The Darwin Awards

Despite the terrible reviews this movie has garnered, it has some qualities that raise it above average and gives us something that, over all, is pretty darn good. In addition to explaining some of the more foolish acts performed by people in an entertaining way, the work attempts to give us an understanding as to why these people commit those foolish acts.

There is, in the eyes of this work, a duality of man that shifts between normal, safe and acceptable behavior and insane actions that may often lead to one's death. Throughout the movie, David Arquette's character is straining to discover what it is, exactly, that drives an otherwise normal human being to acts of profound stupidity and danger. The character's goal shifts from an attempt to discover a common profile for these people into something more personal and real.

However, the movie ultimately fails on this premise. While it does raise the question, it never bothers to give us an acceptable answer. The best it has to offer comes from Ryder's character regarding 'a maze of automatic telephone voicemails' when dealing with insurance companies. Arquette's character can't seem to come close.

Overall, the look and feel of the movie is fresh and original. While it borrows from a number of different styles that will immediately be recognized, but it brings them together in a wonderful way. In addition, the soundtrack to the movie is superb.

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.

Choose "The Darwin Awards" if you want a relaxing afternoon or evening watching a fun film with enough laughs to make you walk away satisfied. Looking at my IMDb ID, "fastforwardaddict," you would surmise correctly that I have no patience for lame or poorly constructed movies. I fastforward through everything that is subpar. If the writing and/or the acting are bad, the DVD goes right back into the Netflix or Blockbuster sleeve. Favorite movies of mine include those that are considered by such critics as Leonard Maltin to be four star rated. I say all this because when this came out in the theatres, I read newspaper and magazine reviews that made it seem like a dud. Seems rather fishy now, because I watched this with a male who is also very hard to please and we both liked it. At the end, he said, "You picked a winner this time." One criticism I read was that there was no chemistry between Joseph Fiennes and Winona Ryder. First of all, the movie was about Fiennes truly irritating the h... out of Ryder. Haven't you ever worked with someone who drove you nuts? Well, Fiennes couldn't have played this more perfectly. I've known characters like this and he is right on the money. I also knew a character just like the one he played in "Forever Mine" and he was right on the money there, too. His facial expressions are enough in so many instances, he doesn't even have to talk. His stiff body language was absolutely suited to the character he was playing. Ryder was excellent as his co-worker. Why do you think she survived her legal and public relations' problems? Because she is a very good actress. As for the chemistry between them, that is subjective; I sensed it.

Most of the Darwin situations, i.e., what the nutty victims did, were priceless, particularly the fellow who attached the missile to his car. The actors who played the husband and wife who were nearby made those characters very believable.

The comedic writing was good. The quips between Fiennes and Ryder were great! I hardly ever watch a movie twice, but I would watch this one again just to hear them go at each other, and to watch with even more of my friends and relatives to share the lighthearted fun. Sarcastic but cute give and take in a conversation is not easy to write, but the writers succeeded here.

Fiennes's range is wide: all the way from well-acted serious films such as "Luther" and particularly, "Leo," to this light and happy, very good-for-a-Saturday-afternoon provider of laughs.

Definitely a great entertaining film. Not saying that because I'm a child or have little intelligence (thank you previous commenter for that insightful look into my iq). This movie was pretty simplistic...did the people who rated it that bad want this to be an in-depth soul searching look into the darwin awards? Did they want more politics thrown in for more intellectual fare? Why were they bothered so? I'm really getting annoyed with how some people will tear apart a movie so voraciously you'd think the movie's creators killed their dog for something. I mean, hell, tear apart real fluff like "wild hogs" or something. So it didn't live up to your super high expectations, but hell, not every movie is going to move your soul. And this one was named "darwin awards" what did you expect??? It's like thinking the movie "Idiocracy" will change our education system for the better. This movie was not pee your pants funny, but it was funny on par with "America's funniest videos". Not going to rock your world, but gives you pleasure for about 1.5 hours. Me and my husband liked it and would definitely recommend it. (And not just because my father-in-law may someday qualify for the Darwin Awards. ;) ) So it was filmed documentary style, I think it added a bit of spice-especially when he wouldn't call 911. The love interest thing well, at least we didn't get full on cheese. I don't know if anyone knows this...but anytime you travel with a good looking man or woman and they are single and you spend every waking moment with them, lust or love will ALWAYS come up. That's what humans do.

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.