ElMaruecan82 "Sleepless in Seattle", sleeper hit of 1993, was written and directed by the late Norah Ephron, Best Original Screenplay nominee for this film and for "When Harry Met Sally..." and director of 1998's "You've Got M@il". The three movies, all starring Meg Ryan, and Tom Hanks for the last two, form an unofficial trilogy that explores an idea romances only tend to overfly: "what does it mean to be meant for each other?".And each film had an interesting angle. "When Harry Met Sally..." was about the evolution of relationships, a man and a woman who couldn't really stand each other until they realize that it was more about "understanding". Maturity, coupled with a few failures, highlighted their convergences so they became friends. It all came down to one question "is friendship an end or a step?". "You've Got M@il" updated the story for the AOL and Internet age, it was about two person who were in "Harry vs. Sally" mode for the most part but discovered they had far more in common when they were two computer screens apart.In these two movies, there was a key element: the two protagonists knew each other, so in both cases, you couldn't possibly fall in love with a total stranger. But isn't that notion of stranger or acquaintance overrated? Surely, the rom-com witty sociologist couldn't leave the fairy tale alone and ignore the possibility of two people falling in love without knowing each other, or without sharing more than two minutes of screen-time. I think this is a reason enough to love the film, if it doesn't reinvent the wheel and has it share of forgivable contrivances, let's give the credit to Ephron to have made a romance whose concept is beautifully rendered in the poster where the two protagonists stare at each other while obviously being many time zones apart."Sleepless in Seattle" has a shamelessly romantic premise but it knows how to insert it into the realities of life. The first minutes are sad and emotional and shows a man devastated by the loss of his wife and wisely telling his young boy Jonah (Ross Malinger) that it's no use asking why these things happen (or was it a voice-over?). The man is Sam Baldwin and he's played by Tom Hanks in one of his last long curly-haired "comedic" roles. After the film, he'd cut them short for "Philadelphia" and the rest of the decade and become Hollywood's darling. I just miss pre-millennial comedic Hanks although comedic isn't necessary indicative of his role. So Sam understand that staying in Chicago is a no-option as it will constantly remind him of his wife so he moves to Seattle, and the opening credits start.Meanwhile we meet Annie, an optimistic woman engaged with Walter, the nicest man ever but who seems to suffer from every kind of allergy, the man is played by Bill Pullman, and I'm glad that for the most ungrateful role as the disposable fiancé, they picked someone who could have been believable in Hanks' shoes. Ryan is just adorable as the idealistic girl floating on a cloud until a fateful night where she listens to a radio program named "Sleepless in Seattle" and where Jonah talks about his father's difficulties to mourn his mother, later Sam takes the phone and opens his hearts to millions of listeners, especially female, creating the first and unique cinematic collective case of "love at first hearing".Annie doesn't exactly love Sam but she just can't resist contemplating the possibility that he might be the one, there's something just too formal with Walter and she's scared at the prospect of spending her whole life with "what if" questions. Sometimes, love doesn't come from the person than the idea of this person and how it would hold up. I guess the most interesting part from the film is that Sam wasn't stuck in his "lonely widower" position and decided to take the reins of his life and date women, and even more surprisingly, there was some genuine chemistry with Victoria (Barbara Garrick) but it seems like her hyena-like laughing was the equivalent of David's allergy, the obligatory mood killer.I'm not sure I liked the way Jonah behaved, too precociously at times to be believable but those where the 90's. And you've got to appreciate the way the film allows these contrivances to happen but without undermining our own feelings about Sam and Annie being meant for each other. There's a moment where Annie is shown peeling an apple in one long spiral and later, the pay-off comes when Sam tells Jonah that it's details like this that made his mother so unique to him. The film also takes the right distance from its own concept by allowing Sam and Annie to "meet" at two separate instances. Naturally, the romance does an excellent job at creating the perfect missed opportunities, we know the game, we've been there, and it's part of the deal.And at that point of the review, my only regret is that I didn't see "An Affair to Remember", I would have loved to juxtapose the two movies. But I love how the film is used as a running gag showing that there are a few irremediable differences between men and women (something that wouldn't pass today given the current gender ramifications, characters would ask "what's a man?", "what's a woman?") and I love how the film is used as leitmotif, just as other impossible love stories like "Casablanca" in "When Harry Met Sally..;" and "Pride and Prejudice" in "You've Got M@il".And it's interesting you know because Ephron separates between love as-in-the-movies and love as-in-her-movies, but at the end, they just work the same, maybe the underlying message is "yes, real life can work like in the movies".

coolkunalb 3 December 2017 Writing a review for a movie which was released even before I was born is really funny.Too bad I hadn't seen it until today... Rom-com is a genre which I rarely engage inI think the last time I saw a Rom-com was "No String Attached" (2011)What can I say I really liked this film.It is a simple sweet story. Sam(Tom Hanks), has lost his wife and lives with his 8 yr old son and has recently moved to Seattle, WA. Even after a year and a half he still finds himself missing his wife and pining for love. Then one incident happens which changes everything.Surely one of the best Romantic movies I have seen so far, having usually seen the Tom Hanks in his Dan Brown films, it was weird for me watching him so young. Meg Ryan plays her part to perfection.The film is studded with amazing singles from the 80's. I loved the "Make someone happy" by Jimmy Durante.Go watch it you won't regret it!

SimonJack It should be common knowledge that all movies are fiction. Even historical subjects based on books have dialog made up for characters to suit the scene of the moment. For many films, the stories themselves are fictitious. In those, we give Hollywood considerable leeway. But, when tinsel town touts a story or message as a real possibility, the elements of the story should be reasonably realistic or believable. Otherwise, it risks turning fiction into fantasy. Fantasy goes beyond the realm of possibility and believability. Unfortunately, for "Sleepless in Seattle," the writers and producers went for fantasy. Note the few times the word "magic" is used in the dialog. The film even tries to mask some harsh undertones. It's a wild stretch of the imagination to see true love in a character looking for a wild romance. The idea for this movie is novel and had good possibilities. Tom Hanks' portrayal of Sam Baldwin, a grieving widower, is very good. It's about the only realistic and believable aspect of the film. And, the radio talk show is a common thing, including hosts with credentials who offer advice. It's a stretch, but we can grant considerable leeway for having an eight-year-old boy, Jonah Baldwin (played by Ross Malinger) even listening to such an adult broadcast. But, that's the breaking point with reality and possibility in this film. It's too bad the creators didn't try to make the rest of the story believable. Meg Ryan's character, Annie Reed, could have been a real love interest. The movie makers should have tailored her character to be more like that of Deborah Kerr in the film that this movie otherwise parodies ("An Affair to Remember"). Instead, she lives and sleeps with a boyfriend, Walter (played very well by Bill Pullman). She's a daydreamer when she hears the radio conversation of Jonah with Dr. Marcia Fieldstone (voice by Caroline Aaron). She has wanderlust, even though she professes to love Walter, and then gets engaged to him. Other reviewers found this incredulous and noted how the producers masked Annie's dumping of a very nice guy, Walter. He had asthma problems and allergies. He had some far out routines to live with this. Annie shared these, since they were already living together. But, sight unseen the wanderlust Annie falls for a bereaving widower who has a young son. She hears him on the radio. Clearly he must be her true love. He'll surely be more easy to put up with than Walter with all his allergies. Is there not another message here that the producers want quickly to mask? Could it be that for those people with certain quirks, maladies, or deficiencies (that about coves most of us), there isn't a chance of a dream romance such as this coming into our lives? Furthermore, if you have one of these shortcomings, should you not expect to be dumped by your girlfriend (or boyfriends) when she or he or imagines they have found their "right" partner ?This film plays on the emotions and longings of many people – men as well as women, for an ideal love and perfect romantic match. When our natural desires turn to daydreams, we become vulnerable, even gullible. Some of the rest of this film is sheer dumb and far-fetched. Others have noted the super intelligence of the two eight-year-old kids. The only reason this movie rates even five stars is for the very good acting jobs by Hanks and Pullman. It's hard to dump on Meg Ryan for her acting. Her role as a neurotic person was so unbelievable that she didn't have much chance to do more than act her flip-flops as she did. I first saw this movie in the theater when it came out. I watched it again recently, but don't recommend it. Unless one wants to give their children ideas about disobeying or disrespecting their parents.

johnwiltshireauthor I was forced to watch this. I tried to resist. I did. But, John, they said, it's a classic romance... I don't even know where to start saying how awful this film is. The acting is atrocious. The main male character is a boring, depressed widower with an obnoxious son (this is the kind of film that finds American kids swearing and talking about sex cute) and the female lead is supposed to convince us that she falls in love with a monotone voice on the radio. I have still not recovered from watching this movie. All I can do is to warn others. Save yourself now. Run. (And do not trust the movie recommendations of slightly inebriated women.)