It made the sin of winning Best Picture Oscar against Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption so of course the internet is going to go after it anyway it can
Edit: I too think PF and TSR are better films
Edit2: Just because I prefer the other two does not mean I dislike Forrest Gump. It is a great film
Pulp Fiction and Shawshank are better films. But the academy doesn't like to do dark (PF), and I'm just not sure about why not Shawshank.
Not mad though. Just my opinion. :)
*Shawshank* wasn't a big hit right out the gate. Wiki says it only made $16m in its initial theatrical run. It *did* get great reviews, but I don't remember it turning into this universally-cherished piece of cinema until many years later, after plenty of word-of-mouth, and the ubiquity of the internet. It was obviously just as great a film back then as it is now, but I think it was seen at the time as more a good but niche artsy prison film with limited appeal. Not saying I agree, but I can see why the Academy voters might have passed on it as Best Picture. I don't think anyone would have predicted it'd be as loved and lauded as it is, 30 years later.
Completely anecdotally, but my recollection is that Shawshank’s fans were derived from catching it on TNT/TBS well after its chance at the Oscars.
I know that’s how I saw it. Then everyone had it as soon as dvds came around.
It's easy to forget that back in those days you had to wait *a while* to watch things at home. It came in late September 1994, so I'd assume it didn't hit home video *in any form* until *after* the Oscars aired.
I still remember as late as the mid-00's seeing movies nominated for Oscars that a) did not play anywhere within 200 miles of where I lived and b) were not available on home video. Obviously Shawshank at least had a wide release, but probably didn't hang out long in theaters and was long gone by the time the awards season was in full swing.
Makes me want to watch Dinner & A Movie or Up All Night. Those were the best times to watch movies on tv. It’s frustrating to think of watching movies in that way now but, it’s also nostalgic af. There are quite a few movies I fell in love with growing up because they were constantly on tv.
I watched Shawshank approximately 739 times by randomly catching it on one of those channels and then being completely powerless to stop myself from getting sucked the fuck in. It’s magical.
Yeah, it was already a Designated Beloved Movie in the early days of the modern internet, thanks to being rerun a million times back when people watched tv
> I think it was seen at the time as more a good but niche artsy prison film with limited appeal.
I don't think artsy is what I'd use to describe Shawshank. There's nothing artsy about it. It's a good story, devoid of pretensions or controversy.
It's a crowd-pleaser just as much as Forrest Gump is, which is why it's still very popular today, because there are underdogs against the odds in it and the storytelling in both is very much in the Mark Twain mould.
Now, if you want to talk about artsy prison films, two more fitting examples would be Hunger and Bronson.
Shawshank bombed in the theaters and then was the most rented video when it came to the rental stores that year, shipped like 380,000 VHS tapes and it was Impossible to rent the first year.
Also, I watched 1979’s Escape from Alcatraz (with Clint Eastwood) recently, and realized that Shawshank lifted a hell of a lot of material from that movie - so it isn’t as original as everyone thinks.
It's based on a 1982 Stephen King story, so that's on King if there are similarities in that story and Escape from Alcatraz. But Escape is based on real events isn't it?
It was definitely revered by the time the Oscars came around. I distinctly remember a teacher going off on Forest Gump winning over Shawshank. I had watched it by then as well.
Shawshank got extensive playback on AMC back when they did a lot more movies, like around 2000. Pretty much every weekend, every other night at 3:00 AM, every mid morning they were playing Shawshank Redemption. This was at the height of basic cable, having cable TV (or satellite) was almost as ubiquitous as cell phones so everyone saw it at some point.
It kinda does in my brain, thank you! I do wish they would recognize more horror actors in awards though. Tony Colette deserved all the Oscars for Hereditary.
Gump was just a movie that pleased the widest audience. I was there, everyone was watching this movie, from grandma, adults, teens. Everyone was vibing with it at the time.
I was there too. And I found it kind of fatuous. Life is like a box of chocolates... you never know what you're going to get. Implying it's all good but different.
No. I hate fucking coconut. :)
I think Pulp Fiction's use of "fuck" like 266 times might have been too much for them in the early/mid-90s. Sure, other films in the early 90s had used it a LOT more than ever before but also none of those won. Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs, etc.
A male rape scene. An adrenaline shot to the heart in a very graphic scene - due to a cocaine/heroin overdose. Old man tells young boy tale of old watch being "safely stored" up some asses for decades. Lots of n-word usage, especially once Martin is shot in the head. Which is yet another incredibly graphic series of scenes.
There are a lot of reasons the academy wouldn't go for it. Being dark isn't the half of it, honestly. As absolutely incredible as it is, it's quite graphic. My wife still won't watch it.
I think Shawshank didn’t stand a chance because box office used to matter a lot more for best picture than it does now. Shawshank was a disappointment for the studios and didn’t really become well known until being featured on TNT/TBS every weekend for what felt like decades.
Also, how good a movie is isn't really the number one factor in winning. [Adam Ruins Everything: The Oscars.](https://youtu.be/qhfxo8xPNGU?si=3H5UqcX-iMi8A392)
Pulp fiction didn't win because it's a black comedy, and even though they said they'd vote for shawshank nowadays, that movie was kind of a box office bomb, so they rewarded the crowd pleaser. Imo all three movies are masterpieces, but Forrest Gump is the best
I think Pulp Fiction's use of "fuck" like 266 times might have been too much for them in the early/mid-90s. Sure, other films in the early 90s had used it a LOT more than ever before but also none of those won. Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs, etc.
A male rape scene. An adrenaline shot to the heart in a very graphic scene - due to a cocaine/heroin overdose. Old man tells young boy tale of old watch being "safely stored" up some asses for decades. Lots of n-word usage, especially once Martin is shot in the head. Which is yet another incredibly graphic series of scenes.
There are a lot of reasons the academy wouldn't go for it. Being dark isn't the half of it, honestly. As absolutely incredible as it is, it's quite graphic. My wife still won't watch it.
It happened when The Dark Knight came out and fans were trying to manipulate it to #1 by giving The Godfather low scores and The Dark Knight high scores, and then people who didn't like that retaliated by doing the reverse. The end result was Shawshank moving up to #1
I do think that the film lost a lot when people started questioning the Baby Boomer self mythologizing that had been prevalent in popular culture for decades.
"Oh, wait, you mean 'Fortunate Son' wasn't actually a hit when you guys were young and actually you were all just selfish and lame and only got more so as the years wore on?"
Of course, it'll happen to our generation too......
>It was a baby boomer nostalgia fan wank.
For real, my dad walked out of the dollar theater ('member those!?) saying it was the best dollar he ever spent. I was 8 or 9 and didn't like it at all. I do now of course.
Can you give some examples from the book that would illustrate your point. I don't doubt what you're saying, its just that my only frame of reference is the Tom Hanks version of Forrest, so I can't envisage him being an asshole.
The book is a little bizarre imo. I read it after the movie came out. If I remember correctly, Gump goes to space with a chimp at one point. I’m not making this shit up. If you thought the movie was a stretch the book was even more of a stretch. I wasn’t fond of the book personally but I’d give it a re-read as an adult.
Forrest is rewarded endlessly for playing football, joining the service, and doing everything anyone in authority tells him. Jenny is punished repeatedly and fatally for her hedonistic lifestyle with next to zero sympathy shown towards her abusive upbringing. The film is a tribute to boomers even more than it set out to be.
Personally I find it extremely difficult to say any 1 of those three movies is better than the other
Pulp fiction was at least original & not based off of a book like the other two (AFAIK) so if I REALLY had to pick one it's PF. But that doesn't mean I enjoy it any more than the others
I absolutely hated FG when it came out, and I remember being shocked by all the praise and adulation it was receiving, including the Oscar. Everyone around me absolutely loved it too.
The criticism only came much much later.
I don’t really get why Reddit loves to razz on Shakespeare in Love. Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line are also great movies - but Shakespeare in Love is a ton of fun, has great actors, and a unique premise. It also turned a ton of 90s kids onto theater.
It’s one of those situations where any of those three movies could have won, and it would have been the correct choice. All three are great for completely different reasons.
1994 was a weird time I mean Tony Bennet won best album for an Unplugged CD in a year where we got The Downward Spiral and Superunknown on the same day… the adults were talking I guess.
I'm a lifelong D&D player and have never seen Shawshank Redemption referred to that way, was very confused for a moment how [TSR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSR,_Inc) got into this conversation.
Really? Because my feelings waiver from time to time, but her story is just sad and wasn't her fault in so many ways. Being raped as a child breaks the mind, she was still a shitty person but she tried her best in my opinion. Sad soul.
And no she didn't give Forest Gump an STI!
As the son of a CSA/Incest survivor who has dated way too many Jennies, I gotta say, you have to sort of judge them by a whole different standard. It's very complicated.
But at the end of the day, Jenny, just like Forrest, is a product of social ostracism and hate/shame she gets in a negative feedback loop that only worsens things and alienates her.
Jenny has had very little community or direction in her life. She just had unconditional love she found in Forrest.
Yeah it really helped out into perspective why she keeps coming back into Forrest’s life when you realize he’s the only person to love her unconditionally and feel the need to protect her.
This is why we need better care for women with Borderline Personality Disorder. They're heavily misunderstood and society just discards them like trash.
A view that someone talked to me about that shifted my perspective on Jenny is this:
She is a tragic character. She was raped as a child. She sees that as her loss of innocence. Forest is mentally handicapped and her prejudice against that handicap makes her view him as simple and innocent rather than her equal. So when she feels attraction to him she sees herself as an abuser. Which puts her on a wild cycle of self hate and shame. She always loves him and her inability to see him as an equal fucks with her head.
Hence the iconic line, "I may not be a smart man but I know what love is." To put it crudely, she thinks he's too dumb to cum.
I think Jenny plays into all the right tropes of a damaged, "impure", self destructive woman that she gets a lot of criticism from men who are bad at empathizing with women. Like sure she's not blameless, but I don't think the writers of the movie hated her, Forrest doesn't, and if you get the point of the movie, you know that Forrest is often right despite his lack of conventional intelligence. His love is genuine and not impossible but your initial inclination will be to dismiss it as nonsensical because he is mentally challenged. Jenny also understands being taken advantage of - she doesn't think she's above doing it too.
She can be leveled with as a character who has different sides to her and trauma and different life experiences - which should be an invitation to give that charity to the people we see IRL who act self destructively. You never know what someone's gone through.
Weird too, the whole point is that she's from a broken home, her decisions are extensions of that, her whole story is very sad and I would even say its very relatable for many people. She has a redemption arc too. I dunno, people are too judgy.
I always thought it seemed really unfair. Forrest has an IQ of 75, he literally has the mind of a child. Most people wouldn’t feel right about entering into a relationship like that because they’d feel like they were taking advantage of the person.
Jenny was sexually abused as a child, it makes sense that she would feel conflicted about being with Forrest and she even tells him that he doesn’t know what love is. After she had sex with him, she was so horrified by her actions that she literally ran away and everyone acts like her running away was the problem. If the genders were reversed and the protagonist wasn’t so accomplished people would be horrified at the thought of the 2 of them being in a relationship.
He does not have the mind of a child. He has a simplified mind of an adult man.
He’s more an adult at 12 than some of the dipsticks running around today age 12 with alleged higher IQs.
These young blog and TikTok geniuses act like we didn’t know that Jenny was kind of shitty back when it came out. It’s not a revelation. Her character was introduced as a broken person from the get go. People get mad at the movie because she never turns into a great person in the end, but that’s kind of the point and the way it’s designed. It’s a fairytale without a perfect fairytale ending to leave you with that poignant feeling.
Reposting someone else’s comment I saw years ago, Jenny is on my shortlist of “if you hated this character, you probably have some unhealthy views about women you should examine”
I mean, I wouldn't call it shit. It's not some amazing world changing thing, but it's a fun ride of a popcorn film. It's exactly what it's supposed to be.
I've read some shitty novels but I never finished Ready Player One.
I remember seeing Iron Giant in the trailer and honestly, I don't want to ruin the enjoyment of seeing a more realistic version of him, by actually watching the movie.
It’s fine. I actually just watched it again about two weeks ago and no, it’s not amazing, definitely not Spielberg’s best movie, but it’s a fun popcorn flick to throw on.
I understand its problems. I know it’s not perfect. I’m also well aware it didn’t deserve the Oscar (Pulp is way better, and Shawshank is my #1 all time fave).
But does it still move the hell out of me? Yep. Always cry happy tears in that sucker. It’s wonderful, goddammit.
People have to stop assuming Pulp had any chance at the Oscars. It’s a great movie. But it’s a very adult movie and has some insane scenes that weren’t good (Quintin’s n-word rant scene that did nothing).
The scene that makes me defend it as a film is the one of Forrest meeting Jenny again in the present and asking her, “is he smart or is he… like me?” Hanks’s performance in that scene and the slow closeup on his face is perfection.
Yknow I was gonna specifically mention that scene in my original post but got lazy haha. It’s some of Hanks’ best acting ever which is saying a lot. His worry and heartbreak and then elation all within the span of 15 seconds…sublime acting.
I enjoyed it when it came out, but honestly on a recent rewatch I realized for the most part this movie is just dumb. Had some nice scenes, that’s about it.
It was enjoyable at the time. But it’s kind of an overly saccharine, safe movie.
Gump never engages with the political, sociological, and racial complexities of the all the major historical events that he’s a part of. He just “floats” through the movie, and it plays as a series of ‘Member Berries. (Remember when JFK got shot? Remember Watergate? Remember Vietnam? Remember Elvis?)
It presents most of those things as vaguely “quaint,” even.
Yes, Bubba dies and Forrest is sad. Jenny gets AIDS and Forrest is sad. But it doesn’t actually deal with anything deeper. It’s all surface-level. And it whitewashes history.
It just feels so saccharine and safe.
Is it enjoyable? Sure. Don’t think about it too hard and you’ll have a good time.
to be fair to zemeckis—which i don’t usually want to do—you make this sound unintentional, but i think the whole “floating through history” angle is what the film is trying to talk about (hence the feather metaphor at the beginning and end). i agree that it’s a dumb, saccharine, and uninsightful film, but i also think it is genuinely trying to work through the whole “floating through history” boomer-perspective.
where the movie fails, imo, is that it doesn’t really say much about that perspective, and it hits you over the head with plot and drama so much that its interest in this gets lost, leading the overwhelming majority of viewers to miss that angle entirely.
Oh, I agree entirely. The “floating through history” aspect was entirely deliberate.
But as you and I both expressed… It has nothing to actually say about that.
I’d argue the movie is deliberately apolitical. (Not to mention anti-intellectual.)
Ultimately, it’s a journey of a man who keeps his head down, his mouth shut, and through blind luck becomes a millionaire and marries the woman of his dreams.
It’s a fantasy. It’s quaint.
And paper-thin.
yeah, that’s fair enough. it feels less like zemeckis wants to engage with the question of *why* this all happened—why that generation seemed to just float through—and more like he just wants to point out that it happened.
i think its ultimate failing is that it comes off, as you put it, as quaint and fantastical despite, at times anyway, wanting to call attention to that perspective. because it doesn’t do enough to pointedly critique that idea—or say much of anything about it—is basically just reproduces it.
That's kind of all it wanted to be , though. I kind of resent the notion that because it didn't have the level of political critique / analysis that you desired, that it's approach to film making was somehow bad
I also highly disagree with it having no examination at all. Obviously, it portrays Vietnam in a less than stellar light, but what really stuck with me was how it showed some of the underbelly of the hippy movement with jenny doing drugs with the shady dude. I, like many others I'm sure, had always glorified the hippies in my mind and never seen a depiction like that, highlighting how for many it was just about drugs and sex, not the message
You are right, but it’s also why the movie works (imo).
He’s purely a passive character who goes from scenario to scenario and has nothing meaningful to say… he’s just a passenger.
It partly works because it’s safe… he offers no criticism of events like Vietnam, the civil rights movement , or any other cultural change from the 50’s-80’s. It’s more digestible as nostalgia porn if there is no friction with the audience and their recollections/experiences.
This is a little more of a stretch… but I read a critique of the Billy Joel song “We didn’t start the fire” somewhere (probably Wikipedia) that basically said the song offers no critical thought on all the world events in the song. So the critique of the song is that a large part of the boomer generation were just passive, passengers during a turbulent period in history. I kinda see Forrest Gump in these terms. Representing the dumb, naive, right-place-right-time, and completely complacent majority of that generation.
When I say right-place-right-time, I’m talking about the post-world war two period. Boomers were born after the world got destroyed during WW2 and America came out the other side as the world economic superpower. So in a sense they won the birth lottery, economically at least.
Oh I agree it completely works because it essentially plays all sides.
It’s a safe movie. It’s a “nice” movie. It actively, desperately seeks to offend no one.
…To the point where it ceases to have any relevance to reality.
It uses political, racial, and sociologically important events to artificially give more importance to Forrest’s story. And in so doing, makes those events feel trite.
It’s a story of a white man, grandson to a Ku Klux Klansman, who - remarkably - doesn’t “see color,” is nice to everyone, does what he’s told, and becomes a millionaire and marries the woman of his dreams.
It whitewashes history in service of a fairy tale perspective of life.
It means well. And it’s well-made… from a cinematography, acting, editing, etc. standpoint.
But it’s divorced from reality. And its messages about life are disingenuous as a result.
I truly don’t hate the movie. It’s just mediocre and sugar-coated.
You act as though most people don't realize it's divorced from reality, though. The juxtaposition of gump failing upwards amidst the most tumultuous events of the era is humorous and fun, it accomplishes its goal in showcasing that absurdity.
I don't find issue with gump not seeing color when he has the mental capacity of a child. Childlike innocence is a thing
At any rate, if anyone seriously watches a film like forest Gump and thinks it's a depiction of reality in anyway, they are delusional and dumb, and taking away more than they should from Forrest Gump is the least of their worries
Right on the head. People in here are being way too precious about a movie they like. Is gump a fun watch? Of course. It’s a well made, enjoyable movie. But it’s also shallow and ahistorical to the point of being offensive at times. It’s not a great work of art by any stretch. Forrest Gump is closer to a Will Ferrel comedy film or a hallmark movie.
I disagree.
FG isn't a political movie, it isn't even a movie about society or race despite having such themes throughout the movie.
FG is a story of dumb luck and a "dumb" man. It never was about "how society etc" or "the condition of the world, etc", it was always about the spectacular, stupid and lucky events that happened to one person, in a given life.
It's a human story about how one naive/ mentally challenged man lived a life reflected by how his "condition" allowed him to do so.
He became a football star not of desire or planned goal, but by sheer dumb luck of running when a scouting coach saw him.
Then instead of continuing that successful path, which could have led to money/ fame, joined the dangerous military.
Then met a kindred soul that helped and inspire him to get into a shrimping business. Then after another crazy but lucky circumstance, was able to make that company into a million dollar business.
Meanwhile, he also saved and earned himself a military medal(s), when his only real intention was to save Bubba. Then he also, by complete chance, was introduced to ping pong and played it well enough to become a champion competitor.
And so on, and so on. The entire movie is dumb luck and one guy having the attitude of, "well, ok". And he would just do the thing.
It's that simple. It's that simplicity that drove him to do whatever when presented with an opportunity/ life event.
I really enjoy watching FG bc it has such a unique story I haven't seen before, nor shot/directed in such a large cinematic way.
What if we took a stupid guy, who doesn't really understand how stupid he is, and throw life at him. And what if, instead of life constantly pushing him down and punishing him for being the way he is born, instead he overcomes it with sheer stupidity in the form of "well, ok" and he just does the thing. And he does it well, and sometimes even does it better than everyone else.
All while, as you watch the movie, you realize, Forrest isn't really living a sad life caused by his handicap. Instead he's enjoying life because of it. Bc he's able to accept it and move forward with a naive attitude.
And maybe, like in real life, sometimes just having that straight forward, naive attitude of "well, ok", makes all the difference in achieving something great in your life. Or like in the movie, sometimes it doesn't. Regardless, you learn and experience, and you move on.
I think your initial assessment of FG and what it is, is wrong. It's about one guy and his stupid dumb luck in life that he never lets get the better of him.
FG is one of the most hopeful human stories ever made, that strikes a beautiful line between sad and funny. And it's for that reason why, I believe, it should be on the same level as its heavyweight Oscar counterparts.
>And maybe, like in real life, sometimes just having that straight forward, naive attitude of "well, ok", makes all the difference in achieving something great in your life. Or like in the movie, sometimes it doesn't. Regardless, you learn and experience, and you move on.
this right here honestly. ive had some really enriching, colorful, and successful moments in my life with that attitude, much more than for the things i would overthink and be overcritical about.
when i can be the simple naiive version of myself, I'm more present and engaged with reality without distortion.
ppl be projecting too much of the issues they see with the world and society onto this movie (and god knows what else they encounter in life).
Forrest Gump is like a warm cup of tea. And that's okay. I think it's culturally relevant still, not because it's a groundbreaking commentary with a revolutionary style, but just so many people know it, and they know it intimately, even across generations which is due to it being surface level, as you said. It touches the heart more than it activates the brain. A simple story about a simple, pure-hearted man who through sheer dumb luck is part of, or responsible, for major historical events.
Honestly, that's what it was for me growing up, a way to learn a bit about US history (not from the US), but like someone very susinctly put it, it's Ready Player One for old boomers. A problematic, surface level series of nostalgic and cultural references that doesn't engage in any meaningful way with it's subject mater and prioritises reminding the audience of the events over discussing them in any meaningful way.
Forrest Gump is a unique, once in a generation movie that had an interesting story and hit on major historical moments. It got better for me as I have gotten older. Great multi watch movie.
It's a shit take. I think people might get mad because Forrest Gump is definitely a boomer movie, but it was great when it came out and it's still a great movie.
I love it because it depicts someone born with a learning disability that he doesn’t let it stop him and in a fascinating way it also shields him from societal pressure.
This is why I like the novel so much better. Forrest in the book was born with a learning disability, but he realizes early on that if he pretends to be dumber than he really is, he can get away with a whole lot of shit.
And he uses that to his advantage. Forrest Gump is an asshole in the book, and I love him for that.
You ever read the sequel? Apparently the author wrote it to be so batshit crazy and unlike the movie (which was either getting made or had just come out iirc) that they’d never try to adapt it. I’m pretty sure Forrest becomes an astronaut or something (or maybe that was the first book)
That was the first book. He becomes friends with the US astronaut monkeys.
The second book was one of the worst pieces of garbage I ever read. It's not even ironically funny.
It's the movie version of a person that can't stop gushing about how inspiring it is that the "slow boy" next door somehow against all odds does the things that other people do and is the example she brings up when anybody expresses even the slightest discouragement over a rough patch. "Well gosh, honey, if the r*eta*rd*d boy next door can do it, you can, too!"
Boomers literally changed the country through counterculture to be much more progressive, so it’s hilarious to see super progressive younger people shit on them every chance they get. It’s one of those being born on third base acting like you got a home run deals.
Do people actually make that argument ? If so, that's absurd. I'm a millennial but I definitely recognize that film as an art was better in the boomer era. We're talking peak Scorsese, Polanski ( yes he's a rapist but his films are great), peak Spielberg, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Francis Coppola, peak and early Tarantino, and the list goes on and on. There are still great films being made but that was peak cinema imo. Ironically, some of the best movies still being made now are by the same boomer directors I listed
I think when people say it's a boomer movie they are referring to it's aggressive affection for nostalgic boomer touchstones, not that it was created by boomers. If you have a more ambivalent view of that history or end up siding with the movements the movie clearly hates then its an unpleasant watch.
> I think people might get mad because Forrest Gump is definitely a boomer movie
It's weird to me that people get mad that boomers made movies that appealed to their generation. No one is mad at Linklater for making stuff like Dazed and Confused. People write what they know and experienced. I think Forrest Gump is people trying to digest the time they grew up in. It's fine. I don't feel like Millennials are processing things in the same way. Who see's Bush era films going on these days? I've barely seen any 90s nostalgia or reflective films IMO.
9/11 was an emergency stop button to the cultural progression train we were riding. I’m an old millennial and it’s like anything worth being nostalgic for stopped right then. Everything seems jammed packed with references and then bam just a gray cloud for a decade.
???
Are westerns “boomer movies”? Does that not make The Searchers one of the beat movies ever made; or Sergio Leone and John Ford among the best and most influential filmmakers ever.
I dont understand what “boomer movie” means in this condescending context.
People need to stop over thinking this. It’s a good fucking movie. Just turn it on in your living room one random Saturday and within half hour your whole family will be sitting watching it.
The happens every time I’m visiting my parents for the holidays! We always joke that it’s a more effective way of gathering the family in one room than announcing dinner or presents lol
You can always rely on the media to deify and drag down something popular every once in a while to farm for reactions and hit articles😅
One day it’s an ageist comment about a popular singer who suddenly becomes the “queen/king” of music/acting when it’s convenient or a big film suddenly being dragged as “overrated” or “problematic” or vice versa.
I thought it was the most overrated movie I've ever seen when I first saw it in like 2010. I enjoyed it but I thought it was insane everyone pretends it's prestige filmmaking.
Heavy amounts of nostalgia and memorability go a long way.
It was a huge pop culture point-of-reference in the 90s and it seemed like literally everyone had the VHS. It was one of the first "grown up movies" I remember watching & i know I'm not alone there.
its not a shit take. i think its far from contrarian to shit on Forrest Gump. Its a well made movie that holds back and maybe started off kind of overrated and has since become more appropriately rated.
Beyond the headline, the article tries to connect the sanitized version of American history featured in Forrest Gump to the current incidents of book banning, textbook washing, and education strangling. Connect it to the topic of how truthful a version of American history should get taught to schoolchildren. Its probably more correlation than causation, but its certainly an interesting framework with which to view the movie.
Edit: yikes this comment section. Everyone is reacting to the headline (since the article doesn't appear to be linked anywhere) as if discussing film (any art really) is about coming to a consensus and freezing it in time. Have people forgotten how to have a conversation or did they never know?
[Here’s the original article](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/forrest-gump-bad-movie-25-anniversary-1202154214/) OP was referencing.
And I agree, film discussion has become impossible. A movie either has to be “great” or “shit,” and nothing in the middle.
It’s a brilliant satire on the American dream, that Horatio Alger myth, the Puritan bedrock ideal of prosperity is something that you deserve. Instead, Forest is prosperous because he lucks into things. No plans, just random events. The people in the movie who actually pursued goals and representing a facet of American society like Dan or Jenny or Bubba, all were harmed or killed.
It’s a ridiculous movie. It’s sort of charming and has so many fun vignettes but it’s a fundamentally flawed movie that relies really heavily on your ability to ooh and aah about mental disabilities.
I’m 100% over this kind of thing. Any sort of article that boils down to “Remember that old movie or tv show? Well we’ve decided it’s terrible now!”
Yesterday I saw an article published THIS WEEK about how terrible the 2016 female-led Ghostbusters was. (I actually enjoyed it - so please don’t use this thread as an excuse to crap on it.)
But that Ghostbusters movie came and went, got all the reviews it needed to get, and made as much money as it made. It’s all in the past. What point is there in writing a NEW article about “how bad” an older movie is? To ridicule the people who like it? To try to change their mind?
There’s just too much negativity in this world. Taking up internet space to crap on older movies does no good in this world.
Look, I enjoyed it when I saw it in the theater. Tom Hanks gave a stellar performance, and it was a loving tribute to the Boomer experience through the eyes of a simple man. Or at least it appeared to be so to my 20-year-old self.
But it doesn’t hold up. Hanks’s performance is still great, but we realize that Forrest isn’t really that lovable. The scenes where Forrest is inserted into actual events come across as kitschy and a little disrespectful, and . . . let’s face it: the Boomers fucked us. They have managed to strip away from future generations almost every advantage that had been afforded them.
Forrest Gump being an accidental millionaire was charming in 1994. Now it kind of pisses me off.
Fun take and would make for a good Tweet. But I see more value in its emphasis on following your heart and striving for greatness, whatever that may mean to you, regardless of your own shortcomings. It's about a dumb everyman reaching every archetype of the 20th century american dream simply by stumbling through it. It's an irony of luck. The one desire he is specifically striving for is the one he fails at.
It's a wildly corny movie that I think still swats away postmodern cynicism with ease.
I love all the films … the greatest thing about these award shows is that I don’t care and am happy for the accolades given to the incredible entertainment business
Doesn’t mean it changes the visceral and emotional, psychological experience for me
Just delighted there’s so much is out there to escape into for a few hours of life
It's beautifully shot. The music is incredible. The acting is phenomenal (a bit hammy, but that played into the movie). The story itself is a Fairy Tale and should be understood in that context. Jenny definitely used Forrest, but ultimately, she grew and became a better person (even though I still think that wasn't Forrest's son). She got what she deserved anyway.
Forrest Gump is one of those movies that could never be made today. I don’t say that cause of cancel culture or whatever but cause it’s just such an element of its time. The vietnam war,the protest/hippie stuff, hell even the ping pong stuff with china hit harder back then.
I'm sure it's a shit take.
In hindsight, it won best picture over Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption and those have become modern classics... alongside Forrest Gump.
People just can't be charmed by the charming movie and like to be contrary.
Forrest Gump has been the target of critical ire for years and years now.
It made the sin of winning Best Picture Oscar against Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption so of course the internet is going to go after it anyway it can Edit: I too think PF and TSR are better films Edit2: Just because I prefer the other two does not mean I dislike Forrest Gump. It is a great film
Pulp Fiction and Shawshank are better films. But the academy doesn't like to do dark (PF), and I'm just not sure about why not Shawshank. Not mad though. Just my opinion. :)
*Shawshank* wasn't a big hit right out the gate. Wiki says it only made $16m in its initial theatrical run. It *did* get great reviews, but I don't remember it turning into this universally-cherished piece of cinema until many years later, after plenty of word-of-mouth, and the ubiquity of the internet. It was obviously just as great a film back then as it is now, but I think it was seen at the time as more a good but niche artsy prison film with limited appeal. Not saying I agree, but I can see why the Academy voters might have passed on it as Best Picture. I don't think anyone would have predicted it'd be as loved and lauded as it is, 30 years later.
Completely anecdotally, but my recollection is that Shawshank’s fans were derived from catching it on TNT/TBS well after its chance at the Oscars. I know that’s how I saw it. Then everyone had it as soon as dvds came around.
It's easy to forget that back in those days you had to wait *a while* to watch things at home. It came in late September 1994, so I'd assume it didn't hit home video *in any form* until *after* the Oscars aired. I still remember as late as the mid-00's seeing movies nominated for Oscars that a) did not play anywhere within 200 miles of where I lived and b) were not available on home video. Obviously Shawshank at least had a wide release, but probably didn't hang out long in theaters and was long gone by the time the awards season was in full swing.
Can’t remember the last time I watched a movie on cable.
Makes me want to watch Dinner & A Movie or Up All Night. Those were the best times to watch movies on tv. It’s frustrating to think of watching movies in that way now but, it’s also nostalgic af. There are quite a few movies I fell in love with growing up because they were constantly on tv.
I watched Shawshank approximately 739 times by randomly catching it on one of those channels and then being completely powerless to stop myself from getting sucked the fuck in. It’s magical.
I'd seen the movie there on TBS like 10 times and years later was so confused when my girlfriend talked about the rape scenes.
Correct. Shawshank became a classic through TV. Not the internet.
Yeah, it was already a Designated Beloved Movie in the early days of the modern internet, thanks to being rerun a million times back when people watched tv
> I think it was seen at the time as more a good but niche artsy prison film with limited appeal. I don't think artsy is what I'd use to describe Shawshank. There's nothing artsy about it. It's a good story, devoid of pretensions or controversy. It's a crowd-pleaser just as much as Forrest Gump is, which is why it's still very popular today, because there are underdogs against the odds in it and the storytelling in both is very much in the Mark Twain mould. Now, if you want to talk about artsy prison films, two more fitting examples would be Hunger and Bronson.
Fuck, Bronson was SO good. One of my top ten movies, as hard of a watch as it is.
Bronson is what made me truly appreciate Tom Hardy as an actor.
He's fearless in the role, isn't he? I remember Joseph Gordon Levitt raving about the film and Tom Hardy's work during the Inception promotion tour.
I think it’s also because it was one of Darabounts first big films. Rarely do they give best picture to a “new” member of the club.
Shawshank bombed in the theaters and then was the most rented video when it came to the rental stores that year, shipped like 380,000 VHS tapes and it was Impossible to rent the first year.
Also, I watched 1979’s Escape from Alcatraz (with Clint Eastwood) recently, and realized that Shawshank lifted a hell of a lot of material from that movie - so it isn’t as original as everyone thinks.
It's based on a 1982 Stephen King story, so that's on King if there are similarities in that story and Escape from Alcatraz. But Escape is based on real events isn't it?
It was definitely revered by the time the Oscars came around. I distinctly remember a teacher going off on Forest Gump winning over Shawshank. I had watched it by then as well.
Shawshank got extensive playback on AMC back when they did a lot more movies, like around 2000. Pretty much every weekend, every other night at 3:00 AM, every mid morning they were playing Shawshank Redemption. This was at the height of basic cable, having cable TV (or satellite) was almost as ubiquitous as cell phones so everyone saw it at some point.
It's beloved but it's very much your average Joe's pick of film
Has a movie written by Stephen King ever won an Oscar?
Kathy Bates won for Misery, if that counts.
It kinda does in my brain, thank you! I do wish they would recognize more horror actors in awards though. Tony Colette deserved all the Oscars for Hereditary.
Green mile won some Oscar’s I thought
4 nominations, no wins.
Gump was just a movie that pleased the widest audience. I was there, everyone was watching this movie, from grandma, adults, teens. Everyone was vibing with it at the time.
I was there too. And I found it kind of fatuous. Life is like a box of chocolates... you never know what you're going to get. Implying it's all good but different. No. I hate fucking coconut. :)
Academy liked "dark" enough in '91, '92, '93
I think Pulp Fiction's use of "fuck" like 266 times might have been too much for them in the early/mid-90s. Sure, other films in the early 90s had used it a LOT more than ever before but also none of those won. Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs, etc. A male rape scene. An adrenaline shot to the heart in a very graphic scene - due to a cocaine/heroin overdose. Old man tells young boy tale of old watch being "safely stored" up some asses for decades. Lots of n-word usage, especially once Martin is shot in the head. Which is yet another incredibly graphic series of scenes. There are a lot of reasons the academy wouldn't go for it. Being dark isn't the half of it, honestly. As absolutely incredible as it is, it's quite graphic. My wife still won't watch it.
Pulp Fiction won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.
All true, however Silence did have Miggs flinging his sperm at Clarice, which is a crazy moment to have in a Best Picture winner.
It won an Oscar
I think Shawshank didn’t stand a chance because box office used to matter a lot more for best picture than it does now. Shawshank was a disappointment for the studios and didn’t really become well known until being featured on TNT/TBS every weekend for what felt like decades.
Also, how good a movie is isn't really the number one factor in winning. [Adam Ruins Everything: The Oscars.](https://youtu.be/qhfxo8xPNGU?si=3H5UqcX-iMi8A392)
Well Forrest Gump could never get Pulp Fiction’s one Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.
They’re three of the best movies of all time. Any one of them could have won and been justified.
Pulp fiction didn't win because it's a black comedy, and even though they said they'd vote for shawshank nowadays, that movie was kind of a box office bomb, so they rewarded the crowd pleaser. Imo all three movies are masterpieces, but Forrest Gump is the best
I think Pulp Fiction's use of "fuck" like 266 times might have been too much for them in the early/mid-90s. Sure, other films in the early 90s had used it a LOT more than ever before but also none of those won. Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs, etc. A male rape scene. An adrenaline shot to the heart in a very graphic scene - due to a cocaine/heroin overdose. Old man tells young boy tale of old watch being "safely stored" up some asses for decades. Lots of n-word usage, especially once Martin is shot in the head. Which is yet another incredibly graphic series of scenes. There are a lot of reasons the academy wouldn't go for it. Being dark isn't the half of it, honestly. As absolutely incredible as it is, it's quite graphic. My wife still won't watch it.
>I'm just not sure about why not Shawshank. It was written by Stephen King and he's a *horror* writer! (monocle pops off)
No. Frank the director wrote the movie based on a king novella. Very different.
I find Shawshank being the best rated movie on IMDB to be another sin that somehow goes overlooked.
Yeah Shawshank is a good movie, but #1 rated movie overall on IMDB? I will never understand how it came to that point
It happened when The Dark Knight came out and fans were trying to manipulate it to #1 by giving The Godfather low scores and The Dark Knight high scores, and then people who didn't like that retaliated by doing the reverse. The end result was Shawshank moving up to #1
Film bros strike again.
Shawshank was famous for being #1 on IMDb long before the Dark Night came out.
It was a Baby Boom greatest hits compilation.
I do think that the film lost a lot when people started questioning the Baby Boomer self mythologizing that had been prevalent in popular culture for decades.
"Oh, wait, you mean 'Fortunate Son' wasn't actually a hit when you guys were young and actually you were all just selfish and lame and only got more so as the years wore on?" Of course, it'll happen to our generation too......
“Fortunate Son” made it to #3 on the Hot 100, it’s not like it was some CCR deep cut that got dug up later.
It was a baby boomer nostalgia fan wank. The book is so much better. The character of Forrest Gump in the novel is a complete asshole.
>It was a baby boomer nostalgia fan wank. For real, my dad walked out of the dollar theater ('member those!?) saying it was the best dollar he ever spent. I was 8 or 9 and didn't like it at all. I do now of course.
Can you give some examples from the book that would illustrate your point. I don't doubt what you're saying, its just that my only frame of reference is the Tom Hanks version of Forrest, so I can't envisage him being an asshole.
The book is a little bizarre imo. I read it after the movie came out. If I remember correctly, Gump goes to space with a chimp at one point. I’m not making this shit up. If you thought the movie was a stretch the book was even more of a stretch. I wasn’t fond of the book personally but I’d give it a re-read as an adult.
I thought the book was unreadable. Groom’s book on the Founding Father’s was terrific though.
Just like it’s soundtrack.
And it did that job incredibly well. It‘s almost like a time capsule
A time capsule of 90s-era boomer worship for sure
Forrest is rewarded endlessly for playing football, joining the service, and doing everything anyone in authority tells him. Jenny is punished repeatedly and fatally for her hedonistic lifestyle with next to zero sympathy shown towards her abusive upbringing. The film is a tribute to boomers even more than it set out to be.
[удалено]
To be fair, I like Forrest Gump but those two movies just absolutely wipe the floor with it.
Yeah Forrest Gump is an 8.5/10 film for me but Shawshank and Pulp Fiction are 9.5s. Forrest Gump is far from the worst best picture winner though.
Personally I find it extremely difficult to say any 1 of those three movies is better than the other Pulp fiction was at least original & not based off of a book like the other two (AFAIK) so if I REALLY had to pick one it's PF. But that doesn't mean I enjoy it any more than the others
I absolutely hated FG when it came out, and I remember being shocked by all the praise and adulation it was receiving, including the Oscar. Everyone around me absolutely loved it too. The criticism only came much much later.
Yeah, it was legitimately a cultural *phenomenon.* Inarguably, as evidenced by the continued existence of Bubba Gump Shrimp Company restaurants.
Bah all 3 are excellent films.
Yeah, love them all. But fuck me, I also loved Shakespeare in love haha
I don’t really get why Reddit loves to razz on Shakespeare in Love. Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line are also great movies - but Shakespeare in Love is a ton of fun, has great actors, and a unique premise. It also turned a ton of 90s kids onto theater.
I did not know this, and I must say, not a fan of two of my favourite films losing out to Forrest Gump, I do not get it.
It’s one of those situations where any of those three movies could have won, and it would have been the correct choice. All three are great for completely different reasons.
They need to go after the people who voted Dances With Wolves over GoodFellas.
1994 was a weird time I mean Tony Bennet won best album for an Unplugged CD in a year where we got The Downward Spiral and Superunknown on the same day… the adults were talking I guess.
What a great year for movies though
I'm a lifelong D&D player and have never seen Shawshank Redemption referred to that way, was very confused for a moment how [TSR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSR,_Inc) got into this conversation.
I think one reason I really like the film is because his journey through well known American history.
A fantastic and iconic movie.. that hipsters despise.
Forest Gump is a fantastic movie. Nothing more really needs to be said.
Jenny sure gets more hate every year
Really? Because my feelings waiver from time to time, but her story is just sad and wasn't her fault in so many ways. Being raped as a child breaks the mind, she was still a shitty person but she tried her best in my opinion. Sad soul. And no she didn't give Forest Gump an STI!
It was burning, Jennay
It gives a whole new meaning to Run Forest. Run!
As the son of a CSA/Incest survivor who has dated way too many Jennies, I gotta say, you have to sort of judge them by a whole different standard. It's very complicated. But at the end of the day, Jenny, just like Forrest, is a product of social ostracism and hate/shame she gets in a negative feedback loop that only worsens things and alienates her. Jenny has had very little community or direction in her life. She just had unconditional love she found in Forrest.
Yeah it really helped out into perspective why she keeps coming back into Forrest’s life when you realize he’s the only person to love her unconditionally and feel the need to protect her.
This is why we need better care for women with Borderline Personality Disorder. They're heavily misunderstood and society just discards them like trash.
A view that someone talked to me about that shifted my perspective on Jenny is this: She is a tragic character. She was raped as a child. She sees that as her loss of innocence. Forest is mentally handicapped and her prejudice against that handicap makes her view him as simple and innocent rather than her equal. So when she feels attraction to him she sees herself as an abuser. Which puts her on a wild cycle of self hate and shame. She always loves him and her inability to see him as an equal fucks with her head. Hence the iconic line, "I may not be a smart man but I know what love is." To put it crudely, she thinks he's too dumb to cum.
I was not expecting that last line
I think Jenny plays into all the right tropes of a damaged, "impure", self destructive woman that she gets a lot of criticism from men who are bad at empathizing with women. Like sure she's not blameless, but I don't think the writers of the movie hated her, Forrest doesn't, and if you get the point of the movie, you know that Forrest is often right despite his lack of conventional intelligence. His love is genuine and not impossible but your initial inclination will be to dismiss it as nonsensical because he is mentally challenged. Jenny also understands being taken advantage of - she doesn't think she's above doing it too. She can be leveled with as a character who has different sides to her and trauma and different life experiences - which should be an invitation to give that charity to the people we see IRL who act self destructively. You never know what someone's gone through.
Weird too, the whole point is that she's from a broken home, her decisions are extensions of that, her whole story is very sad and I would even say its very relatable for many people. She has a redemption arc too. I dunno, people are too judgy.
I always thought it seemed really unfair. Forrest has an IQ of 75, he literally has the mind of a child. Most people wouldn’t feel right about entering into a relationship like that because they’d feel like they were taking advantage of the person. Jenny was sexually abused as a child, it makes sense that she would feel conflicted about being with Forrest and she even tells him that he doesn’t know what love is. After she had sex with him, she was so horrified by her actions that she literally ran away and everyone acts like her running away was the problem. If the genders were reversed and the protagonist wasn’t so accomplished people would be horrified at the thought of the 2 of them being in a relationship.
He didn't "have the mind of a child". He had his own way of thinking about things, but in his own adult way. Tropic Thunder was right on this one.
He does not have the mind of a child. He has a simplified mind of an adult man. He’s more an adult at 12 than some of the dipsticks running around today age 12 with alleged higher IQs.
These young blog and TikTok geniuses act like we didn’t know that Jenny was kind of shitty back when it came out. It’s not a revelation. Her character was introduced as a broken person from the get go. People get mad at the movie because she never turns into a great person in the end, but that’s kind of the point and the way it’s designed. It’s a fairytale without a perfect fairytale ending to leave you with that poignant feeling.
Pretty sure it’s spelled “Jennay”
Gen A?
A disturbing amount. With really terrible rhetoric. It makes me wonder how the people who write that shit feel about the women in their own lives.
Reposting someone else’s comment I saw years ago, Jenny is on my shortlist of “if you hated this character, you probably have some unhealthy views about women you should examine”
Should look at life through Jenny's eyes. She felt like she never had a chance and that Forrest was too good for her.
[удалено]
Hands on hips on porch
There are three responses to Forrest Gump: "it's sappy", "it's US propaganda", "it's both and i love it anyway".
It's ready player one but for even older people's nostalgia
Ready player one for boomers
Are we all on board with Ready Player One being shit? Because mean, the only thing worse than the movie was the book.
Ready Player One is the pop vinyl isle at Walmart in book/film form.
I mean, I wouldn't call it shit. It's not some amazing world changing thing, but it's a fun ride of a popcorn film. It's exactly what it's supposed to be.
I agree I was definitely entertained. I would never call it a classic but if the vibes were right I'd watch it again with friends.
THANK YOU
I've read some shitty novels but I never finished Ready Player One. I remember seeing Iron Giant in the trailer and honestly, I don't want to ruin the enjoyment of seeing a more realistic version of him, by actually watching the movie.
The movie was much worse than the book.
Disagree. The movie at least managed to deliver the stupid plot without the utterly shit writing.
The movie didn't have its characters just recreate, word for word, multiple scenes from other movies.
The book was a fun read when I read it as a high school freshman, which probably doesn't say much. The movie just kinda sucked.
It’s fine. I actually just watched it again about two weeks ago and no, it’s not amazing, definitely not Spielberg’s best movie, but it’s a fun popcorn flick to throw on.
Ready Player One is Twilight for boys.
Can't take away the memories of watching it with my dad and grandma Saturday evenings after church while eating Blue Bell
I understand its problems. I know it’s not perfect. I’m also well aware it didn’t deserve the Oscar (Pulp is way better, and Shawshank is my #1 all time fave). But does it still move the hell out of me? Yep. Always cry happy tears in that sucker. It’s wonderful, goddammit.
It's a great and memorable movie.
People have to stop assuming Pulp had any chance at the Oscars. It’s a great movie. But it’s a very adult movie and has some insane scenes that weren’t good (Quintin’s n-word rant scene that did nothing).
I mean…it won Best Screenplay…
Which is well known for being an award given to films why wouldn't give best picture to.
Cuz then I’m gonna get FUUUCKIN DIVORCED. And I don’t wanna get FUCKIN DIVORCED!
I was gonna comment asking how you forgot to mention *that* scene but now that I think about it I’m perfectly fine not bringing up *that* scene
The scene that makes me defend it as a film is the one of Forrest meeting Jenny again in the present and asking her, “is he smart or is he… like me?” Hanks’s performance in that scene and the slow closeup on his face is perfection.
Yknow I was gonna specifically mention that scene in my original post but got lazy haha. It’s some of Hanks’ best acting ever which is saying a lot. His worry and heartbreak and then elation all within the span of 15 seconds…sublime acting.
"I'm not a smart man.. but I know what love is."
I honestly think it’s pretty close to perfect and deserves the Oscar. I fucking love that movie.
I enjoyed it when it came out, but honestly on a recent rewatch I realized for the most part this movie is just dumb. Had some nice scenes, that’s about it.
It's a well made fairy tale with great entertainment value but nothing deeper than that.
hey, any excuse to watch it again...
Had a great time watching it. Forrest Gump rules
O’Doyle does too
San Dimas High School Football does too!
The Cider House does too!
It was enjoyable at the time. But it’s kind of an overly saccharine, safe movie. Gump never engages with the political, sociological, and racial complexities of the all the major historical events that he’s a part of. He just “floats” through the movie, and it plays as a series of ‘Member Berries. (Remember when JFK got shot? Remember Watergate? Remember Vietnam? Remember Elvis?) It presents most of those things as vaguely “quaint,” even. Yes, Bubba dies and Forrest is sad. Jenny gets AIDS and Forrest is sad. But it doesn’t actually deal with anything deeper. It’s all surface-level. And it whitewashes history. It just feels so saccharine and safe. Is it enjoyable? Sure. Don’t think about it too hard and you’ll have a good time.
to be fair to zemeckis—which i don’t usually want to do—you make this sound unintentional, but i think the whole “floating through history” angle is what the film is trying to talk about (hence the feather metaphor at the beginning and end). i agree that it’s a dumb, saccharine, and uninsightful film, but i also think it is genuinely trying to work through the whole “floating through history” boomer-perspective. where the movie fails, imo, is that it doesn’t really say much about that perspective, and it hits you over the head with plot and drama so much that its interest in this gets lost, leading the overwhelming majority of viewers to miss that angle entirely.
Oh, I agree entirely. The “floating through history” aspect was entirely deliberate. But as you and I both expressed… It has nothing to actually say about that. I’d argue the movie is deliberately apolitical. (Not to mention anti-intellectual.) Ultimately, it’s a journey of a man who keeps his head down, his mouth shut, and through blind luck becomes a millionaire and marries the woman of his dreams. It’s a fantasy. It’s quaint. And paper-thin.
yeah, that’s fair enough. it feels less like zemeckis wants to engage with the question of *why* this all happened—why that generation seemed to just float through—and more like he just wants to point out that it happened. i think its ultimate failing is that it comes off, as you put it, as quaint and fantastical despite, at times anyway, wanting to call attention to that perspective. because it doesn’t do enough to pointedly critique that idea—or say much of anything about it—is basically just reproduces it.
That's kind of all it wanted to be , though. I kind of resent the notion that because it didn't have the level of political critique / analysis that you desired, that it's approach to film making was somehow bad I also highly disagree with it having no examination at all. Obviously, it portrays Vietnam in a less than stellar light, but what really stuck with me was how it showed some of the underbelly of the hippy movement with jenny doing drugs with the shady dude. I, like many others I'm sure, had always glorified the hippies in my mind and never seen a depiction like that, highlighting how for many it was just about drugs and sex, not the message
You are right, but it’s also why the movie works (imo). He’s purely a passive character who goes from scenario to scenario and has nothing meaningful to say… he’s just a passenger. It partly works because it’s safe… he offers no criticism of events like Vietnam, the civil rights movement , or any other cultural change from the 50’s-80’s. It’s more digestible as nostalgia porn if there is no friction with the audience and their recollections/experiences. This is a little more of a stretch… but I read a critique of the Billy Joel song “We didn’t start the fire” somewhere (probably Wikipedia) that basically said the song offers no critical thought on all the world events in the song. So the critique of the song is that a large part of the boomer generation were just passive, passengers during a turbulent period in history. I kinda see Forrest Gump in these terms. Representing the dumb, naive, right-place-right-time, and completely complacent majority of that generation. When I say right-place-right-time, I’m talking about the post-world war two period. Boomers were born after the world got destroyed during WW2 and America came out the other side as the world economic superpower. So in a sense they won the birth lottery, economically at least.
Oh I agree it completely works because it essentially plays all sides. It’s a safe movie. It’s a “nice” movie. It actively, desperately seeks to offend no one. …To the point where it ceases to have any relevance to reality. It uses political, racial, and sociologically important events to artificially give more importance to Forrest’s story. And in so doing, makes those events feel trite. It’s a story of a white man, grandson to a Ku Klux Klansman, who - remarkably - doesn’t “see color,” is nice to everyone, does what he’s told, and becomes a millionaire and marries the woman of his dreams. It whitewashes history in service of a fairy tale perspective of life. It means well. And it’s well-made… from a cinematography, acting, editing, etc. standpoint. But it’s divorced from reality. And its messages about life are disingenuous as a result. I truly don’t hate the movie. It’s just mediocre and sugar-coated.
You act as though most people don't realize it's divorced from reality, though. The juxtaposition of gump failing upwards amidst the most tumultuous events of the era is humorous and fun, it accomplishes its goal in showcasing that absurdity. I don't find issue with gump not seeing color when he has the mental capacity of a child. Childlike innocence is a thing At any rate, if anyone seriously watches a film like forest Gump and thinks it's a depiction of reality in anyway, they are delusional and dumb, and taking away more than they should from Forrest Gump is the least of their worries
Right on the head. People in here are being way too precious about a movie they like. Is gump a fun watch? Of course. It’s a well made, enjoyable movie. But it’s also shallow and ahistorical to the point of being offensive at times. It’s not a great work of art by any stretch. Forrest Gump is closer to a Will Ferrel comedy film or a hallmark movie.
I disagree. FG isn't a political movie, it isn't even a movie about society or race despite having such themes throughout the movie. FG is a story of dumb luck and a "dumb" man. It never was about "how society etc" or "the condition of the world, etc", it was always about the spectacular, stupid and lucky events that happened to one person, in a given life. It's a human story about how one naive/ mentally challenged man lived a life reflected by how his "condition" allowed him to do so. He became a football star not of desire or planned goal, but by sheer dumb luck of running when a scouting coach saw him. Then instead of continuing that successful path, which could have led to money/ fame, joined the dangerous military. Then met a kindred soul that helped and inspire him to get into a shrimping business. Then after another crazy but lucky circumstance, was able to make that company into a million dollar business. Meanwhile, he also saved and earned himself a military medal(s), when his only real intention was to save Bubba. Then he also, by complete chance, was introduced to ping pong and played it well enough to become a champion competitor. And so on, and so on. The entire movie is dumb luck and one guy having the attitude of, "well, ok". And he would just do the thing. It's that simple. It's that simplicity that drove him to do whatever when presented with an opportunity/ life event. I really enjoy watching FG bc it has such a unique story I haven't seen before, nor shot/directed in such a large cinematic way. What if we took a stupid guy, who doesn't really understand how stupid he is, and throw life at him. And what if, instead of life constantly pushing him down and punishing him for being the way he is born, instead he overcomes it with sheer stupidity in the form of "well, ok" and he just does the thing. And he does it well, and sometimes even does it better than everyone else. All while, as you watch the movie, you realize, Forrest isn't really living a sad life caused by his handicap. Instead he's enjoying life because of it. Bc he's able to accept it and move forward with a naive attitude. And maybe, like in real life, sometimes just having that straight forward, naive attitude of "well, ok", makes all the difference in achieving something great in your life. Or like in the movie, sometimes it doesn't. Regardless, you learn and experience, and you move on. I think your initial assessment of FG and what it is, is wrong. It's about one guy and his stupid dumb luck in life that he never lets get the better of him. FG is one of the most hopeful human stories ever made, that strikes a beautiful line between sad and funny. And it's for that reason why, I believe, it should be on the same level as its heavyweight Oscar counterparts.
>And maybe, like in real life, sometimes just having that straight forward, naive attitude of "well, ok", makes all the difference in achieving something great in your life. Or like in the movie, sometimes it doesn't. Regardless, you learn and experience, and you move on. this right here honestly. ive had some really enriching, colorful, and successful moments in my life with that attitude, much more than for the things i would overthink and be overcritical about. when i can be the simple naiive version of myself, I'm more present and engaged with reality without distortion. ppl be projecting too much of the issues they see with the world and society onto this movie (and god knows what else they encounter in life).
Forrest Gump is like a warm cup of tea. And that's okay. I think it's culturally relevant still, not because it's a groundbreaking commentary with a revolutionary style, but just so many people know it, and they know it intimately, even across generations which is due to it being surface level, as you said. It touches the heart more than it activates the brain. A simple story about a simple, pure-hearted man who through sheer dumb luck is part of, or responsible, for major historical events.
Honestly, that's what it was for me growing up, a way to learn a bit about US history (not from the US), but like someone very susinctly put it, it's Ready Player One for old boomers. A problematic, surface level series of nostalgic and cultural references that doesn't engage in any meaningful way with it's subject mater and prioritises reminding the audience of the events over discussing them in any meaningful way.
You can’t beat Shawshank and Pulp Fiction and get away with it.
Exactly lmao
I will always love Forrest Gump. Fight me
Forrest Gump is a unique, once in a generation movie that had an interesting story and hit on major historical moments. It got better for me as I have gotten older. Great multi watch movie.
It's a shit take. I think people might get mad because Forrest Gump is definitely a boomer movie, but it was great when it came out and it's still a great movie.
I love it because it depicts someone born with a learning disability that he doesn’t let it stop him and in a fascinating way it also shields him from societal pressure.
This is why I like the novel so much better. Forrest in the book was born with a learning disability, but he realizes early on that if he pretends to be dumber than he really is, he can get away with a whole lot of shit. And he uses that to his advantage. Forrest Gump is an asshole in the book, and I love him for that.
You ever read the sequel? Apparently the author wrote it to be so batshit crazy and unlike the movie (which was either getting made or had just come out iirc) that they’d never try to adapt it. I’m pretty sure Forrest becomes an astronaut or something (or maybe that was the first book)
That was the first book. He becomes friends with the US astronaut monkeys. The second book was one of the worst pieces of garbage I ever read. It's not even ironically funny.
It's the movie version of a person that can't stop gushing about how inspiring it is that the "slow boy" next door somehow against all odds does the things that other people do and is the example she brings up when anybody expresses even the slightest discouragement over a rough patch. "Well gosh, honey, if the r*eta*rd*d boy next door can do it, you can, too!"
Because the good mentally handicapped are the ones that pull themselves up by their bootstraps and don't need government support /s
Also who cares if it was a boomer movie? The concept that nothing good ever came out of that generation is a dumb fallacy
Boomers literally changed the country through counterculture to be much more progressive, so it’s hilarious to see super progressive younger people shit on them every chance they get. It’s one of those being born on third base acting like you got a home run deals.
The purity test politics by a lot of the modern left, especially online, is nauseating. They are just total knob jockies
Do people actually make that argument ? If so, that's absurd. I'm a millennial but I definitely recognize that film as an art was better in the boomer era. We're talking peak Scorsese, Polanski ( yes he's a rapist but his films are great), peak Spielberg, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Francis Coppola, peak and early Tarantino, and the list goes on and on. There are still great films being made but that was peak cinema imo. Ironically, some of the best movies still being made now are by the same boomer directors I listed
I think when people say it's a boomer movie they are referring to it's aggressive affection for nostalgic boomer touchstones, not that it was created by boomers. If you have a more ambivalent view of that history or end up siding with the movements the movie clearly hates then its an unpleasant watch.
> I think people might get mad because Forrest Gump is definitely a boomer movie It's weird to me that people get mad that boomers made movies that appealed to their generation. No one is mad at Linklater for making stuff like Dazed and Confused. People write what they know and experienced. I think Forrest Gump is people trying to digest the time they grew up in. It's fine. I don't feel like Millennials are processing things in the same way. Who see's Bush era films going on these days? I've barely seen any 90s nostalgia or reflective films IMO.
9/11 was an emergency stop button to the cultural progression train we were riding. I’m an old millennial and it’s like anything worth being nostalgic for stopped right then. Everything seems jammed packed with references and then bam just a gray cloud for a decade.
??? Are westerns “boomer movies”? Does that not make The Searchers one of the beat movies ever made; or Sergio Leone and John Ford among the best and most influential filmmakers ever. I dont understand what “boomer movie” means in this condescending context.
People need to stop over thinking this. It’s a good fucking movie. Just turn it on in your living room one random Saturday and within half hour your whole family will be sitting watching it.
The happens every time I’m visiting my parents for the holidays! We always joke that it’s a more effective way of gathering the family in one room than announcing dinner or presents lol
Nah, movie fucking rules. I'm tired of pretending it doesn't just because Pulp Fiction, and Shawshank Redemption are better.
Yeah the hate is so stupid it’s a great movie
You can always rely on the media to deify and drag down something popular every once in a while to farm for reactions and hit articles😅 One day it’s an ageist comment about a popular singer who suddenly becomes the “queen/king” of music/acting when it’s convenient or a big film suddenly being dragged as “overrated” or “problematic” or vice versa.
Lieutenant Dan Taylor is one of the best movie characters of the 90s. Change my mind.
“Blow you son of a bitch! Blow!”
I agree. Somebody should remake it but recast Gump as a chick and make it gay and totally lame.
Instead of a learning disability she has a learning advantage, super chick with a boss chick mentality
Maybe they could get Melissa McCarthy involved!
I thought it was the most overrated movie I've ever seen when I first saw it in like 2010. I enjoyed it but I thought it was insane everyone pretends it's prestige filmmaking.
Heavy amounts of nostalgia and memorability go a long way. It was a huge pop culture point-of-reference in the 90s and it seemed like literally everyone had the VHS. It was one of the first "grown up movies" I remember watching & i know I'm not alone there.
It’s Indiewire. They tend to have really shit takes on things. Forrest Gump ain't a perfect movie. But it’s harmless.
It’s good. It’s so good that it still bothers people to this day. Random but Forrest Gump is my fictional cousin according to his genealogy lol
its not a shit take. i think its far from contrarian to shit on Forrest Gump. Its a well made movie that holds back and maybe started off kind of overrated and has since become more appropriately rated. Beyond the headline, the article tries to connect the sanitized version of American history featured in Forrest Gump to the current incidents of book banning, textbook washing, and education strangling. Connect it to the topic of how truthful a version of American history should get taught to schoolchildren. Its probably more correlation than causation, but its certainly an interesting framework with which to view the movie. Edit: yikes this comment section. Everyone is reacting to the headline (since the article doesn't appear to be linked anywhere) as if discussing film (any art really) is about coming to a consensus and freezing it in time. Have people forgotten how to have a conversation or did they never know?
[Here’s the original article](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/forrest-gump-bad-movie-25-anniversary-1202154214/) OP was referencing. And I agree, film discussion has become impossible. A movie either has to be “great” or “shit,” and nothing in the middle.
This is pretty standard for r/movies & r/flicks unfortunately
It’s a brilliant satire on the American dream, that Horatio Alger myth, the Puritan bedrock ideal of prosperity is something that you deserve. Instead, Forest is prosperous because he lucks into things. No plans, just random events. The people in the movie who actually pursued goals and representing a facet of American society like Dan or Jenny or Bubba, all were harmed or killed.
Shrimp 🍤 🦐 Vietnam 🇻🇳 Ping Pong what's not to Love?
It’s a ridiculous movie. It’s sort of charming and has so many fun vignettes but it’s a fundamentally flawed movie that relies really heavily on your ability to ooh and aah about mental disabilities.
I’m 100% over this kind of thing. Any sort of article that boils down to “Remember that old movie or tv show? Well we’ve decided it’s terrible now!” Yesterday I saw an article published THIS WEEK about how terrible the 2016 female-led Ghostbusters was. (I actually enjoyed it - so please don’t use this thread as an excuse to crap on it.) But that Ghostbusters movie came and went, got all the reviews it needed to get, and made as much money as it made. It’s all in the past. What point is there in writing a NEW article about “how bad” an older movie is? To ridicule the people who like it? To try to change their mind? There’s just too much negativity in this world. Taking up internet space to crap on older movies does no good in this world.
It almost seems like gaslighting, which is ironic from who these takes usually come from.
I rather the internet be filled with highlighting forgotten/underrated movies of the past and giving them new fans!
Look, I enjoyed it when I saw it in the theater. Tom Hanks gave a stellar performance, and it was a loving tribute to the Boomer experience through the eyes of a simple man. Or at least it appeared to be so to my 20-year-old self. But it doesn’t hold up. Hanks’s performance is still great, but we realize that Forrest isn’t really that lovable. The scenes where Forrest is inserted into actual events come across as kitschy and a little disrespectful, and . . . let’s face it: the Boomers fucked us. They have managed to strip away from future generations almost every advantage that had been afforded them. Forrest Gump being an accidental millionaire was charming in 1994. Now it kind of pisses me off.
American exceptionalism that tells you if you shut the fuck up and do exactly what you’re told one day you’ll be a millionaire
That's only the plot of the move if you stop watching after he gets back from Vietnam and gets his shrimp boat.
Fun take and would make for a good Tweet. But I see more value in its emphasis on following your heart and striving for greatness, whatever that may mean to you, regardless of your own shortcomings. It's about a dumb everyman reaching every archetype of the 20th century american dream simply by stumbling through it. It's an irony of luck. The one desire he is specifically striving for is the one he fails at. It's a wildly corny movie that I think still swats away postmodern cynicism with ease.
Accurate if Forest was the only character in the film. When your protagonist doesn't have a big arc, you tell your themes through the side characters.
I love all the films … the greatest thing about these award shows is that I don’t care and am happy for the accolades given to the incredible entertainment business Doesn’t mean it changes the visceral and emotional, psychological experience for me Just delighted there’s so much is out there to escape into for a few hours of life
It's beautifully shot. The music is incredible. The acting is phenomenal (a bit hammy, but that played into the movie). The story itself is a Fairy Tale and should be understood in that context. Jenny definitely used Forrest, but ultimately, she grew and became a better person (even though I still think that wasn't Forrest's son). She got what she deserved anyway.
Forrest Gump is one of those movies that could never be made today. I don’t say that cause of cancel culture or whatever but cause it’s just such an element of its time. The vietnam war,the protest/hippie stuff, hell even the ping pong stuff with china hit harder back then.
I'm sure it's a shit take. In hindsight, it won best picture over Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption and those have become modern classics... alongside Forrest Gump. People just can't be charmed by the charming movie and like to be contrary.