Forrest Gump is still the better film in terms of directing and movie-ish-ness… look at it… it’s a great film, that captures shitloads of content within a 2 hour span… Ã‚Â i love it
i am looking at this from a different side. what movie is the bigger effort, not which one is the better movie.
and if you dont get my point now, i dont know…[/quote]
Movie-ish-ness? LOL. Thats a good word.
I still think Pulp Fiction is a better film on all levels. Forrest Gumps message is “If your stupid enough, things will work out”. Pulp Fiction delivers an even bigger more important message and its the complete opposite of Gump. Its a lower budget crime film that QT turned into a blockbuster with his cinematic genius. That in itself elevates it to places Gump will never reach. I mean, you know this stuff, why do I even have to state this???
I dont care about the freakin cinematography and the tons of Special FX in Forrest Gump at all. They were cute and charming, but not enough to make it a better film than Pulp is. Again, I liked the movie, but theres NO WAY in hell I will say that its a better film than Pulp.
The reason QT is great is because he doesnt need to use CGI and all that shit to make a dynamic film, hes a true cinema auteur in the tradition of Orson Welles, Hitchcock, Sergio Leone and Howard Hawks among others.
As for Zemeckis, hes a good fantasy director, but I think even he knows QT has talents that can never be duplicated. Lets see Zemeckis make a smash for 8 million or even 18 million WITHOUT CGI. Sorry but It aint gonna happen.