REVIEW: Passengers (2016)

Warning: The following review contains minor spoilers.

It’s rare to find a movie that is not a direct adaptation of another work, as just about everything released to theaters seems to be adapted from a book, TV show, comic or another film. This is hardly a new phenomenon as Hollywood has used other mediums as source material pretty much since the dawn of the film industry. I’m not exactly complaining here, but it is still refreshing to see a truly original idea on the big screen. Unfortunately, the end result of a fresh concept isn’t refreshing when it turns out to be average at best. This is disappointing to say as the premise of Passengers is rife with the potential to be something truly extraordinary.

Set in the far future, Passengers is the story of Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) and Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence), who embark on a 120-year trip to colonize a new planet, naturally to be spent in suspended animation. However, something goes wrong and the pair awaken nearly 90 years early. Unable to go back to sleep, and aware they will die long before reaching their destination, the two form a strong bond, one which is tested when catastrophe strikes their ship.

A great premise, obviously, and a unique one as well, but an idea is only half the battle; it’s the execution that matters in the end. The first element of execution is tone, and this movie flip-flops on tone quite a bit. A good portion of the film is Pratt and Lawrence on the ship together, trying to find meaning in an utterly hopeless situation. They have each other and the ship is equipped with every luxury they could ever want, but they are nonetheless trapped inside a gilded cage. Though this is an extremely tragic scenario, the film seems determined to gloss over it. There is room for comedy here, but it should carry an air of the dreadful circumstances to it. That’s not what occurs. Instead, the film delivers light-hearted montages set to pop songs and improvisation on the part of both Lawrence and Pratt; elements that don’t match the previously set tone.

The other big problem with the execution rests in the script. The central conflict between Pratt and Lawrence is established well, but the third act crumbles to pieces. The climax of the movie is set-up beforehand, but it’s made abundantly clear to the audience far too soon as the characters spend the whole movie playing catch-up. As for the ending, it’s pretty trite, including an out-of-left-field reveal that quickly renders itself colossally pointless. A happy ending does not fit this story, and what the narrative concludes with is nowhere near as bittersweet as it needed to be.

Even with all those complaints, I wouldn’t say I didn’t enjoy the movie on some level. The visuals are a gorgeous sight to look at, the chemistry between the Pratt and Lawrence is strong, and there are some tense action scenes (even if the one at the end stretches suspension of disbelief beyond all logical reason). If viewers were hoping for a nicely shot and well-acted sci-fi flick, they won’t be too disappointed. However, if they’re expecting an intelligent and dramatic film similar to the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind or Arrival, they’re sadly not going to get it.

Review by: Zak Kizer

REVIEW: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

The start of a new franchise is always a gamble. Even when a series's name has been well established for years; trying something new always comes with a chance of failure. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is one such experiment and is, for the most part, quite successful. Any nerd worth his/her salt, myself included, can tell you that Star Wars and prequels have not mixed well in the past. Why exactly that is has been discussed time and time again by other critics, so instead of falling into the same grouping, this review will strictly focus on why this film, which serves as a direct prequel to the original Star Wars, uses the prequel concept to its advantage.

All prequels in every form of media have one common obstacle to overcome: a lack of tension. Setting a story before one fans and/or viewers have already seen is a huge disadvantage, as any and all major events are proven to be inevitable. This is especially true in doing a prelude to a story as well-known as Star Wars, so how exactly does Rogue One bypass this issue?

The narrative is original and interesting for longtime fans and casual viewers. The main characters introduced to the story are completely new to the universe, and thus their ultimate fate in the overall mythology is ups for grabs. The film illuminates elements of the original Star Wars that, while not entirely necessary to explore, are nonetheless pleasant to see on screen. Both of these elements elevate Rogue One no less than several hundred notches above the cosmic train wreck that was the prequel trilogy.

To elaborate on my aforementioned points, the characters of this film are mostly original ones, allowing for a great deal of freedom in terms of their story arcs. The two primary leads, Felicity Jones as Jyn Erso and Diego Luna as Cassian Andor, are certainly the heart and soul of the cast. Both fill rather standard archetypes, with Jones as the jaded cynic who rediscovers hope and Luna as the hardened killer who finds mercy, but in typical Star Wars fashion the performances manage to create compelling and multidimensional personas. I won’t say their arcs carry the same weight as those of the Skywalker clan, but their brand of smaller scope is actually another bonus, serving to differentiate this spin-off from the main saga.

As for the supporting cast, the major standout among our heroes is Alan Tudyk, who voices the droid K-2SO. He has some legitimately funny dialogue, stemming from his blunt, analytical personality; humor which resonates much more than the comedy found in the rest of the movie. It’s no secret that this film went through some well-publicized re-shoots earlier last year, and the plenitude of awkward humor is by far the biggest outcome of this fact. This is especially true of Donnie Yen and Riz Ahmed’s characters who have some pretty cringe-worthy “jokes” earlier on.

Having said that, it is indeed the final act of this film that cements its quality. The entire film is a prelude to A New Hope, but trying to mix that in with its own story and characters at the same time comes across as a little clumsy. However, the finale of this movie is where the two blend together seamlessly. The appearance of Darth Vader (that’s no spoiler, he’s in all the advertising!) is legitimately chilling and exactly what audiences have wanted to see for a long time. Other fan favorites pop up by way of motion capture recreations, and while the effect can be flat at times, it’s mostly solid.

Overall, whether fans truly asked for Rogue One or not, the end result is a slightly uneven but ultimately engaging film. If this is a sign of what’s to come from these “Star Wars Stories”, then it’s a sign to be hopeful.

Review by: Zak Kizer

REVIEW: Arrival (2016)

Language is a fundamental concept to the human race. It may not be entirely unique to our species, but it is a feature that distinguishes nearly every facet of our lives and civilization. As messy as translation can be, the proper amount of work and training can bridge nearly any language barrier on Earth. But what happens when the barrier that must be crossed is not from Earth?

Arrival tells the story of a linguist (Amy Adams) and a physicist (Jeremy Renner) who are contacted by an Army colonel (Forrest Whittaker) to make First Contact with an alien race that has landed spaceships around the world. As they slowly decipher the species' mysterious written language, Adams and Renner become more and more enraptured by the visitors while tension and fear of the extraterrestrials’ motives grows among the general population and the world’s military leaders.

The acting, as expected with a cast of this caliber, is strong, but the most exceptional aspect of Arrival is the narrative. This film is a mix of two genres, science fiction and mystery, and it’s execution of these factors is fantastic.

The aliens are among the most unique and fascinating extra-terrestrials to be seen on the big screen in quite some time. Unlike most movie aliens, the mystery doesn’t come from not seeing them, rather, the suspense comes from getting to know them and understanding their language and thinking process. It’s a unique and clever take on the alien invasion sub-genre that has rarely been seen in mainstream sci-fi.

Usually in fiction, the protagonists simply destroy the aliens (i.e. Independence Day, War of the Worlds, Aliens), or interact with them nonviolently and have at least a minimal understanding of how to communicate with them (District 9, Star Trek, Alien Nation). The concept of first contact, or at least one that doesn’t involve immediate hostilities, is extremely rare in media based on extraterrestrials.

The closest comparison to this film one can envision is Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but the comparison lies solely in the first contact premise, as the execution of the two films could not be more different. Close Encounters builds its entire plot-line around the fact that the aliens have come to Earth for benign, yet incomprehensible reasons.  They affect the human psyche and rock civilization to its core, but the heroes don’t understand them or their intentions. The aliens are as strange as there are beautiful. They may frighten humanity and upend all that they thought important, and humans will never understand why, but in the end, that’s okay.

By contrast, Arrival is about understanding, a complete and total understanding to be precise. The aliens’ want is every bit as wondrous and frightening, but they have much clearer goals in mind for the human race. Without spoiling the ending, the aliens show humanity the deepest meaning behind all language. Language, spoken and unspoken, truly is all that there is to us; it’s how we make sense of the entire universe and how we convey every single thought or feeling in our lives. Arrival reflects that sort of infinite complexity brilliantly, not just telling the protagonists what language can capture, but all the things it can’t.

Review by: Zak Kizer