This film looks like a strong rival for "Anchorman" in the "funniest movie of the summer" category. The trailer cracks me up.

Click here for an article about the film's out-of-nowhere arrival. And don't call it "Mormon cinema."

drat! i can't watch the trailer right now, because our internet is sloooooooow today. but i've heard wonderful things about this film--my boyfriend saw a free preview in DC, and was laughing so hard as he told me about it that he actually SNORTED.

also, he got a free t-shirt that's adorned with a "liger"--a cross between a lion and a tiger, evidently napoleon's favorite animal...? i'm envious.

Maaaaybe I'm missing something, but the trailer did nothing for me. The lead actor appeared to be trying too hard.

Sorry, but I need to see something better to change my mind.

well, hey, not everybody has the same sense of humor. no biggie.

If anyone wants to catch this film for free:Click here

Kansas City, huh? That's only 3 hours away... I could do it.

i'll be seeing this at the waterfront film festival in saugatuck, mi this coming weekend... though not for free. i'm giddy with anticipation.

i finally saw this last weekend at a film festival. the sunday afternoon screening was packed, and audience response was great--constant, uproarious laughter. this is a delightfully funny and completely ridiculous film.

however, i'm not sure what i thought about it overall. i consistently wiped tears from my eyes i was laughing so hard, but i couldn't shake the slightly guilty feeling that i was laughing at napoleon (and the other characters's) expense. nothing goes this guy's way, and he has no idea what a pathetic loser he is. i think we are supposed to feel affection for napoleon and his lame cohorts, and evidently the writer/director has some sort of affection for him as well--but that doesn't necessarily come across in the direction and writing itself. i wasn't sure how i was supposed to feel about napoleon, or what the filmmaker was trying to say. it kind of just seemed like a chronicle of terrible things that happened to a totally clueless reject. i pitied him, and that felt mean. it was a strange experience.

that said, though, as a chronicle of loserhood--this film is impeccable. and it's one of those endlessly quotable movies; my friend keeps leaving voicemails for me in a flat monotone: "uh, hi. uh, i just wanted to see if you had any sweet ninja skills? okay, uh, bye."


(i don't actually know if this spoilers tag is necessary, but i'm paranoid about giving too much away.)

one of the most interesting things about "napoleon dynamite" is the ambiguous time period in which it's set. the characters are in possession of present-day commodities like the internet and bling-bling in the style of kanye west. meanwhile, the same characters dress in the worst clothing circa 1987. we're talking moonboots, we're talking side ponytails, we're talking neon. the prom that takes place is decorated a la the 80s, the prom dresses could have come from the john hughes brat-packer oevre, and the music was painfully 80s.

my boyfriend argues that the film was meant to be set in the present day, and his explanation of the 80s elements is that rural idaho is simply behind the times. to me, admittedly an east coast urbanite, this is beyond the realm of imagination. there is no way these people, however "backwoods" their environment, are living in the year 2004. right? i mean, these people own televisions.

anyone have an explanation as to when the movie is supposed to be set? i personally think it was kind of an artistic license thing--the moon boots and heinous glasses give you a FEELING of nerdiness, which modern-day dress simply isn't capable of evoking. it sort of takes the story outside of a certain time period and makes it universal. do you buy it? i guess just feel there is no other explanation for why even the most popular girl in school has a huge perm and puffy sleeves on her prom dress.

this review at reelviews actually sums up my take perfectly:

There's plenty of humor in the film, but the movie is often a little uncomfortable to watch, and Napoleon is not an easy guy to like. Rooting for him takes effort.

that's exactly it. i found napoleon sullen and not at all likeable. rare in a protagonist, with whom moviegoers usually try to identify or sympathize or otherwise engage. berardinelli is right that you really have to work at it if you want to understand where napoleon is coming from, because he's totally irritating, in a subtle sort of way.

At the end of Stephen Hunter’s rave review of Napoleon Dynamite in today’s Washington Post is one of those seemingly mandatory ratings descriptions that writers sometimes have fun with. Case in point:

Napoleon Dynamite (86 minutes, at the Cineplex Odeon Dupont Circle and Landmark Bethesda Row) is rated PG for what the MPAA calls "thematic elements," whatever that means.

Gah... according to the local theatre company's site, the movie was supposed to open in Lincoln today. But I go to check for showtimes this morning, and there's no longer any mention of the movie anywhere. So now I don't know when I'll get to see it.

Basset hounds humping!?!? Oh, that's funny. And so true.

Saw this one last night. Loved it. Or at least very very liked it. Not quite in the same league as the films of Wes Anderson and Terry Zwigoff, but certainly in the same ballpark.

Regarding stupid ratings and stuff, I burst out laughing when I went to the machine to buy my ticket and the rating came up: "General (bullying)". That's right, they actually put a warning in there for "bullying". And I liked one local critic's comment to the effect that even the bullies at this film's school seem to be kinda half-hearted in their bullying -- it's just something that they seem to do kind of because it's expected of them, but not so much because they want to.

I think this film kinda HAS to take place today, since the characters do use the internet, and the shelf at the store says "CDs/DVDs" (even though we never actually SEE any, and all the tapedecks and VCRs seem really old and clunky, a la the mid-1980s), and the 32-year-old guy has a jersey with the number "94" on it, which I assume is his graduation year or something.

But yeah, there's a definite time-warp thing going on here.

It was also funny to see this film so soon after I took a Greyhound through Idaho and back. It occurred to me that almost all the films we see take place in cities that are either coastal (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc.) or have a major river running through them (Paris, London, etc.), but this Idaho neighbourhood is just kinda landlocked, stuck in the middle of nowhere, etc.

I just saw this film. I really liked it. Some of the jokes just didn't work for me, but the film works quite well overall. I really liked the character of Napolean. He is quite unique and memorable, particularly his voice. He just appeals to the inner geek in me. I loved the scenes of him playing Tetherball by himself, I used to do the same thing when I was in school, only I was in grade school, not high school.

The film really captured a sense of place, of this small western town in the middle of nowhere. I guess the '80s fashions reflect a kind of otherworldliness. Besides, those moonboots were just plain cool.

Apparently the DVD version of the film will have an additional scene at the end, which they just filmed a few weeks ago. Sigh.

Josh Hurst wrote:
: That scene has been added to the theatrical version, as well.

Say what? You mean the film I saw in the theatre just a week or two ago is now no longer playing, and has been replaced by this newer version? That bites.

I can sort-of understand when horror films like 28 Days Later do this, because horror films are ALL about the gimmick (kinda like how horror films always have the weirdest, strangest, most impressive video boxes). But small indie flicks shouldn't be messing with us like that, I think.

The additional scene is located after the credits, so it's nothing that is added to the film itself.

I finally got a chance to see it this weekend and enjoyed it quite a bit. There were a couple of spots where the film lagged, and at times, the film felt like it was trying too hard to be quirky (what's with the llama?). However, more often than not, I found the film absolutely hilarious and even quite nostalgic at times.

Some people have expressed annoyance at the fact that they couldn't place the movie's era - there are clues that it's present day, but the clothing, music, and hair imply the 80's. Personally, I loved that ambiguity. I thought it added a certain timelessness to the picture.

THIS MOVIE ROCKS!!!

Perfect 80's throwback! Many of Napoleon's lines will be oft-quoted like Animal House in the next few years. Watch!

Anybody else noticing that this is climbing INTO the top 10 2 months after it's release while every other movie is sliding out? Skills!

P.S. Like, I took too friggin long to write a review of this for Hollywood Jesus. But it's like coming soon! Gosh!

Update...Here it is...better late than never!

Finally saw this last night. Kinda avoided it, b/c most of the reviews I had read were negative, but I needed to watch a movie with a friend I hadn't seen in some time, one that my wife and I hadn't reserved yet for ourselves. It fit the bill.

This movie is simultaneously very very stupid, and laugh-out loud hilarious. It can only be seen in crowded situations, because to see it in isolation is awkward. The film is kinda like the old comic "Jim's Journal" in that the film is funny without the characters trying to be funny, but having the characters--ALL characters--be exaggerations of folks you kinda remember.

Oh, BTW, Napoleon's dance # at the end... gives Jennifer Beals' dance double a run for her money.

Nick

Trying to explain this film to someone afterwards, I suggested imagining Ghost World, set in the boonies of Idaho, directed by that latter film’s cynical heroine, Enid. But not at her most thoughtful moments. The big question here is whether we are laughing with or at these miserable loser characters: the same question several films and/or filmmakers make us ask, such as the Coens. My comparison has always been Sinclair Lewis, who specialized in mocking small town America and bourgeois values: I always got the feeling he had nothing but contempt for his characters. But it’s always hard to tell, you always look for clues from the filmmakers how they want you to view their subject. With Napoleon, I kept waiting for the big redemptive ending: and while somebody might argue that the conventional happy ending is redemptive, since it shows even miserable losers can find happiness, I wonder if it was enough. Maybe. Ghost World had fun with geeks, yet under that surface raised questions like: Is this all there is? Is there any alternative to irony and consumption? Does anything matter? Napoleon Dynamite doesn’t seem interested in asking questions or escape from Loserville. The plot raises the possibility of “True Love,” which suggests something more than self-absorption and immersion in trivia, but, again, it’s hard to say whether the filmmakers were genuinely hopeful of the human condition or going for the upbeat ending to make sure everybody comes to their film, gets a chance to feel superior to all the losers depicted, and goes home feeling vaguely warm and fuzzy. The ending in Ghost World is ambiguous, and frustrating for some viewers, but at least it left those big questions echoing in your mind on the way out. Then again, when I think of Ghost World now, my strongest image is the mullet-headed numchuck dude in the convenience store parking lot: what a loser, but you gotta love him, and love the filmmakers for getting him so dead-on right. And I swear to God (doesn’t that sound like something Napoleon would say?) I went to school with Napoleon Dynamite, as I told my daughter, leaving the theater. “Dad, you ARE Napoleon Dynamite” she said. Which is so like totally Not True. We saw the new ending, or post-credits scene: it’s much longer than your usual add-on or deleted scene. I couldn’t come up with a good economic reason for these filmmakers to regather their cast and shoot such an involved scene after their film was already finished. Maybe they really DO like these characters…

Well, after 14 weeks in release Napoleon Dynamite finally broke into the top 10! Congrats to the little film that could!

In its 15th week, it moved up to #8... Go, Napoleon! Go!

I saw this movie again yesterday, I went with a group of first-time viewers, for a friend's birthday celebration. They all loved it. What struck me as I saw the film again was how the film captured the awkwardness of being in high school. Napolean has all this inner frustration over living with a loser brother and a loser uncle, over being bullied, and in not knowing how to talk to girls. He happens to express this frustration in amusing ways. I think because I can identify with the frustration I felt when I was his age and still do in some ways, that's why I like his character so much.

A new assessment of the film from my friend Wayne:

Genius.

'Nuff said.

Napoleon presents the Top Ten Signs You're Not the Most Popular Guy in Your High School on last night's David Letterman:

10. Your yearbook photo caption reads, "Unidentified Sophmore".

9. Your only friend is the one you built in shop class.

8. School song includes phrase about how much you suck.

7. Everytime you talk to a girl, the conversation inevitably drifts to your frequent nosebleeds.

6. The stupid kid who gets his tater tots stolen every day? He steals your tater tots.

5. Everyone's jealous of your tetherball skills.

4. Not only did you take your mom to the prom, you had to pay her 20 bucks.

3. You can't dance like this. (You know what he did here.)

2. "Lord of the Rings" figurines-50, friends-0.

1. "How would I know? I'm the coolest kid in school. Gosh!"

Seems exactly right that Jonathan Demme would love this movie. Check out this conversation from The Guardian.

Jonathan Demme talks to Sheila Johnston about Jared Hess's Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
Nov 29, 2004

"When I found out about this column, it sounded like fun," says the immensely enthusiastic Jonathan Demme. "I was racking my brains for a film to talk about and seized pretty quickly on Bernardo Bertolucci's The Conformist, a masterpiece which I have stolen from shamelessly again and again."

Demme wanted to watch The Conformist again before we met, but, like so many other classics, it proved unobtainable on video or DVD. Fortunately he had another title up his sleeve, one he has seen no fewer than four times this year. It is Napoleon Dynamite, a no-budget teen comedy which opens here on Friday.

Has the director gone from the sublime to the ridiculous? Crisply dismissed by the American trade paper Variety as "an absurdist piece about a rural community of clueless cretins… bottom dwellers doing stupid things that make them look even more idiotic," this film divided audiences and critics violently at its world première in Sundance. "From a strictly cinematic point of view, the film is, as they say in French, nul, a void, a zero," said Variety's Todd McCarthy.

"So that's what the top dwellers who write reviews had to say. How very interesting," says Demme, 60, glimmering with sarcasm. "To me, Napoleon Dynamite reflects an extremely bold vision, so bold that it alienates some of our august critics. It has enriched my life and brought joy and pleasure into my household."

He was first turned on to it by Denzel Washington, the star of his own latest film, a remake of The Manchurian Candidate. "We were talking last summer and I asked what movie his kids liked at the moment. He said, 'They're obsessed with this film called Napoleon Something.' I said, 'My kids love that movie too.'

"I'm not sure if I would have paid it any attention – it's rated PG [in both the US and UK], which is the kiss of death. But I found myself intrigued because Denzel's kids had gone back to it again; it's one of those repeat movies. So I went to see it and just fell in love with it."

Unconnected to Elvis Costello (who once used the name as a pseudonym), Napoleon Dynamite is centred on two misfits from small-town Idaho, the ginger-frizzed, buck-toothed Napoleon and his even geekier elder brother, Kip. "Their performances are so vividly etched and fully realised that you wonder, 'Was there a script?'" Demme says.

"Every shot is very simply but carefully composed. The cuts to an incoming scene often begin with a straight-on, proscenium shot of somebody set against the neighbourhood, a little in the style of Bill Owens, a photographer who went into the suburbs in the 1960s and '70s and did portraits of working-class people. Much of the film occurs in impersonal houses and these barren, unappealing landscapes with the same desolation that the characters are experiencing within themselves."

However, after some humiliating misadventures, both brothers begin relationships which transform their lives. Napoleon teams up with a new kid at school, while Kip meets the bootylicious LaFawnduh through an internet chat room. "They live in this all-white community, but the guy Napoleon befriends is Mexican and the profoundly irritating Kip just blossoms the moment LaFawnduh, a black woman, steps off the bus.

"It never stops being hilarious, it never starts being remotely sappy, but it's beautiful to watch them emerge out of their little world. I don't think it's patronising. Then, having endured their painful struggle to expand their lives, all the characters are rewarded with a blissfully funny montage of redemption.

"I love the score, too. There's wall-to-wall music of well-chosen pop and a sort of organ music for semi-hopeful moments. I can imagine someone describing it as rinky-dink but it's smartly emotional."

Directed by a 24-year-old first-timer, Jared Hess, Napoleon Dynamite confounded reviewers by becoming a cult hit in the States. Five months after it opened there in June, it is still playing in cinemas, and a postscript has been shot for the DVD. "It takes the notion of the happy ending into the ozone," Demme says. "When you talk about the film, it all sounds so serious, but the whole point is that this is an escapist, fun movie."

It's refreshing and surprising to hear a director endorse a film so far on the fringe of the critical canon, and with such modesty. "What I loved as an audience member and was in awe of as a filmmaker was its endless originality. My own recent films have been well-budgeted, super-equipped Hollywood movies and I've been hearing myself say for years that I would love to make a much more daring, idiosyncratic feature.

"For anyone who wishes to do something offbeat, there could be no greater challenge than Napoleon Dynamite, made on a shoestring. I hope I find in the next year or two that, yes, I too still have the courage and ability to make a movie like that."

I never got to see this in the theater, but finally got the DVD from Netflix after a "very long wait" of about two weeks--it remains popular, evidently!

For filmmakers, the DVD includes the director's film-school version of the movie, a B&W short also starring Jon Heder as Napoleon. It's interesting to see what was added and changed, what was kept, in the long version.

My husband and I enjoyed this movie a lot. Laugh-out-loud funny at time, but mostly we weren't laughing AT the characters, or only in the sense that you laugh at something when you recognize yourself, or some aspect of yourself. Yes, we were both shy geeks in high school, in different ways. Jim said near the beginning, "This seems pretty postmodern"--meaning, "random," but as it went on, seemingly coincidental events proved to be part of a pattern that would lead to Rico's comeuppance [spoiler]and yet there's even grace for him--the girl on the bicycle who arrives at his van is supposed to be his ex, coming to reconcile--though I wasn't clear on that until I heard the commentary[/spoiler], to Kip's breaking out of his shell, and to the triumph of Napoleon (!) and Pedro. "Big" redemptive ending? Maybe not--it's not a movie about big people, but it is redemptive, and implies an ordered world-view.

The DVD commentary, by Hess, Heder, and someone else, confirms that they do like these characters, that many of the film's incidents come from their own histories.

I'm not convinced about the quotability of the lines, though. Without the actors and the contexts, most of them don't seem to have much going for them. It's about how the lines are said, not what is said, in most cases. But that's MHO.

Hey, cool timing, Beth! I finally caught this on Friday night after sitting through Netflix's "very long wait."

Two words: loved it! And this is coming from someone who is not much of a comedy fan. Even the background details cracked me up, like the cheesy Olan Mills–type portrait in Napoelon's house. Remember the ones where you get two shots of someone's head in the same photo: one looking straight into the camera and another in profile? And Napoleon's "Pegasus Xing" sign. And all of those horse T-shirts.

And don't even get me started on the RexKwando sequence: "Do you think anybody wants a roundhouse kick to the face when I'm wearing these badboys?!? Forget it!!"



Why can't I find this on my disc? All of the extras I could spot were a photo gallery, deleted scenes, and the commentary. Am I missing something? Am I just being a flippin' idiot?

Edited because I am an idiot when it comes to spelling!

IIRC, you'll need to flip it over to the "Fullscreen" side. There are different extras on either side of the disc.

Now why didn't that even occur to me?! Thanks, opus.

Just saw it myself. Very funny, though I can't say I really liked Napoleon all that much. He had a kind of stubborn surliness which was somewhat alienating. The Basset-hound remark made earlier was stuck in my head through the whole film, though; thanks!
I haven't watched the commentary, yet, and I can't really say anything that would add to the remarks preceeding mine; the acting (which reminds me of Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker--except that these actors seem to know how ridiculous it is) is spot-on; it's like they're moving through life half-asleep.
All in all, I liked it, and I think it's a DVD I'll have to get for my collection.

Loved "Napoleon Dynamite." I first saw it on DVD and had to
keep rewinding because certain places just demanded to be
watched again. Cracked me up. And yes, I found myself
relating to the nerdiness. I wanted to put on a pair of moon
boots and challenge myself to a game of tetherball.

As to the competition between Anchorman and Napoleon. . .
Anchorman made it to my list of worst films of the year. I
found it to have a few good one-liners and not much else.

I walked out of my screening of Anchorman -- the only time I've ever done that. Your comments make me want to see Napoleon Dynamite.

Old news, but I don't think anyone ever linked to this here: I can't believe how hard Ebert was on this film. Yikes. I don't think we even watched the same movie at all.



I agree totally, Beth. I really don't see this as a cruel movie, as Ebert obviously did.

Honestly, I'm jealous of the people behind this film, because they basically managed to make a film version of a book that my sister and I have always said we should write. We were certainly NOT losers on the level of Napoleon, but we had many ultra-geeky moments. Sure, some of what we went through was extremely painful at the time, but we can only look back on those incidents now and laugh our heads off. Friends actually request that we share these stories, even if they've heard them before. And when they laugh, we know they're not laughing at us but laughing with us, because we realize the ridiculousness of it all. (Seriously, I should blog some of those stories someday.) Like my family's stories, this film seems like a wonderful way for the filmmakers to actually unload all of those uncomfortable memories...and have a blast doing so.

Also: I feel quite a bit of affection for Napoleon. Isn't surliness a given when you're a nerdy teen?

The entire appeal of Anchorman is in the absurdly complete commitment of Will Ferrell to his character. That's why I laugh all the way through. That and Steve Carrell's genius for unpredictable comments. When he suddenly and inexplicably switches sides in the newsteam street war....

Napoleon Dynamite is a far more artful comedy, no argument there. It's actually ABOUT something. Anchorman is absurdity for absurdity's sake, like Top Secret!, Airplane!, and The Jerk. Some folks like it, some folks don't. I love all four of those films.

"Milk was a bad choice!"

This didn't do much for. It wanted to like it, but it just felt so forced and I didn't care too much for any of the characters. A lot of the humor wasn't that original. The unlikely black-white couple has been done before. Wasn't that the premise of Bringing Down the House? I think a lot of people gravitated towards this movie because it was weird and quirky. Quirkiness doesn't make a good movie, especially when there' s no story or likeable characters.

just reading this made me laugh. I can't explain it, but I liked all the movies that you mentioned even though I feel like I lose brain cells after watching them.

Ah, the call of the cult. Join in - you know you want to ;0)

Some soundboards for those interested ... plus his appearance on Letterman for the Top 10 list. Watching the movie annoyed me, but another viewing had me quoting it left and right.

http://www.milkandcookies.com/keywords/napoleondynamite

There's been a rumor going around (for a freakin' month!) that Jon Heder (Napoleon Dynamite) died in a car crash.

Idiots!

I saw this movie a couple months ago and I really liked it, although I am highly attracted to the independent film style. I often think lower budgets make better movies or at least a movie that focuses less on the power of celebrity. Anyway, just some quick, random comments due to lack of time to post.

I did laugh during this movie but not from a comedic element. I laughed at the way they introduced humor into the lives on screen. There is a natural humor in life when laughter is inappropriate but we laugh anyway, like when someone trips but doesn’t get hurt or a joke at a funeral. This is the way I laughed during this movie. I laughed but it wasn’t funny, except for the steak in the eye.

I don’t think these characters were intended to be portrayed as losers but more on the marginal side of misunderstood. I think they were very personal and endearing. They were odd but I don’t think unlikable characters. According to the director’s commentary these characters were actually quite close to the hearts of the filmmakers maybe even semi-autobiographical.

I have to say that if we write these characters off immediately as losers then we have missed the focus and it might actually say a bit more about us than them. They were marginal for sure but look at the relationships. They were there for each other without regard for how they may get looked at. They were immediate in their response to show their faithfulness as a friend and when they did they simply resumed their life immediately afterward, without waiting for a thank you.

The movie actually, in a Pretty in Pink sort of way, made the popular people look quite selfish and arrogant.

I thought the long takes and wider shots really added to the feeling of the small town boredom and isolation that these characters experienced.

This is one thing that I really appreciated about the movie when I first saw it. The characters were so real, a bit bizarre, but I could name people in highschool and even now who fit the type of these characters. When I watched this film it felt like I was seeing what that kid in high school did when he went home after eating alone in the cafeteria. To my own shame I never thought about what his life was like outside of a lonely lunch room experience.

Saw it last summer...loved it.
Reviewed it.

Took my wife to see it a few weeks later...she loved it. She loved it so much that this year's Valentine's Day gifts from her to me were a "Vote For Pedro" T-Shirt and a song using the same beat as Kip's wedding day serenade to Lafawnda!

Just watched it again this past Saturday night with some friends who had never seen it. They loved it!

This was definetly one of the funniest movies of 04'. Nothing else came close (it was a pretty lame year for comedies). There really isn't any explicit humor, but the characters are just such weirdoes that you can't help but laugh.

One of the funniest aspects of the movie is that Napoleon isn't the nicest guy around, despite his being the "hero". Not everything he says is true, even from his own point of view. When he tells some friends that he spent his summer killing wolverines in Alaska, that he has sweet bow-staff skills, and that a model in a photography advertisement is his girlfriend, we know that either he’s full of it or that he takes wishful thinking to a whole new level.

Oh my! Within 2 hours of reading this post, I spotted a student wearing a "Vote For Pedro" T-shirt! Synchronicity strikes again.

Now I want one.