Forrest vs. Pulp vs. Shawshank
-
thehumanityy — 10 years ago(November 25, 2015 04:09 PM)
Pulp fiction is literally the best written film of all time, and it was written straight for the movie rather than the Godfather that was taken from Mario Puzo's novel. Forrest Gump, though quite good, has left a legacy of how to create an Oscar nominated movie and is a huge stereotype in that aspect. It does many things well and Tom Hanks definitely deserved the Oscar for the movie, but it does not compare to the writing and genius that is Pulp Fiction. It changed the film industry forever with its original story and style. I don't really believe that Forrest Gump really had as much of an impact on cinema as PF did. It is and will always be one of, if not the best movies ever made and written.
On another note, Shawshank Redemption didn't even win any Oscars that year, while Pulp Fiction only won 1. This is one of the most ludicrous Academy Awards years ever, since both of those films were just as good if not way better than Forrest Gump. It just goes to show how blind the Academy is, and this is why movies are now made that follow a pattern and recipe on how to create an Oscar worthy film, which takes a lot of inspiration from Forrest Gump. If Pulp Fiction or even Shawshank were the films to receive 7 Oscars that year, we may have seen more original, intelligent and beautifully written films come out as a norm for Academy worthy cinema rather than the chewed up crap we see so often nowadays. Oscar bait movies like Seven Pounds, the Soloist, Amelia, Diana, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (that also stars Tom Hanks), and then even films that managed to succeed like Crash, Shakespeare in Love, and Slumdog Millionaire. These movies including Forrest Gump are all very light on depth and have massive tear jerking moments that try to reassure Oscar nominations and wins. Such moments like Jenny dying of AIDS that feel like a manual on what touches people the most.
In the long run, it would have been more productive for the film industry and society in general if intelligent, well crafted films like Pulp Fiction or even Shawshank had been deemed the norm of Oscar wins rather than the stereotype movies that are thought of nowadays. -
Baker0927 — 10 years ago(January 12, 2016 04:34 PM)
You contradict yourself left and right. You say Pulp Fiction changed the movie industry forever but then go on to say most movies made today are the complete opposite.
And for the record, the 90s was LOADED with Pulp Fiction type movies. Most of them sucked and made little money. The trend died out by the turn of the century. That's why you don't see too many movies like PF these days. As entertaining and well crafted as it was, it was virtually one big gimmick of a movie. The kind of movie that you can only really make once and then it starts to get old. -
Jacovitti86 — 9 years ago(April 27, 2016 02:33 AM)
the Academy rewards a combination of critical acclaim, budget size, and commercial success. Pulp and Shawshank made waay less money than Gump, and all three were critically praised, so it's easy to see why it won. It also had by far the most nominations with 13.
-
IkuharaKunihiko — 10 years ago(January 13, 2016 10:52 AM)
- "Forrest Gump", because it was made both with heart, humor and style.
- "Pulp Fiction" is a great film, but without any heart. It is a typical, cold film by Tarantino who only knows the world through movies, not through life.
- "Shawshank Redemption" is great as well, with some wise life lessons. Though sometimes I wish it was more alive and unpreditctable.
-
samup7775 — 10 years ago(February 05, 2016 05:59 PM)
Easily Forrest Gump, hands down. How many prison movies are there? While Shaw-Redemption is phenomenal, I can't think of any other movie before or since that's like this movie. It's The modern day wizard of oz.
-
akg96-1 — 9 years ago(August 02, 2016 05:40 AM)
F. Gump is movie made for a generation to identify with & which you could feel a strong kinship with the characters, especially Forrest. It took us on a journey that was well know to us collectively & infused it with the music that was life along the way. Like Roger Ebert said, it's magical, & also captivating, wonderful, uplifting that depicted how life is. It engaged the heart. The movie was more than just about a movie - it was life unfolding. Delightful
I love seeing P. Fiction & can also it repeatedly. With the first song by Dick Dale I knew we were on a fast & fun ride to the end. With all the fast action & characters interwoven throughout, it required our heads to be engaged.
Shawshank? Yeah, I saw that too. One & done. -
residentevil6901 — 9 years ago(August 02, 2016 05:25 PM)
Forrest Gump is too cheesy & dumb in comparison to Pulp & Shawshank. I think both movies are 50x better then Gump. Gump makes me think of Pokemon Go, it's made for the masses. I've watched FG twice, I've seen Pulp and Shawshank at least 50 times each. If the movie doesn't speak to you telling you to come back and watch it again then it's not a good enough movie in my book. But that's me.
-
gd5150 — 9 years ago(September 08, 2016 09:27 AM)
50 years later, Forrest Gump will hold up because it's a classic. Score, Soundtrack, absolute cutting edge CGI, great writing and cinematography.
Shawshank was good, but not a classic. It didn't do anything new. The movie takes a ton from Escape from Alacraz. It was an enjoyable film, but not worthy of a best film win.
Pulp was good too. Groundbreaking writing, story telling, editing. Cinematography. Great soundtrack. But its not timeless. It will be remembered as a time capsule of how movies were in the 90s. Most of its techniques are now cliche.
Gump is by far most worthy of best film in 1994. 95 was an even better year for motion pictures. The entire mid 90s really. Now we're lucky to get 1 great film every 5 years.
] — 3 years ago(June 19, 2022 12:56 PM)