Good film but there are a lot better

Rating: Null/10 (16 October 2002)

I enjoyed this film but it is very derivative and is not the profound masterpiece people here seem to think it is. The problem is that people either have a short memory or don't bother to watch older films because they are not in colour or have unfamiliar actors. People are especially lazy about foreign films and find reading subtitles irritating. "The Birdman From Alcatraz" is a much finer movie in virtually every way - Hanks simply does not have the gravitas of Lancaster. To prattle on about this being some great movie shows a complete ignorance of films. Great film-makers are Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Fellini, Bergman, Truffaut etc etc. "Shawshank" is very targeted at middle-of-the-road America (which includes the UK as we have been thoroughly burgerised by your so-called culture) which goes down great with a cola and a bucket of popcorn. It is a very old-fashioned film which reminded me of the classics of US movies like "The Grapes of Wrath" and those Cagney films where he goes mad in solitary. I think these polls are ok but all we end up with is the most popular films at this present time. In 10 years time this film will be forgotten as the next popcorn-pleaser takes over. For years I couldn't understand what the academics were going on about with films by Antonioni or Eisenstein. But I made the effort and over time I came to realise that the profs knew what they were talking about. I have a list of films here which I hope some of you "Shawshank" fans will eventually work through. "Death in Venice", "The Seven Samurai", "To Live", "Wild Strawberries", "Jules et Jim", "Andrei Rublev", "Grand Hotel", "8 1/2"... I am sure you can find more in this website. "Shawshank" is a nice little film, but you are being spoonfed. Stretch yourself - there is a whole big movie world out there way beyond the confines of today's Hollywood. If you go on this journey in a few years time you will hardly remember this film.