Kevin Smith, once a counter Clerk always a counter clerk

in 1994 Kevin Smith as a no name borrowed 27,575$ from the bank, and from these money made a movie with his best buddies. And that became the underground cult phenomena "Clerks" About the two counter clerks "Jeff and Dante" and there to say the least fucked up renting store and all the fucked up people who visit it, everyone is on weed in this movie and it's filled to the brim with disgusting, disturbing and vulgare jokes and most of the comedy lays in the dialogue.


And the dialouge is perfectly written! that would later proof to be Kevin smith's all time strongest point and a feed no one else can copy, perfect over the top funny dialogue.
Tons and tons of comedy film have since tried to copy Kevin smith's obscure vulgar style, and they all fail horrible as they think just because you write "dick" and "pussy" in the dialogue, it's funny. it is not, but Kevin smith can pull it off, and this movie is genuinely funny. disturbing... but funny.

Already in 1995 in cause of the box office hit Clerks had, despite only being showed in few underground special theaters, he made the comedy "Mallrats"


This is by many ways one of his weaker movies, but there is a lot of things excusing this, this was the first time Kevin Smith had to direct while a studio was constantly watching his neck and demanding changes in his on purpose Vulgar and obscure writing, and as a newby he complied and let the studio have to much influenced, and it can be felt in the movie as it seems to be a tamer affair than should have been. There are some few laugh here and there, but what should have been two hours of hilarity is just moderately funny.





In 1997, his widely critically acclaimed movie "Chasing Amy" had its release.
This is one of the two of my personal favorite Kevin smith films. I think this movie is wonderful, it's sad, it's genuinely funny, it's something I can relate to and it have so much heart in it. and you can really fell that.


This movie the kevin smith that have been attempted copies on the most, and they all fail because they miss the heart this story have. The story and the big end dilemma is as obscure and odd as ever, but it fells like a natural evolving of characters from the dialogue, and the dialogue is really beautiful. Kevin Smith's own character "Silent bob" probably makes the best little speech in all of Kevin smith's carrier, and this film is a no brainer and must watch for any film geek who want to trace the latest tendencies of trashy film makers who make trashy pretentious movies. this movie however is not pretentious, it is just very true.





In 1999 the very geekly acclaimed movie "Dogma" came out.

And I tell you why I say geekly acclaimed, it's because critically it was only acclaimed sort of moderately, but all geeks in the universe who knows Kevin Smith and have seen this seems to worship this movies to the sky's. Geeks everywhere is still praising this movie and acclaiming it's mighty awesomeness.
.... I don't get it...
Seriously, I don't. I mean, not to say that I dislike the movie, I do kind of like it and it have lots of cheap laughs in it, but ingenious? I really don't think so, as far as I am concerned it's two hours of harmless fun and no more. If Kevin Smith really wanted to, it could have been a lot more, I do see a lot of potential in the story, but it seems to me Kevin Smith did not even want to make it more than innocent fun, and so it isn't.


For crying out loud it has a "poop monster" in it which is defeated by an deodorant which silent bob carries around with him so he doesn't have to smell to Jay's farts.

And that's this movie, because it's Kevin Smith he can pull it off, other film makers can't, but it's really not that ingenious piece of worship geeks are making it out to be.

"Jay and silent bob strikes back" from 2001.
If people are in any doubt how much Dogma is a piece of unpretentious fun, then you would have to be dim not to realize that that is exactly what his movie is.


two hours of unpretentious fun.
I don't even have anything more to say about this movie, it's just a little snack for the Kevin Smith fan base with reference to earlier work and featuring his two arch type characters of the totally wasted and doped Jay and himself as silent bob who is, as the name indicates, silent.
I got no more, it's just a package of jokes, laughter and fun. I'm empty, it's not a bad movie but there is just nothing more to it. god.

on the other hand "jersey girl" from 2004 is worthy hours of talking and analyzing.
It was a miss step for Kevin smith, the movie is not very good even though it really tries it's very best. When watching this, I do believe Kevin Smith was very honest in his intentions and I see what he tries to do. it just doesn't work.

Kevin Smith is an ever growing artist, and you can fell that in his work as he grows in life, his works grow with him, he had just done two pieces of mindless fun and now wanted to do something with steady ground in it. it just falls short and flat but it's a very forgivable miss step and when a movie creator makes a miss step, after only having done good movies, what really do count is how he decides to get back on his feet's?

2004 DVD special release called. "And evening with Kevin Smith"
This is sort of cheating, as the DVD is just a collection of videos of Kevin Smith answering questions and telling stories to his fans on stages around the US, but it is so hilarious to watch, Kevin smith is the born story teller and standup comedian, he is interesting to listen to and most of all, absolutely hilarious, this video can be seen legally for free on Google videos, and I would very much recommend it, and it does not matter if you have seen his movies or not, he is comedy gold. and if for nothing else, he makes the best Tim Burton impersonations I have ever seen.

Thank god for "Clerks II" which was released in 2006, precisely twelve years after "Clerks" it's the perfect way for Kevin Smith to get back on track, because this movie is brilliant. with "Chasing Amy" this is my favorite Kevin Smith movie, I really love it.
As the title might suggest, it's a direct sequel to Clerks. ten years have passed for the two main characters, and yet more importantly, ten years have passed for Kevin Smith as well. "Clerks II" have the obscure vulgar humor from the first "Clerks" film, but also the sophisticated growth of it's creator. it's again a very honest movie with lots of hearts, which makes it so good and unpretentious despite it's quirkiness.

For me, it does not matter if the viewer have seen "Clerks" or not, because this movie stands so well on it's own that anyone can watch it, and they should, because it's a very unique and fresh experience, again the dialogue is just perfect and the characters their own and obscure. a wonderful little piece of movie.

oh crap.. this year 2010 Kevin Smiths latest movie "Cop out" came out. I don't know how the describe the experience of this movie, but I am gonna try.

Anyone remember when Tim Burtons "planet of the apes" came out? well first of all it weren't a good movie, but in my mind more importantly, it did not fell like a Tim Burton movie at all. it was a weird head scratching experience where you just sat there and waited for a little sign of "Burtoniness" and as the Credits came on you tipped your head to make sure Tim Burton really is in the credits and thereby involved in the movie, and when his name did role up you furry your brows and ask yourself... where the bloody hell is Tim Burton is in this movie? I don't see any trace of him nor his still, this just doesn't fell like a Tim Burton film.


That is "Cop out" and Kevin Smith.. I know Kevin Smith directed it, and it is plainly obvious that he didn't write it, as the only film he ever directed he didn't write. but there is no trace of the uniqness of Kevin Smith anywhere in the movie, he is untraceable, and the movie is not very good either. it's pretty bad and is the same kind of movie that we have seen thousands of times before in cop movies, so I am not even going to talk about.

"Jersy girl" was a miss step, but it was clearly a Kevin smith movie, this was not. and it doesn't seem like his next movie will go in his old style either, though at least he wrote it himself, I dunno.

But at least he showed after doing his first real miss step with "Jersy Girl" that he knows how to bounce back stronger than ever with "Clerks II"

Maybe white this major miss step of "Cop out" he is gonna bounce back with the best movie he ever created widely to be acclaimed as a master piece, only the future will tell.

Kevin Smith have stated that there will be no more movies with Jay and Silent bob, and there are many devided thoughts upon that among fans.

Personally, I find it to be a good thing. Kevin Smith have grown as a story teller and a director, he have become older and having two guys in their mid thirties hanging in front of a wall aint as cool or fun as them in their early twenties, the creators and faces of Jay and silent bob have grown away from the characters, it's wisely of Kevin smith to put them to rest, and Clerks II was the perfect way to do it.

The Phantom of the Opera, from then to now.

Hi's there the phantom of the opera!

Beware the Phantom of the opera!

We'll. kind off seems I wont have access to a computer tomorrow, so two articles today.

I love Phantom of the opera, but boy, what a girly thing to review. but at least it isn't quite as stupid as stuff like "Twilight" and other teen flicks. and it both have a sense of drench full horror and class above it. awesome!

Phantom of the opera was originally a book written in 1909 by Author Gaston Leroux.
The book is really not the best book in the world, I read it and completely expected a devastating tragic love story with a flinch of creepy stalker ghost story. as that Is what I get from the many adaptations.
What I did get was another detective mystery book where we see everything from the perspective of the character "Raul" the most hated character in the phantom adoptions, and he is equally hated in every single adoption despite being the good guy, I will explain exactly why in a moment when we get to the summary.
Button line is, the book just isn't very good, it's now downright bad, but it's a very bland and long read and not nearly as interesting as it's own legacy.

What the story is about is the opera house in the middle of Paris. Christine Daae is a singer in that opera house and have for a long time taken lessons by the mysterious phantom who is madly in love with her, he is fine with just giving her singing lessons until Christines old childhood sweet heart Raul appears and starts dating her, where after the phantom gets insanely jealous and all hell breaks loose.
you see as it turns out the phantom is a horrible disfigured man living in the dungeons of the opera and hiding behind mask, is a genius in almost everything but is also completely mad and a murder. he sports the cape and mysteriously disappearing acts, he plays the organ and the hypnotic voice, the insanity and is bloody dangerous, he is the stereotype of the kick ass bad guy, awesome!
But he is just so interesting and human that every girl phantom fan have a crush on him, dude he even got a cape, a romantic giving side and can play the organ, he is just sexy and we kind of fell sorry for him that his so lonely. Raul is always mr perfect, young, beautiful, charming and giving and really really boring. which is why every phantom fan girl in the world hate him for taking Christine away. Anyway, adaptations!




funny how the early adaptations always seems to be the definite version in the fan base's collected concious. that does in any case very much apply here where the silent 1925 Phantom of the Opera with Lon Chaney in the title role is regarded the definite thing.
Who can blame the people who thinks that? this movie is awesome and differently worth for anyone to check out. Though I must say right now, I own three different copies of this film and they are all different. when you go and watch it, if you watch it, make sure to watch a copy with a good soundtrack, the soundtrack on the free version in the internet is pure crap, and the good sound track make all the difference in the world.
Though it do kind of bother me, that one copy I do have with good soundtrack doesn't have the coloured versions of the two scenes that are some of the first techni colour film scenes ever made.
One of the big masquerade scene that is all colourful and looks awesome as the guests are dancing around in all these imaginative animal costumes, and of cause the phantom in his red death costume. It just looks awesome in colour.
Anyway, movie! this is one beautiful and moody film. it's a ghost story and a romance. it is creepy and it's tragic. the atmosphere in the room is that of a fairy tale, not to mention Lon Chaney's make up is really good, and makes him look really scary, his face looks sort of like a skull or something.
amazing film, if your a fan of the silent era and like stuff like "Nosferatu" or the silent "Jekyll and Hyde" you simply mustn't cheat yourself of this.





in 1943 another Phantom of the opera film was made, this time with Claude Rains, mostly known from the invisible man (1934) and Casablanca, in the title character.
For some reason this movie actually won an Oscar for best movie, I have a hard time seeing where that Oscar came from. this is not that good a movie and it's differently not that good a phantom movie. Claude Rains is a really odd casting choice for the Phantom, especially his small height makes it seem weird, all though his voice is awesome and fits the phantom well. The film is not really that creepy, it's not really that suspenseful and the romance almost non presence. all though the movie have it's really tragic elements. in this the phantom is more a victim than anything else as we actually in the beginning of the movie witness his fall from grace, and this is also where the origin of him being burned by acid instead of just being born disfigured started.





in 1962 it was the Hammer companies turn to bite into Phantom of the opera.
Now, Hammer is a late British horror film company, who adapted all the classic horror tales. Dracula, Frankenstein, Doctor Jekyll and mr Hyde. They did them all, and they did them in a very delightfully horrifying and gore filled way. really putting the horror back into the genre.
Why on earth does their version of the Phantom of the opera then seem like such a tame affair.
There are few traces of the good nasty Hammer gore feast and creepiness. and again the romance is non present. in fact it's written completely out of the story, there isn't as much as a hint towards it.
Not to say the movie haven't got it's cool factors, like the inserted villain, though despite of evil and slick he is. The phantom is the villain, so you shouldn't have to put another one in. well, in this movie the phantom is even more a victim than the Claude Rain version, and this Phantom couldn't even hurt a fly, what a bore.





in 1986 Andrews Lloyd webbers musical stage version of the phantom of the opera opened for the first time, this is probably the version most people is familiar with as it still lives and have become truly a classic. and it is awesome!
everything that is good about the phantom is in this musical and is used. The danger, the ghost story, the romance, the tragedy, the mystery and element of magic. not the mention the extremely grand music score. I saw this show twice in west end and once in a Danish production, and it's still just as awesome. cause it's just such a ride to watch, you just fell with this thing.
And people who says Andrew Lloyd Webber's music is bland clearly haven't seen this musical... all though with Stuff as "Cats" and "Star Light Express" behind him... I don't blame them.







The 1989 Phantom of the opera movie.
Freaking Robert Englund Freddy Kruger as the Phantom! need I say more.
well yeah, I do. two lines of description is hardly enough, I gotta make it at least ten.
This movie is really cool, it's kind of weird. sometimes in a good way sometimes in a bad, but really cool. It does not have the romance in it, but the dark edge and horror element is totally present plus it's such a good looking movie. whit great mystery elements in it, it's differently worth checking out for any horror fans.
plus, Freaking Freddy Kruger as the Phantom!




"Il Fantasma dell'opera", or just plain English Phantom of the opera 1998.
It's stuff like this that makes me sympathise with the nostalgia critic. THIS MOVIE SUCKS!
it's made by Dario Argento which is known for his gritty horror films, and so this should be a good edgy film. though, the horror is dump and disgusting more than anything else, the romance likewise so, the phantom isn't even disfigured, though as disgusting as ever. dude, there's a scene where he shows sexual pleasure by stuffing a rat into his pants, Christine who is by the way played by Argento's daughter is totally sexualiesed in the most disgusting non senses way, her feelings towards the phantom as he is suddenly totally in love with him makes absolutely no sense, he treats her horrible and then claims hi loves her, and she wants to stay with him.
I mentioned twilight before in this article, well this movie is way worse than twilight for kind of the same reasons. it just sucks, don't bother with it.



most recently in 2004 Joel Schumacher made the film version of Andrew Lloyd Webbers stage play. this movie is... really not living up to it's potential. it's so boring and plane, it looks way to clean and not edgy at all, the Phantom is really miss cast. (girls I know Gerard Butler is hot, but doesn't changes the fact that he was miss cast) You should think it would be easy as Joel Schumacher already had the script and incredible score in his hands, and just needed putting pictures on it. but all the cool stuff in the franchise and stage play, which is kind of edgy, he toned down and made way to clean. Like the Phantoms red dead costume at the masked ball, it's the most boring and clean cut Phantom/red dead costume I have ever seen.
The movie have its moments, and especially for girls the plain romantic music can get to you. but for an adaptation of one of the greatest stage musicals ever produced, it's just not good enough.





and then this yeas Andrew Lloyd Webber had all the fans of his original phantom of the opera musical enraged as the sequel "love never dies" had its opening at west end.
Have anyone ever done a stage sequel to a stage show? I have never seen it done before, and Ive had my eyes on stage shows for a long time.
Anyhow, I haven't seen it, just thought I would mention it. I listened to the soundtrack, it both have really good numbers in it and numbers that fall short.
Plus the most hardcore awesome musical number Andrew Lloyd Webber have ever composed, it's just so extraordinary awesome, and I would so kill to see it being used in a phantom movie. The song is called "Beauty underneath" it's on youtube. I implore everyone to just check it out, you will never think of Andrew Lloyd Webber the same way again.


And so on this ending note, this is another thing that I don't think will ever die. it's just a matter of time before another adaptation will see the light of day. I actually haven't covered all the versions I know of the Phantom of the opera in this article, there are books, other stage plays, television movie and cinematic spoof kind of movies I haven't even mentioned, the material is awesomely big, and fortunately is keeping on growing.
The next time I have access to the computer we will talk about "Darkman" which is a movie that in many ways reminds me both of Phantom of the opera, and the classic secret identity disguising hero, which is why I wanted to cover does two aspects this quickly. see yah around, hopefully.