The Movie Channel showed Clerks I and II back to back this weekend. I really hate when channels do this because it’s just not fair. If I watch one and then see the sequel is coming up right after, do I really have a choice? I think not.
The good part about this very divisive and shifty type of programming is that I get a chance to really compare the two movies, especially if there was an ample amount of time in between the release dates of the films.
Clerks was a movie you had to be told about its existence. You didn’t see any commercials, promos or trailers. You had to hear about it from a guy who heard from a guy that there was this pretty funny indi film out there about store clerks. And it was pretty funny. However anytime a film goes from cult status to being recognized nation wide, you lose a little something. It no longer only belongs to your little group of friends as they rip quote after quote, while outsiders are clueless to what you’re talking about. A cult film loses some of it’s magic when that happens, but nonetheless Clerks still holds up over a decade later as a clever, original perspective for anyone who has ever worked in the retail industry.
Let’s get the technical stuff out of the way, Clerks is not well produced and the acting is amateurish even for amateurs. But that’s not the point of this film. You expect indi films to look horrible and have bad acting. Because of this, the real content of the film is what drew the audience’s focus. Clerks works as a movie because it bullseyes the pent-up aggression anyone has had working 8 or more hours behind a cash register. “This job would be great if not for the fucking customers,” is not only the most quoted line from the film, but it’s also the most relevant in connecting with the audience.
The script is very good, however the writing style is the opposite of the film's intent to relate to the common, everyday store clerk. The subject matter that Dante, Randal and company rant about throughout the story is very relevant and realistic to everyday life, however the style in which they speak is not. Almost everyone in Clerks speaks in diatribes. Everyone has these lengthy, well thought out speeches for just about every situation. Real conversations do not sound like this, unless of course your best friend is Dennis Miller. I’m not saying this a strike against Clerks. I actually think the method of speech was necessary. Dialogue has to bare the weight of a movie that looks like it costs $100 to make. If Smith decided to get realistic with the speech, we might have been in for a 90 minute black and white version of Big Brother.
Clerks will forever be loved by anyone who’s had a part or full-time job in retail. Even if you didn’t work in a quick mart or video store, you can still relate to a lot of what goes on in the movie. The plot of Dante’s struggle with what to do with his professional and love life is really just a vehicle to move you to the next joke about the retail industry. There are however some jokes that go “Hollywood” in the film, such as Randal knocking over the casket at the funeral and Caitlin getting intimate with a corpse. One more thing that Clerks gives us that will make it forever famous is the world introduction of Jay and Silent Bob, two of the funniest characters in movie history. Actually the best piece of acting in this film was by Jason Mewes (Jay), but that's probably because he wasn't really acting.
Clerks has and will continue to stand the test of time due to the fact that retail stores will always hire young, disgruntled, underpaid employees, and customers will always be dicks.
Story: 6.5
Acting: 4.0
Writing: 8.0
Captivation: 7.0
Replay Value: 8.0
Total Score: 6.7
The sequel to the 1994 indi-cult hit comes a dozen years later as our anti-hero minimum wage earners have not progressed much from the first film. Right away you notice a giant difference with this film over the first one . . . . . . . money! Yes it’s in color but that’s the least of the changes. You now have multiple cameras, better editing, superstar cameos, and a much smoother script. It would be hard for this movie to not be better than the original. Everyone involved has had twelve more years of practice at their craft. Kevin Smith now has films like Chasing Amy and Dogma under his belt. Jason Lee and Ben Affleck are A-List celebrities. And Brian O’Halloran (Dante) and Jeff Anderson (Randal) no longer look and sound like they are performing a high school play. Then add in real professional actors like Rosario Dawson (Becky) and Trevor Fehrman, who was brilliant in the role of the awkward and sometimes-scary Elias, and you have yourself a professional moving picture film.
The story is a lot deeper in this one, don’t get me wrong it’s not a Tolstoy novel or anything, but it’s the Grand Canyon compared to the first movie. Dante is still looking for direction in his life and thinks he may have found it for the first time, but we also get to see how this all effects Randal and the dynamic of their very LP friendship. The realism of the duo holds up because let’s face it; a decade can go by in the snap of a finger. One day you look up, ten years have passed, and the only thing that’s changed in your life is your waistline.
The comedy did not suffer at all from the more involved storylines. I actually laughed out loud way more at Clerks II than the original. The Star Wars Vs Lord of the Rings scene is one of the best written I’ve ever seen in a comedy. The first Clerks made you laugh, but it was more of a snicker or an “Oh yeah that happened to me once,” kind of thing.
One aspect of Clerks II that cannot compare against the original is the ironic purity of Jay and Silent Bob. Although Jay made me laugh my ass off in the sequel, he’s just not authentic as that character anymore. It’s not his fault he got sober, but in Clerks, Jason Mewes (Jay) was not playing a character he was just the strung-out stoner that slept on Kevin Smith’s couch. Plus the really bad wigs that Smith and Mewes were wearing in Clerks II did not help the street cred of the now sober and wealthy Bluntman and Chronic. You see, sometimes sobriety ruins things.
Clerks II is actually a better movie than Clerks. I know most people would say, “Blaspheme,” to that comment but watching the movies side by side proved without a doubt that Clerks II is the superior film. However Clerks II has one major problem . . . . . . . it’s a sequel.
Clerks II will never be held as highly as the original because that’s exactly what it’s not . . . . .original. When Clerks came out it was the gritty, low budget, indi film that you had to hope no one rented at Blockbuster because there was only one or two copies. Clerks II is way to polished and professional looking to deem as “hip,” or “edgy.” Sure the content is deeper, the acting is better, and the editing is smoother, but now it’s a “Hollywood” film. Instead of trying to ignore this, Smith flaunted it with an overblown, big-budget, musical scene in an attempt to mock what happens to directors that, “sell out.” The problem is you can’t imagine grabbing your camcorder and going out to shoot Clerks II, so it loses a lot of the charm the first one had. Plus it’s a sequel so it’s only building on the characters and storylines you already know. There is no groundbreaking material in Clerks II but if you honestly take a look at the films side by side, Clerks II is funnier, more thought out, and the performances are a mile better than the original. I’m not a subscriber of the “indi is always cooler,” mantra. Funny is funny and since we're talking about a comedy here I have to say Clerks II wins over it’s legendary predecessor.
Story: 7.5
Acting: 7.5
Writing: 7.0
Captivation: 7.0
Replay Value: 7.0
Total Score: 7.2
The good part about this very divisive and shifty type of programming is that I get a chance to really compare the two movies, especially if there was an ample amount of time in between the release dates of the films.
Clerks was a movie you had to be told about its existence. You didn’t see any commercials, promos or trailers. You had to hear about it from a guy who heard from a guy that there was this pretty funny indi film out there about store clerks. And it was pretty funny. However anytime a film goes from cult status to being recognized nation wide, you lose a little something. It no longer only belongs to your little group of friends as they rip quote after quote, while outsiders are clueless to what you’re talking about. A cult film loses some of it’s magic when that happens, but nonetheless Clerks still holds up over a decade later as a clever, original perspective for anyone who has ever worked in the retail industry.
Let’s get the technical stuff out of the way, Clerks is not well produced and the acting is amateurish even for amateurs. But that’s not the point of this film. You expect indi films to look horrible and have bad acting. Because of this, the real content of the film is what drew the audience’s focus. Clerks works as a movie because it bullseyes the pent-up aggression anyone has had working 8 or more hours behind a cash register. “This job would be great if not for the fucking customers,” is not only the most quoted line from the film, but it’s also the most relevant in connecting with the audience.
The script is very good, however the writing style is the opposite of the film's intent to relate to the common, everyday store clerk. The subject matter that Dante, Randal and company rant about throughout the story is very relevant and realistic to everyday life, however the style in which they speak is not. Almost everyone in Clerks speaks in diatribes. Everyone has these lengthy, well thought out speeches for just about every situation. Real conversations do not sound like this, unless of course your best friend is Dennis Miller. I’m not saying this a strike against Clerks. I actually think the method of speech was necessary. Dialogue has to bare the weight of a movie that looks like it costs $100 to make. If Smith decided to get realistic with the speech, we might have been in for a 90 minute black and white version of Big Brother.
Clerks will forever be loved by anyone who’s had a part or full-time job in retail. Even if you didn’t work in a quick mart or video store, you can still relate to a lot of what goes on in the movie. The plot of Dante’s struggle with what to do with his professional and love life is really just a vehicle to move you to the next joke about the retail industry. There are however some jokes that go “Hollywood” in the film, such as Randal knocking over the casket at the funeral and Caitlin getting intimate with a corpse. One more thing that Clerks gives us that will make it forever famous is the world introduction of Jay and Silent Bob, two of the funniest characters in movie history. Actually the best piece of acting in this film was by Jason Mewes (Jay), but that's probably because he wasn't really acting.
Clerks has and will continue to stand the test of time due to the fact that retail stores will always hire young, disgruntled, underpaid employees, and customers will always be dicks.
Story: 6.5
Acting: 4.0
Writing: 8.0
Captivation: 7.0
Replay Value: 8.0
Total Score: 6.7
The sequel to the 1994 indi-cult hit comes a dozen years later as our anti-hero minimum wage earners have not progressed much from the first film. Right away you notice a giant difference with this film over the first one . . . . . . . money! Yes it’s in color but that’s the least of the changes. You now have multiple cameras, better editing, superstar cameos, and a much smoother script. It would be hard for this movie to not be better than the original. Everyone involved has had twelve more years of practice at their craft. Kevin Smith now has films like Chasing Amy and Dogma under his belt. Jason Lee and Ben Affleck are A-List celebrities. And Brian O’Halloran (Dante) and Jeff Anderson (Randal) no longer look and sound like they are performing a high school play. Then add in real professional actors like Rosario Dawson (Becky) and Trevor Fehrman, who was brilliant in the role of the awkward and sometimes-scary Elias, and you have yourself a professional moving picture film.
The story is a lot deeper in this one, don’t get me wrong it’s not a Tolstoy novel or anything, but it’s the Grand Canyon compared to the first movie. Dante is still looking for direction in his life and thinks he may have found it for the first time, but we also get to see how this all effects Randal and the dynamic of their very LP friendship. The realism of the duo holds up because let’s face it; a decade can go by in the snap of a finger. One day you look up, ten years have passed, and the only thing that’s changed in your life is your waistline.
The comedy did not suffer at all from the more involved storylines. I actually laughed out loud way more at Clerks II than the original. The Star Wars Vs Lord of the Rings scene is one of the best written I’ve ever seen in a comedy. The first Clerks made you laugh, but it was more of a snicker or an “Oh yeah that happened to me once,” kind of thing.
One aspect of Clerks II that cannot compare against the original is the ironic purity of Jay and Silent Bob. Although Jay made me laugh my ass off in the sequel, he’s just not authentic as that character anymore. It’s not his fault he got sober, but in Clerks, Jason Mewes (Jay) was not playing a character he was just the strung-out stoner that slept on Kevin Smith’s couch. Plus the really bad wigs that Smith and Mewes were wearing in Clerks II did not help the street cred of the now sober and wealthy Bluntman and Chronic. You see, sometimes sobriety ruins things.
Clerks II is actually a better movie than Clerks. I know most people would say, “Blaspheme,” to that comment but watching the movies side by side proved without a doubt that Clerks II is the superior film. However Clerks II has one major problem . . . . . . . it’s a sequel.
Clerks II will never be held as highly as the original because that’s exactly what it’s not . . . . .original. When Clerks came out it was the gritty, low budget, indi film that you had to hope no one rented at Blockbuster because there was only one or two copies. Clerks II is way to polished and professional looking to deem as “hip,” or “edgy.” Sure the content is deeper, the acting is better, and the editing is smoother, but now it’s a “Hollywood” film. Instead of trying to ignore this, Smith flaunted it with an overblown, big-budget, musical scene in an attempt to mock what happens to directors that, “sell out.” The problem is you can’t imagine grabbing your camcorder and going out to shoot Clerks II, so it loses a lot of the charm the first one had. Plus it’s a sequel so it’s only building on the characters and storylines you already know. There is no groundbreaking material in Clerks II but if you honestly take a look at the films side by side, Clerks II is funnier, more thought out, and the performances are a mile better than the original. I’m not a subscriber of the “indi is always cooler,” mantra. Funny is funny and since we're talking about a comedy here I have to say Clerks II wins over it’s legendary predecessor.
Story: 7.5
Acting: 7.5
Writing: 7.0
Captivation: 7.0
Replay Value: 7.0
Total Score: 7.2
