One thing you can say about John Patrick Shanley's writing, he can do charming without being too maudlin. He's a master of quaintness and while Joe Versus the Volcano stands as one of the playwright's biggest misfires, there's still a surprising amount of depth to it. The movie starts with Joe Banks (Tom Hanks), an overworked corporate drone and hypochondriac who is told he has less than a year to live. Joe is propositioned by an eccentric billionaire who would like to exploit a remote island tribe, but their one caveat is they need someone to jump into their volcano. Joe volunteers and for a week is treated like a king while learning what it means to truly live.The art direction is cartoon-y and outlandish to the point of surrealism. There are so many little throwaway gags that work so well and the acting is very strong all-around. First and foremost this film is a fable with Meg Ryan (playing three different roles) acting as a guide of sorts to Joe's ultimate revelation. It's a life affirming film. A film which despite risking being a parody of itself winds up being surprisingly astute. Joe Versus the Volcano managed to accumulate a cult following despite being a box-office bomb when it was released. Today it has some notable supporters including esteemed film critic Roger Ebert who described it as "fresh and new...".

Joe is diagnosed with an incurable disease, quits his dehumanising job, and accepts an offer to briefly "live like a king, die like a man".But to fulfill his agreement, he must willingly jump into a live volcano on the island of Waponi Woo in order to appease the volcano god. On the way to the island, Joe meets a series of interesting characters, then boards a yacht, captained by Patricia Graynamore. During the voyage Joe and Patricia survive disaster, fall in love, and finally arrive at the island where they face their destiny.......On repeat viewings, its clear to see why this failed at the box office, it was pitched as some goofy romantic comedy, but its more than that. It's a fairy tale, a fable about mans destiny and goals, and how very few of us actually chase them.Plus, it's very dark to boot. You'd be forgiven if you thought you were watching a Tim Burton, even Fritz Lang film to begin with, and it's this first part of the film that makes or breaks the rest.Joe's workplace is a heady mix of Brazil and Metropolis, and its a cold, bleak depiction of an unwanted job. If you can appreciate the jet black humour in this, the rest of the film is more lighter, more of a relief, which is ironic as we are following Joe to his most certain demise.Ryan plays three characters in this, and I believe she is a subliminal narrative arc, depicting Joes different stages of character, as each character Ryan plays becomes more confident, more stronger than the last, much like Joes metamorphosis during the film.Hanks is as reliable as he ever was in his kooky stage, and the fantastic chemistry is evident between the two. It's certainly an acquired taste, it can be pretty bleak in parts, but it has been unfairly overlooked.

--WARNING: There may be some spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen the film, so just a heads up. In order to accurately review this film, it may be necessary to talk about some key moments.--This was an easy movie to want to like. There is plenty unique artistry for it's time to make repeat viewings fresh, and it's a no-brainer to admire it's boldness of design choice and decision to cast Meg Ryan in three separate roles; something few films have successfully done. However, the sad truth is that while Joe Versus the Volcano is not a bad movie, it is far more interesting in it's concept than execution.Joe quits his job after being lead to believe that he has a 'brain cloud' which leaves him with mere months to live. Afterwards he enters into a bizarre business agreement with a wealthy tycoon in which Joe agrees to plummet into a live volcano, which in turns would appease local natives whom inhabit a small island in Hawaii in exchange for a rare material. Joe embarks on a series of short and humorous events leading up to this climactic encounter. Now I found myself finding each event Joe was going through to be so interesting, that each occurrence could've merited a film itself. The limousine driver, his female co- worker, his love interest, her sister the self described 'fliberty jibbet'; all of these characters were too fleeting as no reappearances were to be found after they were conveniently worked off screen thanks to frequent location changes. To the films defense, it was a rare treat to find so many charming and interesting characters in a film of this nature more than the usual annoying and testy ones.This movie is more a part of the less serious and more risk taking Steven Spielberg 'executive producer' era of films along side "The Money Pit" and "Batteries Not Included", which to me are just as defining of their time period as their peers. However, Joe came out in 1990, and apparently still reeling from the last decade since it feels overwhelmingly like an 80s movie, something that saw a quick death at the hands of the 'Reality Bites' time period that was rapidly approaching. So it can be felt in the heart of this film that it wasn't of any benefit that it was released when it was, and even thinking of it as a nostalgic slice of the 80s, seeing as it was most likely filmed during part of 89', helped (at least for me) to enhance the quality of it's wacky and surreal approach during viewing. By the end though, the movie felt like it had just started, and its brief 100 min run time didn't aid it's cause. On the upside, this movie had little to no filler because of it, and it's writing is far better than it is worse even at it's most kooky. The almost a Monty-Python like dry and zanny world being portrayed, but all that aside, it's way too short and feels like it's existence was a forced out as a last entry into a dead decade of film style. Maybe that's just me, but Joe Versus the Volcano feels like a product of bad timing and poor movie practices that saw it's potential left with just enough personality to keep it around today; even if teetering on the brink of being forgotten; rather than a fully realized artistic comedy classic.

What's up with all the rave reviews here? This movie is terrible. The plot is laughable with gigantic holes in it, dialogue is horrific, acting awful(Meg Ryan), production embarrassing. A whole lot of stuff going on that makes no sense whatsoever. I had to check with my girlfriend whether I was having a psychotic episode or whether it really was that bad. It was.Hanks must've been low on cash to do this one. If you have any critical thinking going on when watching movies, skip this one, it'll annoy the hell out of you.2/10