This movie was mediocre and i gave it a 4, but since i was so outraged that it beat out pulp fiction and shawshank redemption i choose to dislike it even more. i don't mind feel-good movies most of the time, as long as the fact that it is a feel-good movie isn't being thrown in my face while i'm watching it. forrest gump is one of those movies that tells you all the time how and what you should be feeling. and maybe all movies do this (i think film as an artform is definitely more manipulative lets say then painting or sculpture), and maybe the better movies are just the ones which do a better job of concealing it. regardless, forrest gump was boring, contrived, and simplistic. on another note, why is it every time someone portrays a mentally disabled person it automatically praised as good acting? i mean, hanks is a pretty good actor, but the trend is getting annoying. dustin hoffman did a fantastic job in rain man, but since then that kind of role has been way too much critical acclaim. maybe its because its such an extreme kind of portrayal that viewers don't know whether its realistic or not so they assume its great acting. i tend to find underacting to be more indicative of talent ( a la robert deniro as opposed to "hoohah!" pacino). anyways, movies like gump set good filmmaking back by twenty years.

great. now i feel bad. sorry tom.