|
Directed by: Terry Zwigoff Starring: Max Minghella, Sophia Myles, Matt Keeslar, John Malkovich I didn't have really high expectations (I expected goofiness) for this movie but I assumed that, as Daniel Clowes himself wrote it, it would have the same sense of humor found in the the original comic. It does, in parts; but to be honest, if you saw the previews for this movie you probably saw all of the best parts already. I have to give Clowes credit; he realized that, while the original stuff was funny, you couldn't just make a movie about moron art students with no real plot. I think the problem is just that he overthought the whole thing. It could have been a pretty funny movie with lots of potshots at art students with a sappy romantic subplot and frankly I probably would have walked away happy. Instead, he added in another subplot that the previews neglect to mention. The "strangler" bit (I'm not spoiling anything since they're very up front about this from the beginning) could be funny too, and it often is, but ultimately it really bogs down the plot. What could have been a fun, funny movie lasted longer than it should have because there were loose ends to wrap up regarding the strangler plot, and while the idea itself is humorous the execution just didn't work for me. So again, I feel for Clowes here. He wanted to supply a little more content but I feel like he overcompensated by a mile. Stripping away the extra subplot might have made things a little more trite, but it's a movie lampooning art students- it's trite anyway. Better to be overly silly and possibly pointless than tedious and drawn out. Minghella annoyed me a bit as the lead as well but I suppose that's just because his character is an rear end and an idiot anyway. Jim Broadbent seemed a little misused to me here; I like him in general but hoped for more-- same with Malkovich. I think it's still worth seeing even if you're not a fan of Clowes or his work, but the previews are definitely misleading. It's a comedy/drama, not a straight up comedy. RATING: 2 PROS: Has very funny moments CONS: Additional subplot loses audience, bogs down film ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364955/
|
#
?
May 13, 2006 09:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
First off this is from the writer of Ghost World, so if you didn't consider that a goofy comedy, you probably shouldn't expect this to be a goofy comedy either. This is a movie ripe with black humor yes, but a it's heart is a movie about having one's dreams destroyed by the hosed up expectations of others. Plot: Jerome has spent his life wanting to be the next Picasso and hopes that Strathmore University will help him along that path. Instead he finds an inept faculty, a student body obsessed with being abstract and an art community so jaded and insular that the only work that gets their attention is the comicly pedestrian. As a former art major (dropped out after a year) this film struck a chord with me. From the self obsessed instructors to the artist who recieves accolades for drawing pictures of cars and tanks, these are all things that I encountered and eventually burned me out. Don't get me wrong, there is some hilarious poo poo in here, but at its core you're seeing a movie about a kid (Jerome) with all the talent in the world get his guts ripped and his plans stomped on (In a hilarious way). As for the aforementioned "Stathmore Strangler" subplot. It fits into the plot perfectly and allows the movie to to go slightly film noir in the second half, hence the title: Art School Confidential. With a title like that, you should be wise enough not to expect 'Old School' or 'Van Wilder' style humor. If you're looking for more formulaic bullshit "it could have been like Super Troopers, but at art school. that would've been awsome" go rent 'Waiting'. Pros: Great story, great cast (John Malkovich, Steve Buschemi, Anjelica Huston, Jim Broadbent), sympathetic lead, dead on satire of the art world, awsomely dark, great humor, should be required for anyone thinking about being an art major, R rated (nudity and swearing, ahoy!) Cons: most of the characters lack any depth, the police are more irritating than funny, the ending will be too much of a downer for most. Score 5.5/5 Rowsdourmobile fucked around with this message at 17:08 on May 14, 2006 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2006 16:39
|
|
|
I saw this with a friend yesterday and I must say that I was really impressed with the first half of the movie. The second half however didn't fare quite as well in my eyes. At the beginning of the movie, it was exactly like the previews portrayed it to be, a straight up comedy. Then towards the middle the sub-plot started to take shape and it became a dark comedy (just take out the comedy). I don't see why they had to use the sub-plot, because the story was good the way it was. I would've been fine with it if it would've continued on the standard boy wants girl format. The comedy at the beginning, and the main supporting character (the sarcastic, critical one) was great. The sub-plot just completely took this movie off track, and it started to lose my interest. All in all, it wasn't a bad movie, but it was very average. I wasn't expecting it to be Ghost World (far from it actually), but I did expect it to be both smart and funny (and for a while there, it was). If you like previous Terry Zwigoff flicks, you'll probably like this though (same with Daniel Clowes). 2 stars out of 4 Pros- the first half is hilarious, and hits the stereotypes right on the nose. Cons- the main character is whiny and annoying, sub-plot really takes away from the movie, they get away from the comedy half way in.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2006 21:17
|
|
|
It was pretty much what I expected... a pseudo-comedy. However, it comes with a healthy hunk of drama thrown in. As alluded to before, if you have seen "Ghost World" and thought it was a comedy, then this movie was the same. If you thought of it as a drama, then this was a drama as well [don't go in expecting the movies to be one in the same though]. The first half of the movie is pretty much straight-comedy, without a single doubt. The second half still has comedic elements but takes a much more dramatic turn. As one who has taken many studio-art courses, I could relate to the frustration having to do with criticism during critique. Not so much frustration with negative review, but moreso frustration with a lack of review whatsoever. The stereotypes are perfect and the different "types" of art students in a studio class were illustrated perfectly. The cast is fantastic, aside from the annoying lead and the fact that some others lack "character" - Steve Buscemi and John Malkovich are brilliant. As stated before, unfortunately, the main problem I had with this film was with the "Stathmore Strangler" sub-plot. It honestly started to annoy me and I was very displeased with the ending. 3.5/5 and that is being rather generous.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2006 05:33
|
|
|
What the hell has gotten into Terry Zwigoff? Terry used to be known for making unique and interesting motion pictures. This film is neither unique nor interesting. Art School Confidential is a rehash of every gag that you've seen about art or film school. Artists are weird, Some art doesn't make sense, an outsider can often do well. To add to this, he's decided to go and take every college joke that's been done a thousand times before and rehash that as well. Mix those two things together and you get a tedious, unfunny movie that plods and plods and plods through so many uninteresting subplots and unfunny jokes. Not since Bridge Jones The Edge of Reason have I hated a movie as much in theatres.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2006 10:22
|
|
|
Much like Dan Clowes comics, Dan Clowes movies are both dramatic and comedic. If you like Dan Clowes you will either like or hate this movie, but probably not love it (love should be reserved for the first Zwigoff/Clowes movie). What did you expect, given the source material? Unlike the finely-tuned character study of Ghost World, the A.S.C. comic was simply a portraiture of the different zany characters one meets at Art School. And you had to expect a huge "sub"plot thrown in (Dan Clowes uses plot as a vehicle to drive his characters, not the other way around), but even though it may seem haphazard, crime mysteries are so very Clowes. Ultimately, what wins me over the most is that Zwigoff and Clowes manage to tread in the same territory as Ghost World without being repetitive. An inside joke for art school students, a treat for Dan Clowes fans. I loved it. 4.5/5 KATATA FISH fucked around with this message at 22:51 on May 23, 2006 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2006 22:39
|
|
|
What a horrible horrible movie. All the same cliches over and over and over again, and the stupid forced plot ... it was truly painful to watch. 1/5
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2006 00:37
|
|
|
It was all right. Inflating "Art School Confidential", which was originally a FOUR-PAGE story in an early issue of Eightball, into a full-length film is even more of a stretch than the innumerable paddings of five-minute SNL skits into feature films. I actually expected a bit more in the art-school stereotype department (Where was "Mr. Phantasy?" We saw the poodle-haired hippie artist's model, but where was his overly hirsute girlfriend?) and felt like some of the characters were stretched pretty thin, thrown in to provide just a couple of gags. But personally, I liked the ending. One could theorize that getting arrested for the murders was the main character's intention in the first place--after all, he did notice the dead girl's ID (at least the camera noticed it) and other personal effects attached to the painting. That interpretation turns what might have just been a plot hole (how could he have failed to notice the dead girl's ID and other hints that these were the strangler's victims?) into an even blacker comedy--especially since you don't see the main character smoking until he "accidentally" knocks the lit cigarette onto the floor in the old artist's apartment. It worked as black comedy. I didn't go to art school but know enough artists (and enough art scenes) to appreciate the situations. Jetrock fucked around with this message at 22:47 on May 31, 2006 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2006 22:21
|
|
|
Saw this on DVD finally. I felt like the film got a pretty bad rap from critics who may not have gotten it. There was a lot to enjoy here; the stereotypes were played sarcastically well and had the effect of working as a messy satire. But Zwigoff's a love-him-or-hate-him kind of director. I mean, how many critics shat on "Bad Santa" undeservedly? There's a nice degree of depth to it, but in the end, the plotline kind of worked against it. On an unrelated note, I would've given my right arm to see Ethan Suplee dressed up like Kevin Smith for more than 30 seconds. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2006 10:39
|
|
|
I laughed a lot while watching this. Far from being a perfect film, but they really nailed the teachers - contradictory, kooky, and cynical. It's just too bad the characters were a bit dull. The visual style wasn't anything impressive, unlike ghost world. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2008 15:55
|
|
|
I had lofty expectations for this to be another misbegotten five-star gem swept under the rug by a poor marketing campaign and a studio of little faith in the product. It wasn't. Zwigoff's direction is a little clumsy (there were a couple of really jarring edits early in the film that seem amateur for such an established auteur), and the script is all over the place. But much like Jerome (Max Minghella), there is something very humanistic to its failures -- it has the right ideas, and it really wants to make them work. It's just...flawed. Is the story half as clever as the satire? No, in fact it's rather obvious. But the satire is superb -- not just on art schools, and art students, but the entire post-secondary experience. The teachers especially, just spot on. With a little more focus, this could have been a classic, and while it does fall quite short of the mark, it's still an entertaining watch. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2008 11:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Boy I sure love it when comedies aren't funny. Well, that's unfair. The first half is hilarious, especially if you've ever been into any kind of "art scene," be it high school, college or secondary. We've all met these people, and they've never really had a good, honest send-up on the big screen, so I enjoyed the first half of this movie. The second half comes out of left field and hooboy! Here's where you lose all interest. The characters immediately start acting out of character. It is no longer even remotely funny, though you get the feeling it's trying to be. It tries to get "dark," only to succeed about as well as a fat Hot Topic goth chick who tries to scare you by opening her eyes too wide at you and talking about how she reads serial killer biographies on the internet. Every decision made by the main character is the dumbest possible one. The pace drags excruciatingly, and the movie finishes with you thinking "Wow, what the gently caress were they thinking?" The movie's flaws are all the worse for its successes early on, causing you to be significantly more disappointed than if it sucked the whole way through. Even if they started with the movie being all scary-noir-style or whatever, at least you could have gotten on board and enjoyed it for being that kind of movie. When a film tries to do the bait and switch, though, is when I get pissed off. Especially when they wait til halfway through the movie to go "Oh, hey, by the way, you're seeing a completely different movie. Too late to leave now!" 1/5
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2008 11:52
|
|
