One of the functions of criticism is to go back and reassess older works, to consider if the critical consensus of the day was correct. Maybe that book or film that was lauded at the time of its release is actually a bit hollow on reconsideration? Or maybe the title that landed without much initial interest is a hidden gem?In that spirit, we are going to take another look at 2016's Passengers, the big(ish) budget SF romantic (?) drama starring Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt. When it first came out, this film was derided as being everything from boring and trite, to reprehensible and misogynistic.But is it secretly a good film, despite the 30% Rotten Tomatoes rating, the cascade of poor reviews, the collective audience reaction of "Meh"?God no. It really is a turd.But! Before it blows everything up, there were chances for this movie to be, if not great, at least pretty good.Let us recap the plot:Chris Pratt (I cannot be arsed to remember anyone's character names) wakes up suddenly from his suspended animation pod on a slower than light colony ship which (inexplicably) has a kind of luxury hotel wing for colonists to hang out in during the first/last couple of weeks of the voyage. Unfortunately, he's woken up 30 years into a 120-year voyage. He can't figure out how to reactivate his sleep pod or how to wake up any of the crew.What follows is the best part of the film, as Pratt spends about 20 minutes slowly cracking under the pressure of what is, essentially, solitary confinement, his only companion Michael Sheen's robot bartender. He tries to keep himself busy, considers suicide, grows a classic misery-beard, does a sad spacewalk.