Film: Forrest Gump

[psychetool]

I don't have much to say about this other then that it's one of my favorite movies ever made, five out of five stars undoubtedly. You may call me a cheeseball, but I love that dumb motherfucker and it just goes to show that just being an intellectual doesn't make you a good person. We'd all be blessed to have someone like forest in our lifes. Yeah, i'm drunk, and this movie always pulls at my heartstrings, but I stand by this review. Forest is the man, and the story is beautiful with a great mix of comedy and drama. Not to mention the fucking KILLER soundtrack.

---

Plot Summary for
Forrest Gump (1994)

The story follows the life of low I.Q. Forrest Gump (Tom Hanks) and his meeting with the love of his life Jenny. The film chronicles his accidental experiences with some of the most important people and events in America from the late 1950's through the 1970's including a meeting with Elvis Presley, JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, fighting in Vietnam, etc. The problem is, he's too stupid to realize the significance of his actions. Forrest becomes representative of the baby boomer generation having walked through life blindly.

P.S. - I did a search before posting! I swear!

P.S.P.S. - Jenny is a whore, didn't deserve Forest, and we should all throw rocks at her.

 

[posner]

Tom Hanks humping one note on a piano for two hours.

 

[psychetool]

Yeah, that must be why it won 6 oscars.

Best Actor in a Leading Role

Best Director

Best Effects, Visual Effects

Best Film Editing

Best Picture

Best Writing

 

[L2R]

I love Robert Zemekis' directing. His use of CG is the best there is, hidden, minimalist, and only there to accentuate the story.

i love forrest gump also.

 

[alasdairm]

rate this movie

mama always said you should rate this movie

alasdair

 

[Finder]

I like Forrest Gump ok, but Pulp Fiction was the better film up for awards that year. It was robbed.

Besides, awards don't mean shit anyway. Take the Grammy's, for instance.

 

[L2R]

^i agree.

nice thread title change silly man!

 

[psychetool]

I could swear to god this thread was gone a few minutes ago...

Some awards don't mean shit - but this movie actually WAS great and IMO deserved every one. It won because its more of a family flick that everyone can get into and love. Pulp Fiction, while great, just doesn't fit that form. I can see how some people would be turned off by the rape scene, plunging a needle into the girls chest, ect.

[Just reread the thread, what was the title changed to ? ]

 

[posner]

Some awards don't mean shit

Did you just try to slam my statement by pointing out that this dreadful movie received several Oscars and then later write the above statement? Apparently, consistency is not one of your attributes.

1. Shall I take you through a history of past Oscar winners?
2. This movie is banal, juvenile, saccharine, and painful to watch. In fact, I'm surprised it didn't win more Oscars.

 

[psychetool]

To each their own, man. If you actually read the rest of my post you would know what i'm talking about. Considering that pretty much every single person, man, woman and child that I have spoken to absolutely loved this movie doesn't lend to your theory that 'Oscars don't mean shit'. Didn't deer hunter and scarface win some Oscars? I guess they were shitty too, right ? Because anything that wins an oscar must suck.

 

[posner]

Well, if every person you know says it, it just must be true.

Um...who else lost in the 1994 Oscar race? Natural Born Killers, Shawshank Redemption, Hudsucker Proxy, Three Colors: Red. All infinitely better than FG. That movie trounces all over the audience and its subject matter clubbing everyone in its path down with its boring cliches of the second half of the 20th century.

The Oscars are notoriously a gigantic pat on the back for unoriginal, successful movies. Every once in a while a true winner emerges. However, that is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[psychetool]

Well I and many others throughly enjoyed it, i'm sorry you can't say the same, but I understand differences in taste. One thing that I do know, is that I really don't like eliteist movie (or beer, food, liquor, insert whatever you want) snobs.

You listed some good contenders there, but i'd still go for Forest Gump over all the others listed any day of the week. NBK is great, but it is fucking WEIRD too and didn't connect with a wide range of audience member like say Shawshank (another 5 star film in my book) and Forest. You need to be in the right mood for NBK, and even lots of my friends have just been weirded and freaked out by it.

I guess I am for more wholesome movies as opposed to the blood and guts, off the wall cinematography and scenes that make me cringe when I watch them.

 

[posner]

That's fine. You may call it elitist but I'd take a creative movie that took balls and originality and some artistic mind to create than something that appeals to the lowest denominator and claims to be art.

That's the problem with movies like FG. It's not that the movie is the worst movie ever or even that it is isn't higher level art (I personally liked The Bourne Identity, for instance, which is not attempting to be anything more than what it is) but that it and others who champion it claim that it is something far greater than what it is. They claim it is a mirror of the 20th century America, the triumph of the soul over blah blah blah. But it's not. It takes a simplistic formula and bludgeons its audience over the head for two and a half hours and claims to be art.

 

[mariacallas]

I love Forrest Gump. I saw it in the movies back in 1994 and NUMEROUS times on television . I even have the VCD and the soundtrack double disc

This movie just has a soft spot in my heart.

 

[alasdairm]

The Oscars are notoriously a gigantic pat on the back for unoriginal, successful movies. Every once in a while a true winner emerges. However, that is the exception rather than the rule.

which is why it pays never to generalise...

(yes i see the irony )

alasdair

 

[paradoxcycle]

Besides, awards don't mean shit anyway. Take the Grammy's, for instance.

 

[posner]

which is why it pays never to generalise...

(yes i see the irony )

alasdair

It sometimes and often does pay to generalize. Thank you, though.

 

[alasdairm]

that's a discussion for a different forum.

alasdair

 

[L2R]

[Just reread the thread, what was the title changed to ? ]

It was briefly titled: rate this movie

That movie trounces all over the audience and its subject matter clubbing everyone in its path down with its boring cliches of the second half of the 20th century.

Yes but the manner with which the cliches are presented are humourous, which plays excellently in accentuating the tragedy and eventual triumph of the main plot.

If you feel "trounced" by humour, then i feel pity for you.

but that it and others who champion it claim that it is something far greater than what it is. They claim it is a mirror of the 20th century America, the triumph of the ...

How can one objectively judge a film on the merits of peoples claims? That's ridiculous.
"This movie sucks cuz people said it would change the world."
This film (like all films) has NOTHING to do with what people say of it.

 

[posner]

^^^
You're funny. You may think the cliches in that movie and the way they were presented were humorous, but if you think that you must have a fairly low standard for humor. The problem is that the movie's creators had apparently never heard of the word "nuance".

Your last comment I don't even understand. Let me try to be clearer about the comment I believe you are concerned about. I feel strongly about this movie because it is a very boring and simplistic movie AND others feel otherwise. If it's just a generally shitty movie that everyone agrees is terrible, why spend the energy claiming it's bad? Does that make sense to you?

Thank you for your concern, but you don't need to pity me. Or were you being humorous?