Before Kevin Smith became a Hollywood darling with Chasing Amy, a film he wrote and directed, he made this $27,000 comedy about real-life experiences working for chump change... read more

Before Kevin Smith became a Hollywood darling with Chasing Amy, a film he wrote and directed, he made this $27,000 comedy about real-life experiences working for chump change at a New Jersey convenience store. A rude, foul-mouthed collection of anecdotes about the responsibilities that go with being on the wrong side of the till, the film is also a relationship story that takes some hilarious turns once the lovers start revealing their sexual histories to one another. In the best tradition of first-time, ultra-low budget independent films, Smith uses Clerks as an audition piece, demonstrating that he not only can handle two-character comedy but also has an eye for action--as proven in a smoothly handled rooftop hockey scene. Smith himself appears as a silent figure who hangs out on the fringes of the store's property. --Tom Keogh (hide)

Even death itself can't bring the savage games of Jigsaw to an end, as Saw IV proves; if anything, the fiendishly clever serial killer (once again played by... read more

Even death itself can't bring the savage games of Jigsaw to an end, as Saw IV proves; if anything, the fiendishly clever serial killer (once again played by Tobin Bell) is equally capable of dealing out violent death while lying on a morgue slab as he was in life. Saw IV also offers a class reunion of characters from the previous three films, each once again up to their necks in Jigsaw's schemes. Chief among them is Sgt. Rigg (Lyriq Bent) from Saw II, who must place himself in Jigsaw's shoes in order to rescue Detective Matthews (Donnie Walhberg), who was abducted by the killer at the end of Saw II, and Forensic Hoffman (Costas Mandylor from Saw III), from another elaborate murder device. Meanwhile, FBI agents led by Scott Patterson (Gilmore Girls, Aliens in America) attempt to track Rigg as he carries out Jigsaw's horrific notion of justice from beyond the grave. Casual horror fans may find the endless puzzles and relentless nihilism of the Saw series wearing thin with this fourth entry, but the franchise's key selling points--the Sadean excesses of Jigsaw's macabre creations--remain as bloody and unsettling as ever. --Paul Gaita (hide)

It was inevitable that Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut would be the most misunderstood film of 1999. Kubrick died four months prior to its release, and there was... read more

It was inevitable that Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut would be the most misunderstood film of 1999. Kubrick died four months prior to its release, and there was no end to speculation how much he would have tinkered with the picture, changed it, "fixed" it. We'll never know. But even without the haunting enigma of the director's death--and its eerie echo/anticipation in the scene when Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) visits the deathbed of one of his patients--Eyes Wide Shut would have perplexed and polarized viewers and reviewers. After all, virtually every movie of Kubrick's post-U.S. career had; only 1964's Dr. Strangelove opened to something approaching consensus. Quite apart from the author's tinkering, Kubrick's movies themselves always seemed to change--partly because they changed us, changed the world and the ways we experienced and understood it. And we may expect Eyes Wide Shut to do the same. Unlike Kubrick himself, it has time.

So consider, as we settle in to live with this long, advisedly slow, mesmerizing film, how challenging and ambiguous its narrative strategy is. The source is an Arthur Schnitzler novella titled Traumnovelle (or "Dream Story"), and it's a moot question how much of Eyes Wide Shut itself is dream, from the blue shadows frosting the Harfords' bedroom to the backstage replica of New York's Greenwich Village that Kubrick built in England. Its major movement is an imaginative night-journey (even the daylight parts of it) taken by a man reeling from his wife's teasing confession of fantasized infidelity, and toward the end there is a token gesture of the couple waking to reality and, perhaps, a new, chastened maturity. Yet on some level--visually, psychologically, logically--every scene shimmers with unreality. Is everything in the movie a dream? And if so, who is dreaming it at any given moment, and why?

Don't settle for easy answers. Kubrick's ultimate odyssey beckons. And now the dream is yours. --Richard T. Jameson (hide)