David S (Passenger1986)

Ah, the View Askewniverse. Long have I enjoyed the exploits and antics of the various characters inhabiting the world. Chasing Amy remains my favourite chapter; Clerks was a wonderful beginning; Dogma is one of the smarter films I've ever seen; Mallrats is a delight to my comic book predilections; and Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back, while being the weak link (obviously your mileage may vary, to quote the trope), has MARK HAMILL! And a strong sense of callbacks and continuity.
So, where does that leave Clerks 2? Well, Clerks 2 might just be one of those uncommon sequels that may just surpass the original in terms of ideas and execution.

Whether or not you like Clerks or Clerks 2 better depends on where you stand with one of the major themes from each movie. The first movie had a sense of "life sucks, it's a series of downer moments like The Empire Strikes Back" (brought up in the film itself. Kevin Smith looooves referencing Star Wars. If you think Clerks 2 will be free of it, think again. More on that later).
It brought upon a sense of loathing about your standing in society. That the work you do isn't important, you're just a guy doing something a monkey could do with the proper training (speaking as someone in a job I wouldn't call high profile, I would be better off training a monkey or a ficus plant to do my job when I eventually move on to greener pastures. Most of the people I come across on both sides of the counter can't comprehend simple things even with big honkin' signs and COLOUR CODING! But I digress).
Although it might be considered a slight spoiler, this is how I see one of the major themes of Clerks 2: change is not always a good thing. Staying low-key does not mean you cannot adapt or suck at living, it may just mean you've found your niche. It's all about what you know and what makes you happy. Sounds corny and seedy but yes indeedy, give me the simple life.

Anyway, at this point, I should probably get into the plot: our lovable un-dynamic cynical duo return but after a fire destroys their previous locations of employment, they've had to take a job at the local fast food place, Mooby's. Dante (Brian O'Halloran, who I wish was a little more known. Time to go all Jackie Earle Haley/Jeffrey Dean Morgan with him) is wanting more out of life and has achieved that to a degree with a fiancee, Emma (Jennifer Schwalbach Smith, Kevin's wife and perhaps one of the more supportive spouses in the entertainment industry) and a new start with a job being provided by her father. Before he can get there though, he has to go through one last day at Mooby's, which means one last day of keeping Randal (Jeff Anderson, and at this point I'd like to say Randal might be one of my absolute favourite fictional characters in the history of film. And as of posting, I've seen over 800 movies) in check. Randal's just as pissed and bitter as ever, all that's changed is he's got a new location to bitch in and a new whipping boy to make his bitch.
Speaking of, rounding out the cast as the new additions are Elias (Trevor Fehrman, who appears to have no new work lined up at the moment. Pity, I'd like to see his range), a nerdy, religious young man obsessed with the Transformers franchise; and Becky (Rosario Dawson. And I just love her in this role. Okay, she's one of my favourite actresses but of the films I've seen her in, this is by far her best work. And the down-to-earth look really works here), their manager and Dante's confidant. The addition of Becky is one of the highest points for the movie. She has as much common sense as Dante and shares a lot of his views but she can just as easily slide into the darker side of sexual nature, much like Randal. She's essentially the best of both worlds in one person and a strong female presence. She's neither promiscuous nor prudish.
And for fans of Jay and Silent Bob, fear not; Jason Mewes plays Jay as a dealer who found religion (bet ya didn't see that coming) and Kevin comes in front of the camera once again for Jay's smarter counterpart.

While a large part of the story and the characters resonate with me, there are a couple of negatives with the film. One is the music selection. Now, I don't object to the shout-out to The Silence Of The Lambs with Goodbye Horses by Q Lazzarus and Garvey being used but how many times do we need to hear B.J Thomas' Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head in films? Spider-Man 2 uses it, I still haven't determined how effective it was. Forrest Gump has it on the soundtrack, it was heard in The Simpsons once (Duffless was the episode. Or as most people know it, the one where Homer has no deer for a month. Wait, did I say beer or deer? Deer... or the joke about alcohol fueled cars) and quite frankly, let's put an end to it. The biggest offender is ABC by the Jacksons. It becomes a whole big musical number with Jay and Silent Bob getting in on the act and random bystanders breaking into dance. Granted, the whole thing is to set up a big twist and also serves for Becky to teach Dante how to dance for his wedding but come on. Was anything else even considered? What about The Contours Do You Love Me? Not only is the song about a man who is trying to win the love of his life back by showing her he can dance now, it has actual relevance to the story! Well, in a way. Again, I'll keep my mouth shut about the ending. Yeah, I know it's a comedy but considering how Clerks ended (and the original ending planned. Oh Lordy, I am so glad he didn't use that one. Executive meddling saves the day for once!) this may just hit you in the face like a pack of cigarettes (cancer merchant!)
Now, with all that in mind, some songs get the big thumbs up from me. 1979 from The Smashing Pumpkins (which curiously did not make the soundtrack for the film) and Everywhere by Alanis Morissette (which is also a nice reference to a previous film) to be precise. Still, maybe I just don't want to hear ABC after already having heard it in Billy Madison and not really being a fan of the song.

Anyway, the really big complaint: the donkey show itself. Yeah, for anyone who's seen the movie or knows Smith's career, this would be the point where you would say "Well, you clearly don't know the man by now" or "PRUDE!" and then throw something at me, possibly a holy bartender (anybody keeping up with the references out there?) but in my defense, besides the shit demon from Dogma, he's never been one for visual gross out humor. Usually, it's just the implication and it's left for our imagination (unless it's mine, where I just phase out until the next joke comes along. Now you know why I consider Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back the weak link) but here, we're treated to a donkey show (don't give me none of that "inter-species erotica" bull. The animal can't consent, therefore it's sick and evil. It's bestiality, pure and simple. There are some sick, sick bastards out there). So, the third act involves a donkey show. I saw this film at the cinema with a friend of mine, I pretty much just tuned it out until I saw Becky and kept phasing out non Becky/Dante parts. On DVD, I just skip through those moments.

But if the film makes up for it in anything, it's with the pop culture references. Transformers, The Godfather and one of my favourite moments involves a debate about the merits of the Star Wars and Lord Of The Rings franchises (and it has Marshall from Alias in it!) Randal's line is awesome "There's only one Return all right and it ain't Of The King, it's Of The Jedi" and I should note his views are pretty much Kevin's views on the franchise, especially the "three movies about walking" joke. The worst Star Wars gets is a reference to Hayden Christensen's acting but it's clearly Randal's side that it's slanted towards. For the record, I like both franchises but if I had been there, I'd have just said "The Back To The Future trilogy kicks both their asses."

To reiterate what I said before about themes, Clerks 2 is ultimately about finding what you want in life and sticking to it, even if it's not all big and flashy. Staying put, free of change, does not mean you're not getting older or you're refusing to get older. If anything, stability is a sign of maturity because it shows you're ready to commit. Whether it be in marriage, a job, a hobby, whatever. Sure, change is nice if you can plan ahead enough but don't just get up and change things just because society says you shouldn't become stagnant. Change when it becomes necessary, don't make it necessary to change.

But anyway, we all get different things from each film. Clerks 2 is extremely influential to me. Kevin, here's one fan hoping it's not too long before you journey back to the View Askewniverse.

It's bad when a crappy sequel to a good movie occurs (looking at you, Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls). It's bad enough when a franchise begins from a great movie when it should have stayed at one movie (Bring It On, that was a shot at you). Things get worse when an average movie, with the potential to go up or down, with obvious things to improve, goes even further downhill (New Nightmare, to me, is the black sheep of the Nightmare On Elm Street franchise). And things get excruciating when terrible movies are given sequels (why, why, WHY did someone do a Hobgoblins 2?!)

But do you know what is even worse than all of the above? A movie ranking somewhere between average and bad getting a sequel... and MOST OF THE DAMN FOOTAGE IS DIRECTLY LIFTED FROM THE MOVIE BEFORE IT!
My God, that is just... that is pathetic. I've talked about lazy film making before (Manos The Hands Of Fate is a triumphant example at doing bugger all) but to actually just unashamedly use scenes from the previous installment? Yes, I understand the intent: to drive home the plot of the sequel and for the benefit of the people who haven't seen the first. Hell, The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 from the 80's used footage from the first to provide flashbacks for some of the returning characters (leading to one incredibly head-scratching moment when THE DOG remembers! That's probably one big reason why Wes Craven disowned it). But come on! How exactly can you use footage from the first movie when the characters discussing the events weren't even there? What, are you going to retcon them into being bystanders? Were they extras that gained a promotion? All of a sudden, it's "Guy Who Points" moving up to be the second male lead or something stupid.
Apparently, the idea was to re-edit the first film and pass it off as a sequel just because the filmmakers were paid an appalling amount of money. Two points I'd like to make:
1. If that happens, that is a clear sign a movie is not to be made
2. The original idea would have essentially made the movie a talking Malibu Stacy with a new hat (I think Hobgoblins 2 pretty much took on that idea)

So, is that the only thing to criticize the film for? Nope! I have one other major complaint.
The character we focus on is Ricky, the younger brother of Billy, the villain protagonist from the first film. He's in a mental hospital ('cos that's original for a horror) and talks about the events from the first film and his life up till that point.

Now, who can tell me what happens to Ricky? If you said "He gets over his traumas and lives a rather uneventful life", you're not even in the ballpark. If you said "He starts his own killing spree that closely resembles his brother's", give yourself 25 points or take whatever's in this box *puts a box up on the counter*. Proving that killin' folks is in the blood, this film just doesn't even try to do anything remotely original. Even the kills are uninspired.

Oh, slight spoiler (though not so much, just read on), this movie has one of the most overused cliches ever in not just horror/thriller films but in any medium known to humanity: the age old closing-shot-focuses-on-the-killer-looking-dead-only-for-their-eyes-to-open-just-before-the-end-credits thing. I'm sure I'm not the only one sick of seeing that. Sometimes, it works, there are exceptions to every rule but here it's just adding more fuel to an already raging fire.

At least the first one had a decent premise. Killings at Christmas due to a guy in a Santa suit killing your parents all those years ago. Sounds promising enough. Took a while for the action to start but the film's still a decent slasher.
Pull an Ace Ventura on this, watch the first and forget any notions that there is anything following on.

I first saw this film years ago and up until that point, I had never seen a film where the protagonist could also be considered an antagonist. It was this and other factors that kept me watching and once I had finished viewing, I declared it to be my favorite film. From the acting by Malcolm McDowell to the karma-like plot turns, there really isn't a wrong foot set here. The film brings up an excellent point in the treatment of those who do wrong in society: are we right to force law-breakers and violent criminals to conditions similar to Alex or is that overstepping our bounds as human beings? This film changed my life from beginning to very fitting end. It was my favorite film many years ago and it still is today. Simply brilliant.

Forever imitated, never bested, Silence Of The Lambs is truly deserving of the title "classic". Despite the fact that Anthony Hopkins is only on screen for about 16 minutes in total throughout the entire movie, his performance is burned into your brain. You know he's as evil as they come yet you become intrigued by his words and mannerisms. Despite the fact that he is not the central villain of the piece, he is the most memorable character. But let's not give him all the praise, as Jodie Foster gives it her all when tangling with both the sinister doctor and Jamie Gumb. If you haven't read the book, it's an excellent read as is the book before it, Red Dragon. If you have experienced neither book or film, you're missing out on a truly amazing story.