Sorry I didn't talk about Romancing the Stone, Death Becomes Her, or What Lies Beneath. There were a lot of movies! ALSO sign up here to get CuriosityStream PLUS Nebula SO YOU CAN SEE MY MOVIE WHEN IT PREMIERES curiositystream.com/patrickhwillems/
Actually, what I was surprised you didn't talk about was *Alan Silvestri* He's been THE most constant factor across Zemeckis' entire career, and one of the few human beings that Zemeckis allowed into even his most tech-focused projects. But you didn't even say his name? That's an odd oversight.
I remember watching Forrest Gump in the theater for the first time. When Tom Hanks "interacted" with JFK, a guy a couple rows in front of me just blurted out, "HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!"
I don't think it was done on purpose, but the character of Forest felt like the human embodiment of a Boomer's lost innocence and everything that goes right for him seems like it's because of that. Like, *so much* boomer anguish really comes down to mourning the loss of innocence. Forest spends his entire life in a state of perpetual "1950s child" while Jenny never got to be innocent, she never got to stay the same, and she seemed to spend her life desperately chasing that feeling.
Nailed it. Forrest Gump is an ode to all the Boomers who really tried their best to be optimistic and not just talk about making change and being good but who actually did their best to be good and make change...only to watch everyone else in their generation turn out to be terrible people or people who had their dreams and lives ended because the world really is a terrible place. I think the end of it was Zemeckis trying to offer people from his generation a sense of hope despite the end of their own innocence. I look at it as being the opposite of what Billy Joel did with 'We Didn't Start the Fire' where he was basically owning up to being one of 'those' kinds of boomers and trying to shove off any sense of responsibility. At least with Forrest Gump, the film tries to show that despite all the tragedy we should do our best to be kind.
I never really thought of Forest as a character. He doesn't comment or affect what's happening, everything happens to him, like the feather in the opening scene he just goes where he's blown. He's more like a narrator, a nearly random element showing us slices of life, vignettes woven together by chance.
The whole American Boomer essence is that they were born into a (relatively) perfect world and then saw it get squandered and corrupted. Forest sort of seems like what (some) Boomers wish more of their generation was like....
I really enjoyed this. The comparison to Peter Jackson is an astute one. I feel like Tim Burton is another director who has made a similar descent into his CGI toybox. I think you touched on a really important point -- that the reason for this seems to be almost entirely about control, and whether or not it actually looks good is secondary. A sad thing for filmmakers who were so visually groundbreaking
Exactly. It's quite interesting psychologically. You have 1. the directors that don't really change, just keep doing the same thing with either greater proficiency/perfection (Scorsese) or diminishing returns (Bey), 2. directors who change by challenging themselves by the stories they want to tell and cinematography (Spielberg) and 3. the directors that fall into an obsession with the purely technical aspects whether they suit the story or not (Jackson, Zemeckis).
Reading all of these comments, it sounds like the only way for these washed up directors to be good again is to abolish CGI altogether, which should've happened after the box office disaster that was Cats.
@@mrhoapro1 From my experience online, there exist movie fans who want CGI gone because they're viewed as "soulless" compared to stop motion and practical effects and is blamed for modern movies being bad compared to pre-2000's movies.
The whole uncanny valley with Polar Express reminds me why it worked so well for Toy Story back in 1995 but not for PE in 2004; if the current technology makes characters look like plastic, then just say they are plastic.
@@ECL28E Yep! They knew not to try photorealistic CGI. Even what they did was incredibly challenging-apparently the shot of Bob threading his fingers through a hole in his old suit took months to get right.
One thing I found interesting when I read Mr. Zemeckis' Wikipedia article was this quote: "That decade[his 20's] of my life from film school till 30 was nothing but work, nothing but absolute, driving work. I had no money. I had no life." If he is at his best when the protagonist of his movie has a clearly established Want then maybe that reflects a filmmaker that has been very driven for parts of his life and is therefore more able to communicate those emotions through his craft?
Someone who Zemeckis reminds me of (despite some very obvious differences in their movies) is James Cameron. Both are extremely talented directors who have pushed the technical possibilities of the medium forward dramatically. Both have tried in various ways to go beyond just being popcorn entertainers to being Serious Filmmakers, and both won tons of Oscars for unbelievably successful movies that a lot of people nevertheless despise for their extreme cheesiness. And both in recent years seem to have fallen down a kind of rabbit hole of mo-cap/CGI obsession. What both Zemeckis and Cameron's careers demonstrate to me is just how difficult it is to do what Spielberg has done. Genuinely growing as a filmmaker and doing a good job of making both fun popcorn movies and serious prestige movies is much, much harder than we might suppose.
Only difference (albeit one that changes everything) though is that the mocap/CGI obsession actually worked for Cameron while it didn't for Zemeckis. Because it appears to me Zemeckis was more obsessed with the technique while Cameron was more obsessed with realizing the story he had been dreaming of for years with the technique. Mocap was merely a means to an end for Cameron while for Zemeckis, the technique was the end unto itself. Also, filmmaking is an astronomically difficult career, a successful one even more so. Just getting a film finished is already an accomplishment on its own and I think that's something people should be more aware of.
@@andrewchung2940 It worked for Cameron in a career sense, but to me it seems like a huge waste that the mind behind Terminator 2 and Aliens has spent the last 15 years making a few hours of neon fantasy CGI spectacles about blue people on a magical forest planet. Imagine what we could have gotten instead...
I mean even Spielberg skirted his own version of a CGI/mo-cap rabbit hole. Not nearly as deeply as the other two but still, with 3 of his films in an 8-year span relying on it pretty heavily: Tintin, The BFG (which I admittedly have not seen) and Ready Player One. Perhaps it's a stronger tendency for superstar filmmakers of a certain age to fall into that pitfall than we may think (if, as suggested, desire for control is really the underlying root cause). Or maybe we're just drawing connections and seeing patterns where they don't quite exist.
@@siukong I personally think this is just extrapolating because desire for control is a common trait for many, if not all, filmmakers, successful or not. Also, this comment thread seems to be having this underlying bias that MoCap/CGI is inherently a bad thing, that dabbling with it somehow means a director has lost touch. CGI is at the end of the day a filmmaking technique, and judging a merit of a filmmaker cannot simply be based off of how he/she uses special effects or how he/she appeals to one's idea of what a good movie should be.
“And then he made what might be his greatest film by doing what Robert Zemeckis always refused to do: returning right back were he started.” This line really makes me want Peter Jackson to come back and make *at least* one last silly gory and awesome action comedy like bad taste and brain dead.
Honestly, I don’t care as long as he comes back into the limelight. They Shall Not Grow Old is a MASTERPIECE, but it tragically didn’t get enough recognition.
That line bothered me. George Miller fell out of favor? Happy Feet was received well, even if his "usual" Mad Max Crowd didn't go watch it. Also, George Miller hasn't had a declining popularity, his audience--if anything--is more diverse than ever.
I really enjoy you going into the careers of director. There's something about watching directors throughout the years and what they do, how they change, or even just don't make sense. I really look forward to your next director dive in.
Tattle Tale I’d personally love to see him do a video on Ang Lee! Every time I look at his IMDB page I find myself going “wait how did the same director make that movie, that movie, and THAT movie?!”
Listen to the podcast Blank Check! They go deep on filmographies from directors who have had interesting careers, particularly those who have made weird pet projects after making successful films
CinemaWins just said this in his Joker video and I instantly thought of it when you talked about your confusion with Forrest Gump: “A movie doesn’t necessarily have to say something in order to be remembered.” Great video! Huge fan of Robert Zemekis’ films!
Difference is though that Forrest Gump doesn't so much say nothing, as appear to say something actively awful. That occasionally appears to be satirical, but mostly doesn't.
@Kai McCook Film Crit Hulk has an excellent essay on how a lot of Joker is just gesturing at issues rather than treating them as proper themes - getting into them and exploring that territory. Child abuse, mental illness and the lack of support for same are brought up and used to motivate Arthur to do bad things, and then discarded when it's no longer convenient for the narrative.
Maybe but films like Forrest Gump are clearly trying to say something and have themes. If they fail at expressing those themes clearly then they should be subject to criticism. I'm contrast a movie like "AIRPLANE!" isn't trying to say anything. It's just a stupid comedy movie. If someone said "I didn't like airplane because it has nothing to say" you would just roll your eyes because clearly that guy has missed the point of the movie. Also, whole I appreciate what cinema wins is trying to do with his channel and I enjoy hearing someone being positive about movies I don't thunk he is that great of a film critic. His goal is just "be positive about a movie" and "be the anti-cinema sins" he's not really trying to engage with it on a deeper level.
The special effects restraint works really well for Contact. Ultimately the movie is not really about aliens or technology, but about faith, doubt, and humility.
I remember how blown my mind was when I found out Zemeckis made both the Back to the Futures and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Almost as blown when I found out Stevie Spiegs directed like half of the movies of my childhood.
I like how he dubbed the line at 6:51 when he could have just done a voice over on a clip of Roger Rabbit. He literally kept a shot of a botched take for the sake of dubbing it haha!
Came here again after watching his remake of Disney's Pinocchio. That film feels like he tried to go back to his Polar Express days but largely felt lifeless and like a story made of random moments as opposed to a completed journey.
Robert Zemekis made two of my favorite movies of all time. Back to the Future and Who Framed Roger Rabbit so I'm very interested in seeing this video on everything he made
@Kai McCook I gotta check that out Mostly because "the middle ground between Forrest Gump and Interstellar" sounds fucking insane and I can't even comprehend what the fuck that means
I had no idea Beowulf was straight up animated. From the promo shots and coverage at the time I assumed it was a live-action movie that went overboard on the de-aging technology to hilarious effect, not an animated movie constructed entirely out of hilarious effects
Forrest Gump is about how much stock and value we put into "success." It's something that he is unable to understand. The value of his love for his mother, Jenny and friends supersedes all other things. It's about understanding that everything is by chance you just never know where it may take you. In this understanding, he knows the value of love despite his short comings or successes. As corny and most memorable line is, "life is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gonna get." It's an existential movie on a commercially big scale.
23:41 To answer that inquiry, Zemeckis sold his mo-cap studio to Disney after A Christmas Carol. This resulted in the utter failure that was Mars Needs Moms, and so Disney shut down the entire studio. Probably the only good thing Rich Ross did.
Back in the early 2000s, my wife and I were in need of some temporary affordable housing. My in-laws took us up to Kingston NY from Poughkeepsie, where we were living, to look at possibly renting a mobile home. While looking at this mobile home, we noticed through the back window, an elaborate GI Joe toy village, with figures, vehicles, and buildings, set up in the gap between the homes. It was peculiar, but nothing that noteworthy. When our curiosity with it brought us closer, the owner came out, quite upset, and began to look over the set up, making sure we had not tampered with it (we had not). We left and did not rent this place. Many years later, when I saw the trailor for "Welcome to Marwen", and realized it was about that guy -- it was a big budget Steve Carell movie about the GI Joe guy we saw at the mobile home park in Kingston -- that was the closest in my life I had ever felt to going insane.
Remember when Zemeckis was going to direct a motion captured remake of Yellow Submarine? I'm surprised that wasn't mentioned, considering Patrick spends some of this video recommending that Zemeckis should go back to his roots: if Yellow Submarine had been made, it would have combined the subject matter of his first film (The Beatles) with his favourite new technology (mocap). At a stretch, it even fits with what Patrick identifies as the preoccupations of Zemeckis' protagonists: characters with strong, clear goals (save Pepperland!) who want to escape from somewhere (Ringo begins the film bored with his life in Liverpool). OK, it would probably have been a disaster - but at least Peter Serafinowicz could have given us a feature-length version of his Paul McCartney impression!
Be fair. Red Dead Redemption 2 wishes it had cutscenes as refined as the worst animated scene in a Zemeckins mocap film. Sorry, fellas. In-engine cutscenes STILL aren't there yet. Some pre-redender cutscenes are, if they were taken from the original film source. But it's a cheap shot when film buffs compare mediocre CGI to video games. Lukewarm takes are legion, when it comes to cinema-versus-game discourse.
In our world, movies are still way better storytelling vehicles than games. Right now, anyway. That may change, if Red Dead 2 leads better storytellers to fold better stories into better games. For now, Red Dead gets praised based on low expectations.
@@tcbvgames Diplomacy, you can't find that in TH-cam. Ill take the same route. First of all, you cannot view video games the way you view films, they are both different art medium. Yes, certain games imitate films, not for the sake of imitating them. Its what we call an cinematic take which some video game purist don't like. On the topic of story, which you imply that will never be better than films is just simple wrong. You cannot judge video games through film lens. Video games don't just tell stories through cutscene, they can tell through game mechanics, environments to mention few. Video games have been telling stories just as good as if not better that other mediums. If you want to experience what video games are capable of play Bioshock, Witcher 3, Soma, Journey, God of War (2018), The Last of Us, Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare/Modern Warfare (2019), Deus Ex, and Red Dead Redemption 2. Yes, RDR2 might have a game mechanics that could get tedious over time, but its STORY and STORY TELLING rivals best of Hollywood westerns. Lastly, speaking of cutscene fidelity, are you kidding me. We are close to photo-realism right now, and that happen not yesterday or the day before yesterday. Its happened quite a while ago. I didn't write this because I'm a Egotistical jerk that wants to be right despite my previous comment. Some still think about Tetris and Pacman when I mention Video Games. Those where the mediums primitive beginning. We have come a long way since those just as black and white films to color or short stories on newspaper to fantasy epics. You cannot be cynical while judging Art. If you do so, everything will be pretentious.
I find the best way to watch Forrest Gump is as if it is a myth. A tall tale of America and how it is defined through the decades/generations by each character. I view it as pure allegory and symbolism. It’s a great film when viewed through that lens.
Ok maybe you can say Zemeckis “didn’t like waiting” for Tom Hanks to get skinny, but he DID make a movie during that year which is honestly really good. It’s not like he didn’t do anything. I’m not saying you are wrong, but still.
I never realized how many movies that he made that I love. I don't care if he never made another movie after 2000. The man did enough to be a legend by that point.
The Spirits Within is the first photorealistic computer animated movie, but it is not mocap. There was no live filming with the actors, all of it was animated.
fittingly, the Polar Express was turned into a seasonal motion simulator ride at Sea World (at least the Orlando one). Makes me wonder if the movie was shot specifically with that kind of motion simulator tie-in in mind or if he was just trying to go for that theme park ride feel and the execs capitalized on it after-the-fact
I love your way of telling a story. I started feeling passionate about this guy's career based on this video and wow what a pay off with the Pinocchio director reveal! I noticed myself asking "can you even write this type of stuff?" Sometimes real life has those perfect movie moments.
I swear I'm the only person on the planet who actually liked his Beowulf. As Patrick said, the script is great, and I *love* the little twist they threw in to tie the "old Beowulf fights a dragon" sequence to the rest of the film. Yeah, the animation looks like video game cutscenes, but look past that and there's a lot to enjoy.
It was originally supposed to be filmed as a more low budget film directed by Roger Avary but Zemeckis convinced him it could work as a full Mocap film. At least according to Wikipedia.
The Walk and Marwen also came after superior documentaries on their respective subjects, leaving us asking why they were even made. Or perhaps Zemekis just ran out of things to say in the early 90s (like Tim Burton).
I think it's actually quite ok - at least it definitely works better than his other two CGI animated films. The reason is that in contrast to those other two films the mo-cap CGI animation here doesn't try to be photorealistic in it's depiction of human characters. The characters instead have exaggerated facial features (especially Scrooge with his giant nose) similar to other computer animated films (Pixar etc.). Therefore the uncanny valley effect isn't as strong as in Polar Express and Beowulf. The film also uses the animation in a creative way for those long time travel camera shots. And as you said it's a good adaptation of Dickens' story.
I'm starting to realize a pattern with him and Tim Burton. He got a hell of a start with Batman, Beetlejuice, Pee Wee and even Returns. He goes into the 90s with more personal investments with Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood, two classics. Then he goes into more blockbusters again but feels out of touch, he does that one great film again in Big Fish or Flight, then it's into forgettable stuff like Dumbo or Marwen.
I actually wish Patrick had referenced Burton instead of Peter Jackson as a demonstration of a director getting lost in the technology or visuals of a film rather than the story. I know there's The Hobbit films to draw comparison, but given the troubled production on those films and how much they visibly changed Jackson over time, it's not the same as Zemeckis' struggles to find that creative sweet-spot he used to be a master of. Plus, Zemeckis has yet to produce a work in recent times that could be compared to Jackson's WWI feature length documentary, They Shall Not Grow Old, which used its technology to properly tell its story instead of the story servicing the technology.
I still remember when Polar Express and The Christmas Carol were getting ready to release in theaters the ads all made it a point to say that "Tom Hanks plays 4 characters!" or "Jim Carry plays Scrooge, Marley, and the ghosts of christmas past and future!" as if those were big selling points of the movie. Like... even as a kid I was confused as to why they wanted me to know that so bad or why that was a good thing
Learning that the guy who made the Back to the Future movies, which just defined my childhood, made both Forrest Gump, which is one of those "you HAVE to see this movie" kinda thing in my family, AND that Beowulf movie, which I still unironically love to this day...kinda blows my mind.
Jeez, dude, don't start with, "I got a text message from my parents..." you really made me panic. "There reason that Golem worked... was that he had exaggerated facial features, and, thus, looked less human." Have you seen Andy Serkis? I like the idea of Patrick sitting alone at the old Willems' place deep in the frozen wood, talking in to a camera. It is very C'thonic.
Don't agree on point of Forrest blindly following. He has a lot of agency in things he cares about (not listens to orders to save his friend, always punches people hurting the girl he loves, etc.) It's just he doesn't care much about the small things the majority of people are hung up on. I would say the message of the movie is to live just doing your best in whatever situation you find yourself in and appreciate the life as it is and you will find happiness.
I love 'Contact' but always get so engrossed in the story that I never really properly noticed that reverse tracking shot. Thanks for pointing it out, it is indeed amazing.
BTTF in my opinion is one of the great american films. I loved Gump when it came out and I watched castaway over and over as well as some of those reality tv survival shows it inspired. Maybe he needs to spend some time by himself on an island with a volleyball.
I've always found the point of Forrest Gump to be a bit of a confused retread of Being There. In that Forrest succeeds because his perspective allows him to be unaware of his own limitations. It's just that while Being There wonderfully lampoons the shallowness and lack of awareness of media and political figures around its main character Gump relationships with his supporting cast around him sends mixed messages through some sentimental plot threads that don't really compliment the main focus of the film. I still like Forrest Gump overall but I agree that it's a bit of a mixed bag.
Hey Patrick, I just want to leave a nice comment thanking you for the video, it was great! It's apparent that you put a lot more effort and work than a regular video essay, I love your storytelling style. I always show your video to my parents, which although love movies, because of a generational gap never watch youtube, but they love your videos too! Keep it up man, and remember to treat yourself well!
The music was especially good in this video. There's so much filler music these days, of no consequence, that it's nice to hear something that grabs you.
I have seen Beowulf. I had entirely forgotten I had seen Beowulf. I thought I had a fever dreamed an hour and a half long god of war cutscene that appeared in my highschool English class like an educational text.
30:06 and this is why we love Scorsese. 50 years of great films. Critics, big movie buffs and casual audiences love his work. One of the best to ever do it.
With Gangs Of New York he surely went a specific route he has yet to recover from; well made but overlong, soulless and borderline pretentious ''epics' that are a far cry from the tight and tense movies he used to make. Not saying they're bad, but still.
@Stefano Pavone Yeah, but after Casino he also made Bringing Out The Dead, so he gets a pass. ;-) But no, I kind of agree, Casino is a of course a very well made movie, but even back then it already felt so redundant because he basically did the same thing but better with Goodfellas.
Although even he had some little CGI overload aberrations with Hugo, Irishman and a little GoNY (I still like those movies, don't get me wrong) he is indeed the best
I never forget Beowulf. It's seared into the trauma center of my brain. And one reason is the one you say - story wise it was actually GOOD! If they had let the real actors play these parts and hired the costume department from LOTR to make sure the sets didn't look plastic this could have been a classic. It infuriates me more than anything else and is why I can't stand Zemeckis anymore. Just as Jackson in Hobbit he got too focused on whether he COULD implement a new technology when he should have asked himself whether he SHOULD (Narrator: He shouldn't).
Fixating on the "uncanny valley" is Polar Express does a disservice to its mawkishness, unearned sentiment, tedious songs, leaning too hard into Eddie Deezen, and abrupt shift into Shrek space with Steve Tyler Elf. I grew up loving Used Cars, Romancing The Stone, Roger Rabbit, and Back To The Future, then saw Polar Express at the Arclight in LA with a date and have never risked a Zemeckis film again. Thank you for yet another insightful and sensitive exploration of a topic I had no idea I wanted to see.
Yes, I've also spent a lot of time contemplating what the intended message of Forrest Gump is and how do the serious and satirical parts come together. My takeaway is that Forrest Gump should be viewed primarily as a satire and plotline with Jenny serves two functions; a) it gives audiences the sentimental pop they clamour for, so they wouldn't be turned off by the satire and b) the plotline is parallel to Forrest's, whlist Forrest achieves the archetypical American dream by virtue of being literal idiot, who never questions anything and just stumble into success after success by blindly following orders and making live-changing decisions based on instictiv urges, Jenny is intelligent, independantly-thinking, victim of childhood abuse and a woman, making a lot of very conscious decisions, which only lead her into more abuse and misery, and she only achieves any kind of peace when she settles with that rich idiot with whom she has a kind (or even may not have). So as a result, the seemingly sentimental stuff with Jenny emphasize the satirical tone of the movie.
Exactly! Gump is the exact person that that society rewards; an ant-man. Aka. the exact kind of person that Mccarthyan propaganda criticized the Soviet Union and communism for idealising.
My understanding is the book is closer to the satire you're talking about, but the film thoroughly undermines it by 1) casting Tom Hanks and having him play Forrest as completely sympathetic and sincere, and 2) framing everything lovingly through the lens of boomer nostalgia, especially the soundtrack, with the especially dark periods of Jenny's life representing those eras of post-war American history that boomers regret or look back on as times of American setback. Had Forrest come across more as an irredeemable, exasperating idiot maybe the satire would be more intact (probably wouldn't have been as successful at the time though).
@@digitaljanus As I see it, the film deliberately appears on the surface as soothing love letter to the good ol' days through nostalgia-colored boomer glasses not only in order to appeal to wider audience, to be financially succesful and win over the Academy, but, more importantly, because that's how it was in Forrest's head. And since he's the narrator, the movie is told from his perspective, so of course everything is sugar-coated, nice and sappy, that's how he perceived it. In this regard, Forrest Gump is a stand-in for certain audience members, seeing history the way they prefer to. However, at the same time, on the more implicit, more subtle level critical eye can spot all the unsavory going-ons, that Forrest and certain audience members don't see and don't want to see, but which are there nonetheless and actually undermines and challenge the pristine surface picture. I see Forrest Gump as clever play on subjectivity in storytelling, toying with the viewers and providing different readings on multiple levels, creating a complex take on portrayal of some subject matters in Oscar-bait films and its systemic, satirical subversion. Anyway, it's also just my take, you have yours and that's ok.
Two things one I would love to have a mini sequel about this with Pinocchio to it boggles my mind that considering how successful his films are and that it seems like these for the film's he was trying to make that no one has offered him to do a James Cameron Avatar spin-off project.
There always seems to be a direct correlation between directors getting obsessed with tech and less obsessed with plot. Yes, Polar Express, Christmas Carol, Marwen look horrifying. But even if you made all the CG absolutely perfect, they would still be bad narrative films. I can't help but have that fear is we go back to Pandora for 5 sequels. I could live with bad CG in service of a great story. I can't live with great CG in service of a bad story.
Forrest Gump came across like a discussion of destiny vs. free will to me. Each character tackles with the idea of who they are meant to be and if it's a product of their choice or pre determined (Lt. Dan dying on the battlefield and instead living, Forrest Gump being handicapped, Forrest's Mom having to be a single mother, the hundreds of celebrities they showed in the film, etc). It felt like an emotional exploration of who we choose to be and Forrest even ponders that at the end near Jenny's grave. Also Forrest Gump disobeyed orders multiple times in the movie like when he saved his comrades from the firebombing in Nam.
I love your channel. You have without a doubt the best quality videos on TH-cam. You can tell that you really take your time with these. You really care about your product and it shows. I wish you all the success in the world. You definitely deserve it. Keep up the great work.
Contact is a great movie that I feel like almost nobody talks about. Well made, well acted, adapted from a book by Carl Sagan, and it's got John Hurt playing an eccentric billionaire. What's not to like?
Lol I actually love Beowulf, great writing and the animation never bothered me but I totally get it. And I love these remakes of movies inside movie reviews, great job with mini-shinining movie
The shot at 28:10 sort of does my head in, just because of the disconnect between the way the background dolls are getting on the jeep and Carrell's screaming.
I unabashedly _LOVE_ Beowulf. I think it was ahead of it's time & that we'll eventually reach a point where performance capture films are a far more regular occurrence
Hearing all of this, Robert Zemeckis should direct James and the Giant Peach instead of The Witches. Who knows? Maybe he’ll knock it out of the park with that one. But with everything said about Zemeckis and the stuff in the book itself, it seems like a more tailored made Roald Dahl story for him to adapt along with the gimmick of mixing entirely live-action material and fully CG-animated anthropomorphized bug characters.
Hey Patrick, your workload along with the magnificent ability to get to the core of filmmaker and movie's themes is CRAZY. Props to you for continuing to produce such fine work! Thanks for the insight and good luck with your personal narrative projects.
Loved this. I love when you do essays on Directors. I never really looked at RZ's IMDb before. He's made some of my favorite movies. As far as Forest Gump, I saw it as a story about controlling destiny. Forest just let's life happen around him and makes very few big decisions. While the supporting cast are obsessed with controlling their life path. Just be a feather floating on the breeze and you'll wind up where were meant to be. I disagree with this philosophy, but I think that's the theme.
I like it quite a bit, but it really would have been better as live action though. Obviously Ray Winstone wouldn't be playing the lead though. Too bad it was made before Chris Hemsworth was a star, because now I'd just cast him.
There are tons of great ideas and visuals in Zemeckis' Beowulf, and I was totally blown away in 2007 by the rather mature attitude the story was told in . Sadly, lots of the CGI persons are inhabitants of Uncanny Valley, but I love the film nonetheless. Alan Silvestri's score totally rocks!
Honestly an amazing video. I LOVE your videos on a director’s filmography. They’re so interesting! Your analysis on their work as a whole is just the coolest.😊 Also, I just want to say that you literally are one of the best, most consistently fun-to-watch TH-camrs out there. With everything you put out, I know that I will be thoroughly entertained and likely find newfound interest in some movie or show. Thanks for just being you and doing your best at it.
I personally don’t want to give up on Zemeckis, and his upcoming ‘Pinocchio’ does has me very intrigued unlike all the other Disney live-action remakes. It’s the only one I will willingly go see and I’m hoping for it to be, at the very least, a decent watch.
If nothing else, I think it will be an unintentional cult horror. Even later Disney adaptations moved away from focus on pinnochio to the other characters
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
Sorry I didn't talk about Romancing the Stone, Death Becomes Her, or What Lies Beneath. There were a lot of movies! ALSO sign up here to get CuriosityStream PLUS Nebula SO YOU CAN SEE MY MOVIE WHEN IT PREMIERES curiositystream.com/patrickhwillems/
Death Becomes Her deserves its own video anyway
Death Becomes Her is one of those movies that you watch today and think, holy shit this was really a movie?? But in a good way.
Will we ever get another blue flame special?
What is going on with his blood test results? is it a hint of your next video about unanswered questions or abandoned plot lines in movies?
Actually, what I was surprised you didn't talk about was *Alan Silvestri* He's been THE most constant factor across Zemeckis' entire career, and one of the few human beings that Zemeckis allowed into even his most tech-focused projects. But you didn't even say his name? That's an odd oversight.
This whole video was me going: "Oh, he made that too!?"
Rachel Tayman even things I had already known he directed I was still surprised 😅
Is Robert Zemeckis the Neil Cicierega of Hollywood?
Saaaame
@@SamAronow I want to hear Robert Zemeckis's mouth sounds
He skipped Romancing the Stone, Death Becomes Her, & What Lies Beneath.
Turn this into a series: "great director goes mad and ends up doing a disney live action movie"
Next: Tim Burton
A Tim Burton video would be great
Guy Ritchie, Kenneth Branagh, and Jon Favreau after
Or just "great director goes mad, period."
M. Night Shyamalan for example.
i need a Tim Burton video now
Always watching oh god I can see the entire movie in my brain HELP
I remember watching Forrest Gump in the theater for the first time. When Tom Hanks "interacted" with JFK, a guy a couple rows in front of me just blurted out, "HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!"
Lol.
Everything good in _Forrest Gump_ was done better in _Zelig_ to better effect and for better purposes
@@dwc1964 does that movie have that guy that married his adopted daughter
@@jhonatansilva7260 yup
@@jhonatansilva7260 not his adopted daughter.
I had to go back and rewatch this after Pinocchio. He was one of my filmmaking heros back in the 90's.
I don't think it was done on purpose, but the character of Forest felt like the human embodiment of a Boomer's lost innocence and everything that goes right for him seems like it's because of that. Like, *so much* boomer anguish really comes down to mourning the loss of innocence. Forest spends his entire life in a state of perpetual "1950s child" while Jenny never got to be innocent, she never got to stay the same, and she seemed to spend her life desperately chasing that feeling.
Nailed it. Forrest Gump is an ode to all the Boomers who really tried their best to be optimistic and not just talk about making change and being good but who actually did their best to be good and make change...only to watch everyone else in their generation turn out to be terrible people or people who had their dreams and lives ended because the world really is a terrible place. I think the end of it was Zemeckis trying to offer people from his generation a sense of hope despite the end of their own innocence. I look at it as being the opposite of what Billy Joel did with 'We Didn't Start the Fire' where he was basically owning up to being one of 'those' kinds of boomers and trying to shove off any sense of responsibility. At least with Forrest Gump, the film tries to show that despite all the tragedy we should do our best to be kind.
I never really thought of Forest as a character. He doesn't comment or affect what's happening, everything happens to him, like the feather in the opening scene he just goes where he's blown. He's more like a narrator, a nearly random element showing us slices of life, vignettes woven together by chance.
The whole American Boomer essence is that they were born into a (relatively) perfect world and then saw it get squandered and corrupted. Forest sort of seems like what (some) Boomers wish more of their generation was like....
I really enjoyed this. The comparison to Peter Jackson is an astute one. I feel like Tim Burton is another director who has made a similar descent into his CGI toybox. I think you touched on a really important point -- that the reason for this seems to be almost entirely about control, and whether or not it actually looks good is secondary. A sad thing for filmmakers who were so visually groundbreaking
Exactly. It's quite interesting psychologically. You have 1. the directors that don't really change, just keep doing the same thing with either greater proficiency/perfection (Scorsese) or diminishing returns (Bey), 2. directors who change by challenging themselves by the stories they want to tell and cinematography (Spielberg) and 3. the directors that fall into an obsession with the purely technical aspects whether they suit the story or not (Jackson, Zemeckis).
I was actually intrigued by the trailer for Burton's Dumbo, but 10 minutes in and there was nothing but blatant green screen!
Reading all of these comments, it sounds like the only way for these washed up directors to be good again is to abolish CGI altogether, which should've happened after the box office disaster that was Cats.
@@raphaelmarquez9650 "abolish CGI" is impossible. Beside, simply using CGI is not the problem, obsess with it instead of storytelling is the problem.
@@mrhoapro1 From my experience online, there exist movie fans who want CGI gone because they're viewed as "soulless" compared to stop motion and practical effects and is blamed for modern movies being bad compared to pre-2000's movies.
The whole uncanny valley with Polar Express reminds me why it worked so well for Toy Story back in 1995 but not for PE in 2004; if the current technology makes characters look like plastic, then just say they are plastic.
The uncanny valley was one of the main reasons that Pixar didn't make a movie about human characters until The Incredibles.
@@VideoMask93 Even then, the human-characters were heavily-stylized
@@ECL28E Yep! They knew not to try photorealistic CGI. Even what they did was incredibly challenging-apparently the shot of Bob threading his fingers through a hole in his old suit took months to get right.
@@VideoMask93 fabric is a pain like that!
The music, the pacing, the intro - I love this. Fantastic work.
One thing I found interesting when I read Mr. Zemeckis' Wikipedia article was this quote:
"That decade[his 20's] of my life from film school till 30 was nothing but work, nothing but absolute, driving work. I had no money. I had no life."
If he is at his best when the protagonist of his movie has a clearly established Want then maybe that reflects a filmmaker that has been very driven for parts of his life and is therefore more able to communicate those emotions through his craft?
Someone who Zemeckis reminds me of (despite some very obvious differences in their movies) is James Cameron. Both are extremely talented directors who have pushed the technical possibilities of the medium forward dramatically. Both have tried in various ways to go beyond just being popcorn entertainers to being Serious Filmmakers, and both won tons of Oscars for unbelievably successful movies that a lot of people nevertheless despise for their extreme cheesiness. And both in recent years seem to have fallen down a kind of rabbit hole of mo-cap/CGI obsession.
What both Zemeckis and Cameron's careers demonstrate to me is just how difficult it is to do what Spielberg has done. Genuinely growing as a filmmaker and doing a good job of making both fun popcorn movies and serious prestige movies is much, much harder than we might suppose.
Only difference (albeit one that changes everything) though is that the mocap/CGI obsession actually worked for Cameron while it didn't for Zemeckis. Because it appears to me Zemeckis was more obsessed with the technique while Cameron was more obsessed with realizing the story he had been dreaming of for years with the technique. Mocap was merely a means to an end for Cameron while for Zemeckis, the technique was the end unto itself.
Also, filmmaking is an astronomically difficult career, a successful one even more so. Just getting a film finished is already an accomplishment on its own and I think that's something people should be more aware of.
I appreciate the capitalization of "Serious Filmmakers"
@@andrewchung2940 It worked for Cameron in a career sense, but to me it seems like a huge waste that the mind behind Terminator 2 and Aliens has spent the last 15 years making a few hours of neon fantasy CGI spectacles about blue people on a magical forest planet. Imagine what we could have gotten instead...
I mean even Spielberg skirted his own version of a CGI/mo-cap rabbit hole. Not nearly as deeply as the other two but still, with 3 of his films in an 8-year span relying on it pretty heavily: Tintin, The BFG (which I admittedly have not seen) and Ready Player One. Perhaps it's a stronger tendency for superstar filmmakers of a certain age to fall into that pitfall than we may think (if, as suggested, desire for control is really the underlying root cause). Or maybe we're just drawing connections and seeing patterns where they don't quite exist.
@@siukong I personally think this is just extrapolating because desire for control is a common trait for many, if not all, filmmakers, successful or not. Also, this comment thread seems to be having this underlying bias that MoCap/CGI is inherently a bad thing, that dabbling with it somehow means a director has lost touch. CGI is at the end of the day a filmmaking technique, and judging a merit of a filmmaker cannot simply be based off of how he/she uses special effects or how he/she appeals to one's idea of what a good movie should be.
“And then he made what might be his greatest film by doing what Robert Zemeckis always refused to do: returning right back were he started.”
This line really makes me want Peter Jackson to come back and make *at least* one last silly gory and awesome action comedy like bad taste and brain dead.
Honestly, I don’t care as long as he comes back into the limelight. They Shall Not Grow Old is a MASTERPIECE, but it tragically didn’t get enough recognition.
@@Gemnist98 God, the doc about how they made "They Shall Not Grow Old" was almost as good as the movie itself. Really fascinating stuff.
@No-man Baugh Exactly ! I miss his horror-comedies too
That line bothered me. George Miller fell out of favor? Happy Feet was received well, even if his "usual" Mad Max Crowd didn't go watch it. Also, George Miller hasn't had a declining popularity, his audience--if anything--is more diverse than ever.
I really liked Dead Alive.
I really enjoy you going into the careers of director. There's something about watching directors throughout the years and what they do, how they change, or even just don't make sense. I really look forward to your next director dive in.
Tattle Tale I’d personally love to see him do a video on Ang Lee! Every time I look at his IMDB page I find myself going “wait how did the same director make that movie, that movie, and THAT movie?!”
Listen to the podcast Blank Check! They go deep on filmographies from directors who have had interesting careers, particularly those who have made weird pet projects after making successful films
CinemaWins just said this in his Joker video and I instantly thought of it when you talked about your confusion with Forrest Gump:
“A movie doesn’t necessarily have to say something in order to be remembered.”
Great video! Huge fan of Robert Zemekis’ films!
Difference is though that Forrest Gump doesn't so much say nothing, as appear to say something actively awful. That occasionally appears to be satirical, but mostly doesn't.
You know someone's a Capitalist when they think The Joker didn't say anything.
Joker just blatantly tells its message to the audience...the point CW makes is not bad but how tf did he make it while talking about Joker
@Kai McCook Film Crit Hulk has an excellent essay on how a lot of Joker is just gesturing at issues rather than treating them as proper themes - getting into them and exploring that territory. Child abuse, mental illness and the lack of support for same are brought up and used to motivate Arthur to do bad things, and then discarded when it's no longer convenient for the narrative.
Maybe but films like Forrest Gump are clearly trying to say something and have themes. If they fail at expressing those themes clearly then they should be subject to criticism. I'm contrast a movie like "AIRPLANE!" isn't trying to say anything. It's just a stupid comedy movie. If someone said "I didn't like airplane because it has nothing to say" you would just roll your eyes because clearly that guy has missed the point of the movie. Also, whole I appreciate what cinema wins is trying to do with his channel and I enjoy hearing someone being positive about movies I don't thunk he is that great of a film critic. His goal is just "be positive about a movie" and "be the anti-cinema sins" he's not really trying to engage with it on a deeper level.
11:42 I knew you would find a way to talk about Paddington again
The special effects restraint works really well for Contact. Ultimately the movie is not really about aliens or technology, but about faith, doubt, and humility.
I remember how blown my mind was when I found out Zemeckis made both the Back to the Futures and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Almost as blown when I found out Stevie Spiegs directed like half of the movies of my childhood.
I like how he dubbed the line at 6:51 when he could have just done a voice over on a clip of Roger Rabbit. He literally kept a shot of a botched take for the sake of dubbing it haha!
Came here again after watching his remake of Disney's Pinocchio. That film feels like he tried to go back to his Polar Express days but largely felt lifeless and like a story made of random moments as opposed to a completed journey.
Robert Zemekis made two of my favorite movies of all time. Back to the Future and Who Framed Roger Rabbit so I'm very interested in seeing this video on everything he made
Forrest Gump, Cast Away and some of CGI stuff were solid too.
Yeah those are my favourites too.
@Kai McCook I gotta check that out
Mostly because "the middle ground between Forrest Gump and Interstellar" sounds fucking insane and I can't even comprehend what the fuck that means
I think Forrest is not a character, he's time. Time runs while everyone dies.
The Wandering Boomer
Time is a tool you can put on the wall, or wear it on your rizd.
So what you're saying is...the years start coming...and they don't stop coming?
Interesting interpretation.
forest gump is a remake of being there
I had no idea Beowulf was straight up animated. From the promo shots and coverage at the time I assumed it was a live-action movie that went overboard on the de-aging technology to hilarious effect, not an animated movie constructed entirely out of hilarious effects
I just pretend I’m watching like a final fantasy cutscene
the Corridor Crew guys have a break down of that mirror shot in the FX reaction vids!
Man the Corridor Crew FX reaction videos are so good. You get the sense that they really love the craft and they aren't just blindly hating.
yeah it wasn't as complicated as I kinda thought....the mirror is green screen and everything is super carefully created hidden cuts after hidden cuts
Forrest Gump is about how much stock and value we put into "success." It's something that he is unable to understand. The value of his love for his mother, Jenny and friends supersedes all other things. It's about understanding that everything is by chance you just never know where it may take you. In this understanding, he knows the value of love despite his short comings or successes. As corny and most memorable line is, "life is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gonna get." It's an existential movie on a commercially big scale.
and yet you know exactly what a chocolate box will get you.
"I'm not a smart man, but I know what love is."
23:41 To answer that inquiry, Zemeckis sold his mo-cap studio to Disney after A Christmas Carol. This resulted in the utter failure that was Mars Needs Moms, and so Disney shut down the entire studio. Probably the only good thing Rich Ross did.
No one else gonna mention how good Pat's cinematography has gotten? The bit where he's walking in from the snow into the house is gorgeous.
Remember when Zemeckis was going to produce a mocap remake of Yellow Submarine
Given that his film revolved entirely around the Beatles, I wouldn’t have minded watching that.
I wish I didn't.
Well now I know that might have happened and now it probably isn't. Now I'm sad.
Don’t remind me
I shudder at the thought of what those Blue Meanies might’ve looked like
and now, 3 years later, he made the witches, and pinocchio, both remakes. unfortunately, it seems Zemeckis is a hired gun nowadays.
Back in the early 2000s, my wife and I were in need of some temporary affordable housing. My in-laws took us up to Kingston NY from Poughkeepsie, where we were living, to look at possibly renting a mobile home. While looking at this mobile home, we noticed through the back window, an elaborate GI Joe toy village, with figures, vehicles, and buildings, set up in the gap between the homes. It was peculiar, but nothing that noteworthy. When our curiosity with it brought us closer, the owner came out, quite upset, and began to look over the set up, making sure we had not tampered with it (we had not). We left and did not rent this place. Many years later, when I saw the trailor for "Welcome to Marwen", and realized it was about that guy -- it was a big budget Steve Carell movie about the GI Joe guy we saw at the mobile home park in Kingston -- that was the closest in my life I had ever felt to going insane.
The producing in your videos is astounding. The lighting and grading. I love this..
But it’s creepy how real he looks…almost
Remember when Zemeckis was going to direct a motion captured remake of Yellow Submarine? I'm surprised that wasn't mentioned, considering Patrick spends some of this video recommending that Zemeckis should go back to his roots: if Yellow Submarine had been made, it would have combined the subject matter of his first film (The Beatles) with his favourite new technology (mocap).
At a stretch, it even fits with what Patrick identifies as the preoccupations of Zemeckis' protagonists: characters with strong, clear goals (save Pepperland!) who want to escape from somewhere (Ringo begins the film bored with his life in Liverpool).
OK, it would probably have been a disaster - but at least Peter Serafinowicz could have given us a feature-length version of his Paul McCartney impression!
I respect Patrick because not many youtubers would go through the effort of making a weird framing device for their video essays
21:43. Let's be clear, that's an insult to PS4 cutscenes.
Alex Mazurek It’s clearly a PS3 cutscene 😂
Be fair. Red Dead Redemption 2 wishes it had cutscenes as refined as the worst animated scene in a Zemeckins mocap film.
Sorry, fellas. In-engine cutscenes STILL aren't there yet. Some pre-redender cutscenes are, if they were taken from the original film source. But it's a cheap shot when film buffs compare mediocre CGI to video games. Lukewarm takes are legion, when it comes to cinema-versus-game discourse.
@@tcbvgames Keep living in your own world.
In our world, movies are still way better storytelling vehicles than games. Right now, anyway.
That may change, if Red Dead 2 leads better storytellers to fold better stories into better games. For now, Red Dead gets praised based on low expectations.
@@tcbvgames Diplomacy, you can't find that in TH-cam. Ill take the same route.
First of all, you cannot view video games the way you view films, they are both different art medium. Yes, certain games imitate films, not for the sake of imitating them. Its what we call an cinematic take which some video game purist don't like. On the topic of story, which you imply that will never be better than films is just simple wrong. You cannot judge video games through film lens. Video games don't just tell stories through cutscene, they can tell through game mechanics, environments to mention few. Video games have been telling stories just as good as if not better that other mediums. If you want to experience what video games are capable of play Bioshock, Witcher 3, Soma, Journey, God of War (2018), The Last of Us, Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare/Modern Warfare (2019), Deus Ex, and Red Dead Redemption 2. Yes, RDR2 might have a game mechanics that could get tedious over time, but its STORY and STORY TELLING rivals best of Hollywood westerns. Lastly, speaking of cutscene fidelity, are you kidding me. We are close to photo-realism right now, and that happen not yesterday or the day before yesterday. Its happened quite a while ago.
I didn't write this because I'm a Egotistical jerk that wants to be right despite my previous comment. Some still think about Tetris and Pacman when I mention Video Games. Those where the mediums primitive beginning. We have come a long way since those just as black and white films to color or short stories on newspaper to fantasy epics. You cannot be cynical while judging Art. If you do so, everything will be pretentious.
Sadly with both the release of The Witches and Pinocchio, this video had aged quite well.
I find the best way to watch Forrest Gump is as if it is a myth. A tall tale of America and how it is defined through the decades/generations by each character. I view it as pure allegory and symbolism. It’s a great film when viewed through that lens.
Ok maybe you can say Zemeckis “didn’t like waiting” for Tom Hanks to get skinny, but he DID make a movie during that year which is honestly really good. It’s not like he didn’t do anything.
I’m not saying you are wrong, but still.
I never realized how many movies that he made that I love. I don't care if he never made another movie after 2000. The man did enough to be a legend by that point.
Forest Gump is a "remake" ,for lack of a better word, of
"Little Big Man" starring Dustin Hoffman. I would love for you to compare the two movies.
Correction: Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was the first full mocap movie.
True but later he clarifies “AMERICAN”
Hugh Mungus True
@@Plaine9 FF:TSW was written and directed by Americans, and animated in Hawaii, as I recall.
The Spirits Within is the first photorealistic computer animated movie, but it is not mocap. There was no live filming with the actors, all of it was animated.
fittingly, the Polar Express was turned into a seasonal motion simulator ride at Sea World (at least the Orlando one). Makes me wonder if the movie was shot specifically with that kind of motion simulator tie-in in mind or if he was just trying to go for that theme park ride feel and the execs capitalized on it after-the-fact
Desperately need an update on this video after zemeckis’s latest “Here”
I love your way of telling a story. I started feeling passionate about this guy's career based on this video and wow what a pay off with the Pinocchio director reveal! I noticed myself asking "can you even write this type of stuff?" Sometimes real life has those perfect movie moments.
I swear I'm the only person on the planet who actually liked his Beowulf. As Patrick said, the script is great, and I *love* the little twist they threw in to tie the "old Beowulf fights a dragon" sequence to the rest of the film. Yeah, the animation looks like video game cutscenes, but look past that and there's a lot to enjoy.
Jason Blalock I haven’t seen it yet, but I’d like to do so !
It was originally supposed to be filmed as a more low budget film directed by Roger Avary but Zemeckis convinced him it could work as a full Mocap film. At least according to Wikipedia.
No mention that Zemeckes has a remake of Roald Dahl's "The Witches" releasing this year.
The Walk and Marwen also came after superior documentaries on their respective subjects, leaving us asking why they were even made. Or perhaps Zemekis just ran out of things to say in the early 90s (like Tim Burton).
The grand irony about Zemeckis, Pinocchio and Disney is that Guillermo del Toro completely owned them with a far superior stop motion Pinocchio.
It is sad to see how Zemeckis lost his way in all these years :( His early movies are, in many cases, timeless. His new ones are not even good :(
In defence of A Christmas Carol - It's one of the better adaptions. We use it when we teach the novella to kids.
I think it's actually quite ok - at least it definitely works better than his other two CGI animated films. The reason is that in contrast to those other two films the mo-cap CGI animation here doesn't try to be photorealistic in it's depiction of human characters. The characters instead have exaggerated facial features (especially Scrooge with his giant nose) similar to other computer animated films (Pixar etc.). Therefore the uncanny valley effect isn't as strong as in Polar Express and Beowulf. The film also uses the animation in a creative way for those long time travel camera shots. And as you said it's a good adaptation of Dickens' story.
I'm starting to realize a pattern with him and Tim Burton.
He got a hell of a start with Batman, Beetlejuice, Pee Wee and even Returns. He goes into the 90s with more personal investments with Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood, two classics. Then he goes into more blockbusters again but feels out of touch, he does that one great film again in Big Fish or Flight, then it's into forgettable stuff like Dumbo or Marwen.
I actually wish Patrick had referenced Burton instead of Peter Jackson as a demonstration of a director getting lost in the technology or visuals of a film rather than the story.
I know there's The Hobbit films to draw comparison, but given the troubled production on those films and how much they visibly changed Jackson over time, it's not the same as Zemeckis' struggles to find that creative sweet-spot he used to be a master of.
Plus, Zemeckis has yet to produce a work in recent times that could be compared to Jackson's WWI feature length documentary, They Shall Not Grow Old, which used its technology to properly tell its story instead of the story servicing the technology.
Also like Zemeckis, Burton has a tendency to force his style into an adaption where it doesn't fit.
I still remember when Polar Express and The Christmas Carol were getting ready to release in theaters the ads all made it a point to say that "Tom Hanks plays 4 characters!" or "Jim Carry plays Scrooge, Marley, and the ghosts of christmas past and future!" as if those were big selling points of the movie. Like... even as a kid I was confused as to why they wanted me to know that so bad or why that was a good thing
Patrick: So “Contact” stars Jodie Foster...
*Katya Zamodlochikova wants to know your location*
Rose Weldon I CAME IN THE COMMENTS TO SEE IF THERE WERE OTHERS LIKE ME
Learning that the guy who made the Back to the Future movies, which just defined my childhood, made both Forrest Gump, which is one of those "you HAVE to see this movie" kinda thing in my family, AND that Beowulf movie, which I still unironically love to this day...kinda blows my mind.
Jeez, dude, don't start with, "I got a text message from my parents..." you really made me panic.
"There reason that Golem worked... was that he had exaggerated facial features, and, thus, looked less human." Have you seen Andy Serkis?
I like the idea of Patrick sitting alone at the old Willems' place deep in the frozen wood, talking in to a camera. It is very C'thonic.
Now we need a follow-up review of Zemeckis's Pinocchio movie.
Don't agree on point of Forrest blindly following. He has a lot of agency in things he cares about (not listens to orders to save his friend, always punches people hurting the girl he loves, etc.) It's just he doesn't care much about the small things the majority of people are hung up on. I would say the message of the movie is to live just doing your best in whatever situation you find yourself in and appreciate the life as it is and you will find happiness.
What about Jennie? Are we supposed to not be like Jennie, as in not fight against injustice and rebel for a better future? What's the point in that?
I Wanna Hold Your Hand is such a genuinely overlooked gem of a film. It's a better Beatles love letter than Danny Boyle's Yesterday.
Dug the video for sure, felt you did gloss over the fact that Zemeckis has an adaptation of The Witches coming out this year though
Oh god....
I love 'Contact' but always get so engrossed in the story that I never really properly noticed that reverse tracking shot. Thanks for pointing it out, it is indeed amazing.
Who else thought his parents were going to come home in the middle of him talking to the Bobby Z doll?
BTTF in my opinion is one of the great american films. I loved Gump when it came out and I watched castaway over and over as well as some of those reality tv survival shows it inspired. Maybe he needs to spend some time by himself on an island with a volleyball.
I've always found the point of Forrest Gump to be a bit of a confused retread of Being There. In that Forrest succeeds because his perspective allows him to be unaware of his own limitations. It's just that while Being There wonderfully lampoons the shallowness and lack of awareness of media and political figures around its main character Gump relationships with his supporting cast around him sends mixed messages through some sentimental plot threads that don't really compliment the main focus of the film. I still like Forrest Gump overall but I agree that it's a bit of a mixed bag.
Hey Patrick, I just want to leave a nice comment thanking you for the video, it was great! It's apparent that you put a lot more effort and work than a regular video essay, I love your storytelling style. I always show your video to my parents, which although love movies, because of a generational gap never watch youtube, but they love your videos too! Keep it up man, and remember to treat yourself well!
The music was especially good in this video. There's so much filler music these days, of no consequence, that it's nice to hear something that grabs you.
This is when you're at your best. Overarching story over a review. I just love these so much.
I have seen Beowulf. I had entirely forgotten I had seen Beowulf. I thought I had a fever dreamed an hour and a half long god of war cutscene that appeared in my highschool English class like an educational text.
Hahahahahahaha
Isolation and disassociation seem to become common themes in Patricks work. Love it
30:06 and this is why we love Scorsese. 50 years of great films. Critics, big movie buffs and casual audiences love his work. One of the best to ever do it.
With Gangs Of New York he surely went a specific route he has yet to recover from; well made but overlong, soulless and borderline pretentious ''epics' that are a far cry from the tight and tense movies he used to make. Not saying they're bad, but still.
@Stefano Pavone Yeah, but after Casino he also made Bringing Out The Dead, so he gets a pass. ;-) But no, I kind of agree, Casino is a of course a very well made movie, but even back then it already felt so redundant because he basically did the same thing but better with Goodfellas.
Although even he had some little CGI overload aberrations with Hugo, Irishman and a little GoNY (I still like those movies, don't get me wrong) he is indeed the best
Always get so excited when there's a new Patrick H Willems video.
I never forget Beowulf. It's seared into the trauma center of my brain. And one reason is the one you say - story wise it was actually GOOD! If they had let the real actors play these parts and hired the costume department from LOTR to make sure the sets didn't look plastic this could have been a classic. It infuriates me more than anything else and is why I can't stand Zemeckis anymore. Just as Jackson in Hobbit he got too focused on whether he COULD implement a new technology when he should have asked himself whether he SHOULD (Narrator: He shouldn't).
Fixating on the "uncanny valley" is Polar Express does a disservice to its mawkishness, unearned sentiment, tedious songs, leaning too hard into Eddie Deezen, and abrupt shift into Shrek space with Steve Tyler Elf. I grew up loving Used Cars, Romancing The Stone, Roger Rabbit, and Back To The Future, then saw Polar Express at the Arclight in LA with a date and have never risked a Zemeckis film again. Thank you for yet another insightful and sensitive exploration of a topic I had no idea I wanted to see.
Yes, I've also spent a lot of time contemplating what the intended message of Forrest Gump is and how do the serious and satirical parts come together. My takeaway is that Forrest Gump should be viewed primarily as a satire and plotline with Jenny serves two functions; a) it gives audiences the sentimental pop they clamour for, so they wouldn't be turned off by the satire and b) the plotline is parallel to Forrest's, whlist Forrest achieves the archetypical American dream by virtue of being literal idiot, who never questions anything and just stumble into success after success by blindly following orders and making live-changing decisions based on instictiv urges, Jenny is intelligent, independantly-thinking, victim of childhood abuse and a woman, making a lot of very conscious decisions, which only lead her into more abuse and misery, and she only achieves any kind of peace when she settles with that rich idiot with whom she has a kind (or even may not have). So as a result, the seemingly sentimental stuff with Jenny emphasize the satirical tone of the movie.
Exactly! Gump is the exact person that that society rewards; an ant-man.
Aka. the exact kind of person that Mccarthyan propaganda criticized the Soviet Union and communism for idealising.
My understanding is the book is closer to the satire you're talking about, but the film thoroughly undermines it by 1) casting Tom Hanks and having him play Forrest as completely sympathetic and sincere, and 2) framing everything lovingly through the lens of boomer nostalgia, especially the soundtrack, with the especially dark periods of Jenny's life representing those eras of post-war American history that boomers regret or look back on as times of American setback. Had Forrest come across more as an irredeemable, exasperating idiot maybe the satire would be more intact (probably wouldn't have been as successful at the time though).
@@digitaljanus As I see it, the film deliberately appears on the surface as soothing love letter to the good ol' days through nostalgia-colored boomer glasses not only in order to appeal to wider audience, to be financially succesful and win over the Academy, but, more importantly, because that's how it was in Forrest's head. And since he's the narrator, the movie is told from his perspective, so of course everything is sugar-coated, nice and sappy, that's how he perceived it. In this regard, Forrest Gump is a stand-in for certain audience members, seeing history the way they prefer to.
However, at the same time, on the more implicit, more subtle level critical eye can spot all the unsavory going-ons, that Forrest and certain audience members don't see and don't want to see, but which are there nonetheless and actually undermines and challenge the pristine surface picture.
I see Forrest Gump as clever play on subjectivity in storytelling, toying with the viewers and providing different readings on multiple levels, creating a complex take on portrayal of some subject matters in Oscar-bait films and its systemic, satirical subversion.
Anyway, it's also just my take, you have yours and that's ok.
Two things one I would love to have a mini sequel about this with Pinocchio to it boggles my mind that considering how successful his films are and that it seems like these for the film's he was trying to make that no one has offered him to do a James Cameron Avatar spin-off project.
There always seems to be a direct correlation between directors getting obsessed with tech and less obsessed with plot. Yes, Polar Express, Christmas Carol, Marwen look horrifying. But even if you made all the CG absolutely perfect, they would still be bad narrative films. I can't help but have that fear is we go back to Pandora for 5 sequels. I could live with bad CG in service of a great story. I can't live with great CG in service of a bad story.
But avatar is already a bad (or more accurately a bland, generic) story with great CGI. Why would the sequels be anything else?
What’s with this idea that the director controls the plot? I’m pretty sure that the plot is written by screenwriters.
For sure that’s a thing. Zemeckis, Cameron, Lucas and Jackson have all fallen down that rabbit hole.
Forrest Gump came across like a discussion of destiny vs. free will to me. Each character tackles with the idea of who they are meant to be and if it's a product of their choice or pre determined (Lt. Dan dying on the battlefield and instead living, Forrest Gump being handicapped, Forrest's Mom having to be a single mother, the hundreds of celebrities they showed in the film, etc). It felt like an emotional exploration of who we choose to be and Forrest even ponders that at the end near Jenny's grave.
Also Forrest Gump disobeyed orders multiple times in the movie like when he saved his comrades from the firebombing in Nam.
he has an adaption of roald dahl's witches coming out this year in october and I am curious how it turns out. that movie traumatized me as a kid
Lucas kind of did the same thing as Zemeckis with the elimination of problems and the indulgence of toys and CGI with the Prequel Trilogy!
Watching this thing on social isolation during the Corona Virus outbreak and social distancing myself into my apartment is quite resonant.
I love your channel. You have without a doubt the best quality videos on TH-cam. You can tell that you really take your time with these. You really care about your product and it shows. I wish you all the success in the world. You definitely deserve it. Keep up the great work.
Contact is a great movie that I feel like almost nobody talks about. Well made, well acted, adapted from a book by Carl Sagan, and it's got John Hurt playing an eccentric billionaire. What's not to like?
"And sometimes you get Green Book or Joker." Critically acclaimed, Oscar winning films.
Oscar yes, but hardly "Critically acclaimed".
23:00 Reference to "The Shining". Why not?
Honestly, this could be my favorite essay video of yours. Great job big P. Looking forward to the film.
Lol I actually love Beowulf, great writing and the animation never bothered me but I totally get it. And I love these remakes of movies inside movie reviews, great job with mini-shinining movie
Lol thulsa doom? You a big fan of Red Sonja or Conan the barbarian stories? Im constantly reading Red Sonja comics personally
@Thulsa Doom lol yeah I've heard. Never actually watched the two Conan movies. But definitely on my list
The shot at 28:10 sort of does my head in, just because of the disconnect between the way the background dolls are getting on the jeep and Carrell's screaming.
I unabashedly _LOVE_ Beowulf.
I think it was ahead of it's time & that we'll eventually reach a point where performance capture films are a far more regular occurrence
The Patrick Arm Wave, which he does when introducing something, is easily the most iconic part of this series.
32:30 was saying that Welcome To Marwen came out in 1998 a joke or a mistake?
The joke is he's making simultaneous Cast Away and Marwen parodies in the video
@@shukterhousejive Except Cast Away was 2000.
My favorite TH-cam channel never disappoints. Thanks Patrick!
Hearing all of this, Robert Zemeckis should direct James and the Giant Peach instead of The Witches.
Who knows? Maybe he’ll knock it out of the park with that one. But with everything said about Zemeckis and the stuff in the book itself, it seems like a more tailored made Roald Dahl story for him to adapt along with the gimmick of mixing entirely live-action material and fully CG-animated anthropomorphized bug characters.
It looks cool!
It reminds me of my cousin's planet of the ape dolls
The perfect James and the Giant Peach movie already exists.
Hey Patrick, your workload along with the magnificent ability to get to the core of filmmaker and movie's themes is CRAZY. Props to you for continuing to produce such fine work! Thanks for the insight and good luck with your personal narrative projects.
Loved this. I love when you do essays on Directors. I never really looked at RZ's IMDb before. He's made some of my favorite movies. As far as Forest Gump, I saw it as a story about controlling destiny. Forest just let's life happen around him and makes very few big decisions. While the supporting cast are obsessed with controlling their life path. Just be a feather floating on the breeze and you'll wind up where were meant to be. I disagree with this philosophy, but I think that's the theme.
"Welcome to Marwen is a misjudgement only a first-rate filmmaker could make" -Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune
I might be the only person who unreservedly loves "Beowulf"
I do I do I do
Not alone dude
I like it quite a bit, but it really would have been better as live action though. Obviously Ray Winstone wouldn't be playing the lead though. Too bad it was made before Chris Hemsworth was a star, because now I'd just cast him.
There are tons of great ideas and visuals in Zemeckis' Beowulf, and I was totally blown away in 2007 by the rather mature attitude the story was told in . Sadly, lots of the CGI persons are inhabitants of Uncanny Valley, but I love the film nonetheless. Alan Silvestri's score totally rocks!
@@sebastianstraubel8852
Yeah, Silvestri's score is truly great. Very unique too.
I’m never going to get over the weird “evil eyebrows” that people get when light shines up their glasses.
Just got done listening to Patrick’s Blank Check episode about Bobby Z. Made me want to watch this again. Did not disappoint.
23:53 Pretty sure it was because MARS NEEDS MOMS (remember that?) tanked so hard at the BO that he had to shut his VFX studio down.
Selective memory
14:05: there’s a video from Corridor Crew (one of their VFX reacts videos) that goes in depth on how that tracking shot is done.
I was walking out of a Marvel film a couple of years ago when I realised that we've reached the point where every movie is Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
Honestly an amazing video. I LOVE your videos on a director’s filmography. They’re so interesting! Your analysis on their work as a whole is just the coolest.😊
Also, I just want to say that you literally are one of the best, most consistently fun-to-watch TH-camrs out there. With everything you put out, I know that I will be thoroughly entertained and likely find newfound interest in some movie or show. Thanks for just being you and doing your best at it.
I personally don’t want to give up on Zemeckis, and his upcoming ‘Pinocchio’ does has me very intrigued unlike all the other Disney live-action remakes. It’s the only one I will willingly go see and I’m hoping for it to be, at the very least, a decent watch.
If nothing else, I think it will be an unintentional cult horror. Even later Disney adaptations moved away from focus on pinnochio to the other characters