free counter with statistics Life is Like a Box of Pajibas | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

Forrest-Gump.jpg

Life is Like a Box of Pajibas

The Daily Trade Round-Up / Dustin Rowles

Trade News | March 16, 2007 | Comments (35)


The first item is on the sketchy side, so I’m going to link to Cinema Blend and let you blame those good folks if the project fails to materialize, but there is apparently talk of a Forrest Gump sequel, word of which I understand will send many a Pajiba reader to knotsmiths and other capable experts in unbundling panties. In fact, when we put together our 10 Worst Blockbusters of All Time last year, we never let on what was number eleven. Well, it was Forrest Gump, and the reason it didn’t break the top 10 was largely because it had no votes from yours truly. What can I say? I can’t, in good consciousness, relegate a film with Jackson Browne on its soundtrack to the blockbuster heap. And sure, it’s the third biggest offender (after Napoleon Dynamite and Jerry Maguire) for inflicting upon our collective pop psyches torturous catch-phrases that nag like meth-addicted toddlers jonesing for a Happy Meal, but that “Running on Empty” scene still worked for me, even if nothing else did. (“I had run for three years, two months, 14 days, and 16 hours. ‘I’m pretty tired. … I think I’ll go home now.’”)

Anyway, Eric Roth apparently wrote a script for a follow-up several years back based on Winston Groom’s second Gump novel, Gump and Co., but the project fell apart due to legal skirmishes. Well, evidently the powers that be have put aside their petty differences in pursuit of a quick buck and have thus decided to pull the project out of development hell. So we may yet get to see Forrest run through the 80s and 90s, where he will no doubt become a footnote to the cultural touchstones of the last 20 years: The dry-cleaner responsible for neglecting Monica Lewinsky’s semen-stained dress and an able bystander who pulls dozens out of the WTC wreckage. There is no word on whether Tom Hanks will return, but if he doesn’t, I’m sure Christopher McDonald would be available for a straight-to-DVD sequel. Perhaps by then we will have a mush-brained intern with a slow-death wish who can handle the live reviews for Pajiba.

In other sequel news (because original ideas are apparently endangered), George Miller has confirmed that Mad Max 4 will happen and that Mel Gibson will not be in it. I’m probably not the right person to discuss the sequel, because the only memories I have of Mad Max involve vague recollections of a lot of sand and Tina Turner, which doesn’t sound like an amazing film unless Turner is beating the shit out of Ike in a sandstorm. Weren’t there dune buggies, too? And Sting — no, that was the other sand epic. They all run together now. Sorry, Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning swiss-cheesed my brain. Whatever — there isn’t a lot else to report about the project except that Miller wants to find a nice young rising star to take on the role of Max. There is speculation that it might be Paul Walker, who Miller calls “the real deal,” which suggests to me that Tina Turner may have beat the shit out of him a few too many times.

In the box-office round-up, anyone who decided to get out of bed this week probably already knows that 300 opened last weekend with $70 million, making it the third largest R-rated opening and the largest March opening of all time. Kudos to Dan for his fine review and his refusal to read into the film a lot of nonexistent political themes just for the sake of a little rabble-rousing. It looks like the commenters took care of that themselves; in fact, I never knew that so many folks took their Greek history so seriously. Last week’s other opener, The Ultimate Gift managed only $1.2 million, which is probably more than “a Hallmark card adapted by Mitch Albom into a song that’s belted out by Celine Dion right after she watches a puppy get flattened by an ice cream truck” deserved.

This weekend has only a few tepid offerings, in light of the NCAA tournament’s opening weekend (Duke — oooof!). The big opener is Sandra Bullock’s Premonition, which is yet another time-fuck flick, following the unintentional comedy tour de force, Lake House. I understand that in Premonition Julian McMahon dies in a tragic car accident but crawls out of a mailbox two years later completely unscathed. Chris Rock also makes another stab at leading man in I Think I Love My Wife, though I think we can all agree that what we really want from Rock is a sequel to Pootie Tang. We can call it Wang Dang Sweet Pootie Tang. And, finally, James Wan’s Dead Silence looks like it’s trying to capitalize on the success of Letterman’s Ventriloquist week with perhaps the first and only ventriloquist torture-porn flick ever to hit the big screen.

Finally, a few months ago, I shared my excitement about Jake Kasdan’s next project, The TV Set, a David Duchovny flick about Kasdan’s own experiences trying to get a pilot made into a television show (based, I think, on the Zero Effect pilot, as well as directing “Freaks and Geeks.”) Well, it’s coming out in a few weeks, and from the looks of the trailer, it appears to bear some resemblance to this season’s storyline on “Extras.” In either respect, it has Judy Greer and Justine Bateman in it — do you need another reason to see it? Check out the trailer:

Finally, because it is movie-related, I’ve got to toss in a link to this QuizLaw story, which shows just how eerily similar a sentencing hearing can be to The Breakfast Club.

Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. He lives with his wife in Ithaca, New York. You may email him, or leave a comment below.


Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning | I Think I Love My Wife



Comments

Panties...bunched...can't breathe...

Damn you, Hollywood!

Stupid is as stupid does, all right.

Posted by: idgiepug at March 16, 2007 10:07 AM

Back in high school, there was this guy I knew named Andy Dick - no relation to the bi-questionable drug-off-of-"Kimmel" guy. Anyway, he once came up with a brilliant "Gump" sequel that went like this:

[Scene opens on Forrest, sitting in front of Jenny's tombstone]

Forrest: Jenny...I miss your vagina a lot.

[Roll credits]

Posted by: TV Whore at March 16, 2007 10:16 AM

"....catch-phrases that nag like meth-addicted toddlers jonesing for a Happy Meal..."

Christ on a cracker, Dustin. I swore to myself I was going to have a bad day at work today, but damnit if you didn't turn a frown upside down with that nugget. You just got bumped up two spots on my Same-Sex Top Five.

If you can make a decent steak then you just might over take Ryan Reynolds.....

Posted by: Manny at March 16, 2007 11:33 AM

as a die-hard carolina fan, and just because you happened to reference it, i would like to add:

Fuck Dook. :)
Go Heels.

Thank you, that is all.

Posted by: nexus 6 at March 16, 2007 11:37 AM

DOOM buggies! Buggies of DOOM!

Actually, I hope there IS a Forest Gump sequel, because I've no doubt it will illuminate all the things that were hackish about the original. Anything that can diminish the prestige of the original is good in my book; and hey, there's one good thing to say for it-- it's not an American Pie sequel.

Posted by: Ari at March 16, 2007 11:43 AM

FORREST GUMP has been a huge bone of contention between some of my friends and I since it's theatrical run. I maintain that it is a dangerous, almost subversive film because one of it's underlying themes is that it is possible for one to go through life oblivious to life's inherent hardships and perils and never really suffer in any meaningful way. In other words, "ignorance is bliss", and "don't worry, be happy"...

If enough people adopt these kinds of life philosophies, we'll end up with a culture that (mostly) doesn't watch the news or understand current events, but can tell you what kind of bottled water Lindsey Lohan prefers, and help insure the best candidate becomes the next Pussycat Doll.

My friends think I'm an idiot.

Posted by: Hank at March 16, 2007 12:10 PM

I saw "The TV Set" and I really liked it. I think we need more Justine Bateman. The movie really shows how many needless pricks there are blowing smoke up each other's asses in Hollywood...like we didn't know that.LOL

Posted by: GMMR at March 16, 2007 1:23 PM

I'm as cynical as they come, pretty well informed, and I'll dare say intelligent to boot. But darn it, I really like Forrest Gump. It's a movie people, stop reading more into it than there is.

However, there is no excuse for a sequel. I see that "You" is still on the loose.

Posted by: katy at March 16, 2007 1:24 PM

Hank, while I am no Forrest Gump fan, I must disagree with your assessment of the film.

I thought it was just a sappy, manipulative piece of tripe that tried to justify treating mentally-handicapped people with condescension because they constantly had "happy beams" flowing through their minds and could not fully comprehend that life sucked and that they should want to slit their wrists. As if Forrest, by the very nature of his handicap, were somehow spared from the sad and dark periods of his life because he couldn't possibly know any better.

THAT was the most insulting part about that film. Not that it told people to "don't worry, be happy", but that it told people that he was only happy because he wasn't "right in the head", and that normal people can realize when the world has shit in their coffee.

Posted by: Vermillion at March 16, 2007 1:47 PM

I was in such a tizzy over Forrest Gump that I missed the Justine Bateman mention!

I LOVE HER! I'll watch anything she does.

I've mentioned it here before, but the Showtime mini-series Out of Order with Ms. Bateman, Eric Stoltz, and Felicity Huffman was just fabulous. A big plus for the series - Justine was a little randy with Eric, which is some sort of wonderful little dream scenario for those of us who still miss the 80s.

Posted by: idgiepug at March 16, 2007 1:58 PM

Having been subjected to a free screening of I Think I Love My Wife, I feel it is my responsibility to warn my fellow Pajiba-readers: stay away, stay far, far away. I think Chris Rock is hilarious but this movie? Not so much.

Posted by: bartap at March 16, 2007 2:20 PM

And here I thought that I was the only one who was screaming "Jump! Jump! Jump NOW dammit! Take Forrest with you over the edge!" when Forrest Gump's visualized little butterfly (bird? some kind of flying away object) was teetering on the balcony rail. Well, maybe I was the only one sreaming it out loud in the theater.

And Manny, you cannot have Dustin. I already called dibs and I'll bring the steaks.

Posted by: rudy at March 16, 2007 2:32 PM

Damnit! Well I guess I can bump Chez (Deus Ex Malcontent) back on the list then....

Posted by: Manny at March 16, 2007 2:38 PM

I got a chance to see "The TV Set" at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival. It was great. Very funny.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at March 16, 2007 2:51 PM

David Duchovny, why won't you love me?
Even with your "Luke Wilson when he's trying to be taken seriously" beard . . . sigh.

Posted by: Tammy at March 16, 2007 3:25 PM

The TV Set looks gooooood. Sign me up for some beat down Duchovny, the worl is going to hell and it is all Hollywood's fault.

Another Forrest - yuck. Damm sappy garbage stole the Best Movie Oscar from 4 vastly superior films - Pulp Fiction is one my favorite (even with the TV Whore's recent, much-needed legal proceedings) and I loved Quiz Show. Hell, I could have lived with 4 Weddings winning.

Posted by: Brian at March 16, 2007 4:02 PM

I'm probably not the right person to discuss the sequel, because the only memories I have of Mad Max involve vague recollections of a lot of sand and Tina Turner,

Hey, me too! Glad I'm not alone.

Even with your "Luke Wilson when he's trying to be taken seriously" beard .

Bwah! Awesome.

Posted by: Daphne at March 16, 2007 8:15 PM

Brian, I totally agree that Forrest STOLE that muthuf&*^ing Oscar, but he stole it from the very much more deserving hands of my beloved Shawshank Redemption.

But, yeah, any of those other movies would have been better.

Posted by: idgiepug at March 16, 2007 9:25 PM

"I'm as cynical as they come, pretty well informed, and I'll dare say intelligent to boot. But darn it, I really like Forrest Gump. It's a movie people, stop reading more into it than there is.
However, there is no excuse for a sequel. I see that "You" is still on the loose.
Posted by: katy at March 16, 2007 1:24 PM"

First of all, you're obviously not as cynical as they come. I'm not setting out to bash you, katy, but when people say "it's just a movie people" it irritates me to no end.

Quite frankly, this movie pisses people off because of what it was -trying- to be. Because of what it was saying about life, because of what it was saying about the audience, because of it's blatant and pathetic attempts to manipulate us by showing us poignant scenes from history and sticking Tom Hanks in them. Forrest bumbles through life, tripping over history, doesn't it touch you in that special place? Thank goodness he was born after WWII or we would have been subjected to scenes of him rescuing babies from wealthy NAZI cannibals.
Bee-Esssssss.

Yes, it was a movie, katy. But 'just' is not a word that belongs before 'a movie'. Movies are powerful things, for good or for bad. 'just a movie' is an innately fallacious phrase.
Cynical people are not easily played.

Posted by: Ari at March 16, 2007 11:46 PM

Since I have a great love of cheese, I LOVE the Mad Max movies. So it makes me sad to hear that they're making one without Batshit Mel. But this makes me happy --> "word of which I understand will send many a Pajiba reader to knotsmiths and other capable experts in unbundling panties". What a brilliant way of describing how we feel when Hollywood tries to cram shitty movies down our collective throats.

Posted by: stardust savant at March 17, 2007 11:22 AM

"But 'just' is not a word that belongs before 'a movie'. Movies are powerful things, for good or for bad. 'just a movie' is an innately fallacious phrase."

I wish someone had put it this exact way in the "300" thread, Ari. I fear people are forgetting that text of any kind is infinitely malleable (for good or for bad) and I'm always surprised to see people imposing their own personal "mine is the only correct interpretation and everyone else is wrong" on others...Heck, even "authorial intention" has been problematized forever, after the last century.

I know this disconcerts absolutists--I know some prefer to declare there's only one avenue into a text (or, conversely, declare a text without "avenues" of any kind); to each their own. This is what makes text so beautiful.

Maybe I've been unduly influenced by a great English prof I had years ago who once said, "When it comes to the interpretation of fiction, there's no such thing as Right and Wrong. There's only the substantiated and the unsubstantiated." If you live in the slippery subjective non-empirical world of the Humanities, these are words to live by.

Re. Forest Gump 2: pass the Pepto!

(RIP John Spencer Hill)

Posted by: ranylt at March 17, 2007 4:41 PM

Firstly Forrest 2 "The Stupidening" sounds like a greeaaaat idea.

Second, there was no more Mad Max after the Road Warrior (Vernon Wells was DA MAN)as far as I'm concerned, adding Walker just guarantees the status of this proposed turd as SUCKIEST SUCKFEST THAT EVER SUCKED.

Third, *sigh* Chris Rock's comedy shows and his racial commentary are great,and that Hot Tub video he did is godlike but, his work in film should be used as sparingly as possible. Let's just say a little goes a loooooooooooong way.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at March 17, 2007 4:47 PM

For the record Ari, I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but I never used the word "just" in my post. The use of that word would definitely change the tone of what I said, but that was all on your part.

Posted by: katy at March 17, 2007 7:28 PM

Katy, scrolling back I was surprised to find that indeed, you did not use 'just'. I suppose I feel it was strongly implied by your comment-- and I still do. Nevertheless, since I chose to harp on the word as if it were in fact used, I've probably negated the validity of my argument!
Let me, therefore, try to put it this way.
What is a movie? is a movie a potentially powerful artistic beacon that can illuminate, enlighten, overwhelm and educate? I believe so.
You wouldn't, after all, say 'It's a book, people, stop reading more into it than there is.' While I am not going to argue that a movie can convey a message in the same way as a book-- whereas movies must be, in a way, somewhat more 'literal' and perhaps less subjective (that topic could fill a book itself)-- a movie is certainly a powerful tool with which we, as humans, share our stories and experiences with one another. It's our new oral tradition, if you will. That little word 'just' wants to be there when you say 'It's a movie, don't get worked up, don't read anything into it.'
So when someone says 'It's a movie, nothing to get worked up over' it is, to me, the exact same thing as saying 'It's just a movie &etc'.

Posted by: Ari at March 17, 2007 9:44 PM

I do see your point Ari, but as someone who has tuned out from pop culture, for the most part, for the last couple of years, I don't see movies/books/media as the most defining part of our current collect selves. I do think that you can decide not to watch or you can decide not to read a particular book, as opposed to, say, ignoring the government. To say "it's just the government" would be an inaccurate statement because we can't turn away from it and pretend its not there (as much as we may like to). That was my insinuation. You were probably correct to assume the word "just" in my previous listing. And I also understand the manipulation of feelings that goes on all. the. time. in our media outlets, but in the end I don't think that something like Forrest Gump is what will contribute to our downfall.

Posted by: katy at March 17, 2007 11:03 PM

"Thank goodness he was born after WWII or we would have been subjected to scenes of him rescuing babies from wealthy NAZI cannibals."

All the while believing the baby to be a loaf of bread....

Posted by: Samantha T at March 18, 2007 4:53 PM

I think the attitude of "just a movie" is part of the cause of the general pandering to the lowest common denominator that popular movies do. It's just a movie...it doesn't have to have a plot, a character we can believe in, or have any kind of redeeming value. The reason the big studios can turn out crap and make a huge profit is partially that so little is expected of them.

Posted by: Iris at March 18, 2007 8:08 PM

I've never heard that cliché so elegantly stated. Kudos.

Posted by: Graceful Dave at March 19, 2007 3:29 AM

I always thought forest gump was dangerously reactionary and conformist. Especially the way it punishes the girl for doing all the fun stuff in the 60s by giving her aids.

Posted by: will at March 19, 2007 5:02 AM

I actually liked Forrest Gump.. maybe because I was about 13 when I saw it..

But still I think it tells the standard fairytale in a pretty fresh way.

You know: Underdog protagonist, has a few given strengths and learns a few given tricks along the way, by having a heart of gold/sense of fairness. Challenges - challenges overcome - happy ending.

The folklore from my country more or less follow this mold.

Setting the story in this time and place, filling it with pop culture instead of fairies and trolls, and giving it a slightly bitter-sweet ending - well, to me it was all right.

Anyway, I saw it as this kind of storytelling. Not exactly social realism.

Posted by: N. Wood at March 20, 2007 2:19 AM

Just wanted to throw my unneeded two cents in on the "Just a Movie" debate: Movies (and most media) are primarily there to entertain. True, there are many examples of films that push for educating their audiences, pretty much all documentaries fit that bill. But the most successful ones (Spellbound, Wordplay, even AN Inconvenient Truth) try to do so with an awareness that no one wants to see a BORING film, even if it is about something important. Those types of documentaries try to make the subject matter worth siting in a seat for nearly two hours by being entertaining. That is true for all films: very few movies can ever get away with not being entertaining. Look at the archives here, and see how many movies are reviewed as being boring as hell, yet you must watch it. While I am sure many of you would like to see a emotionally resonant or deeply poignant or intellectually mature movie, nobody would ever want to see a non-entertaining one.

So, to knock filmmakers, studios, et al. for making film obviously made less as a stupendous political allegory or whatever than as something as lowly as A FUN MOVIE is really ridiculous. These people are in the business of making entertainment, and sometimes they just don't have the inclination to shove heavy thought into the mix. If you personally need more substance in your movies in order to be entertained, that is fine. Bravo. But I don't. Hell, I enjoyed Ultraviolet and Tony Jaa movies, and it wasn't for the social commnetary.

If anything, you all should be condemning the instant-gratification complex this country has. If people could stand to take the time to make entertaining movies with care, they would. But you are only as good as your next hit, as many of the targets of this very site and you very commenters can attest. Most of these people have to keep churning out films, one after another, in order to keep their bills paid and their families fed (as well as any hookers and/or mistresses). The last thing on their mind is how they are portraying class warfare or 21st-century politics. Even award shows and critics are part of the machine, since every positive review should (I SAID SHOULD) add more zeroes to the box office tally.

In summary: Movies are made entertainment FIRST, philosophizing SECOND AT BEST. So don't get yourself all in a knot when the next lowbrow flick comes out; if you don't want to see it, then don't. And for goodness sake, don't try to force deeper meaning on a movie that doesn't have it, or consider films made for fun to be substandard. Sometimes it is okay to sit back and enjoy the ride.

Posted by: Vermillion at March 20, 2007 9:27 PM

Gosh, I know this is going to sound lame after Vermillion's articulate (as usual) comment, but I've been thinking about the "just a movie" debate for a couple of days now, and there was something bothering me about Ari's POV (no disrespect), interesting as it was. And Vermillion really just hit the nail on the head. It's entertainment, and to always expect something more than that just isn't realistic. Even during the supposed "golden age" of movies, there was crap being put out. Not that there shouldn't be a reasonable expectation of enjoying oneself at the movies and who doesn't get tired of the same ol' clichés, but I too check out a film for the entertainment, "possibly get immersed in another world for a couple hours" type of feeling. That's why I can't really hate on so-called blockbusters - I think the genre gives most people just that - a chance to escape into another world for a few hours. Are there really crappy blockbusters? Hell yeah. But reality sucks for a lot of people, so I can't really begrudge them for wanting to escape for a while. I can appreciate filmmaking being an art form, but I never thought that's ALL it was.

Posted by: Daphne at March 20, 2007 10:33 PM

So, Vermillion, you don't believe that the people who made 'Forrest Gump' were going for deep social commentary? Because I think they very blatantly were. You don't pull out all the social hot-buttons and slam your hand on them if you're not trying to go beyond entertainment. AIDS? The Vietnam War?

When judging a movie, there is one criterion that I use above all others-- does the movie accomplish what it set out to do? Forget about whether I liked it or not; I can dislike a movie and still admit that it was good. And that's the crux of my problem with 'Forrest Gump'. It was too big for its breeches.

I also have to say-- entertainment and education have long been a pair that goes together in human history. Back when some of our ancestors were telling stories around the fire about this or that big hunt, or this or that great hero-- those tales were meant to entertain but also conveyed a tradition of oral knowledge that was vital to the survival of the tribe. Movies are just an advanced way of continuing these traditions.
Sure, entertainment can be vapid. If that's all it sets out to be, fine. My point, however, is that 'Forrest Gump' tried to achieve something profound. It was like building the tower of Babel out of construction paper and glitter.
You made a lot of good points, none of which I am precisely arguing with. I would revise one comment, though, and this is, sadly, the number one thing I learned in school-- Movies are (removing entertainment)made to make money, first, and everything else is a secondary consideration.

Posted by: Ari at March 20, 2007 10:49 PM

I totally get your point, Ari. And I agree with your assessment of Forrest Gump (as you can see above, I didn't like the commentary on the mentally challenged either) in that it's attempt as social commentary was lackluster, to say the least. The only person I directly disagreed with was Hank.

Yes, it was plainly obvious that, in the case of Forrest Gump, they slapped some pretty heavy-handed messages on top of a weak structure for such a film. In fact, it unifies both of our points. Instead of trying to take the time to craft a well-done portrayal of a man living though those turbulent times, they took what could have been a simple-yet-in-its-own-way-nice story and slapped a bunch of emotional clutter to make themselves seem more socially aware in order to get more butts in the seats. It didn't succeed at what it wanted to do, and the clutter kept many people from enjoying it. So both the movie's self-proclaimed 'purpose' and its value as entertainment suffered.

Posted by: Vermillion at March 20, 2007 11:19 PM

Ari brought up a good point about didacticism in fiction/art. "Message" creations have had a bit of a bad name since Kant and the general Romanticist movement (I'm talking not just literary Romanticism but cultural/philosophical, which imbued the west and which we're still in many ways living today). Some people now claim that "message" vs pure emotive entertainment is an artificial distinction, as well as recent. I'm not sure where I stand--I just wanted to put that out there.

My basic position is that (and it's a cliche, so bear with me) I find it very hard to believe that any fiction creator, working alone or in a group, can step outside his or her own ideologies and make a product that isn't somehow reflective of their personal beliefs/background/experience formation. This is why I always have to hold myself back from the allure of "just" anything. Of course, these personal imprints are often incredibly faint and appear either without any concious deliberation, or deployed very sloppily to the point where they can be easily ignored or dismissed as too insubstantial to worry about (I think these two are the case for most Hollywood movies)--but for me it still comes down to a matter of degrees, not either/or. Even boardroom blockbusters emerge from a cultural context that may not be ideologically unified, but noticeable strains do fall in, however muted. Consider ID4, one of the grand-daddies of popcorn movies of the 90s. Consider the good/evil structure of most action/SF/western/horror/I-can-go-on movies. These are ancient tropes.

What's left up to the viewer is to take what s/he wants and ignore what s/he doesn't. Especially when it's such an aimless, mindless mish-mash of reflexive/expected cultural ripples that it's not even worth a mention.

Sorry for stating the obvious again--it's not like this any of this is fresh.

Posted by: ranylt at March 21, 2007 9:17 AM