Review: The Dukes of Hazzard
.jpg)
The folks who made this movie must think that Southern culture is from Mars. The Dukes of Hazzard is a woefully miscalculated attempt at rooking some red-state rubes out of their money by regurgitating the small-town hijinks of the Duke boys and their old Dodge shit-kicker. But I don't think it will work. In fact, I bet you 'Passion dollars'-to-donuts that even those who have been waiting on barbecue-scented tenterhooks for a big-screen Dukes adventure will be sending this one back to the chef.
Firstly, Jay Chandrasekhar is an awful director. His first feature, Super Troopers, is mercifully unseen by me, but I have been reliably informed that it stinks, and this latest opus is all the proof I need. If he just knew nothing about how to make a bearable genre film, that would be bad enough. But with The Dukes of Hazzard, he takes the more insufferable road of irony-overload, which is one degree away from "I could care less if this movie is good or not." This is an 'end credits gag-reel' movie that can't get there fast enough. (I'm looking forward to the first all end credits gag-reel movie.)
Secondly, the casting is off-the-charts wrong. Danny DeVito would have been a perfect choice to play Jefferson Davis "Boss" Hogg, the tater tot-sized tyrant in a toothpaste-white suit who rules over Hazzard County. I can only imagine that someone set an absurdly low budget for this film that precluded them from meeting DeVito's quote. Instead we have to suffer Burt Reynolds, who long ago disappeared down a rabbit-hole of his own Burt-X-istenZ, and can barely be troubled to open his eyes for most of this film. He doesn't want to be there and I don't want him to be there.
M.C. Gainey is lost at sea as Rosco, the town sheriff and Hogg partisan who ended up most episodes of the show with mud caked all over his face and his tires flat. Gainey is actually a pretty good actor, and good at playing a bad guy, but he seems twisted into a knot over what to do with his mess of a part here. And why does he wear giant shoulder-pads for most of the film? So many questions. Willie Nelson is also unbearable in the film as Uncle Jesse. Is Willie some kind of poster-boy for the pot-smoking lobby? (My subscription to High Times just ran out.) Most of his jokes in this film have him giddily exiting a small, smoke-filled room. Tee-hee. Maybe they could have given Smokey McGee a few acting lessons.
Seann William Scott and Johnny Knoxville are mostly serviceable as a couple of good old sum' bitches, even though the accents drift in and out of focus. You can't exactly blame them - Hazzard County, Georgia is a town that exists in a weird alternative timeline where the South has been vanquished and replaced by a harmless brand of Santa Monica dude-ism. There's some vague idea of a plot about moonshining, which I can't imagine is a very profitable industry, since Prohibition ended some 80 years ago. Most of the dialogue in the film consists of tinsel-strength one-liners that creak, crackle and fall like the lonely tree in the forest.
The only scenes that have left their chum on my otherwise freshly-scrubbed memory are the scenes that stand out for badness. Of course we have to endure the coma-inducing "Confederate Flags are Politically Incorrect" scene. I actually saw someone in front of me playing with the buttons on his cell-phone during that one, and I became jealous because I didn't have one. And then there's Jay Chandrasekhar's inexplicably conspicuous cameo. And then there's the Big Race scene, which makes so little sense that I won't bother explaining. And then there's every time Jessica Simpson is on-screen.
Out on the town the other night, I heard a bar patron expound, in an eerily on-message way, about how much he was looking forward to seeing Jessica Simpson wrap on the Daisy Duke shorts. It reminded me of a recent 60 Minutes piece on covert advertising. Supposedly, big companies now send their clones into public places like bars to spread propaganda about the latest bad product. Is there any doubt that's what I witnessed? How else could anyone get so excited? Jessica Simpson wears the shorts fine, yes. I get it. But she radiates all the sexual energy of a centaur.
Most of the money and energy for this film went into the car-porn scenes, which aren't bad. I clocked at least 30 minutes of low-angle, leaf-scattering chasing, which is a lot for a movie that's only about 90 minutes. There are, thankfully, no visible CGI short-cuts going on. It looks like everyone at least got down in the dirt to put something watchable on the screen. In this day and age, we've been reduced to being thankful for that.
Although I have to wonder if it's even remotely possible for a car to take that kind of punishment in off-road conditions. Launching a car off an incline and landing it again seems like it would at least blow out your tires, if not bury your transmission in a crater. Exactly the kind of thing I should be pondering during an action movie. What else can I say? This movie doesn't rip or roar. It's neither rootin' nor tootin'. It's not a good time.












Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-07-2005 @ 8:57PM
harrison said...
I didn't finish your review of 'Dukes' as I found it unbearable. The fact that you did not see the film 'Super Troopers' and that you have been "informed" that it was terrible is enough fact to show that 'Titanic' is more your type of film. In fact you probably even loved the "amazing special effects" in said movie. You know, those consisting of the same CGI that a 13 year old kid could reproduce. I bet you'd like to buy the 2 disc edition of Pearl Harbor and watch only the first disc (ie, the one consisting of no fighting what so ever). Grow some cojones. Had you seen Super Troopers you would have recognize the joke being made by the Campus Police (the scene where the Duke boys are pulled over for going 2 under the limit and the police are playing 'repeat'). Please, tell me what your favorite movies are, they must be terribly painful to watch films. I'm sure they are. I suppose you aren't one for a comedy. I'll happily admit that the Dukes of Hazzard was not intended for an intellectual audience, however, the comedy is still the type that the great majority enjoys. That you failed to mention Jessica Simpson in scantily clad outfits shows me that you, Ryan?, may not be the type to enjoy such a showing. How could you have disliked this movie or thought that Super Troopers was a bad movie? That's simply insane.
Reply
8-07-2005 @ 9:17PM
Charles said...
Actually, if you HAD read all of his review, you would have seen him mention Mrs. Lachey in her daisy dukes.
And if this were a review about Super Troopers, and he had not seen the movie, but still written about it, your criticism's might mean more.
Alas, you wrote alot about a post you admitted you barely read. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Oh well. Us "intellictual types" read the full post, and enjoy and appreciate the time, effort, and creative energy put into it. ;)
Reply
8-07-2005 @ 10:44PM
Gilbert Davis said...
The best thing about movies like The Dukes of Hazzard and Stealth is watching the publicity machines crank up to try to tell us that these movies are something you or I want to spend 10 bucks to see. Do you smell that in the air? It's the smell of fear and the smell of flop sweat. It's the smell of a bomb so fearfully bad that promising thespians like Jessica Simpson and Johnny Knoxville might actually have to go to work at something more in keeping with their talents and be celebrity contestants on the 10,000 Pyramid or some other game show in need of recognizable personalities. Yes, we can't help but watch the car accident that is happening in front of us. Not the movie of course, the only real entertainment is reading witty and entertaining reviews and watching the scale at rotten tomatoes.com fall as soon as the hype meets the reality of those poor souls who actually went to see it. Good review. If it saves just 90 minutes of someone's life which will otherwise be lost if they go to see the Dukes then it'll all be worth it. :-)
Reply
8-07-2005 @ 10:57PM
Tony said...
Seeing the run-up to this movie, two questions came to mind:
1) Did the people who made this movie SERIOUSLY think that it WOULDN'T be horrible? Seriously?
2) Why in the world does Jessica Simpson, who is already from the south, put on that horrid southern drawl? How did that get past even the first dailies? She can't even keep it up for an entire sentence, from what I've seen in the previews.
Also, Super Troopers was damn funny. But, if you are a person that dislikes jokes about drugs, it probably isn't a movie for you because it centers around a drug smuggling ring.
Reply
8-08-2005 @ 1:15AM
Jake said...
Are you serious? You REALLY went into the friggin Dukes of Hazzard and wonder how a car can jump off a ramp and not blow a tire??
Perhaps you weren't clear what The Dukes was all about??
And honestly, I write off any movie reviewer who comments on the quality of a movie he/she hasn't even seen, but is trusting their friends on.
Reply
8-08-2005 @ 2:09AM
MG said...
If you will notice something very important: movies nowadays aren't made for intelligent, analytical people. That's why you see at at $30M at the box office while others, better written, directed and with a "real" story, not doing quite so well. Take a look at society and you will see why these plotless stories are such a hit. Try DodgeBall for a story.
Or the dumb Passion of Christ.
I thought the movies (yes I went watch with my kids) was bad. Too much swearing and and teasing of the Southern culture. I guess if one has half-a-brain, it could be funny if you turn off your logical thinking cap. While pretty, I didn't think Jessica Simpson was all that hot as they tried to make her to be in the movie. Additionally, the movie was somewhat racial, poking fun at black people (I'm white) and a few other dumb things. But, hey, dumb stuff sells all day long, doesn't it?
Reply
8-08-2005 @ 3:36AM
Jeff Garlin said...
Your comments: That is the worst revue I have ever read. I loved Dukes of Hazard for all the right reasons. It was fun and funny. Your review was an ill informed piece of crap. I have Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock, Truffaut, Kurosawa, Antonioni, Bunuel, Wilder, Sturges, Ford, Hawks, Huston etc. on DVD. But also like Caddy Shack, Stripes, Ron Burgundy, Dodgeball etc. When you go see the Dukes, dive in. The movie delivered what it was supposed to be.
Reply
8-08-2005 @ 5:06AM
Anon said...
Dude, this movie is crap. CRAP. As if there was the slightest chance it would be good. It was tainted before it started.
Reply
8-08-2005 @ 6:01AM
chuck said...
could someone please spare us from this "movie-critic-type" scum? i'm here NOT to read those boring morons who express their opinion in the papers.
Reply
8-08-2005 @ 10:37AM
CJ said...
harrison - We shouldn't have to see some other junk movie to "get" the jokes in this one.
chuck - don't read the reviews if you don't wanna hear people bash movies
I thought this movie actually had potential, but I agree that it was poorly excuted and severely miscast in several key areas.
Reply
8-08-2005 @ 12:17PM
karina said...
Chuck wrote:
"could someone please spare us from this "movie-critic-type" scum? i'm here NOT to read those boring morons who express their opinion in the papers."
I'm confused. Do you want us to *not* review movies on Cinematical? Or do you just want us to essentially parrot a press release, and let every top ten movie slide by uncritiqued? The goal of this blog is to provide uncensored, unfiltered information, commentary and opinion on movies and the issues surrounding the industry. What are you here for that this review has kept you from getting?
Reply
8-08-2005 @ 7:01PM
Erik Purne said...
Wow. Let's see:
#1 (Harrison) - Your rants are so childish that I'm going to go ahead and assume you are a child and not bag on you too much. I loved Super Troopers too, in that lame-but-has-some-really-funny-parts kind of way (littering and... littering and... I LMAO just thinking about it) but come on! Comedy or not, highbrow or low, a movie can be poorly directed, cast, written, etc. Though you, personally, might have enjoyed the Dukes, can you really flat-out deny even the possibility that it might not have been a good movie, to the point of insulting a reviewer who thinks so?
That said, anybody who faults the unrealistic car stunts in this movie should maybe stick to biographies or documentaries, not "summer blockbusters." It's the Dukes of Hazzard, man!
And another thing:
#9 (Chuck) - What the hell are you doing here then, if it's not to read opinions?
Personally, I thought the movie might be enjoyable and I wasn't expecting a work of art, but IMO The Dukes fails to be anything but a all-round crappy movie.
Reply
8-14-2005 @ 3:27PM
Jackie said...
"Oh well. Us "intellictual types" read the full post, and enjoy and appreciate the time, effort, and creative energy put into it. ;)"
Yes, and "us intellectual types" would know to use WE as a subject because "us" can't read..
_____
The movie was terrible, as was the review. I thought Super Troopers was funny though, and had you seen it, you would have understood the "inexplicable" references.
Reply
8-16-2005 @ 4:39PM
Userless said...
Please, for the love all that is holy, stop with these reviews. First Karina with that horrendous chat log "review" and now this clown with a review that slags other movies he hasn't even seen. It's a joke. Your news articles are great, but leave the reviews to someone else. Stop, just stop.
Reply