Rating: 
Summary: Best ever
Review: This movie was the best movie ever, it all depends on what type of things you are into. For me it was so inspiring, you have to see it, is wonderful. I give it 5 stars UP!!
Rating:
Summary: Finding Forrester -- One of the Best Movies this Year
Review: From the director who brought us Good Will Hunting, director Gus Van Sant brings us another captivating motion picture, Finding Forrester, that will tug at your heartstrings. As an aspiring writer, I felt an immediate attraction for this film. And as a result, there may be some bias in this review; so please don't hold that against the movie. Sean Connery's performance in this film could earn him a best actor award by year's end. His character, William Forrester, is a recluse who had withdrew from society after writing a Pulitzer winning novel. He shut himself in his Bronx apartment for forty years. It takes a talented sixteen year old black kid named Jamal (Rob Brown, a virtual unknown) to free Forrester from his self-imposed imprisonment. Although Jamal is intelligent and well read and has the potential to be a great writer, it takes the elder Forrester to smooth out the young writer's rough edges. The friendship formed between the two is self-serving for both, filling a void both had gained after losing a loved one. Forrester teaches Jamal the art of writing and passes on to him a torch he knew he could no longer carry.
Rating:
Summary: A transcendent film
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Terribly Under Appreciated Film
Review: I think I have only commented on one other movie, and it was done to illustrate how to take a Pulitzer Prize winning book and turn it into swill. "Finding Forrester", was a brilliant film and a breath of fresh air from Hollywood's production line of big budgeted films, with stars with egos and paychecks that are even more ludicrous, and special effects that fill-in for plot, and for acting, and actors. Mr. Sean Connery is a rare treasure in so much as time continues he seems almost immune to it. His films have consistently won him the recognition he deserved once he stepped down from the James Bond Series. Nothing wrong with Bond, but the films are just not taken seriously by the "exalted" film critics. First a correction that needs to be made is that the fictional character of Forrester may have chosen a reclusive lifestyle after he wrote a Pulitzer Novel, however to compare him with Author J. D. Salinger is to either admit a person has not seen the movie, or who's knowledge of Salinger is non existent. That are plenty of biographies out there about Salinger and a quick glimpse will show the differences that make a comparison between the fictionalized character Forrester and Salinger to be absurd. To suggest a comparison between this and, "Karate Kid" films is to parade one's stupidity. So what did this film offer, not one or two, but three Academy Award Winners, and a brand new talent that was at least deserving of a nomination? The man who brought us Salieri in "Amadeus", an Irish Cop in "The Untouchables", and a stunning performance as a young girl in "The Piano" made this movie special. Mr. Robert Brown is a new face to movies, and he too will eventually be rewarded for his talents, as Jamal he was excellent. No violence, no sex, and no special effects equals little notice with rare exception. The one film Company who consistently denies the death of quality filmmaking is Merchant Ivory Films, and then there are the independents. The film is not perfect but it is vastly superior to the majority of films that were offered in 2000. For the price of the DVD you get a great cinema experience, can sit at home with no one repeating dialogue to his or her neighbor, or having the "Cougher" who inhabits every film. And as a bonus a night at home with this film is cheaper than going to your local Megaplex with 30+ screens, much fewer titles, and a panorama of mediocrity.
Rating: 
Summary: Rent it.
Review: Good movie, It really reaches for the heart, but comes up a little short. Sean Connery give his usual outstanding performance. I found the story to be lacking substance and cliche. Overall, worth the rental - I wouldn't rate it high in replay value.
Rating:
Summary: A Very Good Movie
Review: This is a movie you will want to see over and over again. It is great with Sean Connery in it. I rented it hearing it was very good. In fact after I rented it, it was so good I bought it. There are not many movies I will purchase but this is a movie you will not regret purchasing. I highly reccomend this movie to anyone.
Rating:
Summary: fair-to-middling flick
Review: This movie has its heart in the right place and respects the mind. It's also formulaic to an excessive degree. Sean Connery is to be commended for playing against type, but is just not believable as an agoraphobic. He's SEAN CONNERY, and there ain't nothing nobody can do about that: hale and sexy and throbbing with life. Rob Brown is a find. Natural, effortless, and right. Gus Van Sant seems to be slumming with hackneyed material like this, but brings a respectable professionalism to the project. I'd rather see the innovation he brought to his first films, but I guess everyone deserves to make as good a living as they can. And again, this movie rarely insults our intelligence, except in the execrable writing associated with F. Murray Abraham's character.
Rating: 
Summary: Potential Masterpiece
Review: 'Finding Forrester' is a well done, in many ways very sensitive film, a relief compared to earlier productions with similar themes. Some reviewers have critised that there is a stereotyping of racial identities in this film. I think stereotypes are entirely inevitable. I can't think of one single mainstream production devoid of them -- it is almost a natural defect inherent to mainstream cultural analysis. Personally I don't believe stereotypes have spoilt 'Finding Forrester', but I agree that an additional dose of realism would have enriched the film. The first 'half' of the film is very carefully done. The camera work, the music -- for once not a double symphony orchestra --, Connery and Brown all contribute to create an atmosphere of great subtlety and truth (more than reality). There is also a very broad build-up thematically. Many issues are touched upon, in some cases with extraordinary care: race relations, teenage integration, boy-girl love, artistic frustration, social disadvantage, to name but a few. When Jamal enters the writing contest at his elite school, the film takes an abrupt turn. Here we really fall into mainstream Hollywood clichés, that remind of 'Good Will Hunting' to an embarassing extent. Most of the careful build-up is completely lost when Forrester comes to save Jamal from Prof. Crawford. It fits badly that the text Forrester presents at the occasion is covered up by soapy music and cheap camera work. Indeed, it almost seems that the script-writer ran out of ideas for a good text! A quiet reading of a short, but pointed essay would have fit much better than the bloated scene we have. It would have made the approach to the final victory, the mentor saving the student, and hence overcoming his own problems, far more realistic. It would also have shown more continuity in the film. Moreover, many of the themes that were touched upon in the first part of the movie did not find any echoes in the end, and were left unconcluded. It is possible that the producers feared the film would have been too long, and above all, lost its mainstream appeal, had they continued on the lines of the build-up. A great shame -- without this lack of courage, 'Finding Forrester' would have made an exceptional motion picture and a masterpiece of acting as well. Nonetheless, it remains a powerful film, and should be seen, even if the final and concluding sequences are weak. It also shows how much further beyond 'Good Will Hunting' a production on this theme can go. 'Finding Forrester' points in the right direction. Well done.
Rating:
Summary: Finding Brown
Review: "Finding Forester" starts with a shot of a clapperboard, clearly showing director Gus Van Sant's name and the title of his movie. Right away, the fact that this is a make-believe story is brought to the audience's attention. Couple this with the liberal use of the song 'Over the Rainbow' -- the most famous movie song about ideal, make-believe worlds -- and I got the distinct impression that Van Sant was trying to make excuses for this maudlin, almost cliched narrative. "Watch me undermine my own Hollywood film," he appears to be saying. "It may be trite, but at least I know that it's trite. Forgive me, please." Whatever, Gus. You protest too much. I still liked your film. The buzz on this movie is that it's nothing more than "Good Will Hunting II" (Van Sant recognizes this fact, with an obvious and unintentionally hilarious "GWH" reference in the film's epilogue). I agree that it shares some cosmetic qualities with that film (bearded mentor counsels brilliant but troubled young man, against a background of poverty and academia), but "Forester" has enough unique qualities that the comparison becomes unnecessary. First, the prodigy's genius is in his writing, and not in numbers. It's a more dangerous proposition, because while most people wouldn't recognize a flawed mathematical equation, we can all spot bad writing. Van Sant knows this, and tries to keep the examples of William Forester's and Jamal Wallace's writing hidden. A wise move, because when we are finally exposed to them, it's quite dreadful. While the narrative moved forward with powerful (and often contrived) thrust, the movie felt overlong. I noticed many sequences composed of purely visual montages that felt overlong by half. I think Van Sant could have used the services of a more judicious editor. He seemed to fall in love with the images of New York's streets and its inhabitants. That's fine for setting up the context of the story, but should have been abandoned once the story got going. The acting, overall, was a mixed bag. F. Murray Abraham as the villain professor was way over-the-top. Sure, he was menacing, but with no real substance to back it up. Anna Paquin as the love interest showed considerable charm and eccentricity, but her role was little more than a device. She's a two-dimensional character at best. Busta Rhymes as Jamal's older and wiser brother, has charisma to burn. But the man is not a good actor. He's at his best in a scene at the dinner table, when he breaks out in a spontaneous rap about his job as a parking attendant. In smaller parts, Michael Nouri (as a wealthy alumnus) and the man who played the basketball coach were both horrible and distracting. Thankfully, these performances don't distract from the powerful leads. Sean Connery is not a great actor. He has not the depth and subtlety that the job requires. But he is a star, and shows why here. His William Forester chomps scenery as if it were saltines, dwarfing everyone around him. And I could listen to Connery read the phone book, with that addictive Scottish accent of his. He's perfect as the boozing J.D. Salinger-esque recluse, a man who can dominate a room by just raising one of his disheveled eyebrows. Ron Brown is a revelation as the young prodigy who comes to Forester for guidance. He is a perfect contrast to Connery. He never tries to do too much, is always composed, coiled, contained, and charismatic. And oh yeah: he's utterly believable. I've heard it said that this young man, with gifts of genius on the basketball court and at the typewriter, was just too much to believe. Well, I believed it. And I give full credit to Brown, who's asked to carry the movie his first time out, and never drops the ball.
Rating: 
Summary: A chain of cliches
Review: The biggest problem with this movie is that it begins with strong momentum, bringing your critical defenses down. Then you are accepting and start to like it a little. Finally, towards the end of the film, you feel foolish, completely taken advantage of, because you realize that it is pure garbage from the start. When will Hollywood stop propagating racial stereotypes?
| 
