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