I finally got around to watching the Castaway DVD tonight - something I’d put off doing because of all the bad reviews it got, and I didn’t think it was that bad!
I mean, yeah, it was a bit depressing, and maybe talking to Wilson the volley-ball head was a little over the top :eek:, but the guy was stranded alone on a freaking desert island for 4 years!
Now, granted this movie wasn’t Oscar material, but by the way people carried on about it, you’d think it was the second freaking coming of Ishtar! :rolleyes:
Sorry to nitpick, but it’s Cast Away. The reason I nitpick is that there is another movie called Castaway, a 1987 film directed by Nicolas Roeg, starring Oliver Reed and Amanda Donohoe, based on the fascinating book of the same name by Lucy Irvine. It’s a decent movie, though the book is much better. It’s a true story about a man who goes off to live on a desert island for a year, and the woman he recruits to be his “wife” during that time.
I don’t know where you’re seeing these bad reviews. It’s 87% “Fresh” at Rotten Tomatoes, got great reviews from people like Roger Ebert, Michael Wilmington, Lisa Schwarzbaum, and Dave Kehr. If you mean “bad reviews” as in “people who bitch about everything, especially anything with Tom Hanks, directed by Robert Zemeckis, has a big budget, features a corporate name brand, or that made a lot of money”, yeah, there are those kinds of people. Don’t pay attention to them. Cast Away is a good movie, and Tom Hanks deserved his Oscar nomination.
I liked it. I think the people who didn’t are the ones who didn’t understand the premise of the movie before they went it, ergo, he’s trapped on a deserted island for 4 years.
It was a hell of a lot better then survivor, which is nothing but a popularity contest.
The only thing that bugged me about it was that the first 10 minutes were like a Fed-ex commerical.
Or they’ve become accustomed to the typical “stranded on a desert island” movies, in which the hero always winds up building a veritable paradise for himself on the island, and then gets caught up in a fight with local natives and/or pirates.
I didn’t like it. I found it rather slow and plodding. I mean, yeah; the guy is alone. No one to talk to but himself and his ball. But I found the dialog dull. It was just uninteresting. Practically the whole story was told in the trailers, and what wasn’t was told in the reviews.
I’m not saying it was a bad film. I like Tom Hanks as an actor and I never thought of the budget nor of the director, and the product placement didn’t bother me. And yes, I understood the premise – that he’s trapped alone on an island for four years – going in. I just think the story was told in an uninteresting way.
I liked this movie but I don’t need to see it again. I, too, have the DVD and sooner or later I’ll get around to watching the additional footage (or DVD goodies, as I call them).
I’ll second that I was a little ticked that the trailer gave so much away. It’s a very annoying trend with trailers.
The DVD has one of the funniest eggs I’ve seen. It’s not that hard to find, just hunt around for it.
I enjoyed the movie. Although I didn’t quite buy how he had such a difficult time getting off the island and how he had to time it just right. Generally if there are big waves on one side of an island there are small waves on the opposite side.But other then that I enjoyed it, and I didn’t mind its slow nature at all, after all that’s what island life is. All the days meld into each other.
BUT; Cast Away was a really uneven movie. The introduction was slow and kind of boring until the plane got in the air.
The middle part of the movie was interesting, if a bit overacted.
And the end of the movie (from the tanker on- and the silly whale bit) was horrid.
Oh well. It was probably a poor quality script and bad directing (for a normally solid director) that did in the movie. But Hank’s overacting in parts did not help either.
But probably IMHO one of Tom Hanks worst movies since he has been a “A” list actor. And I liked “Forest Gump” too, its just this movie was a waste of 2 hours.
Somehow the epilogue threw me. It didn’t seem necessary, even though it was done well (addressing the issue of Kelly’s struggle to go on with her life, only to have to accept that Chuck is still alive after all; Chuck going on with his own life). It seemed as if the movie “ended” when the cargo ship spotted him.
Maybe part of the issue is that it made moviegoers uncomfortable. Tom Hanks is our Everyman. We can’t watch such a movie without putting ourselves in Chuck’s place and thinking, yeah, I’d starve to death in a week. Here you are, in a tropical paradise, without any obligations, and you know you’d either starve to death, get sick or injured, or go nuts from boredom and loneliness and not knowing if you would ever see a human face again. Too much tension there to be really “entertaining.”
Well, because he defies all odds and survives for 4 years and actually gets rescued, only to return to a world he doesn’t seem to fit in anymore. He lost the love of his life. It almost seemed like he’d rather be back on that island.
There was virtually no shown character development in the movie. We didn’t see him become the sophisticated island warrior who can adeptly spear fish and utilize his resources. We didn’t see him stuggle with thoughts and attepts at suicide. We also didn’t see him try to adapt to normal life again. We didn’t get to see him eat his first hot meal in 4 years. We didn’t see him go through the emotional rollercoaster that most likely took place once that ship picked him up.
All in all, the movie was a copout. It was an exposition of how fat Tom Hanks can get for a role, and a display of how to make a movie without a soundtrack. All very wonderful technical feats, but at least attach it to a movie with some substance.
No offense, I was just wondering. I find it interesting the parts of movies different peole come away with.
You see, what you found sad, I found uplifting. The last scene we see of Chuck, he has come to grips with the change he has seen in his life and knows that no matter what happens, he must wake up each morning and do what needs to be done. As the movie fades to black, he is standing at a crossroads and the world is open to him to do what he wants and go where he wants.
Honest, I’m not trying to start an argument. It’s just interesting to me.
I found it uneven, and uninspiring. Also thought the ending was tacked on and a little hackneyed. Definitely not a horrible film, though. Just not a real good one.
I found parts of the ending sad but that red head he was thinking about saying hi too, why she was real cute. So I left thinking, well his future is sure to be interesting and exciting.
BTW I could have sworn that when I saw it in the theater that at the end he looks all 4 ways, the credits start rolling and then as they roll we see him get in the truck and pick a road. Then the credits keep playing as we pan out watch his truck drive down the road and kick up dust. But it wasn’t on the DVD. Is this from another movie I mixed with this one?
I didn’t particularly care for the ending; it felt kind of anvil-like to me. But right now I can’t imagine how it would end, in a way that would satisfy me. I think part of my problem is I keep comparing Cast Away to The Blue Lagoon, and we know no good can come of that. Although Blue Lagoon did show a little of the process of becoming adapted to life on an island and learning how to survive on it, in response to Munch’s point about not seeing character development in Cast Away. I do like the scene where he’s waiting in the hotel room and picks up the king crab leg and briefly studies it.
