A movie that chooses the road of superficiality

Rating: Null/10 (26 December 2000)

I was very disappointed in this movie. I expected a decent look into the challenges of living in utter isolation, having to survive without modern acoutrements, and a lot of reflection on one's place in the universe. Oh no. This film, whenever confronted with the option, chooses the road of superficiality over depth.
Once we get past the deeply Republican yuppie fantasy of "ideal existence" and onto the island, we would expect, at least after a while, a little reflection on the part of our protagonist. But, for a film whose star is so eager to declare that "nothing happens" in its middle section, we are treated to unending survival tips and adventures at the expense of any reflection. This is a beautiful island, surely anyone there would have some moments of appreciating the stillness and natural wonder of the island. Well, not here. Surely after four years Hanks would have developed his own ways, his own joys and sorrows, new abilities he's proud of, or good at, but we just don't see them. His emotional range remains, for the whole of the island portion of the film, sad and sadder. We're supposed to believe that after he returns to civilization that there's a part of him left on that island-- well, based on this movie, he never really seems to BE on the island, he's always a yuppie visitor, and doesn't seem to engage in his environment. This movie could have been much more powerful if it chose to really engage in the loneliness and despair that one would feel after giving up on civilization and realizing one may be alone for the rest of one's life. Hanks is a fine actor unhampered by vanity, but here what we're seeing is a movie star dropped off on a set every morning. The movie's depth never rises above the level of "Dude, what if you were like, trapped on an island? Man, like, what would you DO? That would sure suck." And that's the one statement this film seems to make: being alone in the universe pretty much sucks. Hey, Thanks Tom, you're giving us pearls.
There are a lot of other details that give the film away as a sham. If I was standed on a tropical island, the first thing I would do is look for the resort on the other side. Tom shouts a few "Hello's," then assumes that there's no one there. At one point he climbs up to the summit--at this point a 360-degree pan could have worked wonders, but uh-uh, not here. I still think there's a Club Med a half-mile away that Tom just never bothered to look for. He also never really seems to explore the island--and after four years, don't you think you'd take a little field trip? Also, after four years, wouldn't you have built yourself more than a few spears? Tom can't get off the island because of the reef off the section of beach he refuses to leave--maybe he could have paddled around to see if there was a break in the reef? Oh, I guess not. This is what I mean when I say this film never really engages with the reality of being on the island, and robs itself of the seriousness it so desperately asks of its audience.
I have read a book of true accounts of people stranded on islands ("Great Shipwrecks and Castaways," it's still in print, and it's excellent, so look for it if this interests you), and a book on how to survive if you must drift for days on a raft, and I know that the real problem Tom is going to face once his portasan blows away is exposure to the sun. But that problem is apparently not convenient for this film to explore, so it just pretends like it doesn't exist. This film asks you to reflect only on the problems of nature that Hollywood can easily solve, all others simply do not exist.
A SPOILER IN THIS NEXT SECTION: But the real mistake this movie makes, in which it betrays both itself and its audience, is to virtually cancel out ALL emotional resonance it might have attained by having a hot babe appear out of nowhere in the final two minutes to make everything okay. This development is at once disappointing and disgusting. Disappointing in that all the sadness we've built up for Hanks is INSTANTLY ERADICATED by the convenient appearance of a new "chick" to make his life complete, disgusting in the suggestion that Helen Hunt's character, who we've built up such a respect and reverence for, can simply be replaced by an almost identical "hot chick" (this one has RED hair though! And besides, Hunt never amounted to much anyway). So, as an audience, we are left to assume that Hank's character really IS stupifyingly superficial, and that the only connection he really had to Hunt, all that time on the island, is that he needed some babe in his life. Hunt, or someone else, it doesn't matter. This puts a nasty taste in my mouth now when I think about Hanks and Zemeckis as PEOPLE. But aside from that, I am surprised that they would so completely betray the film they've obviously expended so much effort on.
All in all, a deeply Republican film. It prods us to look deep inside ourselves and ask: "What would we do if one day we didn't have an SUV and a pager?" But, the movie says, don't worry about not having a woman around, they're a dime a dozen, and they're all the same.
Bleech!
--- Check out website devoted to bad and cheesy movies: www.cinemademerde.com