Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Rating: 1/10 (20 July 2017)

If this was the Wizrd of Oz or Bambi then I could understand the appeal of the movie and would rate it accordingly but what this movie is I just do not know and no one can seem to tell me when I ask so why it is considered such a great movie other than: "Aww it was nice". Well so are kitten videos on Youtube but should they be in the top spot of greatest movies ever made?
Firstly its subject matter is crime and punishment. This is not a genre exempt from theatrical treatment, in musicals and such, but at least you know you are watching a fictitious romantic fantasy when the prisoners break out in song. There is no such device in Shawshank and here lies my problem with this movie.
It simply does not in any way indicate that this is fantasy which it quite clearly is. It takes itself seriously and if you examine it seriously then it has serious flaws of deliberate making. If these were accidental then I could possibly forgive them but the fact is the audience is being manipulated like an episode of Little House on the Prairie. For those of you who do not remember it was one of the many tear-jerking TV shows in the 70s with Michael Landon (Lord have mercy on him). It is not that I am against tear-jerkers as such. I cried at the end of The Champ, like most. I can take my portion of treacle in measured doses. It is not that Shawshank is just sentimental. It is the fact that it masquerades as something else.
To be fair this is not the fault of the actors. It is technically a very well made movie. The performances are very strong so I can understand its appeal on this level. However, even these positives do not mitigate the sins of the writer. I am a fan of Stephen King and I do enjoy his stories but this is definitely not one of them. Maybe it is because it is not all his doing. I never read the novella so I am not sure how much is his and how much came from the director/writer.
There were many little stabs of: "Is this for real?" moments in this movie but the scene that really ended my engagement was the scene where Morgan Freedman is telling the other prisoners about institutionalization. This is done to the backdrop of a paroled prisoner hanging himself. The idea of Institutionalisation as a bad thing became popular in the 1990s when this movie was made and and it was simply inserted, like so many ideas lying about without any research or care for its accuracy. The fact we have an uneducated prisoner espousing a theory that had not even been researched just threw back the curtain on the manipulator of Oz and lost me forever. The fact that suicide was used as a sentimental tool to engage the viewer in such a sham and poorly considered way is simply unforgivable in my estimation.
Good fiction is meant to engage and to some extent manipulate the audience but it should be believable and due care and consideration should be taken in the treatment and presentation of the story. When you feel the hand of the manipulator, or see the strings holding up the illusion then the spell is broken and the magic is gone. A great movie should have great acting, great production, great direction and writing. This one definitely does not have great writing. This movie is not what it aspires to be. I am not even sure that it knows what it is aspiring to be. It is not serious, not realistic but at the same time does not portray itself as fantasy. So what is it supposed to be and why do people rate it so highly? I have nothing against it but to think it is considered so great when it clearly is not is an insult to all the great writers. As a schmaltzy Sunday afternoon feel-good watch it could be considered good but Great? Come on! This Movie is a non event, at best. It is is a study in form with no substance. A pretty picture of a sentimental scene that never occurred and never will. A fantasy pretending it is something else. What, I just do not know. Can anyone tell me?