“Essentially amounts to a risable two-hour exhibit of sci-fi Stockholm Syndrome.” – EW
Passengers currently has a 30% on Rotten Tomatoes. Was there really any doubt? Let’s read some of the greatest hits, shall we?
“Passengers is the tale of a lonely guy in space, the drama of an ethical conundrum, a love story featuring two of the hottest actors on the planet, and a turbulent sci-fi action-adventure – and for all of that, it manages to be not a very good movie.”
“Titanic” in space? No, but it’s certainly a disaster.
“Dreams up one of the most intriguing ‘what would you do?’ scenarios in recent movie memory and takes it precisely nowhere.”
“Part space romance, part space thriller and all space corn, Passengers is a messy and unconvincing mash-up that tries to get by on the not inconsiderable charm of stars Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt.”
I’m gonna keep saying this until somebody listens, but Jennifer Lawrence has been in two good movies. Two. Winter’s Bone and the one where Bradley Cooper was a stalker who used to be fat. And in those movies, if you would have replaced her with anyone else, they still would have been good movies. If you want to say Joy was a good movie, that’s cool, but please remember it was about a woman who invented a mop. Chris Pratt has been in one. Possibly two if you count the new Guardians Of The Galaxy. In his last movie, he played a dude who could kinda talk to velociraptors. Let’s not confuse what these people bring to a movie. Columbia spent $120M to make a “romantic science fiction thriller” which turned out to be neither of those things and thought if you stuck Jennifer Lawrence’s and Chris Pratt’s faces on the poster they’d get that money back. Shoulda used some of that money to pay a screenwriter. Live and learn!