Not bad at all

Rating: 7/10 (15 January 2001)

(Spoilers)
With very mixed reviews, "Cast Away" is a good and entertaining film, but it is not very thorough and it is somewhat flawed in the timeline department. I was actually very satisfied with the film - I had expected nothing more, and nothing less, so for once, my expectations were met almost exactly.
So what's wrong with this film? In hindsight, I can easily spot the flaws, but sitting in the theater I didn't mind them much. First and foremost, that which most negative reviews and comments focus on, is the 4-year leap. We get to see Noland surviving, adapting and realizing that he will not be found. Suddenly, the action jumps 4 years ahead, to the point where Noland finally gets a chance to leave. It wasn't very frustrating to me - Zemeckis and his crew obviously wanted to focus on the difference between Noland the survivor and Noland the Robinson. I find the stark contrast rather refreshing - because seriously: what should they have filled the intervening time with? More injuries? More reinventing the primitive tools of the caveman? I don't think so. It would have lengthened a film that in the end is not about the life of a Robinson, but about adaptability, strength and resolve. And to that end, the abrupt jump in time is not only acceptable, but necessary.
What I do think is a great flaw, and the only one that actually bothered me while watching, was the carefree way with which the movie deals with his homecoming. Sadly overlooked, the reactions of people around him and the massive amount of attention that he undoubtedly would receive, would have been valuable to the movie in terms of entertainment and clarification: just how did the world go on without him? Then again, the focus is not the world, but Noland. It's his sentiments, his life that has altered so profoundly, and the gap in time between his rescue and meeting with his former girlfriend is also a gap that is functional: how mindblowing mustn't it be to be rescued after 4 years alone on a tiny island with just a volleyball to talk to? How blank would his mind get after finally being brought back to civilization? The 4 weeks after his rescue would be filled with a weak, sleepy Noland without much to say or do. What Zemeckis could have added without much effort, is a sort of media commentary on Noland's story. The 4-week gap feels too much like a loss.
Zemeckis has an eye for human emotions and facial expressions that say more than words and music would. We get to see Hanks perform stunningly (as usual), regardless if he is a crowd-pleaser or not, and his time on the island is void of music and almost void of words. The film is superbly shot, some sequences almost taking the breath away. Some details weight heavily on the viewer - the removal of a bad tooth by way of an ice skating shoe that had the entire audience cringing in their seats, and the realistic and frightening scene where he tries to escape with the rubber raft and injures himself.
All in all, I think the negative reviews on this film are unfair and inconsiderate. I would like to know what should have been done instead. I just have a hard time seeing this film made different without losing focus: Noland and his life before, during and after his stay as a Robinson.