What? Sisters, Carrie, Dressed to Kill, Blow Out, The Untouchables, and even Scarface all got good-to-great reviews when they came out.

There's no way that Shawshank is the best movie of all time.

No, but there is really no objective way to say what is the best is there? Opinion will always come into play

But there has to be some set of criteria we can follow to get us close, I think. Preference is preference, but I can see why Citizen Kane and Casablanca are always topping the best of all-time lists. Even if I might prefer something else, I can see, objectively, why those films are so highly regarded.

Same with Shawshank.

I agree, most of us can be objective, i mean my favorite movie is Christmas Vacation even though i know it would mate a top 100 movies of all time list. And even though its not a movie i really enjoy, 2001 is one of the top movies of all time

Jesus, 2001 really is brilliant, isn't it? Man, I love that movie.

Shawshank is a very good, very accessible movie. It's easy to watch, and it's themes are universal, but there is also nothing about it that makes me LOVE IT. I think it's place on these type of lists is actually an illustration of it's greatest flaw. Something about it would have to challenge people, which inevitably would turn people off, but no one dislikes it, and everyone enjoys it. If it were a truly great movie, some element of it would be polarizing. It's just not very interesting.

It is basically Sticky Fingers.. a good album that everyone knows and kinda likes, but people that really care probably prefer Exile.

Nobody can be objective with movies; there's no such thing.

Yeah? I read a book about film in the 1980s (I'll give you the title when I go back to Buenos Aires, as I don't have it with me) which mentions how he was more or less a hammy laughingstock in Hollywood who consistently managed to put asses in seats, comparable to a present-day Michael Bay. Also, he was nominated for Worst Director Razzies for "Dressed to Kill", "Scarface" and "Body Double" (as well as 2 other Worst Director nominations for later films). Add the whole misogyny outcry and I get the sense he wasn't particularly well-regarded during that decade, at least.

My film school friends never cared for him at all. The Micheal Bay comparison is one they have made as well. I enjoy the Untouchables despite it's flaws.

Dressed to Kill rules.

You said this perfectly.

Ebert, Canby, Kael, and most of the other respected big name American reviewers were fans of his during the 70s and 80s. There's just no comparison between him and Michael Bay.

Also, Heaven's Gate got a razzie, as did Stanley Kubrick, so fuck those guys.

What about Quiz Show is so challenging that elevates it over Shawshank? To me, they're cut from the same cloth. No one dislikes Quiz Show, either.

It also sums up the Skitch Patterson account pretty well.

It's not that it's just "easily accessible". If that was the case, then there would be a plethora of films that are just as equally adored. Shawshank comes from a beautfully crafted story (it is one of the greatest scripts ever written), and all the elements that make a movie are wonderfully gelled together. In a less cynical world, we wouldn't dismiss its profound themes of salvation and redemption.

Fun fact: De Palma introduced De Niro to Scorsese.

Team, Orson.

I apologize in advance, as this is going to make me sound like I hate Shawshank. I don't.
Even though Shawshank's "good guys" are all prisoners, we see nothing in any of them that indicates they are even remotely complex characters. They are all pretty two dimensional. Sure, we know Red killed a guy 30 years ago, but other than that we see nothing other than him as a perfect boy scout. There is no conflict in the good characters... and the "bad guys" are even more cliche. The only character that really shows any duality side is the main guard. Nothing about any of the discussion is compelling or clever. It really doesn't bring upon any questions to yourself of "how would I handle _____ " situation, other than the "HELL YEAH IF MY WIFE WAS CHEATING ID KILL THEM BOTH."


Where as in a movie like Quiz Show, all the characters have 3 dimensions, they all have flaws that are apparent in how they are handling every situation they encounter. And All of them are interesting, Richard is obviously brilliant, but ended up in a decent, but ultimately pointless job, Van Doren is a man looking to carve his own identity but doesn't know how. Herbie is also brilliant, but so caught up in his persecution complex, he can't do anything of meaning with it. So while none of them are a "bad guy," all of them are significantly flawed, be it by cheating on the Quiz Show, or trying to keep someones name out of it. Meanwhile, the guys that are behind it don't even see the problem in the first place. The scene with Morrow and Scorcese is tremendous. And the whole movie does this with well paced and entertaining discussions. Every step Van Doren takes down that road, you find yourself asking if you'd make the same decisions.. and wondering if it's really that bad. It is just a game show after all.