The Darwin Awards

While quite original in it's concept of studying people who kill themselves in incredibly stupid ways, the delivery is jumbled and not as entertaining as it might have been. If you were to lose the totally unnecessary documentary film maker and the ridiculous, cartoon-like serial killer, the movie would have benefited. When it is describing one of the outrageous idiots and their stunts, the film is in high gear. Unfortunately it repeatedly bogs down and this starting and stopping ruins the whole tone of "The Darwin Awards". I recommend simply checking out the idiotic segments and skipping the rest. This would have made a superior short, but as a feature it fails, because there is too much going on at once. Less would have been best. - MERK

This was a movie I was really looking forward to at Sundance. We're all familiar with the Darwin Awards, a website started by Stanford molecular biologist Wendy Northcutt to humorously recognize extremely stupid acts that lead to self-inflicted, accidental death. Northcutt's notion is that the human gene pool improves when these tragi-comic figures, who are presumably plagued by genetic stupidity, are removed from the population. Hence the Darwin Awards (www.darwinawards.com).

It sounds like a terrific premise for an outrageous comedy and like the rest of the audience I was licking my chops. Unfortunately, this movie was about as funny as Origin of the Species. Director Finn Taylor has made a couple of refreshingly oddball films (Dreams with the Fishes, Cherish) but The Darwin Awards fails on almost every level.

The concept was probably doomed from the outset by the decision to incorporate a bunch of award-winning events into a linear storyline, including madcap crime investigations and a little love interest. Casting Joseph Fiennes and Wynona Ryder as the leads was the second mistake, as neither of them was right for their parts (and despite their efforts, came off very flat). Follow that with writing that is simply not very clever and you have a disappointing movie.

The vignettes do include some great casting choices, including Chris Penn, Tim Blake Nelson, David Arquette and Metallica. But unfortunately, they are lost in the woeful script, and give us only the occasional funny moment.

As many have heard, actor Chris Penn was found dead at his Santa Monica home the day of the Sundance premiere. Finn Taylor had some nice words to say about Chris prior to the screening. And afterwards Winona Ryder, who had known Chris for 15 years, spoke at length about him. "He wasn't just Sean's younger brother," she said. It was a genuinely nice tribute.

This is obviously one of those quirky "indie" films that somehow manages to slip down the cracks & is quickly forgotten, until it turns up in video shops to quietly gather dust on some obscure shelf in the corner. This is one of those examples. The film proposes to make known the fatal examples of those idiots that try stupid stunts (kind of like the case studies in either of the 'Jackass' films). About the only different thing about this is the fact that the stunts are not real, and there's something of a plot line about an ex cop (Joseph Finnes), turned insurance investigator, who is obsessed about the actions of these mental dwarfs who seem to have a thing for acting really dumb. Wynonna Ryder has some nice time as a fellow investigator,who is on board to find out pretty much the same. There is an unnecessary romance subplot going on that only manages to pad the film out. The film does, however manage to get some nice screen time with some juicy cameos from the likes of Chris Penn (his last film before his unfortunate death some time ago),John Doe (from the L.A. punk band X),legendary Beat era poet & publisher Lawrence Ferlingetti,performance artist/writer Josh Kornbluth,and even Metal Gods, Metallica. Despite this,this is a 3rd tier film that may do o.k. as a late night film (if there are any cinemas that still screen midnight flicks),but it won't lose anything if viewed on the small screen.

This was the coveted ticket at Sundance, apparently. We arrived 2 1/2 hours before the screening and were shocked to find that we were nearly 90th in line! We luckily got into our screening,but unfortunately, the movie was a disappointment. The cast is stellar; Joe Fiennes and Winona Ryder are the headliners, and there are many cameos, including Tim Blake Nelson and Robin Tunney, who starred in director Finn Taylor's last movie, Cherish. In addition, Chris Penn (who unfortunately passed away just the day before the premiere of this film at Sundance), Wilmer Valderrama, Alessandro Nivola, Ty Burrell, Juliette Lewis, Tom Hollander, and David Arquette were some of the other cameos included.

Joe Fiennes plays a police detective who is thrown off the squad due to his propensity to faint at the sight of blood. He and Ryder's character get together and try to find out what makes these "Darwin Award" winners tick. I am not sure that point is ever resolved in this film, which is part of the reason why it is uneven. Also, there is just no chemistry between Ryder and Fiennes. I really didn't care whether or not the two of them "got together" or not.

There are a few laughs in the film as the Award "winners" demonstrate what they did to "win." The problem is that they just didn't effectively sum up the movie. It was a little confusing. I will probably rent the DVD when it comes out so that I can see if I just missed it. Another problem is the documentary "filmmaker" who tags along. Why? He seems pointless.

All in all, we had a great time at the screening; Fiennes, Valderrama, Burrell, and Brad Hunt, as well as Finn Taylor, and the author of the book (The Darwin Awards) led the Q and A session afterward. That was the best part of the screening! My recommendation is that if you want to see a good Finn Taylor film, rent "Cherish".

I watched this film "cold"--I had not heard of it before and was not expecting a comedy, per se; I truly had no expectations as someone else chose the film and I did not read the DVD cover at all, just jumped right in. That said, I thought it was fantastic. Those expecting a rip-roaring, sidesplitting gigglefest ought perhaps to have watched something intended to be so. This was funny at moments, disturbing at others, a little shallow in some places, but I sincerely doubt it was intended to be taken as deep philosophical delving despite the lead character's commentary. As for the chemistry between the leads, I agree with a previous reviewer's assessment: they were meant to irritate one another, and I thought the slow and gradual depth of the relationship was far more romantic than any of the stereotypical big-bang overnight transformations into meaningful interaction. Perhaps more people should watch films without having any clue what to expect of them. It keeps the viewer from making perhaps inappropriate demands that may or may not be met.