Good movie, but come on. It doesn't deserve a 9.3
It's an 8 or an 8.5
I dunno. I mean, granted, there could be really good arguments made that something like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Schindler's List, Goodfellas, Gone With The Wind, City of God, every other Kurosawa or Coen brothers movie, Citizen Kane, etc may be better in one aspect or another (more intelligently written, better looking, better acted, or more innovative, for instance), and that any one of these (or tons of other movies) may be many people's personal favorites. But I really can't think of a whole lot of movies that are as universally loved as Shawshank seems to be.
I've seen people flat out dislike The Godfather, for example, due to how slow it is. Or dislike The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly because they don't like westerns. Or as much as they may like something like E.T., The Wizard of Oz, or The Lion King, they sorta see them as "just kid's movies". Or, as brilliant as I think they are, I repeatedly hear people complain about Lynch movies because they're too confusing; or Woody Allen or Mel Brooks movies because they don't like their sense of humor. A lot of people hate anything pre-1960 because of how dated it feels to them. But I don't think I've ever met anyone who dislikes Shawshank. It seems like it appeals to every sex, age group, and race. And even when it's not their favorite movie, it's usually ranked pretty high up there in their opinions. Which is saying something, I think.
The only other movie that I can think of that comes somewhat close to this is maybe Forrest Gump.
So, while I don't think I'd call it my personal favorite movie, I can see why it gets the kind of scores it does.
I don’t love it at all.
shareWell, aren't you special lol.
shareI don't admire it all that much either. It has a paint-by-numbers feel to it, everything is so obvious what is going on, there is no nuance, no artistry in how the story is told or how the film is shot. It's worth watching as a competently made movie, but it's no work of art.
sharelol Right. But that all goes toward my first point, where I listed out all of those other films for which there are very good arguments to be made as to why they may be considered "better" (i.e., more artistic, more unique, etc.). Those films, however, are often (in my experience, at least) not quite as universally enjoyed. This isn't to say that literally everyone loves Shawshank. But, rather, that most people (anecdotes, aside) seem to enjoy it quite a bit (even it isn't a personal favorite). It has a larger scope of appeal between audiences of different tastes, sexes, races, and cultures. It's extremely accessible, regardless of who you are.
I, for instance, prefer 2001: A Space Odyssey or Magnolia over it, and genuinely believe them to be better, more thought-provoking, intelligently written movies. But many people who watch them, I'm aware, are going to hate them. They'll find them to be either boring, pretentious, etc. The very originality that makes them better movies, imo, is what hurts their mass appeal.
In a sense, the basicness of Shawshank is possibly what makes it have such a widespread appeal. It's good enough so that both casual viewers and more hardcore film buffs typically enjoy it and rate it high. So it seems understandable to me why it would be rated so highly.
Fair enough. When I discovered The Green Mile had the same director I thought, that makes sense. Green Mile has the same effect on me. They feel like the pander to the audience as opposed to challenging us.
But that's where the nobs like to say "pretentious" so I guess it takes all kinds.
I agree with you about all that except Forrest Gump, which was good for its time but feels dated now.
share