Jersey Girl directed by Kevin Smith

Wait a second? Does the title really say Kevin Smith directed this film? Really? And he wrote it? Come on, someone's pulling my leg, no? After watching Smith's first five movies, and then watching Jersey Girl, I couldn't believe that the same man wrote and directed them.

And I must admit, I was hesitant going into Jersey Girl. It came and went in theatres, was bad mouthed as another bad Affleck/Lopez comedy, and then disappeared into somewhat obscurity over the last few years. Hesitant as I was, I popped in the movie and was rather surprised at how much I enjoyed it.

Right from the first scene, it feels different from other Kevin Smith films and that feeling stays throughout the picture.  Gone is the crude and vulgar humor that was present in all his other films, gone are Jay and Silent Bob, and gone are the poop jokes that so far have been scattered throughout his filmography.

Instead we get a mature, well written comedy-drama about a widowed man and his daughter.  There are some very funny moments throughout Jersey Girl, some amusing moments and then there are the dramatic moments.  The story revolves around Ben Affleck and his daughter and the ideas of family and home and the choices we make. Smith's screenplay is, as usual, littered with great dialogue and funny scenes but this time he gives his characters more to do than laugh and say funny things. They have motives, they make choices that effect other people, they are more real than anything he has done, save for Chasing Amy (although this is less of a comedy than that).

And then look of the film, again, right from the start doesn't look like a Kevin Smith film.  Right away the camera is moving, following characters, moving through city skys and zooming in through windows.  The cinematography is crisp and colourful and glitzy. Lights sparkle, metals glisten, the sun radiates and tears shimmer in the gloriously framed shots that Smith and his team have captured.  Except for Dogma, Jersey Girl is the only film in Smith's oeuvre that isn't static, flat and unimaginative.  It is beautifully shot and captured by the legendary and talented Vilmos Zsigmond, giving more life to the picture than it rightfully deserves.

Smith, who edits his own films with partner Scott Mosier, when watching the footage must of been inspired to do a better job editing than he has previously.  In the past his editing worked but was slightly jumpy and shots didn't necessarily flow together so well, but here along with the gorgeous photography we get the most professional and well put together film of Kevin Smith's career, giving me reason to once again believe that Smith does have quite a bit of talent other than being a great writer.

That's not to say Jersey Girl is a phenomenal movie that deserves rave reviews and plenty of awards. To start with, the story is wholly unoriginal. The story of a single parent raising their child has been done too many times to count on the big screen. And there are a few overly sentimental scenes in the movie, not too many, but enough to warrant their mention.

For a comedy, and for Smith, the humour is somewhat lacking.  There are amusing bits and funny bits but nothing that makes you laugh out loud, something Smith is very good at making the viewer do.  He goes for a more adult tone in Jersey Girl, more than any previous attempt, but in doing so he neglects his skills in comedy writing, which is all the more upsetting when you think about the cast he gathered for this film.  It would of been great to see George Carlin, Jason Biggs, Stephen Root and others delivering some of that trademark Smith wit, but ultimately their characters are a big let down as they remain too much in the background.

When Jersey Girl is over it will leave you with a smile on your face. It's an enjoyable movie with some nice humour, tender and likeable characters and some truly stunning (for a comedy) cinematography.  It's sweet and touching and very likeable, but it's lack of strong side characters and unoriginal story will make Jersey Girl a distant memory sooner than it rightfully should.



Film Rating: 72%

Breakdown (How Jersey Girl scored 72%):

Production Design: 7 out of 10
Cinematography: 9 out of 10
Re-playability: 7 out of 10

Originality: 5 out of 10
Costumes: 7 out of 10

Directing: 7 out of 10

Editing: 8 out of 10

Acting: 8 out of 10
Music: 7 out of 10
Script: 7 out of 10

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back directed by Kevin Smith (70%)

Kevin Smith's fifth film, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, is the culmination of all his films that came before.  It takes place in the same world as Clerks., Mallrats, Chasing Amy and Dogma. It features, besides Jay and Silent Bob, many of the characters that feature in those previous films as well as featuring cameos from a slew of other famous names and faces.

After watching Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (I'm just going to call it Strike Back from now on), I just wasn't sure how I felt about this film. On one hand, it's hilarious; from start to finish, Strike Back features some true gems of comedy.. Even better, the film features Jay and Silent Bob in the leads and after four films where they were featured in the sidelines, its great to see them again where they do a great job throughout as the leads of the film. Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Carrie Fisher, George Carlin, Chris Rock and Mark Hamill amongst many others make some really amusing cameos. And I can't not mention how sexy both Eliza Dushku and Shannon Elizabeth look in this film.

Smith's dialogue really is great in this film. With in-jokes about Hollywood, celebrities making fun of themselves, and some real obscure situations that Strike Back puts the characters in, the viewer is sure to have a good time.  Now I say that the writing is fantastic and the humour is laugh out loud funny and it is true, but like Dogma and Mallrats, Smith throws in some real juvenile humour that just doesn't fit into the rest of the film. His tendency to include an over abundance of poop jokes really brings down the level of his films (which is one of the main reasons why Chasing Amy shines over all other Kevin Smith productions).

Unlike Dogma, the poop jokes aren't the only thing that brings down Strike Back. With Chasing Amy, Smith showed a maturity that wasn't in his two films. He showed he was growing as a director. Then with Dogma, he bloomed.  Dogma looked phenomenal, was striking in it's colours and sets and special effects, and the camera no longer just shot the scenes it became an integral part of the film bringing the viewer into the story and making them feel for the characters. But his direction here seems to revert back to his Mallrats days, and after watching Dogma, it is such a disappointment. The static photography that I hoped was gone was back, and with so much  action and movement in the story, it really made the film feel flat.  It should have looked and felt like Dogma, but instead we the viewer are kept at a distance from everything that we experience on screen.  It makes the film feel choppy, as if we are watching a bunch of scenes haphazardly put together, instead of a well made cohesive story.

But, I digress. Poop jokes and shoddy direction aside, Strike Back is well worth watching if you want to laugh straight for just shy of two hours. If you take the funniest parts of Clerks., Mallrats, Chasing Amy and Dogma and string them together, you still won't laugh as hard as you do in this movie.  (And a word to the wise: This movie will make a whole lot more sense if you have seen all four of Smith's previous films.) (And one more word to the wise: See Good Will Hunting before you see this film.)


Film Rating: 70%

Breakdown (How Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back scored 70%):

Production Design: 7 out of 10
Cinematography: 6 out of 10
Re-playability: 8 out of 10

Originality: 8 out of 10
Costumes: 7 out of 10

Directing: 6 out of 10

Editing: 7 out of 10

Acting: 7 out of 10
Music: 7 out of 10
Script: 7 out of 10

Dogma directed By Kevin Smith (79%)

Dogma is a strange beast of a movie. It is at times hilarious, smart and dramatic while at other times it is juvenile, misguided and irrational. The fourth movie from Kevin Smith, Dogma, plays out nicely but leaves the viewer slightly empty after watching the film.

The plot concerns two angels, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, who have been banned from heaven and have found a loop hole that will get them back in. At the same time, a woman, Linda Fiorentino, is charged by God to stop them.  The movie races from one scene to the next, leaving no time to breathe. Joke after joke comes flying at the viewer, while at the same time philosophical banter on religion comes just as fast.  Like Clerks. and Mallrats, this movie is made up of a whole mesh of scenes that form a cohesive whole.  Unlike those movies though, there is a strong story that is told as the movie plays out.

Coming after Chasing Amy, an absolutely fantastic low budget romantic comedy, Smith's Dogma just seems to pale in comparison. The movie tells a story but the scenes and dialogue come at you so fast that there is never time to digest what just happened.  Just as you are thinking about the last scene, or about the comedic repertoire spouted out by one of the characters, or the commentary on christianity (or religion in general) that is rather astute in it's logic, Smith throws another of those three motifs at you.  You forget about what it was that made you think, or laugh and you move on to the next piece. About 90 percent of the film plays out this way.  If Dogma was a straight out comedy, like Clerks., then this wouldn't be a problem, but considering the dramatic theme on religion that is inherent in the script, the movie just doesn't play out as well as it could.  Even though the film feels a tad too long at it's just over two hour runtime, the film could of been a wee bit longer to flesh out the ideas that Smith is trying to convey.

That aside, the only other complaint I have with Dogma is that at times it comes off as rather tepid. Bodily function jokes and cheap shots at sex and religion are in abundance, and again, in the right context this type of humor works a hell of a lot better.  Chasing Amy showed a more mature side of Kevin Smith. It was far more sophisticated than Mallrats and even Clerks.. Dogma tries real hard to reach the same heights as, and even soar past, Chasing Amy and there are fleeting glimpses of it succeeding but ultimately the poop joke overshadows the rest of the film.

One last thing before I move to the positives of Dogma. There are many a plot hole in this film.  There is one glaring one that cannot be mentioned, in lieu of giving away a major plot point, but one that frustrated me to no end.  The rest of them, I think could easily of been avoided if the movie was a few minutes longer.

Okay, onto the good things about Dogma.

The acting in this film is pretty damn good.  All the leads are excellent and even though I usually don't like Chris Rock, he was pretty damn good too.  Fiorentino exudes cool and sexy, Alan Rickman is strong as ever and Affleck and Damon are always fun to watch together. But this film belongs to Jay and Silent Bob (Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith). Having made somewhat brief appearances in Smith's previous three films, they return as major characters this time around. The two together are uproarious and are a joy to watch.

And Smith's direction of the action is better than anything he has done before.  Chasing Amy delivered on a promise he showed in Clerks. and Dogma expands on that delivery.  Shooting for the first time in the scope ratio of 2.35, Smith and his crew have made a beautiful looking film. With rich colours, beautiful framed shots and more camera movement than Clerks., Mallrats and Chasing Amy combined, Dogma stands out as the first Kevin Smith film that is more than just a screenplay. Smith has a much bigger budget to play with this time around and he uses it to great effect.

And the sound. I can't not mention the sound. Smith's previous films have all sounded flat. They didn't need much in way of sound but still, they were rather flat and tinny with not much in production value. Not Dogma! Nu-uh! Armed with a great score by Howard Shore and a rich and lustful sound effects track, Dogma sounds awesome.  It's clear, it's loud, it's enveloping; it's a thing of beauty.

Kudos Mr. Smith on your fourth feature film. It's nice to see you blossoming into such a fine director, much better than what you gave the world in Mallrats. Dogma is a good film, it's witty and smart and is fun to watch right from the get go. It's just a shame that it comes off as so inconsequential. A movie that tackles the subjects that Dogma does should leave the viewer thinking long after the credits role. Sadly, after watching Dogma, all one is left with at the end of the day is a hazy memory of a poop joke.


Film Rating: 79%

Breakdown (How Dogma scored 79%):

Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 8 out of 10
Re-playability: 8 out of 10

Originality: 9 out of 10
Costumes: 8 out of 10

Directing: 8 out of 10

Editing: 7 out of 10

Acting: 8 out of 10
Music: 8 out of 10
Script: 7 out of 10

Chasing Amy directed by Kevin Smith (86%)

Having seen Clerks., which was a strong debut for Kevin Smith and then Mallrats, which was nothing to write home about, I was slightly apprehensive for Chasing Amy. In 1998, when I first saw Chasing Amy I had really enjoyed it, but I too had thought Mallrats was a better film than it actually was. So now, watching it again after all these years I see that although my memories of Mallrats have been tainted, Chasing Amy's have been solidified. The best things from both Clerks. and Mallrats were present in Chasing Amy, and the things that brought down both films were missing.

The problems I had with Clerks. dealt with the production value and directing by Smith.  It was lacklustre and brought down the film to a certain degree, but the writing was so good that it more than made up for it. Mallrats was funny, but it had a lame story line and again wasn't terrible well directed. Jay and Silent Bob, who were in both films, were good and the great dialogue that Smith wrote was present but the only real redeeming factor for Mallrats was Jason Lee. He was the movie. He made the movie. He is the only reason to watch the movie.

Chasing Amy had Ben Affleck, Jason Lee and Joey Lauren Adams in the leads.  It was funny; it was original; it was daring; it was romantic; it was scathingly funny; it was adult.  Jason Lee, was fantastic again, and the rest of the cast was great too, with no weak links any where to be found. Affleck was excellent and shared great chemistry with Adams.  And everyone was funny. Jay and Silent Bob even make a brief but memorable appearance.

And man was it funny. Smith's writing was crude and daring yet laugh out loud funny, but unlike Mallrats it was much more adult, dealing with homophobia, gays and sex openly and often. And you'll laugh often and hard and from the very first scene.  There is a well rounded love story that plays through the movie that makes this the first Kevin Smith film to actually feel like a real, professional, adult film.  And the first Kevin Smith film to have a well written story around his well written dialogue.

The production values are quite good, looking as good if not better than Mallrats, but was filmed at a fraction of the cost.  The sets feel real, the rooms worn in and costumes like real clothes on characters that look like real people. And there is more movement within the compositions. Smith has a style that is rather static, with no real movement within the frame or with the camera. Just point the camera, shoot the scene, move on.  It made for a rather distant experience from the characters you were watching. But these are nicely composed shots with nice tracking shots and and an assemblance of fluidity that wasn't there before. It's minimalistic, but it's suited perfectly to the material and to Smith's writing.

Smith's directing has matured and blossomed, and although I was beginning to think that he was a much better writer than director he has proven me wrong with Chasing Amy. This is the film I was expecting after watching Clerks. not Mallrats.  It unleashes the potential that was first glimpsed three features ago. He has written a better, more structured script that maintained the great and hysterical dialogue from his past films but added a great story around it.  He pulled out solid performances from his entire cast and an even better production design than Mallrats, considering it cost considerably less. And he brought you more into the film and closer to the characters, by using more than just his script to tell the story. He used the camera and placements and movements of the camera to bring us into film, to feel along side the characters, rather than keeping us at a considerably distant distance from them.

Chasing Amy is a great film. One that is fully realized by its creator, is highly original, and at times is outright hysterical.  If you like your comedy's crude and crass then this film is not to be missed.


Film Rating: 86%

Breakdown (How Chasing Amy scored 86%):

Production Design: 9 out of 10
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
Re-playability: 9 out of 10

Originality: 9 out of 10
Costumes: 9 out of 10

Directing: 8 out of 10

Editing: 8 out of 10

Script: 10 out of 10

Acting: 9 out of 10
Music: 8 out of 10

Mallrats directed by Kevin Smith (63%)

After his assured debut, Kevin Smith followed Clerks. with Mallrats, his sophmore film, in 1995. Backed by a studio, Smith gathered his team together and made what can only be stated as a disappointing second feature.  Sure it features the great writing that was present in Clerks. but at the same time the movie itself falls flat on many levels.

With Clerks., Smith was unleashed on the world as a major new talent. The realistic dialogue and inventive banter between the characters made for a hilarious and engaging film, even though the production felt very much like a 'film school' project.  The problems with Clerks. were all about production value which was seriously over shadowed by the wonderful writing and amusing situations that the main characters found themselves falling into. 

Backed by a studio, Mallrats should have felt a lot more professional, but sadly is plagued by many of the problems that plagued Clerks. and a few other problems too.  Like Clerks., Mallrats is a simple film about regular characters and takes place in few locations.  This time, a mall, rather than a convenience and video store.  Jeremy London and Jason Lee take the leads, and again, like Clerks. Jay and Silent Bob, played by Jason Mewes and Smith, respectively, appear again in this film.

There are some laugh out loud funny moments in this film. There is more of a story than Clerks., but not much and there is a bigger cast of characters that Smith introduces. Ben Affleck appears, in an early role, as does Michael Rooker, Shannon Doherty and Priscilla Barnes.  But it is really Jason Lee who steals the movie.  His performance is the saving grace to Mallrats. Take out Jason Lee and you are left with a rather childish, immature film that tries to mimic Clerks. but never really succeeds. Jason Lee is so good in this film you relish every time he is on screen. His delivery of the witty lines written by Smith is fantastic and when he's not on screen you just wish he would return. Jeremy London on the other hand, is rather weak. His performance is straight out of a television movie of the week and pales in comparison to everyone else in the film.

Jay and Silent Bob are pretty good too, although overshadowed by Lee's performance, but are put in ridiculous situations that sometimes just feel stupid. Which is where the main problem with Mallrats lies.  The plot points are rather immature.  Smith tries to repeat the magic of Clerks., but unlike that film, which was confined to small locations, Mallrats moves throughtout the mall, and not very well I might add.  Ridiculous plot points, like a TV game show, feel forced and cheesy.  And Smith's direction of the action that takes place within the film is too minimalistic and comes off as weak.

Clerks. felt static in its direction, no movement just plain still shots that were rather bland.  Mallrats adds very little to this aesthetic.  While in color, and looking a hell of a lot glossier than Clerks., the camera doesn't do much to capture what is happening on the screen. One scene in particular, involving Silent Bob and a toy truck, is so poorly done it feels almost embarrasing to watch.  There is no cohesion to the scene, it just feels tacky and uninvolving. Smith's direction of this and many other scenes just feels boring.  So boring!  Smith seems to favour a point and shoot style of filmmaking which worked fairly well with Clerks. but fails miserably in Mallrats.

But that's not to say this film is boring, for it surely isn't. Smith's direction is weak, and his writing, although delivering goldmine after goldmine of hilarity,is somewhat poor when it doesn't involve a joke.  The soundtrack is pretty decent, in a mid-nineties kind of way and it's fun to hear these songs, some which I haven't heard in years.

What really makes this movie is Jason Lee.  He stands out and feels better than the movie he is in.  He is a joy to watch and whenever he is missing from the screen the movie starts to lag.  He alone makes Mallrats worth watching and raises this movie to heights it otherwise doesn't deserve. Smith is great at writing dialogue, and is pretty funny as Silent Bob, but in regards to writing plot and directing action, he comes off pretty weak here.

Mallrats is a somewhat disappointing follow up to Clerks., but is worth watching for Jason Lee's breakthrough performance and some truly funny dialogue.

Film Rating: 63%

Breakdown (How Mallrats scored 63%):

Production Design: 7 out of 10
Cinematography: 6 out of 10
Re-playability: 7 out of 10

Originality: 5 out of 10

Directing: 5 out of 10

Editing: 7 out of 10

Script: 5 out of 10

Acting: 7 out of 10
Sound: 6 out of 10
Music: 8 out of 10

Clerks. directed by Kevin Smith (70%)

Clerks. is the debut film from Kevin Smith, an independent film that came out of nowhere in 1994 and made Kevin Smith an icon in the indie scene. The film is shot in black and white, is very low budget and reeks of first film production values. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing.

Running just over an hour and half, the story concerns two employees of a convenience and video rental store, Randal and Dante, respectively.  Taking place over one day, it begins with Randal being coerced into work on his day off.  What follows is less of a plot and more a series of vignettes that tell the story that unfolds.  Hockey, sex, smoking, drugs, death, the doll drum of life, the predictability and annoyance of work, friendship, love, and lots and lots of cussing make for one funny movie.

The humor is really what makes Clerks. work. Smith's writing is on fire, hilarious, realistic and on the nose.  Some of the dialogue is destined to, and has become classic.  Trying not to give anything away, remember these words (for those who have not seen this movie yet): 37 and Star Wars.  The writing and humor, as mentioned is the strongest part of Clerks., so take that away and what are we left with?

Super low budget, almost student film like, Clerks. actually at times feels like a student film.  The acting is, not bad, but not great. The editing, pretty doldrum. In fact, the editing makes the acting seem stilted to a certain degree. The cast gives it their all, Jeff Anderson, who plays Dante, is laugh out loud funny but like the rest of the leads, he comes off as slightly amateurish.  Jason Mewes (Jay) and Kevin Smith (Silent Bob) fare the best, while not Oscar worthy they are the only two that move past the 'film-school' sense of acting and possess a sense of 'skill'.

Not that the rest of the acting is horrendous by any means, but what can you expect when a film is made by a few guys straight out of film school.  As I said before, the editing is rather ho hum, with glaring inconsistencies, bad jump cuts and very slight issues with pacing. The film could maybe be trimmed by a few minutes, but for the life of me, thinking back on it, I can't think of what. It just seemed a tad sluggish.

Another issue is Smith's directing.  A word to describe the direction of Clerks. is: Static.  That's right, static.  What do I mean? Well, like the story, where not much is happening, so to is the direction of the film. The camera rarely moves, the people rarely move, and the action rarely moves from one location; everything is still, there is no flow, there is no sense of style, again the word to use is static. It's almost as if Smith just pointed the camera and shot, making the direction seem cold and rigid.

Now don't get me wrong, I did like this movie.  It was original, and funny. Very funny. I watched this for the first time two days ago (Feb. 12/2012) and enjoyed it immensely.  I thought the writing was superb, and although there is not much of a story, I was compelled to the end, laughing all the way.  The writing really does elevate this movie to higher place.

The static direction, choppy editing and 'film-school' acting was a mild deterrent, as was the ever so slightly sluggish pace.  But Clerks. screenplay is so good you forget about those problems for most of the film.  If you want to laugh for an hour and a half, you can't go wrong with Clerks.

Film Rating: 70%

Breakdown (How Clerks. scored 70%):

Production Design: 7 out of 10
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
Re-playability: 9 out of 10

Originality: 9 out of 10

Directing: 5 out of 10

Editing: 5 out of 10

Script: 10 out of 10

Acting: 6 out of 10
Sound: 6 out of 10
Music: 6 out of 10