June 3, 2017

Passengers

Last August, the first trailers for PASSENGERS had me really excited. I love sci-fi movies about colonizing distant worlds, space arks, hibernation capsules. I enjoy the acting of Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt; they seem to be a good pairing. Michael Sheen as a robot bartender clearly meant to allude to The Shining was an exciting possibility.
Then the reviews, the negative, angry reviews rolled in. Viewers seemed to feel betrayed by the movie, but reluctant to reveal their reasons.
Some kind of reverse lock fell into place. One weekend when I had a night to myself I rented it: I knew that this would not be a boring bad movie.
Even forearmed, I was surprised how much I hated the movie. To be more precise, Lawrence, Pratt, and Sheen deliver terrific performances, but the screenplay is deeply flawed right to the bones. I literally would not have agreed to bankroll any film with this premise. 
It's been decades since I watched a movie so misbegotten I wanted to turn it off and walk away in the middle. I was so mad at the events unfolding that I did turn it off for a moment. If I had been in a theater I may have walked out. After a few fuming moments I turned it back on and watched it through to the end.
Not only was the movie fundamentally flawed, the third act was badly patched and reshot to try and salvage it. I have never "seen the seams" of a repaired screenplay so plainly.
I don't want to spoil the movie, but I wouldn't recommend it either: in all honesty the movie's only value is academic. "Here's an example of a hugely expensive movie with two huge movie stars that was too big to fail, but too bad to succeed." There's also some remarkable performance moments, especially Lawrence, and Sheen's perfectly modulated AI bartender.
Stub Hubby Grade: F.