I agree with you here, but the genius of the film is that its creators realized that even the idea of turning a John Hughes movie on its head with realism would become a “convention” before the film was over, and so they had fun turning their newly-minted “convention” on ITS head before the credits rolled, subverting their subervion, if you will.
for instance, there was no earthly reason to think that Kip would end up with his love, but he does.
Also, everything in the film so far led us to believe that after Napoleon’s spastic “Vote for Pedro” dance, he would get his nasty and undeserved come-uppance from the “popular” kids, and perhaps experience growth of some sort, but NO! Everyone applauds!
In fact, I think that’s the ultimate key to the appeal of the movie. These pathetic nerds seem to have no idea how pathetic they are, and given that the movie makes no bones about them being unappealing losers who imagine that they know everything, it then, instead of having the characters experience change and growth, changes the world around them, however illogically, in order to eliminate the necessity of them changing and growing.
Since they had the internet, I guess it had to be more or less present day relative to when the movie came out. It’s just that small towns like that always feel like they’re about ten years behind the times.
As to the question on the bus. I think there was suggestion that kids at Napolean’s school liked asking him those kinds of questions just because they knew he was apt to say something weird – like when they were asking him about his summer vacation and he was making up a story about hunting wolverines with a 12-gauge. They just like to eff with him.
It was quirky. If you like this type of movie there are tons of them on the Sundance Channel. I don’t think there was anything necessarily to “get”. They’re just odd, offbeat characters. I thought it was pretty good.
Not one big name star (at the time of filming) appears but each actor hits his / her notes perfectly. I know that they used ordinary teenage schmos as the extras but that’s irrelevant. Name me another movie that stars actors who are not only off the radar but never once even registered a blip. (I did find out later that Uncle Rico is the weird closet roommate from Real Genius and he appears twice as a homeless bum on Seinfeld. Either way- not the stuff of the Hollywood A-list.) The fact that there isn’t the annoying-cameo-just-for-the-sake-of-having-a-famous-person-appear and that alone puts ND in a class by itself.
The other thing that separates ND from every other comedy made today is that there isn’t one instance of gross-out humor or an over-the-top episode of wacky violence nor -to my knowledge- one crude attempt at humor or even one profane utterance. Name me another comedy from today’s films that can claim that distinction -cartoons not included.
That’s what separates Napoleon Dynamite from the pack.
Or Tina Majorino, who, before taking a break from acting to finish school, had significant roles in four major motion pictures under her belt, and had had a TV version of Alice in Wonderland built around her.
This was on CTV last night, and I finally saw it. It really was my kind of movie: quirky, strange, and both real and surreal simultaneously. It reminded me of Fargo, in a way.
I’m glad I finally saw it. Of course my wife thought it was perhaps the stupidest movie she had ever seen, which is why we never rent movies like ND.
Thirded. I found parts of ND funny, but I found it sadder than it was funny by a factor of about ten. Something about him not fitting in, and (vaguely) realizing he doesn’t fit in, and…arrggh. He’s halfway between Asperger’s and me, the “average” high school dork.