BAD MOVIES THAT SHOULD BE SEEN (20 OF 100)

"North" (1994), Dir: Rob Reiner

 

$40 million in Budget vs. $7,182,747 in Gross

I had seen North when it first came out in theaters in 1994. I was young, but remember enjoying it. Not until doing research had I discovered North is pretty much universally hated as a film. Both Siskel and Ebert nominated it as the worst movie of 1994 and many consider it to be one of the worst movies of all time. Wow... But to be honest, I don't really get the general hatred towards this film. Maybe my standards have dropped with my increasing age, but this is the first movie on my list where I really don't understand why everyone hates it so much.

One of the few things I can think of that I dislike about North is its opening credits. The film opens with a series of soft-focus shots of North's toys on his desk. Personally, I felt it looked cheap and did not reflect the tone of the film at all. If this was Rob Reiner's way of letting us know that we're watching a kid's film, well, thanks. Apart from Bruce Willis' lackluster voice-over work, I can't really say much else that bothered me about this movie, besides the ending, which we'll get to that...

So what is it that bothered everyone else so much about this movie? Well, firstly, the plot centers around a boy-genius named North (Elijah Wood) who is the picture-perfect son and envy of every family, except his own. Unable to cope with his insensitive parents, North decides to become a free-agent, causing a major media stir as the world follows in anticipation of his journey to find more fitting parents...

So, from what I've read from most reviews, people found the plot unrealistic. Okay. But it's a movie, and a kid's movie at that, so it's not really supposed to be realistic, is it? Secondly, North comes across as a bit selfish in his desire to find better parents... but when you have a nagging Julia Louis-Dreyfus (in a terrible wig) as your mother and Jason Alexander as a mid-life crisis father saying that he "found blood in his stool," well, I don't entirely blame him for wanting to explore his options. Thirdly, a lot of critics claimed that the film showed no respect towards parents and didn't treat the family unit as having any value. Maybe so, but if you were a kid growing up in the 90s, it's likely your parents found a great replacement for your babysitter. That's right. Television. And if you're parents were plopped in front of the TV all night until they got back, Bart Simpson and Al Bundy were more likely you're real babysitters; so in terms of knocking down good old family values, North didn't really teach us kids of the 90s anything TV hadn't already...

One thing I will agree with most critics on is that the characters of North are vulgar, callous, and superficial... Can't imagine a movie starring the cast of Seventh Heaven having that many gut-busters. In fact, North's portrayal of children reminded me a lot of the very precocious youngsters of Wes Anderson's movies. Critics also claimed the humor didn't seem intended for children... Maybe it wasn't. The blood-in-the-stool joke made by Jason Alexander did actually throw me off during my most recent viewing, but the 1990 Nicholas Roeg film Witches (based on a book the Roald Dahl) had children being turned to mice and killed, and that holds a rare 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. No one seemed to think that was too much for kids. The only difference between Witches and North is that violence is okay, but toilet humor isn't.

Humor aside, a lot of critics also claimed to find the movie offensive, especially in its stereotyping of, well, Texans, Samoans, The Inuit (featuring Kathy Bates in red face), The Amish, Africans, Chinese, French, etc... but  compared to a modern episode of Family Guy or American Dad, the film's cultural insensitivity is pretty mild by today's standards. For me, the most offensive thing about North was the ending. Turns out that it's all just a dream. Yep. The whole movie, complete with voice-over narration, was just one big dream. North had fallen asleep in the mall and his loving parents have been worried sick about him.The family is reunited and all's well that ends well... Just as an aside, if you've ever take a screenwriting class, that is the first lesson in how not to piss off your audience... not to mention the blatant endorsement for Fedex.

But all in all, it's a bit shocking to me how violently opposed people are to this movie. I didn't think it deserved that much disdain. Am I alone in this?


 
And for your viewing displeasure, Siskel and Ebert's initial and hateful review of North...

BAD MOVIES THAT SHOULD BE SEEN (13 OF 100)

"Orgy of the Dead" (1959), Dir: Stephen C. Apostolof
 

$$ Unknown Budget vs. Non-Existent Gross $$

Regardless that the credits claim this movie was directed by Stephen C. Apostolof, a veteran in the exploitation realm, this film through-and-through belongs to Mr. Edward Wood Jr. Most cinephile's familiarity with Mr. Ed Wood extends as far as Plan 9 From Outer Space or the Tim Burton biopic film, typically claiming him to be the worst director ever. (Clearly, these people have never seen a Michael Bay film.) But Ed Wood gets a bad rap in my opinion. Plan 9 is not nearly as bad as people say. Glen Or Glenda is not that bad either. If David Lynch made a feature in 1953, it would probably look a lot like Glen Or Glenda. But 1959's Orgy of the Dead is a bad movie, but as the headline of these articles states, worth seeing at least.

Opening with your typical Ed Wood introduction, Criswell (an Ed Wood regular) seems pretty drunk as he describes the limbo the film takes place in, slurring his nonsensical monologue. From there, the film follows a husband named Bob (played by Williams Gates, who only ever appeared in two films and looks a lot like Rock Hudson) and his wife Shirley (played by Pat Barrington, no stranger to the horror-smut realm). The married couple survive a car crash only to end up in a strange cemetery somewhere between the realm of the living and the land of the dead. At this place, they meet Criswell, known to his awkwardly comedic minions as The Emperor of the Night, who calls upon the spirits of the dead for "the orgy."

And that's the entire plot. Fawn Silver fills in for Ed Wood regular Vampira, but really nothing much happens outside of that. To save you some disappointment from the film's misleading title, there isn't an orgy. Aside some nudity, probably the most naughty thing that happens in the film is Fawn Silver unbuttoning Shirley's shirt as knife-point (with the fakest knife ever) and then buttoning it back up (oh la la). The rest is pretty much just a series of topless go-go dancers, who all perform the exact same dance for the Emperor, to music that isn't very cryptic or even sexy for that matter. As the happy couple are forced to watch the most boring orgy in the history of the act, a mummy and a wolfman provide laughs (I guess) for dialogue-interludes between dances. One of these interludes results in the greatest movie lines of all time: "Torture! Torture! It pleasures me!" Other than that, nudity is the only thing this movie has going for it and I own dirtier Sears catalogues than this.

It's a good movie to have on at a party, where no one is paying much attention to it, and everyone is extremely drunk. For those few moments you do turn your attention back to the screen, it'll be worth the laugh or two if you can even find it. Happy hunting. No trailer for this film was available, so here is the infamous drunken monologue by Criswell.

And for your viewing displeasure, pretty much anything else that happens in Orgy of the Dead that isn't some mindless go-go ghoul doing the same dance the last girl did. Watch for the great one-liner "Torture! Torture!"