Why do Professional Critics Hate "The Shawshank Redemption"?

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't think it's a classic like The Godfather or Citizen Kane.

But it's a great movie and deserves to be highly regarded.

Especially in this modern age when most Oscar-worthy movies are forgettable.

 

[redhawk23]

There are hundreds if not thousands of great movies. If one movie doesn't make some arbitrary list, it doesn't mean it's hated.

Its not just that the film is left off such lists, because many popular films are. Its just a matter of how consciously and purposely it left off such lists. Some critics go out of their way to mention the fact that they left it off the list. It just seems quite reactionary to its popular perception.

 

[redhawk23]

If the film has a 90% on RT, plenty of professional critics like it, so this whole thread seems pretty pointless to me.

What jumped out at me during all of this is that Jurassic Park wasn't on the top 100 films of the 90's. The film is easily one of the most innovated special effects films of all time. It's probably top 200 of all time, that is a huge snub to keep it out of the top 100 of its decade. Holy ****.

Here was the AV club's response when I asked them about Jurassic Park.

I don't know whether I speak for my fellow voters when I say, without apology, that I don't think either of those films are especially good. JURASSIC PARK I would tiptoe toward calling actively bad, actually. Spielberg was a terrible fit for that novel; I really wish James Cameron had made it. (NOTE: The James Cameron of the early '90s, not James Cameron today.)

 

[redhawk23]

Morgan Freeman is well loved, especially as a supporting character, and a terrific actor but is anybody going to put together a collection of Morgan Freeman movies for a retrospective like you would do for someone like Bogart or Brando? Is there any such thing as a "Morgan Freeman movie"?

Has anybody every written an article on what Morgan Freeman represents to the history of film?

Which is not to suggest that he isn't loved and really talented. Only that you can write about the big movements and touchstones in the history of cinema without touching on his work much at all. You can't write about westerns without touching on John Wayne and Clint Eastwood eventually. Those are icons.

Unless we're talking narration, that is. He's an icon there.

Of course, maybe I'm underrating his place in the pantheon of actors. He had a terrific run in the late 80s through Se7en in 1995. There are a lot of paychecks after that though. Well earned paychecks, but other than Million Dollar Baby and Invictus, there's not been a lot of high profile work with him in crucial roles, that really adds to his legacy in the last 18 years.

I'll track some down but there actually have been, especially the trends of using African American voices as the voice of God or other deities.

After Heat, what great films has De Niro or Pacino made in the last 18 years?

 

[Ultimatehero]

What jumped out at me during all of this is that Jurassic Park wasn't on the top 100 films of the 90's. The film is easily one of the most innovated special effects films of all time. It's probably top 200 of all time, that is a huge snub to keep it out of the top 100 of its decade. Holy ****.

Exactly and they picked one of the worst films - so that it's now a cult film that hardly anyone in the masses remember - 'Stormship Troopers' instead. Really? That was when that list lost all credibility to me as being anything other than just one guy's opinion rather than seriously trying to get a concensus. Nobody in their right mind would pick that film as being one of the great films of the 90s when there's The Sixth Sense, Shawshank, Jurassic Park among a host of others (I think they even left out Silence of the Lambs) that are still successful and looked at highly today. Way more highly than Stormship Troopers which screams more likely that they're either whack or it was just one guy's favorites.

 

[Teelie]

It's not very good. That's why.

In other words: There's always going to be someone who doesn't like a movie no matter how good everyone else thinks it may be.

That there are haters on Shawshank and Jurassic Park is no surprise. They have their opinions and everyone else has theirs.

Exactly and they picked one of the worst films - so that it's now a cult film that hardly anyone in the masses remember - 'Stormship Starship Troopers' instead. Really?

Also, if you're going to hate on a movie at least get the title right.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Also, if you're going to hate on a movie at least get the title right.

It's that bad of a movie that I don't care about the title of it. I remember it being stupid fun when it came out, nothing more than that and certainly nothing anyone labeled as truly 'good', then quickly fading away into cult obscurity.

 

[Teelie]

Actually it's a very good, very misunderstood movie but this isn't the thread to debate the why of that.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Actually it's a very good, very misunderstood movie but this isn't the thread to debate the why of that.

And thus a cult film, not a highly regarded one at all to the masses. Actually, it's to say that the AVF list is a terrible list to begin with if it's trying to pick out the general consensus of the best films of the 90s amongst the masses rather than just one guy's opinion. Because if it was the masses ST would be nowhere on there.

 

[terry78]

I want someone to give me a list of reasons why they don't think Shawshank is good. Like viable reasons.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think the main accusation is that the movie is too manipulative.

Whatever that means. I thought a movie is supposed to be manipulative.

 

[kedrell]

I'll be honest, the praise and adoration people heap onto Shawshank is completely baffling to me. I really don't get it. Sorry. :/

Edit: Not a critic, professional or otherwise.

Cosigned. I never understood the level of love that the film got. It's an a-ok film, to be sure. But I was never in love with it.

 

[kedrell]

I think the main accusation is that the movie is too manipulative.

Whatever that means. I thought a movie is supposed to be manipulative.

Like a magic trick, you're not supposed to see how it's done. I think obviously manipulative is what they meant.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Which I don't think it is.

I think though if somebody said "Watch Shawshank Redemption! It's the greatest movie! It's #2 on IMDB!"

You might be looking for the wires kind of thing. It's impossible to live up to that kind of hype.

 

[danoyse]

That's why I'm glad I saw it at a screening where virtually no one had even heard of it. The audience reactions to the last half-hour were priceless.

 

[Max J Power]

There are hundreds if not thousands of great movies. If one movie doesn't make some arbitrary list, it doesn't mean it's hated.

I do think there are some reasons that work against The Shawshank Redemption that aren't unreasonable.

1. Frank Darabont isn't considered any kind of significant auteur based on his body of work and critics tend to conform to auteur theory to one extent or another.

2. I don't think the prison movie (or Stephen King adaptations) is a significant enough genre that it needs to be represented in some list. It's not part of some larger movement like the French New Wave or German Expressionism either where a vote for it draws attention to the movement as well. The Shawshank Redemption represents The Shawshank Redemption alone.

3. The Shawshank Redemption isn't innovative in any way. It doesn't really have influence either. Casablanca isn't really innovative either, although it has some added war time resonance, but nobody points to The Shawshank Redemption and says "this new film is clearly possible because The Shawshank Redemption showed the way."

4. The Shawshank Redemption is really a home video / cable success story rather than a cinematic success story. It's small in scope as well. Nobody really talks about a retrospective run or includes it as part of film festivals. The conversation about it is elsewhere than where you find critics.

5. There really isn't that much critical discussion of the film. It works like gangbusters emotionally, but is anyone writing papers on the hidden symbolism and workings of the film? I don't think there's ever going to be a Room 237 about The Shawshank Redemption.

6. Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman are good actors, but they're not cinematic icons. There's not much study of their filmographies.

Thank you for making good points instead of bashing the credibility of film criticism. You're not the only person in the thread to do so, but all your points are valid. It's not as historically important a movie as a lot of things that would make lists like these (though I haven't read the lists mentioned in the original post). I also think there's somewhat of a disinterest (or backlash, but that might be too strong a word) among today's critics, especially younger ones, in the types of dramas that were popular in the 90s. Now, it's not uncommon to see movies like Shawshank, Forrest Gump, Titanic, or American Beauty get called overly sentimental (or dumb buzzwords like "emotionally manipulative") even though they were acclaimed at the time.

Personally, I think Shawshank is masterful and has aged very well. I didn't see it for the first time until last year, and I thought every bit of it was great, both as a story and as a work of filmmaking.

 

[Evil Twin]

I'll track some down but there actually have been, especially the trends of using African American voices as the voice of God or other deities.

After Heat, what great films has De Niro or Pacino made in the last 18 years?

Yeah, but playing the voice of God doesn't really apply to Shawshank. Which again points to what an anomaly it is.

Also, Pacino and DeNiro haven't made anything great in the last 18 years really, but they had the previous 20 plus as a headstart. What's Freeman's Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, or Godfather, Part II?

 

[Evil Twin]

Let me add, that I would find the exclusion of The Shawshank Redemption from the top 100 of the 1990s curious. I don't think it's #2 all time, or whereever it ranks on IMDB. Heck, I don't even think it's the best movie of 1994. But, it certainly is a film that deserves a lot of consideration for making the list.

 

[bullets]

Yeah, but playing the voice of God doesn't really apply to Shawshank. Which again points to what an anomaly it is.

Also, Pacino and DeNiro haven't made anything great in the last 18 years really, but they had the previous 20 plus as a headstart. What's Freeman's Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, or Godfather, Part II?

Invivtus, Lean on Me , Driving Miss Daisy , Seven, Glory , Unforgiven , and Million Dollar Baby. Freeman has been nominated by the Academy Awards numerous times and is considered an icon.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Just found this list - I'd say this list is really accurate in terms of as regarded to by the masses and the impact the films have made on that time:

http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/films/the-25-greatest-movies-of-the-90s

And here is the most accurate top fifty in the best films that defined the 90s:

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/06/the-50-best-movies-of-the-90s/

 

[jonathancrane]

There are hundreds if not thousands of great movies. If one movie doesn't make some arbitrary list, it doesn't mean it's hated.

I do think there are some reasons that work against The Shawshank Redemption that aren't unreasonable.

1. Frank Darabont isn't considered any kind of significant auteur based on his body of work and critics tend to conform to auteur theory to one extent or another.

2. I don't think the prison movie (or Stephen King adaptations) is a significant enough genre that it needs to be represented in some list. It's not part of some larger movement like the French New Wave or German Expressionism either where a vote for it draws attention to the movement as well. The Shawshank Redemption represents The Shawshank Redemption alone.

3. The Shawshank Redemption isn't innovative in any way. It doesn't really have influence either. Casablanca isn't really innovative either, although it has some added war time resonance, but nobody points to The Shawshank Redemption and says "this new film is clearly possible because The Shawshank Redemption showed the way."

4. The Shawshank Redemption is really a home video / cable success story rather than a cinematic success story. It's small in scope as well. Nobody really talks about a retrospective run or includes it as part of film festivals. The conversation about it is elsewhere than where you find critics.

5. There really isn't that much critical discussion of the film. It works like gangbusters emotionally, but is anyone writing papers on the hidden symbolism and workings of the film? I don't think there's ever going to be a Room 237 about The Shawshank Redemption.

6. Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman are good actors, but they're not cinematic icons. There's not much study of their filmographies.

While I do not agree with your points, your argument is viable on all of the other accounts than the one about 237. Kubrick's films deserve critical study, make no mistake; but, Room 237 is far from legitimate scholarship. The "critics" they selected provided terrible evidence for fantastic claims.

The highlights:

-The Shining was Kubrick's confession to contributing to the faked moon landing.
-Stanley Kubrick added his face onto the clouds in the opening crawl.
-And the film was a dissection of the Holocaust (based on the presence of excessive luggage when the Torrances enter the hotel, and Kubrick's conflicting desire to make a film on said event.)

In short, the "scholarship" in the documentary is terrible; it gives close reading a terrible, terrible name. Truth be told, posters on this forum (such as CCOnn) provide better written, thought, and researched arguments than all of the contributors to the film combined.

Again, while the rest of your post is viable, I disagreed with the boosting of Room 237.

 

[Evil Twin]

While I do not agree with your points, your argument is viable on all of the other accounts than the one about 237. Kubrick's films deserve critical study, make no mistake; but, Room 237 is far from legitimate scholarship. The "critics" they selected provided terrible evidence for fantastic claims.

The highlights:

-The Shining was Kubrick's confession to contributing to the faked moon landing.
-Stanley Kubrick added his face onto the clouds in the opening crawl.
-And the film was a dissection of the Holocaust (based on the presence of excessive luggage when the Torrances enter the hotel, and Kubrick's conflicting desire to make a film on said event.)

In short, the "scholarship" in the documentary is terrible; it gives close reading a terrible, terrible name. Truth be told, posters on this forum (such as CCOnn) provide better written, thought, and researched arguments than all of the contributors to the film combined.

Again, while the rest of your post is viable, I disagreed with the boosting of Room 237.

I'm not saying that Room 237 is good scholarship, in fact I'd argue that it's purpose isn't really about exploring the meanings of The Shining as much as it is shining a light on how people, scholarly or otherwise, subjectively process film. And the obsession certain films can inspire in people.

That said, The Shining is a movie that inspires that kind of analysis, wrong headed or not, with Room 237 being the evidence of it and I tend to think that The Shawshank Redemption is not.

I'd suggest that the sort of in depth theorizing about meaning is part of the reason behind Mulholland Dr.'s growing critical reputation.

 

[Evil Twin]

Invivtus, Lean on Me , Driving Miss Daisy , Seven, Glory , Unforgiven , and Million Dollar Baby. Freeman has been nominated by the Academy Awards numerous times and is considered an icon.

I think we're using two different definitions of icon here. I'm talking at the level of say Bogart, Brando, Hepburn, Wayne, Nicholson, and Eastwood. Actors that practically have critical cults dissecting and discussing their works.

Is Freeman a terrific actor and a star? Absolutely. Are people busy writing critical papers on the meaning and significance of his career (which is one of the questions that matters when discussing how critics may value an actor and the significance of a movie in his body of work)? I don't get a large sense of that, although the example cited earlier of Freeman being the voice of god is an interesting counter-example, although it doesn't really apply to Shawshank.

I'll suggest that exploring Freeman's racial significance would be interesting, although I don't know if you can really separate him from Denzel Washington, Samuel L. Jackson, and Will Smith who are more or less contemporaries. Doing Driving Miss Daisy the same year as Do the Right Thing probably was an unfortunate bit of timing as that battle is still being fought.

Perhaps you can explore Freeman's role as a "post-racial" star as a critical assessment that would include Shawshank.

 

[Cosmic]

How do you feel about the film, now 19 years later?

I just read the entire EW top 100, and I agree with most of the choices. I've been following EW for about 15 years, and though I don't always agree with them, that list is pretty solid. After all these years, I still love Shawshank and think it's an excellent film. I remember when I first saw it, not knowing what to expect, and the whole audience walking out at the end smiling and wiping away tears. However, I think Gleiberman's response is accurate. It is emotionally tidy. And as much as I like it, I wouldn't place it on the level of Shindler's List, or Vertigo, or Casablanca, or the Graduate, and so on.

 

[the last son]

Maybe because it's boring as ever.