Forrest Gump

• Laley23

  

  ^^^Im with you. Since when is Howard a part of this film. Not doubting you (although I am kind of) But I have never heard his name mentioned and I didnt think he had any connection to Forrest Gump other than his multiple projects with Hanks in other movies.
• Red_Skin_Pride

  

  Laley23 wrote: ^^^Im with you. Since when is Howard a part of this film. Not doubting you (although I am kind of) But I have never heard his name mentioned and I didnt think he had any connection to Forrest Gump other than his multiple projects with Hanks in other movies.

  You are quite correct to catch my mistake. Howard was originally the leading choice for director, however he backed out before the contract was signed due to conflicts (I believe financial in nature) with the production company and that allowed RZ to step in and direct. However, the role Hanks played was a direct influence of his pre-production talks with Howard and Winston Groom, who wrote the novel. It's completely correct, which was my mistake, that Howard was uncredited with any connection to the movie, but he did have some influence over Hanks' portrayal of Gump, as they were already close friends (which is how Apollo 13 came about in 1995).
  
  Ironically, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" that came out recently, which has been closely compared to Forrest Gump in many aspects (with many, many similarities) was also slated to be a Ron Howard production, that Howard was forced to back out of yet again due to scheduling conflicts with a previous committment. RH has openly stated many times that he has always wanted to work on a large, long-spanning time period fable type film, but he has been unable to twice. So maybe someday in the near future (I hope, because I really like Howard's directing abilities) he will get the chance.
  
  Apologies for the mistake. It's been a few years since my film classes, and I'm not quite as sharp with the 90's stuff as I used to be
• Non

  

  I've always enjoyed this movie. Forrest Gump is an unusual character and it's a fun ride through history, but I was never really sure what it was about, ultimately.
  
  I like the way Roger Ebert put it in his review from 1994.
  

  The screenplay by Eric Roth has the complexity of modern fiction, not the formulas of modern movies. Its hero, played by Tom Hanks, is a thoroughly decent man with an IQ of 75, who manages between the 1950s and the 1980s to become involved in every major event in American history. And he survives them all with only honesty and niceness as his shields.
  
  And yet this is not a heartwarming story about a mentally retarded man. That cubbyhole is much too small and limiting for Forrest Gump. The movie is more of a meditation on our times, as seen through the eyes of a man who lacks cynicism and takes things for exactly what they are.

  As Forrest's life becomes a guided tour of straight-arrow America, Jenny goes on a parallel tour of the counterculture. She goes to California, of course, and drops out, tunes in, and turns on. She's into psychedelics and flower power, antiwar rallies and love-ins, drugs and needles. Eventually it becomes clear that between them Forrest and Jenny have covered all of the landmarks of our recent cultural history, and the accommodation they arrive at in the end is like a dream of reconciliation for our society. What a magical movie.

• Ankle Breaker

  

  Describing Vietnam....."We was always taking long walks, and we was always looking for a guy named 'Charlie'."
• se-alum

  

  I watch movies for their entertainment value, not because I think I'm some sort of film critic. I've never understood why anyone would watch a movie for any other reason than to be entertained. Critiquing movies would take all the fun out of it for me. This movie is very entertaining to me, not quite on Shawshanks level, but darn close.
• Laley23

  

  se-alum wrote: I watch movies for their entertainment value, not because I think I'm some sort of film critic. I've never understood why anyone would watch a movie for any other reason than to be entertained. Critiquing movies would take all the fun out of it for me. This movie is very entertaining to me, not quite on Shawshanks level, but darn close.

  I agree, but at the same time things in movies can ruin them for me if they just dont make sense. Should they? Probably not. But they do. Case in point is the fact that NO ONE knows who Forrest Gump is. The guy would be the most famous person in the freaking world...that just always bugged me and I couldnt get over it.