When I first saw this movie, I enjoyed it. But I had a nagging feeling that something was off. Upon reflection, I realized what the problem was: the movie is actually very poorly written. In fact, the only thing that saves it is Hanks's powerful, largely wordless depiction of a man struggling to survive in the harsh environment where he has been stranded. Everything else about the movie is pretty bad. Here are a few of the main flaws.
Poor dialog and characterization: The characters don't behave like real people, they behave like movie characters. A classic sign of an untalented writer. This is especially true of the main character, Chuck, who undergoes the largest amount of development. His character changes, but everything basically occurs offscreen. First we are presented with an exaggerated caricature of a work-obsessed businessman. Once he arrives at the island, we see him face some of the challenges of life away from civilization. Then four years later, we see the character transformed into a kind of Robinson Crusoe, toughened by years on the island, grimly determined to survive in his harsh environment. Finally, we see him back in society, pretty much the same as before but more subdued, having found new meaning in his life as a result of his isolation. This is all well and good, but the problem is that the movie doesn't really give insight into the nature of this transformation, it just tells us the results. There's not really a sense of gradual change, just "before" and "after" pictures.
This leads to the second major flaw, a poorly delivered message. The message itself -- that we should appreciate life, pursue the things that matter to us while we still can, remain open to new opportunities, and so on -- is a good one, though certainly one that we've all heard before. But the writer, in delivering this message, uses the same tactic of telling the viewer what to think rather than showing it naturally. The main character even has a monologue where he tells his friend (and the viewer) what he's learned from his time on the island. And the movie ends with a particularly blatant scene of the main character standing at a literal crossroads as he considers his future. The writer clearly thinks that viewers are idiots and won't understand the message without scenes like this. Give the viewers some credit! That kind of didacticism is both unnecessary and ineffective. It cheapens the message to the level of a greeting card or self-help book.
The third major problem is inept pacing. In an attempt to create a certain unity of action, the writer introduces us to all of the characters before the island part, then shows us them all again at the end. This isn't always a bad thing, but he spends far too long doing so. A more skilled writer could suggest all of this background with a few deft strokes. This writer, though, gets bogged down trying to show us all the details and tie up the loose ends. This is distracting and tedious, especially given the unrealistic dialog as I already mentioned. Also, it gives the movie a distinct sense of unevenness. Nothing really happens during the beginning and end scenes. The writer is just telling the viewer the setup (at the beginning) or telling the viewer the epilogue and delivering the moral (at the end). The result is that instead of a natural sequence of rising and falling action, we are given a kind of "plot inselberg" (in a double sense) in the middle surrounded by flat, rolling hills of boring exposition at the beginning and end.
Even with so many flaws, I'd still recommend this movie. Tom Hanks gives a truly gripping portrayal of a man almost completely cut off from society, forced to depend entirely on himself for survival. For best results, just fast forward until you see the main couple opening presents in the car, then turn off the movie after the scene with the cargo ship. The rest is just a waste of time.
Poor dialog and characterization: The characters don't behave like real people, they behave like movie characters. A classic sign of an untalented writer. This is especially true of the main character, Chuck, who undergoes the largest amount of development. His character changes, but everything basically occurs offscreen. First we are presented with an exaggerated caricature of a work-obsessed businessman. Once he arrives at the island, we see him face some of the challenges of life away from civilization. Then four years later, we see the character transformed into a kind of Robinson Crusoe, toughened by years on the island, grimly determined to survive in his harsh environment. Finally, we see him back in society, pretty much the same as before but more subdued, having found new meaning in his life as a result of his isolation. This is all well and good, but the problem is that the movie doesn't really give insight into the nature of this transformation, it just tells us the results. There's not really a sense of gradual change, just "before" and "after" pictures.
This leads to the second major flaw, a poorly delivered message. The message itself -- that we should appreciate life, pursue the things that matter to us while we still can, remain open to new opportunities, and so on -- is a good one, though certainly one that we've all heard before. But the writer, in delivering this message, uses the same tactic of telling the viewer what to think rather than showing it naturally. The main character even has a monologue where he tells his friend (and the viewer) what he's learned from his time on the island. And the movie ends with a particularly blatant scene of the main character standing at a literal crossroads as he considers his future. The writer clearly thinks that viewers are idiots and won't understand the message without scenes like this. Give the viewers some credit! That kind of didacticism is both unnecessary and ineffective. It cheapens the message to the level of a greeting card or self-help book.
The third major problem is inept pacing. In an attempt to create a certain unity of action, the writer introduces us to all of the characters before the island part, then shows us them all again at the end. This isn't always a bad thing, but he spends far too long doing so. A more skilled writer could suggest all of this background with a few deft strokes. This writer, though, gets bogged down trying to show us all the details and tie up the loose ends. This is distracting and tedious, especially given the unrealistic dialog as I already mentioned. Also, it gives the movie a distinct sense of unevenness. Nothing really happens during the beginning and end scenes. The writer is just telling the viewer the setup (at the beginning) or telling the viewer the epilogue and delivering the moral (at the end). The result is that instead of a natural sequence of rising and falling action, we are given a kind of "plot inselberg" (in a double sense) in the middle surrounded by flat, rolling hills of boring exposition at the beginning and end.
Even with so many flaws, I'd still recommend this movie. Tom Hanks gives a truly gripping portrayal of a man almost completely cut off from society, forced to depend entirely on himself for survival. For best results, just fast forward until you see the main couple opening presents in the car, then turn off the movie after the scene with the cargo ship. The rest is just a waste of time.