...when he voted this the absolute worse film of '94?!! He uses the word "hated" over and over in his review. It's a children's film for crying out loud! I really don't find anything offensive about it. If I had kids, I'd much rather they watch this than a lot of other trash out there. Of course, he calls the vile, repulsive "Natural Born Killers" which came out the same year a "masterpiece."
shareOne of the worst films I've seen, period.
shareActually, I actually agree with Roger Ebert about his opinion on North. Seriously, the movie is nothing more than an insult to pretty much everyone worldwide for a variety of reasons.
Why and how? Well, look at The Nostalgia Critic's review.
"While guys hold on to their toys forever, girls soon throw out their playthings."
He was thinking it was an awful, awful movie. And it was.
The jokes were not only unfunny, but PAINFULLY unfunny. Sometimes you just sit there wondering if there was actually even supposed to be a joke. And in many cases ranged from the tasteless ("Hawaii is a lush and beautiful land. In fact, there's only one barren area on all of our islands. Unfortunately, it's Mrs. Ho.") to completely racist (the jokes about Eskimos and the sea ice).
Give to Causes For Free: http://theanimalrescuesite.com
[deleted]
You're insane. Just because its a kid's film, its no excuse to make an unfunny comedy filled with stereotypes and insulting ethics.
I mean, its insulting to even watch clips of it. I didn't like it as a child, but as an adult... I utterly hated it.
Its terrible.
PS: And The Nostalgia Critic is right, Siskel and Ebert were too nice!
You actually care what Ebert says?
Interesting how some people on here use Ebert as 'proof that their opinion is the right one'. My attitude to that is "So that makes two people who don't like this film - who cares? I judge what I like and don't like, not someone else".
Ebert is extremely over-rated and his opinion means squat to me.
SpiltPersonality
[deleted]
People who keep using the word "worst" and other extreme criticisms have to realize that the lowest rated film of the Bottom 100 is rated at 1.4, and the highest rated film of the Bottom 100 is rated at 2.4.
This movie is rated at 4.2. The worst film it ain't. And there are currently 3 films from 1994 in that Bottom 100, so North is not the worst film of 1994 either.
I've noticed in it's voting pattern, an unbalanced number of 1's. That is, you can see a definite curve from 2 through 9, but the 1's and 10's are not extending the curve pattern at their ends, veering off especially for 1's. That indicates that many people are punishing the movie by voting 1, probably on account of its political incorrectness.
Personally, if I found a film to be as bad as some people are claiming for North, I probably would not watch it all the way through.
Ebert's review was HILARIOUS! I haven't seen this movie since I was 7 or 8 when it was on TV, but the review (which I read for the first time a few weeks ago) has made me seek it out again. After my exams are done, I'm definitely setting aside a night for viewing at my place, lol.
"Don't cry, it is to be. In time, I'll take away your miseries and make 'em mine...D'Evils."
That suggests a "so-bad-it's-good" status for North, something that Ebert, in his righteousness, may have overlooked.
shareWell maybe; I'm a bit conflicted over that. From what I remember, it was pretty demeaning of anyone not white, suburban, and middle-class. It would probably be a bit like old Disney movies.
"Don't cry, it is to be; in time I'll take away your miseries and make 'em mine... D'Evils."
...it was pretty demeaning of anyone not white...It made fun of his own white parents, and white Texans also.
Yeah, but in the end, North ends up with his parents and they're shown in a more positive light than all the others. This in mind; the message could be interpreted as "Being white, middle-class, and suburban is boring as hell, but it sure beats being anything else."
"Don't cry, it is to be; in time I'll take away your miseries and make 'em mine... D'Evils."
Okay, let's go blow by blow about why this movie was bad:
* Seriously bad overacting, like the judge for instance
* Really strange jokes "Loosen his pants", many jokes that feel completely flat "He's a big loss" and some that were just plain unfunny "The defence rests".
* Painful stereotyping that even some children would not find funny, particularly the whole floating eskimo thing
* Really What the Hell? moments that came out of nowhere, like the newspaper kid that turns into an evil villain to make lots of money
And finally, the worse thing:
* Making the ENTIRE MOVIE a dream! This is the ultimate copout in stories, makes the reader/viewer wondered why he bothered wasting his time in the story. It's also downright LAZY in terms of storytelling as it shows the writer didn't bother to have a resolution for the story.
Obi-Wan is my hero!
this movie was casted and made super good. the jokes are sometimes a little adult themed and wacky is all. i think its kind of obvious ebert took offense and just over looked how good it was, knowing that the masses would follow his opinion and kill a rare and actual good kids movie.
share