Passengers (2016)


Adventure | Drama | Romance | Sci-Fi


Morten Tyldum




Jennifer Lawrence, Chris Pratt, Michael Sheen, Laurence Fishburne, Andy Garcia, Aurora Perrineau


A spacecraft traveling to a distant colony planet and transporting thousands of people has a malfunction in its sleep chambers. As a result, two passengers are awakened 90 years early.


As much as I'd like to say I was disappointed with "Passengers", I'm afraid I can't say that. I wanted to see it because of Jennifer Lawrence but I didn't have great expectations. Sure Morten Tyldum also directed "The Imitation Game", which I loved, but I never fully bought into this film. And I was right because "Passenger" is a forgettable and not so exciting sci-fi romantic film with gorgeous visuals.

If a solid story is one of the things you usually care about, this film won't do for you. While the films opens in a quite promising way as it sees Chris Pratt's character surrendering to loneliness and spending his time with a robotic bartender - which kinda reminded me of "The Shining" -, and it's also very interesting, Jennifer Lawrence's character soon makes are entrance, and the engaging story turns into a predictable, corny love story with some pretty ridiculous things happening - like Pratt planting a tree in the middle of the ship.

The characters aren't that brilliant either. It's unbelievable how little development these characters got considering there basically were three people and almost two hours to work with. Jim Preston could and should have been explored more. We barely get to know him. It's not like Lawrence's Aurora got a better treatment though. The worst was easily Lawrence Fishburne's Gus Mancuso. The introduction of this character made me believe the story would get better, but of course that didn't happen because the character didn't add anything to the film. He wasn't even necessary to the storyline.

The science-fiction part is arguably the worst. I don't know if the filmmakers realise it, but setting a film on a spaceship in the future isn't enough to make a sci-fi film. Other than that, "Passengers" has nothing to do with science. It's just the average American romance.

And what a waste of cast! With such a weak screenplay, there isn't much to do, and the leads prove that. While Jennifer Lawrence gives a decent (not good) performance, Chris Pratt does a mediocre job. However, there's a supporting actor that stands out, Michael Sheen who gives a pretty good performance as the robotic bartender.


  1. Peccato, mi sarei aspettata di più da questo film.
    Complimenti per il blog. Ti seguo! :)

    1. Anche io speravo in qualcosina di più, ma non mi aspettavo niente di che. Grazie!

  2. The only reason Lawrence Fishburne's character was there was to hand over his access card to the crew's part of the ship! What a waste :(

  3. The biggest problem with big budget FX-laden "Studio" films (and I can say this having worked in live action production in LA since 1980) is that in spite of an original script, very, very few Directors can actually control what the completed film looks like. Spielberg, Cameron, R. Scott and a couple of others come to mind; but for the most part most of the people "above the line" (Google it) who like to call themselves "Associate Producers" are people who don't know a C-Stand from a Honey-wagon and they all want to have some "input" on the project no matter how absurd and destructive it is to the finished end product. Nepotism reigns supreme, and the studios are filled with 30-something idiots who are the sub-literate kids of old school Producers and they have few books (if any) in their homes. Thus the current trend for Comic Book-inspired films and very few (studio) films based on original material. "PASSENGERS" might have been a very different film if the "Suits" (lawyers and Accountants) hadn't all wanted to get their fingerprints on it. I'm looking forward (hopefully) to the Director's Cut DVD.

    1. That's so true. I also hope a Director's Cut version will be released. I'd give that a chance.