Kevin Smith: Burn in Hell

Directed by: Zak Knutson, Joey Figueroa












This is another installment in the series of Kevin Smith Q&A sessions.  These clips were taken from one event filmed in Austin, Texas after a screening of Smith's film "Red State."

The best story he told - also, the longest - traced his conflict with an ultra-conservative church whose actions, to an extent, inspired the script for "Red State."  He explained his combative relationship with the members of the church, as well as how he organized his counter-protests when they began attempting to picket screenings of his film.

For the first time, Smith's usually lighthearted demeanor took a slightly darker turn, as he discussed his father's death.  Yet, never to let an opportunity pass, he uses it as a springboard to encourage everyone to get out and do something with their lives.

I'd highly recommend that you see "Red State" before seeing this.  In fact, I'd recommend viewing all of Kevin Smith's movies and previous Q&A releases before seeing this.  But if you're already a Kevin Smith geek, it's worth checking out.

Red State

Written and Directed by: Kevin Smith

There's a lot I want to say about this movie, but very little of it is cohesive. Here goes anyway.

1. This film has two distinct halves. The first half is ostensibly a "horror" film, but the pacing slow and deliberate for that to work. The second half is more action-drama oriented, and better overall.

2. There was a lot of drama regarding Kevin Smith's strategies for funding and promoting this movie - most notably his attempt to auction it off at Sundance. That's all well-documented elsewhere. My only comment is that, although Kevin Smith may have felt he needed to be a bit of a showman to sell this movie, I feel that the movie was pretty darn good on its own.

3. By far, "Red State" is the most cinematic of Kevin Smith's films. The camera actually moves in some sequences (contrary to his usual stationary style), and some scenes use interesting angles to add to the effect. I mean, I'm not some kind of cinema snob, but as a Kevin Smith fan these changes and effects were very noticeable. It's nice to see him work outside of his comfort zone.

4. The climax of the film is fantastic. I can't comment on it much without giving it away, but I will say that it's not predictable. At all.

5. There are a couple of pretty gruesome sequences, though the actual gore is limited. Rather, it's the idea of what is being done which is what is most disturbing. This film is not for the faint of heart.

As a Kevin Smith fan, I recommend this movie. It's pretty good (hard to say "enjoyable"), though it does fall short of being great. Being prepared for the movie is key, especially knowing that the slow beginning pays off later, so keep that in mind.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

Written and Directed by: Kevin Smith

At some point, writer / director Kevin Smith lost his interest in the View Askewniverse that he had created. But as one last hurrah he decided to give Jay and Silent Bob - previously only supporting characters - their own film. He also decided to cram as many inside jokes and geek references into the film as possible. The result: "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back."

The film's plot is paper thin, but worth discussing. Jay and Silent Bob, who were influences for a comic book series (as seen in "Chasing Amy") find out that their comic book is being turned into a movie. They decide to head to Hollywood, but along the way they become scapegoats for a jewelry heist. The two continue on their way, encountering numerous celebrities (appearing both as themselves and sometimes as characters). Eventually, they're exonerated for their crime and get the money that started the whole fiasco.

Although the film originally received much criticism, I feel that it needs to be viewed with the same lens with which it was written and made - that of a love letter. Smith made this movie to be the glorious send off to his two most cherished characters, pulling no punches to make it the grande finale of the universe he created. As such, he succeeded.

Smith made the movie he wanted to make. It has characters returning from previous movies as well as repeated references to those films. It also has jokes based on the things he and his friends enjoy (or, at least, enjoyed at the time), and it doesn't matter if you don't understand them all - they're not for you. This movie wasn't necessarily intended for a vast audience to enjoy. It was more of a home-movie that teenagers make, writing it based on whatever they like and inviting all their friends to be in it, then showing it off whenever they get the chance to whoever will watch.

I definitely enjoyed all the random roles and cameos from celebrities and pseudo-celebrities. The scene when Ben Affleck and Matt Damon "prepare" for their roles is hilarious, and it was fun to see Jason Biggs and James Van Der Beek poke fun at their own limited roles. Carrie Fisher pops up as a nun who unintentionally spews innuendo. Even Mark Hamill - most famous for being Luke Skywalker - shows up as the super-villain in the "Bluntman and Chronic" movie-within-a-movie.

That being said, there is some room for criticism. At times it felt like the movie was too far-reaching and attempted to include every joke that could be made, rather than selecting only the best gags. As with most comedies, the story was convoluted and disjointed, so that by the end you had been distracted so many times that you had basically forgotten where they were going or why they were trying to get their.

To truly appreciate this movie, you have to remove the irony from your viewing. You must accept that this movie wasn't made for you, but that you are allowed to enjoy it. Once you get past that, you can see the heartwarming center of a writer / director saying good-by to his beloved universe. (But try not to think about how he brought it all back - one more time - for "Clerks II.")