Cast Away-Throw Away is More Like It-A $80-90 Million Dollar Soccer Ball?
Okay brace yourself, Cast Away, cost $90 million dollars. We are getting close to Star Wars numbers here and what do you get? A naked Tom Hanks and a f***ing soccer ball! Note I said, a naked Tom Hanks AND a f***ing soccer ball, NOT Tom Hanks F***ing a soccer ball...no that would have made it ONE hell of a film and this turkey would have scored an A. Regardless, let’s all stop and tip out caps to the studio executives for extracting at least $380 million dollars from wallets worldwide on this one. $80-$90 million? However, keep burning ticket buyers like this and eventually they will showing up.
The story, which is really just a modern day rip-off of Robinson Crusoe, puts FedEx (plug) worker Chuck Noland crash “landing” onto a desert island. Lets pause with the name for a second, Chuck Noland, one inside joke maybe? Noland and he’s on a desert island oh so funny, oh ha-ha. That is some of that good old Hollywood originality that gets all those guys the big bucks, right? Second, the name Chuck Noland, like there is any chance that guy would be anything other than a giant a-hole in real life. Chuck Noland is the middle management nightmare whose wife is cheating on him, he secretly knows she is cheating on him and takes it out on you. Chuck Noland, that is like the worse name in any film I can remember.
Anyway, this film stinks of product placement. Wilson the soccer ball, FedEx, come on! What was the excuse? “We need that money to offset production cost.” You must be kidding you have $80-$90 million dollars and a naked Tom Hanks on an island with a soccer ball, a soccer ball that you didn’t even have to pay for, are you serious? Where did this money go? Sure the plane crashing sequence is cool, but that didn’t eat up $80-$90 million dollars, and you didn’t have to spring for wardrobe for Hanks. What was it, one or two costume changes. This is seriously a shameful use of money and all involved should hang their heads. And then there is the running time of, two and a half, yes, two and a half hours of Tom Hanks on an island talking to a soccer ball. Have you figured out yet that this film doesn’t work? People went because they love Tom Hanks, at least they did love Tom Hanks. Had they realized that this film cost $80-$90 million dollars, oh that reaction would have been fun. Seriously, minus the plane crash sequence, this is an independent film.
Robert Zemeckis and Hanks really should not have done this to the people that are ultimately responsible for paying for their extraordinary lifestyles, namely the consumer. Sure it was very successful, but I believe it will be at the expense of Hanks career long term. I know a great many people that felt “had” or “taken” by this film as they expected some twist or turn in the story would happen at any moment, and, of course, it didn’t. Hanks and Zemeckis can do better. Anyone handed $80 or $90 million dollars could do better. Anyone.
Story D (The concept has been done to death in some form or another but once on the island there are a few tolerable moments.)
Acting B (Hanks does a good acting job as being a one man show is never easy. However, he should have never taken the part.)
Visuals C+ (For $80-$90 million dollars you have to deliver more, I don’t care how much Hanks is being paid.)
Originality/Innovation D-
Enjoyability Grade C-
Home Theater/HD Factor C
Overall Grade C-
|
