It's a shame this droops down into the slums of a typical romantic comedy formula somewhere in the second act, because up to that point it had been a surprisingly delicate, open-hearted perspective on the mourning process.

Tom Hanks, who effectively flexes his solemn-face muscles for most of the picture, is the titular "Sleepless," a widower who doesn't believe in love after loss and can't close his eyes without getting tangled in painful memories. When his son convinces him to sit in on a call to a self-help radio program, he gains fame among the desperate middle-aged set. Mixed in among that pack is a not-quite-ready-to-be-married Meg Ryan, who obsesses over him to a worrying degree. It would be curious to see this play out with the roles reversed today - would it be dubbed a timeless romance or a dark dose of suspense?

I was on the hook for that first act, but when the tone shifted to allow for more punchlines it lost its way and bucked me into the dirt. Mildly funny soap opera material for the most part, it's disappointing Hanks and Ryan didn't have a chance to revisit the chemistry they'd sparked in Joe Versus the Volcano - they only share the screen for a few moments.

Wow I actually kinda liked it. First off, I in general don't like Tom Hanks (I'm sorry) but he is a great actor and this was actually a cute movie. It has some funny elements, and I really like the recurring theme of "faith" even if I don't believe in that crap. The romance was cute too, which is impressive because in general I don't like romantic movies because they are too 'sticky kissy kissy loooove', and this was all romance, although not too visual.
The only problem (and it's a big one imo) is the woman's personality/behavior. She is in a committed relationship for a while now, and when she is getting engaged she [spoiler] is starting to stalk (let's be real she is a stalker) a man and basically cheating on her fiancé, being all secretive [/spoiler]. I'm honestly not sure if this movie would have been so popular if the roles were switched? Because mayor red flags on her honestly.
I feel like this is one of the only movies that needs a remake. But like keep everything else the same, and just update [spoiler] the technology, make her have a less committed relationship (maybe dating for a few months to make it a bit serious but not too much so) and remove the 'women cry at movies and real men watch action movies because they are cool grrrr' scene[/spoiler]. That's it. Great movie, again a hit.

**THE UGLY: ‘SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE’**

WRITING: 60
ACTING: 80
LOOK: 50
SOUND: 50
FEEL: 65
NOVELTY: 20
ENJOYMENT: 65
RE-WATCHABILITY: 60
INTRIGUE: 50
EXPECTATIONS: 50

----

**The Good:**

The kid is better than you'd expect going in and turns into an important connecting link between the two adult leads.

Tim Hanks and Meg Ryan are equally great, but for different reasons. Hanks plays a very grounded, warm-hearted widower and Ryan a sensual, determined career woman. Tom Hanks is more heartfelt and truly emotional than he usually is.

That last act in New York is warm and sweet and you can't help but feel fuzzy while watching it.

---

**The Bad:**

I'm allergic to comedies where people talk on top of each other during dinners and the like. It's so annoying, even if it's realistic.

A sluggish pace is good for character development, but you kinda wish that they’d arrive at the inevitable centre of the story a lot faster.

It's a pity Hanks and Ryan spend most of the film apart since they are lovely together.

I was hoping for a stronger dramatic tension, heartbreak and disappointments but those never arrive.

It feels as if the film tries to evade the inevitable for as long as possible just to fill in the runtime.

----

**The Ugly:**

This film is littered with third-rate pop songs that I've never heard before.

----

**VERDICT:**

_This classic rom-com has a sleepy (no pun intended) quality to it but largely holds up thanks to fine performances and an overall feelgood atmosphere._

**55% = :heavy_minus_sign: = UGLY**

**Effective, functional and elegant, it has a script that I didn't like very much, and it has aged a little badly, but it remains an endearing film.**

This is surely one of the most famous romantic comedies that came out during the 90's, and one of the films that helped to popularize Tom Hanks, showing the world that he could be a serious actor and do more interesting things besides comedy. The film begins with a man and his young son moving to Seattle to deal with a mourning process. There, the child begins to pressure his father to find a girlfriend, to the point of calling a radio program where the father tells his story, touching a young journalist from Baltimore who is about to marry a man she doesn't love.

The script relies heavily on Platonism: the two main characters do not know each other, and only the radio broadcast and the exchange of letters truly connects them. Neither has any real reason to look for the other (Hanks' character sees physical distance as an obstacle, and Ryan's character is already committed). In the end, it is the tenacity and stubbornness of a child that leads them to find each other. Based purely on instinct, which is an illogical and irrational argument for an adult to make his decisions. For that reason, and despite recognizing the film's qualities, I didn't particularly appreciate it. I see and understand the attempt to create a contemporary romantic fable here, but fables don't really seem to work these days. For me, this one didn't work.

The film's great strength is in the excellent performances of Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. The two are still quite young, trying to take advantage of the opportunity to achieve higher flights in more profitable and attractive projects for their careers. Hanks had mostly done comedy up until this point, and was determined to showcase his abilities in other projects. There is no doubt that he knew how to do it and show a deeper, more sensitive and emotional side that was not evident in his work so far. Ryan was also very competent in her role. Ross Malinger was also pretty good.

The film is not a great visual spectacle. It's a 90's movie that hasn't aged well and doesn't put much effort into the visuals. Proof of this are the graphics on that US map, which look like an arcade game. The cinematography is dull, and the colors washed out, but that was commonplace and routine in films of this era, and I take that reasonably well. The film tries to compensate us with excellent scenery and cityscapes of Seattle and New York, which is always effective, and with an excellent ending on top of the Empire State Building. The soundtrack makes a smart bet on songs by Sinatra, Nat “King” Cole, Celine Dion, Carly Simon, Roy Rogers and others. Most of the songs are well known and popular.