Let's hear what the rest of you have to say about this film, which Hollywood is *counting on* to score BIG at the box office.

The trailers definitely spoiled the experience of watching this film. I'm surprised anyone enjoyed it (or that this is appearing on some critics' top 10 lists for the year). I'm usually not very good at predicting what will happen in a movie before it happens but PLEASE! What were they thinking with the trailers and TV spots for this movie? The only thing not spoiled was the "surprise" ending, which wasn't such a great payoff anyway. They needed to cut about 15 or 20 minutes of island footage and, instead, give us a satisfying ending.

Just what was the point of this movie? Was it trying to teach us that it's a bad thing to be "married to your job"? That's hardly a fresh, new message. Was it trying to teach us to accept the hand life deals to each of us... or that the human spirit will always fight to survive no matter the odds? Those aren't revolutionary themes either. But some people will certainly be surprised by an affirmation of the sanctity of marriage. Makes you wonder if they didn't change the ending to appease the politicians who were on a rampage against Hollywood a few months ago.

I feel the urge to compare this movie to The Straight Story. For the most part, each movie revolved around a character who had to express lots of things without saying them. In that sense, The Straight Story did a much better job (Richard Farnsworth didn't have any conversations with his tractor). Each movie seems to end right before an important scene is about to take place. Again, I think The Straight Story did it better.

 |  IP: Logged

They missed SO many opportunities to display Hanks' slow deterioration into insanity and it only takes four weeks of him being back in civilization to be absolutely normal once more...after 1500 days alone on a deserted island with no-one to talk to but a soccer ball. (I did think the soccer ball's name was very well chosen, however.)

If Hanks wins an Oscar for this, I'm never going to watch the Oscars again. Not that he wasn't OK...he was, but there was no material in the script for him to use, much like Denzel Washington's role in 'Hurricane'.

6/10

------------------
"It's not the years, honey...it's the mileage". Indiana Jones

I seem to dislike more and more the movies today that last for 90 min and have 72 killings, 24 cars blowing up, tons of buildings blowing up etc. etc. where are we heading?

------------------
Martin Frandsen
Film crazy!, Big 70mm fan!

Now that would have made for an interesting movie, unfortunately, that movie is not called 'Cast Away'.

 |  IP: Logged

I've seen "Castaway" twice, and I thought the running/exploding engine after the crash was on a wing. I recall that the sinking tail section had no engine. Guess I'll have to see it again with your keen observations in mind.

What equipment would Fed-Ex use for a cross-Pacific route? I assume someone from Fed-Ex was a technical consultant, and would pick up on this detail.

Regardless, that reel "rocks" as far as the DTS digital sound mix and keeping the tension high. A reel "white knuckle" picture that likely won't be shown by the airlines.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

I very well could be mistaken, but I was pretty sure that the engine was on the tail. I belive that for Pan-Pacific routes that Fed-Ex uses either MD-11s or MD-10s (converted DC-10s). Airbus 300s and 310s have a max range of 4050 and 4350 nm (nautical miles) vs the max of 7620 for the MD-11, and 6220 for the DC-10.

Other part is that the scenes of the flight deck, show the plane as having 3 engine throttle controls. Also it has a 3 man crew, acutally 4 people in the cockpit, but the 4th is in the "jump seat".

Does this change the story or the impact of the scene? Not at all. I agree it was very impressive. Just if that you're going to spend millions on a project, do it right. And IMHO Tom Hanks has delivered yet again, annother GREAT performance.