About LS.n


 
 

Review: Finding Forrester
by Kerry Douglas Dye

published 1/1/01

REVIEWS HOME



Kerry Douglas Dye is LeisureSuit.net's Manhattan-based Senior Editor.



MOST RECENT YAK ABOUT THIS ARTICLE:

Subj: i love it so much
It Was VeRy GooD

-- rose
Dec 9, 2007 at 11:15AM

Read more or post your own





Be cool like us!
Are you getting our weekly update?





It's GOOD to share!
E-mail this article to a buddy

I was reading an interview with Gus Van Sant in which he was asked why he was directing a movie that was, on the surface, so similar to his earlier hit Good Will Hunting. He responded that, well, when this wonderful script hit my desk, I just had to something something something . . . What kind of publicio-bullshit doubletalk is this?? Finding Forrester has a terrible script--an amateurish, scatterbrained first draft of a potentially fun idea. Van Sant is smart enough to have known this. Isn't he?

The flick starts off promisingly enough, as we're introduced to 16-year-old Jamal Wallace (talented newcomer Robert Brown) and his basketball-playing friends in the Bronx. Local legend swirls around the strange man who has for as long as anyone can remember occupied the upper floor of a corner apartment building and peers from his window with binoculars, watching the people below. On a dare, Jamal climbs the fire escape into the apartment, which leads eventually to his relationship with the reclusive Salinger-esque writer William Forrester (Sean Connery).

At the same time, Jamal is being recruited to an exclusive Manhattan prep school. The want him, they say, for his high test scores but, oh by the way, we happen to have a basketball program. This prep school is an awful place, surely as narrow and confining as the public school he left (the prep school's basketball team is actually called the Pilgrims!). The biggest conflict comes from one of Jamal's instructors, Professor Crawford (F. Murray Abraham), an arrogant tyrant who doesn't quite believe that a black kid from the Bronx could write the way Jamal does. The major bright spot is Claire Spence, played by Anna Paquin. (If I'm not mistaken, "Paquin" would be Greek for "lovely". Or at the very least, I'm quite certain "Anna" would be lovely for Greek.) Jamal and Claire flirt with one of those chaste, Hollywood interracial romances, much to the display of Claire's father, who turns green at the site of an enormous Negro pawing his daughter. That's quality stuff.

This need not have been a bad film, but it fails in so many ways. The writing is half-baked, from the muddled dialogue between Jamal and William, to the flimsy plot points, such as the answer to why Forrester doesn't publish anymore. Also, Jamal isn't just a prodigy--he's a Will Hunting-esque literary genius who in a few years of reading has apparently memorized a Bartlett's worth of quotes and a Cliff's Notes worth of facts about great authors. That's a fine narrative conceit, but it's a little hard to believe.

And William's tutelage of Jamal is ridiculous. They have simplistic conversations about starting a sentence with "and", and William commands Jamal to "Write! Punch the keys!" prescribing a one-size-fits-all approach to the craft that any professional would find derisible.

The flick really falls apart in the third act, as we're subjected to an out-of-the-blue basketball game, facilely contrived to allow Jamal to make a crucial decision about his destiny. Then the climactic scene at a writing symposium, which is so disorganized and stupid that it's hard to believe it ever made it's way out of Columbia's creative development department. Where was William Goldman for the rewrite?

It's no mystery why Sean Connery would star in this bone-headed film. He's always been a fool--a movie star savant, sort of the Rain Man of charm. But Gus Van Sant has shown great intelligence in the past. What was he up to with this film? What could he have been thinking?


Your name:

Subject:


Comments:

Forward a copy of this yak to the LS.n Editors

Forward a copy of this yak to this article's author

If you want to get an e-mail if someone responds to your yak, give us your address below. It won't be made public.

THE YAK SHACK


Name: rose
Subject: i love it so much
-- Dec 9, 2007 at 11:15AM
It Was VeRy GooD

Name: shapria
Subject: love'd it
-- Dec 6, 2007 at 2:01AM
i loved the movie and well bye about to get some cranberry sauce ummmmmm no its m m m m good:)

Name: andy
Subject: ???
-- Mar 17, 2007 at 4:09PM
Did you even watch the film?

Name: josh
Subject: finding forrester
-- Jan 17, 2007 at 3:44PM
ur an idiot. this movie was a great movie just because the consept was a little more intelegent then what you can handle dosent mean u have the right to say it sucked

Name: J.B.
Subject: K. everett johnson on finding forrester
-- May 26, 2005 at 3:43PM
K. Everett Johnson,

Recently read your review of Finding Forrester and would love to discuss the film's merits with you.

Please get in touch with me at your earliest convenience.

andwhut@yahoo.co m

Name: Stephanie T
Subject: Finding Forrester
-- Apr 27, 2005 at 8:30PM
I just watched the movie last night.

We all have different opinions on films, depending on the meaning they hold for us.

I like the film, because I learned a few things from it.

I had to watch it for my Psychology class (to study social institutions), so you might say that I HAD to have learned something from it.

I believe that it's a fine script, even though there's always room for improvements.

Forrester's thoughts on 'writing the first draft with the heart, and rewriting later with your head' is somehing that I will use from now on, and that probably has helped a lot of other people.

Name: Socorro Canales
Subject: Finding Forrester
-- Mar 23, 2004 at 8:43AM
Finding Forrester may be boring for some people and beautiful for others who understands what writing from the heart means. As for me I enjoyed from the start to the end. As an amateur writer I encounter feelings in Jamal and Forrester characters that I have live myself. Forrester tells Jamal that: "First you start writing with your heart and after that with your head" It gave me the chills because while Forrester was talking I was repeating with him at the same time.
Finding Forrester is a great movie and I wish that people look deep into it and find the real message that brings with it.

Name: matthew
Subject: Review: Finding Forrester
-- Feb 12, 2004 at 4:58PM
i really didnt get what he meant by when forrester said where are you taking me.

Name: Ben Botts
Subject: Finding Plausability
-- May 26, 2003 at 10:24PM
Where does one learn to critique a movie, when they themselves need a lesson in learning word usage? Funny how the human psyche needs a bit of goading along the way for it to stay adrift its own riff-raff. The movie was breath-taking. The story of a boy, who in societies eyes is a miscreant (YES! just as Good Will Hunting), but a different spin. He has an utterly exspensive education given handed to him, courtesy of his on court skills. But, if the said film was not up to par, than who's par was it that had to be cleared? Yours? I'd hardly say it would be worth attaining your un-requited lauding. You seem caught up in a dislike for such good dialogue, and yes horseshit was used in a 'forced' manner, almost is if the writer couldn't bring himself to have a few more choice words to add a much more needed effect. But, alas... you are sitting in your chair wondering who this idiot is that challenges you from a computer screen. Than again I may be wrong, and you are ecstatic to read such an intriguing dissertation. But than again who is to judge the next in line? Would that be you, if so than I am saddened by your misguided judgment and your un-relinquished position of the greatness of this film. Good day to you, may you learn soon the value of a story well filmed.

~Ben

Name: Kerry Douglas Dye Responds
Subject: Re: Finding Forrester
-- Jul 17, 2001 at 11:27PM
Oh, I'll agree with that: definitely the best "use of subtlety" I've seen in a motion picture. I found the "use of horseshit" even more apparent, though.

Maybe I'll feel different after I've, as you suggest, "endeavored to succeeded at accomplish", but for now, one of the worst movies of last year.

Name: K. Everett Johnson
Subject: Finding Forrester
-- Jul 17, 2001 at 6:27PM
I finally had the distinct pleasure of viewing said film and found it quite entertaining. Certainly, like so many works of art, in hindsight there are areas in which it could be improved. However, this film does what so many others produced today does not do; it actually appeals to something within the viewer that allows the onlooker to become emotionally involved with the characters to the point of endeavoring to fill their shoes as the movie is in progress. Movie is certainly cliche at times but the writing and dialogue compensate for this. The use of subtlety in defining the relationship between Mr. Connery and Mr. Brown; as well as the awkwardly posed relationship between he and Ms. Paquin speaks volumes excellent writing and editing. I would recommend that you sit and view this movie with your eyes wide-open and your ego surpressed, you too will be able to appreciate this film for what its true value. Remeber, the best critic is normally one who has endeavored to succeeded at accomplish that which he or she is critiquing.
Until I have met the challenge,, I shall simply continue to watch in awe.

Regards

Name: Edward
Subject: Finding Forrester
-- May 14, 2001 at 10:30PM
??????????????
I dont understand your thoughts.

Name: jabei
Subject: Finding Forrester
-- Mar 3, 2001 at 3:11PM
I've actually seen the movie now and I have to say i was a little disappointed. I'm a huge Connery fan and I think he was fine, but the film seemed to glory in being ANTI sentimental. The editor seemed to cut away just as some meaty acting was going to occur (when Forrester gets lost at the stadium). I'm guessing this may have been down to Connery as producer...Scots are not that known for oversentiment. If he had actually shown himself crying and added a little backstory to his character & gone for a real head to head with Abraham at the end, he would certainly have got himself an oscar nomination. The film suffers for concentrating too much on the kid

Name: Robert
Subject: Finding Forrester
-- Feb 12, 2001 at 5:28AM
U are a fucking moron. Finding Forrester was an amazing movie and your closeminded view of the movie is horrible. I know this will not be published on the website because of the profanity, but frankly u are a fucking idiot. Congratulations.

Name: Joey
Subject: FINDING FORRESTER
-- Feb 4, 2001 at 5:10PM
ok well i think ur comments about this movie are way off. it was a great movie, and you are just an inconsiderate asshole.

Name: Dick
Subject: Finding Forrester
-- Feb 4, 2001 at 12:29AM
Thank you for your insightful coments.

Name: Eric
Subject: finding forrester
-- Jan 28, 2001 at 8:18PM
i would simply like to say that your "critique" of this amazing film is totally off base. Finding forrester was a fine film..maybe if you had more of an appreciation for good movies you wouldnt sound like such a dick

Name: slick
Subject: finding forrester
-- Jan 28, 2001 at 7:04PM
It is a shame that someone so closeminded is allowed to write opinions for a web magazine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and mine is, is that yours BLOWS! Finding forrester is one of Sean connery's best roles. How dare you verbally bash such a great example of cinematography.

Name: Mick
Subject: Buggery
-- Jan 8, 2001 at 6:28PM
umm... did Kerry just offer to bugger the little girl from "The Piano?"

Name: 35ft6
Subject: Finding Forrester
-- Dec 26, 2000 at 6:04AM
What "talent" does Rob Brown have? He looked lost and confused in this movie. He sucked. If he was in one of my student films, people would point at him and say: "Who is that? He sucks." I keep hearing about how he's had no formal training and boy does it show. But critics are going to love flinging praise his way to prove just how "down" they are. When I went to see this stinker at a prescreening in Manhattan with a bunch of old white folks, some of them actually stood up and clapped at the end. Clapping for the noble savage to show just how noble they themselves were; in essence they were clapping for themselves for how enlightened they are. They wouldn't want "one" of them marrying their daughter, but Jamal's "one of the good ones." Connery was being a dang fool, Brown just plain sucked, and the film as a whole was a flickering encyclopedia of contrivances. Total poop.

Name: Kerry Douglas Dye Responds
Subject: Re: Finding Forrester
-- Dec 23, 2000 at 10:59AM
Actors I respect? Paul Newman, Mel Gibson, Johnny Depp ... why do you care?

Name: Jabei
Subject: Finding Forrester
-- Dec 23, 2000 at 9:08AM
Ok.I can't argue against
personal opinions, it's not constructive

I happen to disagree with you about Connery
but you have an interesting point.Tell me who
you DO respect as someone who makes
both bright and succesful

De Niro doesn't count

Name: Kerry Douglas Dye Responds
Subject: Re: Finding Forrester
-- Dec 22, 2000 at 6:35AM
> You don't remain one
> of the most profitable
> and major stars in the
> world for 40 years by
> being a fool.

No, you remain that way by being handsome and charming. Looking at the films he's acted in isn't helpful. Speaking recently: he did Last Crusade, and Untouchables and Playing by Heart--wonderful films. Then he also does unwatchable crap like Highlander, The Avengers, and A Good Man in Africa. So it could go either way.

I prefer to look at the films he's produced. Finding Forrester, Entrapment, The Rock,
Just Cause, Rising Sun, and Medicine Man. By my count, that's three bad films, and three historically awful films. This tells me that Connery can't tell the difference between a good script and a bad script. Getting a ludicrous film like "Just Cause" made is the best mark a foolishness I know. I'm sorry, but the man just ain't very bright.

I realize it's a controversial opinion, but I stand by it.

Name: Jabei
Subject: Finding Forrester
-- Dec 22, 2000 at 2:49AM
Sean Connery a fool?
What planet are you from?
THE HILL...THE OFFENCE....THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING....RUSSIA HOUSE?....Unlike most star actors...Connery has known that he has to make crowd pleasers in order to do the work he really wants to. THE ROCK..RED OCTOBER...ENTRAPMENT....not fantastic films but better than most of their type. If you weren't such a fool, you'd realise he's smarter than pretty much any other movie star working today.You don't remain one of the most profitable and major stars in the world for 40 years by being a fool.


This page is best viewed with the latest version of the Netscape or Microsoft Internet Explorer browser.

© Copyright 1998-2001 LeisureSuit Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved.
Some content is copyrighted by the author and is used with permission. No portion of this page or its content may be reproduced, in part or in whole, electronically, in print, or in any other form or by any other means, without the written consent of the LeisureSuit.net editors. Contact us at webmaster@leisuresuit.net.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]