My real problem with Kevin Smith is that he's just a sub-sub-par writer!

His work would be considered mediocre if he were writing for a basic cable TV show -- and yet critics keep praising his work! I just checked the Yahoo! movies critics scorecard and their giving Clerks 2 a B+ fer crissake!

Kevin Smith has fallen into the Geroge Lucas Syndrome. As we all know George Lucas CAN'T write! There have actually be petition on the internet begging him not to write Star Wars 3 because his poor writing, plotting and ham-fisted charcaterizations always ruin what would otherwise be a great movie in a more skilled writers hands.

Kevin Smith has great ideas for movies, even brilliant IDEAS for movies -- but the man can't write to save his life. The problem is that most first year film students have great ideas and can't write, but they don't get $20 million a film. I just cannot understand why someone who can't write gets so much praise.

Let's review the Kevim Smith Hack Writers Playbook for making movies:

Hack element #1

Jay & Silent Bob. The whole "stoners find religion" or the "stoner is really wise" that Kevin loves to trot out is hack. The most recent example would be in "You, Me & Dupree" A movie that got horrible reviews -- most notably because the whole Dupree charcater was considered a hack sterotype devoid of anything really interesting.

Hack element #2

Hero is set to marry women he doesn't truly love because she's beautiful and could secure his future. This is the basic "plot" of Clerks 2. This story line is older than the Bible, so we can forgive Kevin for using this ancient plotline. But, as moviegoers, why don't we find it offensive (artistically) that once again a film maker has written sterotype girl #1 that the audience is supposed to hate and then written sterotype girl #2 that the audience is supposed to love? Is it really a "risk" or even surprising or original for Dante to fall in love with Rosario Dawson's character?? She was written specifically for the audience to love her, specifically for all of Dante's friends to love her and specifically for Dante to love her. Yawn.

Wouldn't it have been more daring for a filmmaker to create a character that the audience and the supporting characters DON'T particularly like? Can you imagine what Clerks 2 would have been like as a film if instead of genetically perfect Rosario Dawson they had cast some overweight actress? Or, heaven forbid, an obviously unattractive actress? And instead of being "obviously perfect" for Dante the audience and the supporting cast of characters couldn't see why Dante liked her at all, let alone loved her? And maybe, just maybe the film could challenging enough to have many people leaving the theatre still not sure why Dante passed on the blonde hottie and the easy dough for the fat girl working at the fast food place?

We didn't get that kind of complex film making in Clerks 2 or from ANYTHING Kevin Smith has done. What we got was Hot "Obviously Wrong" girl #1 being rejected in favor of Hot "Obviously Right" girl #2.

Hack element #3

The "gross" sex scene being the backdrop for the "sweet and tender" scene.

This scene is hack because juxtaposing the "gross" with the "sweet & tender" has been done since the silent film era -- but I certainly wouldn't pay Kevin Smith 20 million for writing a script that includes scenes like that that ANY first year film student could write. How was it in anyway an "original" or even interesting take on a tired idea that we've all seen dozens of times before?

This kind of hack work is actually something of a Kevin Smith trademark. It goes back to films such as DOGMA.

Making the descendent of the Virgin Mary work in an abortion clinic. (Just doing the "opposite" of what the character should be like doesn't necessarily make it original or even unpredictable -- or enough to carry a plot. In fact, you'll see that almost ALL of Kevin Smith's ideas invlove just doing the opposite of what is traditional or expected. But just doing the opposite isn't exactly original or interesting.)

There was a 13th apostle! (hack concept #1) And he was black! (hack concept #2) And he has a crazy name like Rufus (hack concept #3) And he talks all jive and hip not at all like those uptight white folks in the Bible! (hack concept #4)

The whole "god as simpleton" concept. HACK! You can just see Kevin Smith brainstorming this unoriginal idea.

"Since the audience will expect God to be a man we'll do the opposite and make it a woman! And they, like, you know, expect God to be all proper, and we'll put God in cowboy boots and a tutu and have her do cartwheels! Cause that's, like, the total opposite of what we think of God being like, right? And they expect God to be really deep and serious...and...and...we'll do the opposite and have her be like all quiet and run around like a silly person and sniff flowers! Oh and the angles! Man, we'll, like, have them be really improper and we'll have one that drinks tequila because that's, like, the opposite of what people expect!"

Yawn.

Just doing the opposite of what is stereotypical is still....stereotypical, isn't it? It certainly can't be considered original, can it?

How is this writing worth $20 million?

ANY film students (or semi-talented high schooler) can come up with the ideas Smith uses in movies like Dogma and Clerks 2.