MovieChat Forums > Freddy Got Fingered (2001) Discussion > criterion?

criterion?

posted 14 years ago by polysicsarebest
10 replies | jump to latest

Anyone know if we can get Criterion to re-release this film, so that it finally gets the respect it deserves? This is a surreal work of genius -- name another film with scenes as genius as the tape-recorded telephone ringing, and the sausage/piano concert..

I think if this was re-released and marketed as a surrealist film, instead of a "gross-out comedy", it would finally reach the audience it's intended for. Really, this production was nothing short of total genius. Tom Green given millions of dollars to do completely absurd, ridiculous *beep* -- and release it into the mainstream.

Also, let's not forget that it's GENUINELY FUNNY. I can't think of a comedy from the 2000's that actually made me laugh -- let alone has made me laugh every time I've watched it. It's so absurd and ridiculous and awesome in every way.

A masterpiece. Only the enlightened get it for now, though.

[–] sleepingbag 14 years ago

http://cdn.screenjunkies.com/www/sites/default/files/images/freddy-got -fingered.png

_________________________
LIVING IS A SELFISH ACT.
SURVIVAL IS A GENETIC LAW.

[–] polysicsarebest 14 years ago

Did you make that?

BRILLIANT.

[–] sleepingbag 14 years ago

No. I found it on a site that has a bunch of fake criterion covers.

_________________________
LIVING IS A SELFISH ACT.
SURVIVAL IS A GENETIC LAW.

[–] johnmichael-2 14 years ago

It just doesn't seem to be the Criterion type of movie, if you know what I mean. It's not the gross-out content that does it; after all, they recently re-released "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom" and "In the Realm of the Senses." But, as undoubtedly funny as FGF is in parts, and as neato as the surrealism sometimes is, it has other parts that really, really don't work, and as an entire film, it is a mess. "Salo" and "Realm of the Senses" (the latter of which I didn't like, but whatever), however, are both deliberately constructed and made with a certain sense of artistry that Criterion favors.

Proud member of SHREWS (Society for the Honor Required of Eyes Wide Shut)

[–] polysicsarebest 14 years ago

I don't think there is a Criterion "Type of movie", anymore. They used to care about that *beep* I think, but not so much anymore. Any company that puts out garbage like BRAND UPON THE BRAIN! and The Royal Tenenbaums... yeah. Nuff said.

I think FGF will one be recognized as a surreal, absurd classic, like a lost Bunuel film.

[–] SuperSonicX 14 years ago

I loved "The Royal Tenenbaums"..

but on the other hand, they're the same company that (also) put out special edition DVDs for two of Michael Bay's turds.."Armageddon" and "The Rock".

"Don't believe everything you hear on the radio." - Charles Foster Kane

[–] SofaOnWheels 14 years ago

There's worse movies on Criterion. Armageddon, sadly, deserves to be on the list, The Rock just seemed like a packaged deal.

[–] polysicsarebest 13 years ago

BUT Criterion redeemed itself by putting out HAUSU and DOG STAR MAN.

Every company releases bad movies. This is a company that needs money, too.

-
pre·ten·tious: characterized by assumption of dignity or importance.

[–] SofaOnWheels 13 years ago

The back cover of House summed it up perfectly for me, "One of the most exciting cult discoveries in years." I was very happy with it. I haven't seen Dog Star Man yet though, I've heard great things.

[–] BrandNewPoster (6464) 2 months ago

It's currently streaming on the Criterion Channel. Seriously.