This is the highest rated movie of all time...

(you)

>Cheekth were buthed ,so yeah.

Attached: big herc.jpg (207x243, 9K)

I think the main appeal is that it's one of the least offensive films ever made. There is absolutely nothing shocking or controversial about it. There is no bold artistic statement. It's essentially a Douglas Sirk melodrama disguised as a cool prison film.

There was only one major homo, with a few merry men that followed him, and it's satisfying as fuck to see the shit kicked out of him.

A movie doesn't have to be shocking or controversial to be memorable. The point of the movie is literally in the title; redemption. A man was convicted of a crime he did not commit and serves 30 years for it, and after all that, he still gets a happy ending, and every piece of shit gets the punishment they deserve.

I'm not saying it isn't memorable, I'm saying it does nothing to push the medium forward. I know this point gets brought up a lot, but the only good Stephen King adaptation is The Shining because of how far it strays from the novel. These difference play to the strengths of the medium. Books are terrible for conveying spatial information, but the long takes of Danny riding his tricycle provide all of the necessary details of the hotel's layout without a single line of dialogue. Shawshank has absolutely nothing like this. There are zero exclusively filmic characteristics of Shawshank. At that point, you might as well just read the book. The story is good, but as a film it's nothing special.

its not shit but it certainly isnt the greatest thing ever

>Books are terrible for conveying spatial information
*blocks you're argument*

Attached: 9780375420528.jpg (304x450, 21K)

It's a great movie, but greatest of all time? That's debatable.

>entertainment isn't good unless it challenges or reinforces a narrative

I bet you're a fucking drag at parties.

they literally beat the fucking shit out of the only homo in the movie, to the point where he has to live with a straw in his mouth

Quality is subjective. So, as a species, how do we quantify what quality is as a general term for everyone to subscribe to? Do we all vote on it? If so, everyone disagrees with you, and it isn't debatable.

>Why do you think this movie absolute shit?
>if you don't think its the better movie of all time you think its absolute shit

I'll come back when there's a decent basis for a thread to argue on

>house of horrors that doesn't obey the laws of physics
>author resorts to text shapes and other visual tricks

It's an dishonest film.

It portrays child murderers (Freeman, didn't you know his character killed his wife and a kid in an insurance fraud gone wrong?) and other criminals in a positive light, while displaying those in chrage, the warden and his first man, as the real "criminals" of society.

>everyone in the prison was innocent
they made it sound funny, but is it really a joke?

Tim Robbins character says that he was an honest man before he went to jail and he had to break the law once he got in. But the first thing Tim does when he went into prison is to order a picking axe. How is that innocent behaviour? And he had to have started digging pretty early. And how did he know what direction to dig, and what was on the other side, and why did the lignting have to thunder so he could knock the rusty iron with a stone? It has plot holes that are unnecessarily stupid.

Also, what kind of prison guard goes around and loudly screams that he just got £30000 among known criminals? Is that really something you talk about in prison?

The film is really well made, it's precisely directed to trick you into liking/disliking characters and events that you wouldn't like given all the facts. It's a pure pleb test.

The cinematography is great, it has darabonts style, the quality, soundtrack, scenery, acting, editing is also on point. But it's dumbed down, there's nothing to it. No depth, no symbolic analysis needed. It's all there in the plain. Perhaps that's why the general audience likes this movie so much. They can enjoy it and think they're smart while shutting down their brain. To me that is why it's a good movie (7.5/10). It's dishonest exactly like The Usual Suspects and Saving Private Ryan.

the typographic experimentation is memery but the descriptions of the house are very good. That first one with the bookshelf is so unsettling

It’s boring as shit and I honestly don’t know why people like it.

It's really cleverly done. Great acting, good cinematography, nice style, well directed.

But use your critical thinking´while watching it and you'll see that the feelgood story of a film is a plebtest in disguise, You only need to ask yourself the right questions. Why does everyone like it except intelligent people?

I like the book, just being contrarian.

The only thing that really annoys me about this movie is the fact that pretty much all the inmates seem friendly, innocent, reasonable and non violent, almost like it was somebody elses fault they ended up in prison. While this is true for andy and makes for an interesting story arc it feels out of place for most other characters. these people should have more broken and volatile character traits, considering they are mostly murderers and running up and down these walls for years, still a great movie though

It's the difference between film as entertainment and film as art. If all you're looking for is entertainment, you might as well just watch pornography.

>Why does everyone like it except intelligent people?

That's the right question?

The whole thing is just
>muh institutionalization
But the film never presents any alternatives to these institutions