Adaptation: The Dukes of Hazzard

The A-word.
It's the bane of cinephiles, everywhere.

That book you love; the comic you remember; the show you used to watch; the game you lost an entire summer playing? Oh, someone's adapted it and it's getting made into a movie! Whether a cause for pre-emptive celebration or foreboding caution, it leads to only one thing: expectation. And expectation is the death of the 'clean' movie-viewing experience; no matter how closely the film sticks to its source material, or how much it tries to distance itself, it will be faced with the hurdle of comparison.

And while the movie industry loves the pre-built marketing buzz of 'now a major motion picture!', they loathe the comparative references which will be made from the first review onwards. Because many punters will expect to get exactly the same reaction from a completely different medium, to a story they already know. And therein lies the problem.

In this monthly series, we'll look back at some of the most respected and best-loved properties which have made the perilous journey to the big screen; often with some controversy, and almost always with far too much hype. This isn't so much a review of the films themselves, more an appraisal of their suitability as an adaptation.

The Dukes Of Hazzard
CBS / Warner Bros. (1979-1985)

Yes, that's right. I did wait until August of 2017 before starting to watch a TV series where the protagonists boast criminal records and drive around in a car named "General Lee", with a Confederate flag painted across the roof. I call it 'inappropriate synchronicity'.

Anyway, the TV-leg of Adaptation moves from the 60s to the 70s (just), with Warner TV's The Dukes Of Hazzard, a fondly-remembered favourite of many which was aired on BBC1 in the UK*¹. That said, I should add at this early juncture that I don't recall watching it much in my youth (although I must have seen 'some' as can't have absorbed all my structural familiarity with the show by cultural osmosis alone, surely?). I remember it being 'a thing' with my contemporaries, but rarely to the point where it would be a subject for playground-reenactment. So what better a subject to take in properly for the first time, to contrast and compare…

The setup revolves around cousins Bo and Luke Duke, 'fighting the system' with their whiskey-bootlegging uncle Jesse and waitressing cousin, Daisy. This brings them into regular lighthearted opposition with the bent Hazzard County Sheriff Rosco Coltrane and even more corrupt County Commissioner, Boss Hogg. The boys get into scrapes every week, invariably resulting in a car-chase by the 30-minute mark featuring a ramp-jump, a miraculously intact front-axle and a subsequent fond lecture from Uncle Jesse. Daisy is The Girl One who wears hotpants.

So yeah, short version: The Dukes Of Hazzard is distracting fun, but I have no idea why it enjoyed the longevity or legacy it did. The main hurdle the show can't quite clear is the uninspired writing, leading to a transparently formulaic format, even for a Saturday-teatime*² staple. As the main focus, the Duke family themselves are amiable enough, but much like The Avengers, Hazzard wasn't really meant to be watched in any kind of concentrated succession.

After that is the propensity for light slapstick and comedic gurning carried out by the authority figures in the shape of Hogg, Coltrane and eventually deputy Enos Strate*³. In short order, the bumbling law-enforcers cease being any kind of nemesis to the Duke cousins, and just turn into recurring comic foils. Fine for a half-hour sitcom perhaps, not so much for an already-baggy 50 minute lighthearted action series. While Hazzard was introduced to screens before the likes of more dynamic fare such as Knight Rider and The A-Team, it was still a contemporary of Charlie's Angels and CHiPs. Even back in the day, I struggle to see how this could compete; yet at 147 episodes, compete it did.

It isn't really fair to judge that entire canon based on the first season of course, when Warner were still hammering out the details, but I think I've got a pretty solid handle on the Duke boys. And after thirteen hours of southern drawl, plaid shirts and dryly laconic narration, I'm now itching to work my way through My Name Is Earl again…

For a programme whose USP was essentially an orange Dodge Charger with a Dixie air-horn and a 'Yeea-hooo!' sound-sample*⁴, The Dukes Of Hazzard did very well for itself. Whether it still holds up in the 21st century is a different matter, of course, which is why you'd want the film-version to be bringing something new to the mix, right..?

The Dukes Of Hazzard
Jay Chandrasekhar (2005)

And so it came to pass that Warner Bros did so well with the 2004 movie redux of Starsky & Hutch that the next natural step was, of course, to keep S&H co-writer John O'Brien onboard and mine other TV back-catalogues for buddy-com mileage*⁵. The result of all this cashing-in is that Comedy™ is the main thrust of the 2005 cinematic adaptation of The Dukes Of Hazzard. And who better to lead the charge than Seann William Scott (the wildcard of the hitherto successful American Pie flicks), and Johnny Knoxville (the posterboy of the then-burgeoning Jackass) as Bo and Luke respectively?

And the modus operandi of both their previous series is very much evident in the big-screen reboot. The UK's 15-rating (PG-13 in the US) means that not only can the brawl-scenes and lewd humour be ramped up, they arguably become one of the main supporting pillars of a 103-minute punctuated car-chase. Country-royalty Willie Nelson stars as Uncle Jesse, and is fawned upon by pretty much the entire cast, while woman-of-the-moment Jessica Simpson dons the mantle of Daisy Duke*⁶. Unusually for this sort of thing, there are no gratuitous cameos by the original stars. In fact the closest we get to cast-reprisal is probably M.C. Gainey playing Rosco Coltrane, who appeared in a Season 4 episode of the TV run.

As a mid-noughties studio action/comedy, this is not remarkable in any way, but as an adaptation it's surprisingly workable*⁷. I can see why the old-school fanbase could absolutely detest Chandrasekhar's reboot, but as tonally ramped as the movie is, it's clearly been made with a core love of the series at a writing-level, at least. O'Brien and Jonathan Davis understand which aspects of the original can be amplified and which need to be pointed out with a raised eyebrow (the Confederate flag on the roof of the General Lee being a prime example).

The cinematic Dukes Of Hazzard isn't as bad as I'd feared, even if it's not quite as good as I'd hoped.

Although might I suggest that if Georgia's finest are ever resurrected again, the property piggybacks on another successful franchise? Dead Hazzard has a nice ring to it...






It's alright. Good in places, repetitive in others..



It's alright. Good in places, mechanical in others..



Both; they make an interesting counterpoint to one another.



Not in the TV episodes I watched, and I didn't hear one in the film either.



For the TV version...
Level 1: The show once featured the voice of Savage Opress. I mean, that's it, but it still counts.

For the film version…

Level 2: The movie stars Jessica Simpson, who appeared in a 2003 episode of The Twlight Zone called 'The Collection' alongside Forest 'Saw Gerrera' Whitaker.



*¹ The Dukes Of Hazzard only narrowly squeaks into the Adaptation bracket, fact-fans, as it is itself a loose reworking of the 1975 film Moonrunners. However, two reasons led to its inclusion here: 1) From a cultural perspective, Dukes is remembered by and large as its own thing, and 2 By the time I found out about Moonrunners, I'd already bought the DVDs. So, fuck it. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Of course, I 'remember' this being Saturday-teatime and family-friendly, which is what it eventually became. It first aired in the 9pm slot, though, which perhaps explains why the pilot episode has references to cousins marrying and uses an inflatable sex-doll as a prop for Daisy Duke's jailbreak, while the second episode sees the Dukes using an RV full of hookers as a distraction-tactic... ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ A largely unnecessary character who went on to get his own 18 episode spin-off series, no less... ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ The exact recording of which is used roughly twice per episode, not including the one in the opening titles… ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁵ A general practice which has sporadically continued until this year of course, when I sincerely hope that the celluloid-pile-ups that were Baywatch and CHiPs have now driven the final rusty nail into the coffin of this lazy commissioning process... ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁶ And with the best will in the world, the Dollar-Mall Britney Spears is as 'theatrically challenged' as Catherine Bach was, so that sort of works at least ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁷ Even if this film did spawn an unwarranted and less than stellar origins-entry… ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Patti Cake$

Patti Cake$
Cert: 15 / 109 mins / Dir. Geremy Jasper / Trailer



Feeling once again like a movie which we should be getting in October's release-schedule, writer/director Geremy Jasper brings us Patti Cake$, a drama about a 23yr old waitress and family-carer (Danielle Macdonald) in smalltown New Jersey who wants to break free of the downward-spiral she sees as her life, becoming a successful rapper. With singer Jerry (Siddharth Dhananjay) and guitarist/mixer Basterd (Mamoudou Athie), the beleaguered Patti tries to puncture the membrane separating club-level, street acts and more successful, recognised performers. But competition is plentiful and life rarely lets you pursue your dreams without obstacle…

While Patti Cake$ is set against a backdrop of hip-hop, the strokes of the story are fairly broad, examining confidence, obligation and the legacy of failure in a family of coulda-made-its. This isn't quite the relentlessly gritty tale of social angst that the trailer makes out out to be, although that's definitely the primary ingredient. Underneath the raw contemporary feel, what we get is actually a fairly formulaic underdog story; Jasper also telegraphs the turns quite broadly, adding to the feeling that this isn't all it could be.

The cast give solid performances all round and the music marries up with the story perfectly, but they're not quite enough to save the coulda-made-it screenplay, building to a crescendo that the film doesn't quite earn. Maybe it's my own fault for loving that trailer and believing the pull-quotes telling me how fantastic it was. I thoroughly enjoyed Patti Cake$, but it didn't over-perform like I'd hoped it would. I wanted to be blown away, I was only swept along. Then again, I can hardly blame Geremy Jasper for my expectations…

With a movie about creative drive and the hunger to put your own unique musical stamp on the world, I probably shouldn't have come out of the cinema with Heart stuck in my head…

The aspiration of Sing Street with the urban decay of The Transfiguration...



While it's not typical 'big screen' fare, I think the film's sincerity will come over better in that format.



Just about.



Really couldn't say, on that front.



Not at all.



Not at all.



Level 2: This film stars Bridget Everett, who was in 2012's Gayby along with Adam 'Kylo' Driver.






DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Terminator 2 (3D)

Terminator 2: Judgment Day 3D
(spoilers, but I'm going to assume you've seen this 1991 movie)
Cert: 15 / 135 mins / Dir. James Cameron / Trailer

"It's certainly a phenomenon in all walks of life.
At one point you've got it, then you lose it. And it's gone forever…"

~ Simon Williamson, 1996.

The premise of Sick Boy's all-pervasive theory rang in my ears as I watched the original T2 movie. As a combination of nostalgia and enduring awe swirled around my mind on the 20th anniversary of the film's Judgment Day, it did not escape my attention that there is something to be learned here. No matter how interesting or well-intentioned the subsequent Terminator sequels (and TV spinoff) may have been, they have never recaptured the greatness displayed in the first two installments*¹.
And they never will.
Don't @ me.

Much like the first Terminator movie, I always seem to forget how utterly fantastic the sequel is until I'm watching it. James Cameron's 'reveal' of Arnie's character-role is nothing short of masterful and gets better with each viewing, with the absolute buy-in of the entire cast (plus we effectively get it twice - once with John's discovery and again with Sarah's). Many hold up Linda Hamilton's performance as Sarah Connor as the pinnacle of Strong Female Character™ portrayal*², but there's really so much more here. Afraid, unsure, neurotic, cruel and blisteringly angry. Hamilton is the prime example of why we need interesting characters, not strong ones. Edward Furlong's overacting hasn't aged particularly well, but you can't have everything.

The stereoscopic conversion of the film (the real reason for the screening, rather than the fictional anniversary of something which we've never seen actually occur) is beautifully executed, and the occasional glance-over-the-glasses reveals its constant use in this remastered version. Unfortunately, cinematographer Adam Greenberg didn't orchestrate his work to be watched in three dimensions, so other than background-depth it really adds very little. In fact, Terminator 2 is so visually engaging anyway that it's barely noticeable. The 3D certainly doesn't get in the way, at any rate, and if the end result is the crystal-clear print we now have, that's absolutely fine.

Every single bit as enjoyable as it was 26 years ago, T2 is an outstanding piece of work and a timeless lesson in action/sci-fi cinema. Although I knew that before I sat down to remind myself of it…

Random thought during the film: I like that they hired Don and Dan Stanton to play the hospital security guard for the scene by the coffee machine. As if the folks at ILM were like "Yeah, I know you want the guy to be looking at his robot double. But trust me, blue-screening it will look like Captain Mainwaring's brother in Dad's Army and we're too busy in here making the Silver Surfer Terminator. Why can't you just hire twins, or something..?"

One question, though: Why does the T101's internal readout have a decimal point for the number of human casualties? What constitutes a fraction of a death in the Terminator's eyes?



So I've made a list…
0.1 Tiredness and irritability
0.2 Hay-fever symptoms
0.3 Tickly cough
0.4 Dirt / grit in eyes
0.5 Lower-back pain
0.6 Nasty rash
0.7 Chinese burn
0.8 Stung by wasp
0.9 Scalded by hot milk

Then it's death…

The Terminator.



If you get the opportunity, hell yeah. Several cinemas have it playing through the week and into this weekend.



Yep.



It's definitely A-game.



Probably not.



There isn't.
Which is frankly ridiculous.



Level 2: Although by all rights I should really credit ILM's Dennis Muren and veteran stunt-performer Vic Armstrong as a level-1s, this film stars Linda Hamilton who was in 1984's The Stone Boy alongside Wilford 'Noa' Brimley.





*¹ Although it also didn't escape my attention that the same charge could be levelled at James Cameron's directorial career, but that's a discussion for another time... ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Second only to Sigourney Weaver's Ripley, of course. But Weaver excels for the same reasons as Hamilton, her strength only comes at the end of a rollercoaster of dramatic emotions, and even then is frequently punctuated by fear and doubt. ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Logan Lucky

Logan Lucky
Cert: 12A / 119 mins / Dir. Steven Soderbergh / Trailer



Well I don't know what we've done to deserve the interesting films still within the months of Summer, but I certainly won't complain about that*¹. Steven Soderbergh is back directing for at the big-screen after four years with a hillbilly-heist movie set in the drawling sunshine of Carolina and Virginia.

After being fired from his construction job, faded highschool football-star Jimmy Logan (Channing Tatum) begins plotting a daring robbery at the Charlotte Motor Speedway stadium during its busiest weekend. For this he enlists the help of his bartending brother Clyde (Adam Driver), hairdressing sister Mellie (Riley Keough) demolitions-expert Joe Bang (Daniel Craig) and Joe's calamitous brothers Sam and Fish (Brian Gleeson / Jack Quaid). All they have to do is bust Joe out of prison first…

Quite unlike anything else which has crossed my path this year, Logan Lucky is a dryly-comic caper set against a backdrop of NASCAR, child beauty pageants and misspelled tattoos. But although the Southern States are mined for grins, this never becomes exploitative or unnecessary. While the trailer lets you know that there are jokes here, the final movie delivers them at a more restrained pace, going hand-in-hand with their perfect deadpan delivery. It quickly becomes evident however that Soderbergh can't direct comedy for shit, and just happens to be blessed with a cast who know what they're doing*².

But this is a smarter film than it might first appear and even more charming, managing to craft an intriguing story and satisfying ending without tipping over into schmaltz. Despite the incredibly strong cast, I can't see Logan Lucky lighting up the box-office, and the natural home of a movie like this is on DVD, a future Saturday night cult classic. It's also the second film this year to hurl a borderline unhealthy amount of John Denver into the soundtrack*³.

One of the jewels in Soderbergh's varied (albeit uneven) crown, Logan Lucky is a lot of fun and should stand up to multiple re-watches. Each one accompanied with ice-cold beer…

Hell Or High Water, My Name Is Earl.



If you can, do.



In its own unique way, yes.



I shouldn't have thought so.



Nope.



Nope.



Level 1: Kylo Ren's in this. And so's that stormtrooper who got duped by beginner-level Rey...





*¹ Not least because this year's Blockbuster Season has also presented us with far more than its fair share of absolute cack, too. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² With the inglorious exception of Seth MacFarlane, outstaying his welcome during his first appearance, being every bit as engaging as we've come to expect… ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Which is fine right now, but I can't help feel this musical train is going to reach the end of its track, and pretty soon. ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: American Made

American Made
Cert: 15 / 115 mins / Dir. Doug Liman / Trailer



One of the main reasons I go to the cinema on a Friday afternoon is that there's a smaller footfall than evening screenings, so the film is less likely to be disturbed by badly behaved patrons. That said, even I was surprised when I was one of four people watching the August-release of a Tom Cruise™ movie. Either the diminutive screen-god's appeal is waning, or Universal have absolutely no idea how to market this movie. And after the overall reception of their last collaboration, either is eminently possible…

Cruise plays Barry Seal, an airline pilot making a sideline in the late 1970s smuggling low-level contraband from South America, when he's recruited by the CIA to use his skills for more sensitive operations. Before long, his successes catch the attention of drug cartels, revolutionary forces, the DEA and FBI, all of whom want some of That Seal Magic, all of whom are willing to pay handsomely. Whether Barry's wife and children share his professional enthusiasm is a different matter…

Well, this is a pleasantly interesting mess. Skimming through events from 1976 up to a framing device in 1986, director Doug Liman presents a barrage of vignettes rather than a continuous narrative. Our protagonist's first-person narration does its best to stitch the scenes together, but there's always the feeling that this is an 800-page biography hacked down to just under two hours. The movie certainly captures the air of barely-controlled chaos, probably a little too well in fact.

There's always the feeling that Seal's enterprise is one step away from going completely south, even during the second-act high. The problem then is that you can't ramp up the tension for the climax because the audience is exhausted trying to keep up. The necessarily convoluted story is made needlessly more so by the erratic editing and camerawork. Many of the shots have fantastic Instagram-type filtering applied but this is used inconsistently, even within individual scenes. Visually, this film is all over the place.

While Sarah Wright and Caleb Landry Jones do their very best in supporting performances as Barry's wife and brother-in-law respectively, pretty much every shot revolves around That Guy Who's Smiling On The Poster. And young Tom is woefully miscast here; great at being Tom Cruise™ in a role crying out for another actor (his character's Southern Accent rears its head every ten minutes or so, only to skulk immediately away again). Without having met the real-life Mr Seal, one would imagine an actual drug-smuggler, arms-supplier and money-launderer would have a requisite level of roguish charm, rather than Tom's casual naivety. After two hours in his company, I'm still none the wiser as to how much of Barry Seal is in Tom's undemanding performance. American Made is never unpleasant to watch, but at the same time you know it often needs to be.

A more cynical version of me might even suggest that Liman is afraid of making Tom Cruise™ the bad guy, or even the anti-hero, of the story. In which case you'd have to wonder what the point of the film is, exactly. 2015's Black Mass is a perfect example of an almost uniformly bland actor (these days, at least) getting their teeth into a thoroughly reprehensible yet magnetic character. And when Johnny Depp is out-acting you, you're really not trying.

Yet for all my complaining, it's fun. From Domhnall Gleeson's wonderfully enigmatic government agent to the volatile drug-cartels and law enforcement agencies, the brisk pacing leaves little-to-no downtime and the lion's share of runtime is like a GTA-inspired farce*¹. But it's a story told from a barstool, rather than from an armchair.

Entertaining, if thoroughly unfocused and ultimately forgettable, this is Scarface for the Hangover generation. If only Barry Seal had half the character of Tony Montana…

This film's a bit War Dogs, although it tries to have more fun.



Only if you have a burning need to see the film soon; you won't lose too much by catching this at home.



Not as much as it thinks it does.



Nope.



Nope.



Nope.



Level 1: General Hux is in this.





*¹ I say this a lot, but during this movie I really had a hankering to play Vice City Stories. And it's not so much that American Made lost my attention at all, just that I really fucking love Vice City Stories… ^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.