Cast Away (2000)

*** out of ****

Hard to believe it was 15 years ago; when Tom Hanks did the film “Cast Away” his star was probably as bright as it would ever be. After a decade as the star of enjoyable light fluff like “Splash” (1984), “Bachelor Party” (1984) and “Big” (1988), Hanks had gone from reliable box office star to superstar with a series of really wonderful movies. Starting with “A League of Their Own” (1992) he had gone on a streak of fabulous performances, won two acting Oscars and probably deserved another one. And for my money, “Cast Away” was the best story he was ever involved in telling.

Now don't get me wrong – I don't think it was his best movie. That would obviously go to “Forrest Gump” (1994) with “Philadelphia” (1993) and “Saving Private Ryan” (1998) not far behind. But “Cast Away” was such a compelling story that if they had dropped a couple of totally unnecessary elements from the story it would have made for Hanks' best film, and probably won him another Best Actor award. I will get to those elements (and will expect many to disagree with me about them) in a minute.

In this film Hanks is Chuck Nolan, a Fedex executive that travels all around the world to drill the Fedex mandate into various levels of the corporation. He is madly in love with Kelly Frears (Helen Hunt), a doctoral student with mild commitment issues. On a Christmas Eve he is called away on another assignment, and immediately after proposing to Kelly (and following her non-commital response) he gets on a plane to fly away. The plane loses radio contact as it diverts around a major storm, then suffers engine trouble and is forced to crash land in the south Pacific. In the tumult of the crash, only Chuck escapes the plane and ends up alone on a small island.

Luckily, the island is habitable. There is enough natural flora on the island to sustain him, and once he gains some rudimentary ability to find fresh water, start a fire and to catch fish, he finds he can survive there. Which is fortunate, since as his plane had tried to divert around the storm front nobody is looking for survivors anywhere near where the plane actually crashed. He may be marooned forever, despite his obsession with getting back to Kelly, the love of his life.

Much was made at the time of the film of Hanks' commitment to the part. Chuck is on the island for 4 years, and Hanks lost some 50 pounds and grew his hair and beard very long to account for the lapsed time. And I agree – this is, I believe, the greatest performance of his career. Not only because of his commitment to the physical changes required, but to his acting – there are points in the movie where there is almost no dialogue for as long as a half hour at a time, but his ability to convey ideas and thoughts through body language and facial expressions has never been more evident.

HOWEVER...... there are two things that prevent this movie from working as the four-star classic it should have been, and they are both related. This is where I expect to lose some of you.....

When trying to start a fire, Chuck loses his temper in frustration and has a little tantrum. To my eye, this is the ONLY thing about Hanks' performance that seemed forced and unnatural. But it was required so that his bloody handprint could end up on a volleyball. This handprint looks a little like a face, and as a result Chuck christens the volleyball “Wilson” and starts to have conversations with it.

SPOILER ALERT (plot resolution points discussed in the following paragraph)

Now I am not against this as a plot device, as it allowed the viewer some insight into Chuck's thoughts as he discusses them with Wilson. However, I found the “Wilson” aspect to be utterly unnecessary to both the plot and the film as a whole. Because of Wilson, Chuck clearly seems to be a few aces short of a full deck (which is understandable), but after Chuck's rescue he is completely sane again. Ridiculous. Director Robert Zemeckis loves whimsy and I believe that's why Wilson because such a front-and-center part of the film, but I think that without it, the film would have been smoother, more dynamic and have much less of a continuity issue. What Chuck is doing would have become clear even without the plot device of an inanimate object to talk to, and I think the film would have been much better without it. Tom Hanks' magnum opus, even.

Overall this is still a great movie. There are some scenes that drag a bit leading to the film being a tad overlong, but I love the performances and especially love the resolution at the ending. The line, “Tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide may bring?” may be one of the most uplifting expressions from a man in sorrow I have ever seen in the movies.

Much recommended, even if I feel it could have been improved.