Ah, Winter Break. A time for rest and relaxation. A moment to catch up with family, open up some presents and have some home cooked meals. And, for this intrepid movie reviewer (who was sick in bed for the majority of the break), a time to catch up on some of the more obscure films of 2016.

These past few weeks gave me the opportunity to watch a series of films that had two major qualities: First, there were those films that were dreadfully bad, irreparable flawed, and wholly bewildering. Then, there were those films that were incredibly depressing, remarkably nihilistic, or otherwise saddening. And, as a bonus, there were those rare gems that managed to achieve both of these types of qualities, a truly harrowing experience for even the most hardened movie buffs.

A little bit of a roadmap as we begin. This week’s column is going to be longer than most, and will have two parts. First, I’ll briefly cover and review all of the (relatively) new movies I watched over break that came out at certain points in 2016 and which never ceased to baffle me for a variety of reasons. Then, I’ll cover “Passengers,” the new film starring Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt, and which seems like “Citizen Kane” in comparison to some of the stuff I subjected myself to over the break. Should be a fun time all around.

Part I: 2016’s Black Sheep

Central Intelligence (June 17, 2016) – Anchors (Out of Four): 

What happens when you mix James Bond with mediocre comedy? You get a film that doesn’t have a lot to offer in terms of laughs or intrigue, a film called “Central Intelligence.” A lot of people tell me that Kevin Hart is funny, and I try to believe them, but movies like this give me my doubts. It’s not that he was offensively bad or cringe-worthy, but rather that he failed to draw much emotion out of me whatsoever. I want to laugh consistently throughout a comedy film, and Hart’s was a largely lifeless performance, likely the result of poor plotting and some odd directorial choices by Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Dodgeball,” “We’re the Millers”). Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson saves this film from complete mediocrity with some wacky acting that actually showcases some considerable range beyond his action star typecast.

Batman: The Killing Joke (July 25, 2016) – Anchors (Out of Four): 

Wildly different in terms of genre, and even more unenjoyable to watch was “The Killing Joke,” DC’s first rated-R animated film. I’m down to watch a cartoon, especially one as well drawn and stylistically solid as this one. The voice work, especially Mark Hamill (“Star Wars”) as the Joker, is also commendable. Nevertheless, artistry and audio – even when they create a memorable aesthetic – aren’t enough to save a film from a fractured plotline and a sense of faux-edginess vaguely reminiscent of a Linkin Park concert. However, comic book fans and casual viewers can unite in their ambivalence and distaste towards this movie, which I suppose is cause for celebration.

Free State of Jones (June 24, 2016) – Anchors (Out of Four): The next couple of films fall into the “sad but well-made category,” certainly the better of the two to find oneself in. “Free State of Jones” chronicles Newton Knight’s (Matthew McConaughey) resistance against the Confederacy in southern Mississippi during the Civil War and his subsequent conflicts with the Ku Klux Klan in the Reconstruction Era. Some war films in recent years have attempted to cast doubt on the moral certainty of the conflicts they portrayed, but nothing could be further from the truth in “Free State.” Here we have no doubt of who the good guys and the bad guys are, and the brutality and racism of the Confederacy and southern Democratic political machine are on full display. As in many movies, I’m a fan of character actors, and here Mahershala Ali (“House of Cards,” “Luke Cage”) stands out as escaped slave Moses Washington.

Anthropoid (August 12, 2016) – Anchors (Out of Four): In “Anthropoid,” Cillian Murphy (“Sunshine,” “Batman Begins,”) and Jamie Dornan (“Fifty Shades of Grey”) play Jozef Gabčík and Jan Kubiš respectively, two agents dispatched by the Czechoslovak government-in-exile to parachute back into Czechoslovakia and assassinate the Nazi leader Reinhard Heydrich, the so-called “Butcher of Prague.” While the Czech accents were a bit difficult to understand, it’s this dedication to history, including almost perfect recreations and on-location shoots of the bombing and the assassins’ escape attempt that makes “Anthropoid” stand out. The viewer quickly realizes that this film might not end well for our protagonists, but that still doesn’t stop one from being in suspense until the film’s very final moments.

Hell or High Water (August 12, 2016) – Anchors (Out of Four): 

I suppose I’m breaking from orthodoxy by not giving this movie a stellar review – it holds a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes and has received near-universal critical acclaim. I suppose I can see why. It’s a well-directed, well-paced, and superbly acted Western film set in an environment that draws the viewer into the world of southwest Texas, a place portrayed as somewhat lost in time and ravaged by rural decay. Our two bank robbing brothers, Chris Pine (“Star Trek,” “Unstoppable”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno,” “3:10 to Yuma”) are on the run from Texas Rangers Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges) and Alberto Parker (Gil Birmingham). In many ways, this film was reminiscent of “The Revenant.” Beautifully made, fundamentally solid, but suffering from a dreary, near-ponderous plot and a cast of interesting but wholly unlikeable characters.

Assassin’s Creed (December 21, 2016) – Anchors (Out of Four):

A video game film I hoped would be the one of my childhood dreams instead had both the letdown and clarity of a nightmare. The aesthetics of a 1980s new wave music video meet the pacing of Great Expectations and a plotline pulled out of M. Night Shyamalan’s discarded drafts. There were a lot of ways one of the great game franchises of the early 21st century could have been transformed into the first great videogame movie, and unfortunately, none of those things happened, so we’re stuck with high quality CGI and major league actors in a movie less enjoyable to watch than the collected cut scenes of any of the games it was based on. It’s a sad state of affairs when Jerry Bruckheimer’s “Prince of Persia” remains the gold standard of videogame movies, but it just goes to show how hard it is to adapt games to film.

Part II: Passengers

Anchors (Out of Four): 

So, as you saw above, I gave “Passengers” two and a half anchors out of four, which is perhaps more than a lot of other critics think it deserves. It’s impossible to discuss these concerns without getting into spoilers, so read ahead at your own risk.

“Passengers” is a sci-fi romance film where Chris Pratt (“Jurassic World,” “Guardians of the Galaxy”) and Jennifer Lawrence (“The Hunger Games,” “American Hustle”) are passengers on the starship Avalon, in the midst of a 120 year journey to colonize a new world. While the trailer leads us to believe that engineer Jim Preston (Pratt) and author Aurora Lane (Lawrence) both accidentally wake up 90 years too early, we quickly find out in the film that only Preston wakes up accidentally, choosing to awaken Lane after a year in isolation.

The majority of “Passengers” takes on a surreal mood that feels at home in a science fiction movie and extends from minor details to major plot points. Regarding the former, moments like Preston’s earliest conversation with robotic bartender Arthur (Martin Sheen) stand out as particularly odd in ways reminiscent of a horror movie. Indeed, aside from Preston’s dilemma, everything seems rather off from the beginning on the Avalon. Similarly, Laurence Fishburne’s sudden introduction and rapid death seem more at home in a Ridley Scott film than in what is, at least ostensibly, a romance.

Similarly, Preston’s harrowing year in isolation (including a near-suicide attempt), as well as his ethically questionable decision to wake up Lane in order to satisfy his loneliness and romantic desires, show elements of a psychological thriller, but these aspects are tempered by Chris Pratt’s charisma and joviality. I’m left unsure of how to feel about or even interpret major conflicts in the film. While in many instances this would be a negative factor (see “Assassins Creed” above if you want some real tonal failure), in a science fiction film it feels right.

Indeed, “Passengers” feels like an extended episode of “The Twilight Zone” or “The Outer Limits,” in terms of the uneasy feeling it creates in the audience, while it shows shades of the original “Star Trek” in terms of the ethical dilemmas it raises.

After all, many audience members might ask themselves whether they would “drag someone down with them” (as Fishburne’s character remarks) in order to abate eternal loneliness by waking up another passenger, an act which Lane characterizes as akin to murder.  Similarly, one might question whether they could ever forgive their awakener, as Lane eventually does. These are interesting questions that are unfortunately never fully resolved by the end of “Passengers,” which seeks instead to avoid many of the ethical questions raised in earlier parts of the film. The moments before and after Lane finds out the truth of her situation made me cringe and were effective, which unfortunately makes the ending even more unsatisfactory.

Nevertheless, I suppose I can give “Passengers” credit for keeping me unsure of what would happen next. Unlike many of the other films in this week’s column, I honestly could not figure out who would live and who would die on the Avalon, let alone what the status of Preston and Lane’s relationship would be by the end of the film. And, while the wholly unremarkable and uncharacteristically safe ending was a shame, the movie succeeds where hard science fiction should in making the audience think for a moment. It’s goofy at times, discordant at others, but “Passengers” at least deserves credit for that much.