If the first Clerks was a mumblecore experiment and the second Clerks was a more rounded film feeding on the love for the first, the third is a loving goodbye to the series. I like that each film in turn was different from the one before, but fully acknowledging its existence. One might not see it immediately, but there are few situations like this, where the sequels are not just cash grabbing opportunities, clones of whatever came before, but evolutions of both story and characters. Clerks didn't really have a story to begin with, so anything is an evolution from there, though, right?
OK, trolling aside, I loved Clerks III. It wasn't perfect by any means, a bit too meta (why does everything have to be meta these days?!) and I felt like Kevin Smith inserted himself as a filmmaker in the story a bit too much. Also some changing of pace and character development was way too abrupt. However, for someone having seen (and grown up with) the other films, it felt like a bittersweet farewell to an old friend.
Bottom line: if you haven't seen the other movies, it makes no sense to watch this one, but if you did and you enjoyed them, I can't see how you're not going to like the end of the trilogy.
OK, trolling aside, I loved Clerks III. It wasn't perfect by any means, a bit too meta (why does everything have to be meta these days?!) and I felt like Kevin Smith inserted himself as a filmmaker in the story a bit too much. Also some changing of pace and character development was way too abrupt. However, for someone having seen (and grown up with) the other films, it felt like a bittersweet farewell to an old friend.
Bottom line: if you haven't seen the other movies, it makes no sense to watch this one, but if you did and you enjoyed them, I can't see how you're not going to like the end of the trilogy.