Hear hear. Haven't read the article yet, but I hated, absolutely hated, "Forrest Gump". Saying that is blasphemous to some people, of course.
Ebert (as usual) hits the nail on the head and explains the reasoning, or lack thereof, behind the awards doled out every year to well crafted films about retards.
Hear hear. Haven't read the article yet, but I hated, absolutely hated, "Forrest Gump". Saying that is blasphemous to some people, of course.
Including me...I kinda dug it. Well, I'm not terribly offended or anything, I can see why it gets on people's nerves, but I thought it was well crafted at the time. Haven't seen it in a while, though.
The film has the gall to portray that this one person was behind every single pop culture and political development for 30 years. And each of the 256 incidents portrayed in the film are made so blatant (but notice that Gump doesn't actually say what event he is dropping in on) so that the more intelligent shaved monkeys can turn to their friends and whisper "Eh? Watergate. I am so smart!". But man, how did they paint out Gary Sinise's legs out so convincingly?
See, that always bugged me too. As soon as Nixon said "I know a much better hotel you can stay at," I knew it was a setup for a Watergate joke. I was amazed it took the rest of the audience so long to clue in.
Note: Your browser must have Javascript enabled to submit comments.