Screenplay Written by Jon Spaihts
Directed by Morten Tyldum
* (one star)
RATED PG 13
And the list of terrible movies from 2016 grows even larger.
Dear readers, if there is anything that I cannot stand in Hollywood films is when the studios and filmmakers seemingly move mountains to ensure that the attractive leads they clearly paid oodles of money to obtain for their films remain likable within the film itself, even when it makes no narrative sense whatsoever.
In the case of Director Morten Tyldum's "Passengers," we are inflicted with this cinematic crime to such an odiously disturbing and frankly, irredeemable degree that that movie itself should be stopped within its tracks completely instead of lumbering full speed ahead, as it wrestles a romantic explosion into fruition yet one that it has never fully earned by any iota. As I tend to announce to you from time to time, I see these things so you do not have to. Believe me, dear readers, I took this one for the team!
"Passengers" stars the likable and attractive Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence as mechanical engineer Jim Parsons and writer Aurora Lane respectively as they voyage through the universe in hypersleep on the starship Avalon alongside 5000 travelers and 250 crew members from an over-populated Earth to the new colonization of Homestead II, a trip set to endure for 120 years. Yet, trouble strikes when both Jim and Aurora are awakened 90 years too soon, potentially dooming them both to die en route, making them eternal passengers, never reaching their intended destination unless they are able to discover why they were prematurely roused from induced hibernation and return to that state in the nick of time. And oh yes, no surprise at all, Jim and Aurora fall in love.
Now, for all intents and purposes, there are aspects about Morten Tyldum's "Passengers" that are just fine. It is a sleek looking production, in that overly slick to the point of feeling plastic CGI where its "Jetsons" meets the space cruise ship from "Wall-E" (2008) aesthetics provide that Hollywood sheen to go along with some cute satirical nods regarding state of the art technology gradually failing basic human needs (honestly, you can send Earthlings all the way to colonize a new world but an electronic message takes 55 years to travel back and forth?). The film does zip along from start to finish but that may have more to do with the "and then this happened" quality of the narrative, which often made "Passengers" feel as if it were badly stitched together from various screenplay drafts and all in the purpose of ensuring those likable and attractive leads remain romantically linked regardless of...well, hang on, we'll get to that.
Yes, Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence, two actors (especially Lawrence) who I enjoy seeing, are more than likable and attractive enough and they do indeed build and share a strong chemistry within the film despite every plot contrivance thrown at them and man, are the two of them more than agile enough to twist their acting muscles into all manner of pretzel logic shapes to make a film this ridiculous, sloppy and for that matter, conceptually troubling, all but unravel.
As you can see, I have been kind of dancing around a certain plot point contained in "Passengers" that for all intents and purposes should have stopped the film during the conception and forced the filmmakers to re-think and re-shape. Without explicitly revealing everything should you in case disregard my warning and see the film anyway, let's just say that one of the characters makes an...oh, shall we say...ethical decision that affects the other character's life entirely. Yet, because the studio wants for Pratt and Lawrence to remain likable and attractive to the audience at all times and therefore, fall in love, the script forces them to do just that when I would imagine in another film or if the scenario played out for real (of course, in the far, far future), the first character would have their head bashed in profusely and not in any way, shape or form be viewed as a tragic, romantic hero who was just lonely.
Certainly and admittedly, everything that one can gather from the film's trailer does indeed make for an intriguing premise to shoulder a strong, entertaining science fiction themed popcorn thriller upon as it could serve simultaneously as an existential journey, a race against time adventure as well as that aforementioned love story. But as it stands...this one major plot point, the ethical dilemma at hand is so downright creepy and even predatory that for my tastes, it just stopped "Passengers" cold, and I really questioned why none of the principals involved with this project, from filmmakers to actors, ever stopped and thought to themselves, "You know..maybe this really isn't such a good idea."
Or could it have been?
Look...I just feel that if one is to make a film like "Passengers" and include this one specific and deeply disturbing plot point, then those involved should be ready to deal with the ramifications of such a plot point with more seriousness than Tyldum handles with the film as it exists: essentially on the level of a generic will-they/won't they romantic comedy with all manner of misunderstandings, revelations, pseudo heartbreak and Michael Sheen (who is fine) as the legless, android bartender/confidant who seemingly wandered into this movie from the set of Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" (1980).
Basically, I watched "Passengers" feeling mostly that there is a really good movie within this morass of material at hand but if only the filmmakers took even a few minutes to think how the story and that ugly plot point could be served artistically as well as tastefully. In fact, I have couple at the ready...
IDEA #1: What if the character faced with the ethical dilemma actually wrestled with that decision and never met the second character at all, thus making the film essentially a solo affair, a survivalist story a la Robert Zemeckis' "Cast Away" (2000) or even Alfonso Cuaron's "Gravity" (2013), where the love story at hand could be between the first character and the second, who remains in hypersleep the entire time? I feel that this could give the film a deeply and achingly existential core pushing the film into a more esoteric arena exploring loneliness, mortality and love--perhaps a cross between something like Spike Jonze's "Her" (2013) and something from Terrence Malick?
IDEA #2: Or skip the art with a capital "A," and just stay in the realm of the interstellar thriller. What if the film was entirely told from the perspective of the second character who slowly begins to realize what the first character has done, then making the film work as a survivalist story on two differing levels--perhaps something intensely claustrophobic like Ridley Scott's "Alien" (1979) merged with David Fincher's "Panic Room" (2002). And NO love story whatsoever!
IDEA #3: Or have both characters in a survivalist story without that ethical dilemma at all, leaving any potential love story to be one that just doesn't have that nasty stalker element to it! Sometimes, the simplest ideas are the best.
I do not know about you but for me, either on those ideas would feel to make for potentially much better films where both Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence could be called upon to do more than just be likable and attractive and deliver some real performances that could swing for the fences, and exceedingly more than the good but middling work they are asked to do in "Passengers." To me, it just feels to be a shame to have Pratt and Lawrence waste time and energy trying to convince the audience of a love story that simply should not be, as it feels to be the result of not much more than a Stockholm Syndrome based male fantasy filled with false consequences and even worse redemptions that are designed to keep our two leads...once more with feeling.,..likable and attractive.
But truth be told, all that I have mentioned are not the only problems abound within "Passengers," but most glaring is the whole problem of why cast terrific actors when you have nothing for them to do? For instance, why is Laurence Fishburne in the film at all, other than to literally pass on a plot point and also showcase again that Black people are unable to survive in space in the movies? (To Fishburne's credit, his reaction to his knowledge of the ethical dilemma is easily the film's BEST line of dialogue by a mile!) Even further, why did Andy Garcia receive a screen credit for showing up at the film's pre-ending credit conclusion, wholly unrecognizable and without a line of dialogue.
I'm sorry, but Morton Tyldum's "Passengers" is not exciting, not profound, nor epic or emotionally sweeping and for the love of Pete, it is nowhere near anything resembling something romantic. Aside from being crass, messy and more than a little stupid, it is a film that is so dangerously afraid of any risk taking and too concerned that we still are so enamored with the two likable and attractive leads that it undercuts any sense of good storytelling from end to end.
Look, I will concede that there is something to the idea of a "Last Man On Earth"/"Adam & Eve In Space" conceit that could be played with and explored to great effect. Unfortunately, not one of those potential ideas were utilized in "Passengers."
No comments:
Post a Comment