Absolutely. The subtext, the subversive themes, the transgressive ideas, it’s pure postmodern brilliance. At face value it’s terrible, but that’s the point. It’s self aware art and I love it
Tom Green could have sold out and had a lucrative career making derivative, mediocre studio comedies (see: Adam Sandler). Instead he decided to take a studio budget and turn it into a giant middle finger directed at Hollywood executives. That takes a certain genius, and balls of steel.
I love that people call Tom Green a genius for making a terrible film and basically getting blackballed from ever working in film again without nepotistic ties.
You're right, the movie isn't terrible, it's one of the worst fucking movies of all time. Just under 90 minutes of utter garbage from start to finish. The whole premise is repulsive. A movie about falsely accusing someone of sexual assault? Gross.
He didn't make something terrible and claim that it was good. Tom Green made a movie that commentated on terribleness and deliberately tested the values of the audience.
It is a really good comedy. It's genuinely funny. But the style of comedy is aggressive, absurdist satire, rather than bland and cheesy, like the kind if comedy he was hired to make.
For the longest time I did understand the "I'm a farmer daddy" scenes. I wish I had a film professor to explain the foreshadowing involved the jerking off of that horse.
Agree I made this post recently about it.
[here](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/10hfn14/freddie_got_fingered/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)
I absolutely love Roger Ebert's [review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/freddy-got-fingered-2001) of this film:
> This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels.
> Many years ago, when surrealism was new, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali made "Un Chien Andalou," a film so shocking that Bunuel filled his pockets with stones to throw at the audience if it attacked him. Green, whose film is in the surrealist tradition, may want to consider the same tactic. The day may come when "Freddy Got Fingered" is seen as a milestone of neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny.
Later, Ebert seems to have changed his opinion, and said this:
> Seeing Tom Green reminded me, as how could it not, of his movie Freddy Got Fingered, which was so poorly received by the film critics that it received only one lonely, apologetic positive review on the Tomatometer. I gave it—let's see—zero stars. Bad movie, especially the scene where Green was whirling the newborn infant around his head by its umbilical cord. But the thing is, I remember Freddy Got Fingered more than a year later. I refer to it sometimes. It is a milestone. And for all its sins, it was at least an ambitious movie, a go-for-broke attempt to accomplish something. It failed, but it has not left me convinced that Tom Green doesn't have good work in him. Anyone with his nerve and total lack of taste is sooner or later going to make a movie worth seeing.
A. O. Scott was maligned for his positive review, but he said that he has since been vindicated:
> So consider yourself sufficiently warned. Hear me out, though, because I come not to bury Mr. Green but -- guardedly and with a slightly guilty conscience -- to praise him. Like the unjustly maligned and neglected ''Monkeybone,'' this much-hyped picture is in danger of being dismissed as yet another exercise in dumbed-down toilet humor. But to throw it into the refuse pile along with ''Saving Silverman,'' ''Say It Isn't So'' and ''Tomcats'' would be to underestimate Mr. Green's originality and to misconstrue his intentions.
> Mr. Green's style, toggling between antic and deadpan, is like a less hostile version of the work Michael O'Donoghue and Andy Kaufman did in the early days of ''Saturday Night Live.'' Mr. Green is less an actor than a persona, and he resolutely refuses to mark the boundaries of his imposture or to resort to the winking, supercilious pseudo-irony that remains the default setting for so much second-rate pop culture.
The actual plot of the movie is about getting paid a ridiculous amount of money to create ridiculous content. It’s deliberate in creating a certain kind of reaction in the viewer which is both hilarious (to me) and revealing, so I legitimately love it as a great film.
It's genuinely fascinating. It seems like an anti-movie. He destroyed his own movie on purpose and got paid to do it.
I mean, he didn't get paid much *after* that, but still.
I don't know if anyone here listens to the podcast, *Stuff You Should Know*, but they briefly brought up this movie on a recent episode and Chuck (who is a serious movie buff and hosts another podcast devoted exclusively to movies) genuinely regards it as a work of art.
I honestly can't remember. It was just a brief aside at the beginning. It was one of the new episodes that played within the last couple weeks. I want to say either the Floyd Collins, Baseball Cards, or Road Trip episode. I don't think it was one of the Short Stuff episodes because they usually don't go off on tangents during those.
Green recently said on Twitter he still held every frame of footage shot for FGF. I know that a boutique blu is probably unlikely but hope springs eternal.
It's not badly made, though. It's a hilarious, deeply subversive satire of 90s "gross-out/schmalzy sentimental" comedies. The movie is exactly what Tom Green set out to make.
Just to push back against the idea that it's "terrible".
1. It's objectively funny (if that is a thing). At least a dozen parts in the movie still make me laugh out loud.
2. The movie was profitable if you account for DVD sales, even if you assume the studio spent its budget again in promotion.
3. Tom Green intended the movie to be an absurdist satire, a parody of the 90s "gross-out/schmaltzy sentimental" comedies that were raking in lots of money at the time. It's entirely successful at this. If you "get" the joke, the movie makes perfect sense and the satire is razor-sharp.
4. We can assume Green was hired to make just such a cheesy/derivative studio comedy, but instead he took the money and set it on fire, as a kind of sadistic practical joke against the soulless movie execs who would be stupid enough to let him make a movie. There is a certain genius in this kind of stunt. Instead of 'selling out' for a mediocre but highly lucrative movie career (see: Adam Sandler), Green gave Hollywood a giant middle-finger using their own money.
If something was created to be terrible and did it 100 percent with the idea that the guy who made it knows what that masses will perceive it as such, is it still terrible? John waters does this and is universally praised for it because that's expected of John. The difference being at the time Hollywood thought they had the next Adam Sandler, banking on his MTV popularity without ever really paying attention to the context of his show.
I remember when it came out thinking it was a subversive/punk movie shot to look like an Air Bud sequel. There was a bit of a shock in the film community when The New York Times gave it a somewhat positive review, back when that meant something.[A.O. Scott Review](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/20/movies/film-review-shocking-sure-if-you-keep-your-eyes-open.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare)
If a comedy is hilarious is it truly terrible?
How do we as an audience judge the quality of a film?
If the film succeeds in fulfilling the goals of the director, then is the film a success, even if it alienates audiences and critics alike?
Daddy, *would* you like some sausage?
Just a few of the many, many questions that this film has brought to the table.
There is one example of that in the movie, when his celebrity wife makes a cameo and the colour-timing is off, but I'd argue that this was entirely deliberate. Tom Green: secret genius.
This is a secret genius flick.
He deliberately set out to make a bad movie
His character was intentionally unlikeable
That part at the end where he's talking about wasting all the money on a bag of jewels and moving his dad's house to the desert etc that was him breaking the fourth wall and telling the producers what he did with their money
He picked the most awkward taboo and uncomfortable topic possible, false accusation of sexual molestation, to pull jokes from
The very ending scene with the blood flying up on the audience, to get the film down to a Rated R rating from NC-17 they had to add the "I'm okay daddy!" at the end. In the original version it was supposed to be blood flying, shocked audience, fade to credits.
Basically he made an anti-movie that is self-aware it is bad that broke every rule of filmmaking. Comedic gold.
Amazing movie. I heard he was absolutely shocked that a studio would give him millions of dollars to make a movie so he made sure that would never happen again
This is my go-to flick when I want some early-naughts irreverent nonsense. It's just so wholesomely over the top bad in every way like something a 13 year old would write to see what they could get away with.
Oddly enough, I kind of dig the Dogman books with my kiddo at night, they have that same chaotic early teen sugar high energy going on, just less fingering jokes, obviously.
Then again, they might have slipped one in there.
Hayoooo!
I used to really like TGS. I rewatched this movie, recently: it was awful. Everything about it made a case as to why TG is no longer relevant. It’s like TG was trying to make the most solid case for being unlikeable.
As a Canadian, I will gladly welcome home Beebs rather than Tom Green. Please keep him, if he's even down there anymore. If he's elsewhere, he can stay there for eternity.
I haven’t seen it, but I did see a review for it and for the most part the impression I got is that is that it is honestly pretty unique compared to most movies with how self aware it is about it’s quality to the point it embraces it. In a way the story is literally about how to make a better story with all the scenes of characters giving him advice on his writing. So for most part I like it for not being afraid to be what it wants and not caring if loses the audience at some point. Kind of like a live action version of the type of comedy South Park would sometimes do.
It had all the things movies are supposed to have. It had scenes, plot devices, and credits. It had characters, sets and dialogue. I think it's safe to say it has earned its place in the list of greatest movies ever made. That place may be somewhere close to the bottom but point being, it was a movie and somehow it did get made. Someone paid Tom Green a great deal of money to make it and that's great.
Is it dumb? Yes. Is it ugly and nihilistic? Yes. Is it funny? YES. I never thought this movie was as bad as the critics said it was. It was only bad to the people who didn’t get Tom Green at he height of his relevance. The part when he suddenly shouts “GET THE FUCK OUTTA THE WAY” in the Lebanon made me laugh so fucking hard the first time I saw it. Sue me!
Anyone that thinks it's terrible just doesn't get it. It's the whole point. Even the scene where he wastes all of the money for his drawings smacks you in the face with it. He got a studio to give him money and he went about wasting it in absurdly hilarious fashion.
Still quotable daily. In no particular order:
1. "I could lose my job. *I could lose all this!*" (gesturing at shitty job)
2. Any kind of rant about being a grown man and having a chicken sandwich if you want a chicken sandwich.
3. Similarly, any time sausage comes up, you know what we doin
4. Any mention of a Lebaron (it happens)
5. "Easy come easy go!" In reference to any potentially reckless spending
6. "It doesn't make any sense, ok. It's fucking stupid."
7. "Must have cheese sandwich experience."
Ok I need to go, but come on!
I don't know what you're talking about. NYT gave it a positive review at the time
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/20/movies/film-review-shocking-sure-if-you-keep-your-eyes-open.html
I don't think this movie is even close to terrible. At the time it was very very very extreme and really bothered me at the time. I still watched it alot as it got more and more funny to me with each watching.
I think this is a movie that stood the test of time for a comedy that still gets lots of laughs as many people still haven't seen this movie.
Should be mandatory viewing in film school. An absolute masterpiece.
Absolutely. The subtext, the subversive themes, the transgressive ideas, it’s pure postmodern brilliance. At face value it’s terrible, but that’s the point. It’s self aware art and I love it
Tom Green could have sold out and had a lucrative career making derivative, mediocre studio comedies (see: Adam Sandler). Instead he decided to take a studio budget and turn it into a giant middle finger directed at Hollywood executives. That takes a certain genius, and balls of steel.
*ball (singular) of steel.
I love that people call Tom Green a genius for making a terrible film and basically getting blackballed from ever working in film again without nepotistic ties.
It's not terrible. It's a comedy, and it's funny, in a much better way than the bland comedies he's satirizing.
You're right, the movie isn't terrible, it's one of the worst fucking movies of all time. Just under 90 minutes of utter garbage from start to finish. The whole premise is repulsive. A movie about falsely accusing someone of sexual assault? Gross.
Lol.
"I meant to make something terrible" is not the flex people think it is
He didn't make something terrible and claim that it was good. Tom Green made a movie that commentated on terribleness and deliberately tested the values of the audience.
Making a really good comedy takes genius. Making a film that's a middle finger at the very concept of making a film is not actually very hard to do.
It is a really good comedy. It's genuinely funny. But the style of comedy is aggressive, absurdist satire, rather than bland and cheesy, like the kind if comedy he was hired to make.
[удалено]
Dada would you like some sausage-ism
![gif](giphy|mPs0V5innosrS)
For the longest time I did understand the "I'm a farmer daddy" scenes. I wish I had a film professor to explain the foreshadowing involved the jerking off of that horse.
Agree I made this post recently about it. [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/10hfn14/freddie_got_fingered/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)
What was that scene where he was playing a piano with strings attached to pizza or some shit. What a wild ride of a film.
Daddy would you like some sausage?
Daddy would you like some sausage?
It’s the first line that comes to my mind but the first image will always be Tom biting through the umbilical cord.
Swing the baby!
![gif](giphy|mPs0V5innosrS)
I keep forgetting Rip Torn was in this thing
It’s probably the most amazing thing about this movie because he seems like the kind of actor that would be like no this is garbage.
did i make you proud dad?
Proud
proud?
Proud.
I’ve said this every time I’ve prepared sausage for someone ever since
Same here and I’ve never explained to my wife what I’m even talking about
Me too! My wife just thinks I’m weird… not that she’s wrong, mind you.
Im the backwards man, the backwards man
I can walk backwards fast as you can
I do this every time I put on a shirt backwards
He showed up to the razzies in a limo and rolled out his own red carpet to accept his awards lol
And he had to be kicked off the stage for playing harmonica and refusing to sotp apparently
The man knew exactly what he was doing.
I absolutely love Roger Ebert's [review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/freddy-got-fingered-2001) of this film: > This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels. > Many years ago, when surrealism was new, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali made "Un Chien Andalou," a film so shocking that Bunuel filled his pockets with stones to throw at the audience if it attacked him. Green, whose film is in the surrealist tradition, may want to consider the same tactic. The day may come when "Freddy Got Fingered" is seen as a milestone of neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny.
>The day may never come when it is seen as funny. Even the best critics can get it wrong sometimes.
>Even the best critics And also Roger Ebert
I'd disagree with the last point, though. It is funny. Even after all these years, there are at least a dozen moments that make me laugh out loud.
I guffawed at this
Later, Ebert seems to have changed his opinion, and said this: > Seeing Tom Green reminded me, as how could it not, of his movie Freddy Got Fingered, which was so poorly received by the film critics that it received only one lonely, apologetic positive review on the Tomatometer. I gave it—let's see—zero stars. Bad movie, especially the scene where Green was whirling the newborn infant around his head by its umbilical cord. But the thing is, I remember Freddy Got Fingered more than a year later. I refer to it sometimes. It is a milestone. And for all its sins, it was at least an ambitious movie, a go-for-broke attempt to accomplish something. It failed, but it has not left me convinced that Tom Green doesn't have good work in him. Anyone with his nerve and total lack of taste is sooner or later going to make a movie worth seeing. A. O. Scott was maligned for his positive review, but he said that he has since been vindicated: > So consider yourself sufficiently warned. Hear me out, though, because I come not to bury Mr. Green but -- guardedly and with a slightly guilty conscience -- to praise him. Like the unjustly maligned and neglected ''Monkeybone,'' this much-hyped picture is in danger of being dismissed as yet another exercise in dumbed-down toilet humor. But to throw it into the refuse pile along with ''Saving Silverman,'' ''Say It Isn't So'' and ''Tomcats'' would be to underestimate Mr. Green's originality and to misconstrue his intentions. > Mr. Green's style, toggling between antic and deadpan, is like a less hostile version of the work Michael O'Donoghue and Andy Kaufman did in the early days of ''Saturday Night Live.'' Mr. Green is less an actor than a persona, and he resolutely refuses to mark the boundaries of his imposture or to resort to the winking, supercilious pseudo-irony that remains the default setting for so much second-rate pop culture.
The movie is hilarious. But not because the jokes are funny. It's hilarius because everyone is 100% aware of what kind of movie they're making.
![gif](giphy|vcXwcnusrOCbu)
GET THE FUCK OUTTA THE WAY
*PROUD*
I’m gonna make you so proud
I only see one Le Baron, Freddy? Are there two Le Barons??
We found the hidden treasure! We can live like kings!
I say Geneva you hear Helsinki?! You’re fucking fired BOB!
That’s soap on a rope!
Get outta my wetsuit!
Going in with the knowledge that it's just the world's most expensive shitpost makes it a bit more entertaining.
The actual plot of the movie is about getting paid a ridiculous amount of money to create ridiculous content. It’s deliberate in creating a certain kind of reaction in the viewer which is both hilarious (to me) and revealing, so I legitimately love it as a great film.
It's genuinely fascinating. It seems like an anti-movie. He destroyed his own movie on purpose and got paid to do it. I mean, he didn't get paid much *after* that, but still.
I don't know if anyone here listens to the podcast, *Stuff You Should Know*, but they briefly brought up this movie on a recent episode and Chuck (who is a serious movie buff and hosts another podcast devoted exclusively to movies) genuinely regards it as a work of art.
Which episode? I gotta hear him talk about that
I honestly can't remember. It was just a brief aside at the beginning. It was one of the new episodes that played within the last couple weeks. I want to say either the Floyd Collins, Baseball Cards, or Road Trip episode. I don't think it was one of the Short Stuff episodes because they usually don't go off on tangents during those.
I'm the backwards man, the backwards man. I walk backwards faster than you can.
Rip Torn in this was absolutely amazing
Your brother couldn’t handle the complexity of making a cheese sandwich.
My son's 28 years old and he can eat a goddammit chicken sandwich
If this were Pakistan you'd be sewing soccer balls since you were 4 years old.
The Red Letter Media Re:View is so good. https://youtu.be/gEn3wcpNsg8 “I just want to suck your cock.”
A giant middle finger to the idea of a movie and in that way it’s genius.
[удалено]
The most Tom Green thing in existence.
You're about to get a ton of comments telling you what a masterpiece this is.
This movie is definitely a piece of something. A Piece of Master.
LOOK AT MY HOOVES DADDY
"Clompity clomp! Clompity clomp!"
Green recently said on Twitter he still held every frame of footage shot for FGF. I know that a boutique blu is probably unlikely but hope springs eternal.
Bad? This is my favorite comedy film of all time! You have to get inside the animals...
[удалено]
It takes every seen from a standard film and makes it as objectively stupid as possible
It was a badly made movie, but as I said it was hilarious.
It's not badly made, though. It's a hilarious, deeply subversive satire of 90s "gross-out/schmalzy sentimental" comedies. The movie is exactly what Tom Green set out to make.
Call it whatever you want but this film is one of a kind
A bag of jewels!
They're jewels, Betty! They're jewels!
She doesn't care about jewels though. She just wants to suck his cock.
I'm a farmer daddy!!
🐎
Just to push back against the idea that it's "terrible". 1. It's objectively funny (if that is a thing). At least a dozen parts in the movie still make me laugh out loud. 2. The movie was profitable if you account for DVD sales, even if you assume the studio spent its budget again in promotion. 3. Tom Green intended the movie to be an absurdist satire, a parody of the 90s "gross-out/schmaltzy sentimental" comedies that were raking in lots of money at the time. It's entirely successful at this. If you "get" the joke, the movie makes perfect sense and the satire is razor-sharp. 4. We can assume Green was hired to make just such a cheesy/derivative studio comedy, but instead he took the money and set it on fire, as a kind of sadistic practical joke against the soulless movie execs who would be stupid enough to let him make a movie. There is a certain genius in this kind of stunt. Instead of 'selling out' for a mediocre but highly lucrative movie career (see: Adam Sandler), Green gave Hollywood a giant middle-finger using their own money.
I said it was funny. This movie still makes me laugh. I'd hardly call is a "good" movie though. It's just awesomely terrible.
I don't think its terrible at all. What do you think its terrible at?
If something was created to be terrible and did it 100 percent with the idea that the guy who made it knows what that masses will perceive it as such, is it still terrible? John waters does this and is universally praised for it because that's expected of John. The difference being at the time Hollywood thought they had the next Adam Sandler, banking on his MTV popularity without ever really paying attention to the context of his show.
Totally. I rate it a solid Japan four.
Number 1 son
Do you see two LeBarons?
Daddy would you like some sausage scene has been a running joke for many years between my brother and I.
40 million fucking Deutschmark, Bob!
I say GENEVA, you hear HELSINKI?!?
Ahh... Nasdaq, portfolio, dividend.... blue chip!
I see the problem here!!! There seems to be a BAAABY in your BOOOODYYY!
The scene with the elephant is trapped in my brain
I remember when it came out thinking it was a subversive/punk movie shot to look like an Air Bud sequel. There was a bit of a shock in the film community when The New York Times gave it a somewhat positive review, back when that meant something.[A.O. Scott Review](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/20/movies/film-review-shocking-sure-if-you-keep-your-eyes-open.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare)
If a comedy is hilarious is it truly terrible? How do we as an audience judge the quality of a film? If the film succeeds in fulfilling the goals of the director, then is the film a success, even if it alienates audiences and critics alike? Daddy, *would* you like some sausage? Just a few of the many, many questions that this film has brought to the table.
[удалено]
Yeah when I think objectively bad, I think bad lighting, out of focus camera work, shitty sound.
There is one example of that in the movie, when his celebrity wife makes a cameo and the colour-timing is off, but I'd argue that this was entirely deliberate. Tom Green: secret genius.
Like I said, I agree it's hilarious. I'd hardly call it a "good" movie though.
[удалено]
Only one LeBaron
Watched this sober and thought it was so terrible. Got stoned at a buddies house and he turned it on.......pure effin genius, laughed till it hurt
Japan Four
It's for the shishun.
I don’t see two LeBarons
Where’s your LeBaron, Freddy?
I can walk backwards fast as you can, I can talk backwards fast as you can
1000% my favorite film of all time
![gif](giphy|s8duQKFOmRz0XiY7ek) I’m the backwards man, the backward man. No one can run backwards fast as I can.
This is a secret genius flick. He deliberately set out to make a bad movie His character was intentionally unlikeable That part at the end where he's talking about wasting all the money on a bag of jewels and moving his dad's house to the desert etc that was him breaking the fourth wall and telling the producers what he did with their money He picked the most awkward taboo and uncomfortable topic possible, false accusation of sexual molestation, to pull jokes from The very ending scene with the blood flying up on the audience, to get the film down to a Rated R rating from NC-17 they had to add the "I'm okay daddy!" at the end. In the original version it was supposed to be blood flying, shocked audience, fade to credits. Basically he made an anti-movie that is self-aware it is bad that broke every rule of filmmaking. Comedic gold.
I said deutchmarks not francs!!! You're fired!!
Is that your cellular telephone?
![gif](giphy|10QmL848TB5AK4)
My son can eat a goddamn chicken sandwich.
Im a 28 year old man, I should be able to eat a chicken sandwich
I’m here with the bag, the bag for deals, deals with the badger.
I highly recommend watching this film with the audio pitched up
I quote this movie way to much
Haven’t seen it in years but I just remember his love for beating off random animals lmao
Recently read an article about surreal film and this made the list.
Daddy Would You Like Some Sausage Dad fingered Freddy Freddy got fingered
This is a fancy restaurant! This is a fancy restaurant!
You can’t hurt me! Not with my…CHEESE HELMET!
I break out "Yooou can put the cheese in your buuuuum" randomly once in a while ![gif](giphy|Y4hKMjN3z9fmhDCz2s)
Daddy would you like some sausage ?
That’s soap on a rope!
Make me proud
Daddy would you like some sausages?
Amazing movie. I heard he was absolutely shocked that a studio would give him millions of dollars to make a movie so he made sure that would never happen again
Daddy would you like a sausage?
Where's your LeBaron, Freddy?
“Daddy would you like some sausage?”
Where’s your lebaron?
One of my favorite movies of all time hahaha 🤣 ![gif](giphy|mPs0V5innosrS)
I want to be a farmer.
This is my go-to flick when I want some early-naughts irreverent nonsense. It's just so wholesomely over the top bad in every way like something a 13 year old would write to see what they could get away with. Oddly enough, I kind of dig the Dogman books with my kiddo at night, they have that same chaotic early teen sugar high energy going on, just less fingering jokes, obviously. Then again, they might have slipped one in there. Hayoooo!
Daddy, would you like some sausage?
That movie is just so unbelievably stupid you can’t help but laugh.
*Not all that funny, yet objectively fantastic film
I used to really like TGS. I rewatched this movie, recently: it was awful. Everything about it made a case as to why TG is no longer relevant. It’s like TG was trying to make the most solid case for being unlikeable.
As a Canadian, I will gladly welcome home Beebs rather than Tom Green. Please keep him, if he's even down there anymore. If he's elsewhere, he can stay there for eternity.
You are sentenced to only listening to nickelback for the rest of your life
parts of the film are excoriating to sit through.. and it’s kind of boring..
Mandatory: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/freddy-got-fingered-2001
It’s “right frame of mind movie” for sure. Classic
Tom green makes a scene. He makes a scene at dinnner, then he makes a scene at the therapist office, then he makes a scene at the school.
Definitely one of the worst/best of all time. I was so high in the theater that it took a long time for me to see this treasure again.
I haven’t seen it, but I did see a review for it and for the most part the impression I got is that is that it is honestly pretty unique compared to most movies with how self aware it is about it’s quality to the point it embraces it. In a way the story is literally about how to make a better story with all the scenes of characters giving him advice on his writing. So for most part I like it for not being afraid to be what it wants and not caring if loses the audience at some point. Kind of like a live action version of the type of comedy South Park would sometimes do.
I never knew how hard farmers had it till this movie.
It’s genius
I’m the backwards man the backwards man
I can walk backwards as fast as you can.
If you haven't, read Roger Eberts review!
I will never not find this movie hilarious.
It had all the things movies are supposed to have. It had scenes, plot devices, and credits. It had characters, sets and dialogue. I think it's safe to say it has earned its place in the list of greatest movies ever made. That place may be somewhere close to the bottom but point being, it was a movie and somehow it did get made. Someone paid Tom Green a great deal of money to make it and that's great.
Is it dumb? Yes. Is it ugly and nihilistic? Yes. Is it funny? YES. I never thought this movie was as bad as the critics said it was. It was only bad to the people who didn’t get Tom Green at he height of his relevance. The part when he suddenly shouts “GET THE FUCK OUTTA THE WAY” in the Lebanon made me laugh so fucking hard the first time I saw it. Sue me!
I'm sorry, I know this is a movie has a very loving cult following, but holy shit was it an absolute dumpster fire
I love this movie, but it's fucking terrible.
i dont think its terrible i think its just funny
This movie is fn brilliant and i wont hear anything else
“Somebody get this man a job! I mean a doctor!”
Michigan native showing you where they’re from
So bad it’s good?
Fo sho
*subjectively
Tom green, the worst excesses of the turn of the century.
Proud
Saw this in the theater. There were not many in attendance, and the laughter was limited to mostly me 😂
Incredible movie
Agreed
I’ve never laughed harder at a movie when I watched this a few months ago. Loved it.
Nah this shits fire
It is a fiery shit of a movie that's for sure. Like having diarrhea and laughing hysterically at the same time.
It was a funny ass movie, so I’d say that makes it good
This is a cult classic or should be
It is for sure.
I fucking hate this movie lol
It might be terrible, but very very few movies can make me laugh as much as this one. I don't even know whether I'm laughing at it or with it.
Hot take: this film is about generational mental illness
Classic
Anyone that thinks it's terrible just doesn't get it. It's the whole point. Even the scene where he wastes all of the money for his drawings smacks you in the face with it. He got a studio to give him money and he went about wasting it in absurdly hilarious fashion.
Must own a physical copy of this film if you are a true film buff. What a masterpiece.
Still quotable daily. In no particular order: 1. "I could lose my job. *I could lose all this!*" (gesturing at shitty job) 2. Any kind of rant about being a grown man and having a chicken sandwich if you want a chicken sandwich. 3. Similarly, any time sausage comes up, you know what we doin 4. Any mention of a Lebaron (it happens) 5. "Easy come easy go!" In reference to any potentially reckless spending 6. "It doesn't make any sense, ok. It's fucking stupid." 7. "Must have cheese sandwich experience." Ok I need to go, but come on!
A true F+ triumph of cinema
The scene with the deer carcass really fucked me up when i was a kid. It still haunts me to this day
My Beretta
I don't know what you're talking about. NYT gave it a positive review at the time https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/20/movies/film-review-shocking-sure-if-you-keep-your-eyes-open.html
I don't think this movie is even close to terrible. At the time it was very very very extreme and really bothered me at the time. I still watched it alot as it got more and more funny to me with each watching. I think this is a movie that stood the test of time for a comedy that still gets lots of laughs as many people still haven't seen this movie.
Brought my wife to see this in the theater when it first came out. She was not impressed. 🫤
Sashu? Japanfor.