The Darwin Awards (2006) User Reviews

Offbeat comedy movie about urban legends.

[misbegotten · 7/10 · 8 December 2007]

The Darwin Awards is a quirky little independent film, loosely based on the website & spin-off books cataloging the real-life stories of people who have suffered accidents caused by their own stupidity. Any individuals who are killed are posthumously given a 'Darwin Award' for improving Mankind's gene pool by removing themselves from it.

The movie stars Joseph Fiennes as a police profiler whose unfortunate tendency to faint at the sight of blood (he's phobic) causes him to get discharged from the force. Finding employment with an insurance company, he's partnered with experienced, hot-shot investigator Winona Ryder, who specialises in bizarre and unusual claims. Together the two of them travel back and forth across America, examining various strange accidents.

One of the things I liked most about this film is that the accidents that Fiennes and Ryder investigate are all based on well known urban legends, and such modern-day myths have always fascinated me. I own many books on the subject, and have enjoyed previous movies that have either used an urban legend as a starting point and then built a story around it (for example, Dead Man's Curve, When a Stranger Calls, and Lover's Lane), or have featured several legends (all three Urban Legends movies, and the anthology film Campfire Tales). Therefore, I got a huge thrill seeing several urban legends reenacted in The Darwin Awards.

Although it's an independent production, the movie has an impressive budget and features many big name stars in cameos (including Chris Penn in his last role - he died the day before the film debuted at Sundance). However it went straight to DVD, both in America and here in the UK. I suppose it's hard to market an offbeat, character-led black comedy in which most of the laughs are generated by people getting either seriously injured or killed. Personally, I liked it a lot.

" If there is a certainty to life, it's that some people can't wait to die "

[thinker1691 · 6/10 · 11 June 2010]

Here is one movie which begins well enough and the social premise is that accidents are everywhere. The film is called " The Darwin Awards. " The theory of social stupidity and why so many people commit suicide through thoughtless accidents is redundantly explained. However, there are just as many people who don't wait for the accident to happen, they insist on accomplishing their task despite the obvious dangers and possible consequences. Michael Burrows ( Joseph Fiennes) plays a washed out policeman who cannot stand the sight of blood. Seeking employment, he is teamed up with Siri Taylor (Winona Ryder) to investigate a rash of accidents which have million dollars insurance policies. In their travels, they discover how a simple plan, can unleash a series of mishaps and behavioral actions which cause great bodily injury. With special guest in cameo roles like Wilmer Valderrama, Lukas Haas, Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman, director Finn Taylor creates a comedic wild ride for audiences. A laughable film which contain much slapstick, but somehow does not quite hold the story together. Nevertheless, a fun film to watch. ***

Less would be best......

[merklekranz · 5/10 · 8 May 2008]

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

Pretty darn good, unless you're somehow expecting The Film Of The Century.

[minyassa · 7/10 · 27 October 2007]

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.

Better than it's given credit for

[pathighgate · 7/10 · 21 May 2007]

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.

Comedy Not Fit to Survive

[wmjaho · 4/10 · 27 January 2006]

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.

Darwin Awards Delivers on Left of Center Premise

[cpb-7 · 7/10 · 19 February 2006]

You see this movie because you've followed The Real Darwin Awards. You see it because you want to be guaranteed a laugh. It's a movie about people who do things so stupid that they die in the process. Got it? These other reviewers are reading too much into it. You want a spoiler? The rocket powered car doesn't . . . um . . . land well. The skyscraper's windows . . . uh . . . aren't really that well secured. Fido fetches everything . . . even dynamite. There is a scene in Darwin Awards with two stoned-out Metallica fans (Judah Friedlander is one) which is so laugh- out loud funny it could be spun out into its own movie.

Winona Ryder is adorable in this movie. She is the girl next door in a push-up bra. I want her to shoplift in my store and so will you after you see this movie. The cameo by the two guys from The Myth Busters is a classic. I saw it at the Berkeley premiere before Sundance and would see it again.

Funny, but uneven

[ArizWldcat · 4/10 · 27 January 2006]

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".

not going to win a nobel peace prize...but

[cmorvay · 7/10 · 29 September 2007]

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.

One of the worst at Sundance

[ManCalledHorse · 1/10 · 28 January 2006]

I was extremely disappointed by The Darwin Awards.

With a stellar A list cast and great ideas behind it I had expected The Darwin Awards to be a romping comedy but every scene left me feeling more confused. Nothing meshes together and all the stories are disjointed and have little heart thrown behind them. The actors go through their lines with very little conviction. The whole production has a cheap made in my basement feel about it as if Finn Taylor had hired a bunch of school boys to do the editing and special effects.

The Darwin Awards books and website has a very large collection of stories. Finn has chosen to show a few of them but hasn't woven a good story around the accidents that take place. Fiennes and Ryder play a pair of detectives investigating the accidents and a serial criminal. This is an excuse to sell a romantic comedy angle that doesn't work because there is no chemistry between the leads. Fiennes has never been a good comedian and Ryder, well she has good timing but is too quirky and irksome to play a full blown woman's role yet. She still hasn't shed her childlike impish nature. The cameo actors perform much better than the leads. I can't help imagine how much better this movie would have been with a better production team and if the casting was shuffled around and David Arquette played lead.

The Darwin Awards might also offend audiences who will ask themselves why should they laugh at someone's death. We just about all have lost family members through accidents and never laughed about it so why should we laugh at the deaths of unrelated people? If some people like to get off on that fine but I can't see the majority laughing. I am not surprised that the vote for this movie is being manipulated. It is so bad only desperate measures can save it. If it wasn't for these fake votes (average score of 9.4 from 10 IMDb readers outside the US before Sundance and where it hasn't been released?) I would have given it a higher rating. Even worse than this movie is the number of Winona Ryder fans who have tried to get rid of this review for one line of criticism. The rest of the review reflects the same opinions as the other reviews. Freedom of speech, honest opinions and quality motion pictures appear to be lower on their list of concerns than shoplifting.

Didn't want to fast forward through ANY of this movie

[fastforwardaddict · 9/10 · 11 August 2007]

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.

For an ex-cop, you're kind of a pussy, aren't ya?

[lastliberal · 7/10 · 10 January 2009]

Now, I can say that I have sen two films with Wilmer Valderrama, both in the same week.

I have always enjoyed reading the Darwin Awards, and it was interesting to see them on film. Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in Love) and Winona Ryder (Girl, Interrupted; Heathers) made a good team (with Valderrama in the background) to keep things interesting - and funny.

This is clear evidence that explosives and military hardware should be kept far away from people who shoot guns, and foreigners with international drivers licenses should not be allowed on the road. Well, I had one of those in Europe, so maybe I'll rethink it.

It was a funny film about accidents and how we cannot avoid them.

Twenty years from now this wil be a cult film.

[ApolloBoy109 · 5/10 · 13 August 2007]

Many reviewers bring up valid points concerning this movie. The people I saw it with 'hated it'. It wasn't that great -- however in my opinion this is the weird type of story that the next generation will pick up on and want to see for the death scenes, the sheer stupidity of these people who got themselves killed.

And therein lies my biggest complaint. The film needed less of the Ryder/Fiennes romance and more stupid human behavior resulting in senseless deaths.

Years from now this oh-so-strange tale will be hot in cult-ish way. People will point at some of the cameos, including Chris Penn's last movie. Other cameos features Lukas Haas, David Arquette, Juliet Lewis and Alessandro Nivola.

All said and done, Finn Taylor, I liked your effort.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

[Seamus2829 · 6/10 · 31 August 2007]

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.

Birth Awards

[tedg · 29 April 2010]

A cornucopia of what I call "folding."

Here is the setup: we have our standard inner representative, a detective. He is obsessed with understanding the world, so as to understand the "Darwin Effect:" people who do stuff so dumb they kill themselves, thereby taking themselves out of the gene pool. In basic shape, it is the standard noir form.

As the story proceeds, he becomes himself one of these folk, providing some amusing episodes. By my count, that is two folds. Along the way, he is accompanied by a woman: part buddy, part love interest and part person-to-explain-to.

Not content to stop there, this filmmaker piles it on and on.

The thing is framed as a documentary. There is a film student making his thesis film by following our hero. He is acknowledged frequently, but at the end the film slides into the disembodied camera we are used to seeing outside of the story. We often have the situation of the film we see, that has the camera within it, watching our guy watch things on the web.

The detective has a second obsession: to catch a serial killer loose in San Francisco. This folds in an entirely different direction. The killer is a frustrated beat poet, so has confabulated a life as killer, "writing" on his acts. This actually makes sense. We have Lawrence Ferlinghetti appearing on screen as part of the detecting! The motive of the killer is teased out from a beat philosophy in an amazingly literate way.

But the folding doesn't even stop there!

Some of these Darwin Award episodes are possible urban legends; a key attraction of the Darwin awards website is that they verify (from news accounts) that the episodes really happened. A TeeVee show, mythbusters, checks others in dramatic ways to see if they were physically possible. The mythbusters hosts appear here as characters.

One final neat fold. Our detective has a theory that the Darwin award candidates are that way because they are second children, and that they are trying to better their older sibling. This is elaborated a bit as the award candidates are proposed not as merely lethally stupid, but as living life to the fullest. There is an earnestness in the second child syndrome that the actor playing our detective has. He actually gets this across.

But he is played by a man who has a much more successful older brother. A surprising number of the other important characters are also played by actors in an identical situation. Its pretty cool, but has been overlooked and not mentioned in any remarks I have read on this film.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Why do people let Finn Taylor keep making movies?

[red_hyro · 1/10 · 6 March 2008]

It took roughly five minutes to tell The Darwin Awards was an awful, misbegotten, badly directed piece of tripe; I gave it another fifteen to change my mind, and when it didn't, I turned it off, not willing to give up another hour and change being tortured with gag inducing 'quirky' characters undergoing a 'quirky' storyline that would no doubt entreat the viewer to find its 'quirky' heart and undergo a 'quirky' catharsis. The disgust this movie induced in me was a familiar sort, and when I checked IMDb and saw it was by the same fellow who inflicted "Dream with the Fishes" on hundreds of unsuspecting film enthusiasts including myself, Finn Taylor, I understood what I needed to do, namely warn you, my fellow movie watchers, against this and any other film written and directed by this man. (There are only three, the two aforementioned and "Cherish"; it's a small blessing that Taylor seems to take his time either writing, editing or -more likely- getting funding for his project, which have come out at four to five year intervals.) You may, like me, have been curious about this film due to your also having chuckled at the grotesque comedy of the Darwin award winners, but I will say in all honesty, this film does not do them justice. Ironically, the filmmaker himself has not has his career killed churning out these horrifically stupid films, which would seem to imply that the Hollywood independent film scene is not governed by natural selection. That's a pity.

What is the essence of what makes this and his other films suck? It's a number of things, starting with the quirkiness. Why bother with richly imagined characters when you can stack up a couple esoteric phobias and qualities and call it macaroni? Why indeed. So our main character in The Darwin Awards is a police profiler who faints at the sight of blood: comedy gold, because you know it is just soooo ironic, and irony is best when it isn't subtle and is poorly executed in annoyingly mannered performances.

Then there is the 'intelligence' of the scripts, where you'll find, for instance, a serial killer complaining about the profiler quoting an overused line from a famous poem. How exquisite, and yet in the midst of such a badly made film, one sees the difference between knowledge and practical wisdom.

The Darwin Awards features a moronic and grating student documentary maker who is following the main character around, giving another 'clever' layer to the film, by annoying the viewer with those stupid camera frame lines that let you know when you're looking through the documentary filmmakers pov, versus all the other shots that aren't annoying hand-held drek. The maker of the actual film tries to avoid being seen as pretentious and untalented by having a filmmaker in it that is satirized as being pretentious and untalented. Because I'm an irresponsible reviewer, I'll guess that this character is an unconscious avatar of Taylor's own self-doubts about his talent, and I'm hoping someone who knows and loves this man will play intellectual midwife to him and help him realize that he should stop making films, and maybe consider a profession more suited to his talents, which I'm sure are substantial, albeit not manifested in his cinematic work thus far. They say as a young man, Kurosawa was interested in painting, but realized after a time that while he was proficient enough, his works were derivative, and so he got into film making, where he excelled. Perhaps Finn Taylor should get out of film making and become a painter.

so bloody disappointed

[militon · 7/10 · 12 October 2007]

I was so disappointed after seeing this movie. I had great expectations for it. I've been following the Darwin awards for some time now. Call me a sick person, but I find them funny. Anyway, there was a lot of potential for this film, and having checked the cast before hand, I thought I had all the more reasons to check it out. Little did I know that the guys would make such a p_ss poor job at putting together a decent story, that the main actors would look so awkward in their roles, and that the guys I was looking forward to seeing in the movie (i.e. Chris Penn, the "MythBuster" guys, Juliet Lewis) are only doing cameos.

Now don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie, I gave it a decent 7/10 because it had it's moments, but considering it's potential, I was ... well... disappointed. Can't think of another word.

Oh, and this might tick quite some guys off. But here it is anyway. Metallica have just gone one more step down that road. I'm not against going for the money. To all those saying "they're selling out, man, they are bowing down to the almighty dollar" I'd just like to say "so are you, mate. because you need the money to provide yourself with the best lifestyle you afford". So I'm not against "selling", I'm just against doing it with no style at all.

A Very "Blah" Movie

[Rydell6 · 4/10 · 17 October 2007]

I must admit that I like bad movies as long as they're entertaining on some level be it good writing, interesting story, or something else, but I can't think of a good thing about this movie other than the cast. Honestly, I think anyone else could have played these roles and it wouldn't have been any worse. Winona was wasted and her character always seemed randomly motivated, almost bipolar. Fiennes could have been replaced with a wooden plank and have the same impact.

Every now and then you will see another star pop in for a cameo role, which honestly, were the best parts of the movie. If this had just been their stories it would have been a far better experience. But these clips felt as if they were just randomly thrown in and the transitions to these were abrupt.

The movie was rather disjointed and filled with unnecessary bits and pieces. If the film student hadn't been in this movie, I would have been a lot better. Also if the main character was Winona's character, it would have been much more entertaining.

I just felt like there was no change in any of the characters by the end of the movie. Joseph Fiennes came in as a robot and ended as a robot, Winona came in a nobody and left the same way, and Wilmer was always just an annoying plot device for the camera operators shakes to seem artsy and new.

Been there, done that, and it looks better on someone else.

The awkward love story was...awkward. I can't find a better word than that. It was unnecessary in the context of the film and felt like it was just thrown in, because, "all good movies have a love story in there somewhere." Nice try, Finn Taylor.

Thank God for the back-up Casting

[DayzeeJoy · 6/10 · 1 May 2009]

The Darwin Awards was too well written for the substandard acting of Winona Ryder and Joseph Fiennes who were very privileged to be given the main roles. It was full of funny concepts, twists, and turns; but fell short of the gut-busting laughter that I had hoped for. I can say, however, that I won't forget the movie because the back-up casting was excellent and helped keep my attention between nodding off and hovering my finger over the "stop" button on my remote. I wouldn't necessarily recommend this movie to a friend as a "good" movie to watch, but rather something to watch if someone is home sick on a Friday night with either this or "Nanny Dearest" to choose from to keep them remotely distracted from fever, chills, and general discomfort...such as I did.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen--seriously

[youaresquishy · 1/10 · 23 August 2007]

The Darwin Awards are sarcastically given out in a publication of the same title to people who die in very stupid ways. One might think that this film would be primarily a graphical depiction of some of the actual deaths that show up in the publication, and since the publication can be quite entertaining, how could this film fail to be similarly entertaining?

But no.

First of all, if you go to www.darwinawards.com you will find most of the deaths featured in the film listed in the Urban Legends section--i.e. they did not actually happen. Yet the ONLY reason the publication is entertaining is that the deaths described are actually factual. So, the movie's title is totally misleading.

Second of all, the plot consists of an incredibly stupid, boring, and disjointed story about a guy (Joseph Fiennes) who happens to be interested in stupid deaths. Somehow Winona Ryder gets involved. They look into a couple stupid incidents. And there's no reason to care about the plot or any of the characters.

Third of all, the leads, Joseph Fiennes and Winona Ryder, are absolutely horrible and unbelievable. Winona Ryder, let's face it, isn't exactly one of our greatest actresses, but this is a really terrible performance even by her standards. Joseph Fiennes is even worse. And they are supposed to fall in love but there is never any chemistry at all between them.

Fourth of all, and probably most importantly, this is primarily intended to be a comedy, but none of the jokes are funny. They all fall flat. Many of the jokes are used about 4 or 5 times throughout the film, and they continue to fail to be funny. There is no point in this alleged comedy that could fairly be described as funny, or even slightly amusing. Joseph Fiennes seems particularly bad at trying to be funny. But the primary problem is the script.

This is definitely one of the worst films I have ever seen, and I am not one of those folks that goes around saying "this is the worst film ever" so don't confuse me with one of those folks. I am here to do a public service, to warn you that, almost no matter who you are, unless you are a small child, perhaps, and/or of substandard intelligence, and preferably both, you will not like this film, and you will wish you had used the time doing just about anything else.

Terrible.

I liked it

[sta_cd · 9/10 · 16 October 2007]

I had never heard of this film before I rented it so I had no expectations which is always nice. The main character is lovable and hilarious. The premise of the movie is unique as is its production. I also loved all of the cameos. This movie was good social commentary and thoroughly enjoyable. My friend and I were gut busting laughing through a lot of it. I had been told by the guy at the video store that it was too gory. This almost made me not want to watch it, but it was not at all bad. Just blood and in the context of comedy it is not gory but I might not let a kid watch it. I think if you liked Idiocracy, Hot Fuzz you would like this movie.

A quirky comedy

[Sergiodave · 6/10 · 31 August 2021]

This is one movie linked by lots of amusing stories relating to Darwin award winners. The award recognises individuals who have supposedly contributed to human evolution by selecting themselves out of the gene pool through gross stupidity. Joseph Fiennes and Winona Ryder are good as the lead actors and together with a large supporting cast including Metallica make this movie a good ensemble piece. I will assure you this is no 'Movie 43', it's a lot better, which wouldn't be hard.

Unfocused story saved by Ryder and Fiennes

[MBunge · 5/10 · 10 May 2010]

Even with one of the great casts in the history of low-budget cinema, The Darwin Awards demonstrates that if you don't know the difference between having a great premise and having a real point, you can only make a mediocre film.

Michael Burrows (Joseph Fiennes) is an obsessive and neurotic criminal profiler for the San Francisco police department who loses his job when he lets a serial killer escape. Desperate and broke, he decides to see if he can making a living off his personal obsession with so-called "Darwin Awards". The title refer to incidents where people kill themselves in such spectacularly stupid ways that they arguably improve the human gene pool by taking themselves out of it. Burrows offers his services to a life insurance company, offering to save them millions of dollars in payouts by discovering when people's own idiocy is responsible for their demise. Burrows is teamed up with Siri Taylor (Winona Ryder), a veteran claims investigator who doubts Burrows' behavioral theories can substitute for her more practical approach.

As Burrows and Taylor drive around the Western United States investigating "Darwin Award" cases, like the guy who welded a rocket on the back of his car, the guy who went ice fishing with dynamite and the people who thought a motor home's cruise control was the same as a plane's autopilot, the story dabbles in a bit of romantic comedy, Burrows' fixation on the killer who got away from him and the possibility that Burrows' obsession is turning him into his own potential "Darwin Award" winner. The movie eventually winds back up in San Francisco, where our two heroes track down the escaped serial killer through the use of a tourist guide book and a final scene that takes the laws of physics, wraps them up in a pretty bow and fires them into the Sun.

The Darwin Awards would make a great premise for a very, very darkly comedic series on HBO. Investigating the absurdly moronic behavior that results in Rube Goldbereque death and injury would be a great formula for a black hearted TV show where you could ladle social commentary and some romantic tension between Burrows and Taylor on top of whatever imbecilic and unintentional suicide they're looking into that week.

As a 90 minute film, however, The Darwin Awards is never more than mildly amusing because it never figures out what is the point of its story. Are we supposed to laugh at these stupid people? Are we supposed to laugh at Burrows for thinking he's any different from them? Is the movie trying to shame us for finding humor in the deaths of others? Is the story about death by stupidity or is it about the unavoidable but tragic risks that exist in normal life, like slipping in the shower and breaking your neck? Is the audience supposed to learn that they can't get too wrapped up in the fates of other people? Does writer/director Finn Taylor want to make a point about how society treats people on the low end of the economic and educational scale? The truth is that this movie tries to make all of those points and a few more, resulting in an unfocused and meandering story that ultimately makes no point at all. It also doesn't help that the movie mixes traditional filming with mockumentary footage without any rhyme or reason.

Though it's fundamentally flawed and hampered by Taylor's inability to tell a straightforward joke if his life depended on it, The Darwin Awards still manages to be halfway decent. That's mostly due to the deadpan performance of Joseph Fiennes and the adultly adorable Winona Ryder. They create and sustain appealing characters even as the story never lives up to their acting. And any film that features the Mythbusters can't be all bad.

If you'd like a lighthearted take on a very dark subject that you'll enjoy more the less you think about it, go rent The Darwin Awards.

Loved Darwin Awards

[Chocmama · 4 November 2008]

This was one of the funniest movies I have ever seen, hands down. It did take a few minutes to get into, but ultimately my husband and I enjoyed it immensely. Definitely worth renting.

There were so many scenes we loved, where my husband literally almost fell off the couch from laughing so hard.

Not sure why some people didn't like it. Maybe I can understand the issue of mocking death. But then why would you go see a comedy that you know is about death to begin with? So don't pay attention to ridiculous comments from people who are oversensitive. The movie is well acted and very, very funny.

Also was good to see Winona again. Okay, so maybe she's a klepto, but hey she can act. And that Joseph Feinnes is awesome as well...enjoyed his nude shower scene :-)

Another cheat-sheet film for the 6 degrees of separation players!

[NestorTheGreat · 7/10 · 10 August 2022]

With a plethora of b-grade actors, supporting actors and a few celebrities, this who's who of personalities deserved a much better end product! From Wynona "Beetlejuice" Ryder, now infamous with her Stranger Things hit, through Mythbusters and Juliette "Natural Born Killers" Lewis to Metallica, of all bands, (in a speaking role to boot mid-credits), Ralph's brother Joseph Fiennes leads this motley crew through a documentary-style or That 70's Show styled insight into stupidity and death.

Darwin's survival of the fittest is tested as one out-of-luck fool meets their incredulous demise after another. As the introduction voiceover, by David Arquette, explains, the title's prize is given to those who accidentally kill themselves in stupid ways, thus ridding the gene pool of their "dumb" gene, though not enough have perished by the current state of affairs in my not-so-humble opinion!

How it manages to weave a shallow love story into the deathly proceedings says as much about the lacklustre film as about the director and mentioned wannabe actors in it! Still, fun for the same reason Final Destination was dumb fun: the variety of killing methods!

If you like gross, bloody murders, watch a horror or documentary! But if you want funny people dying in funny and incredulous ways, this movie is for you!