I still think there was no need for a third "Clerks" film. The second part was actually a satisfying conclusion for Dante and Randal (Brian O'Halloran and Jeff Anderson). However, I can't really blame Kevin Smith for digging up the characters from his debut film again, almost 30 years later. After his own heart attack, Smith obviously had something to say again. The result is a film that is clearly less humorous but much more melancholic than its two predecessors. I hardly ever laughed, but the film did pull me in emotionally.

Acting-wise, O'Halloran and Anderson are still mostly underwhelming. An exception are the scenes they share together as a duo. In these, their chemistry makes for convincing drama. The supporting characters, on the other hand, disappear into the background anyway. The closest thing to a proper supporting role is Trevor Fehrman as Quick Stop employee Elias, and he's really annoying. He also talks way too much about NFTs and cryptocurrency for my liking. Meanwhile, Rosario Dawson is good again, but she only plays a small role.

All in all, I would say that "Clerks III" is really only for connoisseurs and fans of the first two films. For them, the film can work as a nostalgic throwback to their own youth. This time it's about themes like getting older and dying, and accordingly, it's all gloomy. Accordingly, this is not a "happy" end to the series, but at least it is a fitting one. Those who were satisfied with the end of "Clerks II" can certainly ignore the third part.

I guess Kevin Smith is irrelevant.

But, as the Dark Knight pointed out "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." I guess Smith live long enough.

Chasing Amy was always my favorite, but Clerks and Mall Rats were classics, Clerks II was pretty hysterical, Dogma (especially if you are Catholic like me) is absolutely cutting and brilliantly so. Jay and Silent Bob... to much of the side characters, but at the end of the day they all had something in common...

... they all cut into fandoms in only the way that fans, legit come to the comic book store every Wednesday, know what Diamond Distribution is fans of geek fandoms can completely and hysterically criticize the things they love.

He even cut into the original Star Wars. It was Geek Counter Culture and we loved every minute of it.

Clerks III has NONE OF THAT. Smith used to criticize pop culture, and now that he's part of it, his scripts don't work. They lost their edge. The brilliance of his early work has faded to the land of sell outs.

Now you are more likely to see him weep over a bad Star Wars movie in an obvious shill than you are to see him make jokes about how many innocent construction workers died in the second Death Star.

And when he stopped being able to take apart fandom's and playfully make jabs at them, when he stopped criticizing pop culture and started to shill for it, he became irrelevant.

There is no need to watch Clerks III, everything that made the first two... that made most of his early work great is absent in this on.

The original Clerks came out when I was 6 years old. By the time I got around to watching it, no doubt I missed a lot regarding its appeal. I was working in a movie theater when Clerks II came out, having never seen the first the whole way through, and remember it as being one of the funniest movie theater experiences I've ever had. I was in tears, the theater was packed, and it was loud with so many laughing. I rank it among best theater experiences like seeing Jackass for the first time, and when Juggernaut said, "Do you know who I am?" where moments later I'm high-fiving strangers sitting around me as we cheer. I've seen a good portion of Kevin Smith's work, and while I know it's technically comedy, I don't find myself seeking out his creative voice for laughs.

Kevin Smith is sincere. His draw is how much he actually cares about the subject matter he's speaking about. Whether it's Comic Book Men, or making sure The Impractical Jokers make cameos, he likes his people, he connects, and he wants those in his circles to keep feeling included. I find that incredibly compelling. This movie was great because it shows you that you can genuinely appreciate your past without turning it into some lazy mockery for a few more nostalgia bucks. If this would have come out before the overwhelming wave of reboots and sequels, we could have continued to point to what's been missing.

I watch a lot of media sped up. I don't find what a lot of creators say that interesting, novel, or real. I didn't want to speed this up. I wanted to be awash in the connections as I think they feel them that I don't really have. This depiction of family isn't some hokey Fast & The Furious thing or belabored sentimentality that never transcends narrative clunky cliches. This family grows and evolves together. I'm jealous and sad. Great job.

**A worthy end to a franchise that took a while to captivate my interest.**

I didn't like the first film very much, as I even mentioned in the text I wrote for it. However, I was able to enjoy the sequel, and although this film is not as good as it is, it ends up being able to give a decent ending to the trilogy: Dante and Randal continue to run their shop, and both are haunted by heart diseases, the result of of the bad life habits they had. After recovering from a heart problem, Randal decides to make an autobiographical film based on his professional experience.

The movie was specially thought for Clerks fans. There is no concern about attracting new audiences or pleasing the general public, it is felt from the beginning that it is a film designed to close a larger work, not to give it continuity. The greatest proof of this turns out to be the omnipresence of metaphysical themes, such as illness, religion, death and what happens after it. The characters are the same as usual, and the film even has some special appearances (as had been customary in previous films), and there is nothing surprising in what they do or say.

The cast remains the same, with Brian O'Halloran and Jeff Anderson pontificating and dominating everything with a remarkable job, very well done. Next to them are Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith, who have an important part in the most hilarious scenes. And although Rosario Dawson has a good capacity and talent for comedy, her character takes on a much more dramatic and profound facet here, which gave the film greater emotion.

It's quite fun to try and spot the famous names who pepper this otherwise puerile and really rather unfunny film - but that was about it for me. It's all about a "Dante" (Brian O'Halloran) and "Elias" (Trevor Fehrman) who run a small-town store. They spend much of their day quoting lines from their favourite films until poor old "Elias" has an heart attack. Whisked to hospital, his friends decide to make a film about life in their convenience store. What now ensues may well offer us an isight into just how a sudden medical emergency can focus the attention and motivate people, but I just found the references either too in-your-face or absurdly obscure and contrived. Perhaps this will rate better in the USA, but here in the UK this just comes across as a rather sad indictment of rural life where it's all about weed and dumb wheezes. It is extremely difficult to marry the threads of humour and tragedy. Dark humour, in my view, is the hardest to write and play well - and I am afraid that nobody here really carries it off with much distinction. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood, but I didn't hear anyone else in the cinema laughing either. Not for me, sorry.