Passengers movie review: lost in sexist space

MaryAnn’s quick take: After a few quick nods to the profoundly unethical act at its core, the movie shrugs it off and uses it as the basis for a fairy-tale romance. This is not okay.
I’m “biast” (pro): big science fiction fan; love Jennifer Lawrence
I’m “biast” (con): nothing
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence: such pretty! They’re on a spaceship traveling to a faraway planet: a fresh start! But oh noes! Their hibernation pods woke them up too early… only 30 years into a 120-year journey, or 90 years too soon. Now they are marooned in realtime while everyone else sleeps the next century away. But they have each other! They have this amazing gorgeous sleek spaceship all to themselves. (They always get a table at the automated robot-waitered sushi restaurant — hooray! Michael Sheen the android bartender always has a wink and their favorite drinks ready for them!) It’s Titanic in Space. Maybe too much like! Something is wrong with the ship, and it is sinking. In space! Still: Such romantic! Much sci-fi!

Pretty people on a spaceship traveling to a faraway planet. Such romantic! Much sci-fi!

Except…

Except…

*grrrr*

This damn movie. They — the big They, the They who make the things we’re supposed to just accept as Entertainment and All In Good Fun — they made it so that it’s impossible to talk about this movie in any meaningful way unless you spoil it, and we — the big We, we critics, we serious film fans — are not supposed to do that. Because it’s mean. It’s bad. It’s Not Fair.

It’s almost like They knew there was a big, major, YUGE problem with their damn movie — probably only unconsciously, though — and arranged things this way. Shhh! Nobody tell the secret of Passengers! Don’t ruin it for everyone else! Don’t talk about The Thing!

I am going to talk about The Thing.

“When I said wear a suit to dinner, that’s not quite what I had in mind...”
“When I said wear a suit to dinner, that’s not quite what I had in mind…”

First, a spoiler-free nutshell: At the heart of this story is an act of wanton moral depravity. The movie tries to frame it as a conundrum, but it is nothing of the sort: it is an instance of willful cruelty that is given great consideration before it is undertaken anyway. It is a crime of the worst kind, committed with malice aforethought. There are other issues with the film, such as the contrivances of its science-fictional concepts, which really are contrivances: when you’re inventing the science your story runs on, its quirks are not accidents but deliberate acts to twist the story in a way that need not automatically be (as would not be the case if, say, your story featured actual existing technology). But even the movie’s other flaws all serve the fundamental problem with Passengers, which is that after offering a few quick nods to the profoundly unethical act at its core, it dismisses all objections to it, shrugs it off, and turns it into a fairy tale.

And it’s all even worse than it sounds when you delve into the details.

This is your last warning: look away now if you do not want to know pretty much everything of importance that happens in Passengers.

MAJOR SPOILERS FROM HERE ON

The problem at the heart of Passengers gets even worse when you delve into the details, which are appalling.

Okay. The “twist” in Passengers is revealed toward the end of this paragraph: The Chris Pratt (The Magnificent Seven, Jurassic World) character, who is called Jim, is accidentally awakened from hibernation on the colony starship Avalon thanks to a computer glitch. This isn’t supposed to happen, it has supposedly never happened before, and there are apparently no safety fallbacks for if such a thing did happen. So Jim is alone on a spaceship meant to comfortably house more than five thousand people once they are awakened for the final few months of their voyage, and he is destined to be alone until he dies, or for 90 years, whichever comes first. There is no way to reenter hibernation. (This is one of those twisted contrivances; hibernation technology doesn’t exist, so the details of it can be whatever the writer wants it to be.) So, after being alone for a year and having found no solution for his problem, he wakes up Jennifer Lawrence (X-Men: Apocalypse, Joy), so he can have some company. So there will be two people all alone on a spaceship in deepest interstellar space, cut off from the rest of humanity — there isn’t even any meaningful communication with Earth — for the rest of their lives.

Just so this is clear: Lawrence’s character does not accidentally wake up as the result of a computer glitch or any other shipboard malfunction. Jim deliberately wakes her up.

“And way over in that corner is a tiny hold marked ‘Moral Authority,’ but it’s empty...”
“And way over in that corner is a tiny hold marked ‘Moral Authority,’ but it’s empty…”

Now, why her? Why doesn’t Jim wake up, say, a member of the crew, who must surely have some fix for this problem? He does try… but while the passengers’ hibernation capsules are out in the open, the crew’s are in highly secure chambers, which Jim tries his damnedest to get into, using all the tools he can find (sledgehammers, blowtorches, electronic doodads to bypass the security, etc). Jim is a mechanic, so we can presume that he makes all reasonable effort to get into the crew area. And yet, why does screenwriter Jon Spaihts (Doctor Strange, Prometheus) put such a barrier in Jim’s way? Why is Jim able to access the maintenance and storage areas of the ship (where he finds all the tools), which shouldn’t be open to a passenger or easily broken in to, yet not the crew area? If it has never occurred to anyone involved in this entire endeavor that passengers could accidentally wake up early — you know, before the crew wakes up — what is the purpose of securing the crew’s hibernation area this way? This isn’t like, say, securing the cockpit door on an airliner: the crew’s hibernation pods are not on the bridge or, seemingly, in any other sensitive command area. In fact, later, Jim easily gets into what should probably be the most secure area of the ship: the reactor that powers it. So this is one of those absurd contrivances: the only reason Jim can’t get at the crew is so that Jim can’t get at the crew.

Okay, but still: Why wake up Jennifer Lawrence, whose character is a journalist? Why not find an engineer with a better understanding of the ship and its systems? Why not find a doctor or a hibernation specialist? There must certainly be at least one of the latter, because Jim knows that at least one person on the ship is planning to make a return journey to Earth, which is apparently a rare thing. And even if they have the equipment and expertise on the new planet to put people into hibernation, they will surely want to have the very latest version of the technology: whatever is already on the planet (or en route on another ship) will be outdated because of the massive travel times involved.

Passengers is not Titanic in space, and it’s not a romance. It’s a horror movie, and it doesn’t even realize it.

If Jim considers such options, we do not learn of it.

So Jennifer Lawrence it is! Because she’s “the perfect woman,” as he tells Arthur the android bartender (Michael Sheen: Alice Through the Looking Glass, Far from the Madding Crowd). The colonists all seem to have detailed biographies and video interviews available in the ship’s computer, and Jim has learned all about her, and he has decided that he is in love with her and that she is the one who should keep him company for the rest of his life. Jim will wake her up and pretend like it was just random chance that left them both castaways in time, and they will fall in love and it will be magical.

And this is pretty much what happens.

You may scream now.

This is toxic Nice Guy-ism: “I’m lonely, I deserve a girlfriend, and I will get one, and she has no say in the matter.”

Passengers is not Titanic. Titanic is “You jump, I jump.” This is “I’m falling and I’m taking you with me, whether you like it or not.” This is not a romance; it’s a horror movie, and Chris Pratt is the villain. It’s Alien and Jim is the monster.

This shit is not okay.

“No, computer, I do not want to watch Alien again. Why do you keep recommending it?”
“No, computer, I do not want to watch Alien again. Stop recommending it!”

Of course Aurora — Aurora; which is also Sleeping Beauty’s name; gross — of course Aurora does find out what Jim did. After she has fallen in love with him based on a lie, based on the notion he led her to believe, that they were merely two unlucky souls stuck together in a terrible situation. After she has had sex with him based on false pretenses. He has, essentially, kidnapped and raped her, and he has done that without her even realizing it. (He knows it, though.) That does not make it okay. It is horrible. And the movie does, briefly, acknowledge that. Aurora accuses Jim of murdering her, which is accurate: he has stolen from her the life she had planned, for no reason beyond his own selfishness, and with absolutely no regard for what she wants. Another computer glitch — the malfunctions on the ship are cascading — awakens crew member Gus (Laurence Fishburne: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, The Colony), and he also agrees that what Jim did is unacceptable. (Gus will soon die, because he is the black man in the sci-fi movie.) For a while, Aurora refuses to speak with Jim, to have any contact with him, which is doable on a ship this big. But he cannot abide this, and he uses the shipwide PA to talk to her in a way she cannot escape from. He forces her to deal with him when she does not want to, for very good reasons. This is very much not okay.

It gets worse.

The malfunctions on the ship are getting so bad that the survival of everyone onboard — including all those still asleep — is threatened. This allows Jim the opportunity to be a hero and make a noble sacrifice, which makes Aurora swoon and fall back in love with him again despite the fact that he has kidnapped, raped, and — in her own words — murdered her. (The details of the impending disaster and Jim’s noble sacrifice are not important, except that they do involve more contrivances invented solely so that the plot may move in this direction.) Aurora had previously watched a farewell video of her best friend from back on Earth in which the friend tells her “You don’t have to do something amazing to be happy,” for which the only possible translation within the context of the story is that Aurora should consider putting aside her ambitious plan to be the first journalist to travel to a colony and then return to Earth to write about it (yes, Aurora is the passenger for whom provisions will have been made to get her back into hibernation eventually) and just find happiness with a man, even if he is the man who locked her in his serial killer van in space so that he could fuck her. Why not make the best of it? Which she can do, because Passengers arranges for Jim to come back from his noble sacrifice — the contrived cherry on top of the bullshit sundae — so that he and Aurora can renew their romance.

The sound you hear is that of me barfing.

The sound you hear is that of me barfing.

And still, Passengers is not done getting worse.

Jim discovers that the “autodoc” in the ship’s medical area — you know, the sort of sci-fi machine you lie down in it, it scans you, goes beep-boop, and you’re cured of whatever ails you — is capable of putting a patient into stasis. He offers this to Aurora, to let her go back to sleep for the rest of the journey. (Of course there is only one autodoc, which doesn’t seem like enough for more than five thousand people, but the Avalon is a ship remarkably provisioned except when that would interfere with the story Spaihts is desperate to concoct.) It seems unlikely that that sort of stasis would be suitable for decades-long hibernation, or else all the passengers would already be in that sort of stasis, and that uncertainty could have been a reason for Aurora to make a decision such as this: “Okay,” she could have told Jim, “I’ll go into stasis, and you wake me up for one week every year. This way we can check to see if the stasis really is working as hibernation, and you can have some company once in a while. And I lose only a couple of years out of my life. You don’t deserve full-time company, and I’m certainly not going to fuck you during that week, but it’s more than you could possibly hope for after what you did, you miserable piece of shit. And I’ll get a bonus story out of it: The castaway who survived on a colony ship for however long you survive.”

Does Aurora say that? Of course not. She turns down Jim’s “generous” and “decent” offer so that they can live out their days together. She’s too kind, you see, to leave him all on his lonesome. So she doesn’t. And they live happily ever after.

“Oh, honey, I know you said ‘Not if you were the last man on Earth.’ But we’re not on Earth...”
“Oh, honey, I know you said ‘Not if you were the last man on Earth.’ But we’re not on Earth…”

There isn’t a way this story could have ended that would have been more revolting. And yet there are easily a dozen ways to turn this basic premise into the incisive psychological thriller it wants to be, to be the movie that genuinely examines the awful human behavior at its center. (Just one: Aurora kills Jim in her rage… and then realizes how lonely she is and wakes up someone else. And the cycle begins again. Maybe the ship is littered with bodies by the time it arrives at its destination.) Instead, Passengers takes male sexual entitlement — the idea that what a man wants is more important than what a woman wants, more important than her life — and warps it into a (supposedly) charming love story. Passengers puts a sinister new Hollywood gloss on the trope of the hero “getting the girl”… whatever it takes to get her. It thinks it’s normal and even optimistic for a woman to fall in love with her kidnapper. It makes a joke out of the fact that she cannot leave him for someone else. But worse is that she doesn’t seem to want to leave him. She is ultimately happy to be have been shopped out of the frozen-food section like a microwave pizza.

This is what a Hollywood run by men gets us: creepy, rapey shit that is meant to be romantic, and is just disgusting. The director, Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game, Headhunters), is a man. The 12 credited producers (which includes screenwriter Spaihts) are all men. There was clearly no one who looked at this script — which had been on the legendary “blacklist” of supposedly great unproduced scripts for almost a decade — and said, “Wow, just no.” There was clearly no one who was capable of understanding just how profoundly wrongheaded it is. It probably sounded like an awesome fantasy to them. And that is even more disturbing than anything in the movie itself. No wonder Hollywood movies about women as human beings are so rare: the men in charge think women are interchangeable with frozen pizzas.

share and enjoy
             
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll, anti-abuse measure. If your comment is not spam, trollish, or abusive, it will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately. (Further comments may still be deleted if spammy, trollish, or abusive, and continued such behavior will get your account deleted and banned.)
subscribe
notify of
351 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Jurgan
Jurgan
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 3:58am

There was clearly no one who looked at this script — which had been on the legendary “blacklist” of supposedly great unproduced scripts for almost a decade — and said, “Wow, just no.”

Well, I haven’t read the script, but I could easily imagine it originally had one of the darker endings you mentioned, and then some executive said “No, hunky Chris Pratt and sexy Jennifer Lawrence have to end up together.”

My first thought when I saw the previews for this was Supernova, another sci-fi flick that wanted to be much more profound than it was and featured contrived romances that made no sense. Most people have probably forgotten that movie, but it sticks in my memory because it was one of the first movies I hated and could verbalize why. Passengers sounds even worse than I was imagining.

StayCoolYo
StayCoolYo
reply to  Jurgan
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 3:02am

As someone who read the original blacklist Passengers script back in 2014 (before they scrubbed the pdf file I discovered via reddit link from the web), I can tell that no, it still ended with them together, “happily ever after”. You can’t always blame “the executives” for the way a film turns out; sometimes a screenwriter or director just has a poor idea/vision. And hey, you know, I gotta be honest- those “executives” don’t always get it wrong.

Jurgan
Jurgan
reply to  StayCoolYo
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 3:34am

Okay, I was just speculating.

FriscoKid
FriscoKid
reply to  StayCoolYo
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 10:46pm

I don’t plan to see the movie but I’m just curious whether they end up having any kids. (And if not, why not.) Thanks in advance.

StayCoolYo
StayCoolYo
reply to  FriscoKid
Thu, Jan 05, 2017 3:02am

OK, I am trying to recall this as best as I can: Apparently in the current version, they do not. But that’s not how it was in the original draft- I remember the very ending was the rescue team entering the ship and finding a ton of their descendants. Don’t hold me to that, though! I do know there were some huge plot changes made to the third act- in the script I read, Jim and Aurora save the malfunctioning computer in time to keep the reactor from exploding or whatever, but not before the computer ejects all of the stasis pods to protect them from the impending explosion or something. Anyways, it was kinda dark with like everyone on the ship dying except for the two of them. It came off sort of like a “oh isn’t it so great that Jim woke this lady up, by doing so, through a twist of fate he SAVED her, ya see??”, and I am not surprised they changed it to make it a happier ending. Sorry for the overlong and off topic answer ;D

FriscoKid
FriscoKid
reply to  StayCoolYo
Thu, Jan 05, 2017 4:47am

No apologies needed. Thanks for responding to such an old post. I read the plot on Movie Spoilers and it seemed odd that they wouldn’t have any kids, or at least whether the movie explained why they couldn’t/didn’t. :-)

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  FriscoKid
Thu, Jan 05, 2017 12:14pm

They do not have kids in the actual movie, but why would they? Why would they bring more people into this world condemned to live a lonely life with no other human contact? it would horrible if they had kids.

StayCoolYo
StayCoolYo
reply to  FriscoKid
Thu, Jan 05, 2017 3:13am

Hey, this article answers your question way better than my first comment did http://www.slashfilm.com/passengers-ending/2/

cinderkeys
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 7:58am

Bleargh.

I saw the trailer for this and came close to guessing the sinister part. I thought Jim would secretly set things up in the beginning so they’d both wake up together and he’d have her all to himself.

It’s frightening that I came up with a version worse than they did.

Based on your description, they could’ve done this in a way that made Jim less of a complete monster. What if he was alone for, I dunno, six years before he finally broke down and woke somebody else up?

Eh, I I still wouldn’t want to see it.

ketac6
ketac6
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 9:19am

Yuck. I guess too it’s only the glamour of the big shiny spaceship that makes this even seem remotely acceptable. You could set this somewhere else with minor modifications and it would seem exactly the creepy shit it is.

JusticeB
JusticeB
reply to  ketac6
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:12pm

No, it’s the circumstance of being faced with the options of suicide or being alone in space for decades that makes this understandable (not acceptable).

RogerBW
RogerBW
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 11:24am

Darn. This looked promising, but if I’d watched it unspoiled I’d have been seriously annoyed. Thanks, MaryAnn, for stopping me from wasting my money on it. (And happy Christmas.)

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 12:59pm

“Legendary blacklist”?

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  LaSargenta
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 2:57pm

The name The Black List was a nod to his heritage as an African American man, and also as a subtle reference to the writers who were barred during the McCarthy era as part of the Hollywood blacklist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_List_(survey)

Many, many terrible films have come from the Black List.

Lenina Crowne
reply to  Danielm80
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:57am

That list of Black List movies. Woof.

Chelsea Beckmann
Chelsea Beckmann
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 4:07pm

Thanks for putting into words what I was too horrified to. All of the other women were “awww”ing and literally laughing out loud. It was like watching a train wreck. So many what the fucks.

Eric M
Eric M
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 8:12pm

Saw it with my family and my sister liked it the most of anyone. I guess she hates her own kind?

irrelevous
irrelevous
reply to  Eric M
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 8:55pm

no she’s just not a hateful person like you and can actually enjoy a movie with plot twists.

Eric M
Eric M
reply to  irrelevous
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 9:00pm

The hating her own kind part was sarcasm, which is why it was a question. I actually loved the movie and didn’t feel like it was sexist at all. The movie even showed the female lead as the more intellectual of the two characters.

M. Solange O'Brien
M. Solange O'Brien
reply to  Eric M
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:42pm

And why is her intellect relevant to what is basically an extended rape-fantasy involving Jennifer Lawrence? Pratt’s choice is indefensible (unless you find the idea of kidnapping someone and holding them prisoner for the rest of their life acceptable because “she’s pretty”?)

cinderchild
cinderchild
reply to  Eric M
Sun, Jan 01, 2017 2:34am

“It’s not sexist because she’s smarter than he is!”

My fucking cat is smarter than Chris Pratt. What’s your point.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  cinderchild
Mon, Jan 02, 2017 9:46pm

Many women are smarter than many men. And yet, misogyny reigns.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Eric M
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:20am

Women live in our misogynist culture, and absorb its messages, too.

David Boccabella
David Boccabella
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Jan 03, 2017 4:03am

And so starts the end of the human race because Men will eternally be classified as ‘Evil’, ‘Bad’ and all of the other things to put them down.
Actual equality of the sexes begins when both parties accept each other. Not when one claims that they want retribution for decades of perceived abuses. Denigrates the other party constantly, and then whines because men do not immediately fall down and beg forgiveness.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  David Boccabella
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 2:38pm

Who is asking for “retribution”?

Go take your strawman shit somewhere else.

irrelevous
irrelevous
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 8:54pm

Wow, i see your bingo card is trying to prevent anyone from questioning anything you say that seems sexist against men. anyway, i found your review appalling, and i know it’s your opinion, but you literally tried to make this a “men are bad” situation, when this was about a terrible decision and human error. it has nothing to do with their genders. as for the rape part, they fell in love, yes it was built on a lie, but they clearly do love each other and they both consented. i do like your ending idea though, but all in all , this movie was fresh and had some unexpected twists. Why would you expect them to have given away the biggest twist of the movie. also this is coming from a woman.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  irrelevous
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:21am

you literally tried to make this a “men are bad” situation

This literally *is* a “a man is bad” situation.

David Boccabella
David Boccabella
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Jan 03, 2017 4:06am

And if the roles were reversed.. It was Aurora who awoke first.
I am very sure you tune would change to the horror’s of her loneliness and the desperate (and reasonable) methods that she had to take to find love and comfort.

Devin
Devin
reply to  David Boccabella
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 6:59am

why would you assume that? buddy the fact that this movie is a psychological horror dressed up as romance is obvious from a mile away. sexist implications are thick icing on the cake, but an ethically indefensible act is an ethically indefensible act. you apparently can’t notice that cause you’re too busy making boneheaded assumptions about people who know misogyny and general immorality when they see it. lame.

Neptunium
Neptunium
reply to  Devin
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 11:39am

>why would you assume that?

Because she’s a feminist who hates men.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Neptunium
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 3:00pm

Hilarious. I presume that men are better than uncontrollable rapists, and that male filmmakers are capable of telling stories that don’t demean women, and *I’m* the one who hates men?

Devin
Devin
reply to  Neptunium
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 7:16pm

you obviously don’t have the presence of mind to be embarrassed by this post so i’m just going to do the christian thing and be embarrassed for you.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  David Boccabella
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 2:41pm

No, I wouldn’t. Maybe try reading the other comments here. Your “objections” are laughably unoriginal, and have been addressed already.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  David Boccabella
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 9:14pm

I’m fairly confident it’s be more of a “Fatal Attraction in Space” kind of thing. I’m confident about that because I live in the actual world.

M. Solange O'Brien
M. Solange O'Brien
reply to  irrelevous
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:43pm

Of course it’s coming from a woman. The male character’s actions are indefensible and horrifying.

Welcome to the way the world is in 2016.

Anonymous
Anonymous
reply to  M. Solange O'Brien
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 7:22pm
MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Anonymous
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:13pm

the feminist box which is pretty damn small

Actually, the feminist box is enormous! Think of all the amazing stories that are not being told because of the narrow roles that Hollywood thinks women should be stuck in. A feminist Hollywood would be a much better, much more interesting, much more *entertaining* Hollywood! If you truly only want to be entertained, you should be mad as hell at all the entertaining stories you are not getting.

irrelevous
irrelevous
reply to  M. Solange O'Brien
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 10:23pm

i meant i am a woman

James
James
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 10:19pm

If you would have left out the accusation of it being sexist for anyone to think it’s a romantic story, this would have been a good review. Do you realize that females under 18 and over 45 are the ones giving the best reviews? Men are the ones that are confused if a woman makes a decision like in this movie. It’s not men that are finding this movie romantic, it’s women. Had it been reverse roles and Pratt’s character decided to enact revenge, you probably would have personified that as male ego as well.

JusticeB
JusticeB
reply to  James
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 6:09am

I didn’t find it romantic. I found it to be an interesting concept and I was hoping they wouldn’t give it the fake sunny ending. I like it when movies have good people do terrible things. The movie never said what he did was okay and neither did she. I saw him as a murderer and I also thought it made sense that he’d do it and make sense that she’d come to accept it. It’s called Stockholm Syndrome. You can accept the surface of the story or read between the lines. There are movies where women are treated just as badly or worse and the film presents the act as OK. At least this film didn’t do that.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  James
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:22am

It’s not men that are finding this movie romantic, it’s women.

And you think that makes it better?

JusticeB
JusticeB
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:19pm

If this election has taught me anything, it’s that when a lot of people who are members of the group you’d expect to be outraged are not outraged, I think that’s enough reason to ask yourself why and to listen seriously to the responses. I have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that a surprisingly high percentage of the Latino vote went to Donald Trump who sent out such blatant racist dogwhistles against Latinos they weren’t even dogwhistles, they were bullhorns. I can either just assume are suffering from ethnic self-hatred or find out from them what combination of societal dynamics would lead to their making that choice. I doubt I would ever agree with anyone who voted for Trump but I at least need to try to treat it as a learning experience. Listening to people and interacting respectfully instead of talking at them is a better way of effecting positive change.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  JusticeB
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 2:58pm

There is absolutely no question that our culture drives many people to hate themselves based on their gender or their race. It’s not a mystery.

Neptunium
Neptunium
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 11:40am

It’s a god dam film.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Neptunium
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 1:29pm

And this is a “god dam” review. Why are you so threatened by an opinion you disagree with? Go read something else. It’s a big internet out there.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Neptunium
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 3:00pm

And yet here you are, getting into a lather over a mere review of something as inconsequential as a movie.

Imagine that.

StayCoolYo
StayCoolYo
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 3:07am

He in no way implied that. He was pointing out one of the flaws in this review.

David Boccabella
David Boccabella
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Jan 03, 2017 4:08am

Well – it does puncture your feminist ego balloon. Or are the women who like it somehow deluded by male superiority etc etc.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  David Boccabella
Tue, Jan 03, 2017 5:09am

To paraphrase Richard Howell, this seems to have been edited with a Salad Shooter.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  David Boccabella
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 2:43pm

Yes, women live in our misogynist culture and often absorb its messages.

Stefy
Stefy
Sun, Dec 25, 2016 10:59pm

I think people overthink things way too much, misunderstand human nature to forgive, misrepresent in life what can make us happy, and also try to say that everything is “sexist”. Had the roles been reversed people wouldn’t have worried about the “twist”. When Ygritte basically forces Jon Snow to have sex with her or be outed (and killed) because she fancies him, both Jon and the rest of us got over it. I think it’s sexist to call it sexist because we apply different standards to women and men.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Stefy
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:23am

I think people overthink things way too much

If you’re reading film reviews, you may be “overthinking things” as well.

Stefy
Stefy
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:18pm

Or, I dunno…maybe I’m reading reviews to determine if I should see this movie or Assassin’s Creed. Call me crazy but wasn’t that the point of review sites, to help you determine where to put your money?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Stefy
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 4:48pm

That’s film reviews as a consumer guide. That’s not what I do. Sorry.

Stefy
Stefy
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 7:03pm

Well then what is it that you DO do? Because from what I can see it isn’t really providing objective film reviews.

RogerBW
RogerBW
reply to  Stefy
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 7:13pm

Congratulations! You’ve noticed that film reviews aren’t objective.

Did you really think they were? What would they say?

“This film is 116 minutes long. It’s in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, shot with Arri Alexa 65 cameras and Panavision Primo 70 Lenses. The source format was ARRIRAW 6.5K…”

Stefy
Stefy
reply to  RogerBW
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 2:08am

They shouldn’t contain an author’s political bias, although they unfortunately do. They should look at the film objectively for their readers if they want them to come back and read more reviews. But wait-I forget its still Current Year where we appeal to cliques instead of approaching topics with objective critiques and substantive claims. Sorry. I forgot ! Won’t do it again. It was horribly sexist! Horribly! Stupid men! *puts on hair shirt* Happy?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Stefy
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:14pm

They shouldn’t contain an author’s political bias

But that’s all they contain! If you don’t think you see that, it’s only because you share the writer’s biases.

Stefy
Stefy
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 2:58pm

We all have bias, but it shouldn’t be so heavy-handed and unceasing as to shadow everything else. I would love to know where I can find something reasonably objective so that I can figure out how to waste my $12. If I wanted a breakdown of how everything in this world is anti-female in some way I’d just go take another class in undergrad. It is a nonstop cup is half empty, the other half of the glass is evil. This is my last comment because I’m just done. Go forth and find male demons everywhere. I’ll just go onto IMDB next time.

David Boccabella
David Boccabella
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Jan 03, 2017 4:14am

How about a review that does not air the writer’s emotional baggage and dirty linen for all to see.
“Oh I had a bad relationship so All romance movies are crap and unrealistic etc” or
“All men are bastards as any movie that has a lead male in it is a strike against feminism.”

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  David Boccabella
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 2:43pm

Assumes facts not in evidence.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Stefy
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:04pm

objective film reviews

There’s your problem right there. There is no such thing as an “objective” review.

Akiko Ito
Akiko Ito
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 12:40am

How dare movies not portray its main characters as perfect

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Akiko Ito
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:24am

Says who?

In this case, however, a man is rewarded for his crime, and this portrayed as romantic and fairy-tale-ish. This is not cool.

JusticeB
JusticeB
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 7:46pm

It also shows that the woman has a dark side as well, and commits an ethical wrong by bringing Jim back to life despite not knowing the consequences. And she does it out of selfishness…she doesn’t want to be alone. But I wish they had explored this more.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:37am

Seems like the only thing left to criticize about the movie in this harangue is that Pratt’s character didn’t awaken a man… he was way to heterosexual in his tastes.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:25am

You think it wouldn’t have been awful if Jim had awakened a man so that he could fuck him?

The difference is, that likely would not have been portrayed as romantic. It would have been portrayed as the horror it is.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 12:40pm

After I read your comment, I was trying to imagine what a male-male version of the film would look like. Because gay men have been treated as comic figures in Hollywood for so many years, I started picturing it as a grim comedy, kind of like What About Bob? in space. And then I realized that, actually, I’d seen the same basic story with a woman as the romantic pursuer. Ray Bradbury wrote it decades ago, in The Martian Chronicles. It’s also a grim comedy. The last man on Mars meets the last woman on Mars and hates her. He finds her ugly and unappealing, but she keeps chasing after him, desperate to get married.

I suspect we’d get the same story today, if the filmmakers tried to switch the male and female roles. And it would still be more entertaining than Passengers.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 2:09pm

Would you have rather seen the only “acceptable” version of the film where Pratt’s character spends all his time playing chess with the robot bartender ?

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  RicoSuave
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:11pm

*Headdesk*

Movies like Gravity and The Martian have proved that it’s possible to tell a compelling story about a lone person in space. MaryAnn suggested some other possibilities in her review. But this particular story was so badly conceived that I’m not sure it needed to be told at all.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Danielm80
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:25pm

So basically no movies or tv shows should be made about characters who aren’t perfect or all sacrificing ? Ever heard of Tony Soprano, Dexter ? Or even Rick Deckerd in Blade Runner. Characters who had a a darker edge but still were interesting and had a story to tell, even if you didn’t agree with all their motivations or morals. Movies would become pretty boring if they all were some preachy flat tales of survival like Gravity and The Martian.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  RicoSuave
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:34pm

You’re not responding to anything I actually said, or anything MaryAnn actually said. You’re responding to what you think a stereotypical SJW would have said in this situation. But then, I think you know that.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Danielm80
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:37pm

You are the one bringing in other films like Gravity and The Martian as if those should be the templates for all “marooned in space” movies. And where did I bring in any “SJW” element ? That is purely your interjection in my discussing why Passengers should be structured to follow some rigid moral path.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 6:38pm

So basically no movies or tv shows should be made about characters who aren’t perfect or all sacrificing ?

As said literally no one ever.

the criticism that somehow it should have had some pure highly moral hero

Who said that?

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 6:50pm

You wrote an entire critique of the film dissecting the male character’s lack of morals and ethics from your point of view. So yes, you said that.

Jurgan
Jurgan
reply to  RicoSuave
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 8:21pm

Is it really that hard to understand the difference between “a character is bad” and “a character is rewarded for being bad?” If a character does terrible things and ends up getting everything they want, then the movie appears to be endorsing those terrible things. I guess you could make a dark story about how evil people succeed by taking advantage of others, but that’s not what you expect in a movie marketed as sci-fi action crossed with an epic romance.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Jurgan
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 8:33pm

I don’t think Pratt’s character was meant to be seen as “evil” in a Hannibal Lecter kind of way. We have had characters like Michael Corleone who were more or less “good” at the start of the story and then due to circumstances became more morally blurred. And that moral decline didn’t detract from the larger story and make people pontificate on how the Godfather stories should have had more ethical characters.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 2:51pm

I don’t think Pratt’s character was meant to be seen as “evil” in a Hannibal Lecter kind of way.

Clearly, he is not. But he still does not deserve to be rewarded for his behavior.

You really misunderstand my review as well as *Passengers* if you think *Passengers* exists in any moral realm within a thousand miles of that of *The Godfather.*

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:43pm

What is your definition of “reward” ? His character wanted something and did what he could to achieve that goal. Are movies meant to be some kind of moral fables for the public to follow ? Ironic, because Hollywood’s own real life stories show otherwise.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 4:51pm

What is your definition of “reward” ?

His “perfect girl” fell in love with him and spent the rest of her life fucking him after he treated her like an unperson who did not deserve to make her own choices! How is that not a reward?!

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 5:12pm

So his character is not allowed to seek his desires ? Would you have preferred that she hooked up with the robot bartender after making a few “modifications” ?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 11:59am

He is not allowed to force his desires on someone else!

Again, what the fuck is wrong with you?

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 2:02pm

There you go again … “He is not allowed” . By whose law ? Yours ? Do you want to now, start a rewrite of stories ?

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  RicoSuave
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 5:46pm

I don’t know where you live, rico, but in most places, there is a long legal tradition against forcing desires on others. There’s also a long story telling tradition of casting those who would force their desires on others as villains. There are other traditions as well, to be sure, some more dubious, but to pretend that such things are something a film critic made up whole cloth? Maybe consider climbing up put of that dank hole you’ve been living in.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 7:59pm

Not sure if your rocket took you to Uranus, but your ramble is not of relevance. All I am saying is that characters in stories are not always boy scouts. People in real life do selfish things . Why should we expect everyone in movies to do any differently.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  RicoSuave
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 8:44pm

That’s not what you said at all. But, then you’ve been so busy tossing around the insults of a man-child, it’d be no wonder you’d forgotten what you were saying.

The conversation thread I was responding to was this (somewhat paraphrased):
You (in a non sequitur): Can’t people seek to fulfill their desires?
MAJ: People can’t force their desires on other people.
You: Says who?

Me: Says pretty much everybody.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 9:02pm

Me: Your contrived summary is inaccurate. It is like asking whether a movie or a story cannot explore a character going to extreme lengths to fulfill a desire. They might think they are not doing anything wrong. Have you seen “Memento” ? Pratt’s character is in a doomed space ship . Suddenly he is supposed to have a deep introspection about the ethics of his decision ? It is that context of what would people do when presented with a situation that threatens their sanity and life. In the true story of “Alive”, people resorted to cannibalism to survive. Does that mean cannibalism is alright in any context ? You seem to be unable to have any context based nuance in your reply.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  RicoSuave
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 9:28pm

https://www.flickfilosopher.com/2016/12/passengers-movie-review-lost-sexist-space.html#comment-3071096412

So his character is not allowed to seek his desires ? Would you have preferred that she hooked up with the robot bartender after making a few “modifications” ?

https://www.flickfilosopher.com/2016/12/passengers-movie-review-lost-sexist-space.html#comment-3072175251

He is not allowed to force his desires on someone else!

https://www.flickfilosopher.com/2016/12/passengers-movie-review-lost-sexist-space.html#comment-3072292190

There you go again … “He is not allowed” . By whose law ? Yours ?

Now, if you meant something else, consider working on your communication skills. Start by spending less time on crafting “clever” insults. But hye, maybe it’s my fault for taking you literally but not seriously, when you want to be taken seriously but not literally.

If I’m digging your rather buried point out of the dross, then it comes back to Ebert’s adage, “It’s not what a movie is about, it’s how it is about it.” The problem here isn’t that Jim is the actual villain of the film. (Nor is it any great insight on your point to discover that.) The problem is that the screenwriter and director don’t seem to realize that Jim is the villain. Demme knew Lechter was the villain; Nolan knew Leonard was a killer; Scorsese knows that gangster are all fuckers. This movie thinks Jim is just a poor lonely dude.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 9:44pm

Yes ? And ? Sorry “Sherlock”, all you have done it actually read my post where I said that a story should allow for a protagonist to do what they feel they need to in the context of the story. And believe it or not, having a selfish motive is not an unrealistic one. Humans are flawed . Maybe you aren’t.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  RicoSuave
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 2:32am

I like how you got yourself so excited with that “Sherlock” dig that you managed to turn the rest of the sentence into word salad. Well done, mate!

Anyway, sure. and there are ways to tell that kind of story well, and ways that are both cowardly and manage to drab a bunch of misogynist bullshit in along for the ride. Passengers is the latter.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 2:44am

Eh, sorry Dr FailureToLaunch. Your mental main engine cut off and died.
I just saw “Rogue One” this evening. In it one of the main “heroic” characters shoots an unarmed man in the back even though the man had just provided valuable information . So characters do have free will to step outside imaginary lines of your “moral” code. Deal with it.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  RicoSuave
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 3:14am

If I were the score-keeping type, I’d chalk up a “W” every time someone resorts to trying to make fun of my silly and mostly meaningless internet handle.

R1 knows exactly what a bastard Cassian Andor is. If anything, it fucks it up later when he doesn’t pull the trigger, for no reason than the script tells him he can’t. And spoilers, he doesn’t get the girl in end. Also, characters don’t have free will, you dolt, they’re characters. Famous books and plays have been written to meta-analyze the total lack of free will a character has.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 3:37am

If you wander into a target zone with a big red bull’s eye on, don’t be surprised if someone takes you up on your silly behavior or handle.
Sorry and how is Passengers any different ? Pratt’s character, like Andor does what he thinks he should given the situation he is in. Andor didn’t have to kill the informant. But he did. Is your odd sense of moral scale balancing placated because Andor gets obliterated at the end? Well guess what, so does the feisty heroine. So why didn’t she make a daring escape ? After all the good should survive , right ?

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  RicoSuave
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 5:29am

Really, Mr. Suave? You’re gonna roll in here with that handle and your 12-year-old’s insults and lecture people on names and behavior? Color me unimpressed.

Your asinine mischaracterizations of what I or anyone else in this thread have been saying aside, R1 and Passengers are different because R1, for all its faults, has the courage to take its characters seriously and not try to have things all ways. R1’s characters play a heavy price for their choices, long before they all get nuked. The problem with Passengers isn’t that Jim is a stalker and murderer. The problem is that the film is too cowardly to play that story out. Instead of paying a price, Jim gets to spend the rest of his days fucking the 25th century genetic clone of Jennifer goddamn Lawrence.

Also, are you under the impression that Jyn Erso isn’t as much of a murderous bastard as Cassian? What the fuck movie did you watch? How dense are you?

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 2:18pm

You seem to have curiously archaic ideas that a person’s ethics of “good” and “bad” require some kind of quasi-religiously defined “balancing of the scale” . And that Jim getting what he wants is somehow disturbing to your quaint sense of justice. So in your mind all the war heroes we honor in the real world should be in jail or sentenced to death because they killed civilians at times while achieving their larger objective ?
As an aside, do you think using apoplectic outbursts laced with four letter words makes you sound any smarter ? How amusing.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  RicoSuave
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 4:32pm

So, having had your ears thoroughly clipped on your ill advised Rogue One comparison, and having apparently run out of ideas, I see you’d like now to retreat to what you thought was the safer ground of mischaracterization and arguing against things people never said. Oh, you did add a little pointless language policing in there. Good for fucking you. Truly, you are the hero we deserve.

To this last attempt at an argument, let me say something non-controversial: we should not honor war criminals.

Now, when you’re done fucking your strawman, let me know.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 4:49pm

“Ears thoroughly clipped”… hilarious . You truly are a legend in your own mind, a veritable Don Quixote, imagining non existent victories.
You are obsessed with making this film some kind of morality play and seem to be getting increasingly unstable when you are unable to explain why it should conform to some non existent set of rules.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  RicoSuave
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 5:45pm

Well, you did drop the R1 thread rather abruptly and revert to an old line of argument. So…

But, seriously now, go find a room.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 6:15pm

What ? So you think that audiences see Andor as a bad guy because he killed a man in cold blood ? Please… don’t be so naive. As I mentioned earlier, it is your kind of thinking that made Lucas go back and make Greedo shoot first. To mollify your delicate sensibilities, snowflake.
Seriously, grow up.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  RicoSuave
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 6:46pm

You think they see him as a classic hero? Do I need to remind you what happens to Cassian Andor? R1 is a dark story. What it’s not, is dishonest about itself. Garreth Edwards could have pulled him and Jyn out of the fire at anytime. And that would not have been honest about the story or those characters. (I’m not sure why Bhodi had to die; even 3 of the Dirty Dozen made it out alive.)

Yeah, that would explain why everyone just lurves the Special Edition. George Lucas didn’t do that for anyone but himself, the same reason George Lucas does everything. Not everything is a conspiracy to take away your toys, little rico.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 7:06pm

Again, in movies and real life sometimes good people die and bad people get away. There is no cosmic “good deeds” balance out there that evens the score. Is this so hard to understand ?
So now you agree that making Greedo shoot first was a bad idea just make Solo appear to be less cold blooded ? We have movies such as Batman and Mad Max where the idea of a squeaky clean hero is turned on its head. James Bond has also become far darker in tone, despite he being the “last hope of the free world” and all that.
Sorry Dr DampSquib , but not all main characters have to meet some “code of honor”. You are the one who is lamenting about the Hollywood conspiracy about movie themes.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  RicoSuave
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 8:11pm

Oh FFS.

We can all make a list of great movies about terrible people, or people who have serious flaws. We can also make another list: Movies about flawed people that just aren’t very good films. This movie goes on the second list.

The reason it’s a bad film has to do with Jennifer Lawrence’s character. She’s absolutely thrilled to spend decades trapped alone with a man who ruined her life and stalked and harassed her. Not only does she think it’s a terrific idea, she finds it romantic.

This is not realistic human behavior. You can try to explain it by saying she has Stockholm Syndrome, or that she knows he’s a good person deep down inside. You can come up with a list of practical reasons why it’s perfectly sensible for her to stay with him. And, for you, that may be an entirely satisfying explanation, but for a lot of us, the story feels emotionally false. It also, not incidentally, resembles an abusive relationship.

Now, if the film was supposed to be about a bad relationship, if it was meant to document the pain of living with someone like Pratt’s character, then the movie might have worked. Instead, it seems to be justifying his behavior. It seems to be saying: This is what true love looks like.

We can hate this movie without hating every movie about an immoral character. We can hate it without hating ambiguity.We can hate it without demanding a simple moral or a tidy plot. We can hate it solely because it’s a contrived, implausible, sexist movie that has nothing to do with actual human behavior.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Danielm80
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 8:31pm

“We can hate it without hating ambiguity.We can hate it without demanding a simple moral or a tidy plot. ”

But isn’t that what is being done in this review ? That a moral balance and noble sacrifice is being demanded for the story ?

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  RicoSuave
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 8:35pm

No.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Danielm80
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 8:56pm

Yes.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 6:30pm

I’m sorry, I need you to clarify: Are you saying that it is acceptable for someone to force another person to accede to his desires?

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 7:57pm

Not at all. But I also see a film like “The Usual Suspects” or “Good Fellas” and understand that characters don’t have to fall in a narrow range of “good”.

IntrepidNormal
IntrepidNormal
reply to  RicoSuave
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 7:58pm

By actual law, he is not allowed to do that. What he did was basically rape by deceit and a tad bit kidnapping. and it wasn’t a Joker and Harley situation where both parties were so fucked in the head that their profoundly unhealthy relationship seemed to carry degrees of consent (although I really don’t want to open up the unholy can of worms that is my opinion on Suicide Squad again). It was a man victimizing an innocent woman, and we’re basically told to accept it.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  IntrepidNormal
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 8:05pm

People see films where the main character is a gangster, a vampire, a bank robber, all of whom bend the law to (and reality) to achieve their goals. It seems here that Pratt’s character get’s more revulsion than say Hannibal Lecter. Yet Lector gleefully can walk away and have the audience cheer. This is what I find odd … the strange set of standards.

IntrepidNormal
IntrepidNormal
reply to  Jurgan
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 7:50pm

I feel like “The bad guy wins” movies can be made without the feeling that their behavior is being endorsed. Gone Girl (whom people have had lengthy feminist discussions about on both sides, and I mostly came down in favor of in that respect) and No Country for Old Men both fit those catagories. I don’t feel like Passengers really pulls this concept off though, it seems to bend over backwards to make Pratt’s character out to be a decent guy who made a mistake and should be forgiven. Fuck that noise.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 2:44pm

I don’t know what review you read, but it wasn’t mine.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:44pm

Perhaps you need to read your own review. If you wrote it, that is.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 4:55pm

You wrote an entire critique of the film dissecting the male character’s lack of morals and ethics from your point of view.

This is what you wrote. It is not a legitimate characterization of my review. Not by a long shot.

I am just about done with you.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 5:09pm

Cool. Happy 2017. May you find peace and solace for your anguished soul.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 11:57am

My soul is not anguished. What the fuck is wrong with you?

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 2:04pm

Have you sought help for your anger issues ?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 6:30pm

You’re thisclose to getting banned.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 7:54pm

Look, I am sorry if my opinions upset you. This is your blog and all I wanted to express is that Passengers doesn’t have to have characters whose motivations are pure.

Jurgan
Jurgan
reply to  RicoSuave
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 8:17pm

“Ever heard of Tony Soprano, Dexter ?”

Yeah, but I’ve never seen either. I have watched every episode of Breaking Bad twice. Walter White alienates his whole family and dies a pathetic lonely death. If it had ended with Walter getting everything he wanted and living a happy life as the savior of his family, it would have been a different show.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  Jurgan
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 8:38pm

Each story has its own arc. We have had plenty of films where the bad guy wins and gets away.. “The Usual Suspects” is a good example.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 2:52pm

So you admit that Jim is a bad guy?

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:40pm

Refer to the post I was responding to… the context was about central characters who aren’t always some paragons of perfection. They did things that they felt achieved their larger life goal, despite straying from the straight and narrow path. Would you trash “The Sopranos” because Tony Soprano was a gangster and wasn’t some boy scout ?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 4:49pm

Do you understand the difference between *The Sopranos* and this movie?

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 5:14pm

Do you ? Please tell me how Pratt’s character is worse than Tony Soprano, a person who cheats on his wife, runs an organized crime ring , kills people etc. Oh wait, a science fiction fantasy like Passengers is somehow worse…

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:00pm

Please tell me how Pratt’s character is worse than Tony Soprano

No one is saying this. If you must resort to strawmen, you may leave now.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 2:09pm

You rambled on about the “horror” of this story, despite the fact that there have been plenty of similar stories where the two main characters are brought together by duplicitous means.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 6:32pm

How many times must it be explained to you? The problem is how *this particular story* deals with “two main characters brought together by duplicitous means.”

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 7:52pm

And how many times do you dodge why this particular contrivance in this movie is so trouble some to you. There is plenty of bad and impossible science and other issues with the film. Pratt’s character’s motivations is actually something that is possible in real life. Your caviling is why we had George Lucas go back and make that horrible reedit to Star Wars, where now Greedo shoots first. Because you know, having Solo shoot first as he did in the original version makes him look too “cold blooded”. Is that what you want ? To have Passengers re-edited to be compliant with your opinions ?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 8:07pm

I’m done engaging with you.

bronxbee
bronxbee
reply to  Danielm80
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:52pm

and 2001 has a solitary figure and a fascinating story.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 6:38pm

Who said that’s “the only ‘acceptable’ version of the film”?

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 6:51pm

You pretty much did, when you posed your ideas of “acceptable” actions for the male character. You didn’t bother with rating the film on its actual content.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 2:44pm

You really do need to work on your reading comprehension.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:43pm

You need to work on your excessive sense of moral outrage over a movie.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 4:51pm

My moral outrage is in fine form, thank you very much.

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 5:10pm

I am sure all those who give you a wide berth in daily life are quite aware of that “fine form”.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  RicoSuave
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 11:58am

Why do angry women scare you?

RicoSuave
RicoSuave
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 2:03pm

I steer clear of clearly disturbed people, regardless of gender.

David Boccabella
David Boccabella
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Jan 03, 2017 4:18am

It could have been romantic if Jim was gay, and researched the other passengers to find out who was gay so he could wake another.

The you could play the movie with 2 gay characters in exactly the same way as the movie played now.

Or how about if Aurora woke first and she was gay, and likewise searched for another lesbian woman.

The only horror in the situation is your own psychosis and there are doctors you can see for that.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  David Boccabella
Wed, Jan 04, 2017 2:41pm

No, it would not have been romantic if Jim had been gay, or if Aurora had woken up first.

But I bet the movie would have recognized that instead of trying to turn this scenario into a fairy tale.

nixcalo
nixcalo
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Fri, Jan 06, 2017 6:13am

I am kind of horrified by your insistence on “waking her so he can fuck her”. How can you really be so superficial and simple? Loneliness to the verge of madness, despair, suicide thoughts, the desire for human conversation, touch, warmth, company vs absolute isolation… all of them are much strongers than a mere desire for sex (which, for your information, can easily be solved with your right hand). And the need for human company is proven to be as strong (if not stronger) than many other needs. I suppose that if Jim had been without food and had started waking passengers to eat them in order to survive, you would have not seen it so horrifying, sexist or don’t-know-what-else-ish… well, any psychotherapist might tell you that extreme isolation can really do things to your mind. And your oversimplification of the plot is extreme… Jim is not rewarded by his reprensible actions, he is PUNISHED for them. But it turns that, later on, Jim saves the lives of everybody in the ship, including Aurora, sacrifiing himself in the process. But no, if that’s not a redemption for you, don’t know what is.. Let me remind you that Aurora would be dead if not for Jim… doesn’t that make her forgiveness a tiny bit more plausible than the living in hatred forever that you advocate?

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  nixcalo
Fri, Jan 06, 2017 11:29am

I suppose that if Jim had been without food and had started waking passengers to eat them in order to survive, you would have not seen it so horrifying, sexist or don’t-know-what-else-ish… well, any psychotherapist might tell you that extreme isolation can really do things to your mind.

Wow, you may have come up with the worst argument on the entire thread, and we had an actual Nazi here. If this discussion keeps going, it might go on record as the most disturbing conversation in the history of the site.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  nixcalo
Fri, Jan 06, 2017 1:35pm

I am kind of horrified by your insistence on “waking her so he can fuck her”.

It’s the movie you should be horrified at.

nixcalo
nixcalo
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Fri, Jan 06, 2017 6:22am

And of course, nothing is said about the only violence that is seen on the film., and that is Aurora viciously hitting and slapping and punching Jim, and nearly hitting him with a massive crowbar. I suppose that under that biased view of your, violence from women to men is justified (in some cases, at least), but the opposite is probably not true. And of course, hitting Jim is justified by his behaviour, but Jim’s act is inexcusable? Is that your moral compass? If you are ready to excuse Aurora, you might rethink Jim’s motivations. And, by the way, let sex out of the equation, you are trying to make things dirtier in order to try Jim look heinous… sex has nothing to do with the movie, it’s COMPANY what Jim seeks. And his act is not evil, it’s DESPERATE (and ethically wrong, and extremely grave, of course), but not evil. And I truly believe it’s forgivable as many acts born of desperation, not evil (even without the latter life saving “heroism”)

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  nixcalo
Fri, Jan 06, 2017 1:37pm

Holy fuck.

Lenina Crowne
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 4:05am

Oh, lord, the comment section.

http://i.imgur.com/7drHiqr.gif

If Chris Pratt had played Jennifer Lawrence’s part and Steve Buscemi had played Chris Pratt’s part, I wonder how sympathetic this audience would be to his loneliness…

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Lenina Crowne
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 5:21am

I’m wondering if this review was mentioned on one of the “male supremacist” sites.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Danielm80
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 6:12am

That or these people are spending Christmas tearing around the internet being outraged at bad reviews. This is sitting at 32% on RT, and every reviewer that isn’t calling it out for being boring are making pretty much the same points MAJ is (and often both).

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 6:04pm

I’m just going to make a blanket request that MaryAnn delete every comment posted on this page since Sunday night, including this one.

Griffith
Griffith
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 5:55am

What a pathetic attempt to jump on the outrage bandwagon. The 2016 election must have fried your brain and now you just see victimhood everywhere you look.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Griffith
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:25am

Aww, thanks for your concern! So sweet.

JusticeB
JusticeB
reply to  Griffith
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 7:47pm

I don’t agree with her perspective but you are not proving anything here except that you don’t have a decent argument so you resort to personal attacks, which is just sad.

JusticeB
JusticeB
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 6:04am

This is based on the version of Sleeping Beauty where the princess is raped by the king before she’s awakened. Then she becomes the prince in Snow White and commits an ethical lapse of her own by reviving him, having no idea what his quality of life will be if she revives him. I didn’t like the falsely sunny ending either but I don’t think the movie trivialized what he did. I might have done the same thing in his situation which doesn’t make it right but for those of us terrified by the idea of being alone, it’s comprehendable.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  JusticeB
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:26am

I don’t think the movie trivialized what he did.

He ends up with precisely the ending he had hoped for. No, it doesn’t trivialize what he does. It rewards him for it.

JusticeB
JusticeB
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 7:35pm

That wasn’t the ending he had hoped for. He had wanted to make it to the new planet, and he had to continue to live with his crime, and with his conscience. The two of them made the best of their situation. I agree it was a false-sunny ending but I don’t think it was condoning murder. As I said, good people do terrible things.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  JusticeB
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 2:46pm

It’s the ending he hoped for when he decided to wake her up!

The two of them made the best of their situation

No! She is only in this “situation” because he put her in it.

John Honey
John Honey
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 6:24am

Loved this movie! To many of the reviewer’s points:

1. It was an agonizing choice. The point of Jim finally deciding to wake Aurora up was to show what can drive people to make morally wrong decisions. Intense, insane loneliness can do that. Decades alone would drive him mad. It’s an incredible quandry and I thought very aptly executed by the writers.

2. Showing one person forgiving another (Aurora forgiving Jim) is fantastic. It shows the power of just human connection, that relationships can be turned around, they are not lost, there’s always hope, as long as both are living, regardless of how they started or the direction they had. People are resilient and are made for connections. Forgiveness and love are in our hearts. (The gender of who saved whom is not relevant. You can see “sexism” anywhere if you want to.)

3. To one of your technical criticisms: I wouldn’t risk that auto-doctor chamber being able to put someone in and out of hibernation. If it would have gotten it once, that would have been enough. That was my mental explanation for why Jim wouldn’t wake Aurora had she chosen to sleep again, or that they wouldn’t choose to “share” it every other decade. Too risky.

This was a story that rang true on every level for me: emotional and technological. Four out of five stars!

RogerBW
RogerBW
reply to  John Honey
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:27am

The trick is, does the film show Jim having any realisation that he has done vile things? Or is he more “meh, women, end their lives and rape them and they get all pissy at you”?

JusticeB
JusticeB
reply to  RogerBW
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 7:37pm

He realized through the entire movie that what he did was wrong. (Actually I consider what he did to be murder but not rape, I know some include sex under false pretenses to be rape but I don’t.) He not only genuinely apologized he found a way to fix it and send her back knowing he’d be alone for the rest of his life.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  JusticeB
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 9:51pm

And yet the film lacks the moral courage to allow him to follow through on that impulse, opting instead to allow him to get what he wants, rendering both the gesture and his apologies meaningless.

JusticeB
JusticeB
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:09pm

Yes, the false sunny ending and the absence of sufficient consequences. But it doesn’t change the male character’s intent. The gesture and apologies would only be meaningless if he knew they would make everything ok. I’m more bothered by movies like Hollywood-ified versions of Pygmalion, where Henry Higgins offers no remorse whatsoever for his behavior, he just feels sad that he lost the girl, and the girl comes back to him anyway. In a movie like Passenger I can understand, through strangeness of circumstances, Stockholm Syndrome, etc., why the woman made the choice or had the feelings she did. Or Legends of the Fall, where the suicide of the female lead causes the brothers to at last come together. This movie looks at a real moral dilemma and while it handles it awkwardly, it doesn’t cheapen women’s lives. There’s a zillion misogynistic films out there, I just don’t think this is one of them.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  JusticeB
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:19pm

The script, while at one point having Aurora rightly accuse Jim of murdering her, gives her an out, and then has her refuse it. This reversal is something you understand? Even if so, can you also understand why many others might find this wholly unconvincing?

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:21pm

also

The gesture and apologies would only be meaningless if he knew they would make everything ok.

The character may not know this, but the author most certainly does, and goes out of his way to make it so.

JusticeB
JusticeB
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:38pm

Sure I can understand it. She’s adapted to this new reality. The severe trauma she went through changed her and she’s now a creature of this ship. Also, she could go back to sleep, there could be another malfunction, he could be gone having killed himself or whatever and then she’d be stuck by herself. Or something else could go wrong and she wouldn’t be able to help him fix it and she’d be dead. Also the movie was trying to awkwardly cram two themes together, moral “what would you do” kind of dilemma with “make the best of where you are now instead of always trying to look ahead to a better world later.” But sure I can understand why people would have a problem with it. I think the sunny ending was a flaw in the movie, too. I just don’t think it’s a misogynistic film and while it has its sexist tropes, it’s actually better than 50% of mainstream films in this area.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  JusticeB
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 2:56pm

What a wonderful message! When someone kidnaps and murders you, just make the best of it!

t’s actually better than 50% of mainstream films in this area.

That’s not good enough.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  John Honey
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:27am

It was an agonizing choice.

Oh, well, that makes it all okay then. It hurt him as much as it hurt her! Can’t we all see how much he is suffering?

(You realize that this is the language of abusers, right?)

JusticeB
JusticeB
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 7:43pm

First,, no one is saying “it makes it ok” including the person you quoted.

I think what he did was wrong and terrible AND I understand what he did. When I look at a choice a person or character makes I ask what I what do in that situation. In his situation I very well might have done the same thing, especially if driven to a point of near-psychosis by an unbelievably high stress and horrific situation. And I might not have waited as long as a year or even a week. Going to desperate and even evil measures under severe duress is not the same thing as beating your wife because she flirted with another guy at a party or raping a girl to impress your frat boy friends. If you’re confident that under severe circumstances you would not do something bad, I’m very glad for you and I can tell you you’re a better and stronger person than me. On the other hand I don’t think anyone really knows what they would do in a crazy situation like that unless they’ve lived it.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  JusticeB
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 2:49pm

no one is saying “it makes it ok”

That is exactly what it means. Jim’s actions are being excused because he feels really bad about it.

And whatever understanding we may have about Jim’s behavior, nothing excuses the way it is treated by the writer and director. Nothing.

In his situation I very well might have done the same thing

Maybe you would. But it wouldn’t be a nice romantic story!

If you’re confident that under severe circumstances you would not do something bad

This is NOT what the movie is about. Nor is it what my complaints about the movie are about.

Shelley
Shelley
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 7:14am

Agree with you 100% here. I liked the first half of the movie and can empathize fully with Jim’s decision to wake Aurora up–it’s pretty terrifying to spend the rest of your life as the only person alive, and I’d probably prowl all the passengers looking for the best combination of physique and brains and do the same if I were in his shoes. It’s just pretty terrible how the movie conflates such an act of pure selfishness with love (when you truly love someone you don’t try to drag them down with you, but rather try to lift them up, while you drown–like what Jack did for Rose in Titanic goddamnit!) and an entire half of the movie justifying the happy ending that’s pretty morally unjustifiable.

I really like your alternative version there–Aurora kills Jim in her rage, wakes up a guy to keep her company, the cycle continues. My version of the second half is Aurora trying to kill Jim a few times and finally breaking down after a few years and begrudgingly fuck him because there’s no one else and they live out their lives in quiet contempt that somehow has its rare moments of joy at the realization that the company of another human, no matter how shitty, is better than no company at all. I enjoyed the premise of the movie and thought it very promising: it’s just very sad that of all the interesting directions in which it could have gone, this movie went for the most hackneyed, idiotic and morally repulsive one.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Shelley
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:29am

I’d probably prowl all the passengers looking for the best combination of physique and brains and do the same if I were in his shoes.

And yet, it’s easy to imagine that were the genders reversed, Aurora would be cast as the crazy bitch villain who ruined a man’s life. Jim would *still* be cast as the character we’re meant to sympathize with!

Lenina Crowne
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 11:03pm

This movie seems to be inviting a lot of rewrites. Here’s my suggestion:
Aurora is not a journalist, but is an engineer of some sort, perhaps a genius to a) justify the plot, and b) make it one aspect of her that he has fallen in love with. The beginning of the movie plays out as it does earlier, where Jim is going crazy with loneliness, etc., but he does NOT unlock her hibernation chamber. Then all the glitches and stuff happen, whereupon Jim wakes up Aurora and says that he only did it because he needed her help to fix these glitches.

The twist is that the only glitch was the one that awoke Jim early. He unintentionally deluded himself into believing that he needed to awaken Aurora to justify it in his mind. When he starts spending time with her, he regains his sanity, realizes that he was deluded, and has a proper freakout about it, and maybe instead of stalking her he tries to avoid her out of shame/fear of reprisal. Aurora begins to experience the loneliness that he felt and stumbles across him about to commit suicide. She stops him because no matter how pissed she is, without him she would be all alone, and who’s to say she’d be able to stop herself from doing the same thing he did, especially considering he didn’t even, like, set out to do it? The whole thing is played as tragic and there could maybe be a little joke about “well, I guess we wouldn’t be the first people to stay together because there’s no hope of anyone else”.

I think it accomplishes the same goal without being as creepy.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Lenina Crowne
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:00pm

This movie seems to be inviting a lot of rewrites.

Because there are literally hundreds of ways this same basic premise could have made for a much better movie.

And I like yours. :-)

Birdfish
Birdfish
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 2:40pm

YES IN THIS KWANZA TIME WE MUST HAVE MOVIES THAT ARE NOT DISCRIMINATING!!!!!!!

THE PEOPLE ARE VERY ANGRY OVER THIS:

awakens crew member Gus (Laurence Fishburne: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, The Colony), and he also agrees that what Jim did is unacceptable. (Gus will soon die, because he is the black man in the sci-fi movie.)

YES IT IS UNACCETABLE TO KILL THE MAN IN THE MOVIE BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. THAT IS HORRIBLE RACISM AND UNACCEPTABLE. MR FISHBURN IS A GREAT BLACK ACTOR AND VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY GOOD.
HE SHOULD NOT BE KILLED BECAUSE HE IS BLACK.

NO I DID NOT SEE THE MOVIE BECAUSE OF HANDICAPS AND POVERTY AND THE MOVIE HOUSE DOES NOT GIVE FREE TICKETS TO THE POOR OR MAKE SEATS BIG SIZED FOR FOLKS WITH DISCRIMINATIONS
SO NO I CANNOT SEE THE MOVIE

IN THIS KWANZA TIME WE MUST CHANGE THE MOVIES SO THERE IS NO RACISM IN THEM AND WE MUST MAKE THE MOVIE HOUSE GIVE FREE HANDICAP SEATS AND POPCORN TO THE FOLKS IN NEED!!!!!!!!

MERRY KWANZA EVERYONE!

NOTE: I HAVE A HATEFUL CYBER STALKER. HE SOMEHOW CAN POST WITH THE SAME NAME. HE WILL POST RACISMS AND HATEFUL MOCKINGS. HE MIGHT EVEN BE TRUMP BECAUSE HE CALLED ME A FAT MAN ON THE BED AND THEN TRUMP SAID THE SAME THING ON THE TV!!!!
PLEASE IGNORE HIS HATESPEEK

Birdfish
Birdfish
reply to  Birdfish
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:38pm

OK BUT I MUST ADMIT THAT I HAVE NEVER WORKED A JOB IN MY LIFE OR PAID ANY TAXES.

I HAVE LIVED ON THE WELFARES MY WHOLE LIFE AND NEVER PAID ANY INSURANCE FOR ALL MY HEALTH CARE

I AM 492LBS BECAUSE IN STATESVILLE DOING HARDTIME I MET MY CELL MATE RUFUS WHO TAUGHT ME HOW TO CREATE A WELFARE DISABILITY THROUGH OBESITY.

THIS IS MY BUSINESS!!!

AND YES I KNOW OWN KWANZAA IS A FAKE HOLIDAY INVENTED BY A CONVICTED RAPIST IN 1966 AND NOBODY IN AFRICA EVER HEARD OF FAKE KWANZAA.

SO WHAT

AND YES I DO WANT TO SEE WELFARE MOVIES BECAUSE I DO GET THE WELFARES LIKE SECTION 8, FREE HEALTH 5, FREE UTILITIES, FOOD STAMPS AND LINK CARD, TOBY PHONE AND YES I DO HAVE A WELFARE TOLIET.

ALSO I WANT A WELFARE ROBOT AND A WELFARE FAT SCOOTER.

Birdfish
Birdfish
reply to  Birdfish
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:42pm

AND PLEASE IGNORE MY CYBER STALKER

Birdfish
Birdfish
reply to  Birdfish
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 5:02pm

YOU ARE THE CYBER STALKER
AND ONE MORE THING
FREE TICKETS FOR HANDICAPED POOR FOLKS IS NOT WELFARE MOVIES
IT WOULD BE A NICE THING FOR THE SENIOR CITIZENS
I AM A SENIOR CITIZEN

Birdfish
Birdfish
reply to  Birdfish
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 5:01pm

HERE ARE THE FACTS FAKE BIRDFISH:

FACT SET ONE:

I SUFFER THE TEN DISCRIMINATIONS:

-RACISM
-AGEISM
-ELITISM
-EX CON DISCRIMINATION
-HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
-FOOD DISCRIMINATION
-UNION SUPPORTER DISCRIMINATION
-MEDICAL DISCRIMINATION
-MOBILITY DISCRIMINATION
-JOB ACCOMODATION DISCRIMINATION
-EDUCATION DISCRIMINATION
-OBESITY DISCRIMINATION
-DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
-MEDICAL CARD/MEDICADE DISCRIMINATION
-POVERTY DISCRIMINATION

AND YES THERE ARE MORE THAN TEN! THE LIST GOES ON AND ON!!!!!!

FACT SET TWO:
I DO NOT GET “WELFARE”

-I DO NOT GET FREE HOUSING: I PAY $38 A MONTH! SECTION 8 NOT ENOUGH!
-I DO NOT GET FREE FOOD: LINK IS ONLY A LITTLE OVER $200 A MONTH
-I DO NOT GET FREE UTILITIES: THE COMPANIES GIVE IT FREE IN A PROGRAM
-I DO NOT GET A FREE PHONE. IT’S JUST A PLAIN OLD PHONE NOT A SMART PHONE.
-I DO NOT GET FREE INTERNET MY KIDS PAY FOR IT
-I DO NOT GET FREE COMPUTERS ONLY FREE GIFT COMPUTER FROM GRAND BABY
-AND I DID NOT GET A FREE TOLIET. YES A CHARITY PUT IN A HANDICAP ACCESSABLE BATHROOM AS THE LAW REQUIRES IN A RENTAL-THE LAW!-BUT IT IS THE LANDLORD WHO GOT IT FREE NOT ME! I DONT OWN THE PLACE! (SO THERE!)
-I DO NOT GET FREE PILLS THE DRUG COMPANY GIVES THEM OUT
-I DO NOT GET WELFARES SSI IS FOR OLD POOR FOLKS LIKE ME DISABLED
-I DO NOT GET FREE DENTISTS IT WAS A PROGRAM
-I DO NOT GET FREE HEALTH CARE WITH MEDICARE THEY SEND ME A BILL. SO IT IS NOT FREE. RIGHT IN THE TRASH GOES THE BILL!
-I DID NOT GET A WELFARE COUCH IT WAS A PROGRAM FROM THE FURNITURE STORE
-MEALS ON WHEELS IS NOT WELFARES -FOOD BANKS IS NOT WELFARES

FACT SET THREE:

I AM DISABLED! I NOW GET SSI BECAUSE I AM SERIOUSLY DISABLED!
-HEART FAILINGS
-KIDNEY FAILINGS . AND NOW DIALYSIS 3 TIMES A WEEK!
-REQUIRED WHIRLPOOL BATHS FOR OPEN WOUNDS ON LEGS FROM WATERY BUILDUPS!
-DIABETES WITH A SUGAR TO 800
-WATER BUILDUP
-OBESITY A MEDICAL CONDITION FROM THE GOITERS
-BAD KNEES
-BAD BACK
-THE SLEEP APNEAS WHICH CAUSES SNORING AND REQUIRES NAPS. IT ALSO REQUIRES A SPECIAL MACHINE CALLED A SEAPAPS THAT PUMPS AIR IN YOUR LUNGS WHEN YOU ARE SLEEPING. IF YOU GET IT THE ELECTRIC COMPANY CANT TURN OFF YOUR POWER EVEN IF YOU ARE POOR AND DO NOT PAY YOUR BILL!
-CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME WHICH MAKES YOU VERY TIRED
-DUCK STONES: FROM THE GALL BLADDER STONES COME DOWN INTO THE DUCKS OF YOUR STOMACH AND BLOCK IT UP. THEY EVEN HAD TO SEND A SPECIAL EXPERT TO GO INSIDE TO REMOVE THE STONES!!!!
YES, A SPECIAL EXPERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FACT SET FOUR:

I WORK AND HAVE ALWAYS-YES ALWAYS-WORKED.

FOR YEARS I CLEANED UP AROUND THE CHURCH AS A JOB. NOW I CANT GET AROUND TO DO THAT BUT I BABY SIT ACROSS THE WAY.

THESE ARE FACTS FAKE BIRDFISH!

SO THERE!!!!!

Birdfish
Birdfish
reply to  Birdfish
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:41pm

THIS IS MY KWANZAA WELFARE SELFIE IN MY WELFARE SECTION 8 FREE APARTMENT
comment image

Birdfish
Birdfish
reply to  Birdfish
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 5:00pm

NO FAKE BIRDFISH THAT IS NOT MY KWANZA SELFIE
NO
IT IS NOT ME
FOR SHAME ON YOU

Peer Review
Peer Review
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 5:07pm

How to put a b|tch in check: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Fj8JkfhP4

Todd Groves
Todd Groves
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 5:19pm

[SPOILER ALERT]
After actually seeing the film, I am not so surprised my the moral superiority forwarded by this reviewer and many other reviewers on RT. RT is another perfect reason of why I don’t listen to ANY film critics anymore. But, especially those that appear on RT.
I am surprised by the reviewers who mostly focus on the moral dilemma part of the story, instead of all of the conveniences that set up the final outcome. If any of the reviewers actually found themselves in the same situation as the main character, Jim Preston, I’d highly doubt they wouldn’t find themselves considering the choice that Preston actually makes that they find so morally unacceptable. The romantic aspect, while seeming to be tagged on, could have been left out of course. But, in the end, had the events NOT unfolded as they did there would be over 5,000 dead people on a self-destructing ship.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Todd Groves
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 6:43pm

I’d highly doubt they wouldn’t find themselves considering the choice that Preston actually makes that they find so morally unacceptable.

That may well be true. That doesn’t make it any more morally acceptable to actually go through with it. It also doesn’t make it any more likely that the person you woke up would be happy with what you’d done and forgive you for it.

had the events NOT unfolded as they did there would be over 5,000 dead people on a self-destructing ship.

That’s one of the “conveniences that set up the final outcome” you say critics aren’t commenting on. (Though you mustn’t have read my review if you think I didn’t.)

Todd Groves
Todd Groves
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 9:10pm

It’s easy for you and I to sit behind our keyboards and claim we would never make Jim’s decision to awaken Aurora. But, you and I would never find ourselves being awakened from cryogenic sleep in deep space only to find ourselves completely alone and conscious. So, to make such a claim of moral superiority is dishonest at best.

Why did Jim wake up Aurora? Well, he did at least look into her profile to see that she was clearly more than just a pretty face. Had he just awakened her seconds after finding her for the sake of his loins, I would understand the disgust. But, he didn’t doing anything for over a year of being alone. Could you honestly say you could survive on a giant spaceship filled with thousands of “sleeping” people for over a year before attempting to revive someone? I’m not sure I could. And I doubt many people could make such a claim.

The problem with all film reviews, mainly the long form versions, is that they reveal WAY too much about the films themselves. Why film critics find the need to give away so many details makes their purpose more detrimental to film going experiences than helpful. I choose to wait until after I’ve seen a film before reading long reviews. As a result, I’ve enjoyed more films.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Todd Groves
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 9:50pm

Unless she was the person who had designed the entire spacecraft, and therefore the only one with the requisite knowledge to fix the problems on board, then ultimately his loins were the reason he woke her up. He literally could have picked anyone else.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Todd Groves
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 9:51pm

Also, I do hope you appreciate the irony in how much you are claiming moral superiority over film critics as a group here.

Todd Groves
Todd Groves
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 10:37pm

No, I’m not the one making a conclusive moral statement about the choices Jim made. Sure, it would’ve been better had he not revived ANYONE. Assuming that he revived a girl mainly because he was sexually inspired is also mistaken. He knows with a girl that they would share interests besides the loin-based interaction. Imagine yourself in his situation. Think of how long it would take to vet over 5,000 people to find someone directly connected to the design of the ship. Would you really take the time to seek out someone who might have a part in designing the ship, as opposed to finding someone you knew you would most likely get along with? Given the loneliness you might feel after being stranded on a ship in deep space for over a year? You have no guarantee that the person who designed the ship was even on board. So, what choice would YOU ultimately make given those parameters, if you decided to revive someone? Also, consider the fact that this is ONE movie. It’s the dramatization of one situation given a certain amount of time for the characters to make huge choices that 99.9% of everyone else would never experience. I just find it laughable that people would claim to be so certain if placed in the same circumstances.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Todd Groves
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 11:33pm

We’re not saying that we’d never do it. We’re saying that no one should make a romantic movie about it.

Todd Groves
Todd Groves
reply to  Danielm80
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:02am

I don’t consider “Passengers” a romantic movie on any level. They may have been drawn to each other more out of the need for companionship than romance. Romance requires a lot more time to develop than companionship.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Todd Groves
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:11pm

You’re saying that the happy ending, complete with Aurora’s voiceover, does not suggest that they lived happily ever after in an idyllic environment?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Danielm80
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:10pm

And we also should not expect that our creepy plan would actually work to secure us a loving companion to have lots of happy sex with.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Todd Groves
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 2:41am

No, I suppose you’re not making a conclusive moral statements about a fictional characters, who exist to make moral judgments about, in an entirely fictional situation, containing elements that are quite literally impossible in the real world. Instead, you’d rather make moral statements about real people, and how they react to this fictional person in this fictional situation, based on what you’ve decided they’re saying about what they would do in this entirely impossible situation.

Bully for you.

Todd Groves
Todd Groves
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 3:21am

You’re reading into my words. I’m not making moral statements about anyone here. I’m commenting on their opinions, not on them directly. Entirely impossible? What parts are “entirely impossible”? The situations are based on scientific possibilities. Just because we’re not currently traveling into deep space while in suspended animation doesn’t make it “entirely impossible”. All of those situations are considered quite attainable by current scientific studies.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Todd Groves
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 5:35pm

Or, you’re not thinking about what you’re saying.

Dude, no one living on planet earth right now will ever, ever, find themselves alone in a confined space surrounded by more then 5000 other people in a state of suspended animation 90 years before those people will be revived, and therefore faced with the decision to condemn one or more of the others to the same fate as themselves. The entire situation is a contrivance, designed to tell a story that poses a moral question. It is, to coin a phrase, “science fiction”. As it turns out, it’s not a particularly challenging moral question. Condemning another human to the same horrible fate as yourself is the wrong thing to do, and doing so makes you the monster. “The road to hell…” and all that. A better film could have mined drama from that rather obvious conclusion. This one does not. Rather, it posits that you’re really just lonely and desperate, so the other person will not only forgive you (maybe after a good row or two) but also fall madly in love with you.

Todd Groves
Todd Groves
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 6:03pm

Dr. Rocketscience. I guess you’ve mistaken your own name for fact. If reviving someone else can help save 5,000 other people, you wouldn’t consider reviving anyone to help?
Claiming you know what the future holds for mankind is far more non-thinking than anything I’ve said. Maybe with our current set of political hacks running the country we won’t see any real deep space exploration in the immediate future. But, to insist there is no other future but what YOU can imagine NOW is far more deluded than any other claim I’ve heard.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Todd Groves
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 6:33pm

Don’t be a shit.

Science fiction posits all kinds of impossible scenarios. (See: any story involving any kinds of FTL travel.) Whether or not this particular situation could ever happen isn’t the relevant point. Sci-fi doesn’t exist to ask “What would you do in this exact situation?” Normal fiction does that just fine. Sci-fi sets up an impossible situation to ask what is the right thing here past the edges of human experience. Not “What would I do?” That’s small and limited. Rather, “What should people do?” Then, as in any good morality tale, the characters are asked to deal with the consequences of that choice.

The correct moral choice here is pretty clear; you haven’t even been able to muster an argument that says Jim makes the right decision. The best you have is to toss your hands in the air and challenge everyone else. Now, the problem then isn’t that he makes the wrong decision. The problem is that the screenwriter and director go to great lengths, despite gesticulations toward an appropriate conclusion, to make it OK for Jim to make the wrong choice. He doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of his choices.

Really, there are two ways this story gets told in a morally acceptable way: he stays alone and slowly goes mad (at least until he finds the “stasis pod” or whatever); or he revives someone and they kill each other. “But that’s so dark”, you say? Hell yes, it’s a dark fucking premise! But at least this way the story is mired down in bullshit. Particularly sexist bullshit, indicating that the filmmakers are completely unaware of the issues in sexual politics over the last several years, or even several decades.

Todd Groves
Todd Groves
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 12:57am

“The correct moral choice here is pretty clear.”

Yea, it’s ‘clear’ to someone who will probably never face such circumstances. And your premise that someone revives another only to kill each other is even more preposterous. Yes, dark. But, more absurd. So, who’s really being honest here? Choosing what’s “pretty clear” over the “what if” choice? So, people have never made insane choices before? We could switch this story with war in this discussion. And fewer people would have an issue with war than they would with this story. War involves more people’s lives being taken from them than any other event. How crazy is that? But, this story is a problem?

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Todd Groves
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 2:26am

it’s ‘clear’ to someone who will probably never face such circumstances.

Which would include everyone who will watch this movie.

And your premise that someone revives another only to kill each other

“Premise” isn’t the word you want here. Also, he wouldn’t do it, as you seem to be implying, specifically in order for them to kill each other, it’s just the morally acceptable conclusion from the writer. The person woken second – the one who is deliberately murdered – attempts to return the favor, until one or the other is dead. And hey, at the top/bottom of the page, you’re looking for other ways this story could play out. Kid of dickish to turn around and piss on ideas you requested, isn’t it?
At this point you’re clearly flailing around, trying to find a winning argument. I think I’m going to let you have it without me.

Todd Groves
Todd Groves
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 2:39pm

Kind of dickish? Wow. But, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised coming from an absolute moralist. Now, I’m pissing on ideas? I’m honestly asking people to forward ideas to open up the discussion, and you just want to shoot it down to further your own narrow minded narrative.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Todd Groves
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 5:03pm

Well, consider: I posited a couple of ways this movie would work better from its starting premise, and you accused me first of dishonesty, and now of narrow-mindedness. So, yeah, kind of a dick move there.

coming from an absolute moralist.

*snort*

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Todd Groves
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 6:50pm

If reviving someone else can help save 5,000 other people

LOL. But that’s not why Jim work Aurora.

Also: No one is saying that cryosleep and decades-long journeys to other planets will never happen. What is ridiculous are the precise details the writer deploys here. Why is it impossible to return to cryosleep? Why is the crew in a secure sleeping area but not the passengers? Because cryosleep and interstellar spaceships do not actually exist (yet), it’s all up to the writer to invent the technology. And this writer did that in such a way so that he could tell a story that is ultimately morally repulsive. He didn’t *have* to do that. He was not stuck with the details of an existing technology that, if he altered them, it wouldn’t ring true. He made it all up.

How you cannot see that is a mystery.

Todd Groves
Todd Groves
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 12:51am

I agree that the writer was lazy in what he put forth, as premise and as an outcome. But, I think to claim that no one here would consider waking someone else given the same circumstances is equally contrived.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Todd Groves
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 8:12pm

Literally no one is saying that.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Todd Groves
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:08pm

finding someone you knew you would most likely get along with?

You are still missing the point: What about what *she* wants? Why is she “likely” to get along with him? Why do his needs trump hers? Why does the film reward him for his horrendous act? Why does the writer create a pliant, forgiving partner for him? Why are you so sympathetic to his situation and not to hers?

Todd Groves
Todd Groves
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 3:14pm

Pliant? Why because she eventually forgives him? Aurora showed her anger and avoided him for a while. Should they have made the movie a half hour longer with Aurora showing more anger? Movies only have 2 hours to tell their story before many audiences lose interest. But, it seems that some people are upset that she forgave him at all. Did you even consider the possibility that she thought about what living in deep space completely alone would be like? Maybe she came to realize that if she were to survive as a PERSON that she would need the support of another PERSON. Instead, some people are so intent on having their personal morals validated, they’d only be willing to accept an outcome that was darker than the what occurs in the story. It has nothing to do with being “pliant”. It has to do with survival. Yea, he ignored her needs and wants. Just like YOU are denying his now. So, I guess it’s not about dealing with the predicament their in. It’s about , “Gee, why can’t they make a movie about ME”.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Todd Groves
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 6:37pm

People are upset because the story is contrived in such a way as to allow for precisely the argument you are making. People are angry because the story makes it “reasonable” for a woman to forgive her kidnapper and murdered. The story did not have to be constructed this way. It’s appalling that it has been. It’s repulsive. Your damn right this is about my personal moral perspective on this. The question is, why aren’t *your* personal morals outraged by this?

That’s a rhetorical question. You don’t have to answer it.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Todd Groves
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 10:04pm

Lots of people do lots of terrible things. That doesn’t mean those things always make a compelling story, or that audiences gain anything from watching that story, other than learning that people do terrible things.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Todd Groves
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 2:53pm

It’s easy for you and I to sit behind our keyboards and claim we would never make Jim’s decision to awaken Aurora.

Who is claiming such a thing?

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Todd Groves
Mon, Dec 26, 2016 9:47pm

A story could have been written wherein Jim saves the ship all on his own (or with the help of the various bots on board). Though I doubt Chris Pratt is really up to starring in that movie. Point being, it’s not at all like this is the only possible way this set up could have played out.

ѕυρєяиσνα
ѕυρєяиσνα
reply to  Todd Groves
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 4:19pm

As much as one would love to hide uncomfortable issues such as these behind some convenient ‘bigger picture’, one should also note that the end does not always justify the means.

darkcorridor
darkcorridor
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:27am

Lol. Pratt in his rape van in space. I always laugh at the levels that feminists take stuff. Yes sometimes people make dumb decisions and fall in love anyway. Humans, by nature, are selfish creatures. He didn’t pull her out of cryosleep and pull a 50 shades of gray against her will. She jumped him when he was eating his breakfast all because he said she was pretty.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  darkcorridor
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:02pm

That was before she learned that Jim is the one who woke her up, for nothing but his own selfishness.

Yeah, such a “level” I took this too! You’d almost think women don’t like being treated like objects.

darkcorridor
darkcorridor
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 5:08pm

You would be surprised how many women “get off” at being treated like objects. I have a dog collar for my lover and she loves it when I feed her treats and say “good girl.” Yes, many women love being treated like sex objects. This is why movies like 50 shades of gray continue to be popular. Yes I know not all women are the same. That’s the beauty of life. While you view the male character as a rapist, some women and people will view it as romantic. Yes, weird world we live in, but it’s true. I get your point but I just disagree.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  darkcorridor
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 5:51pm

Some women enjoy being treated that way, and movies have been made about them, of varying quality. But if Lawrence’s character does enjoy being treated as an object, the movie has to establish that and explain why. Otherwise, the film is implying that—except for the science-fiction setting—Pratt’s behavior is the typical, romantic behavior of a person in love.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Danielm80
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:02pm

It’s also implying that pliant, forgiving women who put the needs of men before their own lives and desires is normal, too.

And hell yes, there is definitely an argument to be made that this movie is as pernicious and as abusive as *50 Shades of Grey.*

Jurgan
Jurgan
reply to  darkcorridor
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 11:27pm

I assume (hope) that you ask your “lover” if she’s okay with being treated this way? And if she said she wasn’t in the mood for it some night, you wouldn’t try to force her to do so?

Brian Jackson
Brian Jackson
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 10:09am

In spite of what this “critic” says about the movie, it’s actually entertaining and worth seeing. As for this LIBtard critic, she sounds like a miserable and lonely woman. The kind that just want to curl up to a good book, with her dog, and have a good cry rather than accept certain realities (hmmm sounds familiar). My advice to her, get out more. You’ll find someone eventually. The odds are in your favor in this day and age, where “love is love.”

Jane
Jane
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 3:41pm

I want to watch your version that ends in a ship littered in bodies when it arrives… sounds like a good thriller –

Michoel Jones
Michoel Jones
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 6:21pm

If one switches the gender of the main characters, I presume you would have nothing to say. Your review has zero depth and isn’t about the movie.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Michoel Jones
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 6:49pm

I bet that sounded clever in your head

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Michoel Jones
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:03pm

Why would you presume that?

Mind Of Jack
Mind Of Jack
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 8:48pm

Wow. The basis for this review is sexism. What a joke. Now imagine how if the sexes were reversed how funny this film would have been -_-

RogerBW
RogerBW
reply to  Mind Of Jack
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 9:17pm

If the sexes were reversed, the woman would be depicted as blatantly evil for stealing the man’s life. That’s how Hollywood works.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Mind Of Jack
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:05pm

The basis for this review is sexism

It is indeed! How clever of you to have noticed. (Maybe the headline tipped you off?) Yes, the basis of the review is critiquing the sexism of the movie.

I don’t see how switching the genders would make any of this “funny”…

Elwood72
Elwood72
Tue, Dec 27, 2016 11:03pm

What a missed opportunity. “Aurora kills Jim in her rage… and then realizes how lonely she is and wakes up someone else. And the cycle begins again” is just the kind of creepy cinematic darkness my younger self loved.

TheRandomOne
TheRandomOne
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 4:19am

So if the girl work the guy up you would be cool with it ?

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  TheRandomOne
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 12:19pm

Why do you presume that? If the story were otherwise identical (including the happy ending), then of course I would not be “cool with it.” But it’s almost impossible to imagine the story being exactly the same if the genders were reversed. How likely would it be that a male writer and a male director would create a pliant, forgiving male character who would live happily ever after with his kidnapper?

TheRandomOne
TheRandomOne
reply to  MaryAnn Johanson
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 3:03pm

They probably should have stuck with the original script. They got Pratt because hes likeable. This was originally gonna be darker & star Keanu Reeves & Rachel McAdams

Todd Groves
Todd Groves
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 5:18pm

WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE? (An experiment)
Sexism has arisen in this thread. I can see where this is coming from. I can also see how sexism can be applied to Jim, the male character. He’s shown spending more time trying to SMASH his way into the crew quarters than he is shown trying to access a passenger list through any computer console. Very macho to put so much attention into smashing something enough times in hopes that thing will spill out its contents with enough force and time.

1. I would get rid of the convenient reviving of Gus Vancuso. The guy who happens to have high level access to everything that’s needed to save the ship. Way too convenient, story-wise.

2. The meteor that started the slow destruction of the ship was also responsible for “waking up” Jim. We discover that the ship has been falling apart ever since the meteor – that woke up Jim – struck. A better choice might have been that when the ship reached a certain level of decay that it would trigger the revival of a military engineer who would be expected to have the knowledge to repair the ship. Given that we send soldiers to war because they’re aware of the risks, reviving a military engineer to repair the ship might make more sense.

3. At some point, the engineer would realize that he would need help repairing the ship if he is to bring the ship back from its eventual destruction. This is where the engineer could revive Jim, knowing Jim would probably have the physical strength needed to complete repairs especially involving the core.

4. Reviving Aurora. Personally, I think the main purpose behind reviving Aurora was to give the story emotional impact that may not arise for many audience members. Movies are great escapes sometimes, and thought provoking adventures other times. But, they’re also a business. A business that needs to make money back from its movie and appeal to a lot of people, both male and female. Granted, they may have taken the easy way out by trying to shoehorn a relationship into what is clearly a dire situation.

If you could, how would you rewrite “Passengers”? What would you change to make it a better story, and/or more believable? I don’t think there are any “right” answers to this experiment. I just thought it would be an interesting exercise in sharing ideas on how such a story could unfold. “Passengers” was just one version of an outcome about a ship in deep space, traveling to a new planet over 120 years. Fire away.

IntrepidNormal
IntrepidNormal
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 8:01pm

MaryAnn, I don’t always agree with your opinions here (although I invariably respect them) but whoo boy did you hit the nail on the head here… yikes.

Jurgan
Jurgan
Wed, Dec 28, 2016 11:32pm

So a lot of people seem to think it’s clever to say “you’d probably like it if the genders were reversed!” Which is nonsense, and there’s no reason to believe it, except for the ridiculous idea that rights are a zero-sum game. “If feminists ever got their way, they’d treat men as badly as we treat women!” No, it’s perfectly possible to believe all genders deserve fair treatment.

dani
dani
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 1:23pm

I agree that Chris Pratt’s character isn’t fully responsible for waking up Aurora. Social isolation can and always does make a person descend it madness eventually given enough time (just like those kept in solitary confinement) . In the end Aurora understands what that must have been like for him when she realises that she would be left alone if he dies say’s “NO!,If you die I die” . After they save the ship and the 5000 other sleeping passengers Jim also, in a more lucid state, tries desperately to make amends by suggesting Aurora use the only thing that can put her back in to hibernation at the cost of his own life. plus meaning he will be left alone with only the memory of her (the ultimate sacrifice for true love. Critics seem to be totally missing these points.

ѕυρєяиσνα
ѕυρєяиσνα
reply to  dani
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 4:04pm

the ultimate sacrifice for true love.

*(((facepalm in stereo)))*

Critics seem to be totally missing these points.

Huh? What ‘points’ exactly?

I must say, I’m intrigued at the implied belief that Auorora actually made choices that led her to find the all-culminating ‘true love’ with Jim. In all honesty, Auorora was selected for no other practical reason other than being a woman of Jim’s liking, unwillingly brought into a grave situation at his utter selfishness and has been stuck down a road of processing actions and consequences to the very end. Even if we want to say “well, Jim was at a desperate breaking point of lunacy when he made that dumbass decision”, it’s not wholly convincing that it wasn’t actually largely out of his own self serving desire not to suffer alone when there’s a female hottie nearby – especially since he suddenly grew a conscience real fast the second he activated her wake-up sequence. How convenient! That easily makes him ‘only human’ and thus forgivable and washes away all, right? I mean, no nevermind the fact that he immediately proceeded to lie to her from that point, knowing full well the doom he condemned her to. Completely intending to manipulate her for his own satisfaction. Yup, that’s the all beautiful, true-love material right there. By the time she finds out the horrible truth, what choices does she really have at that point?

And that big sacrifice he presents to her? Sacrifice? Since when is trying the right an epic wrong that you created in the first place equivalent to a “sacrifice”? He wasn’t doing her a favour. He OWED her that much, imho.

While I do get that all plots are not intended to be all rainbows and candy-canes towards women (or men likewise), it’s the constant simple-minded trope that “the guy will always get the girl at the end of the movie” that is ever so tiresome to witness in this day and age. This story though takes it to the utter low point where “the girl” doesn’t truly get a choice in the matter, but happily pretends that she does. With this, it’s hard to ignore the obvious male egotism on flagrant display in this film. Sadly, this is what it is. And I for one am not willing to buy into that wasteland fantasy that this is actually what a woman wants, or deserves.

Lucy Gillam
Thu, Dec 29, 2016 2:10pm

Wow, am I glad I read this review. I found the previews interesting even if romance-centered stories aren’t my usual thing, but…blech. I shall forgo.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 5:32am

Threads like these are why Disqus needs a “Check out this asshole” emoji.

Yes, I’m aware it would get pointed at me from time to time. I do try to select my targets carefully.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 5:39am

I’m still curious why the assholes are so attracted to this particular thread. Passengers isn’t an especially noteworthy movie, and MaryAnn wasn’t the first person to give it a bad review, or to call it out for being sexist. Are there a significant number of trolls who are obsessed with Jennifer Lawrence?

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Danielm80
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 5:47am

I think you were right when you said you suspected the review had gotten shared somewhere in the altmanosphere.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 11:17am

“Altmanosphere” makes it sound as though there’s overlapping dialogue and multiple characters with multiple storylines. Which may be true.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Danielm80
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 4:02pm

Kinda. Have you heard about the “Alt-Right Civil War” on Twitter right now?

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 4:21pm

No, and I’m pretty sure I don’t want to.
*Googles furiously anyway*

LaSargenta
LaSargenta
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Tue, Jan 03, 2017 6:02pm

Now that would be a hood topic for Rbt. Altman

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Danielm80
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 8:23pm

I’d guess the number of such trolls is quite high.

Yarberger
Yarberger
reply to  Danielm80
Mon, Jan 02, 2017 10:10pm

A reason why *people* are attracted to this thread is because it appears in one of the first batch of summarized reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Dr. Rocketscience
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 3:56pm

And just when I thought this thread couldn’t get any more absurd, someone suggested that we go to IMDB for objective reviews. Winter has come and the Idiocracy is here.

Dr. Rocketscience
Dr. Rocketscience
reply to  Danielm80
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 4:01pm

The fuck…??

sambo6
sambo6
Fri, Dec 30, 2016 11:32am