I rarely walk out of films, but when I do my money walks out the door with me. I have never once failed to get a refund (though theater managers have tried their hardest).
LCD, any chance you could help me recoup some that $16 dollars I lost on Water World?

Hey, Joe-- when someone cooks, do you judge the content of their cooking, or their cooking skills? While they aren't the same thing, the content reflects on the skill involved.

I rarely walk out of films, but when I do my money walks out the door with me. I have never once failed to get a refund (though theater managers have tried their hardest).
That being said, the last movie I walked out of was "Derailed", with Jennifer Aniston. I had been told by friends that it was enjoyable, so I didn't read up about the plot.
Needless to say, seeing a woman viciously raped on screen tends to kill a date. Unknown to me, she had been the victim of such an assault years previous. The night ended with me holding her hair as she vomited uncontrollably shortly after we left the theater. Whoever directed that movie is an asshole.

Note that Mr Attardi chose to respond re: my parallel point on DVC rather than my overall point re: Kevin Smith.
"You're not judging his filmmaking skills, you're judging the content of his films. Big difference."
Hmmmm . . . See I see these as the same thing, frankly. Don't confuse Smith's technical skill with his ability to create a cohesive cinematic experience. For example, and to continue with the DVC sub-theme, Ron Howard makes quite good flims on a technical level. But his films are frequently overly didactic & lacking in character development, IMO, though there are exceptions. And for a writer/director it's a whole different ballgame. Since Smith both writes, directs, & produces his movies, one could deduce that the script pretty much gets to the screen as written with all Smith's intended themes, etc. Presumably, he is writing to his strengths (such as they are) as a director, right? (I mean, you don't see Woody Allen writing & directin Lord of the Rings type epics, do you?) So, yes, one could most definitely say that in Smith's case, the content of Smith's films, & those of many other writer/directors, goes hand-in-hand with his filmmaking technique. Or lack thereof. So if Smith's films are poor displays of both writing ability & directorial technique - & they are - Smith has only himself to blame.
But I will give Smith this: the content of his films is directly reflected in his filmmaking ability. That's no mean feat. I'm sure he's very happy with the outcome.
And I'd like to point out that Smith's working title for Clerks II was The Passion of the Clerks. So it's pretty clear where he was going while writing this vile waste of celluliod.

"makes you LOOK LIKE a jackass."
But unfortunately, we are not children concerned primarily with appearances. Appearances are mere shadows if they do not contain substance.
In some instances, walking out on a movie is the right thing to do. Your puerile dogma-by-peanut-gallery tactics do not make you right.
You do not seriously mean to say that it would NEVER be permissible to walk out on a movie, do you? Because no principality or power on Earth has ever deigned to make such a ridiculous moral claim.
A lot of things make you uncool, Joe, but we are not slaves to the herd-mind. This is not a playground where taunting gets you street cred and a rep for being "edgy".
What you call "cool" we recognize as just a tiny aesthetic within the larger category of "beauty". It is related to, but different from, that other focus of Catholic desire "good".
Now these two words get a lot of laughs from the youngins these days but we still think they are the cat's meow. When you are really confronted with the good and the beautiful, you are taken out of yourself and brought closer to objective Concept.
If you never focus on these things in their objective state, being confronted with them can be like stepping out into the bright sun after being in a dark theater -- it hurts. The longer you are sheltered from these forces (objective beauty and goodness) the more it hurts. For some people it hurts so much that it forces them to turn from the good and the beautiful and utter curses against them.
Which is why the so many youngins laugh -- they do not really know true beauty and true goodness. They can only bear to see the warped image as it is poorly reflected in self.
I hope this helps explain our crazy Catholic ways to you somewhat.

I'm sure Jimmy thanks you for stopping by and providing him with some good laughs.

P.S.: It's "Rules", I think.
Not on the Fairly Oddparents!

Dear Blogmaster,
Don't worry, I don't plan on sticking around. I just saw the ridiculous rant against the senators who voted for the stem-cell research funding and had to say SOMETHING. But I'm gone now, don't worry.
P.S.: It's "Rules", I think.

David B:
What section do you find the Da Vinci Code in?
That's right, Fiction.
Talk about a made-up controversy.

walking out of a movie is rude and makes you look like a jackass.
Joe, you're new here, so you may not be familiar with Da Rulz.
Rule 1 is keep it polite.

Joe,
Rent the DaVinci Code from your local library (if you don't own it), and read what the author says in the front of the book. Notice that whole "all the 'historical facts' are true" bit.
P.S. "Nobody with half a brain thinks it's being pitched as something true."
But there are many people who read and have only half a brain.

You're not judging his filmmaking skills, you're judging the content of his films. Big difference. And, walking out of a movie is rude and makes you look like a jackass.

Gene,
Did you really just bring up the Da Vinci Code? Nobody with half a brain thinks it's being pitched as something true. It's FICTION, which means NOT TRUE, MADE UP, etc. Christians getting upset about the Da Vinci Code is the dumbest thing I've seen. They're not pushing it as a truth, it's a fictional story!!!!!!

"You folks sure have gotten your panties in a bind over a movie from a guy that's hugely successful."
Since when does financial or critical success equate to either artistic or moral success? It doesn't & never has. (Case in point, The DaVinci Code - so chock full of misrepresentation & outright lies. [sarcasm]But there's got to be truth to it - look how successful it is![/sarcasc/])
Who here is judging Smith personally or spiritually? I see folks discussing Smith's films from a Christian POV &, most of us, find his filmmaking skills sorely lacking. In doing so, we're judging Smith's movies, not him personally. See, this (getting back to the point of Jimmy's post) is where Smith got it all wrong about Siegel. As I stated above, Siegel should have walked out of the piece of trash silently & not said a word & slammed it in print & GMA. And Siegel has apologized to Smith for it on a radio show. But did Smith, sadly true to form, have to vulgarly belittle Siegel on his blog? No. Did Smith have to take the incident to the Nth degree & make a fool of himself to rational people? No.
If Smith's actions inform us about his character & the quality & subject matter of his cinematic oeuvre & we point that out, doesn't that say more about Mr Smith than it does us? (Or are we Christians not allowed to think critically any more?) Nor does it make us judges of Smith or his character. He's doing a fine job of that all by his onesies.
"Quick! Clear your cache so that the evil Kevin Smith isn't in it!
Give me a break."
Another person who can't take a joke. I admit it wasn't a very good one but can a brother get a break for giving it the old college try?

I don't think I'd watch it again at this point, but when I saw the original Clerks back in college I thought it had some value in that it seemed to recognize the inherent shallowness of the characters. Like Rhys, I thought Smith nailed a certain type of slacker character I'd known a couple examples of.
The problem is, most fans of the movie didn't seem to see it as an indictment of the characters, but rather a glorification of them. And even if Smith originally did mostly mean to hold his characters up with a healthy understanding of their flaws (as well as their occasional moment of human understanding) he seems to have long ago realized that all the money is to be made by celebrating characters like like those in his movie, not ridiculing them.
To reference another series of increasingly crass movies, it seems like Roger Ebert (who goodness knows is not always right about movies) once remarked insightfully that in the first Austin Powers movie, the joke was on Powers, but in the subsequent movies, the joke has been on the audience.

Quick! Clear your cache so that the evil Kevin Smith isn't in it!
Give me a break.
This thread, though, has made for some entertaining reading. You folks sure have gotten your panties in a bind over a movie from a guy that's hugely successful.
So many Catholics seem to spend so much of their time judging others, it's ridiculous.

"You know, it *is* possible to keep all those old search terms from popping up on your Google search bar . . ."
"Sheesh. Just clear your cache."
I meant it as a joke. Sometimes comedy means breaking eggs & not every one works. That's no reason to be rude. Doesn't anyone have a sense of humor?
And, on behalf of those who do not know about the inner working of a PC's cache, I humbly beg the pardon of those who are advanced in computer literacy. I might respectfully remind them that just because some don't have the same knowledge that they do, doesn't mean they can be condescending. Sheesh, indeed.
"Just thinking about the Buddy Christ cracks me up -- that's what cafeteria Catholics and New Age "Christians" want, right? Just some guy they can "rap" with, not their Lord and Saviour whose appearance would make them fall on their face."
But Smith himself has said that he created Buddy Christ because he feels that is exactly what Jesus should be &, in fact (at least in his self-centered little world), is. Smith said he believes in a Jesus Who looks at everyone, as they are, & say (with a wink & a thumb's up) "You're OK with Me, pal!" Effectively, Smith has made himself his own Buddy Christ, the head of the Church of Kevin. Yes, it's what so many Christians want today, to have their lives validated & live the way they want to live rather than the way Christ Himself has instructed us to live. Sadly. We see if everywhere. Just check an article Carl Olson posted on the Insight Scoop blog called "Why satire is dying..." for a very disturbing example of the kind of Jesus Kevin Smith advocates.
And the condescension continues.
Sorry, no links. Don't have the time to search for them. Must clear my cache.

Who makes a sequel 12 years after the original was released?
Before my wife was baptized, she said that she had seen "Dogma." She said that it was a terrible movie and wouldn't see it ever again. Now that she's Catholic, she regrets ever seeing it.

"There's nothing creative with using lots of obscene language in a movie."
I agree. But I must say there is something to be said for a well placed obscene word.
Take, for instance, one of Seargeant Major Plumley's lines in "We Were Soldiers"...
Sgt Savage: Beautiful morning, Sergeant!
Sgt Major Plumley: What are you - a f*ing weatherman now?
Perfect.

Kevin Smith I put in the same category as Quentin Tarantino. They are good at the particular kind of movies they do, but sometimes people mistake that for a kind of overall brilliance. When they let the praise go to their heads, and try to go beyond what they do, their inadequacy is revealed.
Kevin Smith with Clerks made a teen/20something comedy, he simply made a lot better one than a lot of the others around. He does well when makes more of the same, such as Mallrats and Jay and Silent Bob Strike back. But when he tries to go beyond himself, like with Dogma, Jersey Girl etc he fails, in my opinion. Compare him with Peter Jackson, who although he began with schlock horror like Bad Taste and Braindead, was still able to pull off Lord of the Rings.

As for his other movies..... aw, I love Clerks in all its disgustingness, simply because he was making fun of spoiled, self-important, sex-obsessed, lazy goof-off twenty-somethings in the 'burbs, living at home mooching off their parents and using superficial intelligence to memeorize stuff so they can seem smarter and more important than they are.
Clerks 2 I think makes this point even more, because it is set 10 years later, and all the characters haven't changed. While others they know have moved on in life, they're still losers.
Dogma I thought was simply clear evidence of the inadequacy of catechetics in many places. Kevin
Smith is a cafeteria Catholic (he
has stated this himself, not using
that terminology of course). He seems
to lack that basic understanding of what
orthodox Catholicism actually is, and can't seem to go beyond the caricature of orthodox Catholicism that the liberal Catholics provide. If anything Dogma is a giant technicolour warning sign, as if to say, "This is what just cutting out pictures of magazines and colouring in and talking about your feelings gets you."
Thanks for the link, Meg - I didn't want Kevin Smith's name permanently in my Google search bar.
Sheesh. Just clear your cache.

Jay and Silent Bob are perfect examples of everything that is right about Kevin Smith as an artist--which isn't much--and just about all his other characters are good examples of what's wrong--which is a whole lot.
Jay and Silent Bob have the ring of authenticity to them. (I knew people like them growing up who to their credit were about 15 years younger.) The filth, the vanity-without-dignity, the complete unconcern for others and viciously degrading apathy, he's caught it all.
The big problem is, he thinks that by catching it, he's done something worthwhile, like James Joyce or Dante transubstantiating the filth of their day into great art. (I give that credit to Joyce reluctantly as I don't think his art in balance is worth much, but it is real art and it has great intellectual value even if it is spiritually vapid. Dante's only peer, on the other hand, is Saint Augustine.)
The epic and comic-epic allusions are on point because at the end of Clerks (I), there is a scene in which the whole convenience store comes crashing down, a kind of mini-acopalypse from which the protagonists emerge as would-be characters in, well an epic. The scene has the feel, though, of having been created by a mid-level bright child who has heard about epics, memorized the associated conventions, and written something so that he can show his elders (and, nudge, nudge, his peers) that he can do epics too.
That Kevin Smith is taken seriously at all shows that the world of art is, like so much else in our culture, a world without grownups. It is a world where it is more important to be entertaining in what you say than to have something to say and where, alas, the shock of filth (yawn) precludes the shock of awaking by fits and turns to humanity, inhumanity, and humanity recovered.

I must sheepishly admit to laughing myself silly at a few Kevin Smith movies, and having a soft spot for Jay and Silent Bob.
I hated the misinformation, defamation and hatred of the Church in Dogma, but couldn't help laughing at much of that movie, either. Especially the spectacle of George Carlin dressed as a bishop (how utterly appalling, all I could do was laugh), the Buddy Christ, the Golgothan, and Mooby the Golden Cow. (Just thinking about the Buddy Christ cracks me up -- that's what cafeteria Catholics and New Age "Christians" want, right? Just some guy they can "rap" with, not their Lord and Saviour whose appearance would make them fall on their face.)
I won't watch Dogma again, and wouldn't have seen it if I'd known it was a Church-bashing nightmare. And I won't see Clerks 2 because of Dogma.
As for his other movies..... aw, I love Clerks in all its disgustingness, simply because he was making fun of spoiled, self-important, sex-obsessed, lazy goof-off twenty-somethings in the 'burbs, living at home mooching off their parents and using superficial intelligence to memeorize stuff so they can seem smarter and more important than they are.
The rest of his films are very, very lame.
And his response to Siegel was beyond childish.

Thanks for the prayers, David B!

I've known many otherwise intelligent young men who think that Kevin Smith is a thoughtful, talented director. They are, of course, wrong on all fronts; he is neither thoughtful, nor talented, and commiting 90+ minutes of garbage to the celluloid does *not* make one a director. His popularity amongst my fellow young people is due, I think, to "The Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. Then again, we young people are known for not knowing what we're talking about.
Also:
"Thanks for the link, Meg - I didn't want Kevin Smith's name permanently in my Google search bar."
You know, it *is* possible to keep all those old search terms from popping up on your Google search bar . . .

SDG,
We will pray that everythinng goes well concerning the birth.

which reminds me, SDG: I have had to go to other sources to find out about Nacho Libre and Garfield 2--where are your reviews for these movies?

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Suzanne.
The inexorable fact of it is that as a father of four (almost certainly five within the next 36 hours) with a full-time non-film 9 to 5 and other non-film interests, I can only review at most one movie per week opening in theaters, and maybe a DVD review or two on top of that. There will always be more movies I don't review than I do, and lots of movies falling between the cracks.
Basically, I try to review films where I think the interest is greatest, or where it should be greatest, and where I think the interest will still be in five years, and where I think I have a particular contribution to make. After that it's a matter of time and opportunity.
My sense is that the world doesn't need another review of Garfield 2, and very few people would care about my review of Nacho Libre. Thus, the few hours per week I have to spend on film would be better spent elsewhere.

Kevin Smith: "Cardinal rule of moviegoing: Shut your [bleeping] mouth while the movie's playing."
Nice. Bash Catholics in a feature-length film and then spout your own "Cardinal rule". Some more cake with your cake, Mr. Smith?
Over-sensitivity and egotism. I will take the humility of the "Dumb Ox" any day.

Yeah, sometimes Anglo-Saxon is the most effective way of getting your point across. Worked for Patton.

"Anyone else find it ironic that Siegel used an expletive as he was storming out of a movie because it was too vulgar?"
Mr. Siegel was using the precise terminology to define the problem. He had taken 30 years of sex scenes, but this was one too far and too many. :)

Thanks for the link, Meg - I didn't want Kevin Smith's name permanently in my Google search bar. I'd heard enough of what Smith said for it to confirm my opion of the guy but . . . criminey, man - what a churlish goon. Yes, Siegel should have walked out silently rather than making a scene. But Smith only makes himself look like a fool by using vulgarity (does he know how not to?) in taking Siegel to task.
Ultimately, Siegel has done the right thing in walking out & being vocal about what a vulgar, perverse film Smith has made. Sadly, this will lead some people to go see Clerks II. (Meet the new Clerks, same as the old Clerks.)
Me? I'm either going to see Pirates again or Lady in the Water tomorrow night. I hope they both beat Clerks II's take this weekend. If Pirates has even a 50% drop off from last weekend's take, Clerks II could have a very difficult time making more than $20M.
A boy can dream . . .

JD, The Pony is alive and well. Believe it or not, so is Asbury Park. (They had to move Tillie a few blocks because of the revitalization though. I'll buy you your first three rounds if you remember him without checking Google for the answer.)
By the way, thanks for helping me remember -- for a few minutes, anyway -- a time in my life that didn't involve so much work, mortgages, orthodontist bills, rising college tuitions, jockeying four kids around all day Saturday, etc. Oh well, let me get back to reality -- and my own, little "Jersey Girl."
Here are 20 pictures of Middletown's favorite son making a living:
Bon Jovi @ Giants Stadium

Page Six has changed for today. Here's the permalink for the Smith/Siegel dustup:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07192006/gossip/pagesi...
Thanks for the info. I was surprised last week to learn that there even WAS a "Clerks II" - wasn't the first boring and stupid enough? - but it *was* a big indie cult movie.

Anyone else find it ironic that Siegel used an expletive as he was storming out of a movie because it was too vulgar?
Ironic or not, it is nice to see someone take a stand against the current attitude that the more vulgar a film is the more cutting edge it is. There's nothing creative with using lots of obscene language in a movie. Nor is it daring or original to bash the Catholic Church as Smith likes to do. I will never understand why people still think Kevin Smith is a brilliant and original film maker. He's a no-talent hack.

StubbleSpark has nailed Mr Smith. He got lucky with the original Clerks because it was so different from everything else at Sundance that year (it was Sundance that, sadly, launched Smith, wasn't it?) that it got attention. It's a vulgar, perverse, pedestrian, badly-written, & amatuerishly-directed bit of teenage foolishness. A nephew of mine saw it when he was 14 or so & thought it was the funniest thing ever (his mother, my sister, would have been mortified had she known he had seen it) so I guess Smith hit his demographic. But I can't see how anyone of intelligence who even idly enjoys watching movies can see any value in any film Smith has ever made.

...which reminds me, SDG: I have had to go to other sources to find out about Nacho Libre and Garfield 2--where are your reviews for these movies? I have actually decided that they probably aren't good, but I really respect your opinion and miss it with many movies that you don't review.

The last movie that Mrs. Zhou and I walked out of was "Click."
We thought Adam Sandler made nice movies, but this was so full of de-humanizing vulgarity that we just walked.
(And we don't go to many movies....)

Bar anticipation- a few years ago, the stone pony was enroute to becoming a parking lot...not sure what became of its fate...i left too long ago.
I'd love to get back and see Bon Jovi at Giants Stadium though.

I just visited Kevin Smith's website. It is singular how a man who makes a living making films with the intent to challenge and provoke people would take one critic's actions so personally.
He cannot possibly think his movies would hit the mark with everyone, so why all the self-righteous ad hominem attacks against Siegel? No matter how many childish remarks you make about a man's mustache, you still will not convince anyone of the worthiness of your movie (or the of rudeness of walking out on it).
If Smith expects the world of Catholics to "lighten up" about his unabashedly self-serving attack on God and the Church, then why can't he lighten up about one reviewer storming out of one of his movies?
Perhaps the problem is that since giving God the boot, Smith has become the center of his own universe.
Hence, his view is askew.
An "edgy" "artist" like Smith should be happy that his movie has peeved off a "conservative" like Siegel who liked Brokeback.
But the fact is, Smith is neither edgy nor an artist. What once passed for edginess is now overly indulgent redundancy. What little art there was in his early films has become weighed down with the self-importance of this pocket-sized messiah.
He can rant and curse and complain all he wants but in the end, he looks more like a scandalized Puritan witch-hunter than the supposed "Progressive" he sells himself to be.

Credit where credit is due, right?

Why is it that when someone praises another person for a good act some people take it as a blanket endorsement of all that person ever did?

"Down the shore." Gosh, how I love that phrase! Excuse me while I ramble down Memory Lane and think of Bar A, DJ's, The Stone Pony and, best of all, Jersey Girls ...
Bar A's Customers

Would this be the same Joel Siegel that picked Brokeback Mountain as his #1 pick for Movie of the Year (2005)?
Joel Siegel's Picks for Best Movies of 2005
Does Mr. Siegel rate any "kudos" for that pick, Jimmy?

The Hulk is just boring. Anyhow, Kevin Smith still acts like a stupid teenager making movies, and that is his fanbase: stupid teenagers over 35.

I didn't find 'Hulk' to be particularly offensive, save for that disturbing bit about his dad...
Actually that's the only part of Hulk that stuck with me. I kept trying to see the film as a commentary on someone struggling with his relationship with his father/creator. Never quite gelled, though.

"The Hulk? Really? Mind you, I've never seen The Hulk, but I'm a bit shocked given all the children merchandise I've seen for The Hulk to think that it is in any way on the same level as Clerks 2."
Oh no, not at all!! I was merely talking about the action of walking out of a theater if you don't like the movie, which I wish I had done that time, instead of wasting 2 hours of my life (or more) watching a movie as boring and messed up as The Hulk was. I didn't find 'Hulk' to be particularly offensive, save for that disturbing bit about his dad... oh nevermind. I just hated that movie, period. I had so many expectations for it, which were sadly broken at the unbelievable special effects and overall theme of the movie. *sigh*

Coincedentally enough, Smith made the comments in the article while on Opie and Anthony, who those of us who grew up in NJ and listened to WNEW may remember for their gross antics. Still, as they say, any press is good press, even for New Jersy (which has a bad reputation for reasons other than Kevin Smith).

Wow. Kevin Smith lecturing Joel Siegal on rudeness? Sure makes me wanna run out and see his movie.

The Hulk? Really? Mind you, I've never seen The Hulk, but I'm a bit shocked given all the children merchandise I've seen for The Hulk to think that it is in any way on the same level as Clerks 2. The bits and pieces I've seen is that it's an action flick ... I'd have thought any offensiveness would have stopped more or less around foul mouthed soldiers.

Is there ANY movie done by Kevin Smith that is NOT digusting and morally offensive? I can't really remember one that was worth watching... all I can think when I hear his name is that execrable Catholic-bashing 'comedy' of his, and... ugh.
So yeah, kudos to Mr. Siegel for having the guts to stand up and leave the theater... I wish I had done the same thing when watching 'The Hulk'.

It always with a rebellious spirit trying to be avant-garde but too often it ends in a kind of senseless depravity that is nothing more than simple-minded offensiveness for the mere sake of being offensive.
I think I have seen nearly all of Kevin Smith's movies and watched the deterioration of a mind more concerned with his reputation and outward conformity to a popular label than to using art to find truth.
In other words, he got lucky in getting discovered simply because he was young (and therefore something fresh) and has since fallen into the decay of an overripe fruit.