L'irrésistible North

It is an ok family movie not bad but that good, beautiful story abot family love, the film has many overreaction silly parts to make it works but still in general its good because its talks about loving your family

I saw this movie when I was little, so maybe that's why I like it so much. Plus I love Elijah Wood in his younger days, like in Huck Finn and Forever Young. I think he's hilarious in this movie, and the movie is hilarious. I just saw it last night for the first time in years, and laughed so hard. I'm a big fan of Bruce Willis, and remembering he was in this movie was a big plus. Maybe it's one of those movies where you either love it or you hate it. It's fun and light-hearted and entertaining. I personally recommend it if you're ever bored and in need of something care-free and entertaining! I don't think you'll be disappointed, if you don't take it too seriously.

Wow this movie was bad. I heard Siskel and Ebert slandering it when I was younger...and I was thinking that it couldn't possibly be that bad. Well,...I was wrong. Elijah Wood plays a boy who doesn't like his parents because they don't let him do everything that he wants to. She he decides to take them to court. And the suprising thing is that he actually wins. Kids don't get out of their homes when their parents are molesting them, beating them, and neglecting them, and North gets out because his parents don't let him run wild like he doesn't have any? The movie is just lame. Maybe it's amusing to 10 year olds who think that parents should let them do whatever they want, but the world just isn't like that. So get over it. The only good thing about this movie...of which many other commentaries have mentioned, was Bruce Willis in the pink bunny suit. I bet he will never live that down. He's probably looking back on this movie and crying. It was nice to see him in a 'family' movie. 2 out of 10. The 2 points are for the bunny costume.

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.

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.