The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
It's ok, you dont need to justify yourself Mikey.
Oh - and facually incorrect? What exactly as I can back up anything I've said with the Mallrats DVD and its documentary and commentary.
Same IP??? Now that's just silly as I don't have a clue who/what you are talking about. Show the IPs and we will see. Also remembering that while on the same ISP (DN@) I've made posts from at least two different IPs today - work and now home.
Sad to see another forum where regulars feel threatened by new people so much so they can't even make any sense in their petty insults - which lets remember you started.
Sad to see another forum where regulars feel threatened by new people so much so they can't even make any sense in their petty insults - which lets remember you started.
Micheal Corleone/DavidD/You
The same person.
Same IP, same self-important and factually incorrect postings.
Same arrogance, same style of writing (although you really are trying this time, well done).
Mikey, don't come here and start "vapid masses" when you lack the ability to type correctly mate. It doesn't make you look too good and kind of makes your posts invalid.
Bonus and Armitage Shanks are well respected, well informed and knowledgeable people. They offer posts that illuminate and create decent topics.
And we can't all say that can we?
The same person.
Same IP, same self-important and factually incorrect postings.
Same arrogance, same style of writing (although you really are trying this time, well done).
Mikey, don't come here and start "vapid masses" when you lack the ability to type correctly mate. It doesn't make you look too good and kind of makes your posts invalid.
Bonus and Armitage Shanks are well respected, well informed and knowledgeable people. They offer posts that illuminate and create decent topics.
And we can't all say that can we?
Okay - you'll follow this up with another Mikey comment... but who is Mikey and why do you think I am him?
And as to the fist bit - a typo... SHOCK HORROR!!! I didn't proof read, suprise suprise.
And as to the fist bit - a typo... SHOCK HORROR!!! I didn't proof read, suprise suprise.
asrogktjusaetg wrote:
> You'll also note, of course, that I didn't actually make call anyone
> anything...
Er...what? "Make call anyone"?
A dictatorial, self
> important regular with an itchy and not interely accurate trigger
> finger on an internet forum... there's a suprise.
Now now Mikey, nobody likes a sore loser.
> You'll also note, of course, that I didn't actually make call anyone
> anything...
Er...what? "Make call anyone"?
A dictatorial, self
> important regular with an itchy and not interely accurate trigger
> finger on an internet forum... there's a suprise.
Now now Mikey, nobody likes a sore loser.
asrogktjusaetg wrote:
> 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.
Your also completely wrong there.
Smith made Mallrats because the studio offered him the budget to make anything he wanted to.
He had the script for Dogma lined up and ready to go, but he felt unready to make such a film with his sophomore effort.
So he bashed out Mallrats over 3 months and made it because "I loved John Hughes movies, just that sense of teens doing whatever they wanted to without and effect on and from the world around them. Outside of the Memo Park Mall, nothing matter. That's why there are very view exterior sequences, that mall is their world."
> 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.
Your also completely wrong there.
Smith made Mallrats because the studio offered him the budget to make anything he wanted to.
He had the script for Dogma lined up and ready to go, but he felt unready to make such a film with his sophomore effort.
So he bashed out Mallrats over 3 months and made it because "I loved John Hughes movies, just that sense of teens doing whatever they wanted to without and effect on and from the world around them. Outside of the Memo Park Mall, nothing matter. That's why there are very view exterior sequences, that mall is their world."
You'll also note, of course, that I didn't actually make call anyone anything...
"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. "
Note the words "IF YOU INCLUDE YOURSELF".
A dictatorial, self important regular with an itchy and not interely accurate trigger finger on an internet forum... there's a suprise.
"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. "
Note the words "IF YOU INCLUDE YOURSELF".
A dictatorial, self important regular with an itchy and not interely accurate trigger finger on an internet forum... there's a suprise.
Yep.
Hi Mikey.
Hi Mikey.
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: