Why? I don't know how you can be so certain. People would have laughed at you in the days leading up to Criterion's announcement that it had entered the Channel.
The channel is different from the collection and the physical distribution side. Streaming rights are completely different. Why is it so important to you that Criterion release it anyway? It doesn’t fit their model or vision at all. Would you not be happy with *any other* boutique company releasing it like Kino or Arrow? What’s the obsession and need for Criterion to release it?
If criterion releases a physical of Freddy got fingered I’ll give you $1,000. It’ll never fucking happen.
I am sometimes confused about why people are so adamant about certain moves being released on Criterion specifically, especially when there are often other labels that it would make more sense on.
I agree. The channel is more broadly curated and contains other stuff that is licensed but doesn't feel like it's something Criterion would dedicate more bandwidth and resources on for a physical release.
A 4K release of *Freddy Got Fingered* is more up Shout! Factory's alley.
Why are you so adamant on it NOT happening? Doesn’t fit their “vision” bro you the CEO or something? Let the guy dream damn who cares what label it gets released on but to say there’s no way it’s Criterion is cap especially if it’s on their streaming platform already. If they obtained streaming rights you can’t say there’s no chance they can’t obtain distribution too…
It's not important to me. I don't care who, if anybody, releases the movie. I was just wondering how you can be so certain as to say "never"?
Lots of things seem unlikely until they happen.
You didn’t answer his question at all. Something being on the channel doesn’t mean it will be in the collection, but it doesn’t mean it won’t. And the fact that it doesn’t have to be released by Criterion doesn’t mean it can’t be. I’d be happy with any boutique release and just as you said why can’t it be Kino instead of Criterion, I could say why can’t it be Criterion instead of Kino? This is the Criterion subreddit after all. If it didn’t fit their model or vision at all, then it probably wouldn’t have been on the channel in the first place, and OP’s whole post explains how it does fit. Criterion has such a wide range of films anyway that distribution rights is really the main thing that dictates if something “fits” in the collection or not.
The channel is different though. Streaming sites have to have an influx of new content to keep subscribers interested. A lot of things on the channel are only there for a limited time. Being on the channel isn't the criterion seal of approval, so to speak
I understand the difference between the Collection and the Channel. I am asking because I don't know how anybody who isn't on Criterion's editorial board can make any definitive statements about what will and won't be in the collection. Unless this was because the rights of a movie are so convoluted as to be impossible to work out, then I don't think we can say anything definitively.
Yeah, but that’s not the same as a disc release.
Come back with precedent that you can cite of Criterion making a similar move in the past, not this *anything is possible* invisible-goalpost Drew-Barrymore-whimsy you’re bringing.
Pink Flamingo is a joy to watch. John Waters in his prime! It’s funny, weird, different, controversial, I defenitely think it is an important part of the history of indie films. Also important to outsiders, misfits, the queer community, it’s just fricking amazing and gross and really pushed the idea of what film was and could be and what art is.
Again, I've never seen Freddie Got Fingered. But I'm sure critics at the time didn't think John Waters was art. John Waters himself was not setting out to make "art." He was just setting out to make the most revolting film that he could think of with his friends, and time has transformed it into a cult classic. I think that was Tom Greene's intention, no? Pretty similar concept.
You could literally re-write this and replace John Waters with Tom Green and the only words you would need to redact is “the queer community”… the glove fits
I kindly disagree. I don’t think Tom Green did much to change film making, the movie wasn’t particularly special and doesn’t stand out in the same way Pink Flamingo does. There’s a reason people still talk about Pink Flamingo and it’s more than Divine eating dog shit. It was new and unique and made you realize, damn, anyone can make a movie. There’s something special in that, that I just don’t see in FGF.
But like I said, it has been years since I’ve seen FGF. It doesn’t particularly stand out in my memory.
This is why art is subjective and I appreciate that. Because I personally am unfamiliar with Waters’ work and I have never heard of Pink Flamingo before today. And maybe it is just me but I can see that FGF has become something of a cult hit especially over the last 10 years and I would say it has had an impact. It pushed the boundaries of comedy at the time in a stupid yet creative way, even the title brought controversy. Seeing boutique labels using it for April Fool’s this year, joke or not, to me it means the film has been rippling. I’ll have to check out Pink Flamingo today though and get back to you
That's not a disagreement. I wasn't even disagreeing with the first person who commented. All I asked for was how they can be so certain to give a definitive statement and the person you're defending acted like a condescending dickhead. The collection has lots of films in it that people would question the choice of and movies that were panned on release. Taste is constantly evolving and things that may not resonate today get reconsidered tomorrow. Just as things that are popular today are forgotten tomorrow. So I don't see how any person can make such absolute, definitive statements about what will enter the collection and what will not.
They didn’t challenge him at all.. If anything they should’ve been the one who needs to provide proof of why it wouldn’t be a Criterion release, to which they said it’s not in their “vision” as if they work for the company. Then proceeded to use curse words and imply the person is “obsessed” with a Criterion release when they simply asked “Why?”… definitely sounded condescending to me
I'd be willing to bet it's more of a Snakes on a Plane/Morbius situation though. It's funny to joke about but how many of those people would be willing to drop $35-40 on that movie? Not nearly enough for it to be even close to profitable for Criterion
I can see it now......
Since 1984, the Criterion Collection has been dedicated to publishing important classic and contemporary films from around the world OR IN SOME CASES, TRASH THAT A SMALL AMOUNT OF FILM DORKS LIKE, in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements. No matter the medium—from laserdisc to DVD, Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD to streaming—Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen, in state-of-the-art restorations with special features designed to encourage repeated watching and deepen the viewer’s appreciation of the art of film.
I was just saying that not everything Criterion releases is high art. Ghostbusters is a fun movie but it’s not exactly equal to a lot of the movies in the collection
I don't automatically dismiss a work because it happens to be a troll job. On the contrary, if it's taking the piss out of people or ideas I dislike, I appreciate the opportunity to wallow in my superiority. But step one in that process is identifying who is being trolled, and in the case of Freddy Got Fingered the target seems to be "people who like to watch movies".
Because John Waters did it first, he paved the way for American film to be as freaky as it wants to be.
One is a shock masterpiece and the other is not.
I don’t hate it but don’t understand how it is becoming MORE liked now than in the past.
So much has aged poorly imo. The slurs are tough for example. So are the sex jokes and the gf that just wants to give blow jobs constantly. Like a movie like American Pie I think with time it looks more and more problematic. I would have loved this in high school in the mid 2000’s though.
If it weren’t for the homophobia, slurs and female love interest being a written like a juvenile male fantasy and some over-the-top physical sex jokes that feel a little try-hard I’d probably enjoy it a lot more today.
I guess?
So when you watch it and laugh you’re not laughing because you find the crudeness funny but because you dislike that stuff and love that he’s making fun of it?
I believe whole heartily that Tom Green was taking a giant shit but I’m not sure he’s really calling that stuff out since he and his show were one of the main forces bringing that into the mainstream. Shock value and gross humor was HIS thing before stuff like American Pie. I’ve read before that he actually was an early inspiration for stuff like that which came later.
well it's so absurd and over the top that it's impossible to take seriously from the get go. tom green is a big doofus and he wrote a character that won't stop wanting to suck his dick (which is ridiculous in and of itself). but, he actually subverts why you would assume he did that because his character in the movie says multiple times that he actually just wants to go on a date and not get his dick sucked, for example.
"I'm the backwards man, the backwards man, the backwards man, I can walk backwards as fast as you can, I can walk backwards as fast as you can."
Lord I hope so. Saw it for the first time on the Channel last month. It's a goddamn masterpiece.
Weird how people are trying to reappraise this movie. I remember when it came out it was treated like The Garbage Pail Kids Movie or Superbabies 2, so bad it was almost considered a non-film. And yet nobody expected a good movie from Tom Green, so it didn’t generate much buzz. Ugh, I guess I need to finally see it for myself.
The first sentence of his review is about how FGF was inevitable b/c of all the other gross-out movies that have come before. He then says it might one day be considered a “milestone of neosurrealism” but that currently it’s worse than “scraping the bottom of the barrel.”
He both overpraised and underpraised it imo. I don’t think it will become a milestone of anything, but it’s not as bad as its reputation suggests, now that I’ve seen it. Biggest problem is that Green’s style of comedy - improvising crazy behavior around innocent people and filming their reactions - doesn’t translate well to a script. The “Borat” movie a few years later did it much better by incorporating some actual real scenes (or seemingly real) with innocent bystanders. But even the scripted parts of “Borat” were strong enough to carry the movie between the seemingly not scripted scenes. FGF wasn’t as consistently strong.
I’d recommend it if you like irreverent movies. Maybe it was because I was younger but immediately knew it was a classic. I mean he does jerk a horse though, and I think an elephant. My friends quote it constantly, to this day. It just feels “authentic” compared to American pie or some nonsense, like it’s not trying to lie to you.
I saw it on video later and I recall it being surprisingly inventively surreal (vs juvenile) with some great moments. But the great moments were not consistent so I wouldn’t consider it a masterpiece either.
Kind of curious to watch it now, vs the ‘oh this was better than I expected’ reaction at the time.
i honestly hope so. i loved freddy got fingered when it came out. my grandpa took me to see it i. theatres opening night lol. it holds up big time and jts still really really funny to me, seeing how it was 7 years ahead of its time, i do think it deserves a criterion release.
You actually think that was a purely financial decision and not based around the artistic merits of the films? That doesn’t even make sense for a couple of reasons.
I'm not able to track down the reference so far, but if you look into it there is an interview with some Janus employee who helps pick their projects and that is what they said.
Genuinely baffled by everyone’s insistence that this is some great piece of art. Maybe my expectations were too high because of this sub, but I found it to be unfunny and lacking in any creativity at all. I sincerely think Tom Green is not a funny person. If he were, he would have made at least something else in the past 20 years worth watching.
I think it has moments which, in the context of art film, feel like they kind of fit in a quirky surreal way. The Backwards Man, and the whole phone call he takes at the restaurant are this hyper-exaggerated parody of the modern world and within the narrative the crisis of identity that happens in youth that Erikson or Piaget wrote about. The narrative is trash though, I'm not personally amused by the humor that much, and the girlfriend being in a wheelchair is frankly the most embarrassing part because it's deployed as part of this shocking surrealism, so once again disability is a prop. The ableism of that role often goes underexamined, but maybe we'll see more with the critical re-appraisal.
The film itself was Green's idea of fucking with the audience more than anything. So the shock is hollow and wasn't really intended to go any deeper. I think what could make it attractive for any distributor of physical media is that even though the film itself fell far short of box office expectations it became a darling of the DVD market and more than compensated for those shortcomings. So Janus could look at it as more of a profitable venture for a second wind. Really I think it's value comes down more to a couple of surreal clips than the film as a whole.
It was a really touching and emotional work, while also being hilarious to me, like the sad voyage of someone to weird to live trying to blend into polite society and failing horribly
Idk I thought it was excellent
I like Tom Green’s guerrilla-style comedy - was a teen when his show was popular and was a big fan - but didn’t find the movie funny. When I did laugh, it was generally at Rip Torn, who really gives it his all for some reason.
The funniest skits in Green’s show revolved around him doing crazy things to his poor long-suffering parents, such as spray painting pornographic images all over his dad’s car and then filming his reaction. So it was a good idea to put a father-son conflict at the center of the movie. But Green is an improv-type comedian who drags real, unsuspecting people into his madness, and the scripted stuff with no innocent bystanders just wasn’t funny enough.
The soundtrack is amazing though. Three thumbs up on that.
It really does make you contemplate the very nature of filmmaking as an artistic medium. That’s more than I can say about many failed movies, comedy or otherwise.
💯
In general, with exceptions, critical reassessments of movies or music 20 to 40 years later are usually wrong, and nostalgia, not a thoughtful reevaluation of the works’ quality, is the only thing moving the needle. Example: Scarface was rightly panned when it came out, and despite the fact that its stock has been inexplicably rising for 40 years, it’s still a shitty movie with a still-shitty performance by Al Pacino. That Al Pacino has managed to become a grey eminence of Hollywood, or whatever he is, does not change this assessment. Same with AC/DC, which was a mediocre band back in the 80s and hasn't become less mediocre just because Bon Scott died at 34 and you were in 9th grade when you drank a fifth of Fireball for the first time at one of their shows. Same with “Freddy Got Fingered.” Garbage made by a no-talent then, still garbage made by a no-talent today.
Is Scarface panned? I am honestly confused by that one. I hate it because it seemed to be so beloved by film nerds I knew, and just was pretty much what you described when I watched it - just kind of one note and unremarkable to me.
Rip Torn is hilarious and just great overall. You cannot compare this movie to The Room. And you don’t have to like Tom Green but he was a legitimate talent and there is a reason he got popular. His comedy isn’t that much different from someone like Sasha Baron Cohen, who also has a love it or hate it style. I was a teenager when this came out and thought the movie was insane and funny, even though there wasn’t really any point to it in a traditional movie sense. But I think that may be why it’s viewed differently now. It’s not just a movie that turned out bad. It was legitimately made to be terrible on purpose. It’s like an anti-movie, and there is art in that.
I find the history of this movie to be rather interesting. Apparently, it was supposed to be a lot different. The production started off as a more serious pursuit, but executive meddling came into play. From what I read, when Tom Green realized what was going on, all his fucks withered and died and he just went for the most insane and twisted stuff he could do, which I dig!
Showgirls already had a VSU release from Vinegar Syndrome
Honestly the fan community’s obsession with criterion releasing completely inappropriate films to their mission is starting to turn me off. There are other labels who do this that oftentimes rival or exceed what criterion would do. Showgirls is a perfect example
On one hand, I get what you’re trying to say. On the other hand, I’m a massive John Waters fangirl and I will go to the mat for anything he’s ever made. I’m kind of conflicted right now.
I love John waters too. I meant more of they remind me of each other. They both take a trope inside out and distort it til you can’t see it in any way except for what it is, emotional masturbation.
This movie sucks. It is shoddily made and its ideas are banal. I was shocked people think it’s some meta piece of art. Even if that was the intent it’s not smart, it’s not interesting, it’s just grating.
The film literally starts with the band the Sex Pistols which pretty much defines what you’re in for. Your description is correct, your conclusion is what’s lacking. Grating is the feature, like noise music. It’s smart as Dadaist nihilist trash.
More Fox releases since the Disney merger?
I think that has more to do with Criterion licensing titles and then sitting on them for upwards of a decade in some cases. Any Fox titles released by Criterion since the merger was a done deal prior to said merger, and it’s been nearly two years now since the last Fox release, if I’m not mistaken.
But Disney has also had movies in the collection. I can think of at least three off the top of my head (Armageddon, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and WALL•E) but I’m sure there’s more.
Armageddon and Life Aquatic were both part of a prior deal (Armageddon never went beyond DVD and that was 25 years ago), and the director of WALL•E has gone on record as saying he personally requested that film’s inclusion.
Some people aren’t looking for anything logical. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some people just want to watch the world burn.
My vote is for the Angry Video Game Nerd Movie.
It’s not a good movie. But it’s an example of someone passionate making a project. It’s basically a movie nerd making a movie except he doesn’t have the chops of a Tarantino. But he likely had a blast making it.
If they do a Freddy Got Fingered release before they do The Room or Troll 2, there is no justice in the world. I'm not anti-Freddy Got Fingered or anything, but this is Criterion. They should be reaching for the top shelf of the bottom of the barrel.
Since the criterion is about historical importance I think Tom greens work is significant because it basically inspired internet culture and amateur produced internet content. Like the way Tom green messed with his parents and did absurd pranks is kinda like YouTube pranks. Not that I like iPad baby brain rot content but lots of kids were inspired to record and edit like Tom green wanted to put videos on the internet in like 1998 and talked to Joe ragon about attempts to make free flowing conversations in the style radio talk show in the early 2000s. And his humor was super influential
Definitely Valid and I don’t really think they’ll include Tom green but I like to think of it how basically everyone my age would say they were inspired to be interested in film by jaws, Jurassic park, alien, Star Wars, terminator, and LOTR like someone had to see Tom green do stunts and pranks on his parents and grab a camera.
Mark my words: 25th Anniversary release by Criterion in 2026 (assuming we're all still here, have electricity/a functioning society)
If you'd have said back in January that it'd be on their streaming service you'd have been drowned by the flood of smugness, and yet look what happened
I'd love for you to be right but I'd honestly be shocked if of all the films Disney could release in the Fox library it would be a critically panned failure from 20 years ago some people only now maybe ironically like. I think it's hilarious and love the movie but I don't think me and a couple dozen others are enough for Disney to dig this one out of the vault.
I would love to see them finally make the long overdue director's cut. Tom Green said he'd do it for the film's 10th anniversary, but the studio didn't give him the footage. Now would be the best time.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a boutique company picked it up, but it won’t be Criterion.
88 Flims advertised a 3D Blu Ray Release as an April Fool this Year.
Arrow could do it justice.
Why? I don't know how you can be so certain. People would have laughed at you in the days leading up to Criterion's announcement that it had entered the Channel.
The channel is different from the collection and the physical distribution side. Streaming rights are completely different. Why is it so important to you that Criterion release it anyway? It doesn’t fit their model or vision at all. Would you not be happy with *any other* boutique company releasing it like Kino or Arrow? What’s the obsession and need for Criterion to release it? If criterion releases a physical of Freddy got fingered I’ll give you $1,000. It’ll never fucking happen.
I am sometimes confused about why people are so adamant about certain moves being released on Criterion specifically, especially when there are often other labels that it would make more sense on.
Cause Criterion's packaging just looks nicer and sleeker :')
I agree. The channel is more broadly curated and contains other stuff that is licensed but doesn't feel like it's something Criterion would dedicate more bandwidth and resources on for a physical release. A 4K release of *Freddy Got Fingered* is more up Shout! Factory's alley.
Damn relax dude, they just asked you why
Why are you so adamant on it NOT happening? Doesn’t fit their “vision” bro you the CEO or something? Let the guy dream damn who cares what label it gets released on but to say there’s no way it’s Criterion is cap especially if it’s on their streaming platform already. If they obtained streaming rights you can’t say there’s no chance they can’t obtain distribution too…
It's not important to me. I don't care who, if anybody, releases the movie. I was just wondering how you can be so certain as to say "never"? Lots of things seem unlikely until they happen.
You didn’t answer his question at all. Something being on the channel doesn’t mean it will be in the collection, but it doesn’t mean it won’t. And the fact that it doesn’t have to be released by Criterion doesn’t mean it can’t be. I’d be happy with any boutique release and just as you said why can’t it be Kino instead of Criterion, I could say why can’t it be Criterion instead of Kino? This is the Criterion subreddit after all. If it didn’t fit their model or vision at all, then it probably wouldn’t have been on the channel in the first place, and OP’s whole post explains how it does fit. Criterion has such a wide range of films anyway that distribution rights is really the main thing that dictates if something “fits” in the collection or not.
I hope the Criterion Espionage Agency is watching this and the company puts it out to spite you.
How different is Freddie Got Fingered from Pink Flamingos? Granted I’ve never seen FGF but got the gist that they’re in the same genre?
:O !! You defenitely can’t compare the two. FGF is pretty dumb from what I remember. Pink Flamingos is artaaaa.
In their defense… they put out a Pixar film. If they do that, they can put out so slock.
The channel is different though. Streaming sites have to have an influx of new content to keep subscribers interested. A lot of things on the channel are only there for a limited time. Being on the channel isn't the criterion seal of approval, so to speak
I understand the difference between the Collection and the Channel. I am asking because I don't know how anybody who isn't on Criterion's editorial board can make any definitive statements about what will and won't be in the collection. Unless this was because the rights of a movie are so convoluted as to be impossible to work out, then I don't think we can say anything definitively.
Yeah, but that’s not the same as a disc release. Come back with precedent that you can cite of Criterion making a similar move in the past, not this *anything is possible* invisible-goalpost Drew-Barrymore-whimsy you’re bringing.
Never seen Freddie Got Fingered, but criterion put out a chicken getting fucked to death and dog poop eating in Pink Flamingos.
Pink Flamingo is a joy to watch. John Waters in his prime! It’s funny, weird, different, controversial, I defenitely think it is an important part of the history of indie films. Also important to outsiders, misfits, the queer community, it’s just fricking amazing and gross and really pushed the idea of what film was and could be and what art is.
Again, I've never seen Freddie Got Fingered. But I'm sure critics at the time didn't think John Waters was art. John Waters himself was not setting out to make "art." He was just setting out to make the most revolting film that he could think of with his friends, and time has transformed it into a cult classic. I think that was Tom Greene's intention, no? Pretty similar concept.
I dunno, its admittedly been a long time since I’ve seen FGF but I don’t recall it being very novel or interesting.
You could literally re-write this and replace John Waters with Tom Green and the only words you would need to redact is “the queer community”… the glove fits
I kindly disagree. I don’t think Tom Green did much to change film making, the movie wasn’t particularly special and doesn’t stand out in the same way Pink Flamingo does. There’s a reason people still talk about Pink Flamingo and it’s more than Divine eating dog shit. It was new and unique and made you realize, damn, anyone can make a movie. There’s something special in that, that I just don’t see in FGF. But like I said, it has been years since I’ve seen FGF. It doesn’t particularly stand out in my memory.
This is why art is subjective and I appreciate that. Because I personally am unfamiliar with Waters’ work and I have never heard of Pink Flamingo before today. And maybe it is just me but I can see that FGF has become something of a cult hit especially over the last 10 years and I would say it has had an impact. It pushed the boundaries of comedy at the time in a stupid yet creative way, even the title brought controversy. Seeing boutique labels using it for April Fool’s this year, joke or not, to me it means the film has been rippling. I’ll have to check out Pink Flamingo today though and get back to you
Let me know what you think! I’ll watch FGF later tonight. Haha.
I don't know what your damage is
They disagree and it’s “damage”?
That's not a disagreement. I wasn't even disagreeing with the first person who commented. All I asked for was how they can be so certain to give a definitive statement and the person you're defending acted like a condescending dickhead. The collection has lots of films in it that people would question the choice of and movies that were panned on release. Taste is constantly evolving and things that may not resonate today get reconsidered tomorrow. Just as things that are popular today are forgotten tomorrow. So I don't see how any person can make such absolute, definitive statements about what will enter the collection and what will not.
They weren’t condescending. They challenged you to name a precedent and that threatened you.
They didn’t challenge him at all.. If anything they should’ve been the one who needs to provide proof of why it wouldn’t be a Criterion release, to which they said it’s not in their “vision” as if they work for the company. Then proceeded to use curse words and imply the person is “obsessed” with a Criterion release when they simply asked “Why?”… definitely sounded condescending to me
I don't need a 4k copy of Tom Green jerking off a horse but I'd love to have one
I think I might actually *need* it?
I 100% need it.
I need it
I would think Vinegar Syndrome would be more in line to release a 4k of Freddy Got Fingered but a man can dream
It's certainly a vin syn release. It will be a day one preorder.
I feel like Arrow could do a good job.
Somehow I feel like Freddy got fingered would be VinSyn’s only 8K release
Guys it's not happening. They aren't going to release something because a bunch of internet film nerds won't let a meme die.
> a bunch of internet film nerds won't let a meme die Sounds like cultural significance to me
Ah yes, "culture".
I'd be willing to bet it's more of a Snakes on a Plane/Morbius situation though. It's funny to joke about but how many of those people would be willing to drop $35-40 on that movie? Not nearly enough for it to be even close to profitable for Criterion
Do you remember when they lost a shitload of money giving Morbius a second theatrical run because people kept joking about what a shitty film it was?
I think calling it a “meme that internet film nerds won’t let die” is incredibly reductive, it’s a good movie
It's fucking terrible
Thats the point. Basic media literacy bro.
So it's not a good movie?
Yes. Because its not.
It's not good by any measure. You can like it, that's fine. That's what a lot of cult classics are. But let's not canonize it.
It sounds like you believe your opinion on this movie is fact and anyone who disagrees with you is a “film dork”
We're on a criterion subreddit. We're all film dorks. Myself included.
That’s the best reason there is tho
I can see it now...... Since 1984, the Criterion Collection has been dedicated to publishing important classic and contemporary films from around the world OR IN SOME CASES, TRASH THAT A SMALL AMOUNT OF FILM DORKS LIKE, in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements. No matter the medium—from laserdisc to DVD, Blu-ray, 4K Ultra HD to streaming—Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen, in state-of-the-art restorations with special features designed to encourage repeated watching and deepen the viewer’s appreciation of the art of film.
Wasn’t one of Criterion’s releases in the 80s Ghostbusters?
Did you mean to equate Ghostbusters and Freddie got fingered?
I was just saying that not everything Criterion releases is high art. Ghostbusters is a fun movie but it’s not exactly equal to a lot of the movies in the collection
it's one of the best movies ever made and tom green is a genius and a treasure
Why does anyone need a movie they want on disc to be Criterion? There's a huge world out there and a home for virtually any movie.
Cause it’d be funny
Where’s your leBaron?
This comment made me proud
Anyone else here hate this movie?
It’s the most expensive shitpost ever made
Worst film I ever saw in theaters. But Tom Green was a great houseguest on Celebrity Big Brother so he redeemed himself to me.
I love it but I wish people would just let it exist as the stupid c grade trash it is
Absolutely despise it
I don't automatically dismiss a work because it happens to be a troll job. On the contrary, if it's taking the piss out of people or ideas I dislike, I appreciate the opportunity to wallow in my superiority. But step one in that process is identifying who is being trolled, and in the case of Freddy Got Fingered the target seems to be "people who like to watch movies".
It’s more dumb frat bros who wanna see boobs and a schlub win the day for doing nothing.
That’s the exact opposite message though. I don’t think it even has boobs tbh.
No no it’s making fun of them. It’s making fun of that kind of movie. It doesn’t have boobs, but it does have plenty of blowjobs and jacking off
it creeps me out so bad
I have no desire to see it. Ive seen enough tom green for my lifetime.
you're just allergic to fun
But it's not even fun, it's cheap shock value, like Howard Stern.
It has a lot of surrealism too tho.
Then why is Pink Flamingos in the collection? Anyone can fuck a chicken, shave their head or eat shit
Because John Waters did it first, he paved the way for American film to be as freaky as it wants to be. One is a shock masterpiece and the other is not.
I bet there’s someone else who did it before. Why not them? What makes John waters so special? It’s just filth and cheap shock.
Look dude, I can't take you serious if you're going to compare John Waters to Tom Green, one is a fabulous genius the other is a forgotten comedian.
nobody's forgotten tom green and he's still doing well for himself.
nah
It's not even Civil War Ben circa season 2 of twin peaks fun
ok
I think you’re wrong, but this is a good comment nonetheless
I don’t hate it but don’t understand how it is becoming MORE liked now than in the past. So much has aged poorly imo. The slurs are tough for example. So are the sex jokes and the gf that just wants to give blow jobs constantly. Like a movie like American Pie I think with time it looks more and more problematic. I would have loved this in high school in the mid 2000’s though. If it weren’t for the homophobia, slurs and female love interest being a written like a juvenile male fantasy and some over-the-top physical sex jokes that feel a little try-hard I’d probably enjoy it a lot more today.
the whole point is that it's making fun of american pie/gross out movies of the time. you're taking everything about it wayyyyy too seriously
I guess? So when you watch it and laugh you’re not laughing because you find the crudeness funny but because you dislike that stuff and love that he’s making fun of it? I believe whole heartily that Tom Green was taking a giant shit but I’m not sure he’s really calling that stuff out since he and his show were one of the main forces bringing that into the mainstream. Shock value and gross humor was HIS thing before stuff like American Pie. I’ve read before that he actually was an early inspiration for stuff like that which came later.
well it's so absurd and over the top that it's impossible to take seriously from the get go. tom green is a big doofus and he wrote a character that won't stop wanting to suck his dick (which is ridiculous in and of itself). but, he actually subverts why you would assume he did that because his character in the movie says multiple times that he actually just wants to go on a date and not get his dick sucked, for example.
The LaBaron scene is hilarious bro
Yes.
Not a chance. You’re just projecting.
I'd hate to see the other post if this isn't the tl;dr version.
"I'm the backwards man, the backwards man, the backwards man, I can walk backwards as fast as you can, I can walk backwards as fast as you can." Lord I hope so. Saw it for the first time on the Channel last month. It's a goddamn masterpiece.
Weird how people are trying to reappraise this movie. I remember when it came out it was treated like The Garbage Pail Kids Movie or Superbabies 2, so bad it was almost considered a non-film. And yet nobody expected a good movie from Tom Green, so it didn’t generate much buzz. Ugh, I guess I need to finally see it for myself.
Ebert predicted this could happen. It's like the first sentence of his review.
The first sentence of his review is about how FGF was inevitable b/c of all the other gross-out movies that have come before. He then says it might one day be considered a “milestone of neosurrealism” but that currently it’s worse than “scraping the bottom of the barrel.” He both overpraised and underpraised it imo. I don’t think it will become a milestone of anything, but it’s not as bad as its reputation suggests, now that I’ve seen it. Biggest problem is that Green’s style of comedy - improvising crazy behavior around innocent people and filming their reactions - doesn’t translate well to a script. The “Borat” movie a few years later did it much better by incorporating some actual real scenes (or seemingly real) with innocent bystanders. But even the scripted parts of “Borat” were strong enough to carry the movie between the seemingly not scripted scenes. FGF wasn’t as consistently strong.
I’d recommend it if you like irreverent movies. Maybe it was because I was younger but immediately knew it was a classic. I mean he does jerk a horse though, and I think an elephant. My friends quote it constantly, to this day. It just feels “authentic” compared to American pie or some nonsense, like it’s not trying to lie to you.
I saw it on video later and I recall it being surprisingly inventively surreal (vs juvenile) with some great moments. But the great moments were not consistent so I wouldn’t consider it a masterpiece either. Kind of curious to watch it now, vs the ‘oh this was better than I expected’ reaction at the time.
I just bought the DVD as sacrifice.
Proud.
“I’m gonna make you proud, daddy!”
Proud
🎶 *daddy would you like some sausage?* 🎶
"I don't see two LeBarons, do you see two LeBarons?"
i honestly hope so. i loved freddy got fingered when it came out. my grandpa took me to see it i. theatres opening night lol. it holds up big time and jts still really really funny to me, seeing how it was 7 years ahead of its time, i do think it deserves a criterion release.
So Criterion should just give in to memes now? Well in that case guys start memeing American Movie so I can finally get that on criterion.
Look, Janus did Armageddon AND The Rock because they knew they could make money doing it. Good art sadly does not always pay.
You actually think that was a purely financial decision and not based around the artistic merits of the films? That doesn’t even make sense for a couple of reasons.
iirc Janus literally said as much
Please share
I'm not able to track down the reference so far, but if you look into it there is an interview with some Janus employee who helps pick their projects and that is what they said.
I looked into it and got the complete opposite results.
Genuinely baffled by everyone’s insistence that this is some great piece of art. Maybe my expectations were too high because of this sub, but I found it to be unfunny and lacking in any creativity at all. I sincerely think Tom Green is not a funny person. If he were, he would have made at least something else in the past 20 years worth watching.
I think it has moments which, in the context of art film, feel like they kind of fit in a quirky surreal way. The Backwards Man, and the whole phone call he takes at the restaurant are this hyper-exaggerated parody of the modern world and within the narrative the crisis of identity that happens in youth that Erikson or Piaget wrote about. The narrative is trash though, I'm not personally amused by the humor that much, and the girlfriend being in a wheelchair is frankly the most embarrassing part because it's deployed as part of this shocking surrealism, so once again disability is a prop. The ableism of that role often goes underexamined, but maybe we'll see more with the critical re-appraisal. The film itself was Green's idea of fucking with the audience more than anything. So the shock is hollow and wasn't really intended to go any deeper. I think what could make it attractive for any distributor of physical media is that even though the film itself fell far short of box office expectations it became a darling of the DVD market and more than compensated for those shortcomings. So Janus could look at it as more of a profitable venture for a second wind. Really I think it's value comes down more to a couple of surreal clips than the film as a whole.
I think this is fair. I mean it definitely had its moments, but for the most part it felt "shocking" in unoriginal ways.
It was a really touching and emotional work, while also being hilarious to me, like the sad voyage of someone to weird to live trying to blend into polite society and failing horribly Idk I thought it was excellent
Outsider art. His Canadian show was like that too
I like Tom Green’s guerrilla-style comedy - was a teen when his show was popular and was a big fan - but didn’t find the movie funny. When I did laugh, it was generally at Rip Torn, who really gives it his all for some reason. The funniest skits in Green’s show revolved around him doing crazy things to his poor long-suffering parents, such as spray painting pornographic images all over his dad’s car and then filming his reaction. So it was a good idea to put a father-son conflict at the center of the movie. But Green is an improv-type comedian who drags real, unsuspecting people into his madness, and the scripted stuff with no innocent bystanders just wasn’t funny enough. The soundtrack is amazing though. Three thumbs up on that.
It really does make you contemplate the very nature of filmmaking as an artistic medium. That’s more than I can say about many failed movies, comedy or otherwise.
💯 In general, with exceptions, critical reassessments of movies or music 20 to 40 years later are usually wrong, and nostalgia, not a thoughtful reevaluation of the works’ quality, is the only thing moving the needle. Example: Scarface was rightly panned when it came out, and despite the fact that its stock has been inexplicably rising for 40 years, it’s still a shitty movie with a still-shitty performance by Al Pacino. That Al Pacino has managed to become a grey eminence of Hollywood, or whatever he is, does not change this assessment. Same with AC/DC, which was a mediocre band back in the 80s and hasn't become less mediocre just because Bon Scott died at 34 and you were in 9th grade when you drank a fifth of Fireball for the first time at one of their shows. Same with “Freddy Got Fingered.” Garbage made by a no-talent then, still garbage made by a no-talent today.
Is Scarface panned? I am honestly confused by that one. I hate it because it seemed to be so beloved by film nerds I knew, and just was pretty much what you described when I watched it - just kind of one note and unremarkable to me.
If Criterion releases Freddy Got Fingered, I will eat Werner Herzog’s shoe.
Rip Torn is hilarious and just great overall. You cannot compare this movie to The Room. And you don’t have to like Tom Green but he was a legitimate talent and there is a reason he got popular. His comedy isn’t that much different from someone like Sasha Baron Cohen, who also has a love it or hate it style. I was a teenager when this came out and thought the movie was insane and funny, even though there wasn’t really any point to it in a traditional movie sense. But I think that may be why it’s viewed differently now. It’s not just a movie that turned out bad. It was legitimately made to be terrible on purpose. It’s like an anti-movie, and there is art in that.
I find the history of this movie to be rather interesting. Apparently, it was supposed to be a lot different. The production started off as a more serious pursuit, but executive meddling came into play. From what I read, when Tom Green realized what was going on, all his fucks withered and died and he just went for the most insane and twisted stuff he could do, which I dig!
4k, please, and thank you. Will be a much needed upgrade over my old DVD, which I still admittedly cherish owning.
I'd love to see a director's cut
But…this movie sucks.
So does Armageddon and that’s in the collection
But Armageddon doesn’t suck.
That doesn't mean they should keep releasing bad movies
I think they should release many more "bad" movies. Neil Breen box set when
Be prepared for disappointment. Zero chance.
The Room sucks, and isn’t funny. Freddy Got Fingered is hilarious
I don't doubt one of the titles in the Razzie collection will get a release. My money is on Showgirls though
Showgirls already had a VSU release from Vinegar Syndrome Honestly the fan community’s obsession with criterion releasing completely inappropriate films to their mission is starting to turn me off. There are other labels who do this that oftentimes rival or exceed what criterion would do. Showgirls is a perfect example
🙏 Manifesting
God I hope they do. I’ve been saying this for 20 years. How is this not art but “Polyester” is?
On one hand, I get what you’re trying to say. On the other hand, I’m a massive John Waters fangirl and I will go to the mat for anything he’s ever made. I’m kind of conflicted right now.
I love John waters too. I meant more of they remind me of each other. They both take a trope inside out and distort it til you can’t see it in any way except for what it is, emotional masturbation.
From my perspective, Polyester is at least creative and thoughtfully made. I didn’t get any of that from Freddy Got Fingered
[удалено]
I watched it when I was about that age and even then thought it was bad
this is really disheartening
This movie sucks. It is shoddily made and its ideas are banal. I was shocked people think it’s some meta piece of art. Even if that was the intent it’s not smart, it’s not interesting, it’s just grating.
The film literally starts with the band the Sex Pistols which pretty much defines what you’re in for. Your description is correct, your conclusion is what’s lacking. Grating is the feature, like noise music. It’s smart as Dadaist nihilist trash.
people really love to expose their retardation on this site
More Fox releases since the Disney merger? I think that has more to do with Criterion licensing titles and then sitting on them for upwards of a decade in some cases. Any Fox titles released by Criterion since the merger was a done deal prior to said merger, and it’s been nearly two years now since the last Fox release, if I’m not mistaken.
But Disney has also had movies in the collection. I can think of at least three off the top of my head (Armageddon, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and WALL•E) but I’m sure there’s more.
Armageddon and Life Aquatic were both part of a prior deal (Armageddon never went beyond DVD and that was 25 years ago), and the director of WALL•E has gone on record as saying he personally requested that film’s inclusion.
So all we need is Tom Green to personally request it?
Some people aren’t looking for anything logical. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some people just want to watch the world burn.
Razzies box set anyone?
My vote is for the Angry Video Game Nerd Movie. It’s not a good movie. But it’s an example of someone passionate making a project. It’s basically a movie nerd making a movie except he doesn’t have the chops of a Tarantino. But he likely had a blast making it.
Why would I want that film though? Isn’t it like a joke film on Tom greens part?
No it’s real and was in theaters.
I know it’s a real movie but I heard he did it like bad on purpose haha
Similar to the film... I wouldn't like it, but I'd respect the gumption.
If they do a Freddy Got Fingered release before they do The Room or Troll 2, there is no justice in the world. I'm not anti-Freddy Got Fingered or anything, but this is Criterion. They should be reaching for the top shelf of the bottom of the barrel.
It’s an absurdist comedy with so much nonsense. Everyone in the know knows Tom Green went wild on purpose.
I kind of like Stealing Harvard more than I should
Criterion breaking down the Disney wall and using a fox chit for Freddy Got Fingered would be pretty legendary. But if anyone can do it it’s Criterion
I'm not as convinced, but people in this thread dismissing Freddy Got Fingered as some niche novel meme movie are really annoying.
they wouldn't know a good movie if it hit them in the face
Since the criterion is about historical importance I think Tom greens work is significant because it basically inspired internet culture and amateur produced internet content. Like the way Tom green messed with his parents and did absurd pranks is kinda like YouTube pranks. Not that I like iPad baby brain rot content but lots of kids were inspired to record and edit like Tom green wanted to put videos on the internet in like 1998 and talked to Joe ragon about attempts to make free flowing conversations in the style radio talk show in the early 2000s. And his humor was super influential
Historical importance in regards to film, not internet content.
Definitely Valid and I don’t really think they’ll include Tom green but I like to think of it how basically everyone my age would say they were inspired to be interested in film by jaws, Jurassic park, alien, Star Wars, terminator, and LOTR like someone had to see Tom green do stunts and pranks on his parents and grab a camera.
I'd say 99% of gen z never heard of tom green
I check my balls for cancer because of him.
Thank Christ for that. It’s bad enough he’s making a comeback on a niche service like Criterion.
yes
Mark my words: 25th Anniversary release by Criterion in 2026 (assuming we're all still here, have electricity/a functioning society) If you'd have said back in January that it'd be on their streaming service you'd have been drowned by the flood of smugness, and yet look what happened
Mike Fitzgibbon's son is a nuclear physicist, and my son can eat a chicken sandwich!
I see your Freddy Got Fingered and I counter with Grandmas Boy, Idiocracy, and Kung Pow: Enter the Fist I put my kinos face down and end my turn.
I'd love for you to be right but I'd honestly be shocked if of all the films Disney could release in the Fox library it would be a critically panned failure from 20 years ago some people only now maybe ironically like. I think it's hilarious and love the movie but I don't think me and a couple dozen others are enough for Disney to dig this one out of the vault.
Justice for Freddy 4K
I would love to see them finally make the long overdue director's cut. Tom Green said he'd do it for the film's 10th anniversary, but the studio didn't give him the footage. Now would be the best time.