MovieLuvaMatt

I'm a big Kevin Smith fan, but this is definitely not his best work. People tend to emphasize the fact that the movie is PG-13, and that audiences are not used to seeing a Smith movie that doesn't contain the "f" word used in every other sentence. I can adjust to the lack of profanity. As a matter of fact, I have "Clerks: The Animated Series" on DVD, and I think it's hilarious! Smith has a great sense of humor that transcends his obsession with the profane. Anyone who has seen his recurring "Roadside Attractions" sketch on "The Tonight Show" should be fully aware of that. The problem with "Jersey Girl" is it's like every other Garry Marshall-type sappy romantic comedy that has come out over recent years. Other than the element of a video store clerk who's studying man's obsession with pornography, there is very little that helps break the mold of your standard romantic comedy. Aside from the romantic element, the storyline between Ben Affleck's character and his daughter (played by Racquel Castro) is an utter cliché. Let's put it this way: I never thought I'd ever see a Kevin Smith movie with a climax that involves a character rushing to see his daughter perform on stage. What makes Smith such a talented writer/director is not just his "d*ck and fart jokes." If that were the case, any eight-year-old can write just as good a film as "Clerks." His humor also has a certain intelligence and wit. It's not just raunchy for raunchiness sake. Many of the gags in this movie are lame and predictable. Who in the hell still thinks the diaper-changing gag is still funny? And the joke about Affleck thinking Will Smith will never have a movie career doesn't pan out, because by 1996, Will had already done "Bad Boys" and "Six Degrees of Separation" (of which he received much critical acclaim for his performance). And I'm sure at that stage, people weren't still referring to him as "The Fresh Prince." A real publicist would be privy to that.

The cast is full of talented people. I've always been more complimentary towards Affleck than most people. Almost any director will tell you that there are performers and there are actors. Affleck is definitely a performer, who plays an extension of himself in almost any role, but that's what he's good at. He's a movie star. His job is to play handsome leading men roles, and not character roles like, say, Gary Sinise. Affleck does a fine job in this movie, although there are moments where he seems bored with his role (as in "Gigli"). You have to consider the fact that him and Kevin Smith have been friends, even before he became an A-list star. So if Smith were to hand him a script for a gay porn movie, he'd probably agree. In the commentary, Affleck mentions that this is the best movie he's ever done, but I'm sure he was just saying that to butter up his buddy Kev. Newcomer Racquel Castro is cute and adorable, and quite the natural actress. They say it's impolite to criticize child actors, but I've never had any shame about doing so. But this girl definitely has screen presence and she could have a promising career when she enters adulthood. George Carlin steals the show as the foul-mouthed father (though the movie couldn't get away with showcasing the "f" word, Carlin got away with using the "s" word quite often). There are some amusing cameos as well. Most of them are from Kevin Smith's regulars. I will say that Matt Damon and Jason Lee pop in cameos, but I won't give away the very amusing cameo at the end.

To sum it up, "Jersey Girl" is an example of Smith going mainstream. There are some comic moments that contain a bit of his edge. For example, the opening scene has a group of schoolkids each approach the front of the classroom to talk about their parents. One of the kids says, "My mom says that my dad's eyes are so brown, because he's so full of..." The problem is those moments are few and far between. I know being a husband and parent has softened up the director a bit, but hopefully he snaps out of it soon. We want you back, Kev! Would I compare this movie to "Chasing Amy"? Not in the least. First of all, it puts a twist on the classic romantic comedy by the main character falling in love with a lesbian. Second of all, it's a much less sappy and much more realistic film that doesn't abide by virtually every Hollywood convention. I'm not saying "Jersey Girl" is a bad film, but it is bland and didn't satisfy me all the way--especially being a fan of Smith.

My score: 6 (out of 10)

This has all the elements of a bad horror movie, but unlike some so-bad-it's-good low-budget fright flicks, this one takes itself seriously--and therin lies the problem. I always say the sign of a bad horror movie is when you want every character to die, just so the movie can end. That was definitely the case with "Hell Night." I was literally counting how many characters are still alive, so I'd know how soon it'll all be over. Even at approximately an hour and 40 minutes, I felt the film went on way too long. That goes on to prove that a good movie is never too long and a bad movie is never too short. The acting is decent, though nothing special. But I'd rather watch a fun horror flick with bad actors than a clunker like this with decent actors. This is the only movie, besides "The Exorcist," that I've seen of Linda Blair's. Apparently, she made a consecutive series of bombs after gaining fame from that debut role. Aside from one exciting scene where one of the characters tries to climb over a pointed gate, the movie is devoid of any real thrills. Most of the scenes are composed of characters walking through dark locations for about 5 minutes before something actually happens. The movie itself has almost no originality. The score is cheesy, and so are the horrendously dated 80's hairstyles and wardrobe. Even for low-budget horror standards, this is one awful flick!

My score: 2 (out of 10)

This is definitely no masterpiece, but it is halfway decent. Considering the fact that it looks like something you'd see on Showtime late at night, it is fairly well done. And the car chases are good for a film of its budget. The acting, on the other hand, is atrocious. The very pretty Kari Wuhrer is a good actress, but the rest of the cast seem to be delivering their lines in their sleep. Brent Huff, who plays the lead, is especially horrible. He's so stonefaced that he makes Vin Diesel look like a Shakesperean actor. Other than Kari, the women aren't terribly attractive, but they have nice bodies. It's basically softcore porn. Not all these types of actresses are beauty queens. As long as their bra sizes are at least C-cups, they qualify. But unlike most of these softcore movies, there is a storyline and it is semi-interesting. And that's what makes this film adequate entertainment. Plus, as a side note, there is a Jim Wynorski in-joke that should amuse B-movie fans.

My score: 5 (out of 10)