Clerks (2000–2001)

It took me a while to see the original Clerks, but I did watch it and I liked it very much.  While looking through DVD sets of TV series, I came across the animated series, which I missed when it first aired.  It’s no wonder considering that there were only six episodes.  Since it was under $10, I decided to buy it.

For those that never saw the movie, it was about two clerks.  (One works at a convenience store and the other at a video store next door.)  They have to deal with a stream of annoying customers.  The primary difference is the format.  The original was a live-action black-and-white movie.  Here, it’s animated, but in color.  The style is thick lines to differentiate the characters and solid colors within.

All of the main characters return.  You have Dante running the Quick Stop, Randal running the video store and Jay and Silent Bob popping in to bother them.  Most episodes start with Dante being called in to open the store, much like in the movie.

Each episode has something different.  In the first, Dante and Randal have to worry about a super store (The Quicker Stop) opening across the street.  They have to take it out to save their jobs.  The second seems to poke fun at clip episodes, considering that it only references itself and the previous episode.

Each episode also has an introduction by Jay and Silent Bob from their palatial estates that they bought with the proceeds from the Clerks movie.  You also get a “previous” and “next time” clip that’s really just a quick joke.  (In one instance, it’s just simple test patterns.)

Each episode is about 21 minutes.  The episodes seem a bit rushed at times, especially the fifth episode, which parodies The Last Starfighter, The Bad News Bears and a few other things.  It tries to put too much into one episode and jumps around a lot.

Also, the movie had a lot more leeway in terms of material and style.  Jay and Silent Bob go from dealing drugs to dealing fireworks.  Also, the characters aren’t allowed to curse.  (Jay and Silent Bob use one of the episode’s introductions to vent.)  They do try to push the envelope (or push buttons) on several occasions.  In one episode, they have lesbians, all voiced by men.  The movie was toned down in certain areas, but tried to make up for it in other areas.  It wasn’t really as funny.

I don’t usually go for the special features, especially considering that there was a DVD-ROM section to the discs.  (I don’t like installing stuff on my computer.)  The one thing I did check out briefly was the animatics, which are just sketches based on the episodes  It wasn’t that interesting since I had just watched the episode.

I also don’t recommend watching the episodes to the end of the credits.  When I did on the first episode, my DVD player froze.  I had to turn off the DVD player and turn it back on to get the DVD back out.  When I tried to watch all of the episodes on the second disc, the same thing happened at the end of the fourth episode.  I don’t know if this had to do with the DVD-ROM or if it was just some sort of fluke.

A lot of people seemed to like the TV series from what I can see, but I really didn’t like it so much.  I wouldn’t recommend buying it.  Renting it, maybe.  If you can catch the episodes on TV, you might want to try catching it.  You might not get the benefit of the introductions, but if you can catch one episode, you can see if it’s worth renting. 

IMDb page

This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)

Note:  This review was originally posted to my Epinions account.

 

Everyone has probably heard of the Motion Picture Association of America, which usually just goes by MPAA. The MPAA is the agency that, among other things, assigns ratings to movies. Specifically, it has a board of people that meets to review movies and figure out how they should be rated. Have you ever stopped to wonder how those ratings are assigned?

The ratings system is designed to give people an idea of what’s in a movie. But, what makes a PG movie different from a G movie? What, exactly, differentiates an R from an NC-17? (Yes, the NC-17 is generally associated with porn, but there are plenty of R-rated movies with lots of sex in them.)

The trouble is that the members of the MPAA’s ratings board meet in secret and are unknown to the general public. Supposedly, they’re all parents of young children and are average, middle-class people. However, since we don’t know who they are, we have to take the MPAA’s word for it. That’s where the writer/director, Kirby Dick, comes in. He’s taken it upon himself to figure out who these people are and why they rate the way they do.

Mr. Dick makes a few interesting points. For instance, a rating of NC-17 can pretty much kill a movie, since it limits the options of said movie in terms of advertising options and distribution. Granted, theaters have the right to show what they want, but what if the NC-17 rating is given unfairly? As I asked before, why are some movies with sex scenes given an R while others are bumped up to an NC-17?

The movie does actually show which forms of sex are ‘acceptable’ for an R rating while everything else is considered non-mainstream. In a way, it gives the board the power to rewrite movies, essentially telling the writers that if they take out certain scenes, then can get a different rating. From what I understand, UHF could have gotten a G rating if the scene with the flying poodles had been taken out. In that case, “Weird Al” Yankovic refused to take the scene out, but there are some writers that don’t.

The movie is filled with interviews featuring all sorts of people, such as Matt Stone of South Park fame. Many of them explain how they were in a movie or tried to make a movie that the ratings board rated unfairly. I didn’t feel that any of it came off as whiny, but the movie did drive home the point. If anything, it was repetitive.

Mr. Dick also decided to hire a private investigator to find out the identities of the board members, which I felt was also drawn out. I can see showing the identities of one or two, but he shows the investigator exposing all of them. He uses the information to show how the board members aren’t necessarily what the MPAA says they are. It would have been fine to feature how he got one or two and give all the names. It basically came across as filler.

Speaking of filler, the movie also has footage (most of it reenacted) on how the movie got its own rating of NC-17. This is due mostly to the movie featuring a lot of sex scenes. (It tries to show how violence is more acceptable that sex.) It reminded me of a scene in the Simpsons where Marge’s sisters are showing a slide show of a recent trip, which ends in the sisters dropping off the film to be developed. (By putting in that footage, doesn’t the film have to be resubmitted?)

The ratings are supposed to reflect society’s standards, but that may not always be the case. The main point of the movie is that the MPAA is a bit biased. There are no movie professionals on the board. There are no single people. It doesn’t seem that the board is a very diverse group. It’s also difficult to get an appeal. If you want a new rating, you have to cut stuff.

It was a good movie worthy of four stars, but seemed a bit long at 90 minutes. It’s still worth watching. 

IMDb page