I watched Forrest Gump (the movie) and had a good cry tonight

[KitchenWitch]

I always cry at the part where Jenny dies. She was such a tragic character in the film.

[barb162]

1. what did she die from

I assume that is not a spoiler question since the movie is old now.

[KitchenWitch]

2. An undisclosed virus

I am guessing it was supposedly AIDS, since it was about that era.

[SeattleGirl]

5. I believe it was, Kitchey

That part always gets me too, especially when Forrest is talking to her at her gravesite. :cry:

[cmkramer]

35. My favorite scene

I love the scene where Jenny introduces him to his son, and he asks "Is he smart"? When she says yes and that he's one of the best students in his class, you can see the relief just wash over his face. And you realize that he understands more about himself and his place in the world than you might have thought.

[Midlodemocrat]

37. That scene makes me cry every time.

The look on his face. He is so desperate with hope that his child didn't inherit that from him.

So, so humbling.

[cmkramer]

40. Usually forgotten

And yet that isn't a scene that ever got much play in terms of people talking about it.

[Midlodemocrat]

41. Just thinking about it makes me well up.

Seriously. I think it is so amazing the way Tom Hanks performed in that film, and that scene is just incredible. What depth of character.

[cmkramer]

54. Academy Award

I think Tom Hanks deserved his Oscar for that one scene alone.

When I first saw the movie, I remember thinking what a great movie and how I was going to recommend it to people. Then, when I went back to work on Monday -- I saw it on a Saturday afternoon -- I kept running into people who had seen it and were raving about it to other people. Even the bus driver was talking about it.

[frankly_fedup2]

63. In was in the early to mid-80's (I think) when Rock Hudson died from

the complication of AIDs. It really didn't have a name that was well known until then. There is a certain type of pneumonia that kills most AIDs patients. Researches had seen this type of pneumonia before but mostly in homosexuals (not gay bashing so don't go there please. I have family that are gay and lost love ones so I do not mean that in a derogatory way, just the way it was).

I've had 2 members die in the last 8 years. One was my sister in law. Then my brother in law four years later. They were both HIV positive with full-blown AIDs; however, that is not what kills you. It allows anything else out there to get a hold of you and torture you to death. Always a lot of blood at the end, which I find to be a little ironic, considering that is one of the ways it is spread. It's very cruel....

[KitchenWitch]

64. I agree

I lost a cousin in 1990 to AIDS. It is a terrible way to go.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

6. Boredom from watching the movie.

I know, I know. :spank:

[KitchenWitch]

7. Shame on you...Allow me!

:spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank:



















BTW, in real life, I am a huge sap... :blush:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

12. I've seen many more emotionally powerful films.

I guess my main problem with Gump was that it was so contrived and manipulative.

[barb162]

17. You know I am glad you brought this up. I could not figure

out why that film was so popular. I don't remember how many times he said life is like a box of chocolates.... but once was enough

[Starbucks Anarchist]

18. I couldn't understand the appeal, either.

Even my dad (who's a doctor, so he's obviously intelligent) loved that movie. :shrug:

EDIT: A movie that far less people have seen but is much more powerful is The 400 Blows. Have you seen that one?

[barb162]

19. Yes, a long time ago and I remember it as very good

They are not making very good films today IMHO. It isn't often I want to see a movie these days.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

20. That's why I love Netflix.

They have all the classics.

[barb162]

21. I never heard of it but just googled it.

$18 a month seems like a really good deal

[Starbucks Anarchist]

23. It is.

And I think it's only $10/month now, but they might have changed it.

[barb162]

25. Thanks for letting me know!

[Frank Cannon]

26. It's a GREAT deal. The missus and I love it.

We figure we probably rent 8 to 10 movies a month. At the video store we'd be paying between $25 and $30. And unlike the video store, Netflix has movies we actually want to see.

I believe they still give a free two-week trial, if you want to check 'em out. You'll never look back.

[serryjw]

48. My #1 favorite movie

People either loved it or just didn't get it. It was a great love story of 3 peoople that had undieing love (mother, Jenny & Forrest) and acceptence for each other, for who they werenot trying to change the other. A great story of what you can accomplish if your are NOT told you CAN'T!

[Dangerously Amused]

29. You're right,

...it was contrived. And usually I hate those kind of films and don't waste my time with them. But once in a blue moon there is a story --such as this one, imho -- where there are enough other good things about the story and/or its portrayal that it is worthwhile to suspend your disbelief and look deeper into the message. In my opinion Gump is one of those rare films which, while it may have had a superficial overall plot, also had a number of meaningful and well written sub plots which not only redeemed it, but vaulted it into "great film" status.

Just my humble opinion.


PS - Hey, how you been?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

39. Hey, how are you?

Still gotta disagree about Gump, though. I thought the subplots were even more ridiculous, although I do otherwise like Tom Hanks and Robert Zemeckis (the director). I just thought this wasn't one of their best efforts, and in a way, I was offended I watched it in the first place. :)

[Dangerously Amused]

55. Ah, perhaps I used the wrong word?

I don't know all them fancy hi-tech film terms like you director guys do. So maybe I didn't mean sub-plots, but "themes," or something?

So okay, for example, I thought the part where he busted the Watergate guys was really dumb, and I thought the part where he was running and wiped his face on the shirt and made the smilie was SO dumb that it made me roll my eyes and at that point I remember thinking, "this better be the worst part of the movie."

On the other hand, I thought that Jenny's role was very well written and did a good job of illustrating just how profoundly the sexual abuse of children may affect them for the rest of their lives. It's an important and sensitive subject that in my opinion needs much greater public exposure, so I was happy to see it addressed.

I also thought that having a man who is simple, honest and humble because he knows no other way as the lead presented a (yes, contrived but) meaningful story line. I liked the idea that by just doing the right thing (as Gump always did), one can cause great things to happen, even though one may never know it.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

68. I think you're referring to character development.

Although, as you can tell, I thought there was very little. :)

The whole Gump mentality was annoying to me, particularly since his character flaws were essentially excusable because he was more or less mentally challenged -- a well-formed character is cognizant of his flaws at some point, and those flaws are manifested through action -- Gump's biggest flaw was his mental condition, which, again, he couldn't really help. I think that's what annoyed me.

[ForrestGump]

69. Low IQ

That means little. He was more an innocent than anything else. If stupid is as stupid does, both Lieutenant Dan and Jenny were the stupid ones and Forrest was anything but -- sure, maybe he was just drifting along like that feather, to a great extent, but he had a good heart (giving the money to Bubba's family and to the Bayou's church are just a couple of material examples) and he was the only one to figure the great truth of the story: that destiny and chance both operate within our lives, at the same time or at different times...read any primary peer-reviewed sources in ecological science of the last 30 years, for example, and you'll see that the debate over stochastic versus deterministic processes was (still is, in some areas) a huge one that Forrest already had figured (and so did I, when I first caught up with the debate, thusly fitting my screen name better than some aware of my scholastic aptitude might think).

Forrest was not 'dumb,' where it really counted. And he was very aware of his own limitations -- witness the very poignant and little-referred-to scene referenced in this thread, when he tremblingly wonders how 'smart' his son is.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

71. I meant low IQ as a cheat in regards to character development.

I doubt the screenwriters reviewed ecological sciences, but instead decided to portray a too likable mentally challenged man as the protagonist, therefore avoiding any negative character traits.

I just thought Gump was too far-fetched and a barely fleshed out character.

[ForrestGump]

79. Well, he was based on a book's character

Never read the book(s) -- not yet -- but I imagine that they took that low-IQ thing from the primary source...if they were going to fundamentally change the central facet of his character then they could have just named the film Joe Bloggs, or whatever, and maybe had Lorenzo Lamas play him (maybe as a deprogrammed CIA agent...now there's high-concept, baby!).

And I don't know why he has to have negative character traits, unless you consider low IQ to be one (and here I'd like to point out that reported IQ level is solely a result of taking certain standardized tests and that Forrest's 'intelligence' was not centered around the ability to ace such exams). Some people are truly good. I've known a few. I've also known a few who were 'slow,' but among the most special people I've ever met -- some were very good at some things, and all were very good people. Finally, I've met (shoot...I'm well on my way to becoming one, myself) quite a few people who seem to have a done a lot of different things, been a lot of places, and crossed paths with a lot of iconic events or people. If I rolled those three types into one -- and consolidating characters is a ubiquitous screenwriting tool -- I'd have Forrest Gump.

So not far-fetched at all. And, like I said below, Forrest's character arc is very slight -- cinematically interesting in itself, that is -- because he is what he is: he stays largely naive in many respects (though not entirely and certainly not asleep through his whole life) and in a way does not change because he is already a perfect person, an innocent spirit...pure.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

82. Yes, his "pureness" is what pisses me off.

Personally, I like antiheroes, which Gump is clearly not.

Hell, even Jimmy Stewart's goody two shoes characters (the majority of his roles) were at least expressive. Hanks' portrayal of Gump was limited to two facial expressions and one vocal inflection at best.

And it's not uncommon for a film to differ from the source material. I haven't read the book, either, but I imagine it was similar to the film.

EDIT: There is one scene that I did like in that movie -- the montage of Bubba's family members serving white people, then the reverse being shown as Forrest explains he gave Bubba's family his money. I laughed out loud at that scene.

[ForrestGump]

85. I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were really Quentin Tarantino

:P

But I still stand by my Tarantino-is-a-doofus remark.

Antiheroes are fine, but all-antihero-all-the-time doesn't sound like my idea of a good time. Then again, I absolutely LOVE Big Trouble In Little China, the primary hero of which is only an antihero of sorts because he (a) exhibits all of the failings and comic-relief usually seen in the film's hero's sidekick and (b) is so inept as a hero that he circumnavigates the realm of heroism and thus becomes the antihero in the same way that Michael Bolton is the true anti-Elvis and in the same way that Australia and associated land masses are the antipodes to Mother England.

I've heard that Winston Groom's books were 'better' than the film in that they delved more deeply (as is always the case) into certain things and that he had even more wild and unlikely adventures of fate: I believe that Forrest even ended up in space, as part of the astronaut program. :D

And you thought the movie was far-fetched????

[Starbucks Anarchist]

86. LOL, Tarantino.

The goodness of a character is something I like. It's just that someone excessively good like Forrest really annoys me both as a viewer and as a writer myself.

He went into space? WTF? That's like a total moron becoming president -- Oh, wait... :)

[ProfessorGAC]

73. Another Thing: He Was Completely Self-Less

That's why i have always been confused at those here who saw that as a conservative message movie. Forrest is completely self-less in everything he did, except when he went on that run to escape from it all.

Always thinking of someone else first is the mark of a pure liberal. His selflessness is what makes that movie great, imo.
The Professor

[ForrestGump]

80. Very true

He did not live in the material world, either...not at all.

He was the Uncarved Block.

Speaking of which, Lao Tzu would have loved this film, the Tao Te Ching basically stating that the more you study the Tao the less you will know of it and that the scholar knows less and less of it the more he tries to understand it: "I may not be a smart man, but I do know what the Tao is..."

[ProfessorGAC]

81. That's Interesting

But it makes sense. Similar to the concept of Zen in which the pursuit of perfection results in the awareness that it's impossible to attain it, but the effort is where the value lies.

Thanks for that.
The Professor

[ForrestGump]

87. Zen and Taoism:

not only ancestrally related, in a sense (the two coming into intimate contact in the Shaolin temple after Boddhidarma's meditating in a cave there for seven years while listening to the ants scream), but two paths to the same end, the same goal-that-is-not-a-goal.

I like that. :-)

[ProfessorGAC]

88. Smiling Back At Ya!

The Professor

[Dangerously Amused]

93. It's okay, you're allowed to disagree with me.

:)


Especially on something as subjective as a movie. There are probably a lot of other films we both like.


However, you are NOT allowed to disagree with me regarding politics.


:)

[NMMNG]

3. That she was

Beauty and normal intelligence don't always add up to happiness.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Now that was a movie that I never saw......

I always resented the fact that it won all the Oscars that I felt should have gone to "The Shawshank Redemption" that year.....

Oh well...... :shrug:

[KitchenWitch]

8. I agree that Shawshank should have won the awards

But it is truly an entertaining and lovely film. I want to add it to our DVD collection.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

9. Yet another reason why you are so cool, Peggy.

Shawshank Redemption was the best movie of that year and one of the best of the decade. :hi:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. My dear Starbucks Anarchist!

I thank you for your very kind words! I have seen "The Shawshank Redemption" so many times, that I can now recite the dialogue as it comes along.....

It gives me goosebumps to see it. An incredible movie indeed......

Did you know it's from a short story, a novella really, by Stephen King?

There the title was "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption." It is definitely worth reading....

:hi:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

14. I'll need to see it again.

I haven't watched it in over a year, I think, but I can quote the movie, too, particularly Morgan Freeman's narration. I know I've seen it at least five times, though.

I'll also have to read the novella, but I'm drowning in new books as it is. :hi:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. PM, baby, PM........n/t

[Misunderestimator]

28. Shawshank definitely should have won.

Forrest Gump was a long, tedious exercise in ennui... and was Tom Hank's absolute worst performance of a character. Any movie whose takeaway is "Life is like a box of chocolates" done in an awful, exaggerated rendition of a southern accent, can't be all that good.

Shawshank on the other hand... beautiful in every way. :hi:

[Wapsie B]

11. That was sad and angering at the same time.

I felt bad about her dying and leaving Forrest for the last time. The maddening thing was that she was always leaving him. He'd do anything for her and she'd flake out and leave him again.

[KitchenWitch]

13. exactly!

But she finally did express her love... which is the redeeming thing for me.

[Wapsie B]

15. In a happy ending they would've lived happily everafter.

It was a bittersweet ending. Yes she finally did show her feelings.

[fudge stripe cookays]

27. But there was a mitigating cause...

her sexual and physical abuse made her travel anywhere and do anything not too feel its effects, but she could never quite escape.

They tried to make her sympathetic as well as flaky. And at the end, when she had finally gotten her life together, that is when she got ill. That's what made her so tragic.

fsc

[Wapsie B]

31. Yes that's a good point.

But Forrest didn't realize that, at least not when they were younger. I was just speaking from his perspective. The abuse she suffered at home was the cause of her flaking out and entering abusive relationships. But just from his pov, on his most basic level he was trying to win over the woman of his dreams and when he finally got his wish she still left him. It's tragic on a variety of levels.

[LisaL]

32. She was screwed up from the childhood abuse by her father.

It's a sad story.

[billyskank]

22. Awwww

:cry: :hug:

[KitchenWitch]

24. Thanks!

I like a good tearjerker once in awhile...I am a royal sap :blush:

[Heidi]

30. I read (the DU'er) Forrest Gump's posts and had a good laugh last night.

I always laugh at the part where he posts about Las Vegas. He's such a fascinating character in real life. :)

[Shine]

33. I love that movie, too.

for the record, I cry at almost every movie I see. I'm a total sap when it comes to that sort of thing.

:hug:

good morning, sweet!

[KitchenWitch]

61. Must be an aries dragon thing!

The sappiness that is!

:hug:

[DS1]

34. It's a sweet movie. Still, on DU if you mention anything that is subject

to taste, especially film, you'll have the rabid elitists coming out of the cracks pissing over something you like just because the cinematography isn't up to French New Wave snuff, or the editing wasn't done 'correctly' or the wrong film stock was used for this or that scene.

Enjoy movies, that's why people make them.

( and to make money doing it, of course )

[Midlodemocrat]

36. A post from DS1 using the word Sweet? and not in reference to

food? Can it be?


:P

[Misunderestimator]

38. I loved "Shaun of the Dead"

:)

[Zomby Woof]

42. Exactly

I get the biggest kick out of the charges of "manipulative". ALL writers, and by extension, directors and actors, manipulate. It's just that the elitists are in denial when THEIR movies/tv shows/music do the same thing, and with no less subtlety. If you are in charge of controlling the language or the actors using the language, you are by definition manipulating. But when you want to believe your tastes, knowledge, judgment, et al, are so vastly superior to others, you will go to great lengths to rationalize it.

I enjoyed 'Shawshank' as much as anyone here, but it was no less manipulative or contrived than 'Gump'. To believe otherwise is just self-deception and smugness.

Of course, annoying the faux-intellectual guardians of taste and hipness on DU is a hobby. They are so full of their own bile and bullshit I just have to laugh and laugh as they pinch another loaf of righteous indignation out of their cornholes when they expound on how a MOVIE affronts their sensibilities.

[Misunderestimator]

43. Life is like a box of chocolates.

[Blue-Jay]

44. Sounds like you need a new hobby.

[Zomby Woof]

47. Projection is interesting

Following me around from thread to thread, or starting flamebait threads based on offhand remarks I make in other threads - it is all very obsessive and weird.

Your reply to me seems to indicate that a new hobby is in order for you and a definite clique of others. You all can't seem to ignore me, and for that, I have to laugh...

[Blue-Jay]

53. Ah! Seems that your new hobby is psychotherapy!

Following me around from thread to thread, or starting flamebait threads based on offhand remarks I make in other threads - it is all very obsessive and weird.

Name me ONE instance of this. Just one. ONE. can't do it, can ya?

Your reply to me seems to indicate that a new hobby is in order for you and a definite clique of others. You all can't seem to ignore me, and for that, I have to laugh...

"cliques"?
"You all"?

WTF are you talking about? I can only guess that when you read a reply that you don't care for, you make a quick decision to lump someone into a specific category that allows you to feel good about lashing out. Because, ya know, everyone who finds you tiresome is part of some nefarious scheme against you.

Pat yourself on the back, Skippy. Your ego is astounding.

[progmom]

45. "pinch another loaf of righteous indignation out of their cornholes"

:rofl:

oh the irony!

[ForrestGump]

72. You, sir, nailed it

And ZombyWoof nailed it, also, below.

It was a huge commercial success. It was embraced by some on the 'Christian' Right who mistakenly saw it as their movie. It was very, very well done.

So it's bad.

That is bull-oney. Élitest f***wits.

Fine, if you don't like a movie because you just don't like it. But to not like it for reasons such as those I listed, or because it is 'manipulative' (huh? as Mr Woof reminds us, all storytelling -- indeed, by definition, all communication is inherently manipulative) is f***ed in the head. Lots of DUers seem to resent it because it stole the Oscar thunder of The Shawshank Redemption or Pulp Fiction which is not only pointless -- since when did the Oscar act as a true and final gauge of a film's (or actor's, etc) worth? (hint: it never did, and it seems to get further from doing so with every decade, to the point where it is almost as irrelevant as the Grammies) -- but is an egregious logical failure. The worth of those two other films does not make Forrest Gump worthless. Duh.

I didn't see The Shawshank Redemption until some time in the latter half of last year, though I'd read the story a decade before, and I loved the movie -- I have it on DVD and I've watched it two or three times (a fraction of the number of times I've watched Gump, which remans one of the most rewatchable films I've seen). It was brilliant. But it was not the be-all and end-all of moviemaking, in that year or any other. I've yet to see all of Pulp Fiction but what I've seen (most of the film) has impressed me largely only in terms of some of the acting -- if that's the ultimate Tarantino, then I was right in my impression of his skills and approach after I survived a viewing of Kill Bill: crap. What a monumental doofus.

But these two films are edgy, and Forrest Gump is mainstream pablum. Actually, perhaps Pulp Fiction is truly 'edgy,' but only because Tarantino set out with a sledgehammer to try to make it so at every turn -- sheesh, talk about manipulative and overblown -- in a way that's very self-conscious and strident. The Shawshank Redemption is really a 'traditional' piece, just really well done and superlatively acted...actually, for sheer power I think the similar (in tone -- same source and, I believe, same director as well as some common actors) The Green Mile wins out over The Shawshank Redemption. Forrest Gump was beautifully acted, had a compelling storyline (actually very unusual in that its main character had essentially very little character arc and the film's more a series of vignettes, some quirky and some poignant, tied to key points and personalities of the latter half of the Twentieth Century), featured groundbreaking special effects, and was a fun journey. What the hell is wrong with that? If you're not going to like it, dislike it for reasons that are actually valid.

I've run into the same attitude in other contexts because, despite -- and I'll kick the ass of anyone who says I'm bragging here, though I'll do so thoughtfully and only because I am aware that at that point I am acting as an instrument of Karma -- an intellect that'd probably put to shame many of DU's most pretentious pseudointellectual f***knuckles, I happen to enjoy certain pop-cultural inputs that are smack in the middle of the mainstream's mass consciousness. Not all of them, and many I disdain as perhaps being symptomatic of an increasingly dumbed-down society, but much of what I enjoy the most is not exactly at the fringes of contemporary popular culture. Elvis is a big one, and there're no shortage of archived threads in which he's been attacked by idiots who are not only knee-jerk élitist (I hate to bring that word up again and again, especially because I myself have some strongly élite tendencies and sensibilities and the word has become a right-wing synonym for the even more abused 'liberal,' but we're talking about people who are élitists for élitism's sake) but woefully uninformed as to his reality. Don't like him? Fine. But to not like him because he was a commercial success, or because some sh*tstirring f***head like Chuck D says so, or because he 'stole' a whole color of music....that is so inane it just amazes me, and I can only wonder at the irony of people who rail against the dittohead philosophy in turn spouting lines parroted by morons not possessed with much more of a clue than Limbaugh himself. Look at some of the attacks on people like Paul McCartney -- especially amusing when the attackers lionize John Lennon in the same breath -- for more of the same. Ditto certain TV shows, musical genres, foods, and -- of course -- Forrest Gump.

This attitude persists very strongly here on DU. One of the symptoms of some people buying the Complete Progressive Starter Package is that they become insufferable élitist a**holes who out-of-hand eschew the tastes and pursuits of the unwashed 'mainstream,' the hoi-polloi who are all dumb crackers who listen to country music except for Johnny Cash because he's cool now that we all discovered him and, anyway, wasn't even country because he was really punk, all along, and, oh, yeah, he's the true king of rock 'n' roll and, yeah, Tony Bennett is also cool and doesn't digging his crazy sound make me look like a way cool ironic hipster...

If you recognize yourself in that last paragraph, and the odds are that you never will if it actually describes you, then -- as Elvis at least once said to an oblivious audience, albeit while perhaps merely testing their attention level and the power of his trademark vocal slurring: f***youverymuch.

[ScreamingMeemie]

75. And John Denver....don't forget John Denver. It pisses me off when

people diss him. Have I told you lately that I am completely in love with you Forrest? Don't tell MrG though. You're my two favorite guys...for your ability to cut through the bullshit and see the reality of life. :hug:

[ForrestGump]

84. John Denver was cool

in his decidely uncool way. I'm sorry -- I love Johnny Cash and have since my mind could first process music (i.e., back in the days when those who cite his coolness now would more than likely have laughed him off, his not being officially trendy and way-cool until some time in the early '90s) -- but I'm nominating John Denver as the first punk and backup King of Rock 'n' Roll. And to hell with anyone who puts down his eminently catchy and well-executed songs or his real environmental and other extracurricular efforts.

I love you, too, Mrs G...I'll meet you in the usual place...act casual.

:D

[MissMillie]

92. I've never understood why people disliked something merely because it was

successful.

I like it when people can accept music, plays, movies, etc. for what they are. Titanic was sappy. Sure it was. But sappy has its place, as does cheesy, silly, corny and hokey. If everything were edgy, then "edgy" would cease to be edgy. Same thing with "profound".

So, let's hear it for Gump, and American Idol, and Barry Manilow and Mamma Mia and even Mamma's Family.

[RandomKoolzip]

97. Is it elitist to dislike a work of art because I genuinely didn't like it?

Or should I just pretend to like something in order to prevent charges of "elitism?"

Cuz I fuckin' HATED that movie, and I make 9.75 an hour as a cook. If *I'm* elitist, then ALL of our paradigms are flawed.

[ForrestGump]

98. What part of

"Fine, if you don't like a movie because you just don't like it" are you having trouble with here?

I never said what you said I said.

I'm one of the last people on the planet who'd pretend to like something just for appearances' sake, so as far as I'm concerned you can feel free to be yourself all you want and hate this or any other movie. No problema.

[RandomKoolzip]

102. This:

What the hell is wrong with that? If you're not going to like it, dislike it for reasons that are actually valid.

Well, what are "valid" reasons for liking or disliking something?

[ForrestGump]

95. Grasp at straws much?

'Valid' reasons I had in mind are pretty much any reason but the ones that I listed that I'd consider 'invalid' reasons, such as (i) because it's popular, (ii) because it's been allegedly co-opted by a bunch of morons (one of the all-time classic examples remaining the GOP trying to rally behind "Born In The USA"), (iii) because it's cool to dismiss certain things...stuff like that. These are, actually, siblings to your well-stated point regarding how you shouldn't have to pretend to like something just because it's popular...anybody who dislikes (or, indeed, pretends to or convinces themselves to) a thing for the same reason is guilty of an even more dumbass act and attitude.

[RandomKoolzip]

96. Okay. Just to be honest, I hated "Forrest Gump."

And I don't care much for Elvis. But I dislike them both for aesthetic reasons, not to be merely contrary.

I just resent the implication that if someone doesn't like X movie even though X movie was popular, then that person is some wine-swilling Volvo-driving elitist. I get that shit enough from the right that to see it come from the left makes me sad.

I'm not saying that that was the point of your post (I suppose I overreacted, and I apologize), but I HAVE seen it here on DU many times, and it's always baffled me.

[terrya]

46. Well, I'm glad you liked it.

I think it's a load of dreary, sappy, shite. A waste of film.

[Midlodemocrat]

49. Meanypants.

I loved that movie. Sometimes a good cry is what you need.

[terrya]

50. I know...

I wanted to like it, but...I wasn't impressed, to put it mildly.

I'm glad you and everyone else liked it, Midlo. I just...well, didn't.

[Midlodemocrat]

52. LOL. I can't tell you how many movies I have seen that

people raved about that I just didn't get.

Monster's Ball with Halle Barry. Could hardly get through it. I thought it was awful.

I think I have a pretty short attention span for movies these days. I haven't seen much that hasn't been rated G or PG.

[frankly_fedup2]

103. I think it got all the promo because she was topless in it. Then

she won an oscar. She was topless in some movie right before or after that with John Travolta, but I cannot remember what it was???? Maybe Swordfish?

Suddenly, all those BIG SUPERSTARS were going topless in movies and suddenly, they were great actresses and won Oscars. First it was Halle Berry. Meg Ryan tried but it was right after her affair with Russell Crowe and her lip job. She co-starred with Mark Ruffalo (to cute). Then Charleze Theron but she would take her top off faster than you could say Bush is an idiot in just about every movie she was in. I guess the total physical transformation and her acting fit it perfectly, she came across as that women too. Then Dianne Keaton; however, she has exposed herself before. Anyone remember "Looking for Mr. Goodbar." I have to give her credit though, she looked great at 60 years old and total frontal nudity.

Reese Witherspoon is up this year. That girl will hardly wear a bathing suit in a movie and look like she feels comfortable. There are several actresses now (I've read) that have that in their contract.

Sorry, I'm mumbling . . .

[Skittles]

56. I absolutely agree, terrya

I lasted about 30 minutes - pure drivel

[Beware the Beast Man]

51. Meh. I hated Forrest Gump.

Call me an elitist, but I found it overblown and manipulative.

[SouthoftheBorderPaul]

57. Yup.

I didn't much care for it. I think it swept the Oscars that year, beating Pulp Fiction out of several awards. Bah, no accounting for taste. :P

[merh]

58. You ole softy you.

:hug:

I always cry during that movie. :cry:

[ScreamingMeemie]

59. I love that movie.

I haven't seen it in a while but I bought the DVD for my mom for Christmas. :hi:

[bigwillq]

60. I hated that movie.

:puke: One of the most overrated of all time.

[Skittles]

65. can you believe it beat out Pulp Fiction at the Oscars

let me join you :puke:

[bigwillq]

94. And Shawshank!

What were the voters thinking?? :shrug:

[KitchenWitch]

62. Wow

I did not intend for my thread to devolve into a flamewar...

For the record, I enjoy bloated, overbearing, and manipulative films...

[last_texas_dem]

66. Me too

I think "Forrest Gump" is a great movie. What's with all this decrying films as "manipulative"? Does it make a film manipulative if it has interesting characters and a story that is told in a way that makes you care about what happens to them? This seems to be where many are coming from on this issue. I guess I'd rather be "manipulated" than watch a film with underdeveloped characters and a storyline I could care less about.

[KitchenWitch]

67. Thank you

and I apologize for the snarkiness...I just get so angry when I am told my tastes are "simpleminded". I know no one said this directly, but it was implied.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

107. There's a middle ground, though.

You can have interesting and well-developed characters and a great storyline without the film being manipulative.

I've seen many great films that fit those criteria and also leave an emotional impact, but IMHO, Forrest Gump is not one of them.

[ScreamingMeemie]

70. Then you, dear, have no taste..no class...and luckily, happily even

you are NOT a snob. That's why this John Denver listening, Titanic fan adores you so. :hi: :hug:

[ProfessorGAC]

74. But, Mrs. G! Titanic????

Blech! Worst.Movie.Ever.
The Professor

[ScreamingMeemie]

76. sorry. I liked it. And so did, apparently, millions of other people.

I also love John Denver, the Bee Gees, and a whole other slew of people/places/things that I'm not supposed to like. :hi:

[ProfessorGAC]

77. I'm Just Tweaking Ya!

My wife and i couldn't get past the first halfhour. We were so glad we waited to see it on cable. At least at that point it was a sunk cost, and there were 150 other things to change to.

Me, i'm no Denver fan, but i admit to being big into Carol King and James Taylor. She was a huge Laura Nyro fan, so we're not averse to sappy, i guess. And, she buys Windham Hill CD's. (I usually go outside when she plays those.)

I guess my guilty pleasures lead toward silly movies, rather than overwrought epics. That way i can still make fun of you!
The Professor:evilgrin:

[ScreamingMeemie]

78. Heheh...I was pregnant when I saw Titanic the first time...and man

did it make me have to Pee. I had to wait for the DVD to see it uninterrupted by bathroom calls. :hi:

[frankly_fedup2]

99. What about Cat Stevens? Did you like him just as much before he

converted to another religion which, at the time, was no big deal. Suddenly, some treated him like a traitor. It didn't matter to me what the man believed. I still like his music.

I remember years ago when he converted and nobody really cared. Then suddenly 911 happened and Cat Stevens is in the news for being detained at an airport because he "somehow" he got on a terrorist watch list. What was that about?

[ForrestGump]

89. "Titanic"? Oh. I can't support that. The honeymoon is over.

:D

I just didn't like it that much. Not because it was so (incredibly so) hyped or made so much money or swept the oscars, but because it just did nothing for me -- nothing positive, anyway. Maybe I should give it another try. I think the source of my disdain is that I found the central love story incredibly annoying -- I am fully aware that this may well have been a result of things happening (and not happening) in my life at the time. I mean, I loved kate Winslet -- and not just the wonderful, glorious, heaven-sent bit that screams out for pause and slow-motion replays -- but Leo annoyed the hell out of me, and I spent most of the movie mumbling "die, already, you irritating little sumbitch!" :P

I thought maybe I was terminally allergic to Leonardo DeCaprio, but then I saw him in Catch Me If U Can and one or two others and liked his acting and his characters.

I'll watch it again, but only because you like it. :D

:hug:

[Misunderestimator]

90. DeCaprio was brilliant in "Total Eclipse"

[ScreamingMeemie]

100. Awww...Thank you, Love.

I don't care much for the love story either...I'm just fascinated by the whole "titanic" mystique and will devour anything in regard to it. I enjoyed watching the portrayal of actual passengers...which, I admit, most were dead off. But, it was fun! It's my one morbid fascination thing...:loveya:

[KitchenWitch]

105. woohoo!

And I adore you too.

I also liked Titanic and do listen to John Denver on occasion!

:rofl:

[pokerfan]

83. Makes me cry, too

But I tend to cry at the happy parts:
- Forrest and Jenny meeting up in the Reflecting Pool.
- Lt. Dan showing up walking at the wedding.

You have to admit that the acting was outstanding. Hanks and Sinise especially.

And I'm a huge Pulp Fiction and Shawshank fan as well.

[JVS]

91. DAMMIT! THIS BODILY FUNCTION THREAD NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN!

[Fox Mulder]

101. I'm going to come out and say it:

Despite what many people think, Forrest Gump is one of my favorite movies of all-time.

There. I said it. :)

[Shakespeare]

104. "I guess sometimes there are just not enough rocks"

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[KitchenWitch]

106. That was a particularly moving scene

:cry: