ShareThis Page

Review: 'Passengers' could have been much more

| Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2016, 9:00 p.m.

Imagine being trapped on a spaceship with only your lover and a robot bartender for nearly a century — there isn't a spaceship big enough or a bar that well-stocked to make that sound appealing. This is the issue at the center of the ostensibly “romantic” sci-fi drama “Passengers,” directed by Morten Tyldum from a script by Jon Spaihts.

While romance is the intended effect, the film's real premise — concealed by the glossy trailers — is imbued with some seriously creepy undercurrents about bodily autonomy, consent and stalking. Instead of turning it into a horror movie, these issues are all breezily glossed over with the sex appeal of stars Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt.

The spaceship is the Avalon, 30 years into a 120-year autopilot journey to the planet colony Homestead II with 5,000 passengers on board, encased in pods that keep them in a state of suspended animation. The pod of Jim Preston (Pratt) malfunctions after a meteor hits, and he wakes up a full 90 years early. The ship remains frustratingly on autopilot, and no amount of helpful robots can put Jim back into suspended animation. The pods never fail, they claim.

Unable to engineer himself back into suspended animation, Jim partakes of the lavish accommodations the ship has to offer, which all grow tiresome after a year. He descends into a drunken, pants-less, suicidal depression, until he spots the lithe figure of Aurora Lane (Lawrence) in her pod, and develops a crush.

He checks out her profile, reads her writing (she's a journalist), eats cereal next to her. Though he wrestles with the decision, he ultimately decides to wake up his dream girl, effectively dooming her to a life and death aboard this spaceship. They fall in love, until Aurora finds out about what Jim did and is justifiably enraged.

The quandary of being stuck on a spaceship with only your ex and a robot bartender (Michael Sheen) is quickly tossed aside for the high stakes action as the ship starts to malfunction. As they try to troubleshoot the ship, the film takes on the tenor of a very high-stakes version of yelling at an iPad or trying to bypass an automated phone menu.

Ultimately, what's a rather intriguing premise, replete with meaty themes to chew on — time as a prison, class, colonialism, artificial intelligence — eschews all that to focus on sexy space fun times, turning Jim's morally reprehensible choice into a meet cute, and a love story for the ages. The problem is that one can't help but think of better, more interesting movies based on this premise.

Tyldum and Spaihts could have steered into the inherently problematic issues at hand, creating something far darker and more complex. Instead, it's all French robot waiters and champagne cocktails and sex in the cafeteria.

Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service staff writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.