I like the film somewhat but it is not among his best work. But that still makes it better than 95% of the crap cranked out. It’s like “You’ve got mail” vs. “Sleepless in Seattle”. Not nearly as good but still a decent movie.
It is uneven, too much a commercial for FedEx, etc. There is something very wrong with the pacing. There are also obvious “chunks” missing where you can tell “oh, something was supposed to go there.” I saw a “Making of” on TV which had bits of several very interesting scenes that didn’t end up in the movie.
The plane crash scene in particular was unbelievable. Where was all the light from below coming from when he was being pulled under? What was holding the plane engine up out of the water after the plane had broken up??? (And why was it still running?) Wouldn’t most people start calling out for the others once they got in the raft? Stupid, not scary.
Reading all these complaints about the story and how it ends and begins and blah blah blah, it seems that everyone is forgetting that it was based on a true story. If you have qualms about how it turns out, blame fate, not the screenwriter. I agree that some things could have been handled better as far as the character development went, but you also have to take into account the time frame they had to work with. 4 years cramed into two hours, you have to make some sacrifices. (personally, as a screenwriter myself, if it came down to that, I wouldnt even bother writing it. I want to tell the whole story).
But it seems (and I may have just been reading into it wrong) that some people here object to the way the real story itself turned out, not just the cinematic execution of it.
What “true story” was this based off of? Not Robinson Carusoe, right? I’m pretty sure that this is purely a work of fiction, but I’d be interested to see any links you can dig up about this “true story”…
This movie always sucks me in when it’s on cable. It has a few things that I like to see in movies from time to time.
Non-verbal storytelling: We have tons of action where there’s only one character onscreen. I think the invention of Wilson was brilliant, I can definitely see myself anthropomorphizing something to keep from going crazy on a desert island. When Hanks returns and doesn’t speak for several minutes of screen time, it communicates his discomfort better than dialogue ever could. His sleeping on the floor, the few seconds with the automatic lighter, I love this stuff.
Great ideas: The ice skates as an axe. The port-o-let door as a sail. The whole idea of having him work for FedEx to set up these necessary gifts which keep floating up on shore. Perfect.
Empathy: What would I do in that situation. Would I die? Would I suicide? Would I have the tenacity to survive? I love this side of movies- it keeps them eternally interesting.
When I watched it, knowing he’d get off the Island, I kept waiting for the scene when he was rescued. I wanted to see his first reaction to human contact, to see him explain where he’s been. It was anti-climactic to see the big ship, then see him on a comfy jet.
BTW, didn’t the age of the daughter seem awfully close to when he first got on the Island?
I read an interview with Robert Zemeckis (Or Tom Hanks, I can’t remember) and he said that the story was based on a man who was pulled off an island after surviving for years on his own (he was military IIRC).
The survivor never spoke of anything that happened to him on the island. He just went on with trying to live his life.
The interviewee commented how interesting that was, that this guy never spoke about his experiences.
I would wager a guess then, that’s why we get chunks of time missing.
Sorry for being so vague, I’ll root around and see if I can find a cite.