Seriously, it's horribly acted (with the exception of the guy playing rex), it was horribly written, the shots were horrible. This is it is quite possibly the least funniest film in a few good years. Then again it was accepted by mainstream culture, I mean "Gosh" and "Your Mom goes to college"....................what the ****. I would like to know what makes this film appealing.
2006-07-04 17:35:49 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
lol @ Indie film comment.
As far as dry humor and what not goes, dry humor is a lot more British comedy, puns, word play, etc.
As far as living in a small town. I've lived in many towns across the nation and world. I've been in towns with one stop light and cities. Trust me, that has nothing to do with it.
I'm in agreence with the Lafanda thing, I say this only because the actor playing his brother is rather funny, but you can only work so much with the horrible script.
The movie sucked, and it's not because I may seem arrogant or that I have no understanding of indie films (seeing as this really isn't one). It just sucked with all the strength of 10000000 black holes.
2006-07-04 17:45:56 · update #1
It wasn't a matter of intellegence, the underlying characters are stereotypes of stereotypes. This is no Canterbury Tales. If you want an example of stereotypes made funny in dumb humor just look at "Not another teen movie", it's not the best but it's a better example of stereotypes used as jokes.
2006-07-04 17:49:14 · update #2
AI thought it sucked, too. Didn't even sit through the whole thing.
2006-07-04 17:37:19 · answer #1 · answered by flamingo_sandy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the best freakin' movie ever DarkC?
Schindler's List? Madea's Family Reunion? Moonstruck? Lord of the Rings? Million Dollar Baby?
Your an idiot (not the author of the question)
Anyway, yes I hated the movie. I didn't want to sit thru it all but I did b/c EVERYONE was telling me how awesome and funny it was. I kept waiting for it to get awesome or funny and, it never did. If I were forced to make a choice of watching Napoleon Dynamite again or douching with draino, I'd do the latter without blinking an eye.
2006-07-04 17:46:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I saw it when it was originally shown at the Sundance Film Festival. It was all I could do not to walk out. Its really lame on a large scale. When the distribution rights were bought by the studio I figured the next thing to happen would be the sky falling! Thats how stupid this movie is!
2006-07-04 18:03:43 · answer #3 · answered by Active Denial System™ 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree totally. It was such a lame movie. All these people I know said what a good movie it was and how funny it was. I thought it sucked. I think the same people told me Anchorman or whatever the show was with Will Ferril was good and funny and I thought that one sucked too.
2006-07-04 20:20:12 · answer #4 · answered by Birdlegs 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'll tell you what the worst acting movie ever was..it's "Havoc" and it stars anne hathaway...i'm a young black woman and I was serious rolling at this sorry a$$ movie about some rich white girls pretending to be ghetto black superstars.. .and they finally get a taste of that life by hangin with latin gangstas and its just hilarious...as far as napoleon dynamite..its a dumb *** movie but the reason its so well liked is because its so damn stupid
2006-07-04 17:39:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
People like it because it was a plain and simple movie.
It had an uncomplicated plot and no complex storyline to unravel.
It did a good job of depicting small town life.
It wasn't obscene or vulgar in any way.
For those of us who remember the '80s, it was a great flashback.
2006-07-04 17:46:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I loved the movie. Not because it had a amazing acting...because it didn't. Or that the camera shots were outstanding...because they weren't. I will agree with you there. It was a great movie because it showed the geek, not the popular as being the hero. That's what high school's all about. LOL.
2006-07-04 17:42:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought it was funny because I went to school with nerds like that. I think people can relate to some character or another. Kip was hilarious, Pedro was the classic immigrant (cowboy boots and all) and I loved it. Its a movie that appeals to intelligent people. I know that sounds crazy.....because it was so silly....but you actually have to have a brain to absorb the underlying meaning of the characters. Sorry...it was great to me.
RIGHT ON....GFORCE
2006-07-04 17:42:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you, this is the worst movie of all time as I am concerned. It wasn't funny, or touching (as stated by the movie critic introducing on Austar).
I'm just glad that I never borrowed it from the video store, it would have been a waste of $7.
2006-07-04 17:39:12 · answer #9 · answered by noellajean_jellybean 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I haven't seen it, but it seems to be a film working with the absurd, and teenage angst.. and a kind of bucolic innocence to boot. Meh. I didn't like Rushmore.. is it anything like that?
I think it's also a kind of reaction to Welcome to the Dollhouse, Storytelling, Kids, and Gummo, if not Pink Flamingos and Election.
2006-07-04 18:24:01 · answer #10 · answered by -.- 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It put me to sleep. I honestly felt ten times dumber then when I put it in the VCR. I didn't know that was possible either cause I'm already not that bright. Well I guess when you do so many drugs in one day your brain can't comprehend anything more then "God" you know the saying. I think that's what he says oh well.
2006-07-04 17:40:03 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋