ViewGuide

I think I’ll get this topic started.

I have found that with many movies, the line between what can be considered realistic and not can become very fine…

Two examples that I think best exemplify this are “Forrest Gump” and “Donnie Darko,” which both happen to be all-time favorites of mine… :)

In the case of Forrest Gump, all the events that take place in the movie are actual historical events, with the character of Forrest Gump being written into those events, as if he had been there. The movie even has actual television and radio broadcasts from the 70s and 80s, with Forrest being transposed into them. Very clever, indeed! How then, however, would you rate such a film in terms of reality? Quite puzzling, if I do say so myself.

With Donnie Darko, the story is fiction, in essence, in that the story is made up, and not based off of actual events. However, the entire concept of the movie is based off of scientific theory regarding alternate universes and time travel. Science suggests that, pending the correct conditions, that such a situation COULD occur… Once again, it seems as though the line between what’s realistic and what’s not becomes muddled.

Thoughts? Any other examples anyone can think of?

I want to go back and update that review a bit, including taking a closer look at the reality section. That’s a great point about his transition from cripple to all-star runner… I overlooked that! Very nice point, Wick. I’ll take a look later today and add some additional commentary.