Shining over the darkness

Rating: Null/10 (11 August 2003)

Forrest Gump is touching to the melodramatic and sensitive. Problem is, Robert Zemeckis is more concerned about glossing over the moments that viewers would find objectionable in order to make it more of a "happy-family-safe-crowd-pleasing-money-maker". With Back to the Future and Death Becomes Her he wasn't as concerned about that, hence they were better movies.
Such moments as drug addiction, exploitation, PTSD, the horrors of Vietnam, and the tirade of political violence that flows through the movie are done more for laughs or extracting faux-sentimental emotion from the audience rather than any actual history lesson in the works. I can only imagine how Terry Gilliam or Oliver Stone of all people would have handled this.
On the technical level, Forrest Gump is a trip. As Zemeckis said, "It's not trying to wow you" and it doesn't. CGI is used here the way it was supposed to, as a supporting element that enhances the experience. The editing is also pretty good, many scenes flow into each other effectively and create interesting parallels. Zemeckis also is finally concerned about what he puts on the screen, thus the cinematography is far better than anything else he previously did. Hanks' performance is certainly inferior compared to Philadelphia or Saving Private Ryan. What was the Academy thinking?
While some may wax nostalgia about the passage of time from the 50s to the early 90s in American history, I will try to be supportive of the fact that the film keeps moving. Unfortunately, the message (and hence the purpose) of the movie is constantly hammered at the audience in a fashion that celebrates foolishness. How uninventive from a Hollywood "whiz kid".
Overall, halfway decent, albeit sugarcoated, film. If you want real history, watch Schindler's List instead. 3 out of 5 stars.