The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Last week I ordered two US DVDs, Requiem for a Dream and Clerks. They both arrived this morning. Requiem was recommended by people in this forum and I enjoyed Darren Aranofsky's last movie Pi so I thought it was worth getting.
The other DVD, Clerks, was written and directed by Kevin Smith and again came highly reccommended. However, I watched the film this morning and I have to say it was a big disappointment.
I recently saw Mallrats which I thought was really excellent, so I had a look at reviews of some of Kevin Smith's other films. The general opinion seems to be that Mallrats is Smith's worst film and Clerks is his best. So I went and ordered the special edition DVD of Clerks.
Smith's directing style is pretty much just point and shoot. He often uses single shots that last for two or three minutes without moving or even cutting away. This slowed down the film and certainly made me feel less involved with the characters.
Clerks was made on a budget of $27,000 and really shows it. One of my favourite films is Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi which was made for just $7,000 but due to Rodriguez's directing ability it never looks it. But Clerks looks very, very cheap -from the wobling camera work to the grainy black and white 16mm print.
The acting is also pretty shoddy in places. Due to the extremely lengthy shots the non-actors are expected to memorise vast amounts of dialogue which they just can't pull off. If Smith had cut away more often then the actors would have coped better.
Clerks contains some fantastic jokes (I would probably be banned if I repeated them here) but the plot is almost non-existant. I like films that are focused and plot based but Clerks was little more than a collection of loosly related sketches that vary from the occassionaly hilarious to the usually terrible.
As well as rave reviews for the film I also read that the DVD presentation was excellent but again, I disagree. The picture is grainy and muddy and the sound is nothing special. The deleted scenes were just extended versions of already boring ones, the alternate ending was OK but added little and the commentary, which everyone said was great, was dull. I expected Kevin Smith to discuss how he made such a low budget film but instead he babbled on about continuity errors and which of the actors are his friends.
All in all I thought this was the second worst DVD I have purchased so far (the worst being Final Destination). I just hope that Requiem for a Dream is better!
Has anyone here seen any of Kevin Smith's more recent films? Are they worth seeing? Chasing Amy sounds like a good film, is it worth getting? Maybe I'm just missing something with Clerks but I really can't see how it got such good reviews.
The other DVD, Clerks, was written and directed by Kevin Smith and again came highly reccommended. However, I watched the film this morning and I have to say it was a big disappointment.
I recently saw Mallrats which I thought was really excellent, so I had a look at reviews of some of Kevin Smith's other films. The general opinion seems to be that Mallrats is Smith's worst film and Clerks is his best. So I went and ordered the special edition DVD of Clerks.
Smith's directing style is pretty much just point and shoot. He often uses single shots that last for two or three minutes without moving or even cutting away. This slowed down the film and certainly made me feel less involved with the characters.
Clerks was made on a budget of $27,000 and really shows it. One of my favourite films is Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi which was made for just $7,000 but due to Rodriguez's directing ability it never looks it. But Clerks looks very, very cheap -from the wobling camera work to the grainy black and white 16mm print.
The acting is also pretty shoddy in places. Due to the extremely lengthy shots the non-actors are expected to memorise vast amounts of dialogue which they just can't pull off. If Smith had cut away more often then the actors would have coped better.
Clerks contains some fantastic jokes (I would probably be banned if I repeated them here) but the plot is almost non-existant. I like films that are focused and plot based but Clerks was little more than a collection of loosly related sketches that vary from the occassionaly hilarious to the usually terrible.
As well as rave reviews for the film I also read that the DVD presentation was excellent but again, I disagree. The picture is grainy and muddy and the sound is nothing special. The deleted scenes were just extended versions of already boring ones, the alternate ending was OK but added little and the commentary, which everyone said was great, was dull. I expected Kevin Smith to discuss how he made such a low budget film but instead he babbled on about continuity errors and which of the actors are his friends.
All in all I thought this was the second worst DVD I have purchased so far (the worst being Final Destination). I just hope that Requiem for a Dream is better!
Has anyone here seen any of Kevin Smith's more recent films? Are they worth seeing? Chasing Amy sounds like a good film, is it worth getting? Maybe I'm just missing something with Clerks but I really can't see how it got such good reviews.
Page:
Last week I ordered two US DVDs, Requiem for a Dream and Clerks. They both arrived this morning. Requiem was recommended by people in this forum and I enjoyed Darren Aranofsky's last movie Pi so I thought it was worth getting.
The other DVD, Clerks, was written and directed by Kevin Smith and again came highly reccommended. However, I watched the film this morning and I have to say it was a big disappointment.
I recently saw Mallrats which I thought was really excellent, so I had a look at reviews of some of Kevin Smith's other films. The general opinion seems to be that Mallrats is Smith's worst film and Clerks is his best. So I went and ordered the special edition DVD of Clerks.
Smith's directing style is pretty much just point and shoot. He often uses single shots that last for two or three minutes without moving or even cutting away. This slowed down the film and certainly made me feel less involved with the characters.
Clerks was made on a budget of $27,000 and really shows it. One of my favourite films is Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi which was made for just $7,000 but due to Rodriguez's directing ability it never looks it. But Clerks looks very, very cheap -from the wobling camera work to the grainy black and white 16mm print.
The acting is also pretty shoddy in places. Due to the extremely lengthy shots the non-actors are expected to memorise vast amounts of dialogue which they just can't pull off. If Smith had cut away more often then the actors would have coped better.
Clerks contains some fantastic jokes (I would probably be banned if I repeated them here) but the plot is almost non-existant. I like films that are focused and plot based but Clerks was little more than a collection of loosly related sketches that vary from the occassionaly hilarious to the usually terrible.
As well as rave reviews for the film I also read that the DVD presentation was excellent but again, I disagree. The picture is grainy and muddy and the sound is nothing special. The deleted scenes were just extended versions of already boring ones, the alternate ending was OK but added little and the commentary, which everyone said was great, was dull. I expected Kevin Smith to discuss how he made such a low budget film but instead he babbled on about continuity errors and which of the actors are his friends.
All in all I thought this was the second worst DVD I have purchased so far (the worst being Final Destination). I just hope that Requiem for a Dream is better!
Has anyone here seen any of Kevin Smith's more recent films? Are they worth seeing? Chasing Amy sounds like a good film, is it worth getting? Maybe I'm just missing something with Clerks but I really can't see how it got such good reviews.
The other DVD, Clerks, was written and directed by Kevin Smith and again came highly reccommended. However, I watched the film this morning and I have to say it was a big disappointment.
I recently saw Mallrats which I thought was really excellent, so I had a look at reviews of some of Kevin Smith's other films. The general opinion seems to be that Mallrats is Smith's worst film and Clerks is his best. So I went and ordered the special edition DVD of Clerks.
Smith's directing style is pretty much just point and shoot. He often uses single shots that last for two or three minutes without moving or even cutting away. This slowed down the film and certainly made me feel less involved with the characters.
Clerks was made on a budget of $27,000 and really shows it. One of my favourite films is Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi which was made for just $7,000 but due to Rodriguez's directing ability it never looks it. But Clerks looks very, very cheap -from the wobling camera work to the grainy black and white 16mm print.
The acting is also pretty shoddy in places. Due to the extremely lengthy shots the non-actors are expected to memorise vast amounts of dialogue which they just can't pull off. If Smith had cut away more often then the actors would have coped better.
Clerks contains some fantastic jokes (I would probably be banned if I repeated them here) but the plot is almost non-existant. I like films that are focused and plot based but Clerks was little more than a collection of loosly related sketches that vary from the occassionaly hilarious to the usually terrible.
As well as rave reviews for the film I also read that the DVD presentation was excellent but again, I disagree. The picture is grainy and muddy and the sound is nothing special. The deleted scenes were just extended versions of already boring ones, the alternate ending was OK but added little and the commentary, which everyone said was great, was dull. I expected Kevin Smith to discuss how he made such a low budget film but instead he babbled on about continuity errors and which of the actors are his friends.
All in all I thought this was the second worst DVD I have purchased so far (the worst being Final Destination). I just hope that Requiem for a Dream is better!
Has anyone here seen any of Kevin Smith's more recent films? Are they worth seeing? Chasing Amy sounds like a good film, is it worth getting? Maybe I'm just missing something with Clerks but I really can't see how it got such good reviews.
See, now I would disagree.
I thought Clerks was brilliant, but then I saw it with no hype at all, just went at watched it at a festival.
He made it for no money, shooting at night in the convenience store where he worked.
Yeah, it's a bit stilted, but these were all 1st timers, nobody had done this before, and I think it came out really, really well.
Mallrats - One of the funniest movies I've ever seen, and it got utterly, utterly panned by critics, they called it a "Moronic teen sex comedy", but it rocked. "My cousin Walter..." monologues are brilliant, and if you're a movie geek, it is nirvana, so many references to other movies and comics.
Chasing Amy.
My least favourite of Smith's movies.
There are brilliany comedy moments (Check out the "Jaws" homage with Banky and Alyssa comparing scars obtained through various sexual adventures.
It was, in my opinion, bogged down in moralistic "Hey, I'm a serious director" attitude, but the critics once more loved it.
Dogma.
Utter, utter perfection.
A very good script, dealing with Catholic doctrine that got blasted by pro-lifers and Catholics in the states, with demonstrations outside movie theatres and protests to the studio.
However, it's a very moral film, and if these toeheads had watched it 1st, extremely pro-religion.
Kevin Smith himself has admitted that he's not the world's most gifted visualist, his strengths are in writing.
But all of these films in his "Jersey" series are fantastic in and of themselves, but put together and you get a whole world created.
Characters are mentioned from other films, situations referred to (Chasing Amy has Holden and Alyssa talking about events in Mallrats and Clerks).
A self-contained universe that has a plethora of fun for cine-geeks like me.
And his new one, Jay & Silent Bob Strikes Back is going to RULE.
Nobody will watch it at the cinema, it'll go straight to video and then maybe a few fans will seek it out.
Which is a shame, as Smith's movies deserve a massive audience.
This may happen with J&SBSB, simply for the scene where Jay & Silent Bob have a lightsaber battle with Mark Hamill.
Now, that got your attention didn't it?
Luke Skywalker picking up a lightsaber again.
Of course, this being Smith, Jay fights with a light-bong instead.
And Carrie Fisher is in it.
Smith makes movies for movie fans, occasionally other people watch them and either laugh or dont get the references.
Shame really.
I thought Clerks was brilliant, but then I saw it with no hype at all, just went at watched it at a festival.
He made it for no money, shooting at night in the convenience store where he worked.
Yeah, it's a bit stilted, but these were all 1st timers, nobody had done this before, and I think it came out really, really well.
Mallrats - One of the funniest movies I've ever seen, and it got utterly, utterly panned by critics, they called it a "Moronic teen sex comedy", but it rocked. "My cousin Walter..." monologues are brilliant, and if you're a movie geek, it is nirvana, so many references to other movies and comics.
Chasing Amy.
My least favourite of Smith's movies.
There are brilliany comedy moments (Check out the "Jaws" homage with Banky and Alyssa comparing scars obtained through various sexual adventures.
It was, in my opinion, bogged down in moralistic "Hey, I'm a serious director" attitude, but the critics once more loved it.
Dogma.
Utter, utter perfection.
A very good script, dealing with Catholic doctrine that got blasted by pro-lifers and Catholics in the states, with demonstrations outside movie theatres and protests to the studio.
However, it's a very moral film, and if these toeheads had watched it 1st, extremely pro-religion.
Kevin Smith himself has admitted that he's not the world's most gifted visualist, his strengths are in writing.
But all of these films in his "Jersey" series are fantastic in and of themselves, but put together and you get a whole world created.
Characters are mentioned from other films, situations referred to (Chasing Amy has Holden and Alyssa talking about events in Mallrats and Clerks).
A self-contained universe that has a plethora of fun for cine-geeks like me.
And his new one, Jay & Silent Bob Strikes Back is going to RULE.
Nobody will watch it at the cinema, it'll go straight to video and then maybe a few fans will seek it out.
Which is a shame, as Smith's movies deserve a massive audience.
This may happen with J&SBSB, simply for the scene where Jay & Silent Bob have a lightsaber battle with Mark Hamill.
Now, that got your attention didn't it?
Luke Skywalker picking up a lightsaber again.
Of course, this being Smith, Jay fights with a light-bong instead.
And Carrie Fisher is in it.
Smith makes movies for movie fans, occasionally other people watch them and either laugh or dont get the references.
Shame really.
Clerks was the first Smith movie I saw... or at least, the first Smith movie I was aware of watching... and, to be honest, it made me laugh... (an old housemate stuck it into a VCR one Sunday and said, 'this is funny... you'll like this')
I think, maybe, the movie needed to be watched without hype... not because of its content of directing style... but because its not a poloshed as most movies, and when you have high expactation wrinkles and scratches tend to be magnified...
Dogma on the otherhand... I felt went completly the other way... very polished, but (to generalise enourmously) I felt it lacked the wit, style and story I had been expecting...
Not that it was a bad movie... but it was one I had expectaiotns of...
There was hype around the subject matter in the states (but then again that 'God, the Devil and Bob' cartoon, caused a stir in the states... (over here, its been pretty much completly ignored for being largly stale and unfunny)
I think, maybe, the movie needed to be watched without hype... not because of its content of directing style... but because its not a poloshed as most movies, and when you have high expactation wrinkles and scratches tend to be magnified...
Dogma on the otherhand... I felt went completly the other way... very polished, but (to generalise enourmously) I felt it lacked the wit, style and story I had been expecting...
Not that it was a bad movie... but it was one I had expectaiotns of...
There was hype around the subject matter in the states (but then again that 'God, the Devil and Bob' cartoon, caused a stir in the states... (over here, its been pretty much completly ignored for being largly stale and unfunny)
Yeah, I think the main problem is hype with Clerks.
Not just Clerks, but with all "It's fantastic!" movies that you don't see until much later and think "Er....and?"
Blair Witch was like that for me.
I avoided it totally at the cinema, heard all the shrieking about it and just left it alone. Waited for about 3 months when it came out on video, and watched it after I'd forgotten most of the noise surrounding it.
And?
I found it bloody frightning in places.
Clerks. So much has been made of this little movie, everyone expects the holy grail of comedy.
And it's not.
It's rough, amatuer and badly acted in most places.
However, once you watch it a couple of times, I think the characters come through, things start to shine and moments stick with you.
1st time I saw it, was at a little festival in Hackney, didnt know anything about it.
Smith came out and introduced it, said "I made this after work, it's for me and my friends really, but I hope you dig it"
And I did.
If you watch them in order
Clerks
Mallrats
Chasing Amy
Dogma
Then a whole universe starts to become clear. Characters from different films that know each other, events referred to from earlier movies, little things that make you laugh because you think "Yeah, they're talking about that bit in Clerks when..."
Chasing Amy:
Holden "You remember that girl..what was her name?..Caitlin Bree..god, what happened to her?"
Alyssa "She was my best friend, she fu(nn)ed a dead guy and went mental"
And from his latest, Jay & Silent Bob Strikes Back:
ALL of the main characers from ALL the movies are appearing again, meaning some actors taking 2 roles.
Jason Lee is Banky and Brodie.
Anyone that's seen Mallrats will get the joke in the trailer with Brodie asking "Would you like a chocolate covered pretzel?"
Brilliant.
All the people from Clerks are in it, this movie will rock.
I promise.
The script is top and I'm typing this looking at my Jay & Silent Bob action figures atop my monitor.
"Snootchie-Bootchies"
Not just Clerks, but with all "It's fantastic!" movies that you don't see until much later and think "Er....and?"
Blair Witch was like that for me.
I avoided it totally at the cinema, heard all the shrieking about it and just left it alone. Waited for about 3 months when it came out on video, and watched it after I'd forgotten most of the noise surrounding it.
And?
I found it bloody frightning in places.
Clerks. So much has been made of this little movie, everyone expects the holy grail of comedy.
And it's not.
It's rough, amatuer and badly acted in most places.
However, once you watch it a couple of times, I think the characters come through, things start to shine and moments stick with you.
1st time I saw it, was at a little festival in Hackney, didnt know anything about it.
Smith came out and introduced it, said "I made this after work, it's for me and my friends really, but I hope you dig it"
And I did.
If you watch them in order
Clerks
Mallrats
Chasing Amy
Dogma
Then a whole universe starts to become clear. Characters from different films that know each other, events referred to from earlier movies, little things that make you laugh because you think "Yeah, they're talking about that bit in Clerks when..."
Chasing Amy:
Holden "You remember that girl..what was her name?..Caitlin Bree..god, what happened to her?"
Alyssa "She was my best friend, she fu(nn)ed a dead guy and went mental"
And from his latest, Jay & Silent Bob Strikes Back:
ALL of the main characers from ALL the movies are appearing again, meaning some actors taking 2 roles.
Jason Lee is Banky and Brodie.
Anyone that's seen Mallrats will get the joke in the trailer with Brodie asking "Would you like a chocolate covered pretzel?"
Brilliant.
All the people from Clerks are in it, this movie will rock.
I promise.
The script is top and I'm typing this looking at my Jay & Silent Bob action figures atop my monitor.
"Snootchie-Bootchies"
Blackhole wrote:
> I watched Clerks again this morning and, because my expectations
> weren't as high, I enjoyed it a lot more. I still don't think I
> would call it a classic but it was better than I thought it was from
> the first viewing.
It's probably just not your sort of movie...
I'm although I usually prefer plot driven movies, I do often find comedy works best when character driven... Plot driven comedys often feeling much more strained, in an attempt to find humor in a situation...
Also, when you watched the movie is also a killer... The hype notwithstanding (high expectations can destroy a movie befire it passes the credits)... I suspect if I had sat down on a Saturday night with a bag of popcorn all set up I would have been equally dissapointed...
As it was, it was a surprisingly calm Sunday, which had been enourmously dull, having just eaten dinner, and working our way through a couple of bottles of wine, with the expectation of work the next day, Clerks was stuck on in an attempt for the weekends final escapism...
Thinking about it... its surprising how many of my own fave movies I discovered in that kinda situatin... largly by mistake...?
> I watched Clerks again this morning and, because my expectations
> weren't as high, I enjoyed it a lot more. I still don't think I
> would call it a classic but it was better than I thought it was from
> the first viewing.
It's probably just not your sort of movie...
I'm although I usually prefer plot driven movies, I do often find comedy works best when character driven... Plot driven comedys often feeling much more strained, in an attempt to find humor in a situation...
Also, when you watched the movie is also a killer... The hype notwithstanding (high expectations can destroy a movie befire it passes the credits)... I suspect if I had sat down on a Saturday night with a bag of popcorn all set up I would have been equally dissapointed...
As it was, it was a surprisingly calm Sunday, which had been enourmously dull, having just eaten dinner, and working our way through a couple of bottles of wine, with the expectation of work the next day, Clerks was stuck on in an attempt for the weekends final escapism...
Thinking about it... its surprising how many of my own fave movies I discovered in that kinda situatin... largly by mistake...?
Clerks is a simply magnificant film for one reason and one reason only - it has some of the greatest dialogue ever to be penned. No, it doesn't look like much but that doesn't matter one jot. It's not a big bombing blockbuster that needs to glitz to make up for the lack of substance as Clerks is all style.
Mallrats is a weak film, but I'm still partial to it as it ties in with the whole Viewasknivers. However, Mallrats is the film that is most likely to attract the vapid masses as it really does sell itself to the lowest common denominator. N.B. if you include yourself reluctantly in the "vapid masses" bracket you'll be very very dissappointed by the sublime Requiem For a Dream.
Oh, and which other director could make "37!!!" a hilarious quote? :)
Mallrats is a weak film, but I'm still partial to it as it ties in with the whole Viewasknivers. However, Mallrats is the film that is most likely to attract the vapid masses as it really does sell itself to the lowest common denominator. N.B. if you include yourself reluctantly in the "vapid masses" bracket you'll be very very dissappointed by the sublime Requiem For a Dream.
Oh, and which other director could make "37!!!" a hilarious quote? :)
> However, Mallrats is the film that is most likely to
> attract the vapid masses as it really does sell itself to the lowest
> common denominator. N.B. if you include yourself reluctantly in the
> "vapid masses" bracket you'll be very very dissappointed
> by the sublime Requiem For a Dream.
Well, thank you very much for calling me a lowest common denominator 'vapid mass', but I'll reject that description of it's OK with you!
I suppose my main gripe with Clerks was not the film itself but the status attached to it. I was expecting, as Goatboy said, 'the holy grail of comedy' and I didn't get it. I was initially disappointed with the film but I decided to rewatch it because I remembered all the times in the past where I have seen a much hyped film, such as Blair Witch, Texas Chain Saw Massacre and the Exorcist, and felt initially underwhelmed.
I think that hype can kill a film and make it very hard to watch it as the director intended. It happened to me recently when I watched Ring and Audition on DVD -the hype had got to me and it wasn't until repeat viewings that I really enjoyed these films.
> attract the vapid masses as it really does sell itself to the lowest
> common denominator. N.B. if you include yourself reluctantly in the
> "vapid masses" bracket you'll be very very dissappointed
> by the sublime Requiem For a Dream.
Well, thank you very much for calling me a lowest common denominator 'vapid mass', but I'll reject that description of it's OK with you!
I suppose my main gripe with Clerks was not the film itself but the status attached to it. I was expecting, as Goatboy said, 'the holy grail of comedy' and I didn't get it. I was initially disappointed with the film but I decided to rewatch it because I remembered all the times in the past where I have seen a much hyped film, such as Blair Witch, Texas Chain Saw Massacre and the Exorcist, and felt initially underwhelmed.
I think that hype can kill a film and make it very hard to watch it as the director intended. It happened to me recently when I watched Ring and Audition on DVD -the hype had got to me and it wasn't until repeat viewings that I really enjoyed these films.
I detect the stench of Corleone at work with this arrogant jackass.
By the director's and producer's own admition Mallrats was supposed to be a teens and t1ts film to grab the mass market ("A clever Porkys"). They hoped to make millions from it so that they could fund many more films in the Clerks budget range.
Oh - and there's also the fact I wasn't supposed to be taken 100% serious.
In summation - find out what your talking about and get a sense of humour.
Oh - and there's also the fact I wasn't supposed to be taken 100% serious.
In summation - find out what your talking about and get a sense of humour.
Page: