Meh, forget just being the best flick of '94, Léon is the best film of the entire 90s IMO.

I've never realized that '94 was as great of a year as it was, wow.

As for the topic, I say TSR is the better overall film but PF is a more entertaining watch. If I had to pick one or the other, right now I'd go with TSR, but that answer could be different tomorrow and any other given day.

But Léon against either of them, or any other film that year or the decade, will always win the battle for me.

They're both great and neither is overrated.

But more importantly, why even compare the two? I don't understand the motivation behind this thread.

Agree.

That's the best point anyone's made yet. Both are classics, and deserve all their praise.

That's a good question. At the time Shawshank was basically considered a failure, but it has received a lot of reconsideration recently and deservedly so.

I think the film we ought to be talking about was that "Best Picture" Forrest Gump. Should Pulp Fiction have won? Or how about comparing Forrest to Shawshank?

This gives me an idea for a thread.

That would be a far more apt comparison.

Genuine emotional scenes versus manipulated ones?

I just meant that Shawshank and Gump have some stylistic and thematic similarities, and thus would be a more appropriate comparison. Pulp Fiction and Shawshank are apples and oranges, with only a release year in common, though they seem to hold equal sway among men's magazines like Maxim as highly celebrated "Guy Movies".

Yeah..... I just don't get what these two movies have to do with each other. They aren't similar films, don't have common cast members or crew members - why the comparison/competition?

I have never seen Pulp Fiction (never had much interest), but I love Shawshank. It's definitely not overrated.

The fact that they both came out the same year and both got nominated for a Best Picture Oscar is a good enough reason for comparison.

Would a perfect film have a plothole in it? (Robbins getting that poster back up on the wall after escaping)

Pulp Fiction is better

That's hardly a plothole. During the film, Andy (Robbins) is seen picking away at the wall with his rock hammer, leaning his head underneath the bottom of the poster while it's still attached to the wall (at the top). In order for him to dig the tunnel to any great depth, he would've had to have the poster remain on the wall (or else passing guards would see a gaping hole in the wall of his cell).

So it's already established that when he's working on the wall (and we can assume that when he escaped), the top of the poster was fixed to the wall, and hung down over the hole. I haven't seen the film in a while, but unless anyone can confirm that the poster is squarely tacked to the wall on all four corners when the warden rips it off, I wouldn't think this would be an issue, in terms of a plothole.

While I agree with you, I believe in teh film the poster is actually tacked down on all four corners after the escape. Something that would be tough to do and still squeeze into the hole. I believe this was addressed in a commentary somehwere, that it was "poetic license" or something to that effect on the part of the filmmakers.

agreed. 2 of my favorites.

I always thought it was kind of funny that two of the better movies of the last 20 years or so came out nationwide on the same weekend. I saw Pulp Fiction on that Saturday. I saw Shawshank on Sunday. I liked Shawshank more, and I still do, but that is hardly a criticism of Pulp Fiction.

I remember a movie theater refusing to sell my friends and I tickets to Pulp Fiction because it was (gasp!) rated R and we weren't old enough. Gotta love the suburbs.

I look forward to the Moonstruck vs. The Last Emperor thread.

And by that logic, Michael Bay would be considered the greatest filmmaker on the planet from all the imitators out there.

My only complaint with Shawshank was Tim Robbins' performance. I've never thought he was that good of an actor and I thought he was particularly poor here, almost ruining the movie when ever he was on screen. Most of his poor delivery of dialogue can be laid at the feet of the screenwriters for lifting Stephen King's writing directly from the book (his dialogue always reads better than it comes across on screen), but it can't excuse the fact that Robbins can't pull off what the character of Andy was supposed to be.

I have to give Pulp Fiction the slight edge because one of the main characters doesn't make me cringe.

I'm willing to give it another shot at some point, but when I first viewed Pulp Fiction many years ago, I didn't care for it all.

Yeah, either way, I don't really see it as a big deal. He could've escaped and left it untacked, as it's already shown at least once in the film (when he's picking at the wall underneath the poster). And if it's shown tacked down at the end-- sure, maybe hard to explain logically, but it's not central to the storyline at all. If anyone really considers this issue a "plot hole," I'm sure there are many more like this (of similar magnitude ) throughout the film.

You don't fucking say?

A 6 year bump? The new guys are trying too hard.

Pulp Fiction. There's a reason why Pulp Fiction is my #2 favorite film of all time. It's a great film. Shawshank is dope, too, but PF is better.