Forrest Gump review by Roger Ebert

   Roger Ebert's review of Forrest Gump is a good choice to read for someone who, by any chance, has not seen the movie yet. Forrest Gump is a movie directed by Robert Zemeckis, first previewed in 1994. The author of the review, Roger Ebert was a famous American film critic, the first to win the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism, whose reviews were syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States before his death in 2013. This piece of Forrest Gump was written in 1994, and it is now available on Ebert's official website, rogerebert.com. The review is simple, but informative, short enough but not too short, it is addressed to everyone who is interested in this particular movie, or in any of Ebert's writings.

   It is clearly observable that Ebert likes the movie. His main thesis is that Forrest Gump is a unique, complex fiction instead of just a modern movie, and he supports his idea throughout the whole review. He argues that the movie is much more than a heartwarming story about a mentally retarded man, it is actually a meditation on the second half of the 20^th century, “through the eyes of a man who lacks cynicism and takes things for exactly what they are”, which puts the protagonist to a new, but truly proper aspect. He also states that Tom Hanks was the right choice for this role, since he could not imagine anyone else playing this character so honestly and in such a dignified way. He mentions some parts of the plot, then praises the special effects which made it possible to place the character of Forrest Gump into the history of the late 20^th century of America. Thanks to these computer effects was it possible for Gary Sinise to play the role of Lt. Dan, Forrest's commander and friend who lost his legs in the Vietnamese war.

   The article is written in a friendly and informal style, but obviously by an expert. It is informal enough to be comprehensible for everyone, but the themes and topics it covers and explains satisfy more profound readers as well. The whole text is very personal, as if it was spoken to a close friend. “It's a comedy, I guess. Or maybe a drama. Or a dream. [...] What a magical movie.”

   The review is clearly organised into paragraphs, they separate the thoughts and ideas of the author logically, and follow each other in a logical way. The sequence of the themes and observations are a bit unusual, Ebert starts with background information, then he states arguments and his opinion about the movie, followed by a short introspection to the plot, and then he continues with arguments again. Unusual as it is, the review is greatly structured, the text is smooth and fluent.

   I think Roger Ebert's review is a well developed piece of writing, straight to the point, pleasant and easy to read. I personally like it, because I think a good review should be short enough to be read in two or three minutes, it should tell enough about the movie to raise the reader's attention, but at the same time should not tell too much to keep the story and the outcome mysterious enough. Roger Ebert's Forrest Gump review served all these purposes greatly. It nicely exemplifies why they were and are so popular – Roger Ebert and Forrest Gump as well.