« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »

Kevin Smith's Clerks II

In case you didn't know, Good Morning America critic Joel Siegel stormed out of a screening of Clerks II not even 40 minutes into his viewing, disrupting the mood with his negative opinion being voice loudly for all to hear.

"Time to go!" he yelled as he stood up and proceeding to walk out, passing dozens of critics and writers on his way to the door. And his tirade continued all the way out, as he yelled over the film's dialogue that this was the first time "in thirty (expletive) years" he had walked out on a film.

The apparent reason for Siegel's vulgar outburst? A line of dialogue in the film - well, one of many, actually - about sex between a woman and a donkey. Later in the screening, one other unnamed critic appeared to make an early departure.

In Kevin Smith's response to the report from his website, he stated the following :
"I’ve gotta admit that I’m relieved somebody was finally offended by the flick - enough to head for the exit less than an hour in. I was beginning to think I was losing my touch."

I'll be honest and say that it takes a lot for me to be offended. Not even Kevin Smith's previous films caused me to have a red-flag when viewing his latest View Askew entry Clerks II, which is rated R for for pervasive sexual and crude content including aberrant sexuality, strong language and some drug material. Strong rating? Sure it is. But it's not a stupid movie wanting to cash-in. Oh yeah, there's meaning in all of this "trash," as Joel Siegel may say.

In all its unrelenting raunch-humor driven glory, Clerks II is a masterpiece - BUT it's not as good as the the original. Sorry Kevin- you just can't touch that level anymore, especially with this version being not only in color, but with familiar faces, a big mainstream theatrical feel, and throwbacks to popular culture that is more relevant to a wider audience. But the success of this sequel is also through the acknowledgment of the fact that more than 10 years have gone by.

Dante and Randal now work at the fast food joint Mooby's, some time after their beloved RST video and Quick-Stop convenience duo go up in flames. So does this loss stop their antics? Hardly. Their life and the universe is easy fodder for their daily lives, even when Dante is engaged to a chick who "wouldn't even talk to him in high school" - although things have changed, it's still the same song and dance. But this song is more conscious of expectations, time passed, and potential. Dante questions his "profession," while Randal questions other important topics, including the uprising of the "fanboy," and why his fellow coworker, the 19 year old bible thumper Elias, hasn't done anything physical with women at his age. While Elias may be a new character and somewhat of a stereotype, he's easily my favorite element of the movie. Everything to do with him is obscure and crude, but still allows him to be himself, even when he's excessively being made fun of.

Jay and Silent Bob hang out on the side of Mooby's, because they don't really have a choice. Their outlook on life is slightly different, after both of them find Jesus (seriously, but not seriously)- a slight redemption paired with their recent exit from rehab. Mooby's manager Becky is the mediator for all the foul-mouthed gents at the fast-food shack, and she holds her own against the powerful words exchanged, both totally insensitive and grotesque. Becky may be the best-written female character in any movie Kevin Smith has made- with her cutesy smiles and big heart of gold, she never feels out of touch, especially for the significance she has.

So where exactly is the conflict? The real driving force for the need of Clerks II? It's all about figuring it out. Where do the characters go from here? Not much further than they were before, and the obvious "lessons learned" hover over the story like a tight-fitting halo. Kevin Smith knows what to do with Dante and his problems, and still has a blast in this throwback to the initial clerkdom and slacker years of the 90s, which he might as well take credit for interpreting better than anyone else, because nobody does it better and no films have the comedic quality that he infuses into his projects. A sequel for Clerks may be kind of hypocritical and seemingly useless, but it's still damn brilliant.

NOTE : all italicized content from - viewaskew.com/news/jul06/1.html

Posted by madamczyk at 03:06 PM | Comments (1)

Five Good Reasons Why I Won't See THE DEAD MAN'S CHEST

This post isn't about persuading you or anyone else on why to not see the latest installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean series - My mom said to me, as my siblings were about to leave to see the movie, "Mal, why aren't you going? You can write a review!" ... that's just the thing: I can't. Although there are obviously millions of fans, both big, small, and very much of the Tiger Beat type, I strongly disliked the first Pirates installment, and really couldn't bring myself to see this new sequel. However, it's not just the issue of presumption, taste, whatever.

#1. MRS. DEPP
While working at my retail job about a year ago, I saw a girl probably no older than 14, with a sweatshirt that was black. When she turned around, on the lower region covering her behind in Script font were the words "Mrs. Depp." Now, I thought to myself, wow, maybe she's seen Ed Wood. But it was only my realization that she's clearly into Johnny because he's "hawt" and stuff. The teen fascination of Johnny Depp has come nearly a decade late, but then again, he hit his prime when Eddie Vedder was the biggest thing in music. It kind of takes away from my liking for his acting, and now, from the overexposure, I just can't stand to watch his "earlier" work.

#2. "Gone is Depp's unpredictability and much of the humor and originality of the first movie."
This is a quote from the RottenTomatoes.com critical consensus. However, what strikes me is the fact that it says the movie had originality in the first place. The first Pirates movie reminded me of every single Pirate/Treasure search/Peter Pan movie I've ever seen in my life, spanning from Disney to Spielberg's Hook and otherwise. But that nostalgia was more enthusiastic- I feel that Pirates doesn't suffer from similarity, but instead execution of plan. The first 90 minutes of that movie works well, but it's all downhill from there, as it delves into tedium. So if the humor and "originality," as well as unpredictability is gone, what is there then?

#3. 150 minutes x $6.75 or $8.75, etc.
I'm going to play the financial card here because I'm no longer someone who can afford to see whatever, whenever, whether I want to or not. There's gas. There's the ticket - snacks, bathroom breaks, and the long run time. A movie of that length takes almost a 4-hour commitment! I'm not saying I hate long movies - I'd just rather see one that I ... want to see.

#4. Orlando.
Forget Keira - let's face it : Orlando Bloom is a terrible, TERRIBLE actor. He just doesn't seem to have a good acting bone in his body. His diction is so linear - would it kill him to infuse emotion into his lines? And his pretty-boy looks don't do it for me outside of Middle earth.

#5. Arrrrgh... Me bored.
Let's think about why someone would want to see this movie- someone who's neither really young nor old- a regular person that doesn't get out much, and is uninfluenced by the media, but wants to see a movie purely for what they're interested in. What would this person be interested in? Simple! Pirates.
I don't like Pirates. The whole ARRRGGH facade, outlook, typical gameplan, parrot on the shoulder, treasure, etc.

I just don't like Pirates. So call me a hater, but at the end of the day, I still don't like Pirates. But what do I dislike more than Pirates? Jerry Bruckheimer- but let's save that for later.

Yo ho-ho and a bottle of crap. Whatever. Maybe I'll rent it on dvd, but for the bajillions of dollars that it makes in theaters, none of it will be mine.

Posted by madamczyk at 07:18 PM | Comments (7)

Superman Returns

It's a bird... it's a plane ... it's ...

... an unnecessary sequel. Yes, it surely is. But seeing Superman portrayed by Brandon Routh is almost worthy of bringing to the screen. However, Routh's sharp look and mild, but effective acting is the best thing about this underwhelming take on the familiar and much-loved Man of Steel.
Superman jumped ship along the way, sometime after the first Superman film and its sequel Superman II, but now he's back in action, just in time to save his favorite gal Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth). However, with that memory wipe that happened to Lois in Superman II, she seems to lost her spunk and attitude which really made Lois different from most ladies on the screen in and around the city of Metropolis. What has not changed from the previous films is Lex Luthor and his obvious goal of taking over the world.

Kevin Spacey fills the shoes previously vacated by Gene Hackman quite well, but the script doesn't give him enough opportunities to crack some wit, as well as have the snarky dialogue that makes Lex so different from other Comic-book villains. Lex's drive this time around is to obliterate Superman by stealing precious crystals from what is left of the planet of his origin - Krypton - as well as using pieces of Kryptonite against him, AND create his own continent of it, so that the rest of the world will bow down to him and his new body of land. A truly far-fetched plan for any person to be successful, but it does work in the story, unlike some of the other developments and use of characters.

As far as superhero movies go, Superman Returns is lacking of what makes films of the genre great. The vibrant characters, the futuristic qualities set in a modern time frame, action-packed scenarios, and the ability to be affecting to the audience, with both emotions and human touches. But the film has practically no balance between the emotions of the characters- especially the "return" of the sexual tension between Lois Lane and Superman/Clark Kent- and the parts where Superman does his job. Director Bryan Singer has already made his mark with the first two X-Men films, but the problems that I have with those films do linger here, although in a different environment- all things to do with excitement, paying attention to characters, and allowing conflict to be not only meaningful, but have real reason and presentation that involves discussion. Or in simple terms, suffering from total blandness.

Do I hope that they continue the series with another Superman sequel? Yes, but only if there's an overhaul in acting, story, and direction - replace Kate Bosworth and Bryan Singer, and also give both the new Lois and the next film some real enthusiasm with the script. Despite the obvious issue of the script, most of the actors really do the best to their ability- even Routh's Clark Kent leaves much to be desired, not through his acting, but from what he's given to work with. The underwhelming nature of this film makes the 2 hour and 37 minute runtime drag, even though the story and pacing move quickly along. It seems to be that this time around, Superman never really seems to fly, despite getting off the ground.

Posted by madamczyk at 06:01 PM | Comments (0)