Passengers (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 116 minutes
Director: Morten Tyldum
Writer: Jon Spaihts
Cast: Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Sheen, Laurence Fishburne

Passengers is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Roadshow Films.

In 2007, the Passengers screenplay written by Jon Spaihts was featured on the Blacklist, which is a list of the year's best scripts that have yet to developed for the screen. Now nearly 10 years later Morten Tyldum has brought Spaihts' screenplay to life.

After watching the film, it is not only obvious why the screenplay was part of the Blacklist, but it is also obvious why it took so long for it to be made. Passengers sounds as though it could be an intriguing enough story, but there is only so much that can be done with it when translated onto the screen. The end result is a film that is fine, but could never really have been something truly special.

In the future when Earth is over-inhabited, the spaceship, Starship Avalon transports 5000 passengers to Homestead Colony to set up the next stage in human existence. Although the journey is to take 120 years and all the crew and passengers are to be in hibernation pods until just before arrival, a malfunction occurs and Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) awakes 90 years ahead of schedule. He is the only being to be awake on the Avalon besides android bartender, Arthur (Michael Sheen), until he is joined a year later by Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence). The two have an instant connection, but it is a connection that may not have been made under the most ethical circumstances.

Passengers is really everything it could have been. Morten Tyldum directs it to the best of his ability and both Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence bring as much to the screen as they possibly can. The fault of the film does not lie in the production of it. There was just no possible way that the story could have been developed for the screen without it coming across as mostly unoriginal, only slightly ludicrous and mediocre at best.

The film has been likened to a cross between 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Notebook, which sounds so odd that it sets off alarm bells instantly. While the sci-fi genre is typically able to get away with an escape of realism, the whole concept of Passengers just seems too far-fetched for it to be taken seriously. It is the type of film that one watches knowing that they should be pondering the ethical dilemmas and underlying themes being presented by the characters and their situations, but they are just too far removed to make a connection. There are indeed some interesting ethical questions to be explored there, particularly in regards to Jim and Aurora's relationship origins, but it is difficult for these to become conversation starters when the ludicracy of the story is the film's main talking point

However, Passengers does have some redeeming features. The production design by Guy Hendrix Dyas of the Starship Avalon's interiors is very impressive as they are complex, but neat and linear. There are some truly spectacular celestial moments throughout the film, but it is a shame that they are few and far between. One also cannot fault the film's two stars, Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. Passengers is perhaps the most intense role Pratt has had to date and he maintains the comical demeanor that he has become popular for as well as showing the needed emotions. Jennifer Lawrence gives her consistent all to the role of Aurora and has a great chemistry with Pratt onscreen.

Despite the misgivings of the film, Passengers is still watchable. It is not painful to watch by any means, but struggles to make something meaningful out of something so ridiculously far-fetched.

5/10

Midnight In Paris

Year: 2011

Director:  Woody Allen

Cast: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen, Kathy Bates, Marion Cotillard, Carla Bruni, Adrien Brody

Before I begin my review…..

You know, there is a difference between thinking a film is a good film and truly liking it. Of course the two can usually come hand in hand with each other, but you can walk away from a film saying “Yes, it was good”, but it is different to walk away and saying “I really loved that film!”

Being a reviewer, I see many films that I know are great films and because I am a fan of great film, I do like them. Yet that doesn’t mean that I am going to put the film on my list of all-time favourite films.

On my list of favourite films, there are many films which I would consider great film, others which I know perfectly well won’t end up on any “Greatest Films Of All Time” lists…except mine. These are the films which you think are great films, but you have that extra emotional attachment to them because they strike an interest with you or you can relate to them.

Why am I talking about this? Because I loved Midnight In Paris! It is a good film, not one of the best films at the year or a contender for the Academy Awards (but I wouldn’t mind seeing it as one!), but it had a lot of me in it. I love the city of Paris, I loved all the literary and art maestro’s in the film and I love films that take you back to the glory days or yesteryear. Yes, I do want to live in Paris in the 1920’s. And if I do, I want to look and dress like Marion Cotillard.

Here is my review…

Review

It’s been a long time since Woody Allen has made a critically acclaimed film and you may have heard that Midnight In Paris is his best film in decades. You may like to know that this is true.

Woody Allen is completely back to form in Midnight In Paris. He has discharged the trends in the films he has made in the past 10 years which were still selling cinema tickets, but clearly not working for him. Midnight In Paris is subtle but charming and very sweet. It is almost like a modern day fairy tale with the all-important moral of the story at the end. New territory for Allen, but it works.

                Hollywood screen writer, Gil (Owen Wilson) and his fiance, Inez (Rachel McAdams) are on a trip to Paris. Gil, who is struggling to write his first novel, falls in love with the city, while Inez is quite the opposite and doesn’t romanticize Paris the way her fiancé does, except if it includes her friends and in particular old flame, Paul (Michael Sheen). Gil decides to take a night walk back to their hotel while Inez goes out dancing, and he finds that Paris comes alive at midnight.

                It is completely obvious within the first five minutes that Allen is in love with Paris the same way he is with New York. His montage of Parisian landmarks and Parisian life is a wonderful way to set the scene and make the audience fall in love with the city.  His cinematography of the city is loving and beautiful.

                People who are not fans of Allen’s past work will still enjoy Midnight In Paris, as it is completely different from the majority of his films. It hasn’t got the same “weird” vibe as most people describe his films as having. It is a load of fun, and helps if you know a bit about great writers and artists of the early twentieth century to make it all the more fun. Some people may find it all just a bit silly and the concept completely ludicrous, but there is no doubt it is entertaining.

                The script is very clever for a subject which is actually quite simple when it comes down to it. The concept of going back in time is not a new one, but it seems completely fresh in this film and Allen does a wonderful job of recreating both turn of the century Paris and 1920’s Paris.

                What the best thing about Owen Wilson’s role in this film as opposed to his past roles, is that he comes across a lot more natural than usual. He is often criticised for giving forced roles where she seems like he is trying too hard to be funny, but here he is just completely at ease. He gives one of his best performances in years.

                Wilson and Rachel McAdams are completely mismatched on screen, which means that they have achieved their objective. Unfortunately, she is not quite as believable as the hard to handle fiancé. She seems like she still really wants to be nice so her performance does feel forced.

                Alison Pill and Tom Hiddleston are a real treat as Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald and Adrien Brody is hilarious as Salvador Dali. Marion Cotillard is charming as usual and completely at home in her city of Paris.

                A wonderful treat, especially for those who love Paris.

8.5/10

TRON Legacy

TRON Legacy
Year: 2010
Director: Joseph Kosinki
Cast: Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde, Michael Sheen

In My Own Words
How excited are sci-fi fans about this film? After 28 years since the original "TRON", fans finally get to see the revamped version of the old Disney classic. I never watched the original "TRON". One of the reasons being that I was born in 1982 so it wasn't a new release I got to see at the cinema. My only memory of it is of it being one of the trailers on my other Disney movie videos (yes, videos....let me know if anyone needs reminding of what a video is). At that point in time I was more interested in Disney films with talking animals rather than science fiction films. Since then, it is not a movie I have seen on DVD. I believe it is on DVD, but it is very hard to come by. I would watch it if I could find it! I am sure a few of the questions which I have about "TRON Legacy" would be answered if I had seen "TRON". Maybe I would have appreciated it more, but I'm not quite sure. Maybe I would have been comparing it too much and would have hated it! Who knows! Personally I thought the best things about the film were the music and the visuals. Without the impact of those two features, the movie would have just been a confusing and boring 2 hours. I never thought I would credit Daft Punk with making a movie worthwhile. Of course, if you are a sci fi fan, you are obviously going to disagree with me. This film could well be your bread and butter.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
28 years after Disney released "TRON" in cinemas, it's sequel "TRON Legacy" finally comes to our screens. The original "TRON" was seen as a break through in cinema as it was released at a time when computers hadn't been around for very long and a movie about someone being sucked into a computer system created a great deal of interest. However, 28 years later in 2010, it doesn't create quite the same interest in our worlds where the internet is a necessity to many. The story is out dated and dull, only to be saved by the impressive visuals and soundtrack. Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund) is the son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), the video game creator who has been missing for years. When Sam investigates in his father's abandoned video game arcade, he finds himself sucked into the digital world which his father created. However, the world is now ruled by Flynn's creation gone bad, Clu ( also played by Jeff Bridges). Sam soon finds that he is the enemy of Clu and that his father is alive and living in exile inside the Grid.

It just seems as though Disney left it way too long to release "TRON Legacy" in order for it to be a success. Disney only confirmed 2 years ago in 2008 that their were serious aboit releasing a "TRON" sequel. Leaving it this long meant that times have changed as have what people find intriguing. We have seen many movies which are set around or in computer generated worlds that in the age of computers where anything is possible, it is hard to impress. Also, there will be many people who haven't seen the original "TRON" as it was released nearly 30 years ago.The film will pose many questions for those who haven't seen the original "TRON". For a film that is hard to come by these days on DVD, this was always going to be a problem. One can guess themselves what happenned in the first film, but there is still a great deal of film concepts that would become so much clearer for the audience if they had seen the first. Unlike many other sequels, this film is easier to be judged as a stand alone film rather than a sequel. This may not do the film any justice, which is a rarity for sequels.

On the other hand, visually "TRON Legacy" has perfect timing. The film was not made for 3D, but post-production made it possible. The computer generated images during the film, such as the games of survival are truly amazing and exciting to watch. The techniques used to make Jeff Bridges 30 years younger are absolutely intriguing. It is amazing what can be done during post production of films these days. The costumes and make up are also very impressive. The soundtrack to the film, as done by Daft Punk, is one of the key elements of the film. Even for people who are not fans of the electronic scene, there is no denying that the music adds to the effectiveness of the film. Each piece of music enhances the scene which it is in and brings it to life. The direction and post-production of this film is really quite commendable.

The acting in this film is quite simple. The only two actors who show any type of emotion are Jeff Bridges and Garret Hedlund in the reunion scene and goodbye scene. Otherwise their acting is quite bland. Olivia Wilde as Kevin Flynn's sidekick, Quorra doesn't do anything spectacular in this film and it is not a very hard role for her to play. As Zeus, Michael Sheen seems to be channelling his inner David Bowie, and does so successfully. He is un-nerving and bizarre, but strangely interesting. The film is actually quite well choreographed during scenes such as with the sirens supplying Sam with his disk.

"TRON Legacy" is a hard one. The story and script is outdated and the acting is not spectacular, as one would'nt expect from a film such as this. However, it takes full advantage of the CGI which is available today and the film strives on this throughout the film. Without the CGI, there wouldn't be much of a film. Sci-fi fans will love this film, while others will either take it or leave it. The CGI can only take you part of the way to a good film, a good story and script will take you the rest of the way. Which makes "TRON Legacy" only partly a good film.
5.5/10

The Twilight Saga: New Moon

The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Year: 2009
Director: Chris Weitz
Cast: Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner

In My Own Words
Here it is, the awaited follow up to “Twilight”. Well, it will not have been awaited if you are not a Twilight fan and the first thing I will say about this movie before I tell you my own thoughts and my experience with this movie is that this movie is NOT for you if you are not a fan of Twilight. My boyfriend who followed me along for the special midnight screening gave it a 2/10, he was not impressed. I, myself, have tried not to become part of the “Twilight” phenomenon, but I have been drawn in, more by the books than the movies though. I did enjoy “Twilight” when that came out at the cinemas last year, I thought it was enjoyable. Sure it wasn’t the best movie ever made and does not rival “Gone With The Wind”, but it was fun to watch nevertheless.

My boyfriend bought tickets for me for the midnight screening at my local cinema as I wanted to review it before the majority of the world. Also I had never been to a midnight screening of anything so it was very exciting! Although I did go to the 9am first screening of “The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King” when that opened, but this was a bit more exciting at night for some strange reason. I was shocked, I have never seen my local cinemas so packed. They had six cinemas all sold out, all by people (mostly girls) under the age of 25. It can be hard to take a movie seriously when you have some groups of girls showing off to their friends by laughing at parts in the movie which aren’t even funny and are supposed to be serious. That was something that I was prepared for though.

So, as far as the film went, not as good as the original “Twilight”. Nowhere near as cheesily enjoyable as it was. And I repeat, stay away from this movie if you do not like “Twilight” at all, it won’t change you mind. However, if you are a “Twilight” fan, it is still worth seeing and you may find some happiness and enjoyment seeing Edward, Bella and Jacob on the big screen again.

These are my own words and this is my review.

Review
There is no escaping the “Twilight” phenomenon, especially leading up to the release of “New Moon”, the second installment of the saga. The film, whether it is good or not, will make millions worldwide in the box office from fans going to watch it numerous times. However, movie goers who go to watch the film who either did not like the first film or didn’t see it, will be completely dissatisfied and confused. The movie makes no sense without the first film and will not appeal to those who are not fans of Edward and Bella to begin with.

In the second film, eighteen year old Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and her vampire boyfriend, Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) have carried on their relationship despite their differences and the fact that Bella was nearly killed by a fellow vampire in the previous movie. After another close call, this time with members of the Cullen family, Edward decides that it is best for him to leave Forkes and Bella. Bella is left heartbroken and finds comfort in her friend, Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner). However, she then finds out that Jacob has a secret of his own. Jacob, despite his feelings for her, does not fill the void left in her heart by Edward. The film will delight Twilight fans. It stays true to the book and makes the most of each of the main characters.

However, as a stand alone film, it fails. As it is the follow on to “Twilight”, there is really no character development or explanations as to why things are happening in the film. The actors make the most of their roles, and make all there is to make out of their characters. Stewart can be painful sometimes as the emotional Bella, but that is the way that Bella is written in Stephanie Meyer’s book and plays the part perfectly when compared to the literature Bella. Pattinson and Lautner’s performances are not spectacular, but do not do a bad job. Ashley Greene’s role as Alice Cullen is probably the most interesting role and has the most variation to work with. However, it is not until the end that Dakota Fanning and Michael Sheen show up and their roles are both rushed and almost non-existent.

The change of director for this movie does not work well for the saga. Weitz does not do the film much justice and one can only hope that the change of director to David Slade for the next film, “Eclipse” will be advantageous. However, the visuals of Forkes are stunning, even though it was filmed in Canada. The soundtrack is also fitting. It is just a shame that there is no suspense and complete predictability throughout the whole film to overshadow it.

Again, avid “Twilight” fans will still enjoy the film and there is no doubt it will be one of the biggest box office hits for the year. The movie unfortunately does not live up to the hype and the spectacle is greater than the film itself.

5.5/10