Why is The Shawshank Redemption considered so great?

I love that movie and list it in my top 5 or so.
 
I honestly can't tell you why but it's one of my top 5 favorite movies ever.

For some reason it just captivates you from beginning to end and I really don't know why.
 
Gates of Janus said:
you also wrote him the same note when you sent him the complete series set for Oz

i-will-pay-to-watch-anything-with-adebisi-in-it-i-2162-1245943051-0.jpg
Click to expand...

I always wondered how the fuck Adebisi kept that hat on his head.
 
SafyreSchool said:
and Freeman acts like Freeman.
Click to expand...

Morgan Freeman plays himself in every single movie. He plays the solemn, wise, older man, who almost always narrates. Despite the fact that he does this in EVERY movie, he's hailed as some sort of acting genius.
 
SoulBrotherNo1 said:
Probably this is the best famous list that represents my taste the best:

http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films_table.php

Shawshank Redemption is #607. Its great, but there are many better.

Ive seen 13 movies from the top25, 12 of those I absolutely loved. I will check out the others as well.

BTW it depends on why are you watching movies. Personal taste is just that...PERSONAL. I never understood this concern of what people like the best. Especially when it comes to average people, instead of critics.
Click to expand...

Interesting list. It's all subjective but I've always found lists like this and some other critics lists to get too hung up on influence to the point where it's basically a list of the most influential films and not the greatest films. This obviously creates a huge bias for older movies and against newer movies.

Look at that top fifty. There are two films from the last four decades in it (Raging Bull - 1980, Blade Runner - 1982) and only 15 out of the top 50 came from after 1960.
 
i'm still not convinced andy is innocent. even the prisoner that "confessed" in the other prison seems like the type who likes to take credit for things he didn't do.

great movie tho. one of my favorites. one of the best of all time.
 
The only thing I could say negatively about the movie is stealing the escape plan and Birdman from Escape From Alcatraz. I suppose what makes it worse about those things is that they are actual real events that took place there. So it took me away from the story a bit. It's probably easily overlooked by most. Still surprised King would steal plot devices so blatantly.
 
Kiddo716 said:
i'm still not convinced andy is innocent. even the prisoner that "confessed" in the other prison seems like the type who likes to take credit for things he didn't do.

great movie tho. one of my favorites. one of the best of all time.
Click to expand...

Andy was Illuminati imo.
 
TSK said:
Interesting list. It's all subjective but I've always found lists like this and some other critics lists to get too hung up on influence to the point where it's basically a list of the most influential films and not the greatest films. This obviously creates a huge bias for older movies and against newer movies.

Look at that top fifty. There are two films from the last four decades in it (Raging Bull - 1980, Blade Runner - 1982) and only 15 out of the top 50 came from after 1960.
Click to expand...

here is another list for you, from the same website:

Best films post-2000:
250-151: http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_films250-151.htm
150-51: http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_films150-51.htm
50-1: http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_films50-1.htm

Its shocking how much I agree with this list. I think every single one of my favourite post-2000 movies are on the list. And the 3 films that I consider to be the best by far, those are all in the top 7!
 
I agree with Madmick (at least I think I do).

I understand that the open poll of IMDB is going to rate movies differently than a poll of a list of "experts" such as sight and sound. Many people are going to say that the experts list is a more authoritarian list.

But, I don't buy that just because you are an expert on films makes you any more qualified to tell everyone else what a good movie is. Enjoying a movie is close to if not completely 100% subjective. Same thing could be said for music or literature. What makes an expert's opinion of a movie inherently better than my own? Yes, I realize an expert is going to know and understand the technical aspects that may be lost on me...but so what? If a small aspect is lost on me, why does it matter?

If the list of experts don't care for X movie but I do, I'm going to be told my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not an expert. Well, if that isn't a classic appeal to authority, I don't know what is. Experts opinions aren't right just because they're experts. An expert may be able to say that X was done a certain way because of a director's style, and I can reasonably assume he's right because he's the expert. But when the expert says X is good or bad, which is a value judgement, the only backup to that is because he's an expert. What if I become an expert, take all the classes, watch all the movies, even make a movie or three, and I still like X when the experts don't? Am I still wrong?

This is part of the reason why I don't like the notion that kids should be taught "the classics" because they're good books. Teaching 1984 because it has some historical references and teaches kids about some technical aspects of literature is fine. Teaching 1984 because "it's a good book" is stupid, because that's subjective (although I liked 1984 alright).

The only issue I take with using IMDB's poll is it's probably not a great sample of the population. But, the general idea of it makes sense. It's not necessarily to say that Shawshank is the best movie, but it's the movie that people like the most. Just because people like it doesn't mean you're going to.

/rant
 
FlowWithTheGo23 said:
Morgan Freeman plays himself in every single movie. He plays the solemn, wise, older man, who almost always narrates. Despite the fact that he does this in EVERY movie, he's hailed as some sort of acting genius.
Click to expand...

Meh. Sometimes doing 1 think really well is more impressive than having a wide range of skills. He has played lots of memorable characters in lots of memorable movies. I haven't seen many people say he's up there with DDL, Hanks, DeCaprio, DeNiro, etc... but he's still awesome.

Also

dream1_small.jpg
 
osudude said:
I agree with Madmick (at least I think I do).

I understand that the open poll of IMDB is going to rate movies differently than a poll of a list of "experts" such as sight and sound. Many people are going to say that the experts list is a more authoritarian list.

But, I don't buy that just because you are an expert on films makes you any more qualified to tell everyone else what a good movie is. Enjoying a movie is close to if not completely 100% subjective. Same thing could be said for music or literature. What makes an expert's opinion of a movie inherently better than my own? Yes, I realize an expert is going to know and understand the technical aspects that may be lost on me...but so what? If a small aspect is lost on me, why does it matter?

If the list of experts don't care for X movie but I do, I'm going to be told my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not an expert. Well, if that isn't a classic appeal to authority, I don't know what is. Experts opinions aren't right just because they're experts. An expert may be able to say that X was done a certain way because of a director's style, and I can reasonably assume he's right because he's the expert. But when the expert says X is good or bad, which is a value judgement, the only backup to that is because he's an expert. What if I become an expert, take all the classes, watch all the movies, even make a movie or three, and I still like X when the experts don't? Am I still wrong?

This is part of the reason why I don't like the notion that kids should be taught "the classics" because they're good books. Teaching 1984 because it has some historical references and teaches kids about some technical aspects of literature is fine. Teaching 1984 because "it's a good book" is stupid, because that's subjective (although I liked 1984 alright).

The only issue I take with using IMDB's poll is it's probably not a great sample of the population. But, the general idea of it makes sense. It's not necessarily to say that Shawshank is the best movie, but it's the movie that people like the most. Just because people like it doesn't mean you're going to.

/rant
Click to expand...

This is a tricky subject. Yes its all subjective ultimately, but its not a coincidence that "experts" tend to have similiar taste.

I think to have a developed taste you need the following:

1.) curiosity/openness
2.) curiosity/openness
3.) experience, watch a lot of movies. (and this doesnt mean all the superhero flicks. experiment with different genres, eras, subject matters)
4.) the ability to understand human thoughts and feelings, and to be able to relate to them
5.) a bit more abstract thinking (this is essential to european style art films)
6.) curiosity/openness
7.) being humble, no arrogant attitude towards films that you think you wont like
 
SoulBrotherNo1 said:
This is a tricky subject. Yes its all subjective ultimately, but its not a coincidence that "experts" tend to have similiar taste.
Click to expand...

The question I have to ask of that, and this also pertains to literary experts, how much of that is "the establishment" filtering potential "experts?"

I mean, in the literary field, what are the chances you'll ever be considered an expert if you like Stephen King? In other words, do you have to like what the experts like to become an expert? Or as you learn and become an expert, do you naturally develop the same likes as the other experts?

Something tells me it's not so natural...
 
Man rape. You put man rape in a movie/show and it becomes critically acclaimed and edgy. Look at HBO's Oz - complete drivel, but there is man rape and penises and everybody acts like it's brilliant shit.

Pulp Fiction is another example. Marcellus never gets fucked in the ass and I bet there is a little less acclaim for the movie. Deliverance is another - take the "squeal like a pig" scene and nobody even goes to see that boring ass movie.
 
Last edited:
It has a great, uplifting ending. You walk away feeling awesome, lol.
 
SafyreSchool said:
Really?

I would say his revenge is carried out on a legal system and a crooked warden that robbed him of his life, and he obviously very well plotted to get his life, and then some payback, in the end.
Click to expand...

But it isn't about the revenge, it's about the redemption.

The revenge isn't a driving force, it's a byproduct of the escape.


It's about getting to a beautiful place with no memory.










Look at it this way. Apocalypse Now is set amidst the backdrop of a war, but it is not a war movie. If you think Apocalypse Now is a war movie, I could see how you might think Shawshank is a prison escape / revenge movie.
 
The movie makes me feel good, and it's not about puppies or romance. It's about a male friendship without machine guns. For the most part this is an empty genre.
 
One of those films that if I saw it on TV that I'll watch it all. Its a classic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,709
Messages
58,455,285
Members
176,040
Latest member
jaybuff

Share this page

Back
Top