Kevin Smith Clark’s Review of Clerks II



I saw two movies in the spring of 1995, just before graduation, that changed me forever. The first was Pulp Fiction, which affected me for multiple reasons (wit, dialogue, jumbled storylines, ridiculous characters). The second was Clerks, Kevin Smith’s $27K indie masterpiece that gave hacks everywhere the belief that they could spin straw into gold as well…but what it really did was send thousands of would-be filmmakers into credit card hell. I’d like to say that I connected with Clerks for the same reasons as Pulp, the humor and dialogue were both razor-sharp, the scenarios were far-fetched (closing the store to play hockey on the roof?), and it was, at that time, a dissertation in scatology. But I connected with Clerks because I was two months into what would become a three-year odyssey as a grocery store clerk. I can’t tell you how many times I had to make sure the cheese was $2.09 and not $2.39, or cleaning up a jack-knifed spaghetti sauce display, or being accused of shortchanging a customer. So when I saw these two men lambaste customers, order porn in front of children, accuse people of their “cunning attempt to trick,” and destroy the store, they were no longer men. They were legends.

11 years later, I returned to the scene of the crime. Mr. Smith brought his two slackers back for an encore in Clerks II (I wish Smith would have stuck with The Passion of the Clerks, for I hate simply adding a number to the original title, but I hope his reasons were of the litigious nature and not sheer laziness), this time, two 33 year-olds still jockeying customer service jobs. But the place has changed, for the Quick Stop burned down, and we find our anti-heroes working in the “catfish” position of society: fast food. In a smart move, Dante (Brian O’Halloran) works the counter, while the ever-vocal Randall (Jeff Anderson) works prep. Dante’s life has changed a bit since we last saw him: gone are Caitlin and Veronica (thank God), and enter his wealthy fiancée, Emma (played by Smith’s wife, Jennifer Schwalbach). But it’s still the same Dante: “ever backing down.”

I realize this is a review, but I’m such a fan of not ruining great gags or inadvertently giving plot points, that I will dwell in ambiguity. Let me simply say that this film shouldn’t disappoint Askewniverse fans. Those of you who loved the obscure references and stupid shit men talk about, it’s there. For those of you want a romantic fuzzy feeling, it’s there (even if interspecies erotica is your thing). For those of you who are looking for insight on which parts of the body should never connect, the ultimate “trilogy” debate, an extended diatribe on racial slurs, a nod to 80s teen movies with an over-the-top dance sequence (you know, when people just come out of the woodwork and the shit’s already choreographed?), and, of course, those pesky trolls who live in the nether-regions, guarding the sacred flower, it’s there. The film does dip into the sentimental cheese-bag towards the end, but only for a few minutes, as opposed to that Gouda wheel Jersey Girl (sorry, I’m just not feeling it…not an Affleck fan)…even someone as blind as Anne Frank could see that.

I will give special nods to the following: Smith, for doing this on a $5M budget, and he didn’t compromise a thing, and for using his original Directory of Photography, Dave Klein (not that Smith’s imagery rivals Malick); O’Halloran and Anderson, for showing two guys that have aged, yet haven’t grown up; BIG UPS to newcomer Trevor Fehrman (who had me in stitches as the innocent Elias) and Rosario Dawson (the charming, sassy Becky)…I’d almost say this movie is theirs; and finally, Pillow Pants, Listerina, Kelly, and the Sexy Stud (we’ll leave it at that).

Which begs the final question: are great movies ruined by sequels? Some are (The Karate Kid…how do you top, “Put him in a body bag!”), and some are surpassed (do I even need to mention The Empire Strikes Back?). Clerks II is neither of those. I mentioned that the first made Dante and Randall legends. The second shows our two superheroes facing their archrival: Insignificance.

mid-morning time waster

if smoking pot was legal, you did not have any moral objections to the practice, it was your birthday (so you really deserved a treat) and you could only smoke up with three people…who would you choose?*

this is the question that has been vexing a certain 32 year old grumpy old man and myself for a little over a week and we’d love for you to join in the conversation. we welcome any and all responses, but think it would be fun if you chose your three fellow deviants from one particular field (i.e., musicians, writers, reality t.v. show contestants, etc).

since i am (an admittedly misanthropic) minister, i’ll share the three religious figures i would love to smoke up with.




number one on my list is st. francis of assisi. i realize that in the late medieval period in upper umbria sharing a water pipe was not a recreational option. however, if it was i have little doubt that francis, with his love of mystical experience and the natural world, would be more than willing to share a few loose joints with me. the mere idea of lolling on the hillside of assisi, smoking with francis and sharing the secrets of our inner life (i would have to ask about the nature of his affection for Claire) makes me get a little misty.




my second would be the pride of lowell, massachusetts, jack kerouac. although jack is not specifically a religious figure, he was intrigued by buddhism and once defined beat writing in as a means of being “sympathetic” to the common man. i think that definition applies equally well to Jesus’ ministry and i would love to take a hit with jack and listen to his stream-of-consciousness ramblings as we jumped a freight train or hitched our way out west.




malcom’s own depictions of his hep-cat days in boston as well as the remarkable reactions he had against his youth suggest that rolling one with him in his early days, strapping on a zoot and maybe heading down to the city to see ella fitzgerald would have been interesting.

my buddy and I hope you can take a moment to share your list.

* for the record, i: have not smoked pot in over a decade, realize that this post will make a few people more than a little uncomfortable (hi mom!) and am fairly certain that this would be a piece of damning evidence against any candidacy for a traditional church job. but, i’m bored, don’t have the time to write anything meaningful and, at the moment anyway, could care less about the consequences.

reader/response

13 Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." 14Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. ~James 4:13-14

lately i’ve been ignoring the present and lusting for the future. i’ve spent hours debating whether i should return to school for a practical degree and days avoiding conversations with my relationally challenged boss. i’ve constantly dreamed about more earnestly practicing the spiritual disciplines of my faith and perhaps discipling those who are seeking to do likewise, while ignoring the need to pray for both peace and the needs of the least.

but as I sit here right now, sipping tazo, tears welling, i realize that i will never have a more beautiful, good and true tomorrow if i ignore the opportunities God has placed before me today. God, help me to listen to the stories of others, instead of being lulled to sleep by my dreams today. Spirit, help me be obedient to the great commandment in this awkward office environment. Jesus it’s hard to follow you. but i’m trying, by grace through faith, to put my hand to the plow and refuse to look back.

stranger than fiction

about twenty minutes ago i called roadway express to check the status of an order sentimental somethings sent to mclean, texas. after i gave the customer our “pro” tracking number there was a lengthy delay as the customer searched in vain for the tracking information. somewhere around the three minute mark the customer service rep finally cracked and said “i sware. these sistims are so screwed up. eim convinced that the reeson our sistim ain’t workin’ is beecause it’s been infilltrated by those terrists.” at this, I suppressed my laughter long enough to suggest that “it must be a conspiracy, ‘cause our systems are a mess too!” much to my dismay, the customer service rep responded to my suggestion with laughter. i suppose i need a little more training before i can be a truly effective fear monger.

not thirty minutes after this conversation i heard sam’s* phone ring and then a loud, percussive smack from her cubicle. i peeked over our four foot dividing wall and noticed that sam’s face was now the lightest shade of crimson and she was blubbering to her brother about hitting herself with her phone. in response to this, in strict adherence to my misanthropic tendencies, my eyes started to brim with laughter and i sunk back into my cube.

shortly after sam applied an ice pack to her face, i rattled off one of my regular rants against our incompetent customers** only to hear sam say “jeff, are you going to remind those customers what the five fingers say to the face?” i immediately responded by assuring her that “surely my five fingers couldn’t do half the damage to her as the phone just did to you.” unfortunately her retort was too uncouth to print on this family page, but rest assured that sam and a significant number of my female coworkers are less than happy with me at the moment. i on the other hand am still laughing.


* the name has been changed to protect the innocent.
** i like to think of them as garage sale proprietors who prattled their way into a loan.

read and recommended



last week I ignored my better angels - which were whispering in my ear that i should either purchase this volume from amazon or wait until lightway finally receives the item and exercise the old five finger discount – and purchased balmer’s new book straight off barnes and nobles’ shelf. after greedily consuming this manifesto in two or three sittings i am proud to report that it features: well-reasoned, trenchant critiques of the power-as-piety tactics of the religious right, suggests a few helpful ways forward* for evangelicals who are seeking to forego base partisanship as we seek God’s future for this world and a well-documented, wholly surprising, discussion of the origins of the religious right.** while i had a few minor quibbles with balmer’s analysis*** and i was occasionally annoyed with his presumption that he will be martyred by the RR on a progressive evangelical cross****, i think that this little polemic will confirm the suspicions that many evangelicals already have concerning the dominionist fantasies of the religious right and will serve as a reminder to the rest of the literate world that over 40% of shout to the Lord singers did not vote for bush and have long been seeking to take the fun out of fundamentalism.

so there you go…read it!, you stupid cows.

* i especially found his suggestion that focusing on the environment, and thus fulfilling the creation mandate provided for God-followers in the earliest chapters of Genesis, might be first initiative that liberal, moderate and conservative evangelicals can embrace and pursue together.

** did you know that the original issue which bound evangelical leaders together and catalyzed their early action was not abortion but the integration policies at bob jones university? me neither.

*** including his tendency to speak of the religious right in sweeping terms that ignores the movement’s ideological and sociological diversity.

**** but then again, without that martyr complex his evangelical credentials would have to be questioned.

i can’t help but notice that…

clerks II is underperforming at the box office while slightly disappointing movies like pirates of the carribean and worthless trash like john tucker must die are soaring. if you like kevin smith, get off your ass and go see this fantastic flick.*

israel’s current campaign against palestinian fundamentalism fits right into w’s game plan. why attack syria when we can have israel invade for us?**

God seems intent on crucifying my space issues, sound sensitivity and well-developed narcissism bit by bit by bit.

the cardinals just got swept by a team that is 19 games under .500, made one of the most meaningless trades of my lifetime** and are probably not going to improve the team by the 4 p.m. e.s.t. trade deadline.

emergent - with its focus on mission, para-church-esque organization and openness to methodological innovation - is a pure product of evangelicalism.**** can you imagine a similar initiative being launched by the greek orthodox or roman catholic church? i didn’t think so. if you disagree with me take a long, hard look at the leading lights in the emergent conversation. as far as i know each and every one of them has roots in american evangelicalism. not that this is a bad thing. i would actually argue that emergent is a wonderful expression of the evolutionary nature of evangelicalism. i find it funny that the branch of christianity that constantly takes issue with evolutionary theory is also the one that is evolutionary by design. ok, i'm shutting up.*****

i have currently have 31 voice mails and no hope of returning all the calls before 5 pm. buh-bye.

* expect a kevin smith clark review this week.

** this logic is seconded by my elderly, pacifistic, jewish co-worker. please note that before you read any anti-semitism into my comment.

*** luna for belliard?! why didn’t we just trade molina for ausmus, encarnacion for wilkerson or mulder for hudson? if i’ve said it once, i’ve said it a thousand times, these cheap-ass republican owners are simply keeping the bottom line in check so that they can flip the club within the next year. our pre-fabricated baseball heaven is quickly devolving into baseball purgatory.

**** more on this to come. maybe. if i can find the time.

***** and hoping against hope that kid positive continues this argument on my behalf.