Patman

(Couldn't find a thread on it via the search function, but please merge if there is a previous thread)

I will pretty much watch anything that Terry Zwigoff directs, so I checked out this latest film from him, and comic book writer/artist Dan Clowes (same team that brought us the much better "Ghost World").

I thought this film had a decent start, but then just descended into a pool of celluloid that parodied the pretensiousness of modern art. The closest parallel of this film to painting is the one where the "artist" paints himself green and throws his body into the canvas, and whatever sticks is what it is.

Max Minghella (Jerome) couldn't take the narrative where it needed to go in the final act because he lacked the acting chops. The rest of the supporting character didn't quite support the film, but rather pulled it in random directions throughout its running time. But I'm grateful for Sophia Myles being in the film, though her character Audrey is too underwritten as the muse of Jerome as the film progressed.

Now, as an indictment on art school, well, that stuff was hit-or-miss, but trying to shoe-horn the murder mystery into the film just didn't work. The ending also feels like the one from "Hustle and Flow".

I give it 2 stars, or a grade of C.

Zodiac_Speaking

I want to see this for three reasons: 1-I'm an art student, 2-I like J. Malovich, and 3- the director. So I'm catching this as part as AMC new indie slelection series thingy.

redskull

I agree that the serial killer subplot didn't belong in this movie. It felt jarring to me, like it was grafted on from another movie.

But man, the rest of the movie was spot on. I majored in graphic design, and let me tell you, I recognized every character in the movie. All the little incidents and scenarios rang true as well. The awkward feeling of having a female nude model in class for the first time, contrasted with the horror of the first nude male model, the professors who were more interested in their own careers than their classes, the bullsh*t heard during the classroom critiques, the "student gallery" next to the bathroom-- it was all eerily accurate.

lukewarmwater

All my teachers were like this. Film School myself and still so much was true. His comics have the same effect. He kind of cuts right through the truth of the matter. Usually very personel and not so funny as it is sad.

I wouldn't have minded the serial killer subplot if it was more slapstick or dry then the way the did it. It almost turned into like a horror film.

calhoun07

Wait a minute...I was supposed to take that ending seriously? The way it played out....I was hoping it was a fantasy in the mind of the main character. There were no clues that stuck out to me that it should be that way, aside from his sudden fame and the way that girl is just "there" all of a sudden at the end....it played like a fantasy montage to me. Did he actually go to prison? Did he actually become famous? I didn't buy it that the ending actually happened in that regard.

johnnysd

You know the thing that bothered me about this film: the paintings by the undercover cop. I understand that they are supposed to parody the shallowness and faux intellectualism people associate with art, and that certain "art" may in fact be utter talentless crap but is elevated to this high status of brilliance by this small bizarre underworld art clique that has no connection to the reality of the world. So these paintings are supposed to represent that. Maybe the first couple did, but the full display towards the end when you saw all the different art being shown, the parody art actually did stand out, look more interesting and unique in a good way, rather than in the parody way it was intended. Its almost like they got an artist with actual talent to do these "joke" paintings and actually made something that was unique and interesting.

Of course maybe that duality is intended, and it is meant to be a parody that wraps around itself because the art actually IS GOOD.

BellsOfWar

i loved it. i liked the aspect of how art critics act like they know what they're talking about when in actuality they're all following each others opinions to make them look smart. kinda reminded me of this forum actually. a solid b+ imo.

BellsOfWar

the entire movie was a satire and over the top. the ending was awesome imo. it must've went over your head.

Peep

I agree that this movie had a whole lot of promise but really started losing its way about halfway through. The last 1/3 of the movie really failed to deliver and the ending was kind of pointless.

BellsOfWar

how was the ending pointless? it shows a) critics don't know shit about what they're talking about and b) artists are idiots who do the dumbest shit for motivation, when in actuality they'd still be good if they didn't act so stupid.

calhoun07

Was Kirsten Storms originally supposed to be cast as the modle in this movie? I seem to recall reading something early on that Kirsten Storms was supposed to be in this movie, and when I saw it in the theater, I thought I was watching Kirsten Storms, but came to discover it was a girl who actually looked a bit like her.

Matthew Chmiel

This movie sucked mostly due to Max Minghella's piss-poor performance. Was Emile Hirsch unavailable or did Minghella's father pull some strings to get his son a lead role?

Other than the first twenty minutes or so, this happens to be Zwigoff's worst film by far. And the man was originally 3 for 3.

calhoun07

He was 4 for 4. All his previous movies were really good.

Crocker Jarmen

After hearing many people comment on the serial killer subplot, this passage from a 1992 interview with Dan Clowes in the Comics Journal jumped out at me.

CLOWES: "The last two movies I saw were The Player and Barton Fink, which are similar movies, and which I had the same objections to... They both had to couch their movies in these trappings of a mystery/crime plot. The Player had this murder/mystery plot, which seemed to me totally pointless. And Barton Fink had this supernatural serial killer guy who was shot down in a bunch of flames in the end, and all that stuff really rubs me the wrong way. I mean, I wanted the whole thing to be about Hollywood. I didn't want to see this other stuff that seemed to be just a hook to capture the audience."

So was the serial killer's oil and water relationship to the movie intentional, or is Clowes just doing the same thing that drove him nuts 13 years ago?

Matthew Chmiel

3 for 3 = Crumb, Ghost World, and Bad Santa.

Am I forgetting something?

EDIT: He made Louie Bluie so I guess it would be 4 for 4, but I don't think most have seen it (and neither have I).