt stars as Jim Preston, a passenger on-board the spaceship Avalon, who is accidentally awakened from hibernation 30 years into a 120 voyage to an Earth-like planet called Homestead II. Helpless and alone, he spends months trying to find a way to reactive his hibernation pod to no avail, before discovering and falling in love with a fellow passenger named Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence), learning about her through video-logs taken before the Avalon's departure. After spending months contemplating the dubious morality of awakening another passenger and sentencing them to a fate of possibly dying before reaching their destination, Jim decides to awaken Aurora and lie to her with the claim that her pod malfunctioned. Although shocked and heartbroken by her situation, she soon takes a liking to Jim and they quickly become lovers... but their connection is threatened when she learns the truth, and when a series of events occurs that may lead to the destruction of the Avalon.
Contrary to the common complaint that the questionable and troubling morality of the story is a negative, I actually thought it lent a lot of weight and drama to the proceedings. The film is most certainly at its strongest during its first half, which are almost exclusively focused on small character moments involving the increasingly- troubled Jim as he debates awakening Aurora, and their eventual sort-of courtship. The fact that Jim in a way is sort-of murdering her by taking her life away is a very strong theme, and I enjoyed it. Especially given the expert performances of the delightful Pratt and Lawrence, who are both acting their hearts out, and director Tyldum's strong visual direction.
Unfortunately, like many stories that start strong and put their focus almost exclusively on character, the film completely collapses in its second half, which is where it loses major points for me. Rather than simply telling a unique character-study about two people put into an extraordinary situation, the film then tries to saddle us with a series of increasingly convoluted plot-twists and developments and unnecessarily complicate matters, and it robs much of the drama and suspense. Basically, the first half is solid... the second half is a flippin' mess. It trades in the atmosphere of the earlier sequences for big, loud explosions and non-stop CGI-heavy effects sequences. And it gets rid of the quiet and contemplative moments of character development for every predictable suspense cliché in the book. And it almost ruins the entire film, dragging down what was otherwise a very decent drama and turning it into an average, run-of-the-mill sci-fi thriller where suspension of disbelief goes right out the window and you're left scratching your head at all the conveniences and plot- holes that pop up. It's really a shame.
As it stands, "Passengers" definitely has enough going for it in terms of strong performances, good visuals and an intriguing first- half that I would still give it a slight recommendation. But my suggestion? Once you hit the one-hour mark, you can basically stop paying attention. The first half of the film is quite well-constructed... the second half is just bland and predictable. And as a result, like I said above... it's almost more fascinating to watch for the debate it affords about critic vs audience perception than anything else.
I give it an average 6 out of 10.