Passengers (2016)


Dir: Morten Tyldum

Starr: Jennifer Lawrence, Chris Pratt, Michael Sheen

Viewed: Cineworld Renfrew St, Glasgow (Screen 10)

NOTE: This review goes into some detail about the film’s plot. I wold strongly advise going to see the film first, even if the main point of my review is to state just how much of a failure Passengers is.

“These are not robot questions.”

(Arthur draws attention to precisely what kind of questions Jim is asking)


“Do you trust me?”

(Jim asks Aurora before there first space jump, to which she should answer, no, no, and NO again)


For the few people out there that have always thought a modern day remake of the indentured servitude melodrama Rachel and the Stranger (1948) would work particularly well in space, then Jon Spaihts’ is about to disappoint you too. Passengers is a miserable mess of a film that manages to somehow sabotage a potentially interesting idea, not once, but twice. What is in effect a three-hander with plenty of scope for creepy psychological thrills and claustrophobic intensity, has all its dangerous edges smoothed away at the point of casting Chris Pratt as Jim Preston. Pratt’s amiable, affectless modern masculinity is predicated upon his near complete lack of sexual threat. He’s big, but he’s goofy; good looking and wise-cracking, but with a constant undercurrent of niceness. Inexplicably screenwriter Jon Spaihts gives the audience a fantastic location (the self-sufficient spaceship Avalon) and a disturbing central premise (what would you get up to if you knew you were the only conscious person among 5,000 unconscious interplanetary colonists?), but then chooses to focus upon an absurdly-realised romance and an utterly fudged action ending. For the record, Preston’s unravelling loneliness does not excuse his ‘act of killing’, and the obsessive way in which he controls and manipulates Jennifer Lawrence’s Aurora, is anything but ‘romantic’, unless your idea of ‘romance’ has a 15th century flavour about it. Lawrence is, by a long way, the best thing about this film, but I wonder just what kind of film she thought she was signing up for?


Passengers - Staring.png
Love is in the air? Or is that a psychopathic stare of intent? For large parts of the film Jim (Chris Pratt) is watching Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence. This voyeuristic tendency creeps into other areas of the film when the director frames Lawrence, so that her body is little more than an object to be gazed upon.


Spaihts’ script would have done well to heed the promotional tagline of the first entry in a franchise that he wrote the last instalment of, namely Alien (1978) and “In space no one can hear you scream”.  Prometheus’s (2012) woeful plotting was partly the fault of Spaihts (who co-wrote it with Damon Lindelof). Horror film critic Kim Newman has written about the overlaps, in terms of technology, between the universe of Passengers and Prometheus, hinting at a possible franchise linkage, which may go some of the way to explaining the incongruous nature of Andy Garcia’s brief appearance. But what do I mean by that tagline? In Alien there was a crew, progressively picked off one by one by the titular alien, until only Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley was left to defeat the creature. This was a monster movie in space, that toyed with the emerging aesthetics of the slasher genre, and made much from the dark industrial nature of the spacecraft Nostromo. Passengers, by comparison, takes place on the brightly lit and hyper-consumerist Avalon, featuring a bar straight out of The Shining (1980), manned by an android, or is he a robot as even it seems confused about this issue of identity. This android/robot, named Arthur and played by Michael Sheen, is Jim’s only company, when he is woken from his 120-year hibernation by a freak asteroid strike. Jim was supposed to have emerged from his cryo-stasis, along with the other colonists, 4 months before landing on the far away colony of Homestead II. Instead, he finds himself awake 90 years ahead of schedule, with no means of getting himself back into cryo-stasis. The rapid deterioration of Jim’s mental wellbeing brings out a monstrous id, that should have formed the central component of a perversely disturbing psychological thriller in space, but Spaihts script chooses to evaporate this sense of dread and obsessive threat, by instead focusing on Preston’s recovery once he has woken/murdered Aurora’s potential Manic Pixie Dream Girl. As Aurora discovers that tagline to Alien is all too true.

Frustratingly, the script puts enough meat on Lawrence’s role as Aurora to further emphasise just what could have been achieved if the writer, and most likely the studio behind this film, had opted to focus on the horror and thriller elements of the plot, rather than the romance and action elements. There is a revenge film in there somewhere, with Lawrence’s Aurora as the central protagonist and heroine. Aurora may start out like a MPDG, helping Jim rediscover his mojo and get rid of his Robinson Crusoe beard, but Lawrence is too smart an actress to be hemmed in by a reductive modern female archetype. Long before Arthur has spilled the beans about the precise reasons as to why Aurora finds herself stranded in space and time with Jim, we can see that the character is self-possessed in a way that never occurs in the purely reactive natures of MPDGs. It is a further failure of Spaihts’ script that once Aurora is fully apprised of what Jim has done to her and reacted with the kind of vengeful rage that is always interesting in film, it simply lets this wrathful fury dissipate into forgiveness, just in time for the plot to intervene and force the couple to co-operate with one another. It is all shockingly wasteful, as the queasy nature of their relationship, and the perversity of Jim’s initial fixation are buried under a welter of chauvinistic alpha male action posturing and cod Christian symbolism.


After the revelation of why Aurora is actually with Jim, Lawrence really comes into her own, whilst Pratt is left floundering in a role that would have been better suited to someone like Michael Shannon.


A quick test of just how conservative and patriarchal the gender politics and ‘romantic’ notions of the film are can be carried out by examining more closely the two male relationships in the film. Firstly, you have Jim’s relationship with Arthur the android/robot (this confusion of identity augurs in other vagaries). Jim never goes beyond the formal with Arthur, refusing to enter in to a strong sense of camaraderie, or its modern equivalent ‘bro-ness’, partly because Arthur is unabashedly British and ‘proper’ in his speech, but also, perhaps, because Arthur isn’t in fact a man and his eunuch physicality underscores this emasculation. By comparison, when Laurence Fishburne’s Gus Mancuso (one of the managerial elite of the Avalon) is woken up from his cryo-stasis, we see Jim immediately enter in to an easy manly bond with him. Unlike Arthur, Gus also has eyes for Aurora, and Jim can relate to this. Gus’ companionship acts as a restorative of Jim’s machismo by enabling Jim to re-enter the casual chauvinisms of normalised masculinity. Mancuso also serves as just another means by which the script frustratingly converts the intensely voyeuristic and obsessive fixation that Jim has with Aurora into behaviour that is inherently masculine, rather than disturbing and ‘weird’. Even in normalising Jim’s behaviour as something central to a sense of male ego, there could have still been potential to demonstrate how this is perniciously predicated upon ideas of dominance, invasiveness and objectification. However, the little inserts of Aurora’s home video footage from a leaving party prior to her boarding the Avalon, show her female friends affirming a central romantic tenet of the film, that true happiness can only be found in a heterosexual relationship with a good, strong man. Does a man who holds you captive until you submit to his idea of romance count as a good, strong man I wonder? Once again, the echoes of Rachel and the Stranger sound out through galactic wagon train of the Avalon.       

Director Morten Tyldum (Headunters, The Imitation Game) was very clearly a hack for hire, going through the motions of Spaihts’ torturous script. That said there are elements of the film that are well handled. The production design on the film is immaculate, with the Avalon being a supra-plastic consumerist space patterned on shopping mall complexes like Westfield’s in Stratford, London. It is telling that the operations quarters of the Avalon are out-of-bounds to our passengers, with only the consumer-driven sections of the ship at their disposal. Like good modern citizens Jim and Aurora should simply occupy themselves with consumerist activity, and not waste time thinking about who, or what, is in charge of providing this life they lead. Columbia, the studio behind the film, are owned by Sony, which might explain a blatant bit of product placement in situ, when Jim has a little PlayStation inspired dance-off. One moment of brilliantly original effects work occurs when Aurora takes a swim in the starlit swimming pool, just as the gravity drive kicks out. This unique action sequence proves so effective because it again incorporates the dread aspects of those smoothly consumerist spacecraft veneers. Life is very much under the regulation of computer operating systems, squirreled away behind the panelling. By far the weakest element of the entire film is Thomas Newman’s ponderous and plodding soundtrack that could be Muzak, if it weren’t so tiresomely omnipresent. In a film built of fleeting moments of intrigue salvaged from a morass of poorly executed ideas, I still think that the one point where another, better film becomes visible is that moment when Aurora bursts into Jim’s bedroom and beats him senseless, before threatening to bludgeon him. The fact that this happens exactly halfway through the film, and serves as the last point at which the film shows any interest in the darker aspects of its central relationship, should give you a sense of just how far Tyldum and Spaihts let the whole thing drift.


Rating: 3.5/10


Other Side of the Door, The (2016)

Other Side of the Door, The (Poster)

Dir: Johannes Roberts

Starr: Sarah Wayne Callies, Jeremy Sisto, Sofia Rosinsky

Viewed: Cineworld Fountainpark, Edinburgh (Screen 8)

The Other Side of the Door is a nearly successful supernatural chiller that gives a strong indication of where the future may lie for the British film industry. It is the kind of classily mounted low-budget venture that Hammer made a killing from. Unlike Hammer, however, Rory Aitken and Ben Pugh’s production company 42 are looking toward the Indian subcontinent as a production partner, whilst simultaneously maintaining strong links with the Hollywood Studio system.

42 was announced with some degree of fanfare back in 2013. They were to operate as a production company cum talent agency, representing the likes of Rhys Ifans and Michael Caine, as well as looking to produce mid-range commercial genre fare like Welcome to the Punch (2013). Working alongside Rakesh Mehra’s Kriti Productions (who helped produce Asif Kapadia’s breakthrough work The Warrior (2001) they have put together a rather modern work of horror, set in India, with some location shooting taking place at the former residence of author and poet Rudyard Kipling – whose The Jungle Book is featured prominently as a plot device within the film. The influential VP of Fox International Pictures, Anna Kokourina, is the Hollywood production partner. The film features familiar faces with a television profile, Sarah Wayne Callies (The Walking Dead) and Jeremy Sisto (Six Feet Under, Suburgatory). In genre terms it is also important to note the presence among the producers of Alexandre Aja, director of the remakes of The Hills Have Eyes (2006) and Maniac (2012). It is safe to say that Aja has had a very hands-on role in the production, as not only does his production partner Justine Raczkiewicz feature as a co-producer, but cinematographer Maxime Alexandre and editor Baxter are both Aja regulars.

English director Johannes Roberts, who worked on the intense F (2010), initially handles the material here with a deft and subtle touch. The audience is introduced to Maria (Callies) and Michael (Sisto) during a blissful, sun-kissed Mumbai marriage proposal sequence, that swiftly reveals itself to be a dreadful nightmare. Michael has relocated the family to India to pursue a career in rare antiquities. The couple’s young daughter Lucy (a delightfully impish Sofia Rosinsky) is doted upon by her father, on the rare occasions he is home. Maria seems to be a little colder with her daughter and entrusts most of her care to the Indian maid Piki (played by Indian television personality Suchitra Pillai). Gradually, Roberts and his regular writing partner Ernest Riera, unfurl the complicating factor within this series of relationships. Audaciously they have chosen to examine a kind of Sophie’s Choice source of trauma, in which a mother has had to choose between saving one of her children and letting the other one die. The guilt of her inability to save her son Oliver (Logan Creran) is what dominates Maria’s thoughts, creating distance between herself and the daughter who survived, as well as the husband who wasn’t there when she needed him.

If the film had continued to mine this seam of loss and trauma then The Other Side of the Door could have been a very effective psychological drama, particularly considering Roberts’ facility for creating tension out of the alienating and disorienting ‘otherness’ of Mumbai. The film’s move toward the more familiar spectral hokum of Del Toro is an unfortunate progression. Unnerving child presences, poltergeist-like activity, the objects of a lost childhood (the stuffed toy tiger), J-Horror inspired demonic figures, all of these are blended together in an increasingly preposterous climax to the film, that even manages to foreground Sisto’s Michael, despite the fact this character has barely featured at all in the rest of the movie.

Other Side of the Door, The - Del Toro Horror
The descent into Del Toro terrain negates much of the effective psychological drama that had preceded it. Here we have a ghoulish Oliver (Logan Creran) seeking to torment his younger sister Lucy (Sofia Rosinsky).


Yet even in such magpie messiness The Other Side of the Door manages to come up with real moments of poignancy and baroque horror. Maria is told by Piki of a temple near her home village where “It is said that the line between the world of the dead and the living is very thin in this place”. Roberts follows up this conversation with a beautiful window shot that shows Maria enclosed within the shadowy domestic space of haunting memories, whilst reflected against the window pane is the blurred frame of her daughter, playing with their pet dog in the sunshine. This occasional visual succinctness is a strength that better producers may have fostered more effectively in Roberts. Later, when Maria approaches the temple she first journeys through a lush forest that is straight out of a fairytale, before coming across the skeletal trees, dead animals and disturbingly pregnant silence that surrounds this holy site. The sound design at this moment actually makes so much of so very little, with the initial silence of the temple being a forceful presence of its own.

There is an irresistible pull toward exoticism for any non-Indian filmmaker operating within the subcontinent and Roberts’ use of the Aghori sadhus as a ghoulish expression of Indian spiritual ‘otherness’ is perhaps the most exploitative aspect of the film. The encroaching menace of these painted figures provides the film with the majority of its cheap shocks and jolts. By comparison the simple use of a pet animal staring off camera is far more effectively chilling and has none of the problematic cultural misreadings. As the film strains for its concluding sacrifice it also falls foul of that old chestnut of the martyred woman, with Maria’s increasing mental instability making her more reminiscent of Victorian gothic females, than the more compellingly complex and modern trauma victim she had at first seemed. The film may have benefited more from adhering to the restrained and chilling claustrophobia of The Innocents (1961) than indulging in the mannered CGI shocks of The Orphanage (2007).

Rating: 5/10