Logic is out the window. The entire premise is a practical joke.

Rating: 3/10 (6 March 2017)

It's OK when a well-made science fiction movie requires the audience to take a leap of faith, especially when it's a space thriller. For example, most sci-fi fans take for granted concepts such as time-travel, hyper-space, FTL, wormholes, etc. As long as the story and characters are good, everything else is secondary and certain far-fetched ideas are acceptable. In this movie, the main premise is that a super-advanced, highly automated, human-made space ship transports people in stasis pods to a distant colony while traveling at half the speed of light, and the whole trip will take about 120 years. OK. Fine. This is the future, so we can accept that. The problem is that many of the events driving the story contradict that basic premise.
1. Transporting humans in stasis – that's the single most important function of the space ship. That's what it was made for. Well, it turns out that whoever designed the ship did not plan a fail-safe in case a stasis pod malfunctions. In fact, this incredibly advanced ship automatically comes to life when someone wakes up, and it can sense what a person wants to drink at the bar, or how they feel, but somehow the ship doesn't 'see' the bigger picture - that someone is awake 90 years too soon! And how do they explain this in the movie - "The pods were not supposed to ever fail". This is absurd. That would be like building a limousine with a bar and an entertainment center, that didn't come with an airbag because, well it's not supposed to ever crash.
2. Can't go back into stasis once you are awake. Yea sure, this ship - a feat of human engineering, whose main purpose is to transport people in stasis over vast distances over hundreds of years of flight time, does not have the capability of putting someone back into stasis. How is that nonsense explained in the movie – "going into stasis is a very long and complicated process that requires special equipment, which is not available on this super-advanced ship". Just to clarify, we are supposed to believe that letting someone go back into stasis is MORE complicated than building a ship that can travel at 50% the speed of light, that can automatically sense incoming asteroids and divert power to the main shield to protect itself, and that can slingshot itself around a red giant star while withstanding super-hot temperatures. But putting people back to sleep well that's just way too complicated, so to hell with it. If someone wakes up tough luck.
3. But wait, it turns out later that that's not entirely true. There is one automated medical pod that can possibly put a person into stasis. HUH? Wait, so it CAN be done after all? Why didn't they engineer that capability in all the stasis pods? And was there really a SINGLE med pod on the entire ship supporting 5000 people? What about spares? What if that med pod malfunctioned? LOL! It turns out that ship was only advanced in certain aspects, but it's really crappy when it comes to preserving human life. The writers basically wrote themselves into a whole, piling up ridiculous explanations as to why only one person on the entire ship could go back into stasis, but two people couldn't. Very weak.
4. The stasis pods can actually kill someone in a slow and agonizing way, by inducing hundreds of life-threatening conditions AT THE SAME TIME. Fantastic! I thought the ship was designed to recognize a pod malfunction and interrupt the stasis BEFORE a person is killed or severely harmed.
5. The flight crew are never awoken, even when critical systems start to fail. So, basically, this ship was designed, so that everyone will either reach the destination, OR everyone will die in their sleep. No matter how bad things get, and how necessary the engineering crew is, there are no fail-safe systems to wake up the people who can actually fix stuff. The only time anyone is pulled out of stasis is when their individual pod malfunctions. Obviously the ship couldn't repair itself without human intervention, so why wasn't human intervention pre-programmed as a response to major breakage? Why would anyone go into this flying death trap? Ridiculous.
Now, about some of the decision making by the three passengers.
6. Why didn't Gus take the pain meds knowing that he had to survive for as long as possible to repair the ship, and why did he later regret not taking them, right before he died? Just another stupidity that remained unexplained.
7. Oh, and when the ship was about to fail completely, why did the two protagonists stop by the bar to deactivate Arthur? For some reason they decided that fixing the android bartender was more important than saving the ship and everyone on it. These two deserved to die just for that stupidity.
8. And more when they searched the main engineering section for "something broken", the guy said that it would take too long to wake up the crew. So, somehow he came to the conclusion that it would be faster for two unqualified passengers to troubleshoot and fix a super-advanced space ship, than to wake up a crew of engineers whose job was to fix the ship? W.T.F.! They should have woken people up the minute they saw flames in the engine chamber, or even sooner.
Am I overthinking these things? How do I leave my brain by the door before watching a movie? In some scifi movies the 'science' part is supposed to be ignored to some extent, but this is not one of them because the whole story revolves around the science aspects of the ship, many of which make no sense. FAIL. 3 stars for the special effects.