PimpinAinttEasy Dear Terry Zwigoff, Art School Confidential was a hilarious film. I have never been to art school so I don't think I got all the jokes. I also know nothing about paintings or modern art. But this film about shy and self absorbed young artist (Max Minghella) and his life at an art school where he meets many eccentric characters, falls in love and his desperate and felonious attempts to achieve fame are as dark and entertaining as Enid's battle against phony's and dullards in Ghost World. Daniel Clowes really packs it in with the jokes and the social commentary. I cannot think of a single unremarkable scene in the whole film. Every single scene is worth watching over and over again. The supporting cast was astonishingly brilliant. Jim Broadbent deserves special mention. I often rewatch the scenes which he appears in. The part where he calls for a plague to wipe off the human race was very well written and acted. The character who is so disillusioned with the state of the human race that he has to murder people for inspiration was very interesting. Adam Scott as the prickly successful artist had one of the best scenes in the whole film. Jeanette Brox was terrific as the irritable and shabbily dressed Milo. Joel David Moore as the lazy art student was the perfect foil for Max Minghella's's tenacious lead character. There were so many other brilliant bit players in the film. I could recognize most of these actors if they appeared in other films. That is how good they were. Art School Confidential, like Ghost World is one of those films where you feel like the characters are your close friends and you can empathize with their plight in the face of a cruel and indifferent world. Best Regards, Pimpin. (10/10)

boneugen This film should have rang my "wise-ass" sensor alert from the very first second, and it actually did, but I preferred to sit through this whole jazz only because it was based on Daniel Clowes' Eightball story with the same name. I loved the 20th Century Eightball book with Clowes' early stories, despite some kiddish stances and statements - I guessed it was Clowes' intent to somehow parody his own tendencies of being too smart for its own sake, and I loved it. That is why I strongly believe that people who haven't been exposed to the comic story will either hate this film's guts, either like it more than it should actually deserve. I could've been more disappointed, but every now and then the film would remind me of the tone of the original story.The first negative aspect that comes to mind is the fact that the movie has got a real protagonist, a sensitive boy that renders the whole production cornier than it should be allowed. Clowes' story was more of a vignette, true, but more often than not, even when it seems the most egocentric, Clowes' writing discards the sentimental bits and presents structures and patterns that suppress the individual. Sure, those are obvious here too and ring true to the "you can't win" mindset of the art school freshman that kisses the ground way too quickly, but with incorrigibly high-school characters popping in (the movie guy and the "class d-bag" line?) everything gets too juvenile, and Malkovich and Buscemi's performances, as nice and professional as they are, can't push the whole plot forward.Then, the crime/art shtick pulled towards the end of the movie: I've seen Scarlet Street and A Bucket of Blood - the first one works much better as a melodramatic masterpiece and the second one is much better conceived from a comedic standpoint than Art School Confidential. Yes, a 1959 B-movie is funnier AND more subtle than this 2006 production. Or Natural Born Killers, which addresses the transformation of serial murderers into media icons way earlier and more efficiently than Zwigoff's movie...I can't consider this a bad movie, but it loses a lot by recycling clichés in order to "add" (?!) to the appeal of the story and adopting a cheap drama line in the second half. Sure, while there are productions where the drama of a single person can be presented in a truly impressive manner, this film didn't succeed in doing so. Quite a mediocre movie, probably not going to watch it any time soon.

shaunephillips28 So there seems to be a lot of debate amongst people who have watched this movie. Some say the movie completely changes half way through, others say those people just don't get that the movie is the ultimate jab at the art world today. I myself completely believe it abandons what made the movie good in the first place. Don't get me wrong I get what the movie was going for in the end, but I'm sorry if this movie is supposed to be the ultimate jab at how the art world works today then the movie is completely full of itself. Of course from the early parts of the movie there is hints that the movie could move into darker places and the movie was poking fun at the art world from the start, but give me a break. The way this movie goes from a funny black comedy and just completely turns dark half way through is an insult to the viewer because it abandons why people liked the movie in the first place. Now I get that the mood changes because Jerome's idea of art and the world around him changes, but there is ways to convey that message without removing the sarcastic/funny edge. In all honesty if the whole idea of this movie was to get to the dark ending, then the first half of the movie should of been more in line with the last half. I feel like 2 different people made this movie and never consulted each other on what they were doing. One half seems to be a funny "haha" jab at how stupid the art world can be and the last half feels like a big F U! to the art world. Funny thing is that I watched this movie with my partner who is a painter and he loved how the movie poked fun at all the dumb things he had to go through at art school, but when the movie went completely dark he said and I quote "that last half was f*cking stupid".I do think people should watch this movie, but just beware to not get caught up in the funny side because you'll be disappointed.Oh yeah, I should also mention that the love story plays a pivotal role in this movie which you'll see when you watch it. But!!! no matter how much the love story is integral to the whole story, it does not excuse the movie going from a black comedy about art, school, love and life to entirely dark.I could really say so much more because there are things I didn't mention, but just go watch it and come to your own conclusions.

rooprect For the first half hour, I thought this was going to be a slightly artistic version of "American Pie", "Back to School" or the standard freshman college romp. But slowly, strangely the story deepens, darkens and widens until by the end it has completely transformed itself into a stunning commentary about the human condition.Most of the laughs are up front, and even so, they're not real zingers so much as they are low-key situational humour (like in a John Cusack film). As the outer layers of this film are peeled away, we see that it becomes more of a macabre mystery, and ultimately it becomes a psychological/social drama about how we deal with self-expression.I think if you're an artist, musician, filmmaker, chef, or any type of creative person who respects individual expression, you'll get a lot out of this film. Even if you're just a casual patron of the arts, you'll find it interesting because it asks some pointed questions about the nature of art. Should art be treated separately from the artist (do we have the right to glorify the art of a scumbag)? And to what degree should people be allowed to express themselves? How about the very nature of art--does it always have to be new & shocking? Where does actual talent fit in? These are all themes that weave in & out of the story while the story itself is about something completely different. There's definitely a lot going on here.The movie is rated R, but really it's rather tame. There's not much profanity, no gratuitous sex, no blood & guts. However we do get a lengthy shot of a man's crankshaft. Oh yeah, we also see about 50 pictures of a man's scrotum on a wall. It's all in funny, artistic context... if you can believe that.The key to enjoying this film to its fullest is to realize that it's a deadpan satire, much like "Catch-22", where the humour is based on outrageous stereotypes and preposterous (though believable) situations. The mood, particularly toward the end, reminded me of "Death at a Funeral" (original version), the way it takes such an irreverent approach to serious matters. And the humour itself is, like I said, a lot like a John Cusack movie ("Say Anything", "Better Off Dead") though somewhat toned down. Though predictable at times (deliberately?), I felt the ultimate payoff was very satisfying, and I highly recommend this to anyone who likes dark comedy ("Heathers", "Grand Theft Parsons").