What Was So Wrong With Forrest Gump????

I've seen this movie trashed repeatedly on these forums and I can't quite understand why?

Maybe you preferred Pulp Fiction to win Best Picture when they both came out. But does that mean that Forrest Gump itself wasn't a good movie?

I thought it was excellent. Great acting, great directing and it didn't lag at any parts. And it had a great soundtrack too.

Am I missing something? What was so horrible about it?

Tom Hanks is my favorite actor.

Pulp Fiction=hmmmmm...not so much.

:hi:

I guess you could think the plot was silly, but I don't think that was meant to be realistic.

I've never seen it because of this - and I'm told that it's a very good, non-political movie.

Pulp Fiction, on the other hand, turned my stomache. As do most movies by that hack, Tarrantino.

NGU.

It's exactly the sort of faux-nostalgia for an era that didn't actually exist that fundies use when they speak about "returning to simpler times". :puke:

The movie took place during the 60s for the most part.

It was about pain, suffering, challenge; and life marching on. Nostalgia? That was the backdrop for the movie, not the point.

and life marching on.

Forrest Gump was tripe.

Of course, we are both just stating our opinions here. :shrug:

One of my all time favorite movies. I would say that was more about hypocrisy and coming to terms with your own sense of right and wrong. I couldn't say one was better than the other. I don't try to compare different styles of movies.

:shrug:

I think it's a great movie. Really liked it and I also think Tom Hanks is an excellent actor.

It was just a blah sort of movie. It wasn't the Best Picture of the year, that's for sure.

that is saying a lot, i think.

Pulp Fiction was horrible, with gratuitous violence, etc., and I walked out on it after 10 minutes

It also had a lot of metaphors in there, like when he starts jogging cross-country and gets a band of people to follow him, only to stop one day and say, "I'm going to go home, I'm tired" - what do you think that was meant to symbolize?

And since when is being "totally unrealistic" a reason to bash a movie?

movie snobs...:eyes:

But after seeing enough movies I think people can develop a taste as to what they like. Also, there is not always a direct connection between popularity/hype/quality as some fabulous films are never seen by the public for what ever reason.

But I think to approach "Forrest Gump" as a believable depiction of events is to miss the point. I know "the point" is entirely subjective, but it seems obvious to me that "Gump" was intended to be somewhat fanciful in how it tells it's story, and that's one of the reasons people like it so much. But on that same token, I know of a lot of people who absolutely loved "The Green Mile" for that exact reason, but I thought it was a piece of crap, so "to each his own" I guess...

The last few minutes RUINED the movie for me. It would have been one of my favorites of all-time if not for the dumb-ass mouse scene at the end.

ten minutes of PF. Maybe I should have explained more about "unrealistic" as many movies can be that and be fine with me. "The Red Shoes" and "Wizard of Oz" and thousands of others are unrealistic (wildly so) and I loved those movies. Maybe there were too many dumb lines "Life is like a box...," too many situations that were so strange ( the Sinise character and Gump), having the kid with the hippie girlfriend, etc. To me it was excessive and it didn't work. It would be a two star movie at best, IMHO.

...the line that concludes the very first scene:

"Any of you pricks fucking move, and I'll execute every motherfucking last one of you"

...isn't exactly peaceful...

I dig Samuel Jackson, and I dig him in PF, but this flick just puts me to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. :boring:

but "Forrest Gump" is still an excellent movie. It was also much more of a crowd-pleaser than the other two big contenders that year. The previous Best Picture winners were pretty heavy ("Schindler's List", "Silence of the Lambs") so it kind of made sense to reward a feel-good flick like "Gump". I'll never badmouth the movie, but I don't think it was quite as good as "Pulp Fiction" or "Shawshank"...

I liked it.

it's de rigueur for many duers to knock that which is popular, and praise the most obscure. They must think it seperates them from the ignorant masses. snobbery?

I wasn't going to actually say that, but...

"favorite beer, wine, food, automobile,...etc, threads.

..if they weren't any good, why'd they make so many of them, hah?"

</joking>

Innocent "Gump" made unconscious serendipity fashionable -- stay with what you can handle and make the world conform, ignore reality and things will turn out fine. The non-Blue Staters saw it as a legitimization of being and staying outside reality a little to literally.

Hanks is o.k., too.

...person, and doing so in such a way as to not leave a hint of cliche. Hanks gave the character Forrest Gump more dignity and depth than I've ever seen in such a character on the screen.

The scene where he asks Robin Wright if his son is "normal", the look of trepidation on his face as he worries his son is like him, but hopes he is not, was pure acting genius.

But it sure as hell wasn't Oscar-worthy. I liked it okay until it started having awards piled on top of it. Funny? Yes. Heartwarming? Yes. A tearjerker? Yes. But the same could be said of "Stepmom", and I don't hear anyone rallying to that film's defense.

Plus, the message I got out of it--the message that I felt started being legitimized and taken to heart by too many people--was that it's okay to be dumb and unaware of your surroundings, as long as a bunch of REALLY LUCKY things happen to you.

Stepmom makes me cry like a baby every single time I watch it! And every time it's on TV, I have to stop and watch it. I'm like obsessed with that movie...

Some people think luck happens when you put yourself out there, become willing to go the extra mile, etc. Keep living life to the fullest and the results will take care of itself. It's as good a philosophy as any other I've seen.

Stepmom wasn't a very challenging script. Forrest Gump was and they pulled it off. I think that's part of what the movie academy votes on.

pointless, rambling crap. But here's the one I always say that gets people REALLY pissed off:

American Beauty. Trite, overhyped bullshit - basically a two-hour, "look at me now" jack-off from the nerdy film student who couldn't get girls at high school. The overriding message of the movie: if you say a bunch of vague, obvious stuff about how much beauty there is in the world and how much it affects you because you're so clever and sensitive, teenage girls will show you their breasts. There is really nothing more to this movie.

*ducks for cover*

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. :D

the calmest response I've ever had on this issue...

Tom Hanks and Robin Wright-Penn were tremendous, and the directing was decent. Each scene was well crafted, and as a movie it was put together well. I saw no problem with it getting several Oscar nominations.

But I thought the overall message was too heavy-handed, and too conformist. Do what they tell you to do, and even a stupid person can go far; try to think outside the box, especially if you are a woman, and you will be miserable and die of AIDs. It was an attack on the sixties, and an argument for staying in the middle of the road and opposing change, and a slap at feminism.

And of course, the main reason liberals don't often remember the film kindly was because of the whole "Pulp Fiction/Forrest Gump" debate. Limbaugh, Gingrich and the rest of the Filth Gang pimped Forrest Gump because of its conformist message, and attacked Pulp Fiction for its playful originality. Well, and for it's over-the-top violence. At the time it became a national litmus test for each party. Tom Hanks even joked about it, saying he did "That Thing You Do" to get away from the whole Forrest Gump/Pulp Fiction debate.

So DUers who remember it are inclined to not like it because of Limbaugh and Gingrich.

I didn't like it too much because I felt the director gave more weight to his message than to the story, and the message was wrong.

As for Pulp Fiction, I think it was an original, clever bit of film-making, but like most of Tarrantino's work, quite shallow on any message and too simplistic a story. Bubble gum entertainment.

I absolutely despise that movie. The whole thing is just the depoliticization of history. Some lovable rube stumbling blindly through the world as some of the most important events of our history happen around him is not a good movie in my book.

Then there's the tragic treatment of Jenny. So you tried to be politically active and aware of the world around year, here's a debilitating disease as your punishment. The message is that anyone who stands up to authority must be a miscreant and deserves what they get.

Not to mention the fact that the movie thrives by highlighting virtually every stereotype in the book.

I simply can not stand this movie.

The movie is good. The book is much better.