I saw this movie, not expecting much as it disappeared from the cinemas very quickly. However, when I saw it I was pretty surprised. The story, twist, ending, Anne Hathaway, Patrick Wilson and Rodrigo García all did a great job.
Too bad it didn't make much money, it's one of Hathaway's better films.
I agree with you. I hadn't previously thought of Anne Hathaway as having much depth to give in her acting, but I felt that the scene toward the end,when she is on her sister's porch and it finally dawns on her how all the pieces fit together-- not only were that howling fear and grief indications of good acting, just in the ability to pull that off, but also the controlling and remote characterization she'd built made the reaction fit in perfectly because she had been in such denial, having been the last of them to allow the knowledge to come to her, that the realization just broke her down. It was a fine moment. She really impressed me with that.
I also thought that the entire film was excellent-- the visuals, the music (especially the music!)-- very good over-all effect. Even the supporting roles are filled by such wonderful actors-- Andre Braugher, David Morse, Dianne Wiest, all top-quality and delivering top-quality performances even with a relatively tiny role like Wiest's. It has become one of my favorite movies, actually.
Probably it's one of those movies that a person is either going to love or hate.
I saw this movie, not expecting much as it disappeared from the cinemas very quickly.Actually, it was never in U.S. cinemas other than a few token shows (my guess is just so it wouldn't be labeled "straight to DVD).
(Actually, it was never in U.S. cinemas other than a few token shows (my guess is just so it wouldn't be labeled "straight to DVD).
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=annehathaway.htm
It was in 125 cinemas and lasted 2 weeks in the US cinemas.
(One would suspect there was a reason for that, and having seen I suspect I know it.)
I would strongly disagree, the box office doesn't always correlate to quality or staying power. See 'Donnie Darko' as an example. It made more in the UK than it did in the US cinemas. Also, '2012' made about $160 million in the US, that is not really good for a $200 million dollar movie, BUT it made $600 million worldwide apart from the US. This movie wasn't received too well, but it did very well at the box office overall. Box office doesn't necessarily mean good/bad movie, the advertising helps and I don't recall much of it.
It was in 125 cinemas and lasted 2 weeks in the US cinemas.OK, "token" was an exaggeration but it opened on 125 screens (and lasting 2 weeks isn't exactly something to brag about). A release for a movie like that (with a fairly large budget) in the U.S. is normally on 2500 to over 3,000 screens. I'm assuming it got less than 5% of that because Sony did not have faith in the flick. As it is, U.S. Box was $292,437. I trust you understand how dismal that is. Be glad to listen to any other reasons you have for it not being representative.
I would strongly disagree, the box office doesn't always correlate to quality or staying power. See 'Donnie Darko' as an example. It made more in the UK than it did in the US cinemas. Also, '2012' made about $160 million in the US, that is not really good for a $200 million dollar movie, BUT it made $600 million worldwide apart from the US. This movie wasn't received too well, but it did very well at the box office overall. Box office doesn't necessarily mean good/bad movie, the advertising helps and I don't recall much of it.And the international take for this movie was $5,494,715. I'm not sure how Donnie Darko or 2012's $600 mil apply to Passengers. And I agree that some good movies don't do well at the box office. My problem in this case is that I've seen this one. So I understand why Sony abandonded it. share
Why such an average rating? Because it's a very average movie. It's typical premium cable channel filler, which is exactly what it's used for.
"Too bad it didn't make much money, it's one of Hathaway's better films."
That's not saying much.
I gave this 6/10, which is what the largest voting bloc rated it. I liked the story here, but I found the direction, acting and soundtrack overwrought. Had they taken a minimalist approach and just focused on the interactions instead of the melodrama, I would have appreciated this more.
shareI gave it a 6/10, too. It was a good movie, but not great. It had a TV-Movie quality to it. It was better than I expected. I think what made it average was the fact that it was longer than it needed to be.
If half of the scenes with her and the guy as well as finding out she and the other people were being followed, were cut in half, the intensity of the mystery and tragedy wouldn't have been diluted. I also think the "love story" took away from any feeling of realness. It would've mbeen more intense if they were two people that cared for each other on a deeper level. The way they handled it seemed forced and too quick.
I think better or older leads would've given it the gravity it needed and made the movie more cinematic.
Excellent points. It was very drawn out and melodramatic, and the romantic subplot was a distraction. It seemed like they wanted this film to be too many things to too many people, while it would have worked best as a psychological thriller driven by performances.
shareIt was very drawn out and melodramatic, and the romantic subplot was a distraction.Exactly how I felt. I gave it 5, mainly because I am an unashamedly Anne fan and the first 20 - 25 minutes were intriguing, but by less than half way through I'd picked "the twist" and it played out predictably thereafter.🐭 share
Indeed. It started out strong, but then it went adrift. This would have been better as a short – or as a long with a better script.
share