Explain to me Napolean Dynamite...

[The Vorpal Tribble]

...because I just watched it after getting so many recommendations and I'm trying to figure out how that movie wasn't the biggest bust since Dolly Parton.

I kept hoping something would happen in the future, but it never came. I chuckled at a couple parts at most, but thats it.

I personally got depressed watching it. Vibes of 'loser' just seemed to roll off of it and cling to me, darkening my day and increasing my front teeth length.

Please, please, explain to me what the hype was about?

[Darken Rahl]

I have yet to see it because I have no interest whatsoever in it.

When the Abercrombie and Hollister crowds are quoting something, it creates an inherent dislike for me.

[valadil]

I didn't see it while it was hyped either. I got the sense that a lot of the hype was manufactured - people went to see it because it was a cult movie that they heard about from a friend of a friend. It really isn't hyped all that much anymore, even by people who liked it a couple years ago, which is part of why I think it was just a lot of hot air. A good movie should be a good movie no matter when you see it.

I didn't dislike the movie, and was entertained several times while watching it, but didn't see what the big deal was either. I think it's likely that it's the kind of movie that you appreciate more as you see it. I don't remember why, but I definitely got that vibe while watching it.

[VetMichael]

I watched it on DVD with some friends and we laughed at some spots, found others quirky/odd and yet others confusing. It's one of those "Art house (but not really)" kinda movies. I think we found it amusing because:

a) we know people like Napoleon's uncle; my half-brother is SOOOO Uncle Rico with his get-rich-quick scams and attempts to recapture the glory days of his mis-spent youth.

b) My wife and I actually "met" online so we kinda nodded and winked at the Kip/Lafawnduh mis-match; the whole milquetoast-y character becoming a street-wise pseudo-pimp was funny.

c) When my wife was a teenager, she got wrangled into selling stuff like Deb did, with similarly disappointing results.

Other than that, it was supposed to be (I think) almost like an homage to the '80's Geek-chic movies like Revenge of the Nerds, Weird Science, or anything with Molly Ringwald in it - but it wasn't. We watched Shaun of the Dead afterward and immediately forgot N.D.

[Midnight Son]

I can explain it in one word..."Dumb"

Oh, you wanted more? Let's just say that I lost respect for every one of my friends and acquaintances who quoted that movie ad nauseum. It wasn't funny, witty or charming in the least. My ex-roommate brought it home and defiled my big screen with it. I watched about 5 minutes of it to see what the fuss was all about, then I locked myself in my room with a book till it was over.

[Nerd-o-rama]

It's funny because it has no point, and the characters are a bunch of quirky losers. Kind of like Seinfeld, but weirder, and actually funny in parts.

Honestly, I can't really explain it, as I watched it/heard about it so much that I got sick of it. It helped that the first time I watched it, I came in at about the halfway point. The second half of the movie, taken independently, almost looks like it has a plot (centering around the Napoleon vs. Uncle Rico and Vote for Pedro). Then I watched the whole thing and it turned out no, it was really all just a bunch of random crap happening.

Basically, the way to enjoy it is either pretend to like it to buy into the hype, or enjoy its quirkiness and don't think about it too hard.

[averagejoe]

I actually enjoyed that movie considerably, but didn't find it to be very funny, and didn't find it to be very quotable. I just found it to be kind of bittersweet, fairly depressing, but with a bit of a silver lining. I liked the understated characters, and the awkwardness of everyone. Heck, I even felt bad for uncle Riko, jerk that he was. It's difficult to describe, but suffice it to say I tend to like any movie that illicits an emotional reaction from me, just because it's rare. So, to me it didn't live up to the hype, but I found something else to like in it.

[Semidi]

Worst movie ever. Yes, I'm taking Waterworld into account. I felt like my brains were leaking out of my head while I was watching it.

[ALOR]

I really can't explain why I liked it. I sat there the whole time just thinking this was the dumbest peice of film I had ever watched, yet I laughed through the whole movie. Watching it again it's just plain horrible. However, that 1st time did make me laugh

[RTGoodman]

I can explain it in one word..."Dumb"

Oh, you wanted more? Let's just say that I lost respect for every one of my friends and acquaintances who quoted that movie ad nauseum. It wasn't funny, witty or charming in the least. My ex-roommate brought it home and defiled my big screen with it. I watched about 5 minutes of it to see what the fuss was all about, then I locked myself in my room with a book till it was over.

I totally. I feel the same thing about basically every Will Ferrell movie, too (especially Anchorman) - everyone I meet thinks it makes them hilarious if they spend entire conversations quoting it, but in reality it's just not funny (and neither are they).

[Mr. Friendly]

There really are other people who hate Napoleon Dynamite!

I thought my wife and I were the only ones. We questioned whether or not something was terribly wrong with us. For us, watching it was like watching paint dry, only without the excitement.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

"Dumb"

See, that pretty much encompassed my entire post and brought it down to a single, eloquent, descriptive word.

The two parts at which I chuckled was:

#1. Was giving the leftovers to the llama.
#2. Music cut out on him during his dance.

The first only because it hit close to home as I have basically the equivalent of a small petting zoo and the younger ones in my family tried something similar.

[Midnight Son]

I totally. I feel the same thing about basically every Will Ferrell movie, too (especially Anchorman) - everyone I meet thinks it makes them hilarious if they spend entire conversations quoting it, but in reality it's just not funny (and neither are they).

Don't even get me started on Will Ferrell. I'll just say that he's great as a bit actor, but cannot hold a movie long enough to be a lead. For example; Frank the Tank was great, but only because he wasn't in Every-Effin'-Scene.

[Dervag]

A traditional Hollywood movie has a well defined plot, with numerous moments of tense action and drama that all climax at a single point. Characters are strong and generally admirable in some way (if only because of what a magnificent bastard they are).

Napoleon Dynamite does not possess these qualities. It is in fact an existential movie, written about an existential anti-hero. Note that in literature, "anti-hero" doesn't mean "menacing lethal badass who does good despite being a bad person in many ways." "Anti-hero" means "utterly unheroic." An anti-hero is generally not forceful in his person nor exceptionally capable in his actions; you're at least as likely to pity him as to respect him. He is beneath good and evil.

Napoleon Dynamite is an existential anti-hero.

If you don't like existential stories, you're probably not going to like Napoleon Dynamite. If you like Napoleon Dynamite, you might well be surprised to find that you do like other existential stories if you can stand to read them. Which is by no means guaranteed.

[VetMichael]

Will Farrell - never thought much of him except in Zoolander; if you've ever been forced to watch anything with designers - project runway, what not to wear, etc. - or even the commercials about them, then his character is HILARIOUS. Elf was cute the first time around, but was soooo freaking sappy by the thirtieth time USA showed it last year, I was ill at the thought of anything elf-related (even )


Now, for the perfect storm, mix Jon Heder and Will Ferrell in "Blades of Glory" - Mwhuahahahahahaha!

[WalkingTarget]

I liked N.D. well enough, but I had never heard of it when I saw it, so I avoided the hype entirely (my gf at the time had, but just mentioned that she wanted to see it so I went along to the theater when it got to our area without any idea of what it was). Later, when I did hear hype about it I was kind of confused as to how it qualified for that. I think the Seinfeld analogy was accurate, it's just about a set of odd characters and a few weeks of their lives. Seinfeld had whole episodes where nothing much happened: waiting for a table at a restaurant or looking for their car in the mall parking structure, for example.

As for Will Farrell, my opinion of him went up considerably once I watched Stranger Than Fiction where he was allowed to play a different character for once.

Edit - @Dervag: well said.

[Telonius]

Decent movie. I agree with Dervag, it's an existential story. (Which probably helps explain why it did so well at Cannes, but that's another story altogether). It's not really about anything. I can appreciate it for what it is, but I have enough existential things that happen to me on a daily basis that I don't really want to see more of that in a movie.

[A Rainy Knight]

I still don't understand why so many people are practically raving fans of Napoleon Dynamite. I didn't really like the movie at all when I saw it. And now I start seeing quote books and little sound-playing devices with lines from the movie. Ugh.

Will Ferrell is great in some movies and so-so in others. I personally loved Talladega Nights, just because so many lines made me laugh in that one. I could quote it for a long time. The rest of the movies starring Will Ferrell that I've seen were funny, but not exactly notable.

[adanedhel9]

I agree, the movie is not worth the hype at all. The only part I remember laughing at was where Napoleon identified milk with bleach in it by taste. And I think I was the only one in the room who laughed at that particular joke.

I think part of the issue could be that we geeks aren't a part of the intended audience. Non-geeks can watch it and laugh, saying "Geeks are so nerdy!" and such. A geek watches it, and all we get are cringes, if just at the subconcious level.

[Amotis]

I liked the Pedro's protection Cholo scene. Hehe.

Or "All you have to do...break the wrist...and walk away. Just break the wrist."

I agree with AJ up there. I didn't find the hype points selling but found other things to like. I too felt sorry for some characters. I have a weird habit of when watching awkwardness to feel guilty or awkward myself. So I guess it evoked that.

I didn't hate it completely. I didn't like it completely. *shrug* I always thought it as America's version of dry comedy.

[Daze]

I actually didnt like it either the first time I saw it...
Like many on here, when something is overhyped and pumped up to death, I tend to cast a very (if not overly) critical eye.

However, after seeing it a few subsequent times (cable channels went throuh a period where they played it to death), it actually grew on me... to the point where I was going "Gawd.. dont be such an idiot!" to people and extolling the virtues of the "Liger".

It was actually kinda clever in a dumb way. And I agree that it was America's version of British dry wit.

[LolCowgirl]

Napolean Dynamite does not need an explaination. Nope, never. If you try to think about it too hard about it, your head will explode.So, just go with the flow, and you will be enlighten.

[Woot Spitum]

I liked Napolean Dynamite because it was different. It's not my favorite movie, or even my favorite comedy, but it was enjoyable in its own way. I especially liked the fact that it wasn't driven by lame jokes that depend on bad puns involving bodily functions, as far to many comedies are. Those sort of comedies have been around since ancient Greece (at least). I think it's safe to say that that particular brand of humor has been done to death.

I think part of the appeal for the movie is that it doesn't try to overwhelm the viewer with over-the-top zaniness. Neither does it take the more uplifting, triumphant moments and sugarcoat them like a children's cereal with chocolate milk poured on it and additional scoops of sugar added. Too many movies take the notion of triumph too far, constantly beating the audience over the head with "the good guys win, the bad guys lose, get it, get it? Yes? well we're going to emphasize it even more" attitude.

That being said, the movie isn't for everyone.

[Muz]

Napolean Dynamite was a funny 5-minute sketch crammed into 90 minutes. ...So yeah, I didn't much understand what all the fuss was about, either.

Don't even get me started on Will Ferrell. I'll just say that he's great as a bit actor, but cannot hold a movie long enough to be a lead. For example; Frank the Tank was great, but only because he wasn't in Every-Effin'-Scene.

WalkingTarget beat me to the mention of Stranger Than Fiction. I wouldn't call it a comedy, but Ferrell was surprisingly good in it.

[Dervag]

I still don't understand why so many people are practically raving fans of Napoleon Dynamite. I didn't really like the movie at all when I saw it. And now I start seeing quote books and little sound-playing devices with lines from the movie. Ugh.

I think I may have answered your question, although not very well.

Napoleon Dynamite is a story with no hero. It is in no way, shape, or form about heroism of any kind. Most people like stories with heroes. Many people do not like stories with no heroes (like Napoleon Dynamite).

However, there are some people who do like stories with no heroes, because they find the antics of the non-heroes amusing. Or because they like the idea of exploring the lives of people who are not exceptional and who we can easily identify with. For these people, Napoleon Dynamite was a great movie, because it is a really good movie-with-no-hero.

Likewise, not every person likes coleslaw. If you hear about some genius chef who is wonderful, and you find out that the reason he gets so much approval is that he makes really good coleslaw, you're going to think "Ugh. What's so great about this chef? I thought he was going to make a wonderful meal, and instead he gave me this nasty coleslaw."

But that doesn't mean other people who do like coleslaw and really appreciate good coleslaw won't enjoy the food this chef makes.

[valadil]

As for Will Farrell, my opinion of him went up considerably once I watched Stranger Than Fiction where he was allowed to play a different character for once.

Will Ferrell is great when he isn't in a Will Ferrell movie. Problem is that a vast majority of his movies are just a chance for you to see something you already saw him do. That and a lot of them are ideas that would have made a decent 5 minute SNL sketch but have no business as a full length movie. Same goes for Adam Sandler - he's a reasonable entertainer when he's not cast as himself.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I was extremely misinformed when I first heard about the film. I had thought it was about a nerdy guy who secretly ruled the school and recruited the new guy to be a puppet figure to protect himself from assassination, and that his uncle left him to die in the middle of the desert. Needless to say, I was dissapointed when I saw the actual film and none of that actually happened.

To me it's one of those films that's supposed to make you go "Huh?" or "What?" or "WTF?!"

[someonenonotyou]

it was good but not as good as everyone said ahg i don't belive i acttually bought a "Vote for Pedro" shirt

[The Vorpal Tribble]

However, there are some people who do like stories with no heroes, because they find the antics of the non-heroes amusing. Or because they like the idea of exploring the lives of people who are not exceptional and who we can easily identify with. For these people, Napoleon Dynamite was a great movie, because it is a really good movie-with-no-hero.

Sorry, no, I don't much care whether there is a hero, no hero, or anti-hero. I like something based on its story and/or humor.

I got nothing from Napoleon Dynamite that was in any way inspired, imaginative or even the slightest bit clever. I see more amusing tidbits from my 3 year old sister.

I could even, sadly, identify with a few choice bits. That made it all the worse as this person was even worse about it, and not in a humorous way. It was a parody of the condition, and not all things can be exaggerated to make it funny.

The rest I could not identify with, and it just depressed me.

Honestly, it wasn't even of the caliber of bad that you can make fun of (or at least anything that would be worth my time).

[Dervag]

OK, we take as granted that the movie wasn't worth your time. Then we have two options. One is to conclude that your time is vastly superior in value and quality to that of the people who liked the movie, so that they were not wasting their (worthless) time on the movie. This strikes me as being not what you believe, and I think we can both agree that it's not a reasonable interpretation.

But if it's not true, then the only thing left is to conclude that it is indeed a matter of differing tastes.