IMDb user comments for
Finding Forrester (2000) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 28:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

275 comments in total

---

76 out of 82 people found the following comment useful :-
Great Film, 10 February 2001
Author: Kate from New York

As a person who enjoys good movies, as well as reading and writing, I loved this film, and would see it again. Some may accuse it of being formulaic, but I feel that there is just enough unexpected-ness in it to keep the audience interested. I would hope that the apparent similarities to the director, Gus Van Sant's earlier work, Good Will Hunting, do not dissuade anyone from seeing the film. Any similarities are unimportant and do not take away from the fact that this is a good movie which stands alone as a deep film with an good plot. The script is very well written and all of the dialog appears real and natural. It is a thought provoking drama, but it is not depressing or sappy, as all too many dramas are. At the same time, it does not give the impression of simply being a feel-good movie. Also, although there are several humorous lines in the movie, they do not rely on cheap puns or slap stick humor.

William Forester once wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning book, but now is a recluse, hiding from his fame, who never leaves his book-filled apartment in the Bronx, but spends his time reading and bird watching, as well as watching the teenagers of the neighborhood play basketball in the park outside his window. Jamal Wallace is one of these teenagers. He hides his love of reading, and his brilliant writing skills, and chooses instead to gain the acceptance of his peers through his skill at basketball. A prep school has offered Jamal a scholarship because of his high test scores, and their need to win a basketball championship. The two characters meet, and Forester becomes a sort of teacher/mentor, but both learn many things from each other. Symbolism is important in this film, and it makes many good points about people, how we relate to each other, and how we deal with the difficulties of life.

The movie stays away from any violence and sex. It is rated PG-13 because of brief strong language and sexual references, but even these are few, and not over done, using only what is necessary to create real characters and setting -- a refreshing difference from many films that are now being made. The message of the film is good and moral, but it was wonderful to see a serious film staring a young black person that does not hit you over the head with messages of racial tolerance.

One of the surprises in the film is the great soundtrack. It is mostly Jazz songs from Miles Davis and others, which seems well suited to the mood of the movie and to the setting, another well done part of the film. The final song, a medley of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" and "What a Wonderful World" is great. I was happy that this movie had refused to do what many recent movies have done in capitalizing on a soundtrack and trying to use or create hit pop songs in a movie. It also stays away from sappy and unnecessary orchestra music that is often used to try to create emotion in the audience. This movie does not need to resort to tricks like this in order to make you feel for the characters. Another happy surprise is a cameo from Matt Damon.

The acting is wonderful, particularly from the experienced Sean Connery, playing the title character, and from newcomer Robert Brown, as Jamal. Even the more minor parts in the film, such as Jamal's older brother, played by Busta Rhymes, and Jamal's friends and teachers are well-acted. Anna Paquin is well suited for her role as Claire, a rich girl from the prep school that Jamal transfers to. The two seem to make a connection, but a romantic subplot is not pursued very far in the film. I found this a refreshing change, and one of the factors that kept the movie from being too predictable, as well as much more realistic. Real life romances do not usually happen the way they often do in films. A disappointment was the character played by F. Murray Abraham. Although well acted, there is a complete lack of character development, and the teacher-that-gives-the-brilliant-student-a-hard-time stereotype is hard to ignore. Despite this one shortcoming, this is an excellent film.

As the film ended and the credits began to roll, I noticed that no one in the theater got up to leave, as is usually the case in theaters. The audience remained seated until the credits and music had finished, and the lights came back on. It is just that kind of a movie. I would defiantly recommend it to anyone wishing to see a mature and thought-provoking film that is entertaining and enjoyable to watch, and will leave you feeling inspired.

---

49 out of 55 people found the following comment useful :-
A transcendent film, 4 May 2001

Author: FlickJunkie-2 from Atlanta, GA

Director Gus Van Sant also directed `Good Will Hunting' and this film has essentially the same plot. An underprivileged youth is discovered by a reclusive genius and is shepherded to his full potential. What GWH was to math, this film is to literature. They are such close cousins that Van Sant felt compelled to bring in Matt Damon for a cameo.

Regardless of the familiar plot, `Finding Forrester' succeeds because of an excellent screenplay and outstanding acting performances by Sean Connery, Rob Brown and F. Murray Abraham. This kind of story can't help grabbing the audience at a human level. Genius, suppressed by societal class, struggles to emerge and it beats the odds. The story is transcendent for both the main characters. Forrester (Sean Connery) helps Jamal (Rob Wallace) transcend his societal constraints to realize his potential as a writer, and Jamal helps Forrester to transcend the constraints of his emotional traumas to free him as a human being. It is a triumphant story, very uplifting.

Van Sant does a good job of presenting the human element and developing the characters while keeping the photography effective but in the background. The photography is very straightforward, allowing the characters to tell the story without the intrusive use of stylish shots that are all to prevalent lately. Van Sant gives Forrester's apartment a dark and dreary look from a color and lighting perspective, which is particularly effective.

Sean Connery is in top form and continues to make the case for being one of our best and most treasured actors. He gives a virtuoso performance in this film with a complex and ornery character. It is a powerful and moving portrayal. Rob Brown is phenomenal in his first feature film. He was found in a talent search and made an impressive debut with an extremely mature performance. With the right scripts, he has a good chance of having a bright future. F. Murray Abraham is fantastic as the haughty English teacher, who gets his just deserts.

This is a highly intelligent film with a strong story, steady direction and marvelous acting. I rated it a 9/10. Despite an all too familiar storyline, it differentiates itself by its wide-ranging excellence. For those who enjoy good dramatic performances and intriguing character studies, this film is not to be missed.

---

43 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
On The Resilience Of The Human Spirit, 12 February 2001

Author: jhclues from Salem, Oregon

A reclusive author, whose only published novel won the Pulitzer Prize, becomes the mentor of an underprivileged and talented sixteen-year-old in `Finding Forrester,' directed by Gus Van Sant and starring Sean Connery and newcomer Rob Brown. Young Jamal Wallace (Brown) is a star basketball player in his neighborhood, and-- unbeknownst to his peers-- also has a gift for writing. The acceptance he needs from his friends, however, that need to `fit in,' is derived from playing ball; yet his heart is in his writing. But he knows that within the limited confines of his environs his skill with the written word means next to nothing in regards to his future, and he sees basketball as the only viable means of doing anything worthwhile with his life. That is, until one day circumstances bring him into contact with William Forrester (Connery); and it's an encounter that ultimately changes the direction of his life forever. Working from an intelligent, well crafted screenplay by Mike Rich, Van Sant establishes the milieu within which the story will unfold with his opening shot: A black youth setting the stage in rap. It's clever and effective, and the contrast between the rap at the beginning and the song at the end not only frames the film but underscores the impact of the story, as it succinctly encapsulates the changes in Jamal's life. As he did with `Drugstore Cowboy' and `Good Will Hunting,' Van Sant successfully captures the essence of a particular culture and how those living within it relate to those apart from it. It's a study of human nature and the levels of diversity of which our society is comprised, and Van Sant does it exceedingly well. As far as performances go, Connery makes the most of one of his best roles in years. Perfectly cast as Forrester, he lends an adamant toughness to the character initially, then slowly and subtly allows the vulnerability that lies beneath the gruff exterior to surface. It makes for a well-rounded, complete portrayal, as we see not only his iconoclastic leanings, but the very human and caring side of the man as well. And it's Connery's superlative performance, through which he conveys the complexities of the character so well, that illuminates the true depth and multi-faceted dimensions of Forrester; it is not only memorable, but worthy of an Oscar. In his motion picture debut, Brown takes the screen by storm; a storm that is at once gentle and discerning, yet endowed with a strength born of it's own momentum. With a manner reminiscent of Cuba Gooding Jr. in `Boyz N the Hood,' he has a natural acting ability that commands attention, and if his performance here is any indication of his talents (which obviously it must be), then it is safe to say that the cinematic world has certainly just been enriched by his presence. The supporting cast includes F. Murray Abraham (Professor Robert Crawford), Anna Paquin (Claire), Busta Rhymes (Terrell), April Grace (Ms. Joyce), Michael Pitt (Coleridge) and Michael Nouri (Dr. Spence). An uplifting example of deriving hope from hopelessness, `Finding Forrester' is an entertaining and moving testimony to the resilience and depth of the human spirit. It's a film that will stay with you long after the screen has gone dark, for there is much here to be savored and embraced; a film too good to be allowed to let pass you by. I rate this one 9/10.

---

53 out of 65 people found the following comment useful :-
Finding meaning in Finding Forrester, 13 May 2001
Author: danhicks from Minnesota

The mechanics of the movie have been well-reviewed by others. Yes, it could definitely have been a better movie, but then again what movie can't you say that about? In terms of plot and character development what it needed most was another 30 minutes, but at two and a quarter hours already most studios would never allow that. (Note that the movie did not seem nearly that long to me.) Perhaps the plot and story could have been tighter, but it's really a remarkable job for first-time screenwriter Mike Rich.

The acting, while not always remarkable, was quite good. Connery brilliantly underplayed Forrester, yielding a less dramatic but much more realistic portrayal of the writer. Rob Brown's portrayal of Jamal was equally reserved yet forceful. The directing held the two characters in balance well. The other characters were well-acted though not generally well-developed (hence much criticism of this movie).

Others have compared Finding Forrester to Goodwill Hunting (also directed by Gus Van Sant) and to Scent of a Woman, suggesting that it is just a ripoff of the plot in those two. If so (which I doubt), those are two pretty good movies to plagiarize. The basic concept of Forrester's story (first novel wins Pulitzer -- what do you do for an encore?) has also been done before, but I've never seen it done so well (and without resorting to The Bottle as an excuse for a wasted life).

What's been missed in the reviews I checked was a discussion of who found whom. When you boil it down, Jamal found Jamal and Forrester found Forrester (just in time), though they found themselves by reaching out to each other and forming a bond of friendship across a gulf of age, suspicion, and race. The way they do this, without the usual twists of self-destruction and miraculous salvation, is both touching and refreshingly real. And finding oneself, in its essence, is what EVERY good drama is about, so, yes, there is a similarity to Goodwill and Scent and every other good movie ever made.

Included in the movie is a very brief first course in writing. Though the movie doesn't dwell on it, the way it presents the process of writing (and of the criticism of writing) is refreshingly realistic.

Speculation about the "real" identity of Forrester is interesting. Salinger has been mentioned, but the similarities are only superficial. Harper Lee (To Kill a Mockingbird) is a much better fit (first novel wins Pulitzer, nothing else ever written, lived as a recluse), but I almost favor the enigmatic Gardner McKay (though Forrester is certainly different in many ways from McKay). However, it's just as likely that Rich had no particular person in mind when he crafted Forrester (since, after all, the First Novel Syndrome is a well known plot theme).

All in all, while not The Great American Movie, it's a very good movie and well worth watching.

---

35 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :-
Better than a great book!, 5 May 2001

Author: Phillip Chain (chain67@hotmail.com) from Canada

'Finding Forrester' is without any doubt the best movie of the year 2000. I've heard many people say that this is just director Gus Van Sant's retread of his oscar winning hit 'Good Will Hunting'. That is the furthest statement from the truth. Eventhough the general idea of two different people bonding is here, everything else is as different as it comes.

The story is about Jamal Wallace(Rob Brown, making his bigscreen debut), an allstar basketball player who's only 16 but has a passion for writing and reading. One night on a bet he breaks into the apartment of a person only known to the neighborhood kids as "The Window". But when he's caught, Wallace bolts and forgets his backpack. Later he gets his backpack back, with all his written material analyzed, corrected ect. After revisiting the man, Wallace finds out that "The Window" is none other than reclusive author William Forrester(Sean Connery), who has been hiding for 40 years. They cut a deal that as long as Jamal doesn't tell anybody about William, then William must help Jamal with his writing. Over the course of the movie a beautiful bond forms as the two different people become friends and partners. Along the way William helps Jamal deal with his biased english professor Robert Crawford(F. Murray Abraham), his new girlfriend(Anna Paquin), his brother(rapper Busta Rhymes) and everyone else in his life.

The acting in this film is universally excellent, and no matter how it is billed Brown is the real star of this movie. Connery is brilliant but isn't on the screen enough to outshine Brown. Abraham comes off as the perfect nemesis and Busta Rhymes acquits himself rather well. Anna Paquin isn't too bad but she isn't given too much to do. Excellent supporting cast withstanding the best scenes in the film are the one on one interactions between Brown and Connery. I especially loved the "Soup questions" scene and the Jeopardy scene.

Considering this is Van Sant's first film since the terrible 'Psycho' remake he made a few years back he does very well. And surprisingly he generates more tension and suspense in one basketball sequence late in the movie than he did in all of 'Psycho'.

Overall this is not only Van Sant's best movie but also the best film all year. And after seeing this movie three weeks after the Academy Awards it makes it all the more shocking that 'Gladiator' won as I can't see how, in any way, it is better than this great film. Like a great book 'Finding Forrester' gets better every viewing and i'm sure it will stand the test of time. 10/10

---

30 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :-
Wonderful movie with a stunning performance from Connery, 26 December 2004

Author: Richard Brunton (imdb-update@brunton.org.uk) from Edinburgh, Scotland

I'd heard a little about this movie before and entered into watching it merely expecting to see another of Sean Connery's typical Connery performances. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with that, he is a very good actor, but he always plays himself. Other than that, I had no inclination what the story was about so there was surprise from the outset seeing that the movie was starring Busta Rhymes and was set in the Bronx.

How surprised I was as this gentle and perfectly paced tale brings together two people who share a common love for writing, one is a faded writer who once had success, and the other is a new talent who faces so many obstacles in his path to let his talent shine.

There are similarities to other films such as Dead Poets Society, but what captures the viewer and their imagination is the restraint and the simplicity. There are no great acts or contrived emotionally charged plot twists, this is real and it's character driven. You believe in the characters, the acting is so natural and understated you are easily drawn into the movie and the characters lives, and it's hard to break free. Choices and actions are small, compassionate, and you can relate them to real life.

The relationship between Forrester (Connery) and Jamal (Rob Brown) is superbly played with Brown holding back perfectly until the scene where his restraint fails, and Connery giving one of the most emotive and complex performances I have ever seen. His performance is simply stunning and totally off of the Connery mould. Watching his face as he struggles with demons long past was extraordinary.

Overall the story is very well written, and doesn't fail to pull you along with the emotional journey and yet never hit the twee button. You can feel the passion that Connery has for writing, and see the complexity of emotions as he wants to help the boy but gets pulled back by hidden problems. Problems which slowly reveal themselves and get shared and dealt with in the most natural of ways, again never falling foul of an emotion overload.

It's warm, uplifting and an inspiring story and I recommend it to anyone. I really can't be vocal enough about the stunning performance by Connery, and the matching performance by Brown. Even Rhymes shows that he has talent.

---

25 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
Well-written and acted movie., 19 February 2006

Author: moorthyr from United States

What a nice movie. Great plot, nice character development, and moments of brilliance. To be sure the story of a prodigy and brilliant but sometimes reluctant mentor has been told before, but this story is a unique and interesting take on the subject. Jamal Wallace (Rob Brown) is a writing prodigy. His journey makes for riveting stuff.

Strengths of this movie? I love the depth to Jamal's character - he portrays the inner conflict the character feels without over-acting or unnecessary melodrama. The relationship with Forrester (Sean Connery) is a thing of beauty, in large part because Connery is (as usual) wonderful.

Downsides? Well, not any major ones in my opinion. You can nitpick almost any movie to death, but this movie is solid.

In the end, its strengths are great, its weaknesses are minimal, and the memorable touches here and there (moments of beauty between Forrester and Jamal, Busta Rhymes as Jamal's brother, and some beautiful quotes) make this a winner!

---

16 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Some serious flaws, 23 February 2009
Author: G Joubert from Alsace-Lorraine

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The following comment was written and posted by tightspotkilo. I agreed with what he had written, and told him so. Then, inexplicably, the comment was removed because some unknown user complained about it for some unknown reason. Tightspotkilo appealed to IMDb and they encouraged him to repost it. I am reposting it in his stead. Fair commentary that is less than fawning should NOT be removed because someone disagrees with what it written. Here goes.

Good performances by Sean Connery and Rob Brown, in the latter's screen debut. Good direction by Gus Van Sant too. But, alas, not a good movie. The problem is much more fundamental than whether you have a good cast or a good director. The problem is with the story. Some say the story was ripped off from Good Will Hunting, and I can see the obvious reasons behind people getting that idea. But I don't agree too much with it. If this story was ripped from anywhere it was ripped from the real life biography of Joyce Maynard, when as a young woman still in her late teens she pierced the veil of privacy and famously took up with the notoriously reclusive and fifty-something writing legend J.D. Salinger, who, among other things, mentored her in her writing. This movie mimics that sequence of events more than it does Good Will Hunting. I might even go so far as to wager that the Maynard experience in some way inspired Mike Rich when he wrote Finding Forrester (minus of course the sexual relationship that existed between between Salinger and Maynard). The William Forrester character just oozes too much of J.D. Salinger in so many of the particulars and details of his personality quirks for that to be a coincidence. But as for the story itself, when you get right down to the nub of it, neither Good Will Hunting nor Joyce Maynard's life story are truly mirrored in Finding Forrester, mainly because the sine qua non of the Finding Forrester story --what really drives it-- is the racial contrast between the protagonists, and race did not figure in those other comparative examples in any way. Clearly Mike Rich was fully invested in exploiting the racial angle for all it was worth in contriving a "feel good" story. So we end up with a final product that is very contrived, very pat, indeed very formulaic, in its single-minded quest to blatantly manipulate the emotions of the target audience. And that target audience is surely liberal whites who, caught up in the throes of their self-congratulatory feel-goodism, are utterly oblivious as to how unrealistic the story really is.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't mind having my emotions manipulated, per se. In fact, the capacity to evoke emotion is the res of art, art's very essence. But, that said, I don't like --in fact resent-- a concocted effort to manipulate my emotions in a false or phony way. And that's what happens here. There are ways that this story could have been told that would've been real, that would've been faithful to the true nature of an inner city urban youth trying to find a way to express himself, and to juxtapose it alongside, and then inject it into, the life of a J.D. Salinger-type character. It could have been done with verisimilitude. In fact, I can visualize John Updike writing that story. But Mike Rich didn't write it.

If you haven't already, watch Radio, also written by Mike Rich. You will discern a thematic pattern. Rich is fond of pandering to liberal whites.

---

25 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :-
a very good film, 29 September 2004
Author: Jim from new york

September 2004.... While walking through the aisles of Blockbuster in search of films my wife and I may have missed through the years, we stumbled on "Finding Forrester". I had a slight recollection of a recommendation from a friend some time ago. In a nutshell, we really enjoyed this film. Both main characters are charming and convincing. The story makes you think and is clever. If you liked "Good Will Hunting" you will probably like this movie too, since it has a similar flavor to it. Though the film is 4 years old, the story is timeless and worth watching. Enjoy, Jimmy

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Derivative but enjoyable that is made much better by the two strong performances, 2 April 2006
Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK

Jamal Wallace is a black highschool student living in the Bronx, New York. He has a talent for basketball, which is popular with his friends and a talent for writing that he tends not to talk up. His test scores bring him to the attention of an exclusive private school with offers of a scholarship, starting immediately. Meanwhile he gives in to his friend's challenges and breaks into the flat of a man known as "the window" because he never leaves his flat but just stares out at the world passing outside. When he is confronted by the man, Wallace flees but forgets his bag, but it is given back later, with all his note book scribbled on and critiqued. He goes back to the flat and tries to get the man to help him further with his writing.

Has it been so many years since Good Will Hunting that Van Sant felt the need to remake it with elements changed? And if so did he feel so insecure about doing it that he delivered with such little originality and blandness so that the audience knows just what they are getting and feels comfortable (if unimpressed)? I guess the answers to both those questions is yes because Finding Forrester is very much a version of Good Will Hunting with the basics kept the same and other bits changed around. Of course this does not mean that it is a bad film because I actually quite enjoyed it; although I knew just where it was going and what it was doing from start to finish. In this way it is a bit annoying that director and writer should be so uninterested in doing anything other than trudging out such obvious material.

The story, although familiar is well enough told though to make it worth seeing. What made it much better for me though were the two genuinely engaging performances in the lead. Given fairly obvious characters to work with, I felt that both Brown and Connery took it, worked it and made it more than the sum of the words in the script. Brown is impressive by how much seems to be going on behind his eyes and I was more impressed when I learnt that this was his acting debut. Connery is equally as good in a role that he could have slummed off his famous voice and natural presence; but instead he works with a vulnerability that is convincing and makes his character and the story so much more interesting. Neither of them can make this a wonderful film but they both do a lot of work to make it an enjoyable and engaging one. Support from Abraham is by-the-numbers but effective (although his final scene is unconvincing); I didn't understand why Paquin bothered (or why they bothered to have her character in the story) while Rhymes is just what you expect and only looks weak at the end when he is asked to emote.

Overall this is a solid and enjoyable film despite the fact that it seems determined to do just what you expect it to do. That said the story is still interesting but what really does the business are the two great performances from Brown and Connery – both as individuals but also together; they take the obvious material and make it somehow much more convincing and engaging. Not a great film by any stretch of the imaginative and too derivative to really stick in the mind but does enough to entertain.

---

---

Page 1 of 28:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history