The 2016 science fiction film “Passengers,” starring Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence, occupies a curious and contentious space in contemporary cinema. While it achieved commercial success, grossing over $300 million worldwide, it was met with critical derision, earning a stark 30% score on Rotten Tomatoes. The divide between professional critics and general audiences is pronounced, with the latter granting a more favorable 63% approval rating. This schism points to a film whose core premise—a morally complex romance set against a sci-fi backdrop—resonated more deeply with viewers than with reviewers who took issue with its narrative execution and ethical implications. The film’s legacy is further shaped by Jennifer Lawrence’s own public reflections, where she expressed regret over not scrutinizing the script’s controversial central twist more thoroughly, adding a layer of off-screen drama to its reception history.
A Premise with Unfulfilled Potential
“Passengers” is set aboard the starship Avalon, transporting thousands of colonists in hibernation on a 120-year journey. A malfunction awakens mechanical engineer Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) 90 years early, condemning him to live and die alone. After a year of isolation and despair, he makes the fateful decision to manually awaken another passenger, writer Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence), effectively dooming her to the same fate for his own companionship. The film then unfolds as a romance between the two, complicated by the looming secret of Jim’s unilateral choice and a subsequent series of critical malfunctions threatening the entire ship. Critics widely panned the decision to reveal Jim’s act to the audience early on, arguing that structuring the narrative from Aurora’s perspective, with the reveal serving as a mid-film twist, would have injected crucial suspense and moral complexity that the final edit lacks.
The Critical Backlash and Ethical Debate
The critical panning of “Passengers” centered on several key failures. Reviewers criticized the film for “playing it too safe,” sidestepping the profound ethical and psychological horror of its premise in favor of a more conventional, effects-driven adventure in its third act. The central relationship was faulted for being built on a foundation of deception and coercion, a problem the script never satisfactorily grapples with, instead opting to rehabilitate Jim’s character through heroic action. This narrative choice left many critics feeling the story justified a deeply unethical act. Furthermore, the plot was cited as relying on contrivances and holes to propel the story forward, undermining the internal logic of its meticulously designed setting. The critical consensus suggested a fascinating, dark concept was diluted into a problematic and uneven romantic sci-fi hybrid.
The Audience Reception and Lasting Cult Appeal
Despite the critical drubbing, “Passengers” maintains a dedicated audience fanbase. Many viewers were captivated by the film’s aesthetic—the sleek production design of the Avalon, the compelling visual effects, and the charismatic performances of its two leads. The core themes of loneliness, consent, and survival under extraordinary circumstances sparked passionate debate and analysis among fans, who often engage with the film’s moral questions more deeply than the screenplay itself does. This pattern of audience embrace despite critical dismissal is not unique; films like “Constantine” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash” exhibit similar divides, where genre execution and star power connect with viewers in ways that bypass critical metrics. For a segment of the audience, “Passengers” works as a compelling, if flawed, speculative love story with a striking visual palette.
Jennifer Lawrence’s Retrospective and the Film’s Legacy
Jennifer Lawrence’s post-release comments have become an inextricable part of the film’s narrative. In interviews with *Vogue* and *The New York Times*, she expressed disappointment in herself for not initially recognizing the script’s narrative shortcomings, particularly the mishandling of its central twist. She recounted advice from singer Adele warning that “space movies are the new vampire movies,” indicating a zeitgeist fatigue she overlooked. Lawrence’s candor about her career fatigue at the time—feeling overexposed and publicly scrutinized—adds context to her participation. Her reflections underscore the complex alchemy of filmmaking, where a promising project can falter in execution, leaving even its stars to ponder alternative choices. This honest appraisal has, in an ironic twist, sustained interest in the film, framing it as a case study in missed opportunities rather than a forgotten failure.
“Passengers” endures as a fascinating cinematic paradox: a big-budget, A-list star vehicle that is both widely seen and widely criticized, loved by audiences and lamented by its own star. Its failure to leverage its provocative premise into a consistently thrilling or morally coherent narrative remains its most cited flaw. Yet, its visual ambition, the chemistry of its leads, and the undeniable power of its core ethical dilemma continue to captivate a significant viewership. The film ultimately serves as a prominent example of the sometimes-vast gulf between critical and popular taste, and a reminder that a film’s cultural footprint can be defined as much by its controversies and regrets as by its achievements.
