The science-fiction/romance movie “Passengers,” hitting theaters on Dec. 21, right before Christmas, asks big moral questions, but stays solidly in the secular space.
It’s a Christmastime movie without Christianity — or religion of any kind — but that’s not unusual these days.
Chris Pratt, that rarest of movie creatures — the smokin’ hot everyman — plays Jim, a working-class guy aboard a swanky space liner on a long suspended-animation trip to his new home on a distant colony planet. A mishap aboard the ship wakes him up … 90 years away from the eventual destination.
After a year of solitude, he’s joined in his sojourn by a fellow passenger, a spunky New York journalist with the improbable name of Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence) — yes, apparently journalists still exist in the future.
Together, they make the best of a bad situation. Then, it gets much, much worse.
It’s hard to talk about “Passengers” without explaining the central moral twist to the story. If you want to read an extensive examination of it, click here.
I will say that a character makes a choice that could either be considered kinda defensible in psychological terms or utterly heinous. But in the end, things the character couldn’t have known make the choice essential to the survival of many.
One could surmise that God, from His greater vantage point, either moved some chess pieces to make this happen, or, as He often does, made something good out of something bad. After all, that’s what redemption is about.
But, God appears to be out of fashion in this slick, corporate version of the future, so the possibility of divine intervention is never raised. And that’s too bad. It would have added a fascinating dimension that, while it didn’t relieve the character of responsibility, could have added greater meaning to the ultimate challenge.
The ending will either make you smile or make your blood boil, depending what you want from the characters.
As for the movie itself, Pratt’s easygoing charm almost, but not quite, makes up for long, slow stretches and logic holes big enough to drive a spaceship through (one robotic-doctor capsule for over 5,000 people on an absurdly luxurious space liner? Obamacare’s made it to the cosmos, apparently).
Lawrence sports a skimpy wardrobe more suited to clubbing than being stranded in outer space (or going to a rustic farming planet), along with unreasonably great hair and makeup. Don’t hold your breath for the day that women get to look as realistically rumpled as men in the movies, or have sleeves for more than a few minutes at a time.
There are some nice moments, mostly between Pratt and Michael Sheen, as a gentlemanly but loose-lipped robotic bartender. Also, the film has a couple of interesting things to say about love, forgiveness and silver linings, but it’s too cute and spirituality-free to make them really profound.
Overall, “Passengers” is pleasant enough, with all the near-claustrophobia of “The Martian” but precious little of its crackling humor. But, if somebody wanted to strand Chris Pratt and Matt Damon on an alien planet (no romance, thank you), I’d watch that.
Also, “The Martian” made a nod to Christ. I’m not saying that helped its box office, but it didn’t hurt.
(“Passengers” contains sexual content and language, but minimal violence.)
Image: Courtesy Sony
Don’t miss a thing: head over to my other home at CatholicVote and like my Facebook page; also like the Patheos Catholic FB page to see what my colleagues have to say.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In