Review - Dukes of Hazzard

[jack]

Dukes of Hazzard was surprisingly cool. I expected it to be just the enjoyable side of mediocre, but it was totally enjoyable.

Of course, it goes without saying it wasn't anything in the plot department, but it was fun all the way through. And lovely to see some completely uninhibited characters for a change.

And I liked the narrator, who kept chipping in occasionally to set things in context.

Of course, we were all too tired to go for food after, but I can't get everything right <- demonstrated fact :)

Comments

Advocating the devil

[minipoppy.livejournal.com]

I've not seen it, so this isn't my actual opinion, but I like the quote. Someone said that the only thing that wasn't entirely obvious about the film was why it was made at all.
I think it depends a lot on whether you grew up with the series or not.

Re: Advocating the devil

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

LOL. That could make sense.

I think it depends a lot on whether you grew up with the series or not.

Ah, I forgot to mention that, didn't I? I'd never seen it and never knew anything about it, so liked the film without preconceptions. I had the impression it would be very annoying to someone who liked the original, but I don't actually know.

In fact, I'm not sure if there's any films based on books with where I read the book first and liked the film more/differently (as opposed to the film being a completely faithful and very slightly inferior adaption :)). In fact, I think I need to go make a poll about that.

Re: Advocating the devil

[minipoppy.livejournal.com]

OK, I've thought quite hard about this. I can only come up with two instances where the film outstrips the book; Paul Gallico's The Poseidon Adventure, and Michael Chabon's Wonder Boys.

Barely makes up for the travesty of Christopher Eccleston's Jude The Obscure though.

Re: Advocating the devil

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

None I've seen, I'm afraid. I can think of some potential examples. "Running Man" was an ok film and an interesting book, but was so completely different I don't think I'd bother to be offended if I'd read the book first, but I didn't so I can't easily judge.

Or you could count pirates of the carribean in some sense... :)

Re: Advocating the devil

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I was googling for suggestions to support a post, and someone's opinion was "I thought Monty Python and the Holy Grail was way better than Malory's "Le Mort d'Arthur". I had trouble hearing the coconuts and visualizing the swallows in Malory's work. I thought Python fleshed it out nicely.

Re: Advocating the devil

[minipoppy.livejournal.com]

> I thought Python fleshed it out nicely.
That's brilliant! I suppose in the same vein you could say that Clueless was better than Austen's Emma (not that I like Clueless, but come on.. anything is better than a book by Jane Austen)

What are you counting as the original book to Pirates of the Caribbean?

Re: Advocating the devil

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

What are you counting as the original book to Pirates of the Caribbean?

The amusement park ride. I admit I've never tried it, but I've heard it was *very* weak on plot *and* characterisation :)

I suppose in the same vein you could say that Clueless was better than Austen's Emma

I admit I thought Clueless was quite funny. But I've read a *little* Jane Austen, and enjoyed it, and been assured it's pretty good by several people who are normally fairly reliable. It was a common choice, though.

Re: Advocating the devil

[minipoppy.livejournal.com]

> The amusement park ride.
Rofl.

> But I've read a *little* Jane Austen, and enjoyed it
Boo!! Although I am aware that my dislike of Austen is probably a little too rabid. Prolly best not to get me started on that.