spoon-feeding you pseudointellectual fluff

Rating: Null/10 (27 December 2000)

This movie is the dumbest thing ever. If you are under 40 years of age, and are not currently experiencing a mid-life crisis, skip it. The message - too simple. We know that materialism is bad. I have a degree in Sociology, so maybe it was a little too remedial for me, but come on, aren't we all a little beyond this simple a life lesson? Unless you are a yuppie and are currently also on your cell phone, this movie will not enlighten you. The acting - too bad. Helen Hunt CANNOT ACT. Hello, Hollywood? Are you reading this? SHE CANNOT ACT!
(SPOILERS)
She shows no emotion when he comes back, when she says she cannot take him back, nothing. And the plot that she would not try to take him back is totally unsupported (since the creators thought we needed to see 45 minutes of footage of him trying to open a stupid coconut instead of developing her character, who only has about 5 minutes of screen time).
The movie will not surprise you ever. Everything... everything is foreshadowed! The film is as dry as toast. And spoon-fed. Did we need to see him play with the lighter to realize how much we take fire for granted? WASN'T THE 30 MINUTES OF FOOTAGE OF HIM RUBBING STICKS ENOUGH?
And why on earth did he keep that package? The 5 year-old in front of me asked out loud "HOW did it save his life", and the whole section turned to their partners and whispered, "yeah, how DID it save his life?"
The film was too cute, too perfect, and had a warmed over "you never know what the tide will bring in... maybe a box of chocolates" type moral. Gee, thanks, I hadn't considered that.
I still cannot believe that they had to "go there" and make a "happy" ending where he finds some new woman. In fact, the romantic subplot altogether seemed incomplete, undeveloped, secondary, and just added in because the executives' formulas say that movies need a romantic sub-plot, even if it adds nothing to a movie.
Instead of 2 hours of Hanks trying to eat a coconut and talking to a volleyball, perhaps the film could have given us some REAL insight to the metamorphosis in his mind. OR let us know what was going on in her life. They could have cross-cut scenes between the two to break the boredom and complete the film.
And lets face it, the volleyball was just a device so we could hear his thoughts, really, wasn't it? I know it was supposed to show him as crazy and needing companionship, but I think that they only really used it as a device.
The movie succeeds in two areas. 1) It really does make you go through what he goes through... the viewer feels bored, tired, exhausted, and starts to go crazy... just like he does. The director accomplished that task. And 2) the film displays human vs. nonhuman technology (Traditional Weberian theory) quite well. Before the crash, he uses nonhuman technology, things that control people: the clock, beepers, etc. On the island, he uses human technology, things that people control: a blade to cut coconuts, tree bark to make rope, etc.
But alas, I am a socialist, and realized a long time ago that the value of an item is decided by its usefullness, and not its so called "market price". Nothing new to me, or the Russians in the film.
I was most surprised that FED EX would use its name in a film that A) displays a crash and death of employees, and B) as mentioned in the above 2 paragraphs, is essentially anti-capitalism.
But hey, advertising execs are never too smart, and probably just thought, "there's a blockbuster, lets hop on it!"
A bit of irony, no?