Ive had the script for CAST AWAY for quite a while now. I never reviewed it because I was asked not to. The person who handed it to me intoned, "Fox is being very secretive about this movie." I let the script sit and never gave it a second thought. Then two days ago I caught the trailer for the film and was a little shocked to see that they blatantly give away the entire movie. The ending of the movie is so explicitly ruined the thought process must have been: We have Hanks -- we have Zemeckis -- who cares? More on this trailer in a moment. But now to the script...
The studio may have had high hopes for this film. But I didnt. The last Zemeckis-Hanks extravaganza was FORREST GUMP. A film I felt didnt work. But since so many love it I wont get into the why. Zemeckis is an extremely talented director (he can work that Steadicam like a Kubrick incarnate). But when working with Hanks the person who crafted the swoops and dives of CONTACT seems to be smothered. I was right about their next collaboration. But I had no idea just how bad it would be.
Was the script for CAST AWAY bad? Put it this way: Ive read thousands of scripts (most voluntarily, it should be said). And only about seven or eight times have I thought about tossing it aside before finishing it. CAST AWAY belongs on that list. But I suffered through it because I owe writer William Broyles (APOLLO 13) that much.
Im sure you all know this, but Ill spell it out anyway: Tom Hanks plays a man named Chuck. Chuck is a workaholic problem-solver for FedEx who, because of the importance of his job, can fly off to Russia without so much as packing a bag. Obsessed with his work, he ignores the love of his girlfriend, Kelly (Helen Hunt). She wants marriage, she wants kids, she wants a life with him. But Chuck wont commit. Soon enough Chuck is on a plane that crashes into the ocean and washes up on a deserted island.
Now, children, the problem here lies squarely on the shoulders of William Broyles. I dont know how much actual writing hes done in Hollywood, but hes clearly not mastered the art of screenwriting. The setup of this script feels slapdash and arbitrary.
November 1998, written for FILM 220: Aspects of Criticism. This is a 24-week course for second-year students, examining methods of critical analysis, interpretation and evaluation. The final assignment was simply to write a 1000-word critical essay on a film seen in class during the final six-weeks of the course. Students were expected to draw on concepts they had studied over the length of the course.
One of the main products of this movie that popped out to me was the stars. They all seemed to be great actors even though I only knew one of them. For example, I thought that Ian Michael Smith did a great job portraying Simon Birch. He made the movie cute and funny all at once. I also thought that Joseph Mazello did a great job portraying relatable feelings in the movie. You could tell by his facial expressions what his mood was. All the actors did a great job and I can’t pinpoint one of them who did worse than the
Braff himself has a warm, easy-to-watch screen presence. He can say nothing during the lull in a conversation, while the camera remains focused on his face, and it feels right. Portman and Sarsgaard are also genuine, each wonderfully relaxed in their roles. Production design is superb: details in every scene are arranged well, and the photography, by Lawrence Sher, is - like the story and the acting – unpretentious, never distracting, tricky or cute. This film never seems to manipulate us; instead it engages us, arouses our curiosity and amusement, bids us gently to care about Andrew and Sam and even Mark, leaving us entertained in the best sense. This movie is as confident, as secure in itself, as comforting, as a well worn pair of house slippers or your favorite reading chair. A splendid film. Grade: A- (09/04)
I think the performance delivered the message and intent perfect. I was not once confused, but it is that which starts out some what at the end and uses flashbacks to tell the full story.
...ow well they played the part and told the story. Of course, like other directors Lisa Cholodenko wanted recognizable actors in order to achieve a more grand recognition for her work.
...movie. The other characters in this movie also did well in portraying themselves as panicked by the killings that were going on in the movie.
At this point, the readers create their own movie in a way. They will determine important aspects of how the character speaks, looks like, and reacts. Whereas, in the movie, the reader has no choice but to follow the plot laid out in front of them. No longer can they picture the characters in their own way or come up with their different portrayals. The fate of the story, while still unpredictable, was highly influenced by the way the characters looked, spoke, and presented themselves on screen.
The first thing I will go over is the actors. Overall, they did a fantastic job and portrayed the characters well. Zachery Schaftlein, who played Father Brenden Flynn, and Abigail Elmore, Sister Aloysius Beauvier, both did a fantastic job in their roles. I loved the
...cago Tribune wrote a piece about the movie in July of 1942 and quickly agreed with the Times’ Crowther in regards to the movie. She refers to Kings Row as an “uninspiring [and] dreary melodrama in two parts” which connotes dissatisfaction and she goes on to, like Crowther, critiquing the acting. Kings Row was filled with blockbuster actors and actresses, yet the critics believed they were not even able to elevate the movie because of how much had been transformed due to the Production Code. In terms of the movie specifically, Woods and Casey Robinson, the screenwriter, was forced to eliminate the homosexuality hints, incest references, and physical abuse. These forms of domestic trauma were all key elements that helped to build the foundation in the novel, and their absence arguably changed the entire plot of the movie. However, all these omissions were a result of
I have to disagree with both these reviews. I believed that the story was brilliantly written and the cinematography was beautiful. This movie touched me and had me in tears which believe me is hard to do. I do agree with the New York Times and New Yorker that it was a little dragged out and that Kiera Knightly acting was over rated. Other than that I would defiantly recommend this movie.
Disregarding the details and scenes that were missed, Forman did a very nice job. However, did it capture the essence and importance? Not quite. The movie received an 8.8/10 on IMDb and was nominated some extremely impressive Oscars. The film is also #33 on the American Film Institute’s 100 years…100 movies list. While the movie was a well-made creation of the novel, watchers are recommended to experience Kesey’s writing, in his original novel.
To understand the subjective ideation of film scripting, one has to consider the various possibilities of changing a section of a scene. There are innumerable po...
“The Mission” is based on a true story that occurred around the borderlands of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil in the years 1750’s according to the film and history. The Treaty of Madrid of 1750 with the Spanish and Portuguese caused both havoc and death for the people of the Guarini and the members of the Jesuits. The Jesuits, members of the church, tried to bring Christianity and civilization to the natives while keeping at peace with Spain and Portugal. The Jesuits were the teachers for the natives; Teaching them not only the Christian religion but also civilization. Father Gabriel, a Jesuit, is first introduced in the film when he is showing his respects to a former Jesuit priest killed by the natives. He walks through the South American
Captivating, suspenseful, riveting, exhilarating are only a few of the words that I would use to describe the movie Taken. If you desire a high dose of adrenaline to quench your movie watching thirst, and if you are ready to take a super-charged ride to the action filled city of Paris, France, then this is a must see movie for you. Taken, not for the faint of heart, will keep you on the edge of your seat for the entire ninety-one minutes. Be prepared to have the popcorn container pried from your hand when the credits start to roll on this high energy thriller.
Based on a true story, the movie ‘Lone Survivor’ features four Navy SEALs that set out on a mission to Afghanistan with orders to capture and kill Taliban leader Ahmad Shah. The Navy SEALS are detected by villagers and the mission was compromised. Ultimately, the mission had been discovered and the men found themselves surrounded by dozens of Taliban soldiers. One of the Navy SEAL soldiers managed to dispatch to base and retrieve assistance but the Taliban shoot down the helicopter. During battle, three of the Navy SEAL soldiers were killed leaving one still alive.