Clerks was Kevin Smith's first film and his only film to date that was ever fully artistically realized. While it would be a little hasty to call it an outright masterpiece, Clerks certainly had the makings of a great work of art. Beyond being fresh and in many ways clever, it wholly embodied the era and attitude from which it sprang with its brilliant portrayal of a directionless generation and the disillusionment that has become such a vivid trademark of the American 1990s.
Some of that creative genius is still visible in Smith's more recent work, but only in brief rays shining through the heavy cosmetics of the mainstream movie industry. Clerks II is certainly the best example. Some of what made the original great is present here, namely the character banter, wandering plot, and grotesque humor. Viewers familiar with Smith's other work will see many of the staples in Clerks II, and many of them done in decent enough fashion. But much else has been lost to an obvious ploy for mass appeal, and Clerks II is veritably dripping with a weird mainstream conformity. The most obvious signs are of course born of the discrepancy in production budget ( ~$30 thousand vs. ~$5 million) and all the snazzy camera tricks and filming doodads that come with it. These are also the most forgivable, as you can hardly blame Smith for utilizing the greater resources available to him even if cheapness was a big part of the original's charm. Still, it's hard not to roll your eyes when a full dance crew emerges from nowhere and begins undulating to the Jackson 5's "ABC" midway through the movie. While such a tactic might be cutesy or feel-good in another film, this particular film has some very different shoes to fill. Those who cherish the original will find many, many other problems with the sequel that fall into this same vein.
To clarify, Clerks II is not a bad movie. It's just a bad sequel in that it sacrifices the charming idiosyncrasies of its progenitor for a disappointingly generic take on its characters. A simple name change would have improved it dramatically, at least helping to pull it out from under Clerks' shadow. But again, it does not appear that Smith was interested in creating a great film, just one that would sell and keep his catalog moving. To this end namedropping is a strategic move, albeit one that is bound to alienate some fans. In any case, it doesn't have to tarnish the greatness of the original if we refuse to let it, and in the meantime we can merely cross our fingers and hope to avoid the misfortune of an even worse Clerks III.
Some of that creative genius is still visible in Smith's more recent work, but only in brief rays shining through the heavy cosmetics of the mainstream movie industry. Clerks II is certainly the best example. Some of what made the original great is present here, namely the character banter, wandering plot, and grotesque humor. Viewers familiar with Smith's other work will see many of the staples in Clerks II, and many of them done in decent enough fashion. But much else has been lost to an obvious ploy for mass appeal, and Clerks II is veritably dripping with a weird mainstream conformity. The most obvious signs are of course born of the discrepancy in production budget ( ~$30 thousand vs. ~$5 million) and all the snazzy camera tricks and filming doodads that come with it. These are also the most forgivable, as you can hardly blame Smith for utilizing the greater resources available to him even if cheapness was a big part of the original's charm. Still, it's hard not to roll your eyes when a full dance crew emerges from nowhere and begins undulating to the Jackson 5's "ABC" midway through the movie. While such a tactic might be cutesy or feel-good in another film, this particular film has some very different shoes to fill. Those who cherish the original will find many, many other problems with the sequel that fall into this same vein.
To clarify, Clerks II is not a bad movie. It's just a bad sequel in that it sacrifices the charming idiosyncrasies of its progenitor for a disappointingly generic take on its characters. A simple name change would have improved it dramatically, at least helping to pull it out from under Clerks' shadow. But again, it does not appear that Smith was interested in creating a great film, just one that would sell and keep his catalog moving. To this end namedropping is a strategic move, albeit one that is bound to alienate some fans. In any case, it doesn't have to tarnish the greatness of the original if we refuse to let it, and in the meantime we can merely cross our fingers and hope to avoid the misfortune of an even worse Clerks III.
Tell Your Friends