NationStates Jolt Archive

A "Napoleon Dynamite" (the movie) discussion. Was the movie "retarded"? was it "pretty much your favorite movie"? Discuss...

A "Napoleon Dynamite" (the movie) discussion. Was the movie "retarded"? was it "pretty much your favorite movie"? Discuss...

It was the worst piece of shite I have EVER seen.

My IQ actually went down alot after I saw that movie.

I loved that movie. It was hilarious. I’d put it up there with Caddy Shack and Animal House as far as funny movies go.

I loved that movie. It was hilarious. I’d put it up there with Caddy Shack and Animal House as far as funny movies go.

What was funny about it exactly?

What was funny about it exactly?
What wasn't funny about it?

I pretty much hate that movie with every inch of my heart.:upyours: napolean

What wasn't funny about it?

Umm everything? It was a film that looked like it was made in the 80s and yet they had the internet, you had characters that look like they got picked up from a bus stop, there was no plot, and the editing probably included the bathroom, toilet paper and the toilet.

I pretty much hate that movie with every inch of my heart.:upyours: napolean
I really can't understand how anybody could think this movie wasn't funny.

It wasn't funny the first time I watched it, it was hillarious the second, and by the forth time it was kind of wearing thin.

It was meant to be a stupid movie. You're supposed to watch it with an open sorta attitude. I think.

Umm everything? It was a film that looked like it was made in the 80s and yet they had the internet, you had characters that look like they got picked up from a bus stop, there was no plot, and the editing probably included the bathroom, toilet paper and the toilet.
Funny movies need a plot?
Caddy Shack.

Funny movies need a plot?
Caddy Shack.

Caddy Shack had more of a plot than this crap-a-rama did.

Umm everything? It was a film that looked like it was made in the 80s and yet they had the internet, you had characters that look like they got picked up from a bus stop, there was no plot, and the editing probably included the bathroom, toilet paper and the toilet.
My thoughts exactly.


I really can't understand how anybody could think this movie wasn't funny.
Simple. I think it was the worst peice of crap that someone has shit out since Tremors 3..or worse yet..Black hole..all fucking horrible movies that need to die.


It wasn't funny the first time I watched it, it was hillarious the second, and by the forth time it was kind of wearing thin.

I couldn't get past the first 15 mins of the film.

It was meant to be a stupid movie. You're supposed to watch it with an open sorta attitude. I think.
Exactly.
Caddy Shack had more of a plot than this crap-a-rama did.
If you're to uptight to laugh at stupid shit then I'd feel sorry for you if i cared.

It was meant to be a stupid movie. You're supposed to watch it with an open sorta attitude. I think.
I concur.
I found the Mexicans and their 'Pimped' car to be hilarious and the Uncle.

Exactly.

If you're to uptight to laugh at stupid shit then I'd feel sorry for you if i cared.

I actually laughed at Caddy Shack, then again Caddy Shack had jokes that made sense.

-No jokes
-Nothing clever
-Nothing original
-No plot

It just wasn't funny because it was, dare I say it, too stupid. What made it worse is that people claim it to be hilarious when at no point in this movie did I laugh. Shit, at least Snakes on a Plane has cg and Samuel Jackson.

1/5
btw I've seen this movie seven times*

*Damn girlfriend

Umm everything? It was a film that looked like it was made in the 80s and yet they had the internet, you had characters that look like they got picked up from a bus stop, there was no plot, and the editing probably included the bathroom, toilet paper and the toilet.

It was an independent film!

I liked it, but the humor was a weeee bit dull..

Umm everything? It was a film that looked like it was made in the 80s and yet they had the internet, you had characters that look like they got picked up from a bus stop, there was no plot, and the editing probably included the bathroom, toilet paper and the toilet.


What's not funny about that?

It was an independent film!

I liked it, but the humor was a weeee bit dull..

independent shouldn't mean shitty. Hell, I've seen tons of independents that were much more funny.

I personally hate this movie. there was maybe one scene where I cracked a smiile. Overall, highly overrated.

independent shouldn't mean shitty. Hell, I've seen tons of independents that were much more funny.

I personally hate this movie. there was maybe one scene where I cracked a smiile. Overall, highly overrated.

You sir.. have made a point.

While I care, was I the only person that completely missed the liger scene?

Never seen it.

This movie was alright; although, it is extremely overrated.

It was a clean movie with "stupid" humor that poked fun at the kids who got poked fun at, and the kids that poked fun. That is it. You see it once, maybe again a night you're really toasted, and then maybe again in a few years. There is no need to go out and buy a Napolean Dynamite poster, a "Lyger" bumpersticker, or a "Vote For Pedro" t-shirt.

You sir.. have made a point.

While I care, was I the only person that completely missed the liger scene?

leave it to drunky over here to make a point Ruffy would agree with :)

leave it to drunky over here to make a point Ruffy would agree with :)

Oh that is a lie!

as probably the forum's only current resident of idaho, i'd just like to point out that the state legislature actually took time to honor the film for it's contribution to idaho culture. and my friends here quoted the thing constantly.

as probably the forum's only current resident of idaho, i'd just like to point out that the state legislature actually took time to honor the film for it's contribution to idaho culture. and my friends here quoted the thing constantly.

The only time we quote the movie around here is when we piss of a girl by calling her "Tina" and proceed to tell her to eat some ham.

as probably the forum's only current resident of idaho, i'd just like to point out that the state legislature actually took time to honor the film for it's contribution to idaho culture. and my friends here quoted the thing constantly.

Wow, how bad of a state do you have to live when when this film is celebrated?

Wow, how bad of a state do you have to live when when this film is celebrated?

idaho. nuff said.

idaho. nuff said.

Something we agree, on, the world will now end.

The Dancing was worth a laugh and the Brother too!

Yeah I thought it was hilarious. But I like retarded funny, and it was clean.

Se some of you don't get why some of us liked the movie, and we don't get why you didn't like it. But for me the same goes for those horribly, crappy, dicusting, grotesque, and imature movies that are ranchy, and have not plot either. Basically an excuse to flush millions down the toilet. American Pie, that White castle movie, and euro trip. See now that I don't get... but I guess some people would rather spend money on those movies than one that is just retarded-funny, and harmless.

It was too tripped out for it's own good- it was pointless, really. About the only amusing part in the whole movie was when Napoleon's uncle hooked up with the girl off the Internet- seeing him completely change his personality for the girl was clever. The rest was just dull.

I may be the only person to say this but Jon Heder was better in The Benchwarmers. Yes he played exactly the same kind of character as Napoleon was, but at least he was balanced out by more "overt" comedians in David Spade and Rob Schneider. "Napoleon" probably could have benefitted from that because contrast creates comedic moments- when the characters are all the same, they don't stick out and thus they're not funny. Good for Heder to get more roles- he deserves them.

I found it hilarious. The uncle in particular, he sounds like conservative Americans do over Vietnam. :rolleyes:

But the great thing about it for me, is the very thing that other people hate - the fact that it is so low-key, so mundane, so undramatic. In other words, the performances are true to life. Because if a film crew was to follow you around and edit together the footage afterwards, it wouldn't be high drama. And the fact that the actors themselves look ordinary, that's an important part of the effect.

I think the problem is, people were expecting another teen comedy. They got quality film-making instead.

I really can't understand how anybody could think this movie wasn't funny.

THANK you. It's pure genius! People who hate it are just too dumb to understand it. *sigh*

That movie fucking sucked. Everyone that worked on that movie should be ethnically cleansed.

It was mildly funny at best, mildly irritating at worst.

I found it hilarious. The uncle in particular, he sounds like conservative Americans do over Vietnam. :rolleyes:

But the great thing about it for me, is the very thing that other people hate - the fact that it is so low-key, so mundane, so undramatic. In other words, the performances are true to life. Because if a film crew was to follow you around and edit together the footage afterwards, it wouldn't be high drama. And the fact that the actors themselves look ordinary, that's an important part of the effect.

I think the problem is, people were expecting another teen comedy. They got quality film-making instead.

Hear, hear. And it really looked like it was about the early 90s, by the way (I'm responding to somebody else, I forget who said that about the 80s)...maybe with a little extra leeway since it was based in a small widwestern town, where pop culture may have moved a little slower.

My second best movie ever...Slingblade will always come first.

Napoleon Dynamite was really good, I think a lot of the people who don't like it don't understand it, the point is to be completely random.

It seems on the internet, you either love it or hate it. In real life, my friends and I agree that the first time it was funny. But if you watch it more than once it just gets more and more painful. My friend, he rented it from Blockbuster, and watched it three times a day for five days. That was about six months ago, and a few weeks ago I realized he had bought it. When I mentioned it to him, he seemed very indifferent towards it. Which means only one thing: Napoleon Dynamite makes kids indifferent towards life. Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to go put on my "Pedro Lacks Political Experiance" shirt.

Hear, hear. And it really looked like it was about the early 90s, by the way (I'm responding to somebody else, I forget who said that about the 80s)...maybe with a little extra leeway since it was based in a small widwestern town, where pop culture may have moved a little slower.

for idaho, we could safely assume anywhere up to about 2010

"Pedro Lacks Political Experiance"

but he is strong on defense

The movie was funny the first time. After that it got old fast.

Napoleon Dynamite is a cult hit, one of the reasons it is funny because really there is no central plot, but it is a very good independent film and has got a huge fanbase.

Are you guys having a killer time?
- Napoleon Dynamite

Napoleon Dynamite was really good, I think a lot of the people who don't like it don't understand it, the point is to be completely random.

I'm fine with randomness, lack of plot, and all that. I enjoyed the movie version of MASH, as well as the plays MASH and Martian Chronicles...
What I didn't like was the lack of anything funny. If it is a comedy, it should have something funny...atleast once. Sorry, but a guy who talks with a weird airy voice and says "gosh" alot isn't something humourous.

I think the movie would have been much better if they had gotten the lag out of it. Most of it left me wondering "how long untill this is over?" because it didn't move. Stories, despite what some would say, need some kind of drive. This had none.


Oh, and having everyone quote it for months got really annoying really fast.

But the great thing about it for me, is the very thing that other people hate - the fact that it is so low-key, so mundane, so undramatic. In other words, the performances are true to life. Because if a film crew was to follow you around and edit together the footage afterwards, it wouldn't be high drama. And the fact that the actors themselves look ordinary, that's an important part of the effect.

I think the problem is, people were expecting another teen comedy. They got quality film-making instead.
How is "boring" translated into "quality"? Part of making a movie that is "quality" is actually showing some moments of interest, not just picking a random week of a random fictional character's life and stitching something together out of that.
If Dr Strangelove had, instead, been made about the night that took place five months before, and followed the characters through a mundane, typical night routines of tooth brushing, furitive masturbation and then passing out on the couch, would that have made it "quality"? No, it would have made it shitty and lame, like Napoleon Dynamite.
In everyone's life, there is at least one period of time that would be interesting to watch as a movie, and purposefully avoiding that point to focus on the 60-80 years of boring shit that they also did is not "quality" of any sort.

How is "boring" translated into "quality"? Part of making a movie that is "quality" is actually showing some moments of interest, not just picking a random week of a random fictional character's life and stitching something together out of that.
If Dr Strangelove had, instead, been made about the night that took place five months before, and followed the characters through a mundane, typical night routines of tooth brushing, furitive masturbation and then passing out on the couch, would that have made it "quality"? No, it would have made it shitty and lame, like Napoleon Dynamite.
In everyone's life, there is at least one period of time that would be interesting to watch as a movie, and purposefully avoiding that point to focus on the 60-80 years of boring shit that they also did is not "quality" of any sort.

Well done, thats the best way i've ever heard this travesty described!

The worst piece of shit that I have ever been forced to sit through, and I went to Iraq AND my missus likes Slipknot. At one point I seriously considered chewing my own arm off simply so the pain would numb the AGONY of that tripe.

If I ever meet the bastard who inflicted it on the world i'll kick him to death.

The mundane does not automatically translate into quality, but when it is done properly, it beats any blockbuster on an intellectual level. There is so much sensationalism in cinema, it is cheapened. So yes, were someone to make a movie about a typical week on an air base, with good acting, it will pwn every war movie out there, because it will say so much more about the human experience. Not everyone goes to a cinema for the equivalent experience of a monkey transfixed by a sparkly object.

The mundane does not automatically translate into quality, but when it is done properly, it beats any blockbuster on an intellectual level. There is so much sensationalism in cinema, it is cheapened.
A movie doesn't have to be sensationalised, but it does require a purpose. It should be self-evident why the movie focused on these characters during this time period, as opposed to any other randomly selected loser during any other day that year.
The question to ask is: "If this were happening to me, would I still remember it 15 years down the road"? Would Napoleon remember Napoleon Dynamite very doubtful. And if he has no real reason to care, why should I?
So yes, were someone to make a movie about a typical week on an air base, with good acting, it will pwn every war movie out there, because it will say so much more about the human experience.
First off, Napoleon Dynamite did not have good acting. Everything about that movie felt like it was being phoned in.
Second, what "human experience"? You mean being hungry, going to get something to eat, and then taking a nap? There is no point to that.
There was nothing to be said in Napoleon, because normal, human life lacks meaning.
Not everyone goes to a cinema for the equivalent experience of a monkey transfixed by a sparkly object.
Nor do I, I watch movies for the same reason I look at art and listen to music: I want to feel something. Byeong-gu of Save the Green Planet was sympathetic, and so I felt the anguish, guilt and insanity that closed around him. On the other hand Napoleon didn't leave me feeling anything other than bored.

I didn't like it or hate it, I just found it kind of boring. There might have been a few amusing moments for me, but for the most part it fell flat. I like things that are stupid and random, and I'm usually easily amused, but Napolean Dynamite was really just 'eh' to me. I think it's majorly over-rated.

A movie doesn't have to be sensationalised, but it does require a purpose. It should be self-evident why the movie focused on these characters during this time period, as opposed to any other randomly selected loser during any other day that year.
The question to ask is: "If this were happening to me, would I still remember it 15 years down the road"? Would Napoleon remember Napoleon Dynamite very doubtful. And if he has no real reason to care, why should I?
Sure he would remember. It is precisely those weird and wonderful chapters of your life that you remember. The characters in that movie found each other, and had numerous experiences that were clearly new to them, and changed them in some way. I find that rather charming.

First off, Napoleon Dynamite did not have good acting. Everything about that movie felt like it was being phoned in.

Second, what "human experience"? You mean being hungry, going to get something to eat, and then taking a nap? There is no point to that.
There was nothing to be said in Napoleon, because normal, human life lacks meaning.
I agree that normal human life lacks meaning, but to convey this vacuum with characters to which a large portion of the audience is endeared, is very difficult. The acting was great in this respect - they were mundane people, speaking monotonously, living life in an elegantly realised uneventful world. I find that aesthetically rather pleasing.

Nor do I, I watch movies for the same reason I look at art and listen to music: I want to feel something. Byeong-gu of Save the Green Planet was sympathetic, and so I felt the anguish, guilt and insanity that closed around him. On the other hand Napoleon didn't leave me feeling anything other than bored.
Obviously, you didn't get what you expected from the movie. I did. :p

I'm very surprised no one has commented on the commentary (lol) yet. One of the funniest things about the movie is that the actor who plays Uncle Rico is a vegetarian, yet the only thing he eats in the movie is steak. Every scene he eats steak, when the camera cuts away, he spits it out. During the scene in which he throws one at Napoleon, you can see him spit out a bite.

The movie does have a main plot, although it doesn't directly concern Napoleon. I would say that Pedro running for President of the school is the plot, because it seems that since he's the new kid and a bit of an oddball, plus running against arguably the most popular girl in school, he's NOT going to win. That's the conflict. How does he win the race? Sure, it's not exactly the most exciting conflict, but the same thing happened to one of my friends who ran for president (she was unpopular, running against popular).

Much of the humor for me comes from things I didn't notice when I watched it the first time. For example, when Rico is selling the nylon bowls to the couple that wants the wooden ship that comes with the bowls, Rico asks the man to try to tear open a bowl. I love the exact moment when he realizes he can't do it, and he looks so ashamed in himself! The look on his face, and his wife's, is priceless!

And one of my personal favorite parts of the film is all the characters. If you ever saw someone that looked like Napoelon, you'd probably think at first glance that he's not good at anything. Am I right? Well, it turns out Napoelon is good at drawing (well, kind of), tetherball, and dancing. Everyone also gets a happy ending. Kip gets married (on a side note, who saw that LaFawnduh was a black girl? I sure didn't), I believe that Rico gets back with his old girl (movie never really said who she is, but that's what I think), and Pedro won the race.

I just hate the fact that MTV latched onto it and now it's kind of mainstream. I think that's one reason why it's so unappreciated. For you anti-Napoelons who read this far, I hope I convinced you to watch it one more time, looking at it closely, and not just thinking "God, this is the crappiest shit ever made." To kind of quote Kip, like anyone could ever know that.

In my opinion, as the guy who made this thread, I say you love it, you hate it, or you're bored with it. I liked it. I can see why someone would hate it, it just isn't meant to appeal to them.
As for the time period, look at Napoleon's I.D. during the opening credits. 2003/2004 I believe. It's Idaho, I've been there. Time stands still (or at least moves slower then a turtle).

It is soo stupid its funny..After watching that movie I NEVER want to live in Idaho ever or those central states!!! And the music was really stupid...And the people were just above the term "white trash"!

A "Napoleon Dynamite" (the movie) discussion. Was the movie "retarded"? was it "pretty much your favorite movie"? Discuss...

It was quite retarded, quite pointless, and quite a waste of time.

But I do watch it everytime it is on TV because it's awesome!

I thought it was allright. It was one of those cult movies.

Napoleon Dynamite appeals to people with a particular understated and dry sense of humour.

ND doesn't lead you to the joke and try to make you laugh, it presents you with multiple odd and mundane situations and lets you find the funny bits if you're so inclined.

I was very inclined.

One of the fun parts in viewing ND is that often the people/person you watch with will be laughing at very different parts than you will.

Like most of the better movies, it doesn't attempt to appeal to everyone and stays true to its own vision. If that vision isn't something you care for, spend your energy finding what you do enjoy rather than hating.

Napoleon Dynamite appeals to people with a particular understated and dry sense of humour.

ND doesn't lead you to the joke and try to make you laugh, it presents you with multiple odd and mundane situations and lets you find the funny bits if you're so inclined.

I was very inclined.

One of the fun parts in viewing ND is that often the people/person you watch with will be laughing at very different parts than you will.

Like most of the better movies, it doesn't attempt to appeal to everyone and stays true to its own vision. If that vision isn't something you care for, spend your energy finding what you do enjoy rather than hating.

I enjoyed the credits, does that count?

I think the real problem for me was the fact that the premise of the movie was executed too well. Watching Napoleon Dynamite was like watching someone very skilled try to impersonate George Bush; when the subject is accurately reflected, parody is sidestepped and the question becomes one of politics. And, to be honest, while I'm sure others would either not notice the subtle messages or would enjoy analysing them, I don't care to spend a full two hours dwelling on the social issues of the Central US at all, particularly not in a movie that claims to be a work of comedy.

This is like trying to do what Sienfield did, only the Napoleon crew failed horribly.

Neither has a plot, but Sienfield is infinitely funnier than the other. Why? Beacuse even in life, we have these insane stories to tell that we look back on and laugh, and think to ourselves, "this will never happen to anyone else". Sienfield basically strings these stories together, and throws in musings about the strangeness of society.

It was the worst piece of shite I have EVER seen.

While it is quotable I agree

Napolean Dynamite was great!

Not as great as some people would like you to think, but it was funny shit. Perhaps what I like best about it, was that going into the movie, you knew that Napolean was going to be a big loser, but everyone was a big loser.

Come on, the guy had a time machine that he got from the internet, that you had to insert crystals into to get to work. And he zapped himself with it. If you're not laughing, you need humour replacement surgery.

Vote for Pedro

This is like trying to do what Sienfield did, only the Napoleon crew failed horribly.

Neither has a plot, but Sienfield is infinitely funnier than the other. Why? Beacuse even in life, we have these insane stories to tell that we look back on and laugh, and think to ourselves, "this will never happen to anyone else". Sienfield basically strings these stories together, and throws in musings about the strangeness of society.

Nothing like Seinfeld.
Seinfeld has punch lines all through the show.
You know precisely when to laugh in Seinfeld, you just decide how funny that moment is.

I'm not sure it was the worst EVER, but it did have that stupid super-ironic streak that the kids love these days. I did like the "so uncool he's cool" thing they had going and the nerdy fights with his brother, but I don't see the big deal otherwise.

Perhaps what I like best about it, was that going into the movie, you knew that Napolean was going to be a big loser, but everyone was a big loser.

even (and perhaps especially) the 'cool kids'

Nothing like Seinfeld.
Seinfeld has punch lines all through the show.
You know precisely when to laugh in Seinfeld, you just decide how funny that moment is.

Is knowing when you're supposed to laugh a good thing? I'm not sure if I like my humour with the applause meter attached....

Is knowing when you're supposed to laugh a good thing? I'm not sure if I like my humour with the applause meter attached....

Depends.
Pretty much every stand up act has it's punch line and you know you're supposed to laugh. Whether you are amused or not actually dictates whether you do laugh, not a meter.

Depends.
Pretty much every stand up act has it's punch line and you know you're supposed to laugh. Whether you are amused or not actually dictates whether you do laugh, not a meter.

Seinfeld is based on the humour of a stand-up comedian, but I'm not so sure that the best humour comes from stand-up. I think the best humour comes when you least expect it. Then again, I had an emergency humour transfusion after a terrible spelling-bee accident when I was a kid. My sense of humour is askew.