What was “Hating Hal” about? Is it true that it was about a comic book guy who was to be played by Jason Lee? Has Kevin ever thought about trying to get it going again?

Kevin says: “I have, actually. Lately, I’ve been thinking of pitching it to another network. This was something Jason Lee and I developed, so I’d have to get his okay on it as well, but it’s not something he’d want to act in anymore. There was a tiny window post ‘Rats’ and pre-‘Amy’ when Lee was okay with the idea of doing a tv show. That window has long-since closed, and with good reason: Carsey/Werner, the folks who asked us to do a show, didn’t react very favorably to the show we wanted to do, and Lee reacted even less favorably to the shows they presented him with.”

Incidentally, ‘Hating Hal’ wasn’t what we worked on. We presented ‘Hiatus’, about a small-town guy who went to Hollywood to become and actor, wound up doing a lot or porn, then opted to leave the life behind and go back home to open a comic book store. The notion behind ‘Hating Hal’ (which was all mine) was something that was going to be incorporated into ‘Clerks 2′.

“Director Kevin Smith described Jesus as a black man in his 1999 film “Dogma,” with Chris Rock playing a black apostle whose story was erased from biblical canon by the church.”

Catch And Release

Bottom Line: Screenwriter Susannah Grant makes directing debut with rambling but good-natured rom-com.

Sure it’s better to have loved and lost than not at all, but what about loving, losing, then discovering your now-dead groom-to-be wasn’t at all who you thought he was?

That’s still not as bad as the not-at-all option, it turns out, so long as that deceased fiance left you with some true-blue pals to cushion the fall. So says “Catch and Release,” a likable romantic comedy that delivers enough laughs and star appeal to fare reasonably well in the date-movie department, even if it doesn’t entirely live up to its ambitions.

Jennifer Garner plays would-be bride Gray, whose caterers plan for a wedding but wind up feeding a collection of mourners — including two, her late fiance Grady’s housemates, who are close enough to be her brothers, and one, a shallow commercials director just in from L.A. (Timothy Olyphant), who never quite fit into this little clan but has decided to stick around a while nevertheless.

In tidying up Grady’s affairs, Gray makes some startling discoveries: He was rich and was sending someone $3,000 a month. That someone is an unmarried woman (Juliette Lewis) with a young son.

Some hurtful words and one halfhearted suicide attempt later, these developments prove a bit less disruptive than viewers might expect. The story takes place in sunny Boulder, Colo., where, one character notes, people are unnaturally happy. Indeed a strong undercurrent of peace, love and understanding runs through the film: Characters introduced as louts or floozies are soon shown to be sympathetic human beings. Even their natural enemies come to see the good in them.

In part, that appears to reflect the big-heartedness of screenwriter Susannah Grant (champion of underestimated women in “Erin Brockovich” and “In Her Shoes”), who is making her feature-directing debut. She’s sympathetic here to characters that in another film might be two-dimensional punching bags; her warmth and her eagerness to make something richer than a typical romantic comedy go a long way.

But those revelations of characters’ hidden depths also can be abrupt, particularly in the case of Olyphant’s womanizer, whose evolution into a decent guy seems to happen off camera. Grant has acknowledged that her cut of the film started at two hours and 57 minutes. While one doesn’t long for that extra hour’s reinstatement — this sweet, small story isn’t meant to be an epic, and already feels a bit long — these cuts would explain a thing or two.

If not all its narrative and emotional strands work perfectly, though, the movie has its charms. Kevin Smith, as Grady’s housemate Sam, proves he’s no one-note Silent Bob. Although wearing a tie-dyed shirt may be the biggest challenge he faces here, he fills his comic-relief duties easily and has time left over to show a little tenderness. While Smith gets most of the laughs, Garner does turn a dinner-table outburst into a comic highlight.

“At the end of the day I can only do what I can do,” Clerks 2 director-writer Kevin Smith says to L.A. Times writer Mark Olsen in a 7.16 piece. “You read a lot of reviews where people say, ‘You should stretch. He should learn to stretch as a filmmaker.’ After a dozen years now, don’t they get it? This is what I do, this is the storyteller I am.

“Do I let myself off the hook by saying, ‘I’m just not that talented?’ Probably. But also I think it’s important to know your limitations. I’ve kind of embraced mine. And I’ve had seven films’ worth of practice to figure that out.”

I don’t entirely believe this. The reason Smith is great on the college-lecture cricuit is that he’s excellent at au contraire-ing — arguing, debating, puncturing balloons. And to me that means he could write a really superb play about a GenX marriage gone bad — a latter-day “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf with a little 2006 “My Dinner with Andre” thrown in. Smith is married and has gone through some trying married-couple stuff…this has to have happened. All he has to do is put it into shape. A play first, and then a low-budget film.

Smith has said he’s too content with his life and too mild-mannered go to in this direction, but as Montgomery Clift’s Pvt. Prewittt says to Burt Lancaster’s Sgt. Warden in From Here to Eternity, “A man should be what he can do.”

One post, to cover all the bases…

The No-Name Guy wrote: “Haha… Daniel Zelter gets slammed.”

I write: Hardly. I certainly wasn’t spoiling for a fight; just correcting what I saw as misinformation (re: Hughes movies and “Fletch Won”).

Let’s not turn this into something it wasn’t, though. I’m getting too old for internet battles, y’know? In the words of the poet: “My name is Kool Rock, and I’m a lover not a fighter.”

Zac wrote: “For what it’s worth, I think it’s refreshing to hear a filmmaker…”

I write: Thanks for the props, sir.

CCA wrote: “Look at Kevin Smith breaking out both the “you direct it” (read: I work, you don’t so don’t say shit to me) AND “I’m successfull” (read: I make movies and you don’t) arguments in practically the same breath.”

I write: That wasn’t the aim, but in re-reading what I wrote, I guess it could be taken that way. It wasn’t the intention. The “You direct it” part was more tongue-in-cheek; not a throwing-down of the gauntlet. The “I’m successful” part was just pure wise-assery.

CCA also wrote: “As for your work, I’m sorry you’re content at the level you reached twelve years ago.”

I write: Gonna have to disagree with you here. If what you’re saying is that I haven’t done anything but the same movie for a dozen years, that’s just silly. “Chasing Amy” is as different from “Clerks” as “Dogma” is from “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” and “Jersey Girl”. The “level” that I’m happy with working on is simply this: I like making talky movies about relationships. That’s why I got into film in the first place: to make films of that nature.

If, however, the point you’re making is that I’ve not gone beyond those types of films, then yes – you’re right. But honestly? I’ve never aspired to.

CCA also wrote: “Not because I think you’re unfufilled or struggling but because I (me, me, me) am disapointed you haven’t delivered on the (again, as perceived by ME) promise of CLERKS.”

I write: I (ME) do appreciate you stressing that this is your opinion. The ‘net would be a much nicer place if more people took the time to do the same.

However, I don’t understand what promise you saw in “Clerks” that I never delivered on. I feel that “Clerks” promised nothing but dialogue-heavy flicks that (hopefully) make you laugh. It’s not like anyone could’ve possibly watched “Clerks” and said “One day, this guy’s gonna give us the next ‘Star Wars’.” A film about people talking about the next “Star Wars”? Sure. But I truly feel I’ve lived up to whatever unspoken promise I made/showed with “Clerks”: I still make talky, (hopefully) funny films.

CCA also wrote: “Good for you that you have a nice life writing stories and selling merchandise, God bless, but I reached the same conclusion (that you do what you do, and that’s all you’ll ever do) a long time ago. Forgive me if I — lo those many years ago — thought yor work might continue to speak to me like CLERKS did.”

I write: Can’t say much to that except that maybe “Clerks II” can do that. But if my flicks are no longer your cup of tea, I’d understand you having zero desire in checking the new one out.

Then, CCA closed with: “BTW, here’s my career advice: Do stand-up or something of that ilk, because you’re a damned entertaining speaker, son.”

I write: Thanks, man. But comedians stand before an audience and generate. All I do is answer questions.

Monty wrote: “Across all six films so far (haven’t seen Clerks 2 yet), he’s shown a marked improvement in each, both in getting even better at writing dialogue, and even better in framing a shot and moving a camera.”

I write: Careful there, Monty: you’re being too reasonable. That kinda behavior might get you kicked off the internet.

Thanks for the kind (and what I feel are true) words.

Osama wrote: “See, Smith embraces his shortcomings as a filmmaker. he knows he has very little talent and is happy with the little he can do. the rest of you American jackals should follow suit with this puny, fat man and realize you too are inferior as he admits to being.”

I write: How can someone be puny and fat at the same time?

Oh, right… my dick.

Harry Lime wrote: “Isn’t it nice for a filmmaker to get advice from message posters including the author of the website himself who have never once made a movie…”

I write: CCA had a point. It’s not like I make the flicks to put on a shelf, never to be seen. Manufacture for use. Once I put ‘em out there, I gotta expect folks will have an opinion on what I do. And sometimes, that opinion won’t be particularly pretty.

However, once folks put their opinion out there, they’ve gotta expect I might not agree with it, and might express that, from time to time: a critique of the critique, if you will.

“Tim Burton” wrote: “I make movies for a living. My movies have made WAY more money than Kevin Smith’s. I think he’s talentless. By Harry Lime’s logic, I win. End of argument.”

I write: That was more entertaining than the “Planet of the Apes” remake.

For the record, though: I think Tim Burton really is a way better filmmaker than me. I think most filmmakers are way better filmmakers than me (PTA included, naturally). Just felt I needed to put that out there, as some people seem to think that because I’ve cracked wise about my “betters” that I don’t respect what they do or their craftsmanship. Not so.

The man who started it all, Daniel Zelter, wrote: “Weren’t you making fun of Home Alone?”

I write: In “Dogma”? Yes. But like I wrote in my first post: “I’m on record as being pro-director Hughes across the boards – even ‘She’s Having a Baby’.” Maybe it’s splitting hairs, but “Home Alone” wasn’t directed by Hughes.

Daniel Zelter also wrote: “So what the f**k was Jersey Girl?”

I write: Not your brand of whimsy, I take it.

Daniel Zelter then went on to write: “And how can a guy who’s proven himself in a popular NBC sitcom not be the lead?”

I write: Sir, you’re preaching to the choir. Talk to Harvey.

Daniel Zelter then wrote: “As for Clerks 2, fine, but I would have prefered the animated film.”

I write: For the moment. Perhaps you’ll wind up liking the flick more than you currently imagine you can. I’ve been getting a lot of that from journos for the last few weeks, during the press tour. Even if you don’t, however, I appreciate you giving it a shot regardless.

Daniel Zelter wrote: “Singer was able to do both kinds of movies. I’m sure you can, too.”

I write: Brian Singer is a much better filmmaker than me, and he has an interest in making larger films. I don’t. I didn’t get into film to make bombastic flicks. I love watching flicks like that, but have zero interest in making one.

Daniel Zelter wrote further: “Actually, I’m a lot less critical than some people, because I’m a fan who just wants to see you move up like Raimi, not down like Burton.”

I write: See my Singer comment above, and swap “Raimi” for “Singer”.

The No Name guy wrote: “Jersey Girl is a good (or bad) film that had something to say about being a man and a father.”

I like your take on it, sir. Most people simply dismiss it as “Gigli 2”. I get that there are plenty folks who didn’t like the movie, but I do honestly believe that had I pulled the Stephen King/Richard Bachman switch and released that movie under a pseudonym, the reviews wouldn’t have been nearly as harsh. Sure, the box office would’ve been the same, but the flick wouldn’t have been written off with stuff like “How could the guy who made ‘Dogma’ make something this conventional and lame?” or “This is a movie Dante and Randal would’ve made fun of in ‘Clerks’.”

This has been fun. I thank all for not smelling blood in the water and turning this into an AICN Talkbacks feeding frenzy. I feel like, even though some of us disagree, we were able to do so with little bitchiness. You HE comments sections folks are alright in my book.

For Kevin Smith, the View From the Convenience Stores Is Still Askew

DUDE, if I’m wearing the Silent Bob coat when I’m 40,” Kevin Smith once told his old friend and producing partner, he should be shot. The producer, Scott Mosier, recalls this in the DVD extras for “Jersey Girl,” which Mr. Smith wrote and directed, his first attempt at a grown-up mainstream movie and a commercial fiasco. Never, never mention such deadlines, because two years later here is Kevin Smith wearing his ankle-length overcoat again to play the chain-smoking, pot-dealing sidekick Silent Bob in “Clerks II” (set to open July 21). Nearly 36 now, he seems to be violating the spirit, if not the number, of his own cutoff date.

The sequel to the no-budget Sundance discovery that started his career a dozen years ago, “Clerks II” sounds like a desperate retreat after “Jersey Girl.” But it turns out to be a shrewd career move, in which Mr. Smith takes his characters into the present and even ratchets up his own forward-looking marketing skills. He has been cultivating fans on the Web for years, using his production company’s site and his own online diary. In an ingenious new ploy, he has recorded a commentary for “Clerks II” that will be available for free download on iTunes, encouraging viewers to take their iPods to the theater for a second viewing. (Eventually the commentary will also be available on the official movie site, clerks2.com.)

He hasn’t let go of the juvenile wardrobe that so often reflects his humor; he even wore his trademark short pants to the opening of “Clerks II” at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. But the film itself, and the extended standing ovation it got after that midnight Cannes screening (preserved, naturally, in a video clip on the “Clerks II” site), suggest that his movies are not just for adolescent boys, and never were.

The original “Clerks” offered a distinctive new voice lackadaisical but distinctive and is still surprisingly funny. Dante and Randal (Brian O’Halloran and Jeff Anderson), two unambitious convenience-store clerks in New Jersey, fritter away their day talking about women, sex and movies, while the stoners Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob stand outside, and outrageous disasters occasionally intrude. (A man dies in the darkened restroom, and Dante’s ex-girlfriend mistakenly has sex with the corpse.) Shot in gritty, cheap black and white, the film has a meandering story, unprintable dialogue and low-key attitude that pointed toward later cult hits like “Office Space” and “South Park.”

In the six films Mr. Smith has made since, his gifts have become clearer: he is terrific at irreverence, as in the “Clerks” movies and the underrated “Dogma” (1999); he can be awful at emotional sincerity, as in “Jersey Girl” and the weaker parts of “Chasing Amy” (1997).

It’s not enough for the new “Clerks” to be irreverent, though, or to mark a return to safer low-budget filmmaking ($5 million to make, compared with $35 million for “Jersey Girl,” which took in just a bit more than $25 million). The sequel feels fresh because Mr. Smith is not simply recycling. He does recycle and refer to his own work, a lot. Main characters from one film pop up in small roles in others, and Jay and Silent Bob appear in every one except “Jersey Girl.” Together Mr. Smith’s films constitute their own little world known to fans as the View Askewniverse, after his production company, View Askew.

Even in this off-kilter universe, adolescence can’t last forever. In the new film Dante and Randal, played by the same actors as before, are 33 and look it. They still work at the Quick Stop and the adjacent video store, but when a fire destroys the building, they get jobs at a burger place called Mooby’s, the elaborately cow-themed fast-food chain glimpsed in earlier Smith films. “Clerks II” acknowledges right away that this is pathetic, because we see Dante (always the more responsible) about to move on. He is heading to Florida to get married, even though he is in love with another woman, his Mooby’s manager (Rosario Dawson).

The trick, as in all sequels, is to nudge the characters forward without actually making them different. So the film places its slightly evolved heroes in the familiar “Clerks” world, where history means old girlfriends, and culture is old movies. A new character, Elias (Trevor Fehrman), is a Mooby’s employee as young and unambitious as the original clerks used to be. Holding up an onion ring, he announces, “One ring to rule them all,” which sets off a typical Smith conversation about the original “Star Wars” trilogy versus “Lord of the Rings.”

Mr. Smith has cooked up even more Web-based schemes to promote the sequel. He is running a contest to see who can place the “Clerks II” banner on the most other Web sites; the winner gets a walk-on role in a future View Askew movie. The site includes behind-the-scenes videos and interviews under the rubric “Train Wreck.” He even changed the film’s working title, “The Passion of the Clerks,” because Web feedback told him fans thought it was a one-note joke (as if Silent Bob isn’t, but that’s another question).

Dante’s romantic predicament is resolved in “Clerks II,” but that doesn’t get in the way of Mr. Smith’s unique voice. For one thing, this route to happily-ever-after moves through a scene about sex with a donkey. It was the absence of his irreverent attitude that doomed “Jersey Girl,” not some post-”Gigli” curse of Bennifer. (Remember Bennifer? The old Brangelina?) Ben Affleck plays a man whose wife played by Jennifer Lopez , then his fiancée dies early in the film, leaving him to raise their daughter. He moves back to New Jersey, where Mr. Smith’s heart so clearly is, to live with his father (George Carlin).

Mr. Smith had married and had a daughter by the time of “Jersey Girl,” and has often suggested that the film is a valentine to family life. O.K., if he says so. But that personal attachment to the themes didn’t translate; the film is so generic, it could have been made by any writer or director for hire. It’s good that he has gotten the sincere family-man stuff out of his system, at least on screen.

A more blatant family dynamic feeds into “Clerks II.” Mr. Smith’s wife, Jennifer Schwalbach, plays Dante’s fiancée, and their nearly 7-year-old daughter has a cameo as a girl looking out a restaurant window, wearing the same red-ribboned pigtails that Silent Bob wears in one scene. Their daughter is named Harley Quinn (also the name of a harlequin-costumed villain from the Batman comics), so you have to hope she has inherited a sense of humor. (Mr. Smith was ahead of his time in oddball baby naming, though, beating the Apple-Suri-Shiloh phase by years.)

In earlier works too when Mr. Smith came at emotions directly, the effect was artificial. In “Chasing Amy” Mr. Affleck’s character falls madly in love with a lesbian, only to flee when he discovers she has also had a wild sex life with men. “Chasing Amy” still offers a window onto the way men talk about women, and men and women talk to one another, with blunt dialogue rarely heard in movies. But the film falls apart whenever the conversation turns sincere.

“Dogma,” his most ambitious and idea-driven film, may be a better indication of where Mr. Smith can go. Mr. Affleck and Matt Damon play angels trying to get back into heaven, and they are surrounded by other deliciously unlikely characters who descend on New Jersey, including Alan Rickman as the voice of God, Alanis Morissette as God Herself and Chris Rock as Rufus, the 13th apostle, who was cut out of the gospels because he’s black. The film even has a proto-”Da Vinci Code” moment when an ordinary woman named Bethany (Linda Fiorentino) learns she is the descendant of one of Jesus’ siblings. “You make it sound like there’s some church conspiracy to cover up the truth about Christ,” she says suspiciously. Steeped in faith but skeptical of organized religion, “Dogma” proves that Mr. Smith who regularly and unironically puts God a the top of his thank-you list in his films’ closing credits is often best when laughing about the things he loves.

He has gotten past early misfires, like “Mallrats” (1995). And “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” (2001), in which the pair travel to Hollywood, is for Smith cultists only; for anyone else a little Jay and Bob is plenty. A more recent bad sign is Mr. Smith’s stint appearing in “Roadside Attractions,” a series of supposedly wacky on-the-road segments on the “Tonight” show. You can’t get more conventional or middle-aged than “Tonight”; next thing you know he’ll be wearing long pants. But for now the voice and spirit behind “Clerks II” are as brash and unmistakable as ever.