I have steadfastly avoided “Clerks 2″ since its premiere last summer, despite the proddings of several friends. The other night, however, I was challenged by my friend Eric – who might be one of maybe three people on Earth capable of changing my mind – to at least SEE the movie before I start bad-mouthing it. So I accepted his challenge.
From that opening, you might get the impression that I didn’t like “Clerks 2.” You might be right, but it turns out I hate the movie for reasons I didn’t expect going into the experience.
Let me set the record straight: I despise Kevin Smith. The world endures “product” from his “View Askewniverse” because he happened to create a static, profanity-laden movie for $20,000 called “Clerks” in 1994, before video cameras and computer editing made such films irrelevant. Due to the publicity surrounding its extremely low budget, as well as its demented – though unrealistic – dialogue, “Clerks” became a hit and gave Kevin Smith Hollywood connections. In the 12 years since that marketing miracle, Smith has used his time and wealth to create films that desperately try to shock (Dogma, Chasing Amy) to overcompensate for Smith’s genuine lack of ability as a director.
Oh yeah, and he also REALLY likes to search the internet for references to himself, especially the bad ones, so he can get on message boards and call them “cock stains” and other clever names. Kevin Smith is the answer to the ageless question of what would happen if a worthless, talent-free nobody actually became a sort-of somebody.
Ahhh…now, onto the movie.
“Clerks 2″ shows Dante (Brian O’Halloran) and Randall (Jeff Anderson), ten years after the first film, losing their job at the Quick Stop due to a fire. They immediately get jobs at Mooby’s, a low-rent McDonald’s, under the “supervision” of Becky (Rosario Dawson). There, they spend their mysteriously customer-free days tormenting the virginal geek Elias (Trevor Fuhrmann). The “plot” involves Dante’s impending move to Florida with his domineering fiance Emma (Jennifer Schwalbach), and the effect it has on the people around him.
The acting in this film, much like the first, ranges from barely competent to gag-inducing. Unfortunately, unlike the original, this film has Kevin Smith dealing with overly-sentimental subjects which are far beyond the skill level of everone involved. There is a reason why we have not seen these “thespians” in any films outside of Smith’s lens. O’Halloran’s eye-rolling, exasperated turn as Dante quickly grates, and the unbelievably bad Schwalbach, Smith’s real-life wife, over-extends herself completely in a role that requires her to be attractive and together. Note to Smith: Get your wife some flattering lighting if you want us to find her as attractive as you do.
Much has been made of some of the supposed shocks and rants in this film including a riff on “Lord of the Rings” versus “Star Wars,” or a concluding donkey sex show. While cleverly skewing both franchises, the LOTR/SW debate is shoehorned clumsily into the script, which then telegraphs itself obviously. Smith’s poor direction sabotages the concluding donkey show, which already strains believability, with messy cuts and reaction shots that reveals the scene as being exactly what it is: a transparently phony attempt to shock.
I cannot believe that anyone who had any appreciation for the original could enjoy this abortion on any level. For those who loved the acerbic characters in the original, how could you appreciate seeing those same characters whine and talk about their feelings constantly? For those who loved the indie aesthetic of the original, how could you love the three – THREE – music videos in this film, including a retarded dance number set to “ABC” by the Jackson Five?? And for those that raved about the witty dialogue and scatalogical humor that Smith integrated so well into the first film, how could you love the clumsy, haphazard way they are crammed into the script this time?
Ultimately, this film is UGLY. Like watching Madonna, now 47, in tights cavorting with twenty year olds, it’s PAINFUL to watch these characters, now mid-thirties, dressing and acting like they’re in their early twenties. They have grown, not into maturing or more self-aware adults, but into petulant, whiny adult children. With “Clerks 2,” Smith shows he has lost touch with the concerns of his generation, while at the same time revealing more of his actual personality than he’d probably like to admit.
You wasted your fifteen minutes, Kevin. Stop, go home, and enjoy the money.
12 Comments
I also avoided seeing Clerks 2, but not because I don’t like Kevin Smith. I just automatically assume that any sequel is going to suck. I liked the original, but returning to it after all these years seems kind of greedy and/or desperate.
@ ryk: Amen, brother.
I also cannot stand Kevin Smith. I can vaguely recollect seeing the first one a couple of years ago and that says it all. A poor, unmemorable film, which is unfunny, badly directed and just plain crap. I can’t imagine the second being any better, its a stay well away vote for me!
@Safcfan: Yeah, the first movie wasn’t great cinema by any means, but it had a certain scruffy, hungry charm missing from this one entirely. Just be glad you don’t have an Eric in your life badgering you to watch shitty movies like I do.
“I cannot believe that anyone who had any appreciation for the original could enjoy this abortion on any level. For those who loved the acerbic characters in the original, how could you appreciate seeing those same characters whine and talk about their feelings constantly?” I guess you never seen the first Clerks movie that you were commenting on,as if you had seen it. Clerks II kicks ass.
Eric, in the first film the characters did NOT sit around talking about how important they were to each other and how much they loved each other. While I can understand what Smith is attempting here, it just comes off as sappy and embarrassing.
Dan, the first Clerks movie was really well made for someone with as little experience as Smith had. Especially when you consider he financed the film himself, which he had to take several loans out for and sell a lot of his personal stuff. If the first Clerks had been a disaster, he would have been in BIG trouble.
I admire how much of a risk it took him to make the movie and how “Orson Welles” like determination it took to suceed.
Now that’s not to say I like Clerks, because I don’t, but I think calling it “badly directed” is really harsh.
As far as Clerks II goes, I liked it quite a bit. I can relate to the fear of seeing everyone around you growing up and being succesful with their lives, while your stuck doing the same old shit and talking about the same old shit.
It’s about the pain of seeing Lord of the Rings become the new obsession of young kids today, and the jealously that your youth of growing up with Star Wars has disappeared. Even sadder, when you think of the image your once hero, George Lucas, has today.
Maybe I was influenced by a great crowd who loved every minute of Clerks II in the cinema but I am looking forward to revisting this thing sometime on DVD.
For those who haven’t seen it, the movie is definetly worth checking out. It’s far suprior to the first Clerks and IMO Is a HUGE step forward for it’s director.
I enjoy Clerks and Clerks 2, not because I’m looking for a serious film but because I do enjoy movies that are cerebral and insane and base and fun. It’s cool that you don’t like it though. Good schewer.
I would offer up, however, the idea that while it’s righteously easy and very pretty to bash the hell out of Kevin Smith, personally I think his little fiefdom isn’t really that big a deal to anyone who aren’t a part of it. For instance, I mean, if Smith gets this much of an axe to his forehead on a constant basis for making a little hay out of nothing, why the hell isn’t twice the vitriol shot out at someone like Joel Schumacher or heck, the person who did Maid in Manhattan.
My point is, I’m not one of those wingnuts who’s gonna shoot you shit for critique (I hate those assholes). I guess what I’m saying is I’d love to see you schew the many hundred of idiots far more worthy of condemnation than Kevin Smith, who isn’t even on the radar of people who worship Paris Hilton, of which there are many, legion, and unfortunately, paying.
@ Matt: Matt, can you hear yourself?? You just used the same excuse that everyone else used to justify why this hack became famous – he financed the film himself. Like I said in my review, THAT got the guy unwarranted publicity and got him an undeserved movie deal. UNDESERVED, because the movie is actually shit, and his “direction” is even worse.
This film is only better in that he got to use a crane shot or two, and he could afford better film stock. The script for this new one is actually WORSE than the first, and my God, the musical numbers, and the acting, and the stumbling “plot”…HORRID.
A piece of shit.
@ Neal: I agree with you; it IS too easy to rip on a fucktard like Smith. And yet, he keeps making things like this, or (gasp) appearing in and subsequently ruining “Die Hard 4″, which then makes it a moral imperitive to destroy him yet again.
I dunno, I thought the script for this thing was pretty tight. You got way more invovled with the characters than what you ever did with the original.
You right that he now has a bigger budget to work with, but he had that for Jay and Silent Bob and Jersey Girl too but they never had the visuals Clerks II had.
I kinda like the musical numbers. The “ABC” dance sequence was really cute, and I think it works on whether Rosario Dawson has drawn you in to her or not. And she did for me!
The first Clerks was a really popular and critically recieved film before Kevin Smith became a “brand name”. This is before his legion of fans, etc.
He deserved the movie deal he got, because with a limited budget he made a film that people could relate to.
How did he not get what he deserved? People loved that film before they could possibly be blindsided by the View Askew Universe.
There are two reasons why Smith got the initial success with “Clerks.” First, back in 1994, he managed to make a movie with almost no money, which not only garnered him publicity, but it also got him studio confidence. Secondly, Smith made a crude slacker comedy which is not only relatable to people, but also gave them the idea to do the same thing themselves. So Smith became their low-budget idol.
All of this extra-curricular crap overshadowed the fact that “clerks” wasn’t really that great of a film; it’s poorly directed, poorly edited, and poorly acted. Only the writing shows any spark at all.
“Clerks 2″ is tiresome, juvenile, and ridiculously sappy and overly sentimental. I mean, it makes TWO flaccid references to Buffalo Bill in “Silence of the Lambs.” From 1991. Fascinating. YAWN.
And no, the musical numbers are NOT cute. I like Rosario Dawson just as much as any horny guy, but when the crowd outside the restaurant (why were there never any customers INSIDE???) starts dancing, that is just plain stupid. Truly.
As Smith has shown throughout his laborious fifteen minutes of fame, he has one trick, and this pony used it up when he maxed out his last credit card to make “Clerks.”
clerks 2 was a masterpiece
kevin smiths imagination and the way he directs films inspires me to do the same.
with out him this world would be boring. kivin smiths bring excitment out of hollywood. yes i may not hav liked the first clerks but he made up to his reputaion by creating jay & silent bob strike back & clerks 2
that review is totally uncalled for
to be honest i bet you couldnt make a film better than kevin smith even if yoo had a really high budget.