A few reviews

[mnkykungfu]

I can't comment on his other films, somehow I've gone through life without seeing any of Almodovar's previous films.

The straw that finally broke the camel's back for me was "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown".  It's the very definition of what I talked about, featuring both types of Almodovar stories: wallowing film director + wacky, hyper-emotional group of women.  The "best" Almodovar films have really engaging Characters, but they become scary if you think of them as actual People you might interact with in the world.
Here's a selection of some good examples for Almodovar

Passengers and Fences (both 2016)
Mild Spoilers for each of the films I talk about:
A large part of Passengers is a loving homage to The Shining, and it has every right to win over even a skeptical film fan.  The movie is ostensibly about a man who dreams of a brighter future and earnestly wants to work towards it.  But an isolated and isolating setting gradually drains his willpower and starts making him make questionable decisions.  Both men sit at the same bar, asking questions to the same classic barman who mostly cannot give him the answers he wants.  Eventually his weakness leads him to directly endanger the life of a woman he supposedly cares about.  

At about this point, the perspective of both films switches to side with the woman, who had signed up for a very different experience.  Both women suddenly find that they've been endangered by the very man they most thought they could trust.  And now it's up to them how to reconcile that and what to do with it.  In a sense, all the main cast thought they were in control of the direction of their lives, but now find...yes, they've become "passengers" on a journey that they can't control.

(The trailer for Passengers leaves no surprises, so he's a great scene instead.)

I also just recently watched Fences (2016) and find myself comparing these two films.  Both feature a very small cast.  Both take place essentially in one set.  Both have men betraying women they think they are dedicated to.  Both have excellent scores.  And yet Fences was nominated up and down for awards while Passengers was vilified.  So what are the differences?

Well, judging Fences as a movie, and not the play it was based on, it seems to me that Passengers actually does many things much better than it.  There's a reason we only see a small cast in Passengers, whereas in Fences it seems that these people just have very few connections in their life, and none that are important for us to see.  The location is handled very well in Passengers, and actually features amazing design and a lot more variety than in the limited sets of Fences, set primarily in a patch of back yard.  And while both feature excellent casts (Viola Davis is amazing), Passengers allows us time to sit with Jim in moments of thoughtfulness and intuit his various feelings and moods without him walking us through it all verbally.  

It's great to see Chris Pratt in an uncharacteristic role, where he's not outgoing and constantly gabbing and joking.  Fences, on the other hand, is centered on Denzel Washington as Troy, who hardly shuts up the whole movie, belting out B.S. whether anyone is listening or not.  Troy's dialogue reeks of old-fashioned play-writing, where a character constantly talks "to himself" out to the audience, narrating soliloquies at the top of his lungs and chewing up scenery like a rabid Doberman.  I actually give Denzel credit as an actor, because the dialogue just leaves no room to play that part subtly.  On the other hand, Denzel the director could've tried to adapt it to internalize more of Troy's feelings.   It's essentially the weakness of the entire film: it's too dedicated to reproducing the stage play.  More should've been changed to make it work better on the screen, because it so obviously feels like a stage play from 1985, Pulitzer or not.

Some may argue that The Context is what sets these films apart.  Fences' Troy is a detestable and disagreeable miser, but he grew up in hard times and his character was formed by very real racist struggles.  Whereas the much more likable Jim of Passengers exists in a more idealized future.  Sure, he's a poor blue-collar guy, but he didn't face race struggles and his betrayal involves more technical know-how and supposedly more forethought.  However, I think that's pretty disingenuous, though I do agree that Context is key.  The context is this: dramas get respect but sci-fi rarely does.  A beloved and esteemed actor like Denzel gets credit for a capable adaptation of a classic play, despite the outdated style.  #Oscarssowhite was very recent.  On the other hand, #metoo was very recent, and the knee-jerk reaction to seeing beloved nuevo-feminist heroine J.Law "robbed of her agency" was an immediate wet blanket on Passengers.  Emotions trumped critical evaluation.  You can't tell someone they should/shouldn't feel the way they do.

I can tell you that Passengers was unfairly dumped on.  It's a very thoughtful and considerate film in which Jennifer Lawrence absolutely gets her due.  Her character has a full arc, and the questionable morality of how people deal with their emotions is at the heart of this film.  It's very much intended to spark debate, and the characters in the film have complex ways of dealing with it.  I think the resolution is very practical and believable, and anyone who's been in a relationship that experienced many ups and downs and backs and forths can tell you that things aren't always as simple as we'd like them to be on paper.

Fences deals with some of the same ground,

in terms of how women deal with betrayal and how people deal with realizing their lives are not going to be what they thought they would be.  However, Passengers' Jim gives everything to redeem himself and expresses great remorse.  Troy on the other hand, actually had an incredibly long, thought out, avoidable betrayal that is hardly sympathetic at all.  He seems remorseless and actually becomes an even greater villain over time.  He disregards and takes for granted everyone in his life, determined to wallow in bitterness rather than embracing possibility.

 

(Trailer for this is perfect actually... just the right amount of drama before you learn what the real situation is...)

Whatever charisma Denzel lent to the character evaporates early on, and yet we're stuck with 2 more hours of this character study of someone we can never be, can never understand, and wouldn't want to.  And the end result of the film feels like

an affirmation of the character, the abusers running right back to the abused, the triumph of Stockholm Syndrome.

 THIS should've been the movie that feminists hated, not Passengers.  I won't make the argument that it gets some kind of pass due to race, that's for others to decide.  But I will say that I can't get behind a film that seems to excuse abuse of many kinds by speaking in admiring tones of family ties and charisma.  This film just has bizarre messaging that might've fit in 1950, but we know better now.

Passengers ends with

restored agency, with 2 people making decisions together, and sacrificing for each other.  It's not about one person's needs trumping another's, it's about 2 people working together toward a mutual goal and healing.  

Aside from that, there's a whole lot of compelling sci-fi imagination and brilliant set-pieces.  I found it to succeed more on an emotional and dramatic level than many of the Oscar-baity films present that year.  AND it makes for an engaging theater view, too.  No slight to Fences, but I'll take that any day over a stilted, over-written story with an unsympathetic lead.  I'm sure it touched some people, but it's not fair to glorify Fences while angrily dismissing Passengers.