When my beautiful 21 year old daughter came bouncing into my house the other day, announcing she had come to watch a movie with me, I was delighted. Oh, good, I thought, quality family time! She shows me the box, which looked like a five year old drew it, and I became skeptical. Upon inquiring as to where she got the film, she cheerfully informed me that her friend Stephanie had rented it. My heart sank. Steph, although model quality gorgeous, does not have the taste of a piece of cardboard or the IQ of a coffee table. This did not bode well.
Unfortunately, as usual, my early warning system was spot on. Two hours later, I sat there, perplexed. The WTF expression on my face, in place for the entire film, had been supplanted by a stunned WHY?! All I can think of is that they must have wonderful drugs in Hollywood. Maybe the last surviving stash of 'Ludes, which they feed to studio executives before hopefuls come in to pitch their projects. Why else would they ever okay this thing? Maybe they didn't. It looks like it cost five cents to make. You could download better efforts on YouTube.
The plot... well, there IS no plot. A vague storyline about the run for class president seems to have only discovered itself lost in the hallway about three quarters of the way through this chestnut. When it does rear its wilted head, it becomes a frenetic borrowing session, taking bits from a half dozen movie highlight reels lumped together in a murky montage. First, its Bill & Ted ("Your skit had better be something special..."). Then, it's "Superstar", complete with the sequined bimbos in blue, and the chief nerd becoming the hero of the school after performing a solo disco dance that looks like all of the outtakes from that same movie, "Saturday Night Fever", and a Michael Jackson video.
Now, the only one of the cast I can ever remember seeing is Tina Majorino. As "Shy Deb", she looks more lost than the little map girl she played in "Waterworld". Is she really shy, or is her soul simply rebelling against uttering the awful dialog? The rest of the actors, and I use the term generously, have less range and turn of phrase than kids in an elementary school play. Efren Ramirez is the worst of the lot. Obviously older than his cast mates while allegedly their peer, he's either on very heavy medication or the recent victim of severe head trauma. Shondella Avery is the one bright spot. She acts through her part as if she's laughing AT them, not with them. Smart girl.
The only purpose of this film that I can see, and this is admittedly a major stretch, is that it was made to aggravate a whole load of different groups of people. Latinos, for one, as their representative character needs to borrow IQ points from Forrest Gump. Nearly all of the residents of the great state of Idaho, for another. Every one of them, from the chicken farmers to the checkout girl are portrayed as unflattering caricatures of the actual people who live those lives. I hope to God none of them ever went to the theater expecting this to be a movie ABOUT Idaho. I've actually been there, several times, and have never met ANYONE, especially farmers, who acted like these abject idiots. Ironically, the film never even mentions potatoes, Idaho's signature crop. Heaven help the film makers should they ever have a car break down within the state borders. Idaho is very big. I hope they have current dental records.
Which brings me more neatly than any segue in the movie to the "filmmakers" themselves, the brothers Hess. Where do two assistant cameramen (and the camera work, by the way, is truly awful!) get the go ahead to take some equipment and go annoy the Buckeye State? Until now, I would have said only IN a Hollywood movie. As this is "reality", well, to borrow a thought from "The American President", what did they have, pictures of the studio heads playing golf with Satan? No other logical explanation makes sense. Well, maybe the 'Ludes...
Don't go and see this film. By all means don't rent it, either! You want a "cult classic"? Go rent "DC Cab", or one of Kevin Smith's "Jay and Silent Bob" films. And, don't tell me I just don't understand Generation X, either. I liked Elizabethtown. I understand them just fine. What I do not understand is bad movie making. "Best Film of 2004"?! That HAD to be said tongue in cheek! Please. What on Earth was the basis of comparison? There were nearly twenty thousand films made in 2004! Lemony Snickets looks like "Ghandi" compared to this.
I suppose, though, in a very off center way, Napoleon Dynamite can be thought of as an inspiring film. It at least made ME think, briefly, about going off to Hollywood to make movies. I'm the first to admit I don't know dick about writing a screenplay, or even loading the film into the camera. But, after wasting ninety minutes watching this beast, I do know one thing: Even my utterly clueless butt could've done a better job. So could any kid with some friends and dad's camcorder. Give this one a big miss, folks. As blockbusters go, Napoleon Dynamite is a dud.
Unfortunately, as usual, my early warning system was spot on. Two hours later, I sat there, perplexed. The WTF expression on my face, in place for the entire film, had been supplanted by a stunned WHY?! All I can think of is that they must have wonderful drugs in Hollywood. Maybe the last surviving stash of 'Ludes, which they feed to studio executives before hopefuls come in to pitch their projects. Why else would they ever okay this thing? Maybe they didn't. It looks like it cost five cents to make. You could download better efforts on YouTube.
The plot... well, there IS no plot. A vague storyline about the run for class president seems to have only discovered itself lost in the hallway about three quarters of the way through this chestnut. When it does rear its wilted head, it becomes a frenetic borrowing session, taking bits from a half dozen movie highlight reels lumped together in a murky montage. First, its Bill & Ted ("Your skit had better be something special..."). Then, it's "Superstar", complete with the sequined bimbos in blue, and the chief nerd becoming the hero of the school after performing a solo disco dance that looks like all of the outtakes from that same movie, "Saturday Night Fever", and a Michael Jackson video.
Now, the only one of the cast I can ever remember seeing is Tina Majorino. As "Shy Deb", she looks more lost than the little map girl she played in "Waterworld". Is she really shy, or is her soul simply rebelling against uttering the awful dialog? The rest of the actors, and I use the term generously, have less range and turn of phrase than kids in an elementary school play. Efren Ramirez is the worst of the lot. Obviously older than his cast mates while allegedly their peer, he's either on very heavy medication or the recent victim of severe head trauma. Shondella Avery is the one bright spot. She acts through her part as if she's laughing AT them, not with them. Smart girl.
The only purpose of this film that I can see, and this is admittedly a major stretch, is that it was made to aggravate a whole load of different groups of people. Latinos, for one, as their representative character needs to borrow IQ points from Forrest Gump. Nearly all of the residents of the great state of Idaho, for another. Every one of them, from the chicken farmers to the checkout girl are portrayed as unflattering caricatures of the actual people who live those lives. I hope to God none of them ever went to the theater expecting this to be a movie ABOUT Idaho. I've actually been there, several times, and have never met ANYONE, especially farmers, who acted like these abject idiots. Ironically, the film never even mentions potatoes, Idaho's signature crop. Heaven help the film makers should they ever have a car break down within the state borders. Idaho is very big. I hope they have current dental records.
Which brings me more neatly than any segue in the movie to the "filmmakers" themselves, the brothers Hess. Where do two assistant cameramen (and the camera work, by the way, is truly awful!) get the go ahead to take some equipment and go annoy the Buckeye State? Until now, I would have said only IN a Hollywood movie. As this is "reality", well, to borrow a thought from "The American President", what did they have, pictures of the studio heads playing golf with Satan? No other logical explanation makes sense. Well, maybe the 'Ludes...
Don't go and see this film. By all means don't rent it, either! You want a "cult classic"? Go rent "DC Cab", or one of Kevin Smith's "Jay and Silent Bob" films. And, don't tell me I just don't understand Generation X, either. I liked Elizabethtown. I understand them just fine. What I do not understand is bad movie making. "Best Film of 2004"?! That HAD to be said tongue in cheek! Please. What on Earth was the basis of comparison? There were nearly twenty thousand films made in 2004! Lemony Snickets looks like "Ghandi" compared to this.
I suppose, though, in a very off center way, Napoleon Dynamite can be thought of as an inspiring film. It at least made ME think, briefly, about going off to Hollywood to make movies. I'm the first to admit I don't know dick about writing a screenplay, or even loading the film into the camera. But, after wasting ninety minutes watching this beast, I do know one thing: Even my utterly clueless butt could've done a better job. So could any kid with some friends and dad's camcorder. Give this one a big miss, folks. As blockbusters go, Napoleon Dynamite is a dud.