I enjoy clever comedy, there is nothing clever here. It's basically awkward events designed to get a reaction out of the lesser intelligent sector of humanity, which unfortunately represents 90% of United States society.
shareThis is what our society has become. Just look at all the most popular videos on YouTube these days. They are either reaction videos, where the creator just makes weird faces while "reacting" to the news, or they are prank videos. Napoleon Dynamite came out right when this trend was getting started.
shareI totally agree with you, unfortunately the blind fan freaks were duped by this nonsense. I'm glad all humans don't like the same things, there are "us" and then there are "them".
shareConsidering that YouTube wasn't launched until late 2005 and ND came out in 2004 your argument is moot. I'm surprised that partydjz, who's apparently in the top 10% of society's intellectuals, didn't know that.
share> oh I get it
No, you clearly don't.
> I enjoy clever comedy
Obviously not.
> there is nothing clever here.
There's no such thing as a fictional work of comedy that isn't clever. If it isn't clever it isn't funny, thus it isn't truly a comedy. Napoleon Dynamite is one of the funniest movies ever made, which negates your asinine assertion.
> It's basically awkward events designed to get a reaction out of the lesser intelligent sector of humanity, which unfortunately represents 90% of United States society.
This is comically ironic, coming from someone who tacitly admitted that he didn't get Napoleon Dynamite.
As I posted, I got it. Let me guess, you're also an expert on dramatic film, that's why you enjoy comic strip movies and the Terminator series, guessing you've never heard of Stanley Kubrick?
Would you care to discuss "Dr. Strangelove" ? a truly clever comedy.
The fact of the matter is that the things you find humorous are not the things that I find to be humorous. I don't like extreme repetition, potty jokes or screen plays that pull the same gags over and over again. Case in point, the lead character in Napolean Dynamite that keeps running away when he's done with a conversation, it's over done, wasn't funny the 1st time, and repeating it becomes redundant.
"There's no such thing as a fictional work of comedy that isn't clever." That statement is ludicrous. So if a work is fiction, and intended to be a comedy, it's clever regardless of how poorly it is written? Ridiculous
>As I posted, I got it.
As I posted: no, you clearly didn't.
>Let me guess, you're also an expert on dramatic film, that's why you enjoy comic strip movies and the Terminator series, guessing you've never heard of Stanley Kubrick?
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
>The fact of the matter is that the things you find humorous are not the things that I find to be humorous.
That's because you didn't get it, as I've already pointed out.
>I don't like extreme repetition, potty jokes or screen plays that pull the same gags over and over again.
Given that none of those things apply to Napoleon Dynamite, this is another non sequitur from you.
>Case in point, the lead character in Napolean Dynamite that keeps running away when he's done with a conversation, it's over done, wasn't funny the 1st time, and repeating it becomes redundant.
Repeating it? He only [sort of] runs off (a few steps back into the house) when he's done with a conversation one time. There are a few more times that he runs off, but it has nothing to do with a conversation ending.
In any case, that's part of his character; it's not a joke in and of itself. The overall character is funny, mainly because it's so accurate. I knew two kids in school who acted almost exactly like Napoleon Dynamite; they dressed like him too. I'm guessing that the creators of the movie knew someone in their school who acted like that too. I suspect there's some sort of mental condition that causes those general characteristics. I'm also going to guess that you've never known someone who acted like that, which is part of why you don't get it.
>That statement is ludicrous. So if a work is fiction, and intended to be a comedy, it's clever regardless of how poorly it is written? Ridiculous
You don't read so well. I said: "If it isn't clever it isn't funny, thus it isn't truly a comedy."
Does the "bolding" help?
i assume half of the people are watching it for the first time, but if you watched it in 2004 you'd recall that garden state came out the same year. with the same distributor (fox searchlight), both movies are two sides of the same coin and kicked off a new wave of quirky indie comedies whose tradition was further solidified with little miss sunshine and juno.
i find the movie clever in that they pick out the stupidest details of life or create the most mundane/absurdist dialogue but make them true somehow. there are characters you can love and ones you can root against, each rich in their own way.
if you're looking for something to tear down, you'll find everything "wrong" with the film. but in doing so you miss out on a beautiful essence. if you can embrace what is typically considered "wrong" or "bad", the film becomes an experience that's a joy to revisit again and again. you could be drinking whole milk instead of 2%.
just follow your heart, that's what i do.
how i learned to stop worrying and vote for pedro.
I love the attention to details in this movie. They managed to incorporate a lot of little cheesy things from the '80s, which were even funnier due to being anachronistic in the movie's 2004 setting. Things like the 25-foot phone cords, which were a popular solution to the limited freedom of movement problem before wireless phones became mainstream in the early 1990s. I just wish they would have shown some of the problems with those ridiculously long phone cords though, such as them becoming hopelessly tangled up, and other people walking by getting tangled up in them.
The "double exposure" portraits on the wall (https://i.imgur.com/8SHXJbi.jpg) were a nice touch; those were a fad in the '80s, a "deluxe" extra-cost option when you filled out your order form for school pictures.
Napoleon's clothes were straight out of the '80s, but not what the "cool kids" wore in the '80s. Those T-shirts with generic prints on them (rather than something licensed, such as Nike) were hilarious. I remember the "moon boots" fad in the early '80s, but Napoleon took it one step farther by wearing them in the summer. His glasses were straight out of the '80s too.
Uncle Rico's conversion van: those were a fad in the '70s and '80s.
The "Vote For Pedro" T-shirt was perfect, because it was exactly what a homemade T-shirt from the '80s looked like, i.e., the "ringer" style T-shirt (a fad in the '70s and '80s) along with those iron-on "Cooper Black" typeface letters that you could buy at e.g., Ben Franklin's for a dollar or so, and misaligned, no less.
VHS was pretty much dead by 2004, and top-loading VCRs were last manufactured in the early 1980s.
Cassette tapes, including a "mixtape".
Pay by the minute internet access was an '80s and early '90s thing; pretty much extinct by 2004, at least in the U.S.
All those background details were just icing on the cake though; the well-written, well-acted, memorable characters, along with the dialog and situations, made the movie.
I will agree that all of your points are valid. I do understand why people like this film. I DO understand it, I DO get it. I've simply seen better films that rely on quirky comedy.
I think part of the reason I don't feel the appreciation of this film is because it eventually received a cult classic type of following of which I personally felt it was undeserving. I would put pretty much any John Waters film above this one, along with some lesser known "dark" comedies such as "Free Money", "Fandango" and "Love Liza".
The fact that someone does not feel all the love for a film such as this is not complete positive proof that they simply don't "Get it".
The fact that someone does not feel all the love for a film such as this is not complete positive proof that they simply don't "Get it".
Yes, the extra long phone cords were as you say "hilarious" what's funny about them? Really, I'd like know, you consider that humor? My god grow the hell up and watch some intelligent film previous to 1980, you pompous idiot.
share>Yes, the extra long phone cords were as you say "hilarious"
I didn't say the extra long phone cord was hilarious, Special Ed, though it was funny.
>what's funny about them?
I already explained that, simpleton.
>My god grow the hell up and watch some intelligent film previous to 1980, you pompous idiot.
Comical Irony Alert
It's one of those films I didn't like much, but I can see why other people might like it more than I do.
At least it's pretty unique, in the era of generic entertainment.
It's quotable, realistic, and funny! I understand it's not everybody's kind of humor, but still, I wish people would stop hating on this movie so much. I don't get why people call this film over rated, in my opinion it's under rated.
shareThe movie is about eccentric characters and the film itself is an oddity. It's weird, it's off beat, from another time, funny at moments awkward at others.
shareI hated it the first time but it grew on me.
shareOne of my friends said it was the most pointless movie she'd ever seen, and yet I still saw her wearing her own white T-shirt that said "Vote Pedro" on it. *shrugs*
shareAgreed.
share