-
-
I love every second of SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION…but the thing that sent me over the top is the ending…only two film’s ending ever made me feel so elated that I was smiling for hours after. This one and 1980’s RESURRECTION.
[quote=”Daniel”][quote=”TheatreBuff”]I have no shame in saying this…as controversial as it may be….I do not like The Shawshank Redemption…..there, I said it.
It’s about time someone said it. While I do like The Shawshank Redemption, I think it is highly overrated, and have a hard time comprehending why and how it is considered the greatest film of all time (according to IMDB voters). I suppose there’s not a whole lot to dislike about it, and therefore doesn’t have as many haters to weigh down its score? Where as a film like Pulp Fiction (which I prefer), I can certainly understand why it would be polarizing and why someone wouldn’t like it. Not everyone enjoys unorthodox (in my opinion, original) means of storytelling.[/quote][/quote] Same here. I also don’t see how the AFI thinks this movie is better than Pulp Fiction. TSR is almost 20 spots higher than Pulp Fiction on the list. Forrest Gump is even higher than Pulp Fiction!
ReplyCopy URLPulp Fiction for me, although if it would have won, would it have the reputation that Forrest Gump currently has as an unworthy winner taking down The Shawshank Redemption?
The backlash would never happen. Tarantino has some of the most passionate fanbases between filmmakers, critics still adore the film, won Cannes, it’s beloved by some of the greatest directors of all time such as Coppola and Scorsese, and was extremely influential. If anything, “Pulp Fiction” would be remembered as the best 90’s winner along with “Unforgiven” (a film that won BP and is still universally acclaimed).
ReplyCopy URLI have yet to see Four Weddings or Quiz Show and, while Pulp Fiction’s probably my favorite here, I say Forrest Gump>Pulp Fiction>Shawshank Redemption.
For me, Forrest Gump vs Pulp Fiction is a classic case of “more effective” vs “less flawed” and I’d be fine with either, but would choose Forrest Gump.
ReplyCopy URLI love every second of SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION…but the thing that sent me over the top is the ending…only two film’s ending ever made me feel so elated that I was smiling for hours after. This one and 1980’s RESURRECTION.
I know I’m probably in the minority here, but I think the ending was the weakest part of The Shawshank Redemption. It was one of the few parts of the movie that wasn’t in the original story by Stephen King, and you can tell. It’s a Hollywood ending that even director Frank Darabont didn’t want to include (but was forced to by Castle Rock), and almost makes it feel dumbed down. I would have much preferred the more ambiguous original ending: SPOILER The final scene showing Red is on the bus heading for the field, without the reunion spelled out at the end.END SPOILER
ReplyCopy URLSame here. I also don’t see how the AFI thinks this movie is better than Pulp Fiction. TSR is almost 20 spots higher than Pulp Fiction on the list. Forrest Gump is even higher than Pulp Fiction!
I find the AFI list is fairly generic and uninspired; one that reads more for the American public than for high achievements in cinema. In my opinion, Forrest Gump should not be there…plain and simple; it was a box office hit, but in no way shape or form is it a significant piece of art. Other examples of a film outranking another: Sophie’s Choice over Goodfellas, Rocky over Network…please. There are great American films that surpass many on the list that go unnoticed: McCabe & Mrs. Miller, the Howard Hawks films, Stagecoach (on the recent list), The Shining, Hitchcock’s Rebecca (which dwarves many of these)…just a few off the top of my head. In fact, the top 10 reads as a very standard list, but one that would read differently had great directors been polled of their top films. Of course, Vertigo, Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Raging Bull, and Lawrence of Arabia would be there, but the others are not as significant as the American public may believe them to be. It’s very telling that Schindler’s List received no mentions at all from critics or filmmakers in the recent Sight and Sound poll, for comparison.
The 1994 Oscars is the perfect example of what’s wrong with the Academy Awards. Yes, that could be said for any year I know, but Pulp Fiction was a truly landmark film and was recognized as such in 1994, even before it influenced countless projects. It’s a film that was seen as hugely new and innnovative in its storytelling and screenplay, told with such passion and pizzazz, and it was passed over for pure ephemeral schmaltz. Why couldn’t Harvey have won that one a Best Picture, a film he recognizes as the most significant he has backed?? Forrest Gump did nothing for me except insult my intelligence. I find it tremendously discouraging when one’s own industry cannot judge which film made the greatest contribution to cinema that year, going back to the first sentence.
ReplyCopy URLOf the nominees:
1. Pulp Fiction
2. The Shawshank Redemption
3. Quiz Show (very underrated film)
4. Four Weddings and a Funeral
(a billion miles lower)
5. Forrest GumpOf what SHOULD have been nominated:
1. Pulp Fiction
2. The Shawshank Redemption
3. The Lion King
4. Quiz Show
5. Bullets Over Broadway
(6. Ed Wood)Ed Wood is good, definitely Tim Burton’s best film, but I didn’t find it as amazing as those on this board think it is. Landau was good, but not Best Supporting Actor. Many people deny that it was a career salute win, but if he had won for one of his performances earlier (like the more deserving Crimes and Misdemeanors), would he still have won for this? I do think he deserved the nomination and should have rightfully taken second place, as should have Depp in Lead Actor (to Morgan Freeman).
Regardless, Ed Wood, Bullets Over Broadways and especially The Lion King all kick Forrest Gump’s ass. Such a terrible film. I’m in the minority but I think Hanks is a bad and overrated actor (with the exception of Cast Away, which he should have won for, and the Toy Story films). Zemeckis is a terrific director but this is his worst film. The best parts of the film are Field and Sinise, both of whom deserved nominations but only Sinise got.
Freeman should have won Best Actor with Depp in second place (taking Hanks’ nod). Tim Robbins should have also been nominated, but who was he going to replace?
Wiest was great in Bullets Over Broadway, but she already had an Oscar for a very similar performance. Mirren or Thurman should have won.
Terrific year for film, terrible year for Oscars.
ReplyCopy URL@Beau
Now, I’m going to grant you that Landau could very well have lost for Ed Wood if he had won earlier. However, I don’t think that that scenario diminishes the effectiveness of his performance. If anything, you could make the exact argument in the opposite, that Samuel L. Jackson would have been the one to get a handicap. Of course they would have felt less pressure to reward Landau, but that’s because he and Jackson were both so good that they would use a previous win as an excuse not to vote for Landau.Despite that, I’m actually not that far off from agreeing with you. I love Jackson in Pulp Fiction, and I find it a shame that he couldn’t have received an Oscar for his performance. Still, I think that Landau makes for one of the category’s more deserving winners, and that he happened to have the perfect mix of a great performance and an overdue factor aiding him.
ReplyCopy URL[quote=”Pacawn”]I love every second of SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION…but the thing that sent me over the top is the ending…only two film’s ending ever made me feel so elated that I was smiling for hours after. This one and 1980’s RESURRECTION.
I know I’m probably in the minority here, but I think the ending was the weakest part of The Shawshank Redemption. It was one of the few parts of the movie that wasn’t in the original story by Stephen King, and you can tell. It’s a Hollywood ending that even director Frank Darabont didn’t want to include (but was forced to by Castle Rock), and almost makes it feel dumbed down. I would have much preferred the more ambiguous original ending: SPOILER The final scene showing Red is on the bus heading for the field, without the reunion spelled out at the end.END SPOILER[/quote]
That’s the thing, though. In general terms, I think that you’d be right. The ending does risk going overboard in sentimentality.
What separates Shawshank from the rest of its Hollywood counterparts, however, is the fact that the movie actually earns that outcome. With most films, one would feel like that ending was tacked on, but Shawshank makes it authentic because we know that the characters have been working – gradually, so very gradually – to arrive at this moment. We’ve grown with Red and Andy, watching them serve their 20 years together. We’ve seen them suffer and learn to adapt to the harshness of their realities, to the unfairness of their oppressors. That final scene in the film is such a crowning moment of euphoria because we’re allowed to see how all of that pain truly was worth it. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, it works because it supports Andy’s self-worth, as well as his patience.
ReplyCopy URLThat’s a great way to look at Shawshank’s ending.
Shawshank’s ending is also, in my opinion, a great ending because each character deserves what happens to them.
Both men (Andy and Red) are convicted criminals. We all know; however, that Andy is innocent and Red is “the only guilty man in Shawshank.” Therefore, it makes sense that we root for Andy to escape and are happy that he does. Even though he is convicted, we don’t feel like a bad man escaped justice, we feel like a good man escaped injustice. Red rightfully waits for his parole, so we are happy that he gets out but also happy that an actual criminal has served his time. Each character earns what they deserve.
ReplyCopy URLMy ranking:
1. The Shawshank Redemption (one of the best of all time!)
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Forrest Gump
4. Quiz Show
5. Four Weddings and a FuneralThe top 3 are absolutely phenomenal and memorable films making already this line-up one of the best of all time. #4 is another great film altho not as memorable as the top 3. 4WAAF kinda ruined the perfection of this lineup? Not a bad film at all, actually a good film, but if The Lion King was here instead or even Little Women I would like much more.
ReplyCopy URLIt's about the chaotic editing in Moulin Rouge!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
