Passengers

Dir: Morten Tyldum

2016

**

A Morten Tyldum directed thriller in space starring Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence had me excited. The trailer certainly cemented that excitement. While I wasn't a huge fan of The ImitationGame, the film I regard as the most over-rated film of 2014, I did enjoy Tyldum's 2011 thriller Headhunters. I thought maybe a Headhunters type story in a spaceship sounded good and it’s kind of what I hoped and expected from Passengers. The trailer lied. I'm glad the trailer didn't give too much of the story away but it ended up being woefully misleading but after watching it I see it was for good reason. The story is quite troubling, the big issue is sort of tackled but the end result is quite shocking and horrifyingly glossed over. The CGI is brilliant and I loved what they did with the concept and ship they are on. Personally I would always go to the mighty Red Dwarf or Silent Running if I want an 'alone and marooned in space' fix but Passengers got it so right in the first half hour, I thought I was in for a treat. The story is just so morally wrong I just couldn't get behind it. When the story's crime became unpunished and accepted I lost all respect for it, indeed, I felt quite disgusted. I'm not surprised the story has been in development hell all these years, no one was able to fix the glaring problem with it and that is certainly true of the end result. It could be said that to take a film such as this too seriously is ridiculous but personally I'm a little disturbed by the lack of backlash the film received. There were a few reviews that pointed out the gross problems with it but I would have expected far more conversation regarding it. Maybe no one saw it, there were better and bigger films out at the same time but my fear is that it was seen and accepted. Not necessarily accepted as the thrilling sci-fi it was advertised as but accepted that the actions of one particular character was okay, given the situation he found himself in. To be honest, it opens up a brilliant moral question, I just hated the way the question was answered and how the film was concluded. Pratt and Lawrence were great in their roles and I wonder whether the penny only dropped after it was edited. I'm not going to give the story away in this review but it has me worried that many people won't question it. It's natural to reject a film because it's not what you thought it was or if it doesn't turn out to be your personal cup of tea but it is important to voice your disapproval when you think a film crosses the line and tries to make the unacceptable acceptable. The sad thing is that the film just needed a slight tweak for it to have been brilliant. Change the ending completely and you could have been left with a strikingly original sci-fi with a hauntingly brilliant conclusion. Instead it feels like a creepy Disney film that gets it so wrong you have to wonder about the people who wrote it, made it, released it and ever thought it was a good idea. They are not the sort of people I'd ever want to be stuck in a lift with, that's for sure. Deeply unsettling and pretty far from the romantic film it thinks it is.

The Imitation Game

Dir: Morten Tyldum

2014

**

Morten Tyldum's hugely successful 2014 hit; The Imitation Game, is the story of Alan Turing, the inventor of the computer and a key player in the victory of the second world war. This film is 'loosely' based on his life story. This is where the film looses me somewhat. Alan Turing, a fascinating character who achieved something hugely important in his short life and who was treated appallingly my the British government of which he served, deserves utmost respect and dignity. Indeed, the film's intention seems to be to act as the antidote to the vilification Turing received soon after the War when he was arrested and charged for Homosexuality (something that was illegal at the time) and for him to be finally recognised for his achievements, most notably, being an integral part of the end of World War II, but it doesn't really do this truthfully. Graham Moore's grossly over-hyped script paints Turing as an eternal victim. He really wasn't. Those that knew Turing, colleagues and friends, have described a different man over the years and those still alive who knew those depicted in the film have since come forward to protest the films historical inaccuracies. Turing didn't suffer from Asperger syndrome, he was very sociable and had a good sense of humour. Turing didn't name the first computer after his childhood friend Christopher, it was actually named Victory. Other members of the code breaking team have also been misrepresented in this way, Joan Clarke was not recruited after solving a crossword puzzle, Peter Hilton didn't have a Brother on a ship that the team failed to save and Turing never even met the spy John Cairncross. When challenged on this, Moore responded that; "When you use the language of "fact checking" to talk about a film, I think you're sort of fundamentally misunderstanding how art works. You don't fact check Monet's Water Lilies. That's not what water lilies look like, that's what the sensation of experiencing water lilies feel like. That's the goal of the piece". This bothers me quite a bit. Fact is not abstract. Creative licence is okay in certain circumstances but not when they approach slander. I understand that the film is about a hero being stripped of his dignity due to hate and ignorance, sadly this is still an important issue, and it is right that it gets the coverage Turing and the other 49,000 homosexuals arrested deserve, but Turing's achievements and who he was shouldn't be distorted in the process. The true story is strong enough as it is, to over emphasise and fictionalise an important historical event will never help a cause as it is untrustworthy. You cannot rewrite history for the sake of 'Art', especially in an instance such as this. Moore states that Turing has been a hero of his since he was 16 so I'm sure he knows the facts. The fact is, that Turing was not in a state of deterioration before he died, far from it, he actually had many ideas in mind and projects in hand and had filed many patents days before his death. Many of his friends said he was in a cheerful mood and he had finished his course of Chemical castration a whole year before he was found dead. His death is highly suspicious, he was known to be careless when storing laboratory chemicals and many friends spoke of his then project (Electroplating) whereby the use of cyanide was prevalent. This is touched on early on in the film but suicide (the actual verdict of his death) feels forcefully pushed for greater effect. The whole film feels overcooked in this way. It's not clever, it's typical Hollywood rewriting history for emotional manipulation so it will win awards and make lots of money. The overall film is acted well and directed beautifully but has little integrity. I find Moore's comparison with Monet's Water Lilies to be quite obstinate and arrogant, although strangely accurate. I wonder if he realises Monet suffered from Cataracts when he painted them?

Headhunters
Dir: Morten Tyldum
2012
****
Headhunters proves that it's not all about the big budget, it's the story that counts. This particular story is brought to us by bestselling author Jo Nesbo, I just hope that the many future adaptations of her work (and there will be many) are as beautifully executed. The performances are also good but what makes Headhunters so good is its unpredictability. You may think you know what is going to happen but 20 minutes in and it all goes out the window, and the twists and turns don't let up until the end credits role down. It is everything a great thriller should be.