perfectly horrifying until 80% of the way through

Rating: 8/10 (1 January 2010)

Don't miss it.
The depiction of brutal injustice and hopelessness in this movie is utterly convincing. I was totally taken in, and by 80% of the way through was dreading the end: on the one hand, I knew that stagnation, institutionalization and hopelessness are the fates to be expected in the U. S. prison system, and would not be disappointed or surprised to see an end similar to the beginning in those regards; on the other hand, I hoped for some kind of positive uplift at the end. Unfortunately I was disappointed in both expectations. The Hollywood ending was too contrived and unbelievable to maintain the high level of realism of the first part of the movie.
1. You cannot tunnel through 15 feet of concrete with a rock hammer, even in 20 years. 2. A Portland newspaper cannot banner-headline a prison corruption story, ever. 3. The Warden could have notified all the banks to expect an escapee masquerading as a customer before Dufresne could have withdrawn funds from 10 banks. Have you tried to close a bank account recently? 4. Dufresne could not have kept his suit and papers intact crawling through 500 yards of sewer pipe.
Etc., etc. No ending is better than a contrived feel-good ending. Were the producers concerned that we might be too inspired to advocate prison reform unless they gave us a shot of feel-good at the end? Fortunately the power and artistic perfection of the first part of the movie dominates.
Very disturbing and powerful. I am grateful for the conversation it inspired between my stepdaughter, my girlfriend and myself this morning. We ranged over the Massachusetts Geoghan case, the death penalty, criminal justice in the U. s. vs. China, and the thousands of movies that do NOT have Hollywood endings.