• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

J.D. Hansel

  • FILM & VIDEO
  • PODCASTS

1994

Forrest Gump Review

July 14, 2017 by JD Hansel

My brother got very upset with me a few weeks ago when he found out that I, the film major in the family, hadn’t seen Forrest Gump, and understandably so – it’s one of the most famous movies ever and it’s by my favorite director.  That being said, we must remember that it’s not a film that critics praised or that academics have felt the need to seriously studied.  It’s one of those films that has actually been the subject of much study and scrutiny just from the average movie-goer, if only because of its rather biased historical revisionism.  However, now that I’ve seen it myself, I’d like to look at another strange aspect of the film: the story.

What makes this movie really stand out as a story, not just as a technical accomplishment, is that Gump himself has no ambitions in most of the film.  He doesn’t really plan on going to college, or plan on meeting the president(s), or plan on going to the army, or plan on starting his own shrimp business.  He doesn’t even try to do these things.  I know that’s related to the theme of the movie, but it shouldn’t make for a good story.  The fact that Forrest is by and large a passive character (at least emotionally) should also make the film rather boring, yet it’s entirely captivating.

I think it works well because it alternates between two interlinked stories: one being a comedy, the other being a drama.  The comedy comes from the fact that Forrest has clearly lived the most interesting life imaginable, but he has no conception of just how absolutely amazing it is.  Most scenes in this movie could easily make for movies of their own – how Elvis learned his dance, how Lennon wrote “Imagine,” etc., but instead we observe all of them briefly through the eyes of someone who can’t appreciate them, which has a funny kind of irony to it.  The audience is waiting to see how he’ll behave around the next famous person he’ll meet, and the next one, and the next one.  It’s more of a running gag than a story, but it’s fascinating nonetheless.

The dramatic story is actually the story of Jenny.  She, too, lives through an unbelievable life.  Her story, however, is much clearer.  Ever since childhood, she’d rather run from her problems (or wait for them to go away) than confront them.  She’s accepted the fact that people take advantage of her and mistreat her, and she allows it, while at the same time, she runs across the country trying to escape her past and find herself.  Of course, she realizes in the end that she could have had the happy, fulfilling life she wanted if she’d just allowed Forrest to love her, but instead she insisted on running.  It’s rather tragic, but at least the last few months of her life are happy enough.

The synthesis of these two stories may reveal the Major Dramatic Question: Will Forrest and Jenny ever tie the knot?  I do think that’s the main pull of the story, but it’s not used the way most narrative scholars and writers would say it should be.  Only a few scenes are focused on moving the characters towards the climax, and they’re all scattered about, mixed in with scenes that don’t push the plot forward at all.  It’s never clear that Forrest’s main goal in life – in everything he does in the film – is to resolve this particular conflict, so naturally it feels like most of the film doesn’t have much conflict.

On the other hand, every now and again, a story is written about a character with such a strong personality and such an interesting life that an audience is willing to be with that character through anything, even if there’s virtually no conflict.  At the end of the day, I’d gladly sit on that bench next to Forrest and listen to him telling his stories just because he’s (perhaps paradoxically) so interesting to listen to, which makes for a good movie.  Would it work well as a play?  Probably not.  It might not even work well with any other actor, writer, director, etc., but somehow, as it is, Forrest Gump makes for one heck of a movie.  And that’s about all I have to say about that.

Filed Under: Film Criticism, New Movie Reviews Tagged With: 1990s Movie Reviews, 1994, Dramedy, Essential Classics, Historical, PG-13, Robert Zemeckis, Three and a Half Stars, Unconventional Narrative

Ed Wood Review

March 29, 2015 by JD Hansel

(MINOR SPOILERS)

There are a couple of downsides to doing movies about real people and events.  The first is that it can often limit one visually; the filmmaker almost always must portray a world that is believable to the audience, which typically means no animation, no theatrical lighting/color, no surreal sets or props, etc.  Secondly, some liberties have to be taken with the characters since they are based on real people, meaning that names must be changed to avoid lawsuits, or the people must be fictionalized to seem likable and interesting.  There’s also the simple, obvious problem that the series of events that take place in real life are seldom as interesting as what is commonly found in fiction.  Did Tim Burton’s Ed Wood successfully avoid, or at least properly handle, all of these potential dangers?

On the whole, yes, the movie manages to have very interesting visuals, characters, and story flow.   Mostly. To be fair, there were a lot of times when I was a little bored by the movie because it can be kind of tedious. With a slightly faster pace, I would have enjoyed it a lot more, but I did still enjoy it.  It was really the characters that got me through it, because I did enjoy the majority of the cast.

This may not be my favorite Tim Burton film that I’ve seen thus far, but it is my favorite Johnny Depp performance.  Yes, he’s playing the type of character that he tends to play too often, but heck, I’ll take this over his Willy Wonka any day. Ed Wood is a very likable character and relatable character, in spite of the fact that he’s kind of an idiot.  I just can’t help but admire his passion and enthusiasm for making movies the way he believes they should be made.  Also, Martin Landau is fantastic as Bela Lugosi, and Bill Murray is Bill Murray at being Bill Murray all throughout the Bill Murray. Bill Murray.

There are a lot of great scenes in the film that work for a variety of different reasons.  The scene in which Bela is about to commit suicide is the most Burton-ly shot scene in the film, and is thus my favorite visually.   My favorite in terms of character and story, which is probably more important, is the exchange between Ed Wood and Orson Welles.  That’s the scene that makes the whole movie worth watching.  The scene in which Bela appears on television (with no idea how to improvise) is really a painful scene to watch, but not because it’s a bad scene.  Rather, it’s because it hurts to see him struggle in such a difficult, awkward situation.

The big problem with this film is not historical inaccuracy, a cinema sin that is also present, but is actually the simple fact that this guy’s life was difficult to focus into one cohesive story that clearly moves in a particular direction.  It’s always a little difficult for me to watch a movie if I get no sense that each scene is a part of getting the story to its climax, and Ed Wooddoes kind of drag for that reason.  Still, I would recommend that everyone go into the movie prepared to be a little patient, and then enjoy getting to meet this delightful character called Ed Wood.  Plus Bill Murray.

48 Ed Wood

Filed Under: Film Criticism, Tumblr Movie Reviews Tagged With: 1990s Movie Reviews, 1994, Four Stars, Halloween Movie, Historical, Movies About Film and Filmmaking, R, Tim Burton

Pulp Fiction Review

March 25, 2015 by JD Hansel

So,there are some movies I’d recommend that people see without any knowledge of what the film is about, what’s going to happen, or who’s in the film.  The Truman Show is a good example, as is Who Framed Roger Rabbit.  Then there’s a movie like Pulp Fiction.  I think I was only able to like it because I knew all about it going into it.

I knew the type of storytelling and approach.  I knew it was a weird Tarantino film that would jump around, and I knew he had carefully structured everything so that he was ahead of the audience, and no one could ever predict where the story would go next.  I knew he would use everything that the movies have trained us to expect to happen in a story against the audience to trick them.  I knew to expect that I would never know what to expect, and most importantly, I knew better than to play The Movie Game.

The Movie Game is my term for when the audience member tries to figure out where the plot is going, and what will resolve everything, with the understanding that the movie has to set up its twists and turns ahead of time, and the story will follow the standard structure.  This is partially based on a great quote from screenwriter Terry Rossio: “You know that the audience will try to guess where you’re going with the story.  It’s a given.  It’s fun.  After all, they’re sitting there virtually motionless in the dark for two hours, with nothing better to do but second-guess you.”  When The Movie Game is too easy, it’s a boring game, so it’s a bad movie.  I played a great game with The LEGO Movie, and the movie won.  I beat Frozen, but it was still a good game, and therefore a good film.

Naturally, when I get most upset by a movie is when I feel cheated, particularly because the movie doesn’t follow any normal structure, so I don’t get to play my favorite game.  The way to avoid feeling cheated is simply to know what game the movie is playing before going in, rather than assuming it’s playing the same game as I am.  What game is Pulp Fiction playing?  I have no flippin’ clue, but it’s not quite as fun as The Movie Game.

It’s nice, every once in a while, to see a movie that does storytelling really differently.  However, because of how different the storytelling is from what I’d ever seen in a movie before, and because I didn’t get to play the game, it didn’t feel like a real movie to me. It felt like a crazy Tarantino art project.  I happened to find out that Tarantino felt the same way about it when it first came out. I respect it since so much in the film is impressive, but it didn’t feel quite like I was watching a movie, nor was it quite as entertaining as a more ordinary film.  The entertainment value is lost to some extent when the movie doesn’t build in any normal sense, so some scenes are essentially pointless.  Again, they may be impressivescenes, but they serve no purpose other than displaying themselves because the director feels like showing these scenes to the audience because they mean something to him, even though they mean nothing, in some cases, to an overarching story.

I don’t identify with the characters, so they are not my favorites, but they are strong. The dialogue is perhaps more profane than it needs to be, which I generally view as a Cinema Sin of sorts because that generally means the writer is either going for shock value, or simply can’t think of anything meaningful or interesting to write.  However, the writing is very, very impressive – Tarantino is pretty darn good at dialogue.  The way he interwove the three main stories was clever.  The soundtrack is nice overall, and the visuals, while sometimes more bloody than I like, were overall very well done as well.

So, in the end, I really like this movie for what it is, but I don’t know that I like it much as a movie.  When I don’t get to play The Movie Game, I feel a little like I’ve been invited over to a friend’s house to play a game with him, but he’s just playing it by himself and encouraging me to watch him; I don’t feel included, and that’s just boring.  I think I’ve certainly learned a lot about film, storytelling, and myself from watching it, which means it has good reason to be considered a classic.  So, I like it.  It’s good.  But give up on The Game before it begins, because he just isn’t playing along.

47 Pulp Fiction

Filed Under: Film Criticism, Tumblr Movie Reviews Tagged With: 1990s Movie Reviews, 1994, Action & Adventure, Art Film, Dark Comedy, Dramedy, Episodic/Package/Compilation, R, Three and a Half Stars

The Naked Gun 33 1/3 Review

March 24, 2015 by JD Hansel

*Sigh of mild disappointment, but understanding why it is what it is.*

It has its moments.  It was fun seeing their take on the Academy Awards, even though I missed a few of the references.  (The girl in the traditional Native American attire was a clever throwback that got me laughing.)  The 24-hour Johnny Mathis station was brilliant.  Aside from that, the movie is rather weak.  However, this is the type of sequel that is enjoyable not because it is on par with the original, but because it is an opportunity to spend more time with the characters we love and miss.  Those are important too.

46 The Naked Gun 3

Filed Under: Film Criticism, Tumblr Movie Reviews Tagged With: 1990s Movie Reviews, 1994, Action & Adventure, Anarchic Comedy, Crime & Mystery, PG-13, Three Stars

Primary Sidebar

Search

Archives

The Social Stuff

  • Twitter
  • Letterboxd
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Letterboxd
  • LinkedIn

Copyright © 2025 · J. D. Hansel · WordPress · Log in