Sorry, but, no, no, no. I feel like the idea of a man and a woman stranded on a desert island has been zapped by Land of the Lost Sleestacks (the masters of mixed genre) into a sci-fi scenario. "Passengers" has a bit to offer in performances and nuances, but it suffers from fact that there are already a bunch of Harlequin romance novels out there. And I'm sure Fabio has been to space before. I grant you that there is a twist in the plot, but is that really what the viewer "cares about" here? The producers have banked on the idea that people just need a reason to see Miss Lawrence and Mr. Pratt make-out and do more. Warning: There are naked people in this movie which is approved for 13 year olds.

Synopsis: Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt are two passengers onboard a spaceship transporting them to a new life on another planet. The trip takes a deadly turn when their hibernation pods mysteriously wake them 90 years before they reach their destination. As Jim and Aurora try to unravel the mystery behind the malfunction, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction... only to be threatened by the imminent collapse of the ship and the discovery of the truth behind why they woke up.

Here's Basically The Deal:

  1. There are interesting moral questions raised about the choices we make and how they effect future generations.
  2. I don't believe 13 year olds should (or anyone, for that matter, needs to) see other people naked and performing acts which are sacred and reserved for those two people. I don't care if camera angles and low lighting do not show as much detail as other movies do. This should have been rated "R" and this grown up would not have seen it in the first place.
  3. (Spoiler, but who cares alert) Why didn't Jennifer Lawrence wake up someone to beat Chris up after she found out what he did?

Regarding Passengers, I say, keep moving, there's something better to see.

Save For Later? Click here to get this post in PDF