bluetunehead

i really enjoyed this, and having had a brother who was a huge fan of the show, i've probably seen every episode of the old series at least two or three times. it didn't feel the same, and some of the changes were a little pointless. it felt as much like a wannabe smokey and the bandit as it did a dukes story, but it was fun. scott and knoxville did what they were supposed to do. the car chases were great. daisy was hot. it works.

i'm amazed at the beating this movie is taking by some of the comments. honestly, what were you expecting? there are some dumb jokes, the acting is lame, the plot is full of holes, but seriously, it's the dukes of hazzard. take it for what it is.

This film isn't without merit (it is a compelling story, it is acted wonderfully, etc) but I find one fundamental flaw....the camera work. I'm told that it was made in the realist style of filmmaking, but watching this I do not get a sense of realism in the least. Were we to actually get a glimpse into Rosetta's life...in a realistic fashion...we might actually get to see what she looks at. Instead the camera trains on her for the entire film, almost never looking away, even when she herself is looking elsewhere. How can this film claim to be an exercise in realism when the most basic element is anything but realistic? Were the audience really following Rosetta around all day in person, we would hardly keep our eyes glued to her the entire time. We would look around, we would see the world she lives in. We would see who she is talking to. We would actually see beyond the three-foot square scope of this film. I'm not asking for Hollywood set-pieces. The hand-held camera is fine, but keeping it locked on Rosetta the entire time limits the viewers ability to really experience her world the way she experiences it. At least to me, realism requires that the story be captured in a way that is as close to actually being there as possible, which requires camera work that is willing to look away from the character, at least briefly, in the moments when she is interacting with something offscreen. If the viewer cannot see what Rosetta sees, how then is the viewer supposed to experience what she experiences? This film failed in that respect. Maybe I'm just not one for the so-called realism genre, but to me this is not realism. This is voyeurism.

I saw this as part of a Movieside screening in Chicago a month or so ago. I'm not sure what on Earth was going through the head of Todd Rohal when he came up with this one, but from the first lines of text on screen he had my attention. It was strange but entertaining. I felt like I was watching an episode of The Adventures of Pete and Pete on acid. If you're a fan of oddball humor that makes you think (or does it?!) then this is definitely worth checking out. If that's not your game, it's just going to come off as nonsense.

That's my two cents. The end.