Re: Napoleon Dynamite

I think some of the success was because it was something different- good, clean fun. Nothing vulgar or obscene, plus the fact that there wasn't really a plot. The way the characters act is supposed to be humorous, like the way Napoleon talks (and breathes, for that matter). The movie is just offbeat; you can't possibly understand it, because there's nothing TO understand. It was rather nonsensical, quirky even- which is maybe why there are so many people who hate it, and so many that love it? Personally, I didn't think it was a great movie, but it had its moments I guess. Hah, don't know if that really answered your question, but I tried none the less.

Sorry. As one of the bashers, I can provide no insight as to why this movie appeals to anyone.

I went into it thinking I'd absolutely hate it....and instead, I'm about to order a "vote for pedro" tshirt. It's hilarious!!! And it really speaks to the social phenomenon that is highschool...

Half the people I talked to loved it. The other half (me) thought it was pretty dumb.

All of my friends loved the movie and they still quote it quite often, me on the otherhand I was so bored that I fell asleep halfway through it and found it quite annoying.

That's what I find, which leads to my conclusion that half the people either don't have a sense of humor, or have trouble "getting it."

I thought it was very funny. It's pretty dry though, so the character's mannerisms are really what's funny about it. Like already pointed out, the way Napoleon talks, ect. Each character's quirks, stupid crap like Uncle Rico and his football dreams. There's no "jokes" in the movie, unlike an early Adam Sandler flick for example. It's one of those movies you watch 3 or 4 times then find yourself quoting crap over and over.

I haven't made it a point to rent the movie nor catch it on cable. My niece warned me the movie was barely watchable. Ebert panned it:



Napoleon Dynamite


BY ROGER EBERT / June 18, 2004

Cast & Credits

Napoleon Dynamite: Jon Heder
Uncle Rico: Jon Gries
Pedro: Efren Ramirez
Kip: Aaron Ruell
Deb: Tina Majorino
Summer: Haylie Duff
Ilene: Ellen Dubin
Trisha: Emily Kennard
Rex: Diedrich Bader


Fox Searchlight Pictures presents a film directed by Jared Hess. Written by Jared Hess and Jerusha Hess. Photographed by Munn Powell. Edited by Jeremy Coon. Music by John Swihart. Running time: 86 minutes. Rated PG (for language and thematic elements).


There is a kind of studied stupidity that sometimes passes as humor, and Jared Hess' "Napoleon Dynamite" pushes it as far as it can go. Its hero is the kind of nerd other nerds avoid, and the movie is about his steady progress toward complete social unacceptability. Even his victory toward the end, if it is a victory, comes at the cost of clowning before his fellow students.

We can laugh at comedies like this for two reasons: Because we feel superior to the characters, or because we pity or like them. I do not much like laughing down at people, which is why the comedies of Adam Sandler make me squirmy (most people, I know, laugh because they like him). In the case of Napoleon Dynamite (Jon Heder), I certainly don't like him, but then the movie makes no attempt to make him likable. Truth is, it doesn't even try to be a comedy. It tells his story and we are supposed to laugh because we find humor the movie pretends it doesn't know about.

Napoleon is tall, ungainly, depressed, and happy to be left alone. He has red hair that must take hours in front of the mirror to look so bad. He wants us to know he is lonely by choice. He lives outside of town with his brother Kip (Aaron Ruell), whose waking life is spent online in chat rooms, and with his grandmother, who is laid up fairly early in a dune buggy accident. It could funny to have a granny on a dune buggy; I smile at least at the title of the Troma film "Rabid Grannies."

But in this film the accident is essentially an aside, an excuse to explain the arrival on the farm of Napoleon's Uncle Rico (Jon Gries), a man for whom time has stood still ever since the 1982 high school sports season, when things, he still believes, should have turned out differently. Rico is a door-to-door salesman for a herbal breast enlargement potion, a product that exists only for the purpose of demonstrating Rico's cluelessness. In an age when even the Fuller Brush Man would be greeted with a shotgun (does anyone even remember him?), Rico's product exists in the twilight zone.

Life at high school is daily misery for Napoleon, who is picked on cruelly and routinely. He finally makes a single friend, Pedro (Efren Ramirez), the school's only Latino, and manages his campaign for class president. He has a crush on a girl named Deb (Tina Majorino), but his strategy is so inept that it has the indirect result of Deb going to the prom with Pedro. His entire prom experience consists of cutting in.

Watching "Napoleon Dynamite," I was reminded of "Welcome to the Dollhouse," Todd Solondz's brilliant 1996 film, starring Heather Matarazzo as an unpopular junior high school girl. But that film was informed by anger and passion, and the character fought back. Napoleon seems to passively invite ridicule, and his attempts to succeed have a studied indifference, as if he is mocking his own efforts.

I'm told the movie was greeted at Sundance with lots of laughter, but then Sundance audiences are concerned with being cool, and to sit through this film in depressed silence would not be cool, however urgently it might be appropriate.

Wow, Roger Ebert said it was a bad flick........

Interesting side note to this movie is that it was originally written/filmed as a college class project, at BYU I believe.....

I think the reason many people liked this film was the nerd as the hero storyline. Those who were not considered to be in the 'in' crowd during high school really liked the movie; the Uncle Rico portion showed the pathetic life some of those currently live, when high school was the peak of their life.

Watching an interview with Jon Header (who played ND) was interesting, as he looks/sounds nothing like Napoleon.

I actually liked the movie, but I think it helped that I watched it with my 17 year old son and his friends....

It is "that" kind of movie.

I think the reason some people don't get it is because it is a study in deadpan comedy. The characters are ernest in their cringing, almost grotesque awkwardness, and their obliviousness to it. That's basically what's funny about it.

I think Ebert sees himself as a geek, and the movie struck a nerve with him.

I can't really buy into that. I think he knows there are those that are going to relate to and enjoy this movie. His review reads as if he had it pegged what the filmmakers were after -- they just simply aimed low and missed their goal. Doesn't stop anyone, including the critics who were positive about the film, from liking and enjoying the movie. This forum is here to debate what the public seems to like and what critics think of the movie.

This is true of almost all artistic endeavor -- don't expect much from yourself, or in the case of filmmaking, the collaborative, and you're likely to produce just a fair work of art. Sometimes it falls down into the mediocre category.

It was the way that Napoleon emphasized the word, "idiot" in a sentence. It was the way the bully would come and slam Napoleon into his locker for no reason. It was the wig that Pedro had to wear because he shaved all his hair off. It was the Pinata that Pedro made in the image of the class queen, Summer. It was Napoleon smashing his balls trying to do a "sweet jump" with Pedro's bike. And all the other wacked out **** that happened.

Just thinking about it right now makes me chuckle.

I think it was pretty original. And funny. In fact, I think I might watch it again right now.

Well of course Ebert's opinions aren't going to stop any other critics from liking the movie, they're only Ebert's opinions.

Yes, your adage rings true, but you've misapplied it to this movie by basing it on one critic's opinion, LW.

Ebert's critique reeks of a movie taken as a personal slight:

"Its hero is the kind of nerd other nerds avoid, and the movie is about his steady progress toward complete social unacceptability."

"Even his victory toward the end, if it is a victory, comes at the cost of clowning before his fellow students."

It seems that Ebert was too involved in his self-loathing to allow himself to cheer for Napoleon. Napoleon saves his best friend's school presidential candidacy by dancing for the audience, and the audience wildly cheered. So did I. It made me cry, it was so funny, and inspiring at the same time.

"We can laugh at comedies like this for two reasons: Because we feel superior to the characters, or because we pity or like them. I do not much like laughing down at people . . ."

"Napoleon seems to passively invite ridicule, and his attempts to succeed have a studied indifference, as if he is mocking his own efforts."

Apparently, deadpan comedy is beyond Ebert's grasp.

"I'm told the movie was greeted at Sundance with lots of laughter, but then Sundance audiences are concerned with being cool, and to sit through this film in depressed silence would not be cool, however urgently it might be appropriate."

Ebert is clueless, and has taken this movie way too personally.

Your statement that "Ebert was too involved with self-loathing" is patently ridiculous and I believe you know that.

I caught you a delicious bass.

No, that comment is not ridiculous. Ebert has exposed his own psychological hangups through his review of this movie.

You began your criticism based on all of Ebert's single, solitary review, LW, and I responded to that criticism. So now you bring up the fact that the movie got some more bad reviews. So what? Has any movie ever gotten a hundred percent positive review rating? Has anyone or anything ever gotten that kind of rating? Do you please everyone? This is the kind of movie that one either gets or doesn't. There's not much of an in-between. You either like it or you don't. Deadpan is lost on some people.

You're arguing against a movie from a third-person perspective seeing as how you haven't even seen the movie.

Your armchair psychiatry is underwhelming. If you think anyone can actually reveal their psychological undertow by reviewing a movie, you have a serious problem.

I'm relating why I've not bothered to see the movie. If it comes on HBO or Showtime and it's a convenient time, I may watch it. It will have to be funny within the first half-hour or perhaps revealing of some human condition or it will get turned off.

People reveal their psychology in many different ways, LW. Ebert did in his review. I merely pointed out the fact.

Your emotions thereof are irrelevant.