Dukes Of Hazzard Review
i didn't want to add to any of the Dukes Of Hazzard hype that's been going on, but i have to link to the San Francisco Chronicle's review. It may be the
funniest review ever, certainly the most scathing movie review i've ever seen.
There are routine movies and others that blaze a trail. There are routine bad movies and others so horrendous that they redefine bad, that make us look up synonyms for agonizing and abysmal and then gnash our teeth because the language has not kept pace with the decline of film. There are even movies that are so blazingly rotten that they can redefine past experiences and make us look back on recent weak efforts like 'Stealth' or 'Fantastic Four' and think, 'Ooh, that was fascinating.'
'The Dukes of Hazzard' is hardly some routine bad movie. Rather, it's one of the elite, right up there with 'I Am Curious ... Yellow' (1967) and Bo Derek's 'Ghosts Can't Do It' (1990), in stiff competition for the lamest thing ever put on celluloid. Of course, that makes it, by default, the worst film so far of the 21st century, but to say that does little to acknowledge the ambition behind this project. Make no mistake, director Jay Chandrasekhar was swinging for the fences with this one. He was shooting for the millennium.
The movie establishes, with startling economy, that it's about two imbeciles. In a sleepy rural county, a red car comes blazing down a country road, careening and swerving, while the two morons in the front seats yell 'Woo-ooo!' and 'Yee-haaa!' These are Bo (Seann William Scott) and Luke Duke (Johnny Knoxville), the loudest, laughingest, hell-raisingest pair of single- celled organisms ever to get a Georgia driver's license.
lol. It gets better.
Posted by: annika at
08:23 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.
1
This guy's got sort of a greatest hits of bitch-slaps
http://lifegoesoff.blogspot.com/2005/08/dismissal-of-week-my-cup-runneth-over.html
Posted by: ken at August 05, 2005 10:03 AM (xD5ND)
2
Oh, and the New York Post gives it three stars
http://www.nypost.com/movies/50792.htm
Posted by: ken at August 05, 2005 10:48 AM (xD5ND)
3
Roger Ebert has a pretty funny (yet equally as scathing review too.
And yet, I still want to see it. Like a train wreck, I know I shouldn't be watching it, but I can't take my eyes off of it.....
Posted by: Amy Bo Bamy at August 05, 2005 11:19 AM (kxatG)
4
Very funny review...reminds me of Joe Morgenstern's review of Lost In Space: The movie's f/x and soundtrack is like wrapping a baseball bat in a towel and repeatedly striking yourself in the head.
Posted by: Jason O. at August 05, 2005 12:14 PM (2CAKL)
5
His claim of it being the worst film in the 21st century is untrue. Anything done by michael fat ass moore has that distinction.
Posted by: Theresa at August 05, 2005 03:04 PM (nDaxF)
6
Now now, If you've never seen Donny and Marie in "Going Coconuts", you've never really seen a truly bad movie.
Posted by: Casca at August 05, 2005 06:02 PM (qBTBH)
7
While I would agree in principle with Theresa, Dukes can't be worse than Thelma and Louise.
Posted by: Wayne at August 05, 2005 10:52 PM (9ziwT)
8
As for Dukes of HazzardÂ…
Nothing has summed it up better than CNN’s review that “this flick is a car wreck with boobs.”
Posted by: Sean at August 05, 2005 11:50 PM (2JxeN)
9
I was surprised by how little I hated it.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at August 08, 2005 11:54 PM (uuNVx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
American Beauty vs. The Ice Storm

American Beauty and The Ice Storm are essentially the same movie. Through the magic of the Netflix queue, i saw them both on subsequent nights.
Both are about dysfunctional families, mid-life crisis, sexual restlessness, infidelity, teen experimentation, and the secret underbelly of suburban life.
The difference is that one sucked and one was a pretty decent movie. Unfortunately, the Academy bestowed its Best Picture award on the one that sucked. Shows you that the Academy Awards are a joke.
A big reason for the difference was that one movie was about its subject matter, while the other was a thinly veiled political statement in which the subject matter was only a setup for the filmmaker's liberal punch-line.
Ang Lee treated his characters with gentle compassion. The other director had a huge chip on his shoulder against every character except one. American Beauty was the product of a bitter, angry, small mind. If you want my advice, pass it up and rent The Ice Storm.
Update: Perhaps i should be more specific about my objections, since it never occurred to me that anyone would disagree with my opinions on any subject [insert winking smilie here], especially someone whose opinions i respect as much as Professor Schwyzer.
It seems to me that the central villain of American Beauty is the one dimensional homophobe character, and i was a little taken aback by the over-the-top stereotype, which the writer employed to get his point across. The character of Colonel Frank Fitts, United States Marine Corps seems intended as an insult directed solely at conservatives. Here's a caricature with a crew-cut, who speaks with a southern accent, is obviously a Republican, a retired marine, an abusive husband, probably a batterer who beats up his drug dealer son and requires a monthly piss test from him. He's also a closet Nazi. But the big punch-line i alluded to — the "Crying Game moment" if you will — is when the villain, in a fit of emotion, kisses the Kevin Spacey character. The filmmaker's message to the audience is clear: all conservatives are homophobes and all homophobes are repressed homosexuals.
While i admit that some homophobes probably are repressed homosexuals (J. Edgar Hoover, and at least one of Matthew Shepard's killers for example), i have a hard time with a movie whose intent is so obviously to smear the military and conservatives the way American Beauty did. i'm very sensitive to political statements which are designed to insult not persuade, and which are disguised as art. Some have called me too sensitive, but it's no secret that liberal Hollywood filmmakers are often motivated by their hatred of Republicans. Witness this quote from an interview with Jay Chandrasekhar, who directed this year's remake movie, The Dukes of Hazzard:
You know, IÂ’m a very liberal-minded person and I like to tweak Republicans whenever possible.
Great. Just great. Love that honesty. When Hollywood realizes that it's continually pissing off one half of it's potential audience for no good reason, that's the day they'll stop whining about declining box office receipts.
Posted by: annika at
10:37 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 518 words, total size 4 kb.
1
have you seen "Sideways"?
Posted by: nikita demosthenes at August 03, 2005 12:15 AM (Y3Wne)
2
"The product of an angry bitter small mind." Well that would explain most of the movies that came out recently.
Posted by: Kyle at August 03, 2005 04:18 AM (H5KE9)
3
I felt the same way when viewing Dominick and Eugene vs Rainman. The former was a far better movie but the critics went for the latter.
Posted by: Gavin at August 03, 2005 05:28 AM (7nNQe)
4
When my friend and I left the theater after seeing
American Beauty we were both very disappointed. I suggested that he rent
The Ice Storm. I described it as "the movie that
American Beauty wanted to be." That pretty much sums it up...
Posted by: Jerry at August 03, 2005 06:25 AM (Fu53G)
Posted by: annika at August 03, 2005 07:07 AM (Gvw6n)
6
Never, Annie, have I disagreed with you more. I still use excerpts from American Beauty in my "men and masculinity" class... it's (IMHO) the best American film with a middle-aged male central character of the last decade, with "Lost In Translation" a close second.
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer at August 03, 2005 01:33 PM (qldcl)
7
Hugo - I have a lot of respect for you in most every situation - except for your math skills, because you can't count out 5-7-5 for shit!
Nevertheless, wtf are you teaching those guys!? You've already got a bunch of guys who are sensitive enough that they enroll in a "Men and Masculinity" class, and now you are holding those two characters as people to emulate!? Your students are ALREADY too much into thinking about themselves and being sensitive! YOUR students need more action + less naval gazing.
I'll grant you that both characters made admirable personal journeys during those films - but I want my son to emulate them in very limited ways.
Those characters never had to be as broken as they were. They never had to be as inactive as they were. Those guys were lost men, raised by weak or absent fathers, wandering through a permissive society without a manly code they believed in. They were virtual spectators in their own lives.
Its wonderful that they discovered aspects of their own manly code during those films - but, still, its tragic that they had to virtually wreck their adult lives before they did so. When your class is exalting certain aspects of these characters, it should also be noting the waste and tragedy of the aimless, inactive, unfocused, codeless, unspiritual, selfish, and - I can't think of the other word - its something in the heathenous/hedonistic family.
YOUR students need a lot more Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, and A LOT LESS Kevin Spacey and Bill Murray characters(though I do like the actual Bill Murray pretty well.)
Since I'm already pretentiously telling you how to teach, there's no sense backing off now: I recommend this blog for your students:
www.kimdutoit.com
I've met Kim du Toit. He's one of the most intelligent, sensitive, personable, confident, filled with zest, MANLY men I've ever met. Kim du Toit knows how to be masculine.
Posted by: gcotharn at August 03, 2005 03:43 PM (Rhyyb)
8
lol, the day Hugo starts quoting Kim du Toit to his students, better look out for pigs overhead.
That was a good one, gcotharn.
Posted by: annika at August 03, 2005 06:01 PM (Ors1M)
9
Thanks for the clarification, Annie; gcotharn, I'll check out Kim.
For what it's worth, though I love Chris Cooper, I never "bought" his character in the film. And as far as making a hero out of the Spacey character, I mean a hero in the classical sense: A flawed man on a journey that will ultimately result in his own death, but only after he has been transformed. Not necessarily as a role model!
And yet, I tend to take a lot of mulligans with haiku!
Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer at August 04, 2005 10:48 AM (qldcl)
10
Rather than "tweaking" Republicans, Mr. Jay should have worked on tweaking his film so that it didn't suck a goat's ass.
Posted by: Mark at August 07, 2005 02:15 PM (PjRZw)
11
Some libertarians and Objectivists have enjoyed AMERICAN BEAUTY as the story of a man discovering his authentic self and asserting his individuality. I know I enjoyed watching Spacey telling pretty much everyone to get bent, and when I came into a bunch of money, as he did, I enjoyed buying what I damn well pleased and announcing, "I rule!" Didn't mess with any underage girls, though.
Posted by: Bilwick at August 09, 2005 09:08 AM (AktpP)
12
i have a hard time with a movie whose intent is so obviously to smear the military and conservatives the way American Beauty did.
*yawn*
The homophobe-as-closet-case is a pretty stock character. Was American Beauty lazy to employ it? Yeah. Is it some shocking twist? If you avoid all culture, or live in a cave, I suppose you could claim to be shocked.
Posted by: jpe at August 09, 2005 12:37 PM (AoyVe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
27kb generated in CPU 0.0162, elapsed 0.0666 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.0568 seconds, 150 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.