July 19, 2006

Clerks II.

Clerks II "First, the good news," writes Nathan Rabin at the AV Club. "Clerks II is everything [Kevin] Smith's fans could hope it would be. Now the bad news: Clerks II is everything Smith's fans could hope it would be."

In an odd move for an East Coast alternative weekly, the Voice runs New Times critic Robert Wilonsky's review; he finds it "can't bear the strain of its amateur-hour theatrics, no matter how big its heart or how many crocodile tears it manages to squirt."

Meanwhile, Kevin Smith blasts Joel Siegel for making a show of himself walking out of press screening 40 minutes in: "Leave the diva-like behavior and drama-queen antics to the movie stars, not the movie reviewer, ya' rude-ass prick."

Commentary on this rant is already rampant, but via Ray Pride at Movie City News, two worthy reads: Reid Rosefelt recalls dealing with critics at Zoom In Online and, at the LA Weekly's site, Scott Foundas, who, in an open letter to Smith that starts out being about almost getting yanked from a screening, segues into a review: "Watching the film, I was reminded that, for all your outward irreverence, you're a big old softie at heart... this is the umpteenth movie I've seen this year about guys in their 30s who aren't quite sure what they want to do with their lives, and it's the only one that strikes a real chord, because it's neither an exaltation nor a condemnation of slackerdom, but rather just a sweet little fable about how sometimes the life that you think could be so much better is actually pretty damn good already."

Sean Burns talks with Smith for the Philadelphia Weekly, Rob Nelson for the City Pages.

Online viewing tip. Film Threat has been posting a series of video interviews with the cast.

Updates: Via David Poland, who has his own Kevin Smith story to tell, culminating in quite an outburst, an online listening tip: Smith and Joel Siegel have it out on the Opie & Anthony Show.

Among the Cinemarati, Low iq canadian asks, "Anyone need a synonym?"

Updates, 7/20: Marc Savlov talks with Smith for the Austin Chronicle: "I've got a story to tell, and I think it's a worthy successor."

"At times uproarious in an 'I can't believe they just said that' kind of way, the film is steeped in Jersey Girl's predictable family/romantic drama conventions," writes Brett Michel in the Boston Phoenix. And he also talks with Smith.

NPR's Steve Inskeep talks with Smith, too.

More listening. Cinematical's James Rocchi has a quick chat with Jeff Anderson (Randal) and Brian O'Halloran (Dante).



Bookmark and Share

Posted by dwhudson at July 19, 2006 11:56 AM

Comments

mebbe the fact that the Voice published the review from the New Time isn't that odd, since as of a couple of months ago they are both owned by the same company. This may be one of the examples of "synergy" we see - long live the Voice of old, if only in our memories . . . .

Posted by: Mike Dixon at July 19, 2006 1:26 PM

You're right, Mike, and I've bemoaned the merger here quite a lot; seeing a New Times reviewer in the Voice isn't new. It just seems odd to me that that weekly, whose identity has been so closely tied to New York for decades, would choose to run a review by a critic in Texas - nothing against Robert Wilonsky personally, of course, and certainly nothing against Texas - of the latest work from a filmmaker so closely identified with New Jersey.

I don't really mean to make that big of a deal about it, just saying.

Posted by: David Hudson at July 19, 2006 1:46 PM

Actually, I'm glad you made a point of it, David, because it makes me wonder: who decides what runs in the individual film sections of New Times papers nowadays?

Wilonsky is local to the Dallas Observer, my current hometown alt weekly, but does not consistently write the lead review -- some weeks he doesn't appear in the film section at all. He is listed as a staff writer (indeed, he also writes news articles and is the most consistent blogger for the paper); no film editor is listed.

It seems disingenous that Michael Atkinson, J. Hoberman, Rob Nelson, and Jim Ridley (among others) are listed as Observer "Contributors," but there you go.

Coming back to the original point, did Dennis Lim decide that none of his local stable of writers should waste their time on the latest from New Jersey's own Kevin Smith? Or did someone from New Times (sorry, "Village Voice Media") send a memo?

Posted by: Peter Martin at July 20, 2006 11:57 AM

These are good questions, Peter, and I don't know the answers to them, though I do know that many reading this blog do.

If I had to guess, I'd figure management has done some very simple - yet perhaps also very short-sighted - math: Why have umpteen reviewers on every film that comes out when just one per film will do?

I wonder if eventually they'll decide they need only one web site for all their weeklies as well.

Posted by: David Hudson at July 20, 2006 1:57 PM