Forrest Gump (1994) Review

            Forrest Gump is a 1994 film adaptation of a Winston Groom novel about a man (played by Tom Hanks) with a below average IQ who, despite all odds, lives a very successful and rich life.  The film won numerous awards, including Best Picture at the Oscars, and quickly became a favorite among both audiences and critics.  It’s one of the most quotable films in recent memory, with lines like “Life is like a box of chocolates” and “Run, Forrest!  Run!” becoming staples in the lexicon of pop culture.  It has even inspired a chain of restaurants called Bubba Gump Shrimp Company, now at over 30 locations across America (I once went to one in New Orleans).  It is extremely difficult to avoid this fondly remembered film, since it is played and talked about EVERYWHERE.  I’ve fortuitously seen it multiple times, and I am sure you all have, too.  So what is the point of reviewing it now?  What could I possibly say about this film that could change how you view it?

            Wait, I got something:  This film is extremely stupid.

Now before you start raging against me, let me just say that overall, this is a good movie.  Robert Zemeckis, who directed such technical masterpieces like the Back to the Future movies and Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, once again proves his special effect mastery with Forrest Gump.  The illusion of Forrest being part of historical archival footage, while looking a bit dated by today’s SFX standards, was probably revolutionary in the day.  Also, I was very impressed by the effect used to edit out Lt. Dan’s legs after the Vietnam portion of the film.  The cinematography and the acting were pretty good as well.  The person who stole the show for me was Robin Wright as Forrest’s high school sweetheart, Jenny.  The scenes with her were easily the best of the show, especially the excellent scene in which Forrest and Jenny talk on the bridge and you are made to believe that Jenny was going to jump off of it.  Combined with the kickin’ nostalgic soundtrack, we have a well-made movie that emotionally engages the audience, for the most part.

However, for every good thing that I can say about the film, I can match it with an insultingly idiotic moment that completely took me away from the plot.  While I thought the movie was good as a whole, it’s these little moments that take away all of the believability and sincerity of the otherwise inspirational story.  So let’s tackle a select few of these moments together, shall we?

Right from the beginning, we get a stupid moment when we learn how Forrest got his name.  Forrest was named after General Nathan Bedford Forrest, a distant relative of his and the first Great Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.  In a narration, Forrest said his mama named him that to, and I quote, “remind [him] that sometimes we all do things that, well, just don't make no sense.”  No.  That is a horrible reason to name your child that!  You want to constantly remind your child about his racist family history instead of, you know, just talking to him about it and making him understand that way?  What kind of life lesson is that, anyways?

Another moment that “just don’t make no sense” is later in the movie, when Forrest meets President Nixon.  Nixon tells Forrest, with cameras all around, that he can stay the night at the Watergate Hotel, the same night that the infamous break-in occurred.  It is revealed that Forrest was the one who inadvertently exposed the robbers that night when he saw their flashlights in the windows outside.  My question is, why would Nixon recommend that hotel to Forrest the same night as the break-in?  It just seems weird to me.  Furthermore, why would he publicly tell him this in front of a bunch of video cameras?  Wouldn’t you think he’d want no association with Watergate, knowing the consequences if they got caught that night?  The whole setup just seems too contrived and coincidental for it to be believable or even funny.

Forrest has two chance meetings with famous rock stars.  The first one was with Elvis Presley, who boarded in his mother’s house when he was still a child.  Forrest still had his leg braces at this point, and when Elvis played on his acoustic guitar, Forrest would awkwardly dance to the music with his bent knees in a style that was inadvertently similar to Elvis’ legendary gyrations.  The implication here is that Forrest influenced Elvis’ dancing style before he actually broke out as a music star.  What’s the point of that?  Why does Elvis’ dancing need to be explained away in such a manner?  Are you trying to sell to me, movie, that Elvis was trying to imitate a physically handicapped boy whenever he danced?

The second chance meeting with a rock star comes later in Forrest’s life, in what is easily the silliest and most embarrassing scene in the movie.  Forrest is on the Dick Cavett Show, alongside John Lennon, to talk about his trip to China.  When Forrest describes some of the things he saw in China, Lennon reacts with a line from his famous song, “Imagine”, implying that it was Forrest’s description of China that inspired Lennon to write this song.  The way this is conveyed is absolutely ridiculous; we never see Lennon contemplate what he’s saying, he just blurts out, through poorly edited mouth movements, a random line from his song.  Not only is the scene unnecessary and implausible, it insults the great songwriter Lennon by making him look like a buffoon who put trivial lyrics into his songs.

Now let’s talk about Forrest, obviously the most important part about this film.  You may think, from this and my Larry Crowne review, that I am hating on Tom Hanks, and I’m not.  I have nothing against the actor.  While I don’t think Forrest Gump is the best role in Hanks’ career, he did make the character very likable and interesting.  The studio was fortunate to have Hanks, too, since he demanded that the film had to be more historically accurate before he agreed to take the role (So, Forrest Gump is supposed to be historically accurate now?  Elvis really learned how to dance from a cripple?)  Forrest, however, is one of the aspects of this movie that I dislike the most, and it has more to do with the way his character is written than with anything else.  Allow me to explain.

So one of the core themes of Forrest Gump is that, despite his intellectual limitations, Forrest had lived a very fulfilling life.  It can be seen as an inspirational tale for some, along the lines of the 1989 film, My Left Foot.  In the film, Christy Brown is an Irishman who, despite being born with cerebral palsy, grows up to become an intellectual artist/writer.  Before doing so, Christy had to face ridicule from his family and peers, be forced into therapeutic education that took away from his everyday life, and suffer through heartbreak as girls he fell in love with refuse to accept him as a lover.  Christy had to go through many trials and tribulations in his life, dealing with his severe physical handicap, and what comes out of it is an inspirational tale of success and acceptance.

Now compare this to Forrest Gump, who never really worked hard to achieve anything.  He did get out of his leg braces and later become a great runner, but he never trained to do this; he merely discovered his natural ability after a group of bullies started chasing him.  He did become an international ping-pong champion, but this again was natural talent that was accidentally discovered.  I guess he worked hard in starting his shrimp company, but he only achieved success when a chance storm literally sunk all his competition.  There has never been any sort of drama as Forrest accomplishes these great feats, and he never really seems to be interested in his triumphs.  He just takes them as he comes.  When a character is simply handed every trophy that he can get without really working for it, his story becomes less inspirational and more fantastical and, dare I say, hokey.

It seems like everything that Forrest touches turns to historic gold.  He always ends up being in the right place at the right time.  Forrest effortlessly accomplishes so much, you are bound to lose track of all the great things that happened in his life, so here’s a partial list.  Forrest:

·        Meets Elvis Presley before his stardom and influences his gyrating dance style

·        Breaks out of his leg braces and becomes the star running back for the University of Alabama

·        Participates in George Wallace’s segregation stand-in at the University of Alabama

·        Earns a Medal of Honor for saving 6 people’s lives in Vietnam

·        Plays for the U.S. Army ping pong team and travels across China

·        Speaks publicly at a huge peace rally by the Washington Monument alongside Abbie Hoffman

·        Meets John Lennon and inspires him to write “Imagine”

·        Meets THREE different presidents

·        Accidentally uncovers the Watergate Scandal

·        Gets on the cover of Fortune magazine through his shrimping business

·        Becomes obscenely rich after purchasing a significant amount of stocks in the young Apple Computers

·        Makes national news with his 3-year-long coast-to-coast running spree

·        Inadvertently teaches Michael Jackson how to moonwalk after slipping on a banana peel

·        Accidentally discovers the Holy Grail in the back of his sock drawer

These are all amazing things that happened in Forrest’s life (except for the last two, obviously).  Any one of these moments could have been used as the defining moment for a character in any other inspirational film, yet Forrest Gump hogs them all.  It is even more ridiculous in the novel version, as he becomes an astronaut, a chess player, and even a freakin’ professional wrestler!  (Not kidding)  A character doesn’t have to be God in order for him to live a successful, inspirational life.  It’s just so out of control here!

And yet, despite everything that I just complained about, I am still recommending this movie.  I do this because even though I personally do not like Forrest Gump, I have to admit that it is a great, solidly made film that really tugs on the heartstrings of the viewer.  The movie is at its best when it focuses on Forrest’s relationship with Jenny and other characters rather than on his golden road to success.  If you can somehow manage to get over the ridiculously idiotic moments of this film, I’m sure you will find Forrest Gump to be an emotionally engaging film with nice, subtle special effects to look out for.  Just keep in mind, as the old saying goes, that “stupid is as stupid does.”  And since this film does some stupid crap…well…I’ll let you draw that conclusion.

Rating:  3 Stars

Distributed by Paramount Pictures

            Running time:  141 minutes

Larry Crowne (2011) Review

Tom Hanks has definitely proven that he is not merely an actor.  He can also direct, write, and produce, as seen in movies such as That Thing You Do! and The Polar Express, as well as in mini-series like Band of Brothers.  So it was understandably expected that his newest directorial feature, Larry Crowne, would be as successful as his previous works.  Sadly, however, I have to report that this is not the case.

I don’t really blame Hanks a whole lot, though.  I mostly blame his writing partner for this film, Nia Vardalos.  Vardalos is mostly known as the writer and leading actress of the big 2002 hit, My Big Fat Greek Wedding.  Since then, however, she never really wrote anything decent.  She wrote screenplays for Connie and Carlo and I Hate Valentine’s Day, both of which bombed in the box-office, and she also wrote for My Big Fat Greek Life, a T.V. show based on the before-mentioned movie that was cancelled after 7 episodes.  Vardalos’ writing track record was not so hot coming into Larry Crowne, and she is the one that I blame for the film’s corny script.

Larry Crowne is about a guy, played by Tom Hanks himself, who has worked as a manager for a big-box store for a long time, regularly receiving Employee-of-the-Month awards and making friends with all of his colleagues.  Larry is then shocked to find out that he is being fired due to his lack of college education.  You see, Larry went into the Navy after high school and never had time to go to college.  Since he does not have this experience, he cannot be promoted to a higher position, so the higher-ups decide that the best option is to just let him go.

The opening to Crowne actually looked very promising.  The idea of Larry losing his job solely because of his lack of education was pretty intriguing and topical.  In today’s society, it is nearly impossible for anyone to hold onto a decent job without having some sort of degree.  We are currently in the transition period of this change, where the long-time faithful workers, who rose to the position they are in without any special education, are now being replaced by degree-holders.  In order to compete again in the job market, these people must go back to school again, as Larry does in this film.  With the right direction and the right script, this story could have been a very poignant journey of a man trying to reclaim his pride and sense of self-worth.  As it stands, though, the story is a clichéd, aimless mess.

So why doesn’t this story work?  Because it meanders all over the place, like a drunk guy lost in a grocery store.  In the beginning, it is established that Larry is going to community college so that he can become more hirable for the job market.  After about 30 minutes into the plot, though, this motivation gets completely dropped, and the film focuses primarily on Larry’s wacky adventures with his new community college friends.  Sure, we see Larry get a job as a chef for a diner, but it is only a part-time job to help pay for school and expenses.  We never see Larry get a decent job with his new education, and he doesn’t seem interested in finding another job either, making us wonder what the point of all of this was.

So you would think that the plot would mostly cover Larry’s difficulty in adjusting to the academic life, right?  Or the budding romance between Larry and his speech professor Mercedes Tainot, played by Julia Roberts?  But no, both of those plot elements take a backseat to the true focus of the film:  a scooter club of free-spirited young adults that take in Larry as a member, because he has a scooter or something.  They ride around town, do stuff together, and for no real reason, decide to do extraordinarily nice things for Larry, like redecorate his house and buy him new clothing.  While the scenes with the scooter club are kind of fun, they don’t really contribute anything to, well, anything.  It just seems like these scenes take away time that could have been used to show how the college classes have helped Larry as a person or to establish the relationship between him and Mrs. Tainot or in another way the could have made this film more meaningful.

But what pains me the most in this movie is the “comedy”.  Oh dear God, the comedy!  Although some moments did elicit a light chuckle out of me (especially anything involving the great George Takei!), most of the jokes were extremely hokey and cliché-ridden.  If you have ever seen a romantic comedy in your entire life (which, I hate to admit, I’ve seen my fair share), you will have your face squarely inside your palm throughout the whole movie because of how derivative these jokes are.  I wish I could give you an example, but these jokes are so forgettable I cannot recall a single one.  Just corny, desperate, unoriginal humor all throughout.

Let’s talk about the acting now, which was sort of a mixed bag.  There were some standouts here, though.  Like I hinted at before, Takei completely stole the show as the pompous Economics professor who takes Larry’s phone away from him each time he uses it in class.  I just wished that my Economics professors in college had his creamy baritone!  Cedric the Entertainer was pretty, well, entertaining as Larry’s next-door neighbor who runs a non-stop garage sale.  And finally, I enjoyed Wilmer Valderrama as the leader of the scooter gang, as he keeps becoming jealous of his girlfriend’s over-friendliness towards Larry.  I thought these were all decent comedic roles.

The actors that I didn’t really care for were, well, the two leads, Hanks and Roberts.  Hanks’ Larry Crowne just comes across as extraordinarily dorky, and he is almost an empty shell of a character with no personality to speak of.  Julia Roberts plays, well, Julia Roberts, as she has done in every other film she’s been in.  Together, they try to make this movie into a romantic comedy, but it just falls flat because they hardly share the same screen together.  When they finally share their first kiss, Larry’s hokey reaction to it just baffled me, since I didn’t see any indication that he had any feelings toward her.  Plus, the love story wasn’t interesting enough.  There weren’t any major conflicts or anything like that; they just merely fell in love for some reason.  The romance, which I guess was supposed to be important to the plot, just did not seem believable to me at all.

I will say this, though.  The audience that I saw this with had a median age of about 70, and it sounded like they enjoyed this flick.  They were rolling with laughter at the jokes that I found insultingly lazy.  So, I guess if you are a 70-year-old and Larry Crowne looks appealing to you, I would recommend that you just ignore everything that I just pointed out and go see it.  For the rest of us, though, who wanted this film to be the time capsule movie that perfectly reflected the plight of the average worker in today’s meager economy, you will be sorely disappointed.  It is hokey, clichéd, unfunny, directionless, and it doesn’t really try to speak to anyone.  This concept could have been a great movie, and Tom Hanks just completely misses the mark.  If you want to see a good movie about the current economy, I would recommend The Company Men over Larry Crowne.

Rating:  2 Stars

Distributed by Universal Pictures

Studio: Vendome Pictures / Playtone

            Running time:  99 minutes