Passengers reviewed by Mark Kermode
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 дек 2016
- Mark Kermode reviews Passengers. A transport ship taking thousands of people across space to form a new colony suffers a malfunction in its sleep chamber. Two passengers find themselves awakened, 90 years ahead of schedule.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark’s review of the film - below. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
www.bbc.co.uk/5live
Fridays at 2pm on BBC 5 live. 
Кино
This movie's main problem is that it's a horror film without realizing it. Let Chris Pratt turn slowly insane while he's alone, and then consistently play him as a creepy villain. End the film on a dark note by showing that JLaw repeats the cycle and wakes up someone else. Boom, solid Sci-Fi horror.
That.... is actually a brilliant idea. Damn man, wish they'd gone for this rather than the crazy cheesy, bizarre ending they chose to let the movie have.
I was convinced that was where the movie was heading when Lawrence's character first finds out Chris woke her up. For a short period, the movie looked like it was going to get real dark and disturbing. I thought Jennifer's cold rejection of Chris was going to make him go full stalker mode, then Jennifer was going to get all Jody Foster and kill him, only to regret it and repeat the cycle. Had the movie followed it's own set up it would have been a decent watch instead of the borefest that it became by going with the happily ever after ending.
Just wait until the crew in stasis are woken up by David in he sequel to Alien Covenant.
You've watched Nerdwriter's video haven't you? 😂😂😂😂
that's just Pandorum, isn't it
A movie that was aware of how immoral and messed up Jim's actions were would not essentially "reward" those actions by having Aurora fall in love with him in the end. There is no condemnation of his heinous crime.
A more interesting movie would have had her channel her rage into killing Jim. Then she realizes what she's done. And then she too begins to wonder if she might like a companion...
No. She's temporarily mad at him, but in the end she REFUSES to go back into hibernation and chooses to stay with him. The film "rewards" Jim for absolutely no reason by having him get what he wanted. He faces no repercussion.
No, troll, it's not. If you'd actually watched the film, you'd know that she does not kill Jim.
Your twist is far better than the movie itself. I would've like to see that too.
@Joshua Mcgillivray Maybe you should watch the film before giving your nonsense opinion about it. The film never stops sympathizing with Jim despite his effectively killing Aurora by waking her up 90 years too early. He's rewarded by her love and forgiveness and never suffers ANY kind of consequence in the film. His actions are consistently framed as "He felt he had to, because he was so lonely, so he did it. Feel bad for this nice guy." In Crimes and Misdemeanors the immorality of Judah is obvious and we don't see him as a victim. In Passengers we are asked to sympathize with Jim all throughout, Aurora be damned.
@Joshua Mcgillivray the problem is that the movie doesn’t go far enough in exploring the complexity of human psyche and morality. It acknowledges that Jim’s action is horrendous, but only briefly, as ultimately his action is framed as having no consequences in the long run. He still ends up rewarded in the end. Forgiveness is fine, but it doesn’t negate consequences; people still have to do jail time if they commit crimes, even if the victims forgive them after a while. Aurora not forgiving Jim would be a decent consequence if it actually has a lasting impact, but all of that is thrown out of the ship (literally) in the final act of the movie when the space ship malfunctioned. The film then “redeem” Jim through his one sacrificial act that doesn’t even end up being an actual sacrifice. His remorse is barely touched since the final act of the movie is dominated by this “sacrifice”.
So what exactly is his consequences? A few months of cold shoulder from a person whose life was robbed by him?
Like you say, viewers can see his actions as wrong without the movie telling them so. However, the lack of meaningful consequences and the romantic aspect ultimately distract from such perspective, as viewers were never given a chance to ponder the morality of the character. Its attempt at sympathy falls short in the second half due to the lazy “redemption” and “happy ending” that vaporize any emotional depth of Jim’s decision. It trivializes the internal conflict that Jim had in the first half of the movie since the movie never shows the consequences that necessitate such conflict in the first place.
The movie tries to force a romantic relationship out of a situation that is normally extremely scary and creepy, and fails. Movies don’t have to feature morally righteous character all the time, but forcing the narrative that the bad decision is ultimately inconsequential is not the right way to incorporate moral ambiguity into a work of fiction. That is, if the goal of the movie was to be psychologically critical in the first place, which this movie doesnt seem to strive for.
Rare for the barman to be legless and not the customers!
Late praise for this great comment.
Totally agree with Mark's review. Thought Michael Sheen's robotic barman deserved more praise.
I can't believe the script was ever on the blacklist. The entire film felt incredibly old hat. I'll forget everything about it in less than a day.
Apparently the original script was a lot better than the film (they made a few crucial changes)
Sadly, the majority of screenwriters don't have much control once their script is sold and put into production. It's more than likely that the studio messed with the script in an attempt to make it easier to sell to a mainstream audience.
TJ Hastie I'm going to say that you're probably right. I'd love to read the original script. I'm sure it's out there. Studios tend to take a great script and treat it like a mere suggestion.
Even the dance off?
for a nearly two hour film, this felt like a mediocre first draft made by someone who has never seen a GOOD sci fi film. just terrible.
Simon: "Hmm..."
Mark: "Thank you for clearing that up."
I absolutely love this interaction
The dumbest thing about this movie is how easily they could have fixed the plot: just make Lawrence's character a freaking scientist! If Pratt's character thought that she could help them go back to sleep, then his actions go from inexcusable to morally grey.
HPislegend248 I haven't seen the movie, but from what the reviewers are saying the movie does a terrible and half-assed job at handling this conundrum
Pratt's character didn't wake her because he thought she could help them back into hibernation, he woke her because he wanted/needed a companion. Nothing more.
SidV101 by terrible you mean they did not drag this thing on then yes.
in the movie he spends time brooding over whether to wake her up. he listens to her recodings and feel attracted (physical attraction was already there).
in my view more time on that subject in movie would make movie much more slower.
also i don't get (not meaning that you are doing) that people complaining about showing immoral thing done in the movie. worse thing have been shown in the movies. i feel what 50 shades of grey is about is much worse and its feminists movie. so i don't get why single this one out.
wolverineiscool yes in the alternate universe where women value man more than money.
Respectfully I disagree with your simple solution, it would just cause more plot holes. The whole point of the entire main plot point is that it's impossible to get back into hypersleep (or almost impossible, by not having the exec access to the med pod) ...
Surely the comparison is with Red Dwarf.
Yeah, Red dwarf meets the B-Ark.
"Everybody's dead, Dave." "What, everybody?"
Then again Kermode mentioned in an Uncut blog that he hadn't seen Red Dwarf
She forgives him, and loves him, after he chooses to take her entire life, for his own selfish reasons? That's a story people think is worth watching?
pricklyphlox He had one realistic moment of weakness in a whole year. Anyone would of woken someone up, maybe in 1 yr, maybe in 10. But everyone would eventually. She knew she'd do the same in his shoes. He was also willing to sacrifice himself for everyone else.
@@pricklyphlox And then the person who executes him should be executed? How are we defining murder?
Yes. You can't help who you love or why you love them.
In the end Jim is sort of vindicated for waking Aurora because if he hadn’t have woken her she wouldn’t have been there to help him put right the damage which would have inevitably destroyed the ship and everyone on board.
No vindication at all. I'm sorry but because of his true intention nothing else counts.
"We don`t care what he thinks". lol
I loved the movie. He wrestled with the temptation to wake her up, in a moment of weakness he did it. BUT no one is talking about the fact that he faced near certain death to save Jlaw and the other 5000 people on the ship, and when he discovered a way to put her back to sleep he offered it to her.....he sounds like a flesh and blood human being, making mistakes, faking it, being found out, and trying to make amends. He showed her his love in the end.
Because they were awful plot devices just put in to try and make the ending more feasible, they didn't work.
He should've woken up about a hundred people and pretended it was an accident.
@@pgl0897 wake up 90 hot chicks and 10 ugly dudes
I think your enjoyment of the film rests on whether you can overlook the way that the horrendous betrayal was handled. I couldn't. If the movie has a sense of it's own creepiness, then it's dialogue certainly doesn't acknowledge it. J-Law's cliche "you die, I die", "I can't live without you" lines were painful. No, you can't live without him, in fact you can't live at all because he has condemned you to death. Stockholm Syndrome in space. I thought the movie was going to turn in to something awesome when her rage at finding out filled the ship, but then two minutes later they were back in love. If they wanted a cool sci-fi survival film that involved a romance, then why include that particular central conceit at all?
What most people are losing track of is that the core demographic of this film [16 -24 year olds] will probably think the whole creepy premise is actually romantic. We just had the same "you killed me but I love you anyway" dynamic in Suicide Squad. The film makers know their audience...we just don't happen to be it.
Amy Andrews If he died she knew she'd be alone forever. I don't think that reaction was unrealistic when suddenly faced with his death. I also don't think it's unrealistic to forgive someone for somthing even as bad as what he did. Especially considering she would of died without ever waking if it wasn't for him.
I agree with Kermode on that one! It's entertaining though not very deep at all. Some people even say it condones rape, I really don't think so. He ruined her life, yes, but he did not force her into a relationship with her.
100% agree. Once I'd realised the plot holes were so vast there was no way to paper over them I settled down and enjoyed the rest of the story.
Generally it’s not worth pulling the threads with plot holes. You just ruin stuff for yourself.
Is it me or is it something of a spoiler to reveal that he wakes her up? From the trailers it's always suggested they both woke up accidentally.
So basically the film isn't up to much because it doesn't explore its fantastic central premise. Because if you was faced with dying in space, and yet you could wake at least one person up. Then there are two great central arguments. One, that anyone, man or woman, is only human, and very few people could condemn their self to a lifetime of loneliness out of somekind of stoic noble sentiment. And 'if' like the movie ads seem to imply, that these two characters played by Pratt and Lawrence, fall in love with each other; then has he really done something unforgivable? If you live with 6 billion people, but never find love; then what is the point? It could have been a really challenging movie that polarized people's opinions. Which is a good thing in art.
@Rafael Herschel: first off, I think the premise of someone waking up on a spaceship and finding their self faced with a lifetime of loneliness, compared with a sociopath who lives on a planet with 7 billion people, who decides to turn his basement into a prison, is two different kind of movies. Secondly, I was lamenting talking as a movie goer, and watching a film that might potentially challenge your intellectual and moral perceptions. Which this story-line could potentially do. Finally, I was actually thinking about the issue of loneliness and wanting companionship. Not somekind of BDSM dungeon where you subject someone to the Stocholm syndrome. So where do you get off making accusations like that?
@Rafael Herschel: well at least now we are thinking along the same line. The central premise did open up a fantastic opportunity to make a film that was also art. Even with those two Hollywood poster-boy and poster-girl actors. If you'd had role- reversed it, and had Jennifer Lawrence waking Chris Pratt up, and had Chris Pratt be furious at being woken up. Not because he's gay, or doesn't find Jennifer Lawrence attractive. A part of him is flattered that such a good looking woman chose him. But because he left Earth in the first place to get away from a certain kind of vacuous society that Jenifer Lawrence represents; all looks and no substance. The film had the chance to challenge all perceptions of the norm and the accepted, and still be an entertaining film.
Personally I felt that if they wanted the film to have the fairy tale romance ending then they shouldn't have had him wake her up intentionally (it could have still worked if he'd woken her up completely by accident). If they wanted to have him wake her up intentionally, they should have given the film the a completely different ending that didn't involved them living happily ever after.
If the film started with JLaw waking up and her slowly finding out why, it would have been mich more effective.
*Silent Running Klaxon*
Meteoroids are the objects floating in space. As they crash through the atmosphere, they become meteors - also called shooting stars. When they impact the Earth's surface, they become meteorites. Asteroids are just extra large meteoroids.
Just thought you'd like to know Mark.
If it's set in the future where technology is so advanced that they can create such a spaceship and have a robot waiter, then why can't they design a sleep pod that allows the individual to go back to hibernation sleep if something were to accidentally happen? Surely scientists who are smart enough to create such amazing technologies in the future are also smart enough to come up with such a solution.
I guess like Kermode said: It makes no sense.
Was this a review or did Mark just summarise the plot?
Look it aint perfect but it had some dark notes that I liked. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Nothing wrong with a bit of entertainment from time to time - it was better than at least half of those films on The Doc's highbrow films of the year!
Honestly, i really enjoyed this film...can't understand the sniffy reviews. I think the film handles its moral and ethical themes quite well. Its not a perfect film by any means...but its highly entertaining. I liked it
there's a little bit more to mention about marks review. I've watched this film 3 times and I love it. firstly the spaceship hits an asteroid field which causes a malfunction and open c.pratt pod. also mark didn't mention Laurence Fishburn the 3rd member to enter the film. also, he never mentioned the intense ending to fix the malfuntion and save the ship and all of the passengers. Disagree about the music, I thought it was a well produced, futuristic piece. Appropriate for this film. Great spaceship scenery and tech and a possibility of things to come in the years ahead. ****
There is a spoiler in this review.
There was? I don't recall the trailer shown at the cinema telling how
**SPOILER**
**SPOILER**
**SPOILER**
**SPOILER**
**SPOILER**
**SPOILER**
**SPOILER**
**SPOILER**
Pratt wakes up Lawrence
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember that
Right, I personally like to go in near 100% blind to movies with the main trailer being the only bits of information I need. So I would consider it to be a spoiler especially considering it was only on tv spots
This all happened in the first couple minutes
the spoiler is within the first few mins on the film
That's fair enough but if the trailer didn't show it then it is irrelevant where it takes place in the movie. It's still a slight plot spoiler imo.
what was with the garcia cameo?
I think some people are way to critical about movies. When I watch a movie, I watch it to enjoy the plot, the dialogue, the characters, and all of the other aspects that make a film enjoyable. I enjoy a film for what it is, and I don't let the little things ruin the big picture.
Some people like to think a little more deeply than that.
Sean Pavich: Guess you're not a professional reviewer then.
When the asteroids hit the ship, not only did it cause the malfunction for Chris Pratt to be woken up but, also for the ship systems to believe it was out of hibernation.
Could've used the word "selfish" as opposed to "creepy", but whatever...
First time I've ever seen Mark not wearing a suit XD
Quite incredible that Jim immediately clicks back into normal human being mode soon as he wakes her, despite slowly going mental for a year. Quite enjoyed it though, despite it’s numerous inadequacies.
Mark: Simon felt the same thing
Simon : We don't care what he think
Lmao 😂
I wasn't going to watch this at all before Mark's review, but I think I'll wait till this on TV to watch it. By the way, is Simon a robot? He never smiles and doesn't know about a lot of the films Mark mentions in any of these videos. He gets paid to sit down and talk doesn't he? That'd make me smile everyday. Merry Christmas! :D
Bazooka J Rambo watch the whole show. Simon does a lot more, in these segments he knows his place. I like that he gives kermode space
My God he's getting soft, or is it because it's christmas ?
Well, he does think Spectre is a good movie. I still respect his opinion but nobody is perfect. Ebert taught us that with Daredevil long time ago.
tussle = "mild wrestle"
I dismissed this film for a long time because the reviews were for a good chunk of it pretty negative but I actually decided to give this a shot the other day and was kinda shocked at how much I enjoyed it. It has its problems but still ended up being one of my favorites of that year.
Mark, you just spoiled this film after you constantly complain about critics giving too much in films away. What's going on?
but how did you find that out? By watching it. I'd like to have done the same
Laurentz He saved you 10 bucks.
Daniel Hanson exactly. Movies for life !
To be fair if it's in the first 20 minutes of the movie it's sadly not that big of a plot twist, even though ideally it should have been, as it's definitely the most interest part of the movie, and something the movie doesn't handle particularly well
carcrash2000 no he says the get hit by asteroids...that isnt revealed until last 20 mins and u find out thats what woke up chris pratt
I don't know if it's just that Chris Prat is too lightweight/comedic an actor for this film, or if it is because the director decided to put the twist in so early, but it seemed as if he was completely overshadowed by his co-stars in this... It's like he was in a different movie, a less sophisticated or interesting one...
I can't believe that I agree with Mark! This film is only meant to be taken on it's surface level. Sony wanted a mass appeal film. If they wanted a dark movie of a crazed stalker type on a ship they could have made it but then you would have to cut the budget by two thirds, give it an 18 cert and a limited release.
This film is much better than the representation here..left me feeling chilled in regards to the decision which becomes the central premise. Recommend.
I thought it was like The Shining set in a space station.
I loved it bar predictably, and the reviews are not that bad
since when did a critics review shape your own opinion of a film. This film is visually stunning, it nods it's head towards all of the influences you can name check, the storyline is safely navigated with quality lead performances and the pace of the film is appropriate delivering action with tension in equal measure. I went into the theatre expecting a far poorer movie than the stylish movie this is.
FYI: "An asteroid is a small rocky object that orbits the Sun. Asteroids are smaller than a planet, but they are larger than the pebble-size objects we call meteoroids"
See same source for excellent description of Meteo-_roids_ vs Meteor-_s_ vs Meteo-_rites_
- spaceplace-nasa-gov
I don't think you should've mentioned the fact he woke her up, that had been kept out of marketing and was an interesting twist
Daniel Hanson I never said I didn't know she was in it. It was just never mentioned that HE woke her up
As someone who works with press/marketing movie materials and was also covering this movie, I can indeed confirm that there was absolutely no mention of him waking her up anywhere. They always made it seem as if her waking up was just another in a series of accidents that happen on the ship.
Not exactly thrilled that the press materials managed to not spoil a twist for me for once (it's pretty rare, most of the time in my line of work I have movies spoiled this way long before I had a chance to actually see them), only to be spoiled by the good doctor, one of the few reviewers I consider spoiler safe for watching before going to see the actual movie... :/
Visually beautiful, but there are lots of logic faults.. I'll list just a few:
Good beginning, with force field to protect the spaceship, robust computer provides software reset, but the fault is mechanical.
Opportunely a mechanic is awaken!!! Was this done on purpose by the computer?
A trip outside spaceship wearing a spacesuit, prepares for end scene
Why does barman disobey order to keep secret? Evil scheming central computer?
The company had put on board spare parts, but not organised a maintenance/repair crew
The barman fails when central computer fails, so the barman android must be a terminal of the computer, why didn’t the computer take a more proactive action?
To allow for the plot to develop, the captain is woken up to get from him the access code.
Why is the hospital room so tiny with only one diagnostics pod for a ship of 5250 people?
In the final scene, we see a Garden of Eden has grown, but there are no living creatures to provide CO2 for plants growth and produce natural fertilizers.. it’s a biological impossibility
My thoughts as well. A ship of that kind, with a really long voyage, should also able to fix many things automatically.
No point of not preparing for that, with that amount of passengers and crew, and money involved.
And why? Why on Earth to fly through that (unrealistic) asteroid field? A ship should be designed to avoid such danger areas, or avoid entering solar systems totally.
Maybe that was a miscalculation by the (stupid) nav computer. Who knows?
I watched this movie a second time and I got a bit better, but still naive writing (I also thought when watching it, that where do those plants get their co2?), even if they got the physics mostly right.
the whole story does not stand up "scientifically".. but without the mistakes, there would be no film...
Can't believe that Mark preferred Arrival to this.
The moral and ethical angle could've been handled a bit more strongly but in no way was it bad. It was alright and wasn't fumbled.
I think the chemistry between the two leads was good, and they worked well together, but this film I'd say personified the problem with Jennifer Lawrence. When she's working with a good script and director, she thrives (American Hustle, Winter's Bone, Silver Linings, the first Hunger Games), but with a poor script and director, she struggles (Mockingjay Pt. I & II, X-Men: Apocalypse). At times in Passengers, she was very good, but especially with the whole 'falling in love with the man who consigned you to death' part towards the end, her performance kinda wavered. Didn't help that the ending was absolutely preposterous, Stockholm Syndrome-like rubbish.
While everyone else argues about the perceived flaws of Passengers, I am just going to sit here and enjoy my Gold Class Breakfast.
The horror of what the main character has done does come across but is just not satisfactory explored to any great degree.
Visually looked good in 4K but too lightweight a handling of such a morally repugnant but understandable act.
What is the worst song choice?
Spoilers!!!
It happens pretty early on
Nominated for Best Score at the 2017 Academy Awards?!
The trailer makes it look like a cross between Interstellar and Event Horizon, which I would have welcomed.
I watched this tonight and found it quite a touching romance.
7/10
Mind if we check your basement?
they are called meteors in space. Meteorites are when they land on earth. Meteors are ice and asteroids are rock.
Someone had to lol
Comets are Ice, not Meteors. Meteors are rock and/or Iron.
Based on 1:11, guess these two are rather passive aggressive with one another?
Yup, that end credit song was a horrible way to finish up. After Thomas Newman's subtle score, it crashed in and traumatised the ears.
Very enjoyable flick though
i keep thinking his mic is Ed the Sock
So the ship is traveling to an entirely different planet from Earth 120 years away and it's called "Homestead 2"? They couldn't give an entirely new planet a unique name? Human's are on so many planets in this future that they have run out of names and have to use 2's to name them? Really? I'd rather have a made up name for my planet than have a "2" after it! And it's named after a Corporation. That would be like traveling 100 years to get to a new planet called Geico 3.
I think the biggest problem is that the movie has so much trouble with its consent problem that it ends up with literally five or six acts instead of three. The tone lurches wildly all over the place while the film just keeps going and you have no idea whether it will ever end. The way they *deal* with the consent problem initially is such an extreme reaction to "the audience won't be on his side" that it actually damages sympathy for *the other* character.
It's fun enough. But far too long and a lot of a mess.
Bonus points for giving Andy Garcia a star credit when he has, what, 13 seconds of screen time, though!
Red Dwarf rip-off!!!
Problamatic! Take a drink
At 5.05 Mark rants about it not making sense that "why isn't the whole ship in Hibernation" -urr they are Mark !! - whose talking nonsense now ? - He actually says "why does the whole rest of the ship behave normally - very strange They didn't wake up Mark they were in Hibernation -
Chris, he’s not talking about the people, he’s talking about the ship facilities. The holograms all act as if nothing odd has happened and everything is powered on and working for an entire 120 years when no one was supposed to be there at all.
Hated rogue one, loved Passengers.
Not much point going to see this now. Spoiler alert.
Can't wait to get my engineering degree so I know how to do anything in the entire freaking world instantly
By giving birth you condemn someone to death - I thought the film was a commentary on humanity itself.
when they realised the whole ship can blow- surely thats the excuse he needs to wake everybody up. Better to be awake than dead right?
Would be a better stroy if Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern turned up in another ship, realised he was alone and tried to break in and he set up all manner of traps to stop them.... Ship Alone.
It was borrrring! I thought there was going to be a mystery. I must have imagined a bit in the trailer where one of them says, "there's a reason why we were woken early!" I was hoping for something a bit like Moon. What I got was a romance story set on a depopulated version of the spaceship from WALL-E. I felt like the trailer had promised something that the film didn't deliver. Mark is correct - if you actually do analyse the details, NONE of it makes sense! However, I didn't feel any creepiness in the slightest.
This movie could have had one of the best plot twists of all time
Yes. "It was a prank everyone! There is no Homestead II"
what is the terrible music choice towards the end?
We know what the 'Black List ' is Kermy
''we dont care what he thinks'' ... nice
Understanding Narcissists.
seriously awful script for this film. the ending has no feeling of true stakes or anything. Lawrence's character is allegedly smart but the film just turns her into rubbish for convenience.
wow you spoiled the whole plot mark
Turn your brain off and don't watch CinemaSins and you'll be fine ... oh wait! It just hit UK free to air and I could feel brain cells dying as I watched ...
I loved the super advanced Walter like AI that watched over everyone during the century voyage and could fix anything ... oh wait! But we had one that could make cocktails ... facepalm.
and the spares for _everything_ except the pods - you know those things that only work once and have no backups ... facepalm.
and that travelled at half the speed of light to a star that would of taken over 70 years to reach (Arcturus) but did so in just 30 ... facepalm.
Should've woken up the crew
they're behind a big, un-movable door
Really really love this movie.
It looked as though the film was going to be a deep and meaningful psychological thriller until Jennifer Lawrence woke up, and then it became light-weight pap. If you like light-weight pap, then you'll love it. For me, it grated and the ludicrous 'plot twists' in the final act actually made me laugh out loud. It's total nonsense. I've seen worse, but the thought of what this film could have been left me feeling cheated - an opportunity missed. 2/5
too many spoilers!
ET. 2001. Silent Running. and every cliche Hollywood has produced over the last 30 years. Oh and of course Titanic.
Horribly hobbled together trash. This is how good it is: I turned it off 20 minutes from the end and I have no intention of ever finding out how it ended. Garbage.
Well you endured the most mind numbing part. Nothing really happens until the final 20 minutes! lol
this reviewer like most others is concerned mainly with the morality of the character , and not with the movie as a work of art . I understand , in this day and age of political correctness, one has to tread carefully , especially when your paycheck depends on it . the movie is beautifull , this review stinks.
There is a difference between being "PC" and having basic human morals.
@@MrLego3160 so in his place you wouldnt have woken anyone ? maybe another guy? wink wink.
@@valpearce827No, i would not doom another person to a slow death for my own selfish wants. I'm completely aware that either the secret will out itself or the guilt will eat away at me.
Completely wasted premise that offered loads of possibilities, but instead went for the most basic of plotlines. Half an hour to long also.
It only needs to be remarketed as "A Life With Jennifer Lawrence" and I'd watch it all over again.
I thought it was interesting and Chris Pratt was great so was Jennifer Lawrence
The producers chickened out. The roles should have been swapped. Lawrence is a much better actor than Pratt.
The way they wasted a brilliant idea in this film is criminal. It could have been a masterpiece, instead we got another frothy, forgettable movie.
Spoiled the movie...
This is such a dumb goofy movie, it's clear that these two are likable movie stars but don't have a good sense of what's really going to work after reading a script.
they also have sex under false pretences - otherwise known as rape by deception. this movie is awful.
Terrible movie. Those two actors are very quickly wearing out their currency. Dreadful waste of money.
Awful film.