User reviews

I was a little surprised at first to see this film ranked #1 out of all possible candidates in the IMDB user ratings. When I thought about it, though, it made more sense--this is a "Rocky"-type feel-good movie that doesn't really make you think and reinforces what we would all like to believe about human nature. Don't get me wrong--it's a fine film (I gave it a solid 7 out of 10), it's just not, in my view, up there with _Casablanca_ and _The Graduate_.

I guess the main problem I have with _Shawshank_ is the nature of the script and characters. Think about it: is there a single person in the film who isn't a one-dimensional cardboard cut-out with very simple motivations, or a Hollywood cliche or stereotype? We have (in no particular order), a corrupt, bigoted prison warden (who is a religious hypocrite for good measure), a brutal prison guard, a man who is wrongly accused of murder, an old convict who knows all the ropes and can't live on the outside, and a convict who is murdered by the brutal guards. Now where have we seen this stuff before? Only in a few dozen movies made from the 20s to the 90s. There's really nothing new here. Probably this comes from the fact that the story is from Stephen King, who doesn't really do well with complex characters (a problem I noted as far back as _Carrie_).

If you want to see a good prison picture, try _Cool Hand Luke_ (from which this movie borrows considerably). If you want an escape picture, see either _The Great Escape_ or _Papillon_, both with Steve McQueen. Or if, by some chance, you want a crime and punishment movie that really makes you think, go with the late great Stanley Kubrick's _A Clockwork Orange_.

I couldn't stop thinking about the warden: doesn't he have a family? How did they feel? What are they going to do now? I realize the story is inside the prison, but I wish the movie had made better use of its characters than simply as simple-minded symbols of EVIL or VIRTUE.

I'm not Mr. Cranky, I did enjoy the movie, but I enjoyed it the same way I do an Italian dinner at the Olive Garden--a well-constructed genre product with nothing special to commend it.

I still can't quite get the enormous reputation of this film. I saw it again last night and instead of clearing up the mystery, the mystery got thicker. It is enjoyable film with very good performances by Tim Robbins, Morgan Freeman, James Whitmore etc, but...the most highly rated film ever? I don't get it. The voice over alone seems to belong to a so so film. I love Morgan Freeman's voice but he's telling us what we're seeing. So, the sterling reputation damages the enjoyment of the film because one is expecting something that never, really, arrives. The most interesting aspect is Tim Robbins's psychological journey. Credible or incredible doesn't quite matter, I did go with him without asking too many questions. Morgan Freeman's humanity is contagious and inspiring, whether credible or not because I bought it. So, a masterpiece? No. Good, even very good? Yes.

There is no denying that this is a very good movie. The acting is great and it tells a good story.

Personally, I find it a bit too long and a little too sweet for my taste, but its far from a bad film.

On the other end of the spectrum I have yet to understand why this film was nominated for as many Oscars as it was and why so many people have fallen in love with it. To place it on the same level as The Godfather and several hundred other films has to be the result of different tastes.

This is a film that should be seen because its a good movie, not because its a great one.

An overrated film that I watched as a teenager and recently decided to re-watch. I must say right away that I like this film, but it is undeservedly and too popular and occupies the first line - this is completely undeserved in comparison with other films of more talented authors. I am very saddened that people do not see other works, and for so long this film has been number one among the best films. The actors are talented, the plot is just good, not brilliant, like Stanley Kubrick in "A Space Odyssey". Even this I am ready to see in the top-1, but not "Shawshank Redemption". I understand that many will disagree with me or say that I just hate, but this is not true, and you can understand this by comparing it with other films, is this film so good and does it deserve the first place?

A good prison movie whose cult of fans has made it into something so much more than it is. Greatest movie ever made? Get real. It's not even the greatest prison movie ever made. Hell, it's not even the best movie released in 1994! It's predictable and borrows heavily from decades of prison movie clichés. It's also nowhere near as deep as its staunchest admirers would have you believe. Still, it's an entertaining movie. Nice direction from Frank Darabont. Morgan Freeman is the highlight with a solid supporting cast. Tim Robbins, however, is borderline ridiculous at times with his cartoonish facial expressions and silly "stares-off-into-the-distance" moments. He's so far beneath Freeman as an actor it's sad. With a normal movie like this, I would focus more on the positives. I did give it a 7, after all. Unfortunately, it is easily the most overrated movie of all time (on IMDb, for sure) and as such the balance of positive to negative is out of whack.

THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION is a kind of morality tale that is definitely one of Stephen King's more restrained kind of stories, dealing mostly with a character study of two individuals sharing imprisonment and the consequences that await them when the tale ends.

TIM ROBBINS is a man wrongly convicted of murder and serving a long prison term while MORGAN FREEMAN (who plays the narrator with great dignity) describes himself as "the only guilty man in Shawshank." The hardships of prison life are captured in brief scenes that make the viewer wish that Robbins will find a way of escape.

Along the way, he is gang raped by prisoners and treated harshly by a brutal warden and some of his spirit seems to vanish. But Robbins is quietly effective as a prisoner who makes a good adjustment when he takes charge of the prison library and sees to it that there's a wider selection of books than the kind of potboilers that King is noted for writing. A touch of irony here, no? The closing scenes are a bit of a stretch and a reminder of just who wrote this prison tale--but still, they make an impact because of all that happens before.

It's a bittersweet story, a sort of horrific fairy-tale of what might have happened, but the viewer will be caught up in the story because of the tremendously skillful story-telling magic of Stephen King and director Frank Darabont who also wrote the screenplay.

Decent entertainment, somewhat memorable. Why this is seen as such an incredible, sensational work of art is beyond me... I feel like this is one of the few crime-thriller-prison-action related films that met my expectations, as in, was A Good Film, but that alone doesn't make it a classic.

This is indeed one of the best prison dramas I've ever seen. I've always been a fan of Tim Robbins and he doesn't let me down here. But I can't believe this is so high in the overall list (I would place it in the 150-200 range myself). Even if we just stick with Tim Robbins, 'The Player', 'Short Cuts' and 'Jacob's Ladder' are all far better films. It was the ending of the film that really disappointed me, but since I'm not allowed to talk about endings in these reviews I can't explain why! Suffice it to say that I can imagine at least two fairly obvious endings that would have been better. Maybe it's the 'American Factor', what with me being English, but the overrating of this film completely baffles me.

This is a normal average movie . People are just hyped because it is in #1 . And I don't think those people have seen a lot of movies . It's way too much overrated in my opinion . My honest rating would be 7/10

What's going on here? At the moment I am writing these words The Shawshank Redemption is 3rd in IMDb's all-time top250. I don't think the movie is particularly bad, but to rank it even in the Top50 is a crime against a lot of brilliant film makers further down the Top250 and even more people whose works don't even appear on the list!

So now I ask if anybody can please explain to me: 1) Why is this movie's average rating over 9? Does it appeal to some basic American sense of justice and love of happy endings? 2) Why did more than 65.000 people rate it? I'm pretty sure it wasn't nearly as commercially succesful as The Lord of the Rings or the Godfather with about 50000 votes. Did it do well on video in the US?

And if you REALLY feel like watching movies about people behind bars why not give Cool Hand Luke or the 1974 classic(!) Caged Heat a try?

I don't mean to demean The Shawshank Redemtion or anything, but I just don't get it's massive rating. Is this one of the most overrated movies of all time? Well, according to the statistics of this, the odds are that you do not think so. But would you then please be so kind as to explain it to me. Feel free to email me.

I really liked this movie, which I just recently saw for the first time, strange indeed since it is more than 10 years old. It reminded me, naturally I would say, to Papillon, the 70's McQueen/Hoffman classic.

I like the story, the acting, basically everything, and I definitely recommend it to everybody. But compared to Papillon? There are so many similarities that one has to think that idea of the movie did not came out of the blue. Because of that the movie has to accept to be compared with Papillon. And Papillon is simply even better. It is emotionally much more touching, and when even Freeman's great performance doesn't match Hoffman's, there is no doubt that Robbins is not close to McQueen - in that role I mean! Tim gave a great performance but his role didn't give him the chance that Steve had.

Anyway, a joy to watch. But please watch the "original" too, it's not old-fashioned at all! I can only guess, but I think the huge differential of 9.1 for SR and 7.9 for Papillon is because most young people have never seen Papillon.

The amazing thing about this film is how many people fail to realise that the film is about Red, not Andy. It's Reds perspective of Andy. I only mention it because many people strangely think its told from the perspective of Andy.

That common misunderstanding behind, a well made film. The photography is magical, the story is strong, the performances are exceptional and the depths of despair and humanity of canvassed well without losing mainstream appeal.

But that aside, there is a strong willingness to overstate this film. In the end, it is a slightly overdone and there is a bit too much 'triumph of the human spirit' dribble on the side. But I don't let that get in the way of what is otherwise a very good film with re-watch-ability.

Hadley's release from prison and letter deserves a spot in cinema history. That part was absolutely exceptional.

Sure it was a good prison movie, and much better than many other movies I've seen. But this does NOT beat Godfather, Star Wars, or Casablanca in any way. Watch this if you enjoy good performances and good plot, but don't expect a present-day classic ala Forrest Gump.

I just don't get it. It's not that I think this is an awful movie or anything, but no.2? Look at the rest of the movies in the top 10. Does it REALLY stand comparison with the Godfather or Seven Samurai? I think not. It's a manipulative, sentimental Sunday afternoon movie, raised above B-standard by some quality turns by talented actors. Nothing more. And who cares whether Andy could put the poster back in place or not. It's a patently ridiculous 'escape' to begin with. I understand that most of the people on this site will have a pop at me for being a snob, but the fact is I love Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and other 'blockbuster' movies. But if you're looking for a genuinely affecting drama, this doesn't cut the mustard. Sorry, guys, but you're all wrong.

Quite frankly, this is a movie of clichés. You want examples, I got examples! "Some birds are not meant to be caged, their feathers are too bright" or "Get busy living, or get busy dying" or "Terrible thing, to live in fear" or "It was like some beautiful bird flapped into our drab little cage and made those walls dissolve away" or "need it so you don't forget. Forget that there are places in the world that aren't made out of stone" or "Hope is a good thing, and good things can never die" - if you say so, sensei!

Problem is Stephen King never leaves anything to the imagination. He tells us everything - if Tim Robbins organises some special event for the inmates, like playing music over the loudspeaker, Morgan Freeman's voice will come right out and suggest a few reasons why this episode is so wonderful/significant, the nature of which are very similar through each episode of the movie. And Darabont obviously likes the idea of assuming the audience are very thick, and will not see or experience anything unless you dictate to them what to experience, and has made his movie by it.

Also, i'm starting to be wary of Thomas Newman as a composer doing exactly what Darabont has done as a director: employ a formula that has worked in the past. His score for Shawshank is calculated on the same formula of highs, lows, and general atmosphere as in his score for Road to Perdition, American Beauty, Meet Joe Black, Horse Whisperer, Scent of a Woman, and The Green Mile, not surprisingly. If you think about all these movies, they all have a similar feel, they all go for a similar nostalgia, haunting sadness - which admittedly i find very appealing, but i'm starting to worry at how similar they all are.

I think encouraging this movie too much is like rewarding someone for employing a formula very successfully - instead of taking risks and doing something edgy that still turns out to be enjoyable and brilliant. Most people do not evaluate movies based on their IMDb ranking, but i certainly would be surprised if any major lists ranked this in their top ten.

That said, this is still a good movie, with good performances, a good unity, despite its necessarily episodic nature, and it looks great. Its only for movies people insist on putting on best-ever lists that i require a certain originality, the feeling that what this movie gives you you could not get anywhere else (I believe this is why movies like Citizen Kane, Vertigo, 2001, Raging Bull, Third Man, Grand Illusion, Persona and, for me, Exterminating Angel, are constantly mentioned on such lists, and deservedly). What this movie gave me, I could get from reading any other Stephen King story, or seeing any other movie adaptation of a King story.

This movie is good, there's no question about that, but he 2nd best ever? That's a bit of a stretch. I can't really imagine that all of those people who gave this movie the 9 and 10 votes have seen very many other good movies. Sure, the story is meaningful and it's harsh etc, but there are so many movies that are moving and powerful. The fact that Shawshank is #2 on this list is a reflection of those voting.

I found this movie to be rather trivial and predictable. It was, in many ways, a Forrest Gump version of a prison movie. It had a manipulative and superficial plotline, and the leading character was too good to be true. It never dealt deeply with any issue at all. Basically, you liked the leading character because he was perfect, and cheered him on and hoped for his success, just like Forrest Gump. However, unlike Forrest Gump, I could never see the true emotion of the Tim Robbins character. He didn't like being sexually assaulted, but we never saw how that affected him; he didn't drink but got beers for his friends. He finds pleasure out of the simple things and doesn't like unpleasurable things. He turned out to be a perfect character with no negative qualities at all. Maybe he's this way for a reason; people can relate to him because they like to think of themselves being completely perfect and think they would make every right decision if they were in a situation like this.

In many senses, this was just a morality play, with Andy Dufresne being entirely good and all the prison officials being completely bad. I think the only reason why people enjoy this movie so much is that it has the message "Good things come to those that try and do good with their lives." However, I didn't think the movie had enough substance to offer any deeper meaning or insight. The best thing about this movie was it made me realize how great of a movie Forrest Gump is and how great of an actor Tom Hanks is. He made the Forrest Gump character seem to have a fully round personality and allowed us to understand who he was. He seemed possible. Andy seems unlikely and not relatable because we never see any reasoning behind his personality.

This movie moves people because it is a heroic fable. It's not a worthless movie experience, but it should have done more with what it already had. To the people that think this is the greatest movie ever made...spare me. My rating 4/10.

Okay based on what is the greatest movie of all time. It didn't win best picture that year. None of the actors won an Oscar! Besides I have never seen a human who doesn't get old over so many years. I am sorry but I think bragging about this movie ruined its beauty.

Defiantly not a top 10 movie of all time.

Good very good its a good and i aconselho a ver fdsafsadfdsafdsaf

I cant understand why this movie got such a high rating. its a good movie but there are lots of others that deserve to be number 2 in the "best of all time list" (american beauty, pulp fiction, Chaplin's, Buñuel's or Kubrick's movies, just to name a few). Well..I'm an old Stephen King fan and the story of "Redemtion" is good and thrilling and the acting and photography is good as well but its nothing that has'nt been made before. don't get me wrong i liked it but i think its just a well made entertaining picture and nothing more.

So watch it and have a good time but don't expect an artistically great work or something all too original.