Strong movie that fails to fulfil its ambition

Rating: 8/10 (9 January 2017)

"Passengers" has received a very negative appraisal from many critics, scoring a paltry 31% on Rotten Tomatoes at the time of writing. After seeing the movie, I find it hard to comprehend what it is that so many critics disliked. It seems to me that a film that has attempted a very ambitious concept and not wholly succeeded has been disproportionately punished for its ambition and that had director Morten Tyldum and writer Jon Spaihts aimed lower they might have been received more positively.
At its heart, "Passengers" is a morality tale. Jim (Chris Pratt) is accidentally awoken 30 years into a 120 year space flight and, unable to put himself back to sleep, he faces spending the rest of his life alone while the other 5,000 passengers sleep out the rest of the journey. He becomes obsessed with Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence), a writer also making the journey. Before long, his desire for company overwhelms him and he wakes her up, condemning her to share his fate. Jim keeps his terrible secret from Aurora and allows a romantic connection to form between them.
The concept is flawlessly introduced. The pacing of the first act is perfect, the film patient enough to display the desperation of Jim's position and throwing in enough humour to prevent things becoming unduly depressing. Jim's dilemma - encapsulated in his question to Arthur, the robot bartender (played wonderfully by Michael Sheen), "If you were stuck on a desert island for the rest of your life and had the ability to wish someone there but neither of you would ever be able to leave, would you do it?" - is a fascinating moral problem that the film at least begins to address with some depth. It is hard to imagine an audience member not asking themselves whether they think they would display the willpower to remain forever alone and spare the life of another.
Unfortunately the film does eventually fail to maintain the serious examination of this problem and the third act of the movie descends into unnecessary action shenanigans and a woefully neat solution to the moral dilemma is forged. There are definite signs here that a room of suits decided that the audience shouldn't be forced to reflect on whether Jim should be forgiven for his actions or how human nature and endless empty time might interact with each other to produce complicated reactions that reach beyond the moral examination of a fortune cookie. For this the film does fail in its initial ambition.
In my view however, the first 90 minutes of this movie are worth the viewing and elevate the film beyond the average popcorn movie that it could so easily have been from the outset. The performances from Pratt, Lawrence and Sheen are all very strong, aided in no small part by grounded, relatable dialogue from Spaihts. This everyman feel to the movie, so necessary to allow us to put ourselves in the centre of the moral dilemma, should have been allowed to continue into the third act, and is shattered by the unlikely heroics at the end.
It does seem to me that had the creators of this film decided to begin this movie in a much simpler, more action-centred way, it would not have been so harshly treated and could easily have been received by critics in a way comparable to Marvel movies of recent years - conventional, predictable and well-trodden stories, capably rendered for the screen. By attempting something fresher and more complex, "Passengers" has instead been punished for reaching a little higher and coming one act short of something special.