It's difficult to enjoy a movie that you feel is built on a premise that is fundamentally false. I was, therefore, only able to enjoy _Sleepless in Seattle_ while gnashing my teeth quite frequently.
_Sleepless in Seattle_ is about as subtle as a sledgehammer in driving home its message: that there exist phenomena such as "soul mate", "being destined for each other", "true love at first sight", etc. Its conception of "love" is extremely old-fashioned; it's supposed to be that thing where "one meets one", and "you are my everything", "you're the world to me". It's strange, but somehow you instantly feel that _Sleepless in Seattle_ is an irreligious movie; it's not that it would be *against religion*, but you get the definite feeling right from the start that "love" in its religious dimension is and will remain conspicuously absent from the movie. This is all the more remarkable in that _Sleepless in Seattle_ glorifies and uses motives from the 1957 Cary Grant & Deborah Kerr hit, _An Affair to Remember_ -- a romantic comedy as well, but where religion and religious feelings are as obviously present as they are non-existent in _Sleepless in Seattle_.
I believe in none of those things such as "destiny", "soul mates", "being made for one another", "you're the only one", etc. And I'm sorry, but as the movie kept reiterating these motives ad nauseam (especially in many of the intentionally old-fashioned songs -- both original and "fake" new ones written in the old vein, frequently featuring awful, annoyingly maudlin lyrics -- that we get to listen to throughout the movie, from the opening to the closing credits), I just *had* to say to myself: "All this 'destingy stuff' is something typically enjoyed and believed by women." There's nothing wrong with a movie or book that makes it obvious that its author is a woman; however, this seemed to be *too* obvious in _Sleepless in Seattle_, detracting from the overall enjoyment. I was saying to myself, "This is a chicks' movie," long before Tom Hanks said the same thing about _An Affair to Remember_; but it's a verdict that is even more apropos in relation to _Sleepless in Seattle_.
Speaking of the comparison to _An Affair to Remember_, it's weird that _Sleepless in Seattle_ seems more archaic than the movie that preceded it by almost 3 decades. Both movies feature wildly improbable, unrealistic story-lines; yet when you come to think of it, Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr might meet on a luxury ship in 2012 just as they did back in 1957; it would no longer be a transatlantic voyage today, but a pleasurable cruise. Could, however, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan interact, today, in the same way as shown in _Sleepless in Seattle_? Nope. This movie fairly screams at you: "Where's the Internet? Where are the mobile phones, emails, and social networks?" Only a few years later, and the movie's plot would be rendered unusable. Even as it is, great effort is required to suspend your disbelief; while _An Affair to Remember_ is unrealistic, _Sleepless in Seattle_ is doubly so. Or can anyone honestly believe that a loving father would not have alerted the police immediately upon learning that his 8-year-old son eloped on a transcontinental flight to New York unsupervised?
Despite all these shortcomings, _Sleepless in Seattle_ manages to be enjoyable throughout, and unlike _An Affair to Remember_, I believe this movie gets better and better with every passing minute. I found the ending of _An Affair to Remember_ rather a let-down, but not here; I thought the Empire State Building finale of _Sleepless in Seattle_ was very nicely constructed, and genuinely moving.
I'd say the main credit for the movie's success should go to the two leading stars. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan both give brilliant, flawless performances. They seem thoroughly believable as persons or personalities, even while their actions do not. The two child actors, Ross Malinger and Gaby Hoffmann, are terrific as well. Rosie O'Donnell makes her presence felt forcefully in a supporting role; her delivery of several of the movie's wittiest lines, no matter how brief, is pitch-perfect. Victor Garber and Rob Reiner only get a few minutes of screen time, but they certainly make the most of them to shine and to delight the audience.
(I thought I only noticed a single false note about the actors' performances. In a weird departure from their realistic mode of delivery throughout the movie, in a discussion at Sam's kitchen table, both Tom Hanks and Victor Garber get tearful while talking about the movie _The Dirty Dozen_. I thought the scene rang very false; it was as if a minute or two from your regular TV sitcom was suddenly inserted into _Sleepless in Seattle_; the only thing missing was canned laughter; I found the moment painful to watch, and not funny at all; fortunately, it only lasted a minute or so; and Rita Wilson did not join in the two actors' shenanigans, but rather rescued the scene thanks to remaining who she was supposed to be in the movie. I thought Hanks & Garber did not perform well in that particular brief and untypical moment, but it would be hard to blame them for it; rather, I'd say it was a mistake on the part of the screenwriter/director to include a heterogeneous moment like that in the script.)
_Sleepless in Seattle_ is about as subtle as a sledgehammer in driving home its message: that there exist phenomena such as "soul mate", "being destined for each other", "true love at first sight", etc. Its conception of "love" is extremely old-fashioned; it's supposed to be that thing where "one meets one", and "you are my everything", "you're the world to me". It's strange, but somehow you instantly feel that _Sleepless in Seattle_ is an irreligious movie; it's not that it would be *against religion*, but you get the definite feeling right from the start that "love" in its religious dimension is and will remain conspicuously absent from the movie. This is all the more remarkable in that _Sleepless in Seattle_ glorifies and uses motives from the 1957 Cary Grant & Deborah Kerr hit, _An Affair to Remember_ -- a romantic comedy as well, but where religion and religious feelings are as obviously present as they are non-existent in _Sleepless in Seattle_.
I believe in none of those things such as "destiny", "soul mates", "being made for one another", "you're the only one", etc. And I'm sorry, but as the movie kept reiterating these motives ad nauseam (especially in many of the intentionally old-fashioned songs -- both original and "fake" new ones written in the old vein, frequently featuring awful, annoyingly maudlin lyrics -- that we get to listen to throughout the movie, from the opening to the closing credits), I just *had* to say to myself: "All this 'destingy stuff' is something typically enjoyed and believed by women." There's nothing wrong with a movie or book that makes it obvious that its author is a woman; however, this seemed to be *too* obvious in _Sleepless in Seattle_, detracting from the overall enjoyment. I was saying to myself, "This is a chicks' movie," long before Tom Hanks said the same thing about _An Affair to Remember_; but it's a verdict that is even more apropos in relation to _Sleepless in Seattle_.
Speaking of the comparison to _An Affair to Remember_, it's weird that _Sleepless in Seattle_ seems more archaic than the movie that preceded it by almost 3 decades. Both movies feature wildly improbable, unrealistic story-lines; yet when you come to think of it, Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr might meet on a luxury ship in 2012 just as they did back in 1957; it would no longer be a transatlantic voyage today, but a pleasurable cruise. Could, however, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan interact, today, in the same way as shown in _Sleepless in Seattle_? Nope. This movie fairly screams at you: "Where's the Internet? Where are the mobile phones, emails, and social networks?" Only a few years later, and the movie's plot would be rendered unusable. Even as it is, great effort is required to suspend your disbelief; while _An Affair to Remember_ is unrealistic, _Sleepless in Seattle_ is doubly so. Or can anyone honestly believe that a loving father would not have alerted the police immediately upon learning that his 8-year-old son eloped on a transcontinental flight to New York unsupervised?
Despite all these shortcomings, _Sleepless in Seattle_ manages to be enjoyable throughout, and unlike _An Affair to Remember_, I believe this movie gets better and better with every passing minute. I found the ending of _An Affair to Remember_ rather a let-down, but not here; I thought the Empire State Building finale of _Sleepless in Seattle_ was very nicely constructed, and genuinely moving.
I'd say the main credit for the movie's success should go to the two leading stars. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan both give brilliant, flawless performances. They seem thoroughly believable as persons or personalities, even while their actions do not. The two child actors, Ross Malinger and Gaby Hoffmann, are terrific as well. Rosie O'Donnell makes her presence felt forcefully in a supporting role; her delivery of several of the movie's wittiest lines, no matter how brief, is pitch-perfect. Victor Garber and Rob Reiner only get a few minutes of screen time, but they certainly make the most of them to shine and to delight the audience.
(I thought I only noticed a single false note about the actors' performances. In a weird departure from their realistic mode of delivery throughout the movie, in a discussion at Sam's kitchen table, both Tom Hanks and Victor Garber get tearful while talking about the movie _The Dirty Dozen_. I thought the scene rang very false; it was as if a minute or two from your regular TV sitcom was suddenly inserted into _Sleepless in Seattle_; the only thing missing was canned laughter; I found the moment painful to watch, and not funny at all; fortunately, it only lasted a minute or so; and Rita Wilson did not join in the two actors' shenanigans, but rather rescued the scene thanks to remaining who she was supposed to be in the movie. I thought Hanks & Garber did not perform well in that particular brief and untypical moment, but it would be hard to blame them for it; rather, I'd say it was a mistake on the part of the screenwriter/director to include a heterogeneous moment like that in the script.)