Reviews

In Cast Away, director Robert Zemeckis and star Tom Hanks,

triumph again with a movie which tells a compelling tale about the

human condition. Obviously, the story line is radically different

"Forrest Gump", and has not quite the nostalgic "entertainment"

value. In Cast Away Hank plays a man who endures no human

contact for four years, whereas Forrest Gump in his very eventful

life gets the opportunity to interact with a multitude of characters,

many of them famous. However, in both films, as in many others,

Hanks portrays a decent and sensitive man and skillfully gains the

empathy of all but the most cynical audience members. And both

films have bittersweet endings, perhaps "hokey" to some but in my

opinion, endings which nicely underline fundamental truths about

the journey of life and its inherent joys, despite the adversities

encountered along the way.

I thought that just about the right amount of time was devoted to

Chuck's life before and after his stay on the island; enough for us

to get to know him in the "civilized world" and enough to show the

difficulties (and ironically, the acute loneliness) of his return to that

world.

Although I had some reservations about seeing this film,

wondering if I could endure an hour and half of watching one

character with minimal dialogue, overall I was pleasantly

surprised. Although not a "perfect" film (the scene with Helen Hunt

at the end could have been pared down and made a little less

melodramatic), it succeeds in telling a story a lot of directors and

actors would probably be unwilling to risk. Well done!

If I didn't know it was based on a "true" story I might have dismissed this movie as "unrealistic", particularly in the first half hour or so when it started off like another Julia Roberts comedy. At the beginning the film appears to focus primarily on her wardrobe, her foul language, and the developing romance with the "boy next door", whom she initially dislikes. As it turns out, the actual story, according to the bonus features on the DVD was even more melodramatic than the film's. The real Erin actually got sick to the point of hospitalization from the chromium in Hinkley. The director wisely decided to cut out this part of the story, to avoid making her too much of a martyr. Another aspect while not totally ignored (she does mention at least once that she's a "slow reader") but underplayed is Erin's dyslexia. This makes her accomplishments all the more amazing! Personally, I think this fact could have been emphasized more, as no doubt it was a big factor behind her "attitude" problems - her combativeness toward people with more education than herself, her struggles in finding a job, perhaps even in her efforts to accentuate her physical attractiveness through her outrageous clothing. All in all I found it an enjoyable and enlightening story - the triumph of a unique individual whose determination, empathy, and sense of moral duty ultimately outweigh her abrasiveness and lack of social graces. And largely why she triumphs is her partnership with an intelligent and decent lawyer in Ed Masry. What a refreshing departure from the usual Hollywood stereotype! On many occasions, he effectively counters Erin's prejudices with rational explanations how and why the legal system works the way it does, and why lawyers behave the way they do. With her passion and his reason, they make a great team. Now if only the movie hadn't fallen into the old Hollywood trap of giving its leading lady more outfits than is realistic for someone of her economic status. The point that Erin dressed provocatively and this caused problems with her co-workers could have easily been made with just 3 or 4 costumes. Other than that, it was a good movie - great performances and a wonderful story.

The previews led me to expect this film would do for Gilbert & Sullivan what "Shakespeare in Love" did for Shakespeare - present a witty, fast-paced, and thoroughly entertaining piece of cinema which would heighten interest in the artists' work. This was not to be.

While the film did an outstanding job of recreating the London theatre world of the 1880's, in my opinion, it suffered from too much attention to too many details. As a result, it lacked the drama,impact and wit it could have had.

For example, it took a full hour to get to the point of Gilbert's inspiration for "The Mikado", a visit to a Japanese cultural festival. While the fact that Gilbert and Sullivan had been "running dry" and were being criticized for repeating themselves is pivotal, the time devoted to this part of the story could have been reduced by at least half. When Gilbert does find his inspiration, the cross-cultural experience is in fact quite exhilarating. Unfortunately, some viewers may have already lost interest by then.

Actually, more time could have been spent on Gilbert presenting his idea for "The Mikado" to Sullivan. Did Sullivan automatically accept it or did he have to be brought around? Given the fact that the two men had a somewhat stormy artistic and personal relationship, there appears to be a dramatic opportunity lost.

Late in the game, we are introduced to a number of the actors' as well as the principals' personal problems. For what purpose? Probably to show us that the love for the theatre forced them to carry on despite their failings, at least momentarily. However, it seemed a rather scattergun approach, weakening rather than enhancing the story. I hope that Gilbert & Sullivan, with their stormy but productive relationship, their rather silly but often clever and enjoyable work, will be fodder for future films. While far from a masterpiece, 'Topsy - Turvy" is a richly detailed and well-acted production with fabulous art direction. It certainly merits a look from anyone with the slightest interest in operetta or 19th century theatre.

I beg to differ from the other User Comments. My family likes Shakespeare and we all agreed that this was one of the WORST adaptations we've seen! True the sets and photography were lovely, but the pacing was excruciatingly slow. In my opinion, the secret to a successful production of a Shakespeare comedy, at least for a modern audience, lies in rapid-fire delivery of the lines with a sense of tongue-in-cheek. Otherwise, the audience is given too much opportunity to realize just how ridiculous and implausible the plot really is. In this production, the lines seem to be dragged out to their ultimate limit, with lots of pauses in between. While I think that Shakespeare's comedies are more difficult to interpret on film than his tragedies, there have been some successes. Kenneth Branagh's `Much Ado About Nothing' and Franco Zefferelli's `Taming of the Shrew' come to mind. Even Peter Hoffman's recent `A Midsummer Night Dream', despite some casting mistakes, was better than this. Helena Bonham-Carter's considerable talents are wasted in the production, as I suspect are those of the other actors, with whom I am less familiar. None of them seem be having any fun. It's hard to believe that such an experienced Shakespearean director could have missed the mark so badly. I've seen a production by kids aged 9-14 that had a lot more energy than this!