|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 19, 2019 0:45:09 GMT
He provided the opportunity for her to be put back into hibernation at the end which I thought rather undid his initial wrong deed.
Would it have been more interesting or less of a waste if they hadn't had that "fortunate crisis" and had the move show their relationship ebb and flow down through the years with her coming to grips with what he did?
I'm sure the writer(s) could have come up with a way for their conflict to come to a head in a dramatic fashion without stretching out the story for years. Or if they just had the same crisis, but less Hollywood. I didn't mean that as a negative thing...like it HAD to show the relationship over years. I was just asking if that was an example of another way of dealing with this interesting (I thought) dilemma and how to have it play out. I mean, they could've left it with her hating him forever, and that might have been realistic, but less than satisfying to those who want "happy endings" in movies. |
|
biker1
Junior Member
@biker1
Posts: 1,804
Likes: 744
|
Post by biker1 on Jan 19, 2019 1:20:14 GMT
The colonizing of a distant planet to save a doomed human race has become a recurring theme in recent space movies - pandorum (2009), cargo (2009-switz), interstellar (2014), alien: covenant (2017).
passengers was pretty much a 'desert island' romance in space with few surprises. The extravagant production design looked a treat and the film lived up to undemanding expectations.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jan 19, 2019 3:33:34 GMT
The colonizing of a distant planet to save a doomed human race has become a recurring theme in recent space movies - pandorum (2009), cargo (2009-switz), interstellar (2014), alien: covenant (2017). passengers was pretty much a 'desert island' romance in space with few surprises. The extravagant production design looked a treat and the film lived up to undemanding expectations.5/10 "with few surprises" --------------------------- LOL, I don't think many people expected Laurence Fishburne to show up halfway through it or Andy Garcia (in a 10 second non speaking role) at the end of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 3:40:20 GMT
Wasted opportunity. They should have adapted Brian Aldiss' excellent novel Non-Stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 19, 2019 12:11:19 GMT
I have seen it once so far on Feb 24th 2017 and overall I like it. ill have to get around to re-watching it and see how it holds up. 6/10 (a mild Thumbs Up) Don't know how you do with movies...collect them or whatever, but I found this in the $5 bin at walmart. I think it was well worth the money, because I imagine I'll watch it several more times. I would agree with your 6 rating. I can think of better movies, but overall, I really like the pace and feel and think Pratt and Lawrence did well together. Some would probably call it chemistry, but I just think of them as being comfortable working together. I've seen interviews where they do get along well, joke together, are friends, and I think it showed in the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 19, 2019 12:25:51 GMT
Wasted opportunity. They should have adapted Brian Aldiss' excellent novel Non-Stop. I read some of the summaries/comments about Non-stop. I liked how prescient it was given space travel with the idea of long term journeys would have been a novel thing back then. It seems like a good one to adapt. Maybe someone will. It seems to bring up an interesting dilemma a bit different than the one Passengers brought up...ie, as someone put it to condemn future generations to live in a technological age, which I took to mean in artificial surroundings.
It almost seems like the theme (at least as I understand it) of a feral population finding themselves in a jungle that is artificial and how they discover it is a bit like Iceman (1984) where an intact ice age human is discovered and somehow brought to life in an artificial surroundings contrived to make him, I guess as best I remember, feel comfortable and how he discovers the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jan 19, 2019 14:55:46 GMT
Wasted opportunity. They should have adapted Brian Aldiss' excellent novel Non-Stop. Didn't they already make a Movie with Liam Neeson about that or is it something completely different ? |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 19, 2019 15:34:54 GMT
Wasted opportunity. They should have adapted Brian Aldiss' excellent novel Non-Stop. Didn't they already make a Movie with Liam Neeson about that or is it something completely different ? Same name. Different story. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 15:38:24 GMT
I enjoyed it. It isn't a classic or anything, but I'd probably watch it again on Netflix.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2019 16:12:03 GMT
He provided the opportunity for her to be put back into hibernation at the end which I thought rather undid his initial wrong deed.
Would it have been more interesting or less of a waste if they hadn't had that "fortunate crisis" and had the move show their relationship ebb and flow down through the years with her coming to grips with what he did?
I'm sure the writer(s) could have come up with a way for their conflict to come to a head in a dramatic fashion without stretching out the story for years. Or if they just had the same crisis, but less Hollywood. Here's the thing about this film. It would have worked waaaay better if the entire first section wasn't there. Begin with Jennifew Lawrence's character being woken by by Pratt's character. Show their romance etc. But Pratt gives her the occasional look when he thinks she won't notice. We get the feeling that something is wrong, but we don't know what. Maybe he's a psycho or something? Build up to the reveal of what he did and then the fallout. As the film is structured, the audience are ahead of the characters. We know what Pratt did, we know how Lawrence will react. We know a bustup in their relationship is coming long before it happens, and that's just bad writing. But skip that first act and then the audience is learning things as the characters learn them. The audience and characters are in synch, and revelations to one are revelations to the other. It would make for a much better film. |
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jan 19, 2019 16:17:00 GMT
Didn't they already make a Movie with Liam Neeson about that or is it something completely different ? Same name. Different story. What is the one that your talking about actually about ? |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 19, 2019 17:00:42 GMT
Same name. Different story. What is the one that your talking about actually about ? The Chris Pratt-Jennifer Lawrence one. |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 19, 2019 19:31:57 GMT
3/10
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jan 19, 2019 22:28:12 GMT
What is the one that your talking about actually about ? The Chris Pratt-Jennifer Lawrence one. Yeah, you said that "Non-Stop" was just like "Passengers" so how exactly does "Non-Stop" itself go along and what is it about ? |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 20, 2019 2:18:46 GMT
I'm sure the writer(s) could have come up with a way for their conflict to come to a head in a dramatic fashion without stretching out the story for years. Or if they just had the same crisis, but less Hollywood. Here's the thing about this film. It would have worked waaaay better if the entire first section wasn't there. Begin with Jennifew Lawrence's character being woken by by Pratt's character. Show their romance etc. But Pratt gives her the occasional look when he thinks she won't notice. We get the feeling that something is wrong, but we don't know what. Maybe he's a psycho or something? Build up to the reveal of what he did and then the fallout. As the film is structured, the audience are ahead of the characters. We know what Pratt did, we know how Lawrence will react. We know a bustup in their relationship is coming long before it happens, and that's just bad writing. But skip that first act and then the audience is learning things as the characters learn them. The audience and characters are in synch, and revelations to one are revelations to the other. It would make for a much better film. I see your point, but the one thing the first section brought out to me is the incredible panic and dismay Pratt's character went through suddenly realizing he's all alone with 90 years to go with his dismay leading all the way to considering suicide before he...well, fell in love with the sleeping beauty. How would they show that...with flashbacks? Would that have worked as well? It seems a trade-off either way. If they'd have done it the way you said, it'd be good, I think but a different story to me. Yes, I knew she'd have a fit once she learned, but I didn't know how she was going to find and and what would bring her back to reconsider him. |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jan 21, 2019 8:12:40 GMT
rizdekMy general thing with movies is they are ultimately broke into two categories... -5/10 or less = Thumbs Down (i.e. won't re-watch(with rare exception)) -6/10 or higher = Thumbs Up (i.e. will re-watch) that's basically how I score movies in a very basic sense as it makes the most sense if you ask me since, at least in my mind, a movies real worth is whether I want to re-watch it from time-to-time as the years pass or not as to me it makes no sense for some people to score a movie fairly high only to pretty much forgot about it in a year or two as that to me speaks volumes about what they really think of a movie. although movies I score a 7 or higher tend to see the most re-watches in general (because anything I score a 7 or higher is good enough to make My Favorite Movies list which currently contains 186 movies out of the 2,225+ total movies I have seen) and next inline would be movies I score a 6-6.5/10 which are movies that are a by shy of 'My Favorite Movies' status. but with all of that said... for $5 and it's a movie you will re-watch you clearly won, especially since you suspect you will see it several more times as the years pass. but even if you watched it say a couple of more times and then suddenly got tired of it then it would be hard to complain because that would be about $1.67 a viewing and it's hard to complain at this point. but at the same time it just depends on how much value someone puts on say $5 or $10 or $20 which will vary a bit from person-to-person as some people can drop $20/50/100 like it's nothing where as for others $20 is not a small amount to where it's a non-issue for them etc. hell, even for $3-5 for a one time viewing, if that single viewing was at least decent enough not to waste your time, you ain't got much to lose there especially if you don't gamble on movies too much as if you started dropping $5 on random movies you never seen and most were not worth re-watching then that $5 would start to add up and, personally, at that point I would rather put that $ towards something else especially if one was dropping say $100 (say 20 movies @ $5 on movies you don't even know you like or not) in somewhat of a short time period. but I guess it depends on ones $ situation etc as if you got money to burn, then I doubt you would care, but if one is trying to be a bit more efficient with their $ then what I am saying here carries some weight. Yeah, I tend to agree with the whole 'chemistry' thing as I think they are pretty much what carried it for me. and yeah, there are definitely much better movies out there but then again it's enjoyable enough to warrant re-watches and like I always say, a movie is ultimately made or broke based on whether I want to re-watch it from time-to-time or not.
|
|
