I'm afraid I must risk the wrath of Warden Josh here and go with Shawshank. Wes Anderson will have plenty of chances for glory in next year's Filmspotting Madness, but this is Frank Darabont's only chance. Not that I'm picking out of pity: a recent rewatch confirmed Shawshank's enduring appeal with its strong ensemble acting, and wonderful story of friendship and hope. Andy, Red, the Warden, Hadley, Brooks (hat-tip to a fellow librarian), Ava Gardner's poster, the sandy shores of Zihuatanejo—think of how many characters and moments and images you can conjure from this beautifully crafted film.
But I know that "His judgement cometh and that right soon" in favor of Rushmore, so I'm just gonna kick back and listen to Mozart on full blast as I await Shawshank's fate.
I enjoy Wes Anderson, but I don't love Wes Anderson. Certainly not even close to the adoration expressed by Josh. Shawshank is in my top 5 of all time. Although, I've seen it so many times, I could replay it in my head, if every copy were incinerated.
Wes Anderson has better films (4 by my count, YMMV with Life Aquatic and Grand Budapest Hotel, but Tenenbaums and Moonrise are surely better films), though Rushmore was a very very fine harbinger of the filmmaker he would become. Shawshank is probably the best we will ever get from Darabont, at least as a director. So we are left with a weird cage match of incipient greatness against a singular event, the perfect storm of actors, writers, source material, and director. It was hard for me to choose between these two poles, but since we are choosing for the 1990s and Anderson's best films are firmly in the, er, Naughties, I gave my nod to Shawshank
I may be a simple man but Shawshank gets my vote here. I sense Adam and Josh view Shawshank as a fine film, but not really worth of the Classic status it currently has. I disagree. I'm not sure how you could watch Shawshank and not be moved by Red's monologue at the end. As Ebert says: 'Darabont constructs the film to observe the story, not to punch it up or upstage it. Upstaging, in fact, is unknown in this film; the actors are content to stay within their roles, the story moves in an orderly way, and the film itself reflects the slow passage of the decades. '
As for Rushmore, it's an entertaining film but I have never felt the love for it I've seen others have. Max Fischer's creepy earnestness has always annoyed me and he never gets his comeuppance for his unwarranted hostility to Luke Wilson's character. Sorry Josh.
I am fine without sitting through all 18 hours of Shawshank ever again. Rushmore is the more rewatch-able and better film. Plus, I don't want Josh to have to suffer another straight to Netflix Sandler movie. Hope this helps your bracket.
Hope. You've got to give me hope. I've lost 'Miller's Crossing' to dinosaurs; 'Out of Sight' to World War II; and 'The Lion King' to a mimetic poly-alloy shapeshifter. I'm almost at the end of my rope here, my initials metaphorically carved in the ceiling of my boarding house room. I need some hope in this world. You've gotta give me Andy, Red, that Raquel Welch poster, and the most fan-servicey, crowd-pleasing, most heartwarming final crane shot in cinema history. I need hope because hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies... until the next round when I'm sure it'll bleed out in the backseat of a Pontiac, on the way to the hideout.
I chose Rushmore because Lady Bird has a Rushmore poster on her wall & who knows what would have happened to Lady Bird without that movie & I’m not taking my chances.
It’s not Eastwood’s best western, give me the wit of Rushmore, and the birth of Murray Anderson collaboration
I love Wes, I love Rushmore, but he has made better films. Shawshank is a timeless masterpiece, a perfect collision of Darabont, Robbins and Freeman, a film full of humanity, life and wonder.
“These are OR scrubs.”
“OH, ARE they?”
*sound of Bill Murray choking*
This was the hardest choice for me in this round. I have really grown to appreciate and love Rushmore. Ten years ago my vote would have been Shawshank, but after listening to Filmspottinf for a few years, I discovered the wonderful world of Wes Anderson and have not looked back. Damn this game, but I do love it.
So, I don’t especially love either of these movies, but I’m voting “Shawshank” because I think listening to Josh’s head explode will probably make for some entertaining radio.
Wes Anderson is for a specific demographic, which I am part of. However, I begrudge no-one for saying they don't like his stuff.
Shawshank is for everyone, and a triumphantly earnest film the likes of which we get very few. Charming cynicism, much as I like it, has nothing on that.
I'm already upset that Shawshank beat the Usual Suspects (although that does mean it saved me from having to choose between Kyser Soze and Max Fischer, but still).
Shawshank is ... fine. I just don't love it the way other people clearly do. I would much rather watch Max Fischer's stage adaptation of Shawshank than rewatch the movie version (which, again, is ... fine).
Rushmore, on the other hand, is possibly my favorite movie of all time ("my favorite," not "best"). Everything about it is a revelation. The vibrant, meticulously framed shots! The perfect pairing of music and image to convey character! The performances from newcomers and veterans! The redemption of the montage! When Max steps off the hotel service elevator in slow motion to the sound of the Who's A Quick One While He's Away—having just released the bees into Herman Bloom's room—I want to BE him. Every time.
Rushmore is a masterpiece by Gustave Caillebotte. Shawshank is a nice painting on the wall at your grandmother's house. It's fine. Maybe she painted it at one of those paint-it-yourself shops. I get it. You love your grandmother. But she's your grandmother, not mine, so I'm going with Rushmore.
Can you imagine Max Fischer's stage adaptation of The Usual Suspects?!