The Shawshank Redemption

[Bumblefeet]

Still listed as the number one best movie of all time on IMDB.com, which is up for debate, but I had that opinion well before imdb even took off.

Being a Stephen King fan and liking the movies based on his works, you come across a lot of great movies but to be honest also a lot of bad ones. But even the great ones from directors like Kubrick, Cronenberg, DePalma, ... pale to the brilliance of "The Shawshank Redemption".

I originally got it on VHS cassette and played it a dozen of times. Then DVD and now blu-ray. Truly a spectacular movie that contains such a great story, beautiful characters, great life wisdoms and leaves me in awe every time I watch it.

I even got to see it in the theatre years after it came out, when I was in my middle teens, thanks to my school. We'd go and see a movie every years with school and usually it would be these crappy local productions but when they told me we were going to see Shawshank Redemption I was overjoyed; I'd only got to watch the movie on VHS and where all my classmates couldn't care less, I got to see the freaking Shawshank Redemption projected large!

Like all great movies, It's become one I savour for just the right times, I need to be in the mood for it. But it's such a 'heavy' movie, making the journey worthwhile every time I watch it.

Any other fans?

Edited May 28, 2016 by Bumblefeet

[jekylhyde]

Great film. 

[PappyTron]

I must confess that I have never seen it. Is it a bit like OZ?

[Bumblefeet]

4 hours ago, PappyTron said:

I must confess that I have never seen it. Is it a bit like OZ?

I've never seen OZ but Shawshank Redemption is a prison movie though set in the 50s/60s, and I suspect like that series it does give a great impression of what daily life was like in a prison. Though it has no action, it can be violent at times but foremost it's a movie about hope and friendship. There are other prison movies with some harsh reality to them like Midnight Express or a great story like King/Darabont's fantastical follow up "The Green Mile" but where Shawshank differs is in the payoff. Definitely check it out!

[SoulMonster]

Huge fan. One my of my favorite movies. Actually discussed it with friends yesterday.

Edited May 29, 2016 by SoulMonster

[Lumikki]

Not necessarily my favorite movie, but I think it's one of the best movies I've ever seen. It desrves it's number one place on imdb, imo.

[AtariLegend]

12 hours ago, PappyTron said:

I must confess that I have never seen it. Is it a bit like OZ?

If you mean this?

Yes, it is alot better.

It's not as good as this though;

 

[Len Cnut]

I quite like it.  I've always thought there was a movie of it's own in the whole bit with the old guy Brooks, being released from prison and being of another time, there's a good 90 mins in that little montage alone.  A sort of a character study if you like.  Dunno about all this best movie of all time bollocks, i don't think you can boil a 120 years or so of cinema down to one film but it's good, i like it.  

[Bumblefeet]

8 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

I quite like it.  I've always thought there was a movie of it's own in the whole bit with the old guy Brooks, being released from prison and being of another time, there's a good 90 mins in that little montage alone.  A sort of a character study if you like.  Dunno about all this best movie of all time bollocks, i don't think you can boil a 120 years or so of cinema down to one film but it's good, i like it.  

Yeah the Brooks storyline is very tragic, gets me every time. It's poignant in how it not only showcases the "institutionalised" theme of the movie but foreshadows as well. Amazing performance by the late James Whitmore.

[Len Cnut]

On 29 May 2016 at 2:57 AM, PappyTron said:

I must confess that I have never seen it. Is it a bit like OZ?

There's some bumming in it, you should watch it . Well, implied bumming.

[Bumblefeet]

On 6/2/2016 at 6:32 PM, Len B'stard said:

There's some bumming in it, you should watch it . Well, implied bumming.

I don't care how great Andy's wisdoms are throughout the movie, they all pale to the reply he gives that get him out of giving Boggs a BJ. 

[J Dog]

Great movie. Swear I've seen it a hundred times. 

That and The Green Mile are a nice one two punch.

[wasted]

It's probably okay but it winds up that's always no. 1. How can you watch it more than once is beyond me?

[Bumblefeet]

17 hours ago, wasted said:

It's probably okay but it winds up that's always no. 1. How can you watch it more than once is beyond me?

Really? You don't watch great movies more than once? There are many reasons why I want to experience a movie again. The story and the journey, the characters and performances, the dialogue, the music, the look, ... I feel Shawshank is a strong cathartic movie and so there's a bit of a feel good element in revisiting it and its message of hope. Also, a lot times when I revisit stuff it's often with a different perspective. And I'm also one of the few people who will rewatch the movie with the audio commentary 

[wasted]

16 hours ago, Bumblefeet said:

Really? You don't watch great movies more than once? There are many reasons why I want to experience a movie again. The story and the journey, the characters and performances, the dialogue, the music, the look, ... I feel Shawshank is a strong cathartic movie and so there's a bit of a feel good element in revisiting it and its message of hope. Also, a lot times when I revisit stuff it's often with a different perspective. And I'm also one of the few people who will rewatch the movie with the audio commentary 

I just have this irrational hatred of this movie. I have seen it twice and all I found was new reasons to hate it. It's just a celebration of no nonsense mediocrity. That's the message, not hope. Hope? Get the fiuck out of here. Not you. Just the cloying sentimentality of everyline of dialogue. Die! Also I don't think Morgan Freebase can act. He's the least charismatic star in hollywood anyway. All this swirls through my mind as I watch the movie. Then that line get busy living or get busy dyin. I want to jump through the screen and kick his illuminati ass. Try making a decent movie before dealing up the platitudes. Even if I do jack shit I'm still living and still going to die. Go back prison and try harder. It must be like some people hearing This I Love for the first time. God damn. The idea that people like this movie makes me depressed. But I respect everyone's opinion and sort of see it, but not really. You fall for that shit? Really? Really!

[wasted]

1 hour ago, Rovim said:

Since then I think there was progress in how a lot of movies are made now. There will always be silly shit, but it's like they don't insult your intelligence as much or at all, those kind of movies are easier to find.

If I recall correctly, you're a fan of A Most Violent Year (not many movies like this were made back when Shank'd came out) or even back then you had The Sopranos and recently Mad Men, Breaking Bad. Even some comedies have improved and it's less one sided perhaps?

Less of that sort of pretensious shit. Easier to find cooler movies and I agree Freeman is pretty shitty. Like in The Dark Knight it fucked with me.

I do like that movie. I suppose I just like more subtle or grittier crime movies with funkier dialogue. It's kind smaltzy hollywood bullshit. But it's King so it's very middle America tv movie which a motel 6 appeal. But not greatest movie of all time. There was a good one from him Sphere? It had the King script basics. So cans on the cabin table look cool. 

[Bumblefeet]

2 hours ago, wasted said:

I do like that movie. I suppose I just like more subtle or grittier crime movies with funkier dialogue.

To each their own. Pulp Fiction came out the same year. While I absolutely loath that movie for causing brain damage to a generation of filmmakers who loaded their movies with white gangsters and bad dialogue, I do recognise its staying power but it's a movie I can't be bothered to sit through again.

 

2 hours ago, wasted said:

But it's King so it's very middle America tv movie which a motel 6 appeal. But not greatest movie of all time. There was a good one from him Sphere? It had the King script basics. So cans on the cabin table look cool. 

In the case of Shawshank I'd dare to say it's Darabont. He took what is IMO a rather forgettable King short story and turned it into an incredible screenplay and signed on with Caste Rock on the condition that they let him do the movie he wanted to make. That's a rarity these days.

[wasted]

10 hours ago, Bumblefeet said:

To each their own. Pulp Fiction came out the same year. While I absolutely loath that movie for causing brain damage to a generation of filmmakers who loaded their movies with white gangsters and bad dialogue, I do recognise its staying power but it's a movie I can't be bothered to sit through again.

 

In the case of Shawshank I'd dare to say it's Darabont. He took what is IMO a rather forgettable King short story and turned it into an incredible screenplay and signed on with Caste Rock on the condition that they let him do the movie he wanted to make. That's a rarity these days.

It's better than the CGI marketingcentric bullshit they make now. It's more of a visual age. But I think there's a lot of good stories around. 

I have similar thoughts about King's speech, even the Godfather(it has a lot strengths that make up for things). It's down to personal taste in the end. To me they are middlebrow. Understandable screenplays with generic filmaking. 

If you bring Pulp in to it, putting aside the waffle about stolen ideas, Tarantino breathed life into crime caper movies. The art narrative used in crime movies was something new in Hollywood. He's skilled filmaker. Whereas Shawshank is a solid story presented in the most dour way. Just flat because that doesn't upset anyone. Hollywood conventions followed. Wrist slashingly slow, filmed like Sesame street, it's like an exercise in boring choices. But there is the popular survivor theme that everyone likes. A worthiness. It's inoffensive to the masses. A good script, well filmed, but nothing to say top ten movie. 

There's no filmaking to view. Scorsese is the opposite. He walks that sensationist line but look at the camera, the shots, every scene. Look at Kundun, when he's outside of his comfort zone he's filming from the child Dailai lama's viewpoint. 

But doesn't mean I'm right, a lot of people like the sentiments of the movie, it's very popular but not really why I watch movies. It's not complete shit. I just don't find it entertaining in any way and the pseudo spiritual thing I find condescending. 

[Bumblefeet]

4 hours ago, wasted said:

If you bring Pulp in to it, putting aside the waffle about stolen ideas, Tarantino breathed life into crime caper movies. The art narrative used in crime movies was something new in Hollywood. He's skilled filmaker. Whereas Shawshank is a solid story presented in the most dour way. Just flat because that doesn't upset anyone. Hollywood conventions followed. Wrist slashingly slow, filmed like Sesame street, it's like an exercise in boring choices. But there is the popular survivor theme that everyone likes. A worthiness. It's inoffensive to the masses. A good script, well filmed, but nothing to say top ten movie. 

There's no filmaking to view.

I'm sorry but you clearly have no understanding of film to even make such a bland statement. The fact that the movie to you looks like an exercise in boring choices is because they are oblivious to you (which in all honesty good lighting, shot selection, editing, etc. should be).

Shawshank has a lot of filmic qualities. First off the cinematography which is amazing and even the cinematographer was flattered that most people thought the movie was entirely shot in natural lighting when that wasn't the case. Second, the shot selections and camera movements of which there are plenty of effective examples. For instance the introduction to Red's parole hearings or the roof tarring scene:

Third but not least, the editing. This is still a film that encompasses a 20 year time period and does it effortlessly, without dropping a beat and shifting gears when we leave the 50s and enter the 60s. I believe it was mostly shot chronologically which is also a rarity.

[wasted]

On 21 June 2016 at 7:38 AM, Bumblefeet said:

I'm sorry but you clearly have no understanding of film to even make such a bland statement. The fact that the movie to you looks like an exercise in boring choices is because they are oblivious to you (which in all honesty good lighting, shot selection, editing, etc. should be).

Shawshank has a lot of filmic qualities. First off the cinematography which is amazing and even the cinematographer was flattered that most people thought the movie was entirely shot in natural lighting when that wasn't the case. Second, the shot selections and camera movements of which there are plenty of effective examples. For instance the introduction to Red's parole hearings or the roof tarring scene:

Third but not least, the editing. This is still a film that encompasses a 20 year time period and does it effortlessly, without dropping a beat and shifting gears when we leave the 50s and enter the 60s. I believe it was mostly shot chronologically which is also a rarity.

Now that I can see that video  I can elaborate. It's classic Hollywood narrative over the shoulder shots. Even the pan and over head shot are by the book. It's effective but it's all been done to death, that's why there is such a thing as the Hollywood narractive. Shots that establish who is talking and who is driving the causal progression. It's a formula. Tony Scott is much more skilled with the camera, foreground, middle ground, background. This movie isn't about filmaking though. It's the story that people like. The way it's made doesn't really get in the way of that. But best movie of all time. Try Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Anything by Lumet, anything by Lumet over this. 

 

I can give it credit for cinematography, like Godfather some shots were like renaissance paintings. It's not something that was apperrent to me when watching. 

I feel like your clutching at straws here. What's the real reason you like it? 

It must be the emotional impact the movie delivers, not for one second is it unrealistic, that kind of thing? 

There's no point going tit for tat. Next time I watch I take some of this into consideration. It is kind of my token film to hate. 

Is there a scene or something? I just remember there being no relief or character to really care about? It was like a Will Smith movie, a very long Will Smith movie. Although Bad Boys and Wild, Wild West was great. The rest not so much. 

Edited June 30, 2016 by wasted
Lumet

[JeanGenie]

I like it. It shows hope where you dont expect it.

[classicrawker]

Great movie and one I watch every time it popups on cable...............Same with the Godfather movies, even though I have them on Bluray I watch them every time they are on TV.........

[luciusfunk]

Definitely best movie based on a Stephen King work. 

[slash23579]

Just saw this movie for the first time a couple days ago. I fucking loved it, and wish I didn't wait so long to finally watch it

[wasted]

I got Cell on dvd. So I'm going to watch that tonight.

Dreamcatcher is another I liked from the King movies.