It’s also the Best Picture Oscar winner of 1994. If you’re going to put your film forward as the best film that was made in the entire year, you’re inviting a higher level of critical scrutiny than a piece of confectionery like The Princess Bride.
First off, I don’t understand why you’d hate a movie just because stupid people have stupid ideas about the movie. OK, some tards liked it for stupid reasons. So what? Oh, it’s not as good as Pulp Fiction? What does that have to do with anything? They are two separate movies whose only connection was that they were released in the same year. They have nothing else in common. You don’t hate Gone with the Wind because it’s not as good as Pulp Fiction, so why should you hate Forrest Gump?
It’s OK not to like Forrest Gump, and it’s not a great movie or anything. But to hate it because some people liked it better than Pulp Fiction is retarded. Forrest Gump isn’t profound. It’s a movie about a guy who wanders through the events of the 20th century, but doesn’t understand any of it. That’s an interesting conceit, but it isn’t profound. The quintessential example of this is when Forrest goes up to the mike at the war protest, and tells everyone about Vietnam. And the audience doesn’t get to hear what he says. Because if we heard what he said, he’d piss off half the audience. The only message of Forrest Gump is that life is just one goddam thing after another.
As for Jen-Nay being a mega-bitch, no she wasn’t. Why didn’t she love Forrest? Because Forrest wasn’t capable of loving the real Jenny, he was in love with a fantasy woman who didn’t exist. Just like he couldn’t understand everything else around him, he couldn’t understand Jenny. He was incapable of that, just like he was incapable of understanding Vietnam, or football, or the Black Panther Party, or money.
He didn’t say he didn’t want to hear people’s explanations. He heard them, and said they were stupid. Did a great job of supporting his thesis, too.
I like my variation on the catch phrase better than either. “Life is like a box of chocolates, both are full of nuts.” 
No, that was from the book. What was different was that, in the book, Forrest thinks it’s just an unfortunate coincidence that the sound just happens to get disrupted during his speech. In the movie, we’re shown the general unplugging the mike, and the Weatherman plugging it back in (but not fast enough). That was CYA by the military, within the movie, not a sop to the audience. Who had already seen the events Forrest was describing.
Huh - I didn’t realize it was trying to do that, so maybe that’s why I was able to enjoy it.
Except it was a cop-out, because what really happened there was the screenwriter couldn’t think of anything to put in Forrest’s mouth that would make sense. Forrest is an idiot, so he doesn’t understand anything about Vietnam, yet he’s supposed to say something to make the hippies go all “Whoah”. Forrest went to Vietnam and watched his buddies get literally blown to pieces, and he can’t understand why, which is the point. I
Of course if it were real-life then it could just so happen that somebody cut out his microphone, and so we’d never find out what he was actually going to say. Except this is a movie, and so the reason his mike cuts out is that the filmmakers don’t want us in the audience to hear what he’s going to say, I mean, even if the hippies in the audience can’t hear, the camera POV could be right next to Forrest as he lays it all out. Except it isn’t, and that’s for a reason. It’s a lame moment.
War is just one goddam thing after another. Though Forrest wouldn’t have said it in those words.
I don’t hate the movie, but the jokes that were based on Forrest misunderstanding something due to his lack of intelligence just felt awkward to me. I have no problem with the “stupid person makes funny mistakes” genre when it’s a character like Homer Simpson. But it’s not so funny when you’re portraying it as an actual disability.
I know you’re being sarcastic to make a point, but these movies suck too. Shawshank is just pure schmaltz. And Pulp Fiction, oooh, we have gay rapists, guys getting shot in the head, a girl ODing, lots of cursing, and all the while criminals talk casually like regular folk. We’re so edgy…for 14 year olds.
Best Picture Oscars, particularly in the 90’s, were often given as make-ups when it was perceived that a particular actor/director was unfairly snubbed the year before. Denzel Washington, for example, won for a mediocre performance in Training Day to make up for losing with Malcom X and The Hurricane.
This particular film, Forrest Gump, was actually a makeup Oscar for Philadephia. The one he won for Philadephia was a makeup for Sleepless in Seattle and/or A League of their own.
This is just about the one thing I respected about this movie: in his mind, Forrest honestly and truly loved Jenny, regardless of how she treated him or how she felt about him. In that regard, there’s nothing else honest about this movie at all. Every single thing is fakery and deceit. For example, him running across America like what, 4 times?
Very Bad Things happen to almost everyone who meets Forrest Gump, usually death.
I like the movie.
I wasn’t aware that we were supposed to take away life lessons from Forrest Gump. From what I recall of the film, we watch Forrest stumble blithely through various events in history while we, the audience, revel in our knowledge of their significance that Forrest does not share. We get to like him while feeling smug and superior to him.
The whole film is contrived to put Forrest into as many of these events as possible, with a very thin character arc for Jenny just to have some sort of plot. It’s not remotely plausible and I don’t think anyone really expected it to be, but it’s kind of fun.
I’m reminded of the show Dark Skies which tried the same technique (linking the plotlines into key historical events and people). You can get away with this for 90 minutes but after a while it just becomes painful. And *Dark Skies *was canned after one season.
I haven’t read the book, and I’ve heard it isn’t very good. But for the record, I’m told that Forrest’s speech IS given in the book, and it ends with “This war sucks.”
I’m not sure how popular the movie would have been if Forrest had come out and said that.
If that didn’t happen to you, then you watched the very first showing of Pulp Fiction during its opening weekend. Because I can’t even count the number of people who told me how amazing and life altering Pulp Fiction was before I finally got around to watching it.
I hate the main character and I hate that genre of movie more than any other out there. Next you’ll expect me to like Fried Green Tomatoes or Driving Miss Daisy.
So, you are saying the Oscars are just a series of turtles? 
I think there’s a substantial difference between saying that a movie is entertaining, has a great soundtrack and loads of layers engineered to appeal to film geeks, and saying that it’s actually morally instructional and carries deep spiritual or philosophical significance.
It’s not Zemeckis’ fault, but the amount of gushing hyperbole for Gump was over the top. This is typical:
It’s not Zemeckis’ fault that American conservatives touted Gump as a paean to Conservative values, either. It’s certainly not Zemeckis’ fault that popular media went on endlessly about “Gump vs. Pulp” as a Which Side Are You On? issue of the sort that was of more earth-shattering significance than “Coke or Pepsi?” or “What is the One True Way to Hang Toilet Paper?”
But this is the context in which many people formed their opinions about Forrest Gump. It is possible to go back and look at it for what it is and be entertained, but it’s normal that many people were predisposed to declare it to be absolute rubbish.
By analogy, there’s totally a place for snacks like Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, and there’s nothing wrong from deriving some enjoyment from them. But if you hype them up as the apex of the confectioner’s art and go on at length about how anyone who would select a Snickers bar over them is a complete philistine with no taste whatsoever, then you can be confident that a significant number of people will declare those little cups to be little different from a cheap admixture of icing sugar and baby-shit encased in a chintzy covering of ersatz chocolate.
I don’t think so. I think Forrest was capable of loving the real Jenny, and he did, but she herself didn’t know who the real Jenny was. She spent most of her life running from herself and trying on masks to avoid acknowledging who she really was, but he knew from the start. It wasn’t until she matured and realized she didn’t have to keep running that she got her life together and realized who she really was, and that he had been waiting for her all along.