Clerks II

I am not certain what it is about manboy slacker books and films that attracts me, aside from the fact that my 32nd birthday’s coming up and I remain very much an adolescent, albeit one with a few irons in the fire of maturation. Irrespective of my personal standing, I am sad to report that Kevin Smith’s Clerks II is mostly a dud, a graceless return to territory that Smith himself has long outgrown. It is not so much that, aside from a very funny donkey show interlude, the jokes here are clunkers. (What can one say about a film whose funniest gag is an homage to Silence of the Lambs?) I suspect that Smith doesn’t trust his instincts as a writer, or perhaps lacks the discipline to whack down the melodramatic monologues he relies upon to maintain momentum. Say what you like about Jersey Girl (and I will go on record as saying that I enjoyed that film’s unexpected sweetness), but Smith’s heart is more attuned to sincere human behavior. But like his hero John Hughes, he’s reached a point in his career where he doesn’t know how to commingle the comedy with the sap and the results feel incongruous and rushed. (Part of me wonders if Smith writes a script over a weekend like Hughes.)

clerks2.jpgTake, for example, a scene between Dante (played again by Brian O’Halloran) and the manager he may be in love with (Roasrio Dawson, the only cast member here not mugging to the camera) on the rooftop of Mooby’s, the fast food joint where Dante and Randal now find themselves employed ten years later after their beloved Quik Stop has burned to the ground. The manager, inspired by the Jackson 5’s “ABC,” is teaching Dante how to dance for his upcoming wedding. It’s a moment in which O’Halloran’s eyes light up with wonder and we expect there to be any number of virulent emotions running under the surface: perhaps a lower brow raised in deference to Linklater’s Before Sunset. But Smith opts instead for cross-cutting to various people dancing inside Mooby’s, followed by an elaborate dance number with everyone toe-tapping outside the restaurant. The scene is a remarkable letdown, relying upon a hokey artifice that feels more at home in a 1986 episode of Moonlighting than a 2006 film.

It is Smith’s inability to pursue the import he clearly wants to depict that cripples his film. He certainly acknowledges his debts, giving Randal a David Wooderson-like panache for bedding seventeen year old girls. (Richard Linklater’s second film was Dazed and Confused.) There is an interesting twist on James Mason painting Lolita’s toes in an early scene where O’Halloran paints Dawson’s toes, implying that the two might be overgrown children in search of meaningful lives. But the cinematic riffs and the wry allusions stop there. The film feels tired. Jason Mewes, as Jay, lacks the hangdog stoner look of Smith’s first four films. There are clumsy references to blogs, indolently written comedy (Smith desperately tries to mine a gag involving Randal confusing Helen Keller with Anne Frank and it feels like a Saturday Night Live sketch gone five minutes too long), and the expected cultural fixations (this time, the Lord of the Rings trilogy).

The film is littered with MacGuffins. Jay and Silent Bob serve no purpose, other than as a deus ex machina. A nineteen year old Christian co-worker (Trevor Fehrman) is played for easy laughs. (He’s a Transformers geek, has a cell phone that he uses to call his mother in emergencies, and has a closeted side that is about as predictable as Smith once again employing static framing.) And in an act of nepotism as catastrophic as Ben Stiller casting his wife Christine Taylor in Zoolander, Smith has cast his own wife, Jennifer Schwalbach Smith, as Dante’s fiancee. She’s left to offer doe-eyed entropy when not making out with O’Halloran. It doesn’t help that she wears a T-shirt reading, “Mrs. Hicks,” which further highlights her thespic incompetence.

It has been reported that Jeff Anderson returned to the role of Randal with reluctance. The performance shows. Anderson’s energy was one of the high points of the first Clerks film: a rush of staccato snark that formed a contrapuntal buttress to Dante’s neuroses. Here, Anderson lacks the vim to pull off the balance. There is the suggestion of a dark edge to Randal, but both Smith and Anderson are wary to pursue it.

Clerks II is a desperate retread and a colossal step backwards for Smith. The View Askew universe may have been fun for Smith once, but it’s clear with this film that the cash cow moos just as loudly as the door at Mooby’s.


  1. …like his hero John Hughes, he’s reached a point in his career where he doesn’t know how to commingle the comedy with the sap and the results feel incongruous and rushed. (Part of me wonders if Smith writes a script over a weekend like Hughes.)

    Smith writes his scripts?

    penalty joke

  2. You’re only 31 years old? Remind me to take you a lot less seriously from now on, young man.

  3. I don’t agree with you on many points. As I’m a fifteen year old, I can’t express myself in such an elaborate manner, as my mind isn’t fully developed to ‘the world’, but it seems to me that you were purposely pointing out things that you foresaw might happen. I mean, Randal has tons of snarky lines in the movie and delivers them with gusto. The “I’m taking it back” porch monkey thing was pretty funny, and the Silence of the Lambs scene? It was a little built up is all, but it’s supposed to depict Jay’s immaturity and outlandish antics. Because he wasn’t a stoner anymore, he seemed to have a better hold on himself and acted a lot better in my opinion. If you don’t take the film too seriously, it’s pretty well made. The dance scene was a little ridiculous and did bother me, but the rest was pretty much a visit to the past, a sort of catch up on things with Randal and Dante. It was a sentimental movie to me more than anything else. It made me laugh and cry. It’s also targeted at a younger audience to make more money, obviously, but that doesn’t stop it from being an alright movie. You shouldn’t have to resort to suggesting that the movie was made over the weekend. Oh, and Jersey Girl seemed very much forced and not at all like Smith’s other stuff. This flick was better by a long shot, or so I think. However, these are all just our opinions and shouldn’t spawn a war over the internet. How was the blog thing “clumsily” thrown into the film? I still don’t understand that. It just touched on it briefly for the joke’s sake of another controversial subject: the disabled. If you can’t accept the movie for what it is (a nostalgia trip with funny little quips), then don’t go complaining about it on your website. I mean, Kevin Smith’s doing a lot better off than you, sir.

  4. A desparate retread? I’m sorry, I saw Clerks Two and I thought it was a quantum leap from the likes of Dogma.

    Plus, you have to remember, it wasn’t only a sequel of the original movie, it managed to blend the quasi-pretentiousness of the black and white commentary film, the comic, and the cartoon to become a real sequel of all three. That’s why you get tongue in cheek scenes like the Jackson Five dance number.

    Again, a retread? Are you saying you liked the direction Jersey Girl was taking? Yikes. At least I saw the commercials for this one and felt compelled to actually go to the theatre. And I’m glad I did, it was a blast.

    A retread? What was Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back? A masterpiece? What movie are you basing the retread on, I seriously don’t understand. For me I felt it was retread too, but a pleasant one back to Chasing Amy and Mallrats. There’s never going to really be another Clerks, but you can come close to those two.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *