Tom Green’s Lost Masterpiece: The Untold Story of Freddy Got Fingered

by

Tom Green’s movie “Freddy Got Fingered,” which is puzzlingly stupid and acknowledged as being “disconnected,” is often considered one of the most appalling cinematic disasters ever produced. Despite the barrage of negative criticism he faced, there was an unexpected supporter who defended him – none other than Roger Ebert. This movie, filled with disturbing scenes that lacked any cohesive and captivating narrative, left even fans of “The Tom Green Show” perplexed. Sadly, Green’s mainstream directing career came to a swift end shortly after its start.

20-something years after that dreadful incident, I shared an unpleasant yet all-too-familiar tale – the “unedited” version that met its unfortunate end during post-production. Since 2001, my film career has been on a downward spiral, and I’ve found myself more of a jovial relative in the comedy scene, especially during the podcast boom. In one such chat, I casually let slip a bombshell – revealing how my dream project was snatched away at the last moment. New Regency Productions, trying to safeguard their $18 million investment, chose to ignore their prodigy’s ideas and instead heeded those of casual spectators. It seems Ridley Scott and I share a common bond – both of us have experienced having our creative visions hijacked.

If a Film Flops in an Empty Theater, Does Anyone Hear It?

As a regular feature on MTV and a hit among lazy Millennials, it was only a matter of time before Tom Green ventured into filmmaking. His movie, co-starring Rip Torn and featuring brief appearances by Drew Barrymore, fell flat with the audience. The script was heavily criticized, managing to escape being labeled as one of the worst films ever made only because it was too painful for most viewers to watch.

One critic who disliked it was Roger Ebert, a film columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, well known from Siskel and Ebert. When Freddy Got Fingered premiered in theaters, Ebert called it “a 93-minute display of Tom Green performing acts that even a carnival geek would reject.” This assessment set the stage for the next 25 years, with Green’s movie now widely considered as an intentionally aimless joke made by someone high on power and lacking in storytelling skills. However, this was not the case at all. We’ll discuss the surprising turn of events shortly.

A Film So Jarring It Befuddled Roger Ebert

For the sake of clarity, Green asserted that “Freddy Got Fingered” wasn’t a flop and that younger audiences bought tickets to the PG-rated “Crocodile Dundee III” as a sneaky way to get into the theater for his R-rated movie. You got it! Green’s brand of humor didn’t resonate with many, but he certainly left an imprint. A year later, upon reviewing Green’s sanitized sequel, “Stealing Harvard,” in 2002, Roger Ebert offered a retrospective and somewhat enigmatic compliment. While criticizing Green’s recent work, Ebert acknowledged that there was something about his initial project that revealed his distinct comedic talents and hinted at his true potential.

Despite the passage of over a year, I can’t forget ‘Freddy Got Fingered’. I often bring it up in conversation. It holds a special place for me. Despite its flaws, it was an audacious film, a daring attempt to achieve something remarkable. It didn’t succeed, but it hasn’t shaken my belief that Tom Green has the potential to create good cinema. A person with his boldness and lack of restraint is bound to produce a movie worth watching someday.

In his 2001 review, Ebert playfully speculated that “one day, Freddy Got Fingered might be recognized as a landmark in modern-day surrealism.” However, it is safe to say that no one will ever categorize Tom Green and Luis Buñuel together. Indeed, Ebert, who had experienced the challenges of scriptwriting, accurately observed that something was amiss with the film. Interestingly, the version of Freddy Got Fingered that critics viewed and widely panned was not the original that Tom Green had produced.

Why Focus-Testing Groups Are the Bane of Directors Everywhere

Movies undergo focus group testing, intended to represent a diverse audience sample. In an interview on Bert Kreischer’s podcast, Bertcast, in 2020, he attributed the test groups as reasons for his reluctance to fight harder during editing stages when faced with changes. Previously discussed, the focus group phase is often criticized by filmmakers as their creative work gets altered before their eyes. A prime example of this struggle can be seen in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner saga, where studio-imposed edits were not corrected for years.

1. It turned out that these people weren’t the ones he aimed to impress with his work.

2. Interestingly, the raw version was initially shown to Arnon Milchan, head of New Regency Productions, and Green remembers Milchan expressing great admiration for it, stating it ranked among the most outstanding debut films by any writer/director he had ever encountered. Green took this as a promise from the executive producer that he’d preserve the original cut’s authenticity. However, this wasn’t the case.

3. These people weren’t his target demographic. Intriguingly, the unedited version was first presented to Arnon Milchan, head of New Regency Productions, and Green recollects Milchan being highly impressed, saying it ranked among the best debut films by any writer/director he had ever witnessed. Green understood this as a commitment from the executive producer to keep the original cut intact. However, this was not what happened.

Due to a gay kiss scene added two days later, the production company made changes to the movie project. This necessitated rearranging and cutting various remaining scenes, disrupting the original storyline, structure, mood, recurring jokes, and character interactions in the process. Essentially, Tom Green’s independent black comedy, “Freddy Got Fingered,” experienced a “Blade Runner”-style alteration, with no known unedited version available for comparison online. Consequently, the Director’s Cut of this film may become an enigmatic piece of media for future generations to speculate about and romanticize.

Read More

2025-03-24 00:35