To each his own. At the time that I saw it, I really enjoyed “Clerks” and I really like “Dogma” as well, but IMHO this one really stank.

Vic

Rosario was hot, of course, but I guess my problem was the fact that it IS hard to swallow that those guys STILL haven’t grown up. I know a guy who isn’t a manager at a grocery store whose 30, but that’s one guy. Maybe if this film was made in 2002, when everyone was still in their 20s.

I liked it, but I stand by my love for the other films. Kevin Smith wrote and directed a very heartfelt and funny movie in CHASING AMY and I wish he’d do something like that again. JERSEY GIRL didn’t do that, though…

On another note, I watched MALLRATS many times in 1995 when I was a projectionist at a movie theatre and a sophomore in film school. At first I didn’t like CLERKS (not enough angles, I sniffed, though I too had read Rick Schmidt’s FEATURE FILMMAKING AT USED-CAR PRICES like Smith) but LOVED it in 2004 with the 10th anniversary edition. Maybe I’m just feeling too old at 30 going on 31.

As a filmmaker, I can’t help but notice how close to the mid-1990s indie films my past and current films are. These guys really influenced me and in some ways, I feel like Smith did all right with Clerks 2, but also kinda took a step back. But maybe he needed that after JERSEY GIRL.

For better or for worse, I give CLERKS 2 *** stars out of *****.

-heath

Of course at some point someone will probably show up here with a flamethrower, disagreeing in a less pleasant manner.
Vic

I’m a late 20-something who liked the film well enough. The dialog was disgusting and crass, but at the same time – I’m not sure why you wouldn’t expect that from a Kevin Smith movie. Look back at his other films (besides Jersey Girl) and you will see that most of his other endeavors were the same way. The original Clerks didn’t have a donkey show site gag to lean on, but the left-field sexual talk was there and in spades – it just seemed more innocent because it was “new” to audiences.

I think your problem really originates with your comments on the Randall character, not with subject matter as a whole. You put it best: he was a cruel hurtful guy, but I think that’s the point of the film. Dante was his counter-point. He knew that Dante was the one guy who understands him and that how he was was the only way he knows how to be – and that if Dante left there would be nobody that could replace him in the friend department. I think his off-the wall antics and dialog were a necessity for the relationship of the characters and theme of the overall film.

That being said… this is why I like movies and outlets like ScreenRant or FilmRot. Not everything will be everybody’s cup of tea. I’m fine with you not enjoying the film. At least you didn’t pull a Joel Siegel and walk-out loudly, disrupting those young-ens who were enjoying it.