It seems fitting that the director of Napoleon Dynamite would go on to direct a film like Nacho Libre who is the only title character I can see that would have the potential to be even more annoying. I can't say as I've seen the latter, although by reason of personal preference, and not of sloth. Napoleon Dynamite was more than enough of Jared Hess for my tastes. Actually five minutes of that picture would do more than satiate me.

Hess is clearly a writer/director with a unique comic vision. I will give him that much. His characters are all distinct, and very over-the-top in their respective stereotypes, and this is done obviously on purpose. Hess also seems to have uncommonly tight control over his direction; much more than I would expect for such an inexperienced filmmaker. I never get the feeling that what is being shown to me on screen is anything other than precisely what Hess wants me to see. So why would a young director with as much supposed talent such as this want to show his audience something as painfully unfunny as Napoleon Dynamite?

I suppose that's not fair of me. I understand a lot of people out there find this picture to be tolerable, and a lot of you even find it humorous. That's all well and good for you, and it all comes down to a matter of taste and your own personal sense of humor, of which I obviously do not share. The fact that I found Napoleon Dynamite abrasive and unpleasant factors only into my star rating for the film, and does not even begin to comment on what it does poorly in a cinematic sense.

How are we supposed to feel about the protagonist? We don't like him, as we spend most of the movie laughing at his expense. We don't dislike him, because the movie focuses on him, and he ends up the hero of a warm ending. We are not even neutral about him, because it is impossible to feel neutrality for such an oddball person. And the same goes for every other character throughout the course of the film. If the movie can't even decide how it feels towards its characters, then how the hell is the audience supposed to? Here is a question for people who enjoyed Napoleon Dynamite. How do you feel about Napoleon? I doubt many people would be able to answer that in any detail without a great deal of thought, and I believe most won't be able to answer it at all.

I could have ignored that particularly huge pitfall if I had understood the characters' motivations. But, a misunderstanding of motivation is not only my own, but Jared Hess' as well. In fact, I don't believe he knows his characters in any sort of depth at all. Why would a foreign kid with no social skills want to run for school president? Why would someone as inept and uncomfortable with his classmates agree to get up on a stage and dance in front of his entire school? How would a sassy black woman fall for a geeky, stupid little white guy who has nothing going for him? What does Napoleon's love interest see in him? I could go on here, but I won't.

Hess believes any sort of thought into background or motivation is unnecessary, and that by demeaning his easy-to-demean stereotypes, he has done his job as an entertainer. He is dead wrong. There is more thought put into the character of detective Frank Drebin, than there is Napoleon Dynamite, and in a film like The Naked Gun, there doesn't need to be.

If you found this picture to be funny, than that is your opinion and I will not challenge it. Personally, I went in wanting to be entertained, and came out more irritated than I ever could have thought possible. Napoleon Dynamite is among the worst films I have ever seen.