Conference bookie::movies

	Is there a spoiler behind your spoiler warning or is it safe for
	those of us who haven't seen the movie yet to read the remaining
	39 lines of your review?

    
    	There was nothing behind the FF that will ruin the movie for
    	anyone.
    
    	Just a "kudos" note.
    
    							GTI

    I was one of the people who really felt that Tom Hank's Oscar for Best
    Actor ("Philadelphia") was undeserved and awarded only because the role
    he played was a politically correct one.  
    
    However, if he gets nominated again, and wins, for Forrest Gump, I
    won't bitch one iota.  Hanks has turned in by far and away the best
    performance I've seen him in.  And Robert Zemeckis, who is better known
    for funny films ("Who Framed Roger Rabbit", "Back to the Future") does
    a really nice job in turning out a dramatic film which has funny
    moments.  
    
    As has been said before, the movie concerns a slow-witted man, Forrest
    Gump, and basically, his life.  He leads a charmed life, always
    managing to be in the right place at the right time.  He has a simple
    outlook on the world, has a loving mother (played very nicely by Sally
    Fields), and loves his friend Jenny (Robin Wright, not looking much
    like Princess Buttercup here), even though she always running away from
    something.  He's a steadfast friend, an innocent, unintentional hero
    and boy can he run.  Running is what gets Forrest started, even though,
    as he says, "I always ran to get where I was going.  I didn't think it
    would take me anywhere."
    
    There were a surprising amount of people at the showing I went to, and
    the general audience response seemed to be highly favorable.  For a
    movie which was supposed to be so hard to promote, I think Paramount
    has got people's attention.
    
    It's a very sweet, fun, and very well done movie.  Go see it.  Kids
    might get a little bored and there is some fairly graphic depictation
    of war casualities. Very few and very tame sex scenes (bra straphs and
    naked backs, really). Folks a little older than me (born around, oh,
    1945 or so) might very well enjoy the film for a trip through history
    they've lived, even though I liked the little jaunt through history I
    remembered, too.  :) 
    
    It really is a very good movie.  If I'm forced to pick out a flaw, I'd
    say Gary Sinese, playing an embittered (to say the least) vet (as in
    war vet, not animal doctor) didn't get enough screen time.  On a
    related note, it's amazing what they can do with computers these days. 
    
    [note: Mr. Sinese, for TV watchers, was recently in "The Stand",
    playing what's his name, the main protagonist.  That guy from Texas.]   
    
    
    **** out of ****
    
    kim

> I was one of the people who really felt that Tom Hank's Oscar for Best
> Actor ("Philadelphia") was undeserved and awarded only because the role
> he played was a politically correct one.  

	I just rented Philadelphia last night, and I had almost the same
	impression.  Ie. I don't believe he should of even been nominated
	for the "Best Actor" catagory.  Denzel Washington was really the
	lead actor in the film and if Hanks were to be nominated for anything
	it should of been in the "Best Supporting Actor" catagory.

> He leads a charmed life, always
> managing to be in the right place at the right time.

	Sounds like Mr. Magoo!

    
 >   As has been said before, the movie concerns a slow-witted man, Forrest
 >   Gump, and basically, his life.  He leads a charmed life, always
 >   managing to be in the right place at the right time.  He has a simple
 >   outlook on the world, has a loving mother (played very nicely by Sally
    
    Hmmmm...  Where have I seen this before?  Can you say "Being There"
    
    I hope its a lot more different than that one than it sounds for all
    the hype its getting.
    
    - Sean

    
    > [note: Mr. Sinese, for TV watchers, was recently in "The Stand",
    > playing what's his name, the main protagonist.  That guy from Texas.]   
    
    Stu Redman.

 

        I also enjoyed this  film,  it's  not  a  movie, it's a film.  (I
        consider  this  to  be  a    film  because,  to  me,  films  have
        story-appeal;  whereas, movies have star-appeal.)

        I knew Tom would be great  in this, as he was quite incredible in
        his role in "Big".  Those other  movies  where he plays the loud,
        obnoxious, obvious types don't win any sentiment from me.

        I'd  have  to endorse what the other folks  have  said  regarding
        "Forrest  Gump".  If you want to be overly  underwhelmed  by  the
        simple, but profound, joys of life -- go see it.

        Tony

    
    
    
    
    This is such a wonderful film, I don't recall seeing a movie like it
    in years. Covers so much ground, and deals with many things that are
    a part of life. Hanks and Gary S were outstanding, the actress that
    played Jenny is outstanding. Special effects, extemely well done.
    
    Never a boring moment. Lot of sad and funny and moving moments.
    
    This film will get a lot of oscars, and Hanks will get nominated 
    for best actor and I hope he wins it.
    
    Maximum star rating ********
    
    Dave
    
    
    Don't miss this film at the theater. 

    Absolutley wonderful....from begining to end.   There are many
    places where you need to suspend reality  - but its such a pleasant
    experience you really don't mind.
    
    Unlike most movies - this one will be popular with both Women and Men.
    
    A few spoiler comments..
    
    
    
    
    I agree with all said - except...I hated the 'walking scenes' and how
    he walked back and forth across the country etc....but the rest of the
    movie was absolutly wonderful! I truly enjoyed the FX the used in "In
    The Line Of Fire" style - adding Hanks in next to news footage.
    
    Tom I've followed your career from your Bosoom Buddy days and I've
    enjoyed every minute of it!

	This one was the top weekend grosser taking in about $24Million,
	pushing the Lion King to 2nd place (with about $23Million for
	it's 3rd week out).

	I wonder if Hanks took a flat fee for his role or is also getting
	a piece of the gross?

I thought 'Forest Gump' was excellent. I found that the newscast stuff 
reminded me of 'Zelig', the Woody Allen movie. The rest was similar to 
'Being There' and 'Rain Man', Although not as good as the former, a little 
better than the latter.

I would recommend this movie to anyone. It's a Hoot!

Kevin  (4-1/2 Stars)

    I had the chance
     to go to see this movie yet, but I will soon. Tom Hanks is my favorite
    actor and has been since Boosom Buddies.  One of his best perfomances
    in my opinion was in League of their Own. He made the movie.  He played
    his character perfect and was extremely funny. He shined over everyone
    except John luvitz and the two were never on the screne at the same
    time.  

    
    Tom Hanks has stated that he'd like to do a "Bosom Buddies" movie.  
    Unbelievably, Peter Scolari is the one keeping this from happening.
    
    - Sean

    If you heard this from Hanks on Letterman, I definitely got the 
    impression he was only joking.
    
    - Dave

    
    Nope, read it in a magazine (tv guide?  Premier?  can't remember).  I
    could easily be convinced the mag misunderstood its sources, though...

    I saw this movie, I mean film, over the weekend and enjoyed it.
    But I don't have as high an opinion as do many earlier noters.
    Tom Hanks does a fine job -- heck, everybody does a fine job.
    The story is interesting if you're willing to suspend reality,
    music was well-chosen and the FX were outstanding.
    
    But I think both Rain Man and Being There were "better", in my
    subjective, cant-explain-why-but-thats-my opinion. I think this
    note has set viewer expectations impossibly high.
    
      John
    
    p.s., Best line of the movie: "We should get her a harmonica".

    >>    Unbelievably, Peter Scolari is the one keeping this from happening.
    
    It may be that Scolari looks at his career as not having progressed
    enough that the is willing to do a remake (Admission of failure,
    perhaps).
    
    Personally, I would love it.

    Saw this last night...I liked it.  Alot of people in the theater were
    very "misty-eyed".
    
    -s
    

    I believe that Hank's comments on doing a "Bosom Buddies" movie was in
    jest, as was the follow up about Peter Scolari not being for it.  He
    was saying, tongue in cheek, that if Robin Williams can score a big hit
    dressing in drag, well, he and Peter should think about making a movie
    off of their TV series.
    
    
    kim

    
    What a great flick...er, film :-).
    
    	I'd love to see a 'Making of...' special about it - how the heck
    did they do the beginning and ending shots with the feather?
    
    	4 outta 4 stars.  Heck, I'd even give a constellation . . .
    
    					- Jim

    re .20
    
    Computer graphics, I believe.
    
    
    kim

    
    re -.1
    
    	I thought of that, but discounted it.  If it is, then it's pretty
    damn good work.  Usually CGI effects are easy to spot by being a little
    *too* smooth, and the shots seemed extremely real.  
    
    	They also did a hell of a job putting Mr. Hanks in the historic
    footages, and with what they did to Gary Sinise ( don't want to spoil
    it :-) ) . . .
    
    					- Jimbo

    RE:  the feather
    
    Note 588.21:  "computer graphics"
    Note 588.22:  "I thought of that, but discounted it"
    
    How about the answer overheard in a Myrtle Beach theatre:
    "Musta been a fishin' line."?
    
    I'd go with computer graphics.  Wafting wind currents have
    a pretty good computer simulation model.  And as 588.22
    says, the known-to-be-computer-enhanced scenes are pretty
    good... :-)
    
    				dick
    

    I would like to know just how much of the "movie magic" we see thse
    days is computer imagery.  I also heard that the little boy who played
    the early Gump could not run as fast as they needed him to, so they
    chose another boy and superimposed the face of the Gump boy onto the
    image of the runner.  I saw clips of how they did the Gary Sinese
    thing, and the Gump meets the presidents thing.  Pretty amazing!  Soon
    we won't even need actors...just their faces!!
    
    -s
    

RE: the last few.

I'd have to agree with the last few replies and say that
the computer blue-screen masking work is very well done.

This technique was well incorporated in this film -- conveying
the innocence of the feather in an almost reverent manner to
having us believe Gary S.'s character's "change".

This work is fantastic (in the old sense of the word)!

    I hate to be the only decenting voice in this note concerning Forest
    Gump. The best thing about it was Hank's acting. An Oscar cailbre per-
    formance? Not in my book. Just a good steady job. The film wandered
    about too much. Kind of long. It was like they couldn't bear to part
    with any of the footage that had been shot. Some tighting up would have
    helped. Did the school master's jump in th sack with Sally Field 
    realy help the plot? Gump's love interest's character wasn't very well
    defined & I think another actress might have done a better job. I don't
    know where it is written that stupidity = lack of emotion. I'm sure
    that we have all encountered people in our lives that were not very
    bright but they did run the gamut of emotion; love, fear, hate etc. I
    found this lack of emotion out of character. Hank mouthed the words but
    there was nothing else. For me there were no highs to be found in the
    film & a few lows.

    Can anyone explain a thread that runs through this movie?
    
    Hidden behind a <ff>, just in case.
    
    Thanks,
    
    John
    
    There was a running theme about people being shot - presidents, etc. 
    The movie seemed to go out of its way to include this, even in places
    that it didn't seem relevent.
    
    Obviously they were trying to make a poing, but I must have missed it.
    
    Any thoughts?

    Re -.1
    
    'make a poing'??
    
    	:-)
    
    				- Jimbo

    I agree with .3.  I love Tom Hanks and think he's a really good actor
    (Big, Punchline being excellent examples) but his Philadelphia Oscar
    was ridiculous (but let's not get on that soapbox or I'll go on and on
    about Larry Fishburn, Raphe Fine (sp) and Harvey Keitel) and given
    completley for PC reasons.  After I saw the movie, I _knew_ that d*mn
    opera scene would be the "oscar moment"...sho' nuff.            
    
    Mary Jo

	One word, "EXCELLENT"!  I wouldn't mind seeing it again!  I loved
	all the well known events and celebrities the character happened
	to of cross paths with.  The scene with John Lennon coming up
	with words that we know eventually makes it into one of his songs,
	to the flashlights in the hotel!  The Elvis impersonator however
	wasn't that good.

	The movie was a good blend of happy, sad, silly and fun!  And of
	course the sound track was awesome with all classic hits!

	And I do agree with .5, it did have some resemblence to Peter
	Seller's in "Being There", but both were different and good
	in their own ways.

    Spolier Question:
    
    Did anyone get the impression that Jenny was a very early AIDS victim?  
    
    -Bruce

    
    	Response behind spoiler formfeed:
    
    
    
    
    
    		Yes, she died of some "new disease that no one knew much
    		about".
    
    		That wasn't the exact quote, but I did go away with the
    		feeling that she died of AIDS.
    
    		-Kevin

    Yet another response:
    
    
    

    She said it was a virus. With her IV drug use and sexual contact with
    IV drug users, it pretty much had to be AIDS.

    Lisa

re: .27

Which was behind a spoiler:




















                 


 > There was a running theme about people being shot - presidents, etc. 
 > The movie seemed to go out of its way to include this, even in places
 > that it didn't seem relevent.
    
 > Obviously they were trying to make a point, but I must have missed it.
    
I noticed that too.  I think we were supposed to see Forrest's reaction and how 
they really didn't bother him or didn't affect him because there were other 
things going on in his life that distracted him.  My memory is fuzzy, so there 
may have been exceptions.  On the surface they served as useful milestones to 
mark the time along Forrest's life.  However, upon a second viewing (or reading 
the book), I'm sure a deeper level would be obvious.

    There's an awful lot in this movie that youngsters won't get, like
    Forrest apologizing for spoiling the Black Panther's party.
    
    The funniest part for me was when he called the hotel desk to complain
    about not being able to get to sleep, but again, you have to be old
    enough to get it.
    
    I think the last third of this started to drag.  Comment on a couple
    recent "spoilers" [not really spoilers, cuz we all know history]
    
    
    As was mentioned in the last couple, there are references to just about
    every assassination, or attempted assassination from JFK to Ford and
    Reagan, with one glaring omission.  I mean even Wallace is shown
    getting gunned down.  Is that the only reason King's assassination is
    skipped over, nobody got it on film?
    

    I would like to add the cinematography and sFx to the list of candidate
    Oscar nomination categories for this film.
    
    The FX were so well done you couldn't tell they were there, unless
    you were tipped off in advance and knew where to look.  Even then I was
    amazed.
    
    Industrial Light and Magic, of course.  They get better every time.
    
    The camera work was great too.  I guess the director gets some of the
    credit for this, but that long opening shot descending from the
    rooftops, through the traffic, to Hanks' shoes blew me away.

    
    Finally got out over the long weekend to see this
    one:
    
    A truly amazing story.  EXCELLENT.
    
    
    Kev --
    

    >    There's an awful lot in this movie that youngsters won't get, like
    >Forrest apologizing for spoiling the Black Panther's party.
    
    At 34, I don't rate myself a "youngster", so maybe I'm just ignorant.
    What was the joke about spoiling the Black Panther's party, aside from
    the fact that they were a militant group to whom such an apology seemed
    rather inappropriate? Did something significant happen that Forrest
    might have caused, as was the case later when he called the hotel desk?
    			Thanks,
    				Jim

    RE: .39  by 36905::BUCHMAN 
    
    >>    There's an awful lot in this movie that youngsters won't get, like
    >>Forrest apologizing for spoiling the Black Panther's party.
    
    >At 34, I don't rate myself a "youngster", so maybe I'm just ignorant.
    >What was the joke about spoiling the Black Panther's party, aside from
    >the fact that they were a militant group to whom such an apology seemed
    >rather inappropriate? Did something significant happen that Forrest
    >might have caused, as was the case later when he called the hotel desk?
    
    The joke was that he thought it was a party and he spoiled it.  The
    Black Panthers were not HAVING a party, they WERE a Party.
    

>>>    There's an awful lot in this movie that youngsters won't get, like
>>>Forrest apologizing for spoiling the Black Panther's party.
>     The joke was that he thought it was a party and he spoiled it.  The
>     Black Panthers were not HAVING a party, they WERE a Party.

	I didn't know who the black panther's were either, but I got
	the joke (that one was pretty obvious).  The ones some youngsters
	might have trouble with is the "flashlights at the hotel keeping
	him awak" joke ...

> The ones some youngsters might have trouble with is the "flashlights at the
> hotel keeping him awake" joke ...

I guess so!  My S.O. and I saw "Forrest Gump" at a late show on a Sunday night
a few weeks ago.  There were maybe 20 people in the audience.  I guess most of
the rest must have been "youngsters" (not that we consider *ourselves* old,
being only in our late 30s! :-) ), since we were the only people who started
laughing at the beginning of that scene.  And only a few others chuckled later
when the historic reference became more apparent...

-- Nina

  I finally got around to seeing Forrest Gump this weekend. It's one of the best
movies I've ever seen. The script was great, the actors were great, the filming
was great, direction was great, and the story really moved me in a way few
movies do. One of my favorite movies of all time. 

  Even the effects were really done well. They are not as noticeable as they
would be in something like Star Trek but they seem just as impressive. 1st
class movie all around.

  One of the very few ***** out of 5. About as close as a movie can get to
perfect.

  George

SPOILER stuff










  I don't think Jenny died of AIDS. Must have been some other virus.

  If she had gotten AIDS before she got pregnant, she would have passed it on
to her kid and I don't think we are suppose to come away with the impression
that his days are numbered.

  If she had contracted the disease after, the kid would have been a lot older
when after she died. 

    Re: .43
    
    Regarding spoilers:
    
    
    
    >If she had gotten AIDS before she got pregnant, she would have passed
    >it on to her kid
    
    I don't think you have a guaranteed transmission of HIV from mother to 
    fetus. Regardless, the kid could certainly survive for at least six
    years before developing AIDS.

RE            <<< Note 588.44 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

    Re: .44
    
    Regarding spoilers:
    

    
>    I don't think you have a guaranteed transmission of HIV from mother to 
>    fetus. Regardless, the kid could certainly survive for at least six
>    years before developing AIDS.

  Maybe that's right I don't know. Just about every case I've heard where a
mother had AIDS, she passed it on to kids born after she got the virus. 

  And you are right, maybe we were suppose to come away from the movie with the
idea that the child was going to die of AIDS next, but somehow I didn't get
that feeling. 

  The whole thing about Jenny's virus seemed more of a hand wave that was not
really suppose to be anything specific. The way the movie had been going it
seems that if she did have AIDS they would have said so.

  Anyway, it was a small point. I still feel it was a 5 out of 5 star movie.

  George

	According to Entertainment Weekly this film is being released
	on April 28th (a Friday which is interesting) and will have
	a list price of $22.95.

    A comment on George's .45, hence a SPOILER alert
    
>  The whole thing about Jenny's virus seemed more of a hand wave that was not
>really suppose to be anything specific. The way the movie had been going it
>seems that if she did have AIDS they would have said so.
    
    I think the movie accurately reflects what was known at the time.
    In particular, the name AIDS wasn't around back then.
    
    Kind of ironic they went so far as to be technically accurate on this 
    when there's all these scenes of Gump with Presidents and so on.
    
      John

RE       <<< Note 588.47 by EVMS::HALLYB "Fish have no concept of fire" >>>




Ending SPOILER













>    I think the movie accurately reflects what was known at the time.
>    In particular, the name AIDS wasn't around back then.
>    
>    Kind of ironic they went so far as to be technically accurate on this 
>    when there's all these scenes of Gump with Presidents and so on.
    
  Well yes, calling it an unknown virus might fit but there is still the
problem of when she was suppose to contract the disease. Had she gotten it
before the child was born he probably would have been effected. Maybe he was
but I didn't get the impression we were suppose to come away thinking that
Forest Jr. was going to die of AIDS. 

  And had she contracted the disease after Forrest Jr. was born, he would have
been much older by the time she died. 

  So for AIDS to fit, either she had AIDS before Forrest Jr. was born but for
some reason didn't pass it on or Forrest Jr. is HIV positive. I don't know,
maybe but for me that doesn't work.

  George

    I thought this was an interesting movie, with excellent special
    effects.  The performance by Hanks was a good one, though his character
    (Gump) is a pretty odd construct.  I didn't ride an "emotional roller
    coaster," but did think there were several poignant moments.  
    
    The movie's a view of the history of the U.S. over the last 30+ years,
    as much as anything else, from a particular populist, somewhat
    conservative, point of view.  It reminded me a bit of "Field of Dreams"
    in this sense.  I suspect the strong response it draws from people may
    be a U.S.-specific thing, related to the way people there fell about
    their recent collective experience.
    
    On the particular point people have been discussing:
    <spoiler>
    
    
    For what it's worth, I also surmised that the mysterious illness was
    AIDS.  I don't think we're meant to conclude that the kid also has it. 
    Is it really invariably passed from mother to child?
    
    -Stephen

    
    Spoiler, regarding the recent discussion...
    
    
    
    
    No, I think there's about a 30% chance that the child will NOT
    get the disease from the mother.  I think what happens is, when 
    a child is born it has some of it's mothers antibodies, but then 
    shortly after, it kind of develops it's own....which is when it 
    has a chance of NOT developing the antibodies which indicate 
    exposure to the virus.
    
    I *think* but what do I know...
    
    Sue

RE recent spoiler discussions - let's not get too deep into the medical
rathole. There are other conferences with more information about that subject,
no doubt.

--Nina (with moderator hat on)

    
    Blah.
    
    I still think this movie was just plain dumb.  The fact that it got so 
    many nominations is so fittingly and ironically Gump-ish in and of itself.
    Nihilistic comes to mind when trying to describe its flaws, but its
    more than that - no questions, no answers, no nothing.  It felt like
    a celebration of tuning out.
    
    - Sean
    
      

> I still think this movie was just plain dumb.  The fact that it got so 
> many nominations is so fittingly and ironically Gump-ish in and of itself.
> Nihilistic comes to mind when trying to describe its flaws, but its
> more than that - no questions, no answers, no nothing.  It felt like
> a celebration of tuning out.

	So the only thing you can say is "just plain dumb"?  Good review :-)

>>	So the only thing you can say is "just plain dumb"?  Good review :-)

	you seem to have missed the rest of his paragraph.

>> So the only thing you can say is "just plain dumb"?  Good review :-)
> you seem to have missed the rest of his paragraph.

	I read the whole note, while full of words, was almost contentless :-)

>>	I read the whole note, while full of words, was almost contentless :-)

	Apparently, he felt much the same about the film.  He conveyed
	that quite effectively.

> He conveyed that quite effectively.

	IYHO :-)

>>	IYHO :-)

	obviously

    
    >	So the only thing you can say is "just plain dumb"?  Good review :-)
    
    Yeah, just about as good as:
    
    > ================================================================================
    > Note 588.30                       Forrest Gump                          30 of 58
    > NETRIX::michaud "Thumbs up!"                         13 lines  16-AUG-1994 18:13
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > 	One word, "EXCELLENT"!  I wouldn't mind seeing it again!
    
    :^)  :^)
    
    Sure, we both qualified our original thought with some next, but neither
    review was any less generic than the other.
    
    What more can I add to the "nihilistic" part?....  Here's a shot:
    
    The movie was *not* about the trials and tribulations of a mentally
    handicapped (to whatever degree) man (that'd be okay).  Gump was just a 
    a metaphor used to get across a disturbing (obviously, disturbing to
    *me*) point.
    
    That point is that, somehow, lack of intelligence should be equated
    with decentness, that lower I.Q should be linked with virtue.
    
    On the surface, the movie is harmless enough, charming brain candy of the
    highest form.  And I have nothing against lighthearted goofiness.  But 
    what irks and scares me is that this movie (and others - heck, its
    a Hollywood tradition to treat audiences like idiots) makes "being smart"
    almost villainous (which may be comforting to a world struggling
    with the technological advances of the 20th century).
    
    Our society will be much worse off if everybody decided they wanted to
    emulate Gump, stumbling around clueless, assured that riches and
    fortune will come our way just because we are "innocent" and
    "good-hearted."
    
    Why do I take things so seriously?  Maybe I wouldn't if these attitudes 
    weren' so prevalent in film.  "Gump" might as well be "Animal House." 
    
    Why is it so hard to find intelligence celebrated?  Movies like "Real
    Genius" are rare.
    
    - Sean

    
    Hey, just got the new Rolling Stone issue today.  Their comments in
    Movies - "Oscar '95: The Fix Is On"...
    
     "The movie is only troubling when you think about it, which is why
      most Acadamy members aren't troubled.  'Gump' extols the virtues of
      ignorance as bliss.....  The 'Gump' message is clear:  Listen To
      Mama, stick to the rules, play it safe, don't think....  'Quiz Show'
      ... is unapologetically smart....  That hits 'Gump' right in his box
      of chocolates."
    
    - Sean
    
    

    >The movie is only troubling when you think about it, which is why
    > most Acadamy members aren't troubled.  'Gump' extols the virtues of
    >ignorance as bliss.....  The 'Gump' message is clear:  Listen To
    >Mama, stick to the rules, play it safe, don't think....  'Quiz Show'
    
    A flip side to this could be, maybe most people just over complicate
    life. Maybe all intelligence isn't that which can be measured by
    an "intelligence test"
    
    spolier alert , examples follow
    
    
    I never got the feeling that Gump was "stupid", as in dumb and dumber.
    His test score showed that he was just below the "intelligence line".
    
    Gump's success wasn't through ignorance. Most of the time he succeeded
    because he went the extra mile for others, and they in turn managed
    to help him. Kind of a karma type thing.
    
     Gump just looked at the world in simplier terms than most folks. He
    used his skills and talents to the best of his abilities, and he backed
    up his actions with honest intentions.
    
     Maybe a "smarter person" wouldn't have given Bubba's family half the
    business, but in Gump's mind it was the right thing to do.
    
    Maybe a "smarter person" wouldn't have bothered with Lt Dan, but Gump
    did and Dan's investments of the money later made Gump even richer.
    
    Maybe a "smarter person" wouldn't be chasing the same "girlfriend" all
    his life, but Gump does. 
    
    I loved the part in bootcamp when Gump put his M-16 together in record
    time (all the time while Bubba is still talking about shrimp)
    and the SGt asked him why he did so fast. (more out of disbelief than
    wanting to know any specific reasons)
    
    Gump: because you told me to sir !
    
    (simple answer, no deep thought, no bragging)
    
    
    Sgt: good answer Gump, you're a F***ing genious, 
         you're gonna go far in this army
    
    
    Does all this make him dumb ? not in my mind.  
    
    
    

  I don't quite understand this criticism of Forrest Gump as a movie because the
character was not intelligent. My thought is, so what? 

  It would seem that a good performance is one in which the actor does a good
job portraying the character regardless of what that is. Likewise a good movie
is one that tells an interesting story and is put together well regardless of
what that story is about. 

  In other words, it would see that you could do a good movie about smart
people or you could do a bad move about smart people. Likewise you could do a
good movie about smart challenged (to use the P.C. term) people or a bad movie
about smart challenged people. 

  Forrest Gump impressed me as a great performance by Tom Hanks in a great
movie regardless of what it was about.

  *****,
  George

>                     <<< Note 588.62 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  I don't quite understand this criticism of Forrest Gump as a movie because the
>character was not intelligent. 
    
    I don't think anyone in this note has criticized the movie on these 
    grounds.  
    
    -Stephen

    Personally, I didn't think it was a movie about the "character" Gump at
    all.  Hanks's presence was what held it together, and his prtrayal of
    Gump's emotions at times of difficulty in his life was effective, but
    without the sort of superficial TV-eye view of the last 30 years of
    American history there wouldn't be much to the movie (IMO.)
    
    -Stephen

	On June 28th Christie's auction house is having a film and TV
	memorabilia sale.  Most items are from older films, but one
	item is less than a year old.  Yes, that's right, it's from
	Forrest Gump.....

	The "bus bench" on which Tom Hanks sits in the movie and narrates
	the story from.  It's expected to fetch $6,000 to $8,000.

    Great movie! Bought it a few days ago.. but can anyone explain to me
    how they did that to Lt. Dan's legs? Computer graphics? Superimposed
    his face? Thanks a bunch.

    Blue screen (they covered his legs in blue cloth) and computer graphics.

    Lisa

> Blue screen (they covered his legs in blue cloth) and computer graphics.

	Of course a true method actor would of had his legs amputed
	for the role :-)

  Or better yet, a true method actor would have done it with his legs in clear
sight while making you believe he didn't have legs. 

  George

    But an honest director and producer would've cast an actor with no legs
    in the first place. 

    Lisa

> But an honest director and producer would've cast an actor with no legs
> in the first place. 

	That's a "low blow" :-).  I had thought of this too, but problem
	in this situation is that the character as deplicted in this
	film does have legs to begin with.

	Casting should of found a pair of identical twins, one with legs,
	and one without.  It worked for Patty Duke :-)

!> But an honest director and producer would've cast an actor with no legs
!> in the first place. 
!
!	That's a "low blow" :-).  I had thought of this too, but problem
!	in this situation is that the character as deplicted in this
!	film does have legs to begin with.

    So? A good actor with prostheses could've done this role.

    Lisa

    I saw FG last night and while it was a good movie, I don't
    think it warrants all the raves it's gotten.
    
    It sure wasn't one of the best films I've ever seen, as many 
    have said.
    
    Sue

    
    I also saw Forrest Gump last light but for the second time, the first
    was at the cinema, and I enjoyed it just as much as the first time I
    saw it. Infact the second time round I saw some of the jokes that I had
    previously missed such as
    
    the first time I didn't realise that when Forrest was in the Hotel and
    he phoned down to reception to ask for a tecnician to be sent up to one
    of the rooms because the people were having to use flashlights to find
    the fuse box, that this was actually Watergate.
    
    This film is a CLASSIC example of Towism (sp?) whereby Forrest Gump
    just seems to let things happen to him. A perfect example of this is
    just after Forrest graduates he is asked if he has thought about his
    future and is given a leaflet on the Army. Next we know Forrest has
    signed up. The whole film seems to say that things are going to happen
    (Good and Bad) anyway so what's the point of worrying about them. He
    never seemed to question why things had to happen such as Bubba being
    killed or his Mum dying, but just accepted it and carried on with
    things, always saying "and that is all I have to say about that".
    
    To me the way that the whole film was put together, and the way that
    Forrest went from being a football star, to a war hero, to a pingpong
    champion, to a shrimp boat captian, to the owner of a fruit comapany
    (which was actually Apple Macintosh), to a champion runner and they way
    he met all the presidents all without him actually really making any
    decisions was BRILLIANT.
    
    As you will have gathered by now I liked this film - deserved all the
    awards, in my opinion, that Four Weddings and a Funeral got.
    
    Perhaps the people who say they didn't like it missed the simpicity of
    it all.
    
    Anyway I think I've said enough now - I could go on...
    
    AH.

    I didn't miss the simplicity of it at all and I beleive I got
    all the jokes the first time round (certainly the Watergate
    one right from when Nixon said "I've got a better hotel than
    that for you to stay at"...I knew what was coming).
    
    My point was that it was a nice, simple film.  
    
    Sue

    >> I didn't miss the simplicity of it at all and I beleive I got
    >> all the jokes the first time round (certainly the Watergate
    >> one right from when Nixon said "I've got a better hotel tha
    
    Sounds like - Na NA nA NA Na na, I got all the jokes and you didn't.
    
    I didn't suggest for one moment that you didn't get all the jokes. I
    was saying that I didn't the first time mainly because I am British and
    all the jokes were based on AMERICAN history. Hence the film was better
    for me the second time I watched it.
    
    Andy.
    

    Sounds like what?  Before I leap where?
    
    ....it's only's a movie. 
    
    Sue
    

    
    :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
    
    Andy.

>                       <<< Note 588.74 by MORLEY::HALL >>>
>                           -< Worth Thinking About? >-
>
>    
>    To me the way that the whole film was put together, and the way that
>    Forrest went from being a football star, .....
>    he met all the presidents all WITHOUT HIM ACTUALLY REALLY MAKING ANY
>    DECISIONS was BRILLIANT.  [emphasis added]
>    ....
>    Perhaps the people who say they didn't like it missed the simpicity of
>    it all.

And perhaps the people who didn't like it didn't like it because of the
utter simplicity of it all!
What's to like about the guy?  He's harmless and lucky - how else can you 
make yourself a success "WITHOUT ACTUALLY REALLY MAKING ANY DECISIONS"?
What's to learn from a movie like that?

- tom]

    
    I don't know if I'd call the film so much simple as idyllic -- I think
    it's a good film, but I think its impact on Americans who grew up with
    memories of the Vietnam War differs significantly from people in
    general.
    
    I enjoyed the film.  I thought it could have done with a little more
    editing (the whole running across the country sequence fell hard and
    flat, to me).  The device of placing Forrest squarely in the midst of
    the great events of the day was a little overused.  Still, a quality
    production, and an entertaining story.
    
    DFW

    
    >> What's to like about the guy?  He's harmless and lucky - how else
    >> can you make yourself a success
    
    I didn't see it as a film of the success of Forrest Gump and I don't
    think that this was intended. People have differnet views on what being
    successful is. I don't think forrest ever stopped to think about
    wether he was being "successful" or not. The whole point was forrest did
    what he wanted to do, he was made "successful" by the stupidity of
    society. When he set of running he did so because he felt like running
    not becuase he wanted to be in all the magazines and be famous for it.
    When he stopped running he did so because he was tired much to the
    dissapointment of his followers, however Forrest did not ask these
    people to run with him. 
    
    I think what can perhaps be learned from this film is, as I thought I
    put in my last note, that there is no point in worrying about things
    because if they are meant to happen they will anyway wether you worry
    about them or not.
    
    AH.

.79>And perhaps the people who didn't like it didn't like it because of the
.79>utter simplicity of it all!
    
     Amen.
    
.79>What's to like about the guy?  He's harmless and lucky - how else can you 
.79>make yourself a success "WITHOUT ACTUALLY REALLY MAKING ANY DECISIONS"?
.79>What's to learn from a movie like that?
    
    "The Terminator" taught a number of kids to feel like they were
    "Terminators" after leavng the theater. Which I believe is one reason
    in T2 Arnold played a Terminator who learned not to kill -- there were
    too many kids playing dispassionate "Terminators" after T1.
    
    FG is a little less offensive in that kids don't leave the movie ready
    to kick ass. On the other hand, if they learn:
    
> I think what can perhaps be learned from this film is, as I thought I
> put in my last note, that there is no point in worrying about things
> because if they are meant to happen they will anyway wether you worry
> about them or not.
    
    ... then FG has done them a disservice. Kids should be taught to take
    responsibility for their own actions instead of some fatalistic 
    kick-back-and-let-the-wrold-take-care-of-you attitude. But then, honest
    hard work isn't Hollywood fare these days.
    
      John

    I dunno.  I was around when The Terminator came out and I never saw a
    bunch of little kids going around shooting people afterwards.    
    
    Now, I think they might have played at being a Terminator, but the key
    world is play.  If I was a kid, I can't imagine I'd go play at being
    Forrest Gump.  It'd get kind of boring.   (Sit on park bench.  Have
    friend toss feather in air, watch it float down.  Pick it up. Chat to
    strangers.)   
    
    :)
    
    Tongue mostly in cheek,
    
    
    kim 

	The target audience from my understanding was/is not children.

    
    	I saw this last week and thought it was a very good movie.  Not
    	very believable, mind you ... from giving Elvis his "hip shake"
    	to being a very lucky boat owner [inexperienced at that].
    
    	Not the best movie I've ever seen, but very good.
    
    	And Gary Sinise is starting to pop up everywhere, isn't he?  I
    	think I'll start a note for him.
    

    My wife and I saw this movie, finally, on Saturday and we loved it.
    
    It was very well put together. I can't understand the handful of 
    poor and angry reviews I read in this note, but everyone has their
    own opinion :-)
    
    I loved the way the history was presented and the special effects
    were great.
    
    For the sake of not sounding Vanilla, I will add that I think the
    movie was 20 minutes too long and that entire 20 minutes....
    
    *** SPOILER ***
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ....was used up by that "Running from Coast to Coast and growing a
    beard" part.  I feel it was parenthetical, and could have (and should
    have) been completly ommitted and would have had no bearing on the 
    movie whatsoever.
    
    Also, I thought the way in which Jenny's mysterious Virus came into
    the picture was executed very well, because they didn't dwell on the
    details and left us wondering (considering the year was 1982 and she 
    was an IV drug user) if it was AIDS. 
    
    Somehow, I think they would have gone too far if they brought AIDS
    into the movie.
    
    
    Steve

    
    	Hypothetical question ...
    
    	What do you think Forrest said to the demonstrators in DC
    	when the mike was unplugged?  We never heardit, but there's
    	got to be a pretty obvious answer to it.
    
    	Do you think he went on about the badness of it all, as far
    	as the violence and death?
    

    David Letterman had various English people help him with the top ten
    list the other night; topic was "Top Ten British Nicknames for
    Americans". The #1 choice was "Gumps" :-)
    
    On the medical rathole
    
    
    the nonmedical issue I have with Jenny getting AIDS is that it was an
    unneeded and gratuitous ploy to jerk some more tears, in a movie that
    already has more than its share of sentimentality. In the book (so I
    hear) she did not get AIDS or marry Forrest; she was married to someone
    else. Forrest went home knowing that she was happy and he had a child
    out there somewhere. The movie could easily have ended there, but
    NOOOOO.....
    
    Apart from this, I really enjoyed the movie.
    			Jim

        What Forrest said is below the FF.
       
** spoiler alert **

 

 
        In the "making of" feature included with the laserdisc release,
        they show the protester scene where the microphone doesn't get
        turned off. I can't remember the exact words, but it was
        something like:
        
        "Vietnam is where you can lose your best good friend"
        
        If you're really interested, I can get the exact quote.

I watched this film for the first time this weekend (laserdisc release) and
loved it. I can understand objections to glorifying stupidity but I think
this film does so only mildly, other films are much worse.

The feature "Through the Eyes of Forrest Gump" on the laserdisc is quite well
done. The directer, actors and fx people talk about the film, characters,
and fx. There are scenes that didn't make it in the film as well as scenes
that did but from different camera angles.

I really can't imagine any actor other than Tom Hanks as Forrest, perfect 
casting.

I remember staying at the Grand Hotel down at Point Clear, Alabama a few 
years ago and there was an author living nearby named Winston Groome who had 
just published a new novel called "Forrest Gump". He's writing a sequal now
and has just published a Civil War historical novel(?).


Randy
 

    
    	The acountants are saying that "Forrest Gump" is $60M in debt right
    	now.
    
    	Even after making $xxxM in the last month.
    

> The acountants are saying that "Forrest Gump" is $60M in debt right now.

	You must of missed the rest of the story.  For accounting purposes they
	are still in the red.  That's because some people involved were not
	Hollywood insiders so stupidly agreed to a % of the "net profit" vs.
	a % of the gross (like Tom Hanks).

	The reason this is coming out is because Paramount is trying to screw
	the author who wrote the story.

	BTW, did you know three (3) bus stop benches were used as props in
	the movie.  And that one of the 3 was longer than the other two.
	Which bench was used in any given scene depended on the camera angle.

    
    I saw Gump for the 1st time last weekend.  I was at the video store and
    I didn't want to pick it up, it just didn't look like the type of film
    I would like.  But, then I could hear all my friends saying "you never
    saw Gump" and I felt like I was the only one in the world who had not
    see it - so I picked it up.
    
    well, I loved Gump!  I thought it was the best pitcher I have seen
    in a very long time.  Tom Hanks did a great job and so did everyone
    else in the move.  I don't like to watch movies more then once - 
    (I am board easily) but I would watch Gump again and again.
    
    Louisa

We just rented Gump and saw it over the weekend.  We could not make out one of
the last lines in the film, and I was wondering if anyone here remembers what the
line is:


The scene was when little Forrest Jr. was getting on the bus to go to school,
and the bus driver asked him "You do understand that this bus is going to take
you to school?" or words to that effect.  What was Forrest Jr's reply?

Thanks much,

-Chris Allen

    
    He said something like "My name is Forrest Gump and you're Dorothy
    <mumble>"
    
    This was going back to the beginning of the film when Forrest didn't
    want to get on the bus without knowing the driver's name as 'Mama says
    don't go with strangers'.
    
    Great film. See it again and again. You'll pick up something new each
    time.
    
    Royston

I don't have the time or the patience to read all the replies to this
topic.  So I don't know if anyone else mentioned gump's speech on the Nation's
Capital, where he's still in uniform, complete with Medal of Honor. Does anyone
else consider that scene to be a major flaw in the movie? 

I've seen the movie three times and that scene still bugs the hell out
of me.

-Steve

    
    	Well, I liked it because it left some question as to what he
    	actually said.  Leaves it to your imagination to try and fig-
    	ure out what he was thinking at the time.
    
    	Mild spoiler:
    
    
    
    	Did he speak out against the war, saying the entire experience
    	was horrible?  Or did he take the patriotic stance and say how
    	necessary it was?  I'd figure the latter, or something similar.
    

>    	Did he speak out against the war, saying the entire experience
>   	was horrible?  Or did he take the patriotic stance and say how
>   	necessary it was?  I'd figure the latter, or something similar.

I'm sure he just said what he saw and thought, not taking a pro or con stance.
But I just can't help thinking that the scritp writer(s) didn't know what to
have him say, so they faked it.

  I thought that scene was particularly well done.

  I agree it would be very easy to figure out what he would have said. As with
all his other speeches it would have been a recap of what we had already
seen, basically his personal experiences in VN, meeting the guy with the
shrimp boat, meeting the Lt. going out on patrol, etc. Then toss in a few
"wow what a big crowd, Jenny's my friend, Mom always fixed my lunch" type lines
and presto, a Gump speech.

  It wasn't necessary, that was more of a visual scene.

  George

    
    See .89 for a paraphrase a what Forrest said at the rally.
    
    
    Tom
    ---
    Dictated using DragonDictate.