'Passengers' is simply a sleek, well-designed curiosity

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

'Passengers' stars Chris Pratt as an engineer who is accidentally jostled out of hibernation on a space ship 90 years early. Jennifer Lawrence and Michael Sheen co-star.

Jaimie Trueblood/Columbia Pictures/Sony/AP
'Passengers' stars Chris Pratt (l.) and Jennifer Lawrence (r.).

“Passengers” is a sci-fi escapade that, like most of its ilk, wants to be a deep-think experience, too. Directed by Morten Tyldum (“The Imitation Game”) and written by Jon Spaihts, it’s set in the distant future aboard a spaceship housing 5,000 paying passengers and more than 200 crew members. All are initially encased in pods in a state of inanimate hibernation for the 120-year journey from an overpopulated Earth to the more hospitable planet Homestead II.

When one of the passengers, Jim (Chris Pratt), an engineer, is accidentally jostled out of hibernation 30 years into the flight due to a meteor hit, he finds himself alone in the big, gleaming, well-appointed spaceship, with only an android bartender (Michael Sheen) to keep him company – until he makes the decision to awaken New York writer Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence), the no-longer sleeping beauty who becomes, for a time, his soul mate. Without the ability to reenter their pods, Jim and Aurora will die long before the spaceship reaches Homestead II, so there is a poignancy in their predicament.

If the filmmakers had delved into the direness of their situation and mined it for more than just a grand-scale lovers’ spat in outer space, the movie might have been more than a sleek, well-designed curiosity. Pratt does a creditable job of playing distraught without seeming like a ninny, and Lawrence at least looks stylish, though she’s not called upon to do much acting. You can almost hear her saying to herself, "I wonder what David O. Russell has planned for his next movie and can I pretty please have a role in it?" Grade: B- (Rated PG-13 for sexuality, nudity and action/peril.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.