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.

Posted by: annika at 08:23 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.