I'm having a bit of a debate on THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION boards. I've advised posters there to check out I AM A FUGITIVE (because of its similar theme). A couple of posters say they saw it, and consider SHAWSHANK superior. I have my doubts they've actually seen FUGITIVE.
But does anyone here think SHAWSHANK is anywhere near as good as this classic?
Shawshank is a decent movie, but I have no idea why it's anywhere NEAR the top 10 (or even the top 250, for that matter). Of course anyone who has the least bit of cinematic intelligence knows that I Am A Fugitive From A chain Gang is far supeior, but good luck convincing the SHEEP on the Shawshank board that.
http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=All&id=squid_vicious
[deleted]
This. No need to say more
shareI Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang is one of the best films i've ever seen. The last moment of it burned into my mind forever.
Shawshank Redemption is also good, but nowhere near as good as I Am a Fugitive...
I liked The Shawshank Redemption, but I don't rate it nearly as high as I Am A Fugitive from a Chain Gang. The latter was much deeper and more inspirational on a conscious level. However, there is a parallel theme between the two movies. In Shawshank, Andy Dufresne longs to break free from prison to live a life on his own terms. In Fugitive, James Allen seeks freedom from a southern prison and its chain gang. However, Shawshank was more about the friendship that develops between two prisoners while Fugitive was about one man's struggle to make good and become an engineer. An important point is that in Fugitive, James Allen was an innocent man, wrongly convicted. In Shawshank, Andy Dufresne's innocence was never established and it appears that he did kill his wife and her lover, although proof of his guilt was not offered, either. I am a Morgan Freeman fan, but in my opinion, Driving Miss Daisy was a better show of his talent than Shawshank. The fact remains that I Am A Fugitive was a one-of-a-kind movie with no equal that I have ever seen. That film left me with a very deep sense of appreciation for its plot and character development while Shawshank did not leave me with as strong feelings. I would rate I Am A Fugitive 11/10 and Shawshank 7/10. Fugitive gets extra credit considering the fact that it was made almost 75 years ago.
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. - Proverbs 23:7
Nicely summerized, CaperGuy. After dealing with this issue for a couple of weeks, I think the "feel good" ending of SHAWSHANK has more to say to the majority of the film-going public. That said, most of today's film goers have never seen or heard of I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG. If they did, do you think they would rate it as one of Hollywood's great message films, or would it be too bleak and "dated" for contemporary tastes?
shareThanks, wrfarley. I would agree that the "feel good" ending of Shawshank is more appealing than the ending of Prisoner. I did like the Shawshank ending and it also made me feel good although it did not have the stain of realism that Prisoner had. Prisoner was unique in 1932 because it left the viewer cheering for a protagonist's comeback without providing the satisfaction. Also, in the 30's, most movies were almost required to set things right for the protagonist at the end, fading into glory and allowing the audience to go home with hope for a better tomorrow. In short, Prisoner broke the rules and that's one of the things I like about it. It shows that things don't always turn out the way we prefer. I think if 'I Am a Prisoner from a Chain Gang' were released today, it would not grab today's audiences the way it grabbed 1932 audiences. Even if it were in color and popular actors were used, I don't think today's movie goers want a message movie as much as they want action, shooting and sex. I suspect that today's movie goers would call the movie boring, or bleak to use your term.
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. - Proverbs 23:7
This is more a response to CaperGuy's last comment than to the original question. I would normally also adress the original question, but I haven't seen Shawshank Redemption. Although I must admit that I haven't seen any movie in the same genre that comes even close to Fugitive.
I think modern audiences could really appreciate this movie. I am nowhere near a film expert or afficianado, but I greatly enjoyed this movie. This movie doesn't need violence or sex to have audiences enthralled. The character development is such that you want him to escape so much that the escape scenes don't need violence to create tension and excitement. It doesn't need sex because it has hardly anything to do with the story. The tasteful way that sex was implied in the movie was perfect. I think an attempt to remake this film would be disappointing, but I think modern audiences could connect to the story and appreciate it despite the atypical ending. This movie is a classic and deserves the good reputation it has and more. It is clearly one of the best movies that I've seen from any era.
lubidedoo879 , we both agree that Fugitive is one of the best movies that we have ever seen. I would definitely rank it as one of the top films of all time. However, when I look at the modern-day films, they don't have anything like the character development or the compelling theme that Fugitive has. That's why I suspect that modern audiences are not demanding the same quality in today's films. The studios simply turn out movies to satisfy the demands of the public in an attempt to maximize profits. What are the demands of today's movie goers? Well, it seems to be action oriented (car crashes, shooting, etc.), celebrity based and sexually motivated. I can't think of any movie from the last twenty years that I would consider great. Some modern movies are entertaining, funny, or exciting, but not compelling on a deeper level. I don't see compelling themes and messages portrayed in today's movies and that's sad. If today's movie goers want movies like Fugitive, why don't the studios produce them? What are they waiting for? It has been almost 75 years since Fugitive. Some of today's movies gross tens of millions of dollars in a single weekend, yet some of those films don't stand the test of time. I think that there is too much emphasis on celebrity actors today. It is as if the studios expect a star's name to carry the film and little attention is paid to the substance of the film. When Paul Muni played in fugitive, he was not considered a celebrity, just a good actor. I enjoy seeing films that use good actors with good themes and character development without a focus on "stars". Studios know that a lot of people pay to see stars on the screen and that's what they provide.
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. - Proverbs 23:7
I just saw AMERICAN HISTORY X on cable last night. It's a very good, sobering film which deals with racism, the penal system and redemption. Edward Norton gives a sublime and very human performance as a neo-Nazi. The directing's a bit over-stated (black and white flashbacks, pointless slow-motion camerawork); but it packs a wallop. Still, no scene in it can touch that simple close-up of James Allen lying back in his bunk after he learns he must serve his full sentence. That shot haunts us because we are sharing his experience. AMERICAN HISTORY X isn't that sophisticated, and I'm not quite sure why. CaperGuy?
wrfarley, I have not seen American History X. However, I tend not to like violent films because they play on stereotypes and pander to the criminal-minded element of society. Besides, I have seen too much violence in the world already and I don't want to pay to see more of it. As for the scene from Fugitive with James Allen contemplating his sentence, we are agreed that it is unforgettable. One of the things I like about Paul Muni's acting is his use of facial expressions. Other good facial actors were Edward G. Robinson and Bette Davis.
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. - Proverbs 23:7
Let's not forget Cagney, Fredric March, and I think one of America's most underrated actors, Walter Huston.
Violent AMERICAN HISTORY X is, that's for sure; so stay away. It is a serious film, though.
Yes, those are good actors, too. To the list, I would add Sydney Greenstreet, Scatman Crothers, Maxwell Caulfield and Peter Lorre among others. I could go on and on and I'm sure you could, but we don't need to. I still might see American History X if I get the chance.
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. - Proverbs 23:7
Those are all good, but I'd also add Humphrey Bogart and Joan Crawford to that list from that era.
shareI was very excited to watch "American History X," but was very disappointed with it. It was so contrived and predictable, particularly the ending, which (without giving anything away) felt like a cop-out to me because it seemed like the director was trying too hard to be politically correct (about as PC as you can get in this movie) and went completely over-the-top and disrupted the flow.
It's definitely not one of the worst films I have seen, but given the plot and the subject matter, my expectations were so high, it's one of the few films I regret watching and wished I had never seen.
[deleted]
In Shawshank, Andy Dufresne's innocence was never established and it appears that he did kill his wife and her lover, although proof of his guilt was not offered, either.
Shawshank the 2nd best film of all time ??? Thatś RIDICULOUS.
I´M A FUGITIVE FROM THE CHAIN GANG beats Shawshank every which way and is BY FAR the better movie, IMHO the BEST PRISON MOVIE (but that´s not all this movie is, it´s a tragedy, a drama, a scocial decument, an early noir, ...) ever.
Try Number One Film of all time which it now is, LOL.
shareWell, what shall I say ?
Maybe that the IMDB is an US-based site and US-moviegoers are in fact movie-illiterates, who don´t know older films and can´t stand black-and-white (they need them movies to be re-coloured ...) and are certainly certainly no movie-connaisseurs. :-(
Anyway, whatever, it´s just saad.
But then again Stephen King is called "literature" there and most people don´t know one book by Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy ... so it ain´t very surprising. :-)
wmjahn, I FEEL the sentiments you've just expessed, I daresay perhaps even more than you do because I happen to be a Yank who loves the classics and excellence in motion pictures in general, new OR old; few people in our young 21st Century in America want to see a "thinking man's movie" anymore, it seems obvious to me.
I might quibble, just a bit, with an earlier poster's remark that nothing in the last twenty years risen above the kind of screen fluff that prevails today. Perhaps he was just hyperbolizing, though. The better and more worthwhile films made since during the past generation are still few and far between, I'll admit; some in the following shortlist probably aren't acceptable to that poster because of violent content (though violent depictions in drama go all the way back to Shakespeare and the Greek tragedians):
Sling Blade
The Usual Suspects
Searching for Bobby Fischer
Reservoir Dogs
Pulp Fiction
L.A. Confidential
Master and Commander
A Beautiful Mind
Apollo 13
Of Mice and Men (the Gary Sinise/John Malkovich re-make)
Miller's Crossing
Barton Fink
Quiz Show
American Me
American Beauty
American History X
BTW, Andy's innocence in Shawshank is established in the flashback scene (as related by a fellow prisoner who had once shared a cell with the man who, laughingly, admitted to being the one who killed Andy's wife and her lover).
Secret Message, HERE!-->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!
I enjoy both movies. But while Shawshank is very good, IAAFFACG is great! I even have a review in the IMDB comments about this. Fugitive has deeper, even stronger insight with some darker and more realistic overtones. However, both films are very moving. Fugitive's ending may be among the greatest in cinema history.
My ratings for the films are:
Shawshank............8/10
Fugitive.............10/10
Joe
[deleted]
It may be a bit unfair on my part. I've seen SHAWSHANK only once (I've seen FUGITIVE countless times). Maybe I need to re-visit SHAWSHANK to see what all the hubbub is about.
shareI first saw 'Fugitive' when I was a little girl. What stayed with me was the feelings the movie invoked. Who could ever forget the two words spoken at the end. It forced you to look at the injustice of the penal/legal system and survival. 'Shawshank' is a very good movie with a similar theme, however, it's not as powerful or raw as 'Fugitive', partly due to the completely opposite endings of both films.
shareSHAWSHANK is still the number one imdb movie of all time. This may be a lost cause.
shareI don't know much about the writings of Stephen King or Tolstoy but you cannot deny that Stephen King writes great stories. In fact, his stories are better adapted to film the Tolstoy's. Many of the stories of great writers aren't fit to be made into film because, for one thing, too much is lost. The Peter Lorre film version of "Crime and Punishment," for instance, leaves so much out of the story that the movie bears only a superficial resemblance to the novel. "Crime and Punishment U.S.A." is an utterly pathetic attempt to recreate one of the greatest novels of all time.
shareNot even close, Muni by a mile. Nobody or anything in that overrated average film is anywhere near "Fugitive" mainly because of the incomparable Muni. In addition, the 1932 film is based on a true story and was an expose on the inhumane conditions of those types of prisons because there was and are many innocent and over penalized people in prisons at all times.
shareGee, doesn't much of what you said apply to "Shawshank Redemption"? It's fine if you and others want to beat off to IAAFFACG but it's not necessary to take a dump on "Shawshank Redemption" to do that. Both are very solid movies. The newer one is probably more watchable for most people, while the older one is in some ways more realistic. IAAFFACG also has more flaws, as far as I'm concerned. Some of those flaws are for practical reasons, which I won't mention. Others involve bad decision-making.
share[deleted]
[deleted]