Haggard (2003) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

This film is kind of a cross between Jackass: the Film and Freddy Got Fingered, which is to say that it takes the Jackass/CKY guys and places them into a fictional narrative. I have deduced from reading the comments and watching a little bit of the "making of" documentary that the fictional story is not all that fictional. Apparently Ryan Dunn went through a bad experience with an ex-girlfriend who was a chronic cheat, and this film is basically just an exaggerated and embellished version of that relationship.

These guys do definitely have a hardcore youth following, but grown-ups should probably stay away, because Haggard basically just consists of guys acting like assholes, which can be funny (even to adults) when it is spontaneous street theater, but is stripped of its impact in a scripted piece. Because Haggard has a fairly traditional narrative form, the film basically has the same weakness as Freddy Got Fingered. Both Tom Green and the Jackass guys derive their humor from doing outrageous things in public and provoking spontaneous shock reactions from the random people who witness their antics. The humor derives more from the reactions than from their actions. The Jackass guys do things like placing one of their crew in a body bag and dropping the body in a public dump in full view of construction workers, or sticking toy trucks up their assholes and going to a doctor to see what's wrong. It can be funny to hear a medical man try to explain in professional terms that a patient's problem is the result of a toy truck up his butt, just as it can be fun to see Tom Green shave a dead raccoon on live TV. Once those shenanigans are placed within a fictional story, however, the humor is lost. The audience is no longer watching other people react to street theater, but rather watching actors pretend to react to street theater. That's just not the same thing.

Especially when the actors are at this level of competence.

The film does have plusses. You would expect it to have some kick-ass music, and it does, but you would not really expect it to look spectacular, and you'd be wrong on that count. Amazingly enough, the photography in this film is outstanding. The action scenes (mostly skateboarding) are shot and edited expertly, and the entire film has a rich palette, using colored lighting and exaggerated saturation to surround the story with a fairy tale aura.

The IMDb ratings by age tell you almost everything you need to know:

Under 18 7.7
18-29 6.6
30-44 4.3
45+ not enough voters

Even though Haggard scores a respectable 6.4 overall at IMDb, it scores only 4.6 with the most prolific voters, and as you can see from the table above, it scores 4.3 with voters aged 30 or more. The basic takeaway is that you may like these juvenile antics if you are under 30,  and you will be even more likely to enjoy these goings-on if you are under 18.



  • Widescreen anamorphic 16x9. EXCELLENT transfer
  • full-length "making of" documentary
  • photo gallery


  • "Naked Dave" Decurtis walks around naked all the time, as you might guess from his name, but his naughty bits are blurred (even though the DVD purports to be uncensored). You can see his bum.

  • Jenn Rivell shows her large breasts in two scenes. Her bottom half is blurred in her "uncensored" sex scene.

  • Two topless slave girls feed fruit to a fat guy who thinks he's an ancient Roman.

  • Two women have a very hot make-out session, but they remain fully clothed.

The Critics Vote ...

  • No major reviews online.

The People Vote ...

  • IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 6.4/10, but the scores are inversely proportionate to age, and decline very sharply as the reviewers get older.
  • No box office info.
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, it's a C-. This is youthploitation, as done in the style of the new millennium. If you are not a teen or a teen-at-heart, you will probably find this movie very dumb.

Return to the Movie House home page