I saw Forrest Gump mainly because my friend’s car was in it. A brief scene while Forrest is jogging was shot in downtown Flagstaff, and a friend of mine had a vintage car that got a few seconds of screen time. That was fun to watch for.
As for the film itself, it’s… all right. It is manipulative and smarmy, and it has the all the subtlety of Gallagher’s Sledge-O-Matic routine. It’s emotions are canned and predictable. It’s a pretty good idea taken just a bit too far.
And yet, it really does have some great performances. Hanks pulled the role off very well, despite its limitations, and Gary Sinise got very little notice for an excellent job in his role. It also has some very clever and genuine moments, though most of them are quickly overshadowed by the overdone tear-jerking scenes.
What annoys me about Forrest Gump was the attention it got. It should not have won Best Adapted Screenplay for that year, as Shawshank Redemption was a far more effective and faithful adaptation that year. Forrest Gump would have made a great film if Zemeckis hadn’t tried so hard to make it be a “blockbuster,” to be all things to all people. If it had narrowed its focus, and perhaps been released as a small independent film, I think it could have been much better. But as a net cast wide to capture as many moviegoers as possible, it is only moderately successful from a filmmaking standpoint.
Movies trying to generate the “Oscar buzz” or the Big Thing of the year always bug me, in the same way that a writer trying so hard to write “The Great American Novel” bugs me. Forrest Gump has always felt a bit like this to me; trying too hard to do too much… but my old friend’s car was in it, so it has some redeeming qualities too.
I don’t judge movies by their content so much as in how well they present it. IOW I don’t care if the story is positive, negative, moral, immoral, left-wing or right-wing (well, I do care, but not in judging the quality of the film). As long as the script, direction and acting are good it’s a good movie.
Gump’s directing was competant, but not innovative or unique. The script was, as I’ve said, very flawed in that it’s reach far exceeded its grasp. It also was very clichéd. All of the characters were cardboard cutouts. The hippies looked like they came out of a Laugh-In sketch (looking at Gump in uniform and saying “the guy’s a baby killer”. PUH-LEZ! Kill the pigs, acid is groovy…)
And the acting was ok. I think Tom Hanks did a good job in that he’s one of the few actors who could play that role without looking (no pun intended) stupid. But by definition it was a very limited performance because Forrest was a very limited character. And I don’t think Hanks added anything particularly special to it. He emoted his lines and hit his marks. Then went home. I think Robin Wright did the same.
I think Gary Sinese’s performance was about the film’s best.
:rolleyes:
Read the IMDb Trivia sections for Saving Private Ryan and Apollo 13. In short, Tom Hanks did quite a bit of research to better aquatint himself with whom he was supposed to portray and how. He also shared writing and directing credits on Band of Brothers. The lack of knowledge you accuse him of, with respect to astronauts and WWII, just isn’t apparent. Sure he doesn’t possess advance degrees in either field but he has done a lot of research to more accurately act characters in his film career.
It is my understanding that most causes are thrilled to have a famous “spokesbeing,” to inform people about their POV. Especially one who comes across as congenial and well versed in the issue at hand.
That wasn’t his breakout role. How could you have forgotten Big? (Obligatory sarcastic )
and held my attention fine. The only thing I didn’t really care for (and this was almost a deal breaker for me) was the way they forced too many of the historical references into Forrest’s life.
Early on in the movie it didn’t seem to break the flow of things too badly: a crippled Forrest inspiring Elvis’s moves at the rooming house? Sweet. Meeting JFK? Fitting for the unassuming Forrest. But so many others were so painfully contrived. Forrest invented the smiley face? What the hell does THAT add to the story? Forrest coining “shit happens”? Come on, that’s stretching it. It was like the writers were desperate to cram in all the crap they could, culminating in, of course, Jenny contracting “a virus”. The story itself had plenty of merits without shoehorning in all the references where they often didn’t really fit.
Didn’t care for that business much at all, no sir, not at all. **
[/QUOTE]
That was my problem with it too. If it had been left up to me, I would have returned the unused portion of the movie when he “invented” the smiley face.
I can’t bring myself to read it, but someone told me Forrest was a real asshole in the book. True/False?
DiffT- no problem. I’m starting to realize that I can come across as being too blunt and opioniated. I need to work on this.
Threadkiller, I’m well aware that most causes love having celebrities as their front men. I have no problem with that- what I have a problem with is the attitude some people have that “Well, Tom Hanks says we should give these people our money, and that’s good enough for me!”. He may very well know quite a bit about his roles, and do research on them, but just because he was in a movie does not necessarily mean he’s the best person to be talking about these subjects.
I agree that it is a stupid thing for the populace to blindly take anyone’sadvice. However: your original quote was:
I have a hard time seeing how your first assertion gets stretched into your later one.
You are getting closer to the mark. Originally you said:
Actually, I have a hard time thinking of anyone better than Tom Hanks to represent the causes you mention. My reasoning:[ul]1. Most leading “experts” get too easily get bogged down in the minutia when describing a cause or idea to the general populace.
2. Many experts in the field lack the public speaking skills needed to be an effective spokesman.
3. Tom Hanks is obviously quite well schooled (for a layman) on the issues sited.
4. Tom Hanks is already identified by the public as being involved with the issues at hand.
5. Having a famous pitch man must have a positive effect or it wouldn’t be such a commonly used device.
6. Tom Hanks has a good reputation with the general public.[/ul]I’m curious ratty, Who do you think would do a better job?
It’s been years, but from what I remember, Forrest wasn’t as lovable as he was in the movie. Also, aside from the fact that he’s retarded, there’s very little that the movie and the book have in common. In the book, as Avalonian mentioned, Forrest spends a period as a Pro Wrestler. And he was a big fella, not a little guy like Tom Hanks.
I remember when Winston Groom wanted to write a sequel, he was conflicted whether to continue the story from the original book, or from the movie, which of course many more people were familiar with. I’m not sure which way he went; by the time it came out I had lost interest.
I wasn’t a huge fan of “Forrest Gump.” It was an okay film with a few very funny moments, and a few very touching moments. My problems with it were:
The gimmick of inserting Forrest into stock footage of every important event of the 50s, 60s and 70s got old for me… and it often wasn’t very convincing.
The soundtrack got annoying. What did Zemeckis do, buy one of those Time-Life “Fabulous 60s” compilation CDs and use EVERY song on it? When JEnny went to San Francisco, you just KNEW they were going to play “San Francisco” by Scott McKenzie. I remember, at one point, I nudged my date and said, “If they play ‘Get Together’ by the Youngbloods, we’re leaving.’” and just 30 seconds later, guess what song they played?
But even though “Gump” wasn’t one of my favorites movies, I enjoyed it, and I think most people did. If there’s STILL a small, rabid group that LOATHES it, I think that’s because “Gump” won the Oscar over two films with rabid, cult audiences: “Pulp Fiction” and “The Shawshank Redemption.”
Now, it so happens that I liked both those films better than “Gump,” myself. (Even Tarantino admitted that he got a big kick out of “Gump.”) Still, I haven’t spent 8 years fuming over the great injustice the Academy did to Quentin Tarantino or Frank Darabont. But there are still people out there who can quote every line of “Pulp Fiction,” and there are still people who think “The Shawshank Redemption” was a work of art for the ages. And THOSE are undoubtedly the people who still froth at the mouth when “Forrest Gump” is mentioned.
And to those people, I say, get a grip! Play your Pulp/Shawshank DVD yet again, enjoy it, and relax. Raging about a meaningless award, 8 years after the fact, can’t be good for your health.
)