North

Why does everyone slam this movie?????I liked it!! What were the critics expecting? Oscar worthy stuff?? I mean, obviously it's not. But that doesn't mean it's not enjoyable. That's one reason why I hate critics. They're mean. I only watched this movie because of Elijah Wood (I love him!!), and I wasn't expecting it to be that good, but I was surprised!! In a good way. So if you want to see this movie, don't listen to the critics!!! Use your own judgement, people. That's all.

Luv, Farfalla Dolce

By the way, about the swearing and stuff in the movie, is it reall that bad? I mean, as if kids who watch the movie don't use them already. Seriously people, just think about it!! It was a cute movie, let's leave it at that.

When "North" came out, it got a scathing review in Portland's newspaper The Oregonian (I found this out several years later, as I didn't know about the movie's release at the time), and Siskel & Ebert named it the worst movie of 1994 (I knew about this at the time). Even the previous reviewer on IMDb.com called it the worst movie ever.

When I saw it a few months after Siskel & Ebert named it the worst flick of 1994, I couldn't understand why people blasted it so. Granted, it wasn't a masterpiece by any stretch - we expect really good movies from a director like Rob Reiner - but it was interesting if absolutely nothing else. Featuring the title character (Elijah Wood) getting a divorce from his parents and traveling the world looking for new ones, I guess that it was little more than a way to pass time. Perhaps "North" had little more to show for itself than a giant cast: Bruce Willis, Jason Alexander, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Dan Aykroyd, Graham Greene, Kathy Bates, Alan Arkin, and even a very young Scarlett Johansson. But when you get right down to it, a giant cast isn't any kind of crime. Like I said, I found the movie interesting if nothing else.

And to the reviewer who called this the worst movie ever, I say this: you don't know the worst movie ever until you've seen the dreadfully boring "Baryshnya-Krestyanka", which I saw while in St. Petersburg, Russia, last semester. If in fact it's based on an Alexander Pushkin novel, then Pushkin must spin in his grave every time someone watches that movie. The only way that I kept sane while watching it was by throwing out comments like on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" (and then when I wrote a review to turn in, I dedicated the review to Bob Denver, who had died a few weeks earlier). My point is, even that last reviewer would have to agree that "North" looks like "Citizen Kane" compared to "Baryshnya-Krestyanka".

So that's my take on everything.

I just thought I would get that confession out of the way and into the open. Yes, I went to see this in theaters twice when I was 11 years old. I could list to you the excuses I have, such as the fact that my parents paid for my ticket, and there were only six theaters in my local multiplex at the time, and I had already seen "Forrest Gump". I could go on. The truth is that when I first saw a matinée showing of this film with a friend, neither of us thought it was a bad movie. Then I went to see another matinée showing a few days later on a rainy day with my brother and a babysitter, and they both hated the film. Not disliked, mind you, but hated it.

They weren't the only ones. In the sixteen years since the film's release, I have heard nothing but bad things about it. It was released on VHS once, never on DVD, and Roger Ebert's review ("I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it") is now more famous than the movie itself.

As a kid, I knew "North" wasn't a perfect film. In fact, its major flaw was (and still is) the major cop-out (and frankly lazy) ending that I won't give away. However, I thought it was enjoyable enough, it had a creative (but highly unrealistic) premise, and I liked (and still like) Elijah Wood. Before seeing the movie again after so many years, I wonder what I missed about it in the first place that other people didn't. After seeing it as a 27 year old, I wonder how I could have missed these things to begin with.

I think what disappointed people the most about this movie was the fact that it had an all-star cast, a likable lead, an accomplished director (Rob Reiner) who had not directed a bad film before this one, and was based on a book written by Alan Zweibel, one of the original Saturday Night Live writers (who also wrote the screenplay). I haven't read that book, but the idea of a child leaving his parents is more sad than funny.

Wood plays a child named North who is a stellar student, athlete, and actor, yet he is worried that his parents don't pay enough attention to him simply because they ignore him while arguing one night at the dinner table. His successful legal divorce from his parents causes a contrived media circus resulting in kids having control over their parents. Such a revolution is spearheaded by North's acquaintance Winchell (Matthew McCurley), a journalist for his school's newspaper who reminded me then of Stuart Minkus from "Boy Meets World" but now reminds me of Dick Cheney. In an even more contrived circumstance, Winchell becomes head of a major corporation, and plots to kill North when he decides to return to his original parents.

Throughout the film, North goes around the world searching for better parents. He stays with various sets of adoptive parents. They include a couple in Texas (Dan Aykroyd and Reba McEntire) who dress like cowboys you find at the Ice Capades, Alaskans (Graham Greene and Kathy Bates) who send their elderly father (Abe Vigoda) out to sea to die in an archaic ritual that hasn't been practiced in 150 years, and Hawaiian parents who are all too eager to show North's rear end on a highway billboard. It makes me sick writing about these jokes, so you can imagine what it's like to watch it.

Seeing this as a kid, I never took these plot points seriously, perhaps because I never thought about divorcing my parents. Seeing it again as an adult, here's what I missed that was so bad about the movie: the awful ethnic stereotyping that came in the form of tasteless one-liners and myopic character depictions. The worst came in the form of Kathy Bates putting on a blackface equivalent to play an Eskimo. I cringe now at the terrible joke made by the Hawaiian Governor Ho (Keone Young) about his wife (Lauren Tom) and her inability to procreate: "Hawaii is a lush and fertile land. In fact, there is only one barren spot on all of our islands. Unfortunately, it's Mrs. Ho.". If I were Mrs. Ho, I would have kicked him in the balls.

We've all done foolish things as children. My foolish thing was the 12 dollars that went to waste from seeing this movie twice (although they were both matinees, so I saved some money). The important thing is that I know better now, and I reviewed this film recently before writing this review. This rule should apply to every amateur critic on this site: the way you remember movies you saw years ago is not the same as the way these movies actually are.

Siskel & Ebert declared "North" the worst movie of 1994, and looking back, their reasoning was good. Is it the worst movie I've ever seen? No. Worse movies came out in 1994 ("It's Pat: The Movie" and "Exit To Eden" come especially to mind), and any movie written or directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer make "North" look like "Citizen Kane", and I doubt Ebert would disagree. However, there's no question that there's only one barren spot in Rob Reiner's directing career. Unfortunately, it's this movie.

Those who argue that North is sexually pornographic or unrealistic or lame don't seem to get the point and present arguments that just sound unfounded and absurd. I really think some people use these film comments as an excuse to vent their frustrations at their spouse or their boss through their ridiculous tirades. I'll try to present an intelligent and useful opinion of this fantastic movie.

Cherubic at 11-ish, Elijah Wood delivers an astounding performance for an actor of his age as North, a model child who doesn't like his parents, not because they "don't let him do everything he wants to," as one reviewer wrote, but because they're negligent and self-absorbed (I believe there is a difference). He wins at court, not because this is a political drama, but because this is a FANTASY. It's a perfect example of Expressionist film: An Everyman character with a journey, a quest to prove something, including a character that represents guidance and purity of thought and mind, with a resolution and a moral. See this film for what it is people. It is a FABLE, the fact that the revolution is led by kids is just a symbol. It could be dogs or infants for that matter. It's not even a fable about negligent parents or abused children, it's about finding out who you are and where you belong. Honestly, it even has spiritual overtones to it.

Bruce Willis I find does his best work opposite kids (check out the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Mercury Rising, the list goes on). The supporting cast as the alternate as well as the original families are top-notch. I particularly enjoyed Jason Alexander, Jon Lovitz, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and Reba McEntire's performances.

What confuses me is how Siskel and Ebert could rate this the worst film of 1994, with its brilliant script, stellar cast and incredible look and feel. I usually agreed with their reviews (that is, until Roeper came along). So see this movie, try not to be overly-intellectual, like I know many people love to be, and try to actually learn something rather than be constantly entertained, although North does both. I strongly recommend this for parents and children alike. The BRIEF language is somewhat offensive, so parents can use discretion if they must.

11/10.

NOTE: Some of you may be offended by the language in this review. If you are, DO NOT see the movie. All the language here is taken directly from the movie.

Roger Ebert "hated, hated, hated" this movie, and while I wouldn't go as far as to say that, this certainly ranks as the worst (by far) Elijah Wood movie on record. The quality of such an actor as Wood or Bruce Willis can't overcome the fact that "North" has absolutely no idea what kind of movie it wants to be.

At first glance, "North" seems to be a kids movie. The plot, in which the title character searches for the ideal parents, is a child's dream. The main characters (except Willis' "guardian angel" role) are either kids or stupid. The message is a simple one about what constitutes a true family, and only a child would be unable to determine the exact outcome within the first thirty minutes of the film. "North" feels like a live-action Saturday morning cartoon.

But do kids movies have sex jokes? Do kids movies talk about men having blood in their stool or boys balls sticking to their legs in hot weather? Do kids movies have children utter words like "asshole"? Do kids movies have the main character apparently get shot in the head? It's one thing to have elements that will appeal to adults, but those elements shouldn't force parents to cover their kids' ears.

North is a bad movie. Parents (and everyone else) be warned.

Grade D- (a few good jokes and the always lovable Wood, but this is a movie that never should have been made)