In a thread about sequels, the issue the relative merits of Clerks and Clerks II came up. Rather than sidetrack that thread, I figured I’d start a new one.
Feel free to add comments about your choice.
Clerks is better, but a lot of that has to do with the fact it came from nowhere.
Clerks II was way better than it should be, though. I expected the worst and it was actually his funniest movie in awhile.
I give the slight edge to the sequel, though it’s been so long since I’ve seen the original that it’s probably not fair. I love both, though. They, along with Chasing Amy, are my favorite Kevin Smith films.
I loved Clerks, especially the first so-many times watching it. Clerks 2 was disappointing for me, partly due to how much I disliked Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.
Huge Kevin Smith fan here.
J&SBSB is pretty decent if you look at it as a live action Loony Toons cartoon, which is what Smith intended. Everything about it is over the top and cartoonish.
I really enjoyed Clerks 2 a lot more than I thought I would. It had a lot of heart and I liked that Jay and Bob went back to more of what their characters were like in Clerks… Losers hanging around outside trying to deal weed.
Smith is going in a new direction w/ his next film. It’s a horror movie called “Red State” based on a Fred Phelps like character. Can’t wait!
Clerks 2 is my favorite. Rosario Dawson doesn’t hurt the movie one bit. 
Clerks was a nice surprise, and was done on a shoe-string budget. Clerks II should have never been done, but it wasn’t bad. I love Rosario Dawson, so the movie is worth watching just for her. And there are a few laughs.
But Clerks has some great dialog, it’s the first time any of the characters are introduced, and was a fun (and immature) movie.
“Thought both were good but Clerks is better.”
I loved Clerks II mostly because it didn’t suck. I loved the original Clerks and the dialogue Kevin Smith had written over the later films, but I’d felt that the View Askewniverse movies as a whole had gotten pretty bad. Loved Clerks, liked Mallrats and Chasing Amy, tolerated Dogma, really disliked Jay and Silent Bob. Clerks II got Kevin back to mundane settings (which allows him to concentrate on dialogue and character), and knocked J & SB back to the bit parts they needed to be.
Why Clerks over Clerks II? Mostly little things. Clerks II’s fast food setting is less realistic-seeming than the retail environment of Clerks (I’ve worked both retail and fast food, and worked both for years, so little inaccuracies can bug me… you don’t want to know how much I hate Employee of the Month). I think the Kinky Kelly scene would have been more funny if played off-screen/off-scene, like Randal knocking over the casket in the original. I’m not a fan of Kevin’s wife, so having to watch her shoehorned into Clerks II lowers my enjoyment of it a bit. Elias was funny, but seems more unrealistic than Dante, Randal, and Becky… he’s a caricature moreso than a character. He’s like one of the customers from Clerks with a larger role.
I’m still quite happy with it. It’s a lot better than I expected it to be; I frankly expected it to be horrible, much like Still Waiting… was compared to the original Waiting…
As I’ve said before, I feel that while Clerks was good, Clerks II is the better movie. I’ll avoid repeating my controversial interpretation of the movie but I felt the sequel improved on the original by having a better story. The characters in Clerks were just there, in Clerks II they went somewhere.
Plus Rosario Dawson.
Eh, I don’t see your take on it being controversial… at least not compared to the debates I get in when I admit liking Jersey Girl!
I was sort of shocked at how not funny Clerks 2 was. The first time I watched Clerks, it was so funny I rewound it and watched it again immediately, and I think that will be the only movie I ever do that for. The first time I watched Clerks 2, I wondered if there was somehow I could trade it in after already opening the package.
I didn’t post the controversial part of it.
Perhaps. Unless it involves appreciation for interspecies erotica, though, it’s hard for me to imagine things being controversial. There’s nothing wrong with preferring 2 over 1.
I, too, am a fan of Huge Kevin Smith. 
Most of the time. He’s had a couple of stinkers. But I liked both Clerks films and feel the first one was the best.
I really think Clerks 2 should’ve been filmed in the same style **Clerks **was- black and white, with those one word placards between acts.
*Clerks *is was pioneering… so different… That’s part of what I loved about Clerks. I hadn’t seen much like that before. But Clerks II… the slightly less funny son of Clerks and J&SBSB.
I’m not seeing how Clerks was pioneering. It was almost a cliche of an independant first movie, albeit one with a good script.
Loved them both so much I can’t pick between them.
Clerks II was great because:
-
It managed not to suck or do any of the things we hate Lucas for.
-
It was a better movie production values wise.
-
It really resonated for a lot of people who identified with the first movie, in terms of how things have changed over that period of time.
-
Rosario Dawson.
Clerks I was great because:
-
Indy / underground / cult classic
-
Nostalgia for time of life you saw it / circumstances surrounding how you saw it
-
It charms it’s way into your pants
I too was surprised that I liked II. Jersey Girl blew so bad I didn’t think a trip back to NJ would work.
II was more sophisticated and had a lot of real actors in it, but Clerks will just always be special for the not knowing what anyone was going to say or do next. Part of what makes Clerks great was that it was so surprising in how the characters behaved, whereas by II we knew their quirks. Although we shouldn’t have been surprised by their actions in Clerks because that is how a lot of people do act in real life. It was surprising to see it in a movie.