Latest Film School Reviews

This review will specifically go over the MFA Editing Curriculum at Dodge

Editing Expectations at Chapman:​

If you decide to attend the editing program at Chapman, you are expected to already be proficient in either Adobe Premiere, DaVinci Resolve, or Avid. It is also strongly recommended that you have experience with editing film specifically because if you don't, you are more likely to struggle in this program, and the resources to help struggling students succeed is scarce (more on that later).

I know that you can get a masters in editing even if you didn't go to film-school as an undergrad, but the editing program isn't built to help students succeed if they don't have a lot of prior film experience. If you come to school here, you are expected to know what you're doing. Prior experience with editing film is strongly strongly recommended if you decide to attend Chapman.

The Editing Class Itself:​

The editing curriculum is specifically taught by one person who has been there for a long time and has edited various films, some of which you have heard of before. The best way I can describe him is that he’s basically a milder version of a drill sergeant. He’s high strung, old school, no-nonsense, and honest to a fault. If you’re late to his class, he will yell at you so you better show up on time. He’s not the accommodating type and not the kind of guy who’s going to spare you the rod, meaning if he thinks your film is bad, he’s going to tell you that your film is bad, and break it into detail on why he thinks your film is bad. The editing curriculum is very intense and competitive. If you do bad on an editing assignment, instead of getting a bad grade, the editing teacher will simply replace you with someone else.

In terms of teaching style, he’s pretty old school. For one thing, he doesn’t teach you through the use of a computer, in fact, he hardly teaches you any editing technical skills at all. How his class works is that he gives you editing footage that you must complete in a week, and then he watches everyone’s edit live in class on a big screen. While watching the edits, he will give feedback based on what he wants done differently in everyone’s edit. And then for the next two weeks, you must revise your edits based on what the teacher wants. Oh and by the way, anything he wants differently to another person’s edit, also applies to your edits as well so you better remember everything he said. If the teacher gives you feedback on how to change your film, and you don’t apply the changes in your next edit, then he will yell at you in class.

Now the problem with the teacher is that his teaching style caters more to students who are good at processing auditory information. Since he does NOT give written feedback and refuses to do it, anybody who primarily learns by written instruction or by hands on instruction, may struggle in his class and may not be able to process all of the information as easily. He is not a good fit for everyone, so if you’re an editor and you decide to attend Chapman, keep in mind the fact that there’s only one editing mentor as of 2025. A teacher can either make or break your experience at this school and if you’re in this curriculum and you're not a good fit for this particular teacher, then it’s going to be tougher to succeed.

The Resources To Help Students Succeed at Chapman:​

In terms of bigger schools, such as the University of Kansas where I'm from, there isn't a lot of resources to help struggling students succeed in their classes. But in order for you to better understand, i'll give a comparison between Kansas and Chapman.

• Kansas has a discord group where students who are struggling in their classes can go get help. The Chapman film school does not.
• Kansas has a tutoring center where students who are struggling in their classes can go get help. The Chapman film school does not.
• Both schools have computers that are dedicated to running various computer software including Premiere, Davinci Resolve, and many more.
• Both schools have teachers who are willing to help their students although in my opinion, teachers at Kansas have more dedicated office hours and are more willing to help you.
• Kansas has PLAs who are student assistants in the class who's job is to help students in the class and they even have dedicated office hours where struggling students can go get help. Chapman does not have PLA's.
• Both schools have disability services available.

Overall, Kansas has more resources to help struggling students succeed. If you are struggling at Chapman, you have to rely more on the optional good-will of others, rather than an obligation that dedicated school resources provide.

What if you're neurodivergent and/or have major learning disabilities?
Then stay away from the MFA editing program. At Dodge, only the strongest survive. The editing teacher isn't going to hold your hand and help struggling students out. He doesn't give a shit if you're disabled or you're going through mental problems, either you do a good job, or he's going to fail you. Like I said, the editing program is very competitive.

I discovered Stony Brook on this website. I looked up film schools in New York, and there she was, comparable to all the schools that would bankrupt me.
The out of state tuition was a little steep, but that’s only when comparing it to its own in-state tuition, not other film schools.
You get the feeling they are truly cultivating a cohesive cohort during the admissions process, which was smooth and forthcoming. My cohort has exceptional chemistry and we all encourage and support one another.
My writing has grown in leaps and bounds since I’ve been here. The feedback, via table reads and one on one conferences is invaluable.
Yes like any graduate program (this is my second) it can get tough, but literally everyone’s on your side championing you to complete your script or film, so nothing seems impossible.

I've been absolutely happy with Feirstein. Great community. State-of-the-art facility. You will be taking a risk on an up-and-comer school but should pay off. At least, visit the facilities.

Great school with some passionate professors. But the professors really make it break the program. The schools got all the equipment and stuff but don't expect to find your original voice here. They are too radically progressive. In left leaning but Jesus, I want to learn about film aesthetics not that a professor sees 1000 phallic symbols of the patriarchy. The narrative is constantly pushed in classes that should be focused on films and filmmaking . This is the narrative Hollywood pushes and it's crap and too one sided. Library is packed with film materials and it's all around a great experience if you can keep away from the political side.

I am an alum of the Dramatic Writing program at NYU, and loved my experience there. It completely revolutionized my understanding of not just television writing but storytelling in general (and I arrived thinking I had a lot of writing experience). All of my professors were knowledgeable and taught me a lot, and I formed great relationships with several and came to see them as mentors. I left as a wildly better writer with multiple finished scripts that have served me well in my post-grad professional life. That said, tuition is very expensive, and though it's possible to meet people in other departments, the department offers limited opportunities to formally collaborate with them.

I wish I had seen something like this when I was searching. I had contacted some ex students through instagram but I later realized that when students are young and have not lived in Europe such as Indian young students for whom traveling to the heart of Europe is a big change already and can mean "life changing experience" - their advice was not the best to follow. When I moved to Prague and discovered the school, I realized that it is too expensive for what it proposes.
They advertise it as a school where you'll learn the art of european author cinema with the possibility to develop your own unique voice. But the structure of the program doesn't allow you to do that. The sheer number of students that they bring means teachers have to handle a lot of people. Next the program is very fast paced. Project after project after project. The positive side of it would be to do these projects and learn a lot of technical skills and familiarize yourself on being on a set on many sets and work under pressure. Which would be good if your goal was to get a good basic filmmaking understanding. However if you are relocating from a foreign country your expenses will be so much that you wonder if that's really worth that much money. I paid 18.000 EUR for the school + 8.000 EUR for the stay of 8 months. Then 500 EUR per month (4000 EUR for 8 month) you'll need for food. + whatever cost your projects will be which you have to cover yourself (camera equipment is provided). Actors, catering and props are on you. So you are talking about 30.000 -35.000 EUR spending. Which is a lot for a school that doesn't provide you with network nor with time to create a very well polished portfolio film that could really change your career.

When I was coming to this school. I thought I will put this much money to have access to high quality instructors, equipment and come out with a film after all this study that would be worth sending to big film festivals. But the sheer rapid pace, the business attitute of the very way the school is built, the lack of focus on individual students, just to have new groups and new groups come and go, made the whole thing like a great exercise in filmmaking. We did many sets, from this set to the next set, got the taste of that - but that was never my intention to spend 34.000 Euros on with all the relocation cost and hussle. It was simply not worth it. It was quite frustrating to find out mid way that the school is just teaching you filmmaking basics with a ton of hand on experience through infiniately shifting projects.

Another negative point is the school saves money on teachers. They hire their own alumni. I met 5 instructors that are ex students. And they have 15 people max (excluding administration). They also do not give you industry insights, connections, how to make your way through it. If you enter with misty knowledge about how to grow your career in the film industry, you'll exit in mist also, at least that knowledge won't be coming from the school.

So my overall estimation - the school is way too expensive for what it offers.

Growing up, I knew I'd be an arts major and professional, I just struggled to figure out what medium I wanted to commit my adult life toward. The closest thing I got to film before choosing this program on a whim was a brief exploration of stick figure animation and messing around in iMovie. I knew nothing about the program going in, nor did I have experience with any of what I'd be doing.

In your first semester you take two film classes and they are as simple as it gets, you learn how to analyze films (picking up all the terminology along the way) and everyone produces a short film as their final. It was especially simple in my case, considering that they place you in subsections based on your experience, and I was put in the least experienced section, as not-so-subtly explained by a substitute teacher one day. In that section of maybe twenty students, I think only two of us remained in the program all the way through graduation (and we became roommates and each other's go-to collaborator). To be fair, COVID-19 arrived in my 2nd semester of freshman year, but I still get the sense that the administration expects low retention overall.

I won't speak much more on courses due to how the pandemic did affect them, but I will say that you will get the most out of this program out of the classroom. Whether or not you're doing it for class; just suck it up and make bad films, learn why they're bad, then work your way up to okay films, learn why they're just okay, etc. Professors respond best to students who are putting in the work not just for a grade, but out of a genuine interest in the subject matter. The best professors even incentivize missing class (on the rare occasion) if you're going to be on a set.

I highly suggest going for a concentration, because the administration doesn't care as much for the students that choose a more independent / customized track. I personally chose to get the Music Technology certificate at Boyer instead, since the film program's sound courses were a bit lacking and didn't teach ProTools. Despite doing work-study and being a campus ambassador for a major studio, I was basically invisible as a student. The only way to work around this is by getting involved on thesis films. Junior theses are good, but definitely aim for helping multiple senior theses (graduate theses too, if possible).

Overall, Temple does give you the necessary resources to succeed. It's certainly not an abundant amount, but honestly, I think it's better this way for absolute beginners. You get the entire Adobe suite, the tech center is equipped for all post-production needs (I even did V.O. and scoring in there). I know that people like the dedicated film editing rooms in Annenberg too. The theater program being the only other program in the school means that you have a direct connection to all of your actors. It's a big school, so cliques for crewing do develop, but there's plenty crossover and there's relatively less ego than at the more prolific film schools. The few organizations that have stayed alive over the years do great stuff, especially Temple Smash if you want to try sketch comedy. Finally, the Diamond Screen Film Festival is an incredible incentive and opportunity for students. Seeing your film on a big screen and "competing" for the various awards brings a lot of life to campus.

As with any film school, you're going to get out what you put in.

Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly called Ryerson, the name changed because the guy was the architect of the residential school system... YIKES) had a reputation for being the best film school in Canada when I applied back in 2017. It was that or Concordia by popular consensus. For good reason, as many of Canada's most exciting young filmmakers came out of this program in the past 20 years, including Brandon Cronenberg, Jasmin Mozaffari, Kazik Radwanski, and Andrew Cividino. While I do think the landscape in Canada has shifted a bit (York University is becoming much better, with younger and more exciting faculty like Matt Johnson, and Sheridan College's thesis films have routinely impressed me more than most work coming out of TMU), there are still a lot of things about this program that simply can not be beaten.

As with any program, there are pros and cons, so let's get into it.

• One of the key selling points here is the LOCATION. TMU puts you right in the smack of the dab of the middle of downtown Toronto. It is the heart of the industry, the center of activity, with no end of great experiences to be had with film culture. I mean, you can attend your first week while taking breaks between classes to go see premieres at TIFF. It's a beautiful thing being so close to everything. With this said, it's easy to let the location go to waste, and you need to be looking for opportunities and work within the city, otherwise you may as well be studying in the middle of nowhere. You're in downtown Toronto, make the most of it.
• A huge selling point of this program, and the strongest thing about it in my opinion is that the entirety of first year is spent Shooting on 16mm Film. I LOVED how assignments restricted us to shooting one reel of 16mm, which was about 5 minutes total of footage. By doing this, students learn the fundamentals of planning what they're shooting, and economy of shoot time. There's no room to waste or do a million takes. You need to make every second count or be out another $100. (Also, for those interested in analog film, some of my peers were taken on as apprentices in the school's on-site film development laboratory).
• On the other hand GEAR CAN BE OLD/DAMAGED. There were very few productions I was on that did not run into issues with the school supplied gear. This ranged from 16mm cameras with huge light leak issues, completely ruining assignments, to highly unreliable sound recording equipment. For the most part, the gear is great, but there's always something that requires an emergency phonecall to the Cage.
• I always say that film school is basically paid networking, and it is true that the most valuable part of any film education is the people that you become friends with and create collaborative relationships with. In terms of classmates, I loved the variety of people that this school gave me an opportunity to meet and collaborate with. I will say, however, that 95% of my classmates had next to no interest in movies, which has never ceased to confuse me.
• Worth mentioning that a few years after graduation, only one of my peers has completed a feature film to date, and they dropped out of the program in second year. So this isn't a program that pumps out filmmakers ready for a feature within a few years.
• The FACULTY IS A MIXED BAG here, with a mixture of former professionals who have not been working in the industry for at least 20 years, and younger professors who are still making great art. I often found that these older "career professors" were giving information that was totally out of date or mostly useless, and it really feels like the program is full of this type. On the other hand, there are some young professors who really make the value of this program go up, as they are actually currently working in the industry and are making waves. Highest praises go to Karen Harnisch, who actively connects students with the industry and helped many of my peers with getting jobs. Unfortunately, professors like her are currently few in number, meaning connections with alumni and industry feels quite rare. But the ones like Karen really make this school shine, and hopefully as the old guard retires, the school truly flourishes again.
• The program is primarily HANDS-ON, meaning you will be making 5 Films in First Year, 4 Films in Second Year, 2 Films in Third Year, and 1 Thesis Film in Fourth Year. For those seeking practice making movies (as we all should be), you get a LOT of valuable hands-on experience.
• Those seeking a more academic approach to film will not be pleased here as there is a bit of an anti-intellectual atmosphere within the school and the faculty (something I discussed with a former faculty member who left for UofT). Film History and Theory are treated as unfortunate obligations, and feedback and criticism among classmates is not really something that is encouraged or taught.
• On that last point, this program is pretty soft in terms of feedback, so those looking to grow will not get the constructive criticism needed until thesis year slams you to the ground. Any professors who offer solid and strong constructive criticism routinely receive complaints from students, meaning that only one or two profs are willing to actually tell you what you need to work on. There's a lot of coddling that happens here, and everyone only hears good things about their work - it can be nice, but I felt like it was hard to grow in that environment at times.

First of all, the program does not provide a safety net in terms of job placement. Every year the program admits, at most, 5 people, and the least the teachers running the program could do is introduce us to companies who are in the market to hire. They are (the teachers) some of the most well-connected in the business, and yet I did not feel they provided enough resources or support when looking for a job. In fact, in the last class that graduated, all 5 did not even end up in jobs within entertainment, but rather other fields. It’s a poor sign on the program when its graduates don’t even end up in the field they tried to pivot too. And the teachers running the program, while very nice, are tone deaf when it comes to hearing and acting on student’s needs for post-grad employment.

Second, and leading from the previous point, the program is not structured in a way that allows the students to take full advantage of either the MBA or the MFA program. Chasing two birds with one stone is highly applicable here. Here is how the program is structured:

• 1st Year: Business School
• 1st Year Summer: Film Class
• 2nd Year: Film School
• 2nd Year: Business School Internship / Internship
• 3rd Year: Choice of classes between Film and Business school

Now what’s inherently wrong in this is that the first year when you’re in the business school, the first summer should be your internship summer. But in this program it’s not the case. You have to recruit for an internship in your second year. But by that point in the fall semester, you’re preparing to make your second year film, which is a LOT of work, to the point where you have NO TIME to recruit, which usually takes place in the business school’s fall semester. So by that structure, dual degree students have a very hard time finding an internship, because they DON’T HAVE ANY time to find an internship, which puts them at a disadvantage, and nullifies the usefulness of why we went to an MBA program in the first place. By doing a dual degree, you’re putting your focus in two different directions, which the program does a bad job of managing/structuring.

Within this structure, dual-degree students struggle to build relationships with the filmmaking students whose projects they are meant to produce. While dual-degree students spend their first year in business school, MFA students are already working together, forming strong bonds. By the time dual-degree students join the film school in their second year, they are outsiders rather than integrated members of the cohort. As a result, filmmakers don’t see them as true classmates, making collaboration more challenging.

Third, the dual-degree program fails to teach any hard skills that can’t be learned in a standalone MBA or MFA. It does not justify the three-year commitment or the $200K+ cost. For context, NYU’s Graduate Film program awards the Media Services Producing Award annually to the student who demonstrates the most skill in film producing. In recent years, it has consistently gone to MFA students—not dual-degree students. This raises a fundamental question: If the program doesn’t give its students a competitive edge in producing, what’s the point? The reality is, it doesn’t.

Being a producer is not someone with a business degree (it’s a foreign concept to Hollywood people). It’s just someone that knows how to get things done, and unfortunately, a program for that doesn’t make sense. During my job search, I’ve had two people tell me that the MFA is not worth it and I should take it off. And over time, I’m seeing it as well. The dual degree is nice to have on your resume, but it CANNOT replace work experience.

My recommendation:

• If you want to work in the corporate side of film, get an MBA. It’s a two-year program, gives you dedicated time to recruit for an internship, and costs significantly less.
• If you want to be a film producer, get an MFA. It’s a longer path, but you’ll build stronger industry relationships and gain hands-on filmmaking experience—something a business degree won’t provide. Columbia’s graduate film program, for example, offers a producing track within its MFA but no dual degree, which speaks volumes.
• Prioritize industry experience over degrees. The best way to break into film is by working in the industry and building your network. No one—and I mean no one—cares if you went to school for producing. What matters is your practical experience. Without it, the degree is meaningless.

Sarah Lawrence has a very unique approach to learning, with a focus on small class seminars and one on one projects completed with professors. This approach carries over into film classes, with most being small group classes focused on completing specific projects. I really enjoyed all my film classes there, especially my screenwriting courses, which were run like writing workshops. I also love that SLC gives you the opportunity to explore classes in other subject matters beside your main area of focus, since we do not have declared majors. Since the school is small, sometimes groups can be a bit cliquey, with everyone having their set friend group. I don’t think the culture of the school would be for everyone, but I really enjoyed it there. Nice to have a beautiful campus so close to NYC as well.

Good faith tl;dr: ArtCenter should be your last resort safety school. Only go here if you are willing to blow the money and didn't get into any other film school in the LA area (and really want to go to film school immediately). Alternatively, keep applying to the actual top film schools (USC, AFI, etc.) every year until you get in or you get to the point where you're finding enough work, have a good network, and don't need film school anymore.
Glaring cons:

• Borrowing equipment from the school's equipment room is significantly more difficult than renting equipment from a rental house. Considering the amount of money you'll be paying to go here, this is absolutely unacceptable.
• The amount of tedious paperwork you'll do at ArtCenter for common, mild, or otherwise minimally dangerous production circumstances totally eclipses the amount of paperwork you'll do in the real world for the same or similar circumstances (at least in amateur or independent film). Considering the amount of money you'll be paying to go here, this is absolutely unacceptable.
• There is a leveled production system that massively limits creativity and is downright insulting to filmmakers (experienced or not). For example, in your first semester with "level-1 production", you couldn't make a film that has smoking or even vaping in it, or any kind of special effects (smoke, fog, haze, wind, rain, snow, make-up, prosthetics), or any kind of fake weapons (including real, prop, toy, water, etc., any object used as a weapon, or any object that could cause harm). You will only be allowed these luxuries once you take a class that qualifies you for "level-3 production"—classes that are only available (once their prerequisites are fulfilled) years into the program. Considering the amount of money you'll be paying to go here, this is absolutely unacceptable.

These production policies and paperwork were constantly criticized by students and faculty alike, and you would even have certain faculty members praising their students for breaking the rules for the sake of their art. Sure, it was "cool" that some faculty members were like this, but this environment was incredibly depressing to be in, and a big punch in the face all things considered.

No attempt was ever made by the film department to change anything. There were only additions that made things worse. Everything felt like the education decrees from The Order of the Phoenix or something. The cherry on top was the unrealistic paperwork deadlines.

Eventually, certain members of the department started to get overtly passive-aggressive toward us for being reasonably skeptical about the policies and paperwork. We all felt this and got more standoffish as a result, creating a nightmarish feedback loop of loathing that was never addressed nor rectified. Overall, everything was a sad mess.

The "grad show" mainly consisted of friends, family, and some faculty. Either the film department heads made no effort to invite anyone from the industry, nobody accepted the invites, or I smelled awful (each situation equally horrible). I didn't feel marketed at all, and that is kind of what they said they were going to do at the grad show in return for being a good student/filmmaker and paying them tens of thousands of dollars. In this respect, I felt scammed.

Lastly, upper level management at ArtCenter is terrible and the faculty are currently in their own struggle (@accd.faculty.federation). ArtCenter isn't even helping out their own faculty so they certainly don't have their students' interests in mind.

I’m still not employed in my desired field. I know you’re not guaranteed to get a job in the industry just because you went to film school, but I don’t think ArtCenter has helped me at all in this respect. You’ve been warned.

When I applied to the Production MFA, I definitely hadn’t expected to get in. Much of the process and its student body hasn’t demystified and for that reason I think TFT has gotten away with a lot as a department, off the back of an old reputation of excellence. I truly wouldn’t recommend this program to filmmakers who’ve started their careers seeking studio time or discipline. You are in classes until 9 or 10PM some days your first year—these are not shoots, but legitimate classes you sit in. There are some gems in the department teaching, but this degree program is structured to suck as much money out of you as possible while getting away with offering the most very minimum resources it can. At the beginning of the year we were promised Panasonic EVA-1s that ended up getting taken away for whatever reason I don’t understand.

Mind you, in addition to whatever tuition rate you’re at (resident/nonresident), you pay an additional $15-16k in “Professional fees” which is a second tuition. I thought the department was very sneaky about springing the cost of the program on newcomers. Yes it’s still affordable compared to a private, but an extra fifteen grand doesn’t secure us access to cameras and equipments for our shoots promised at the beginning of the first year. The department head, Fabian Wagmister, makes us sign a contract at orientation basically signing our time and efforts away to this program, and you’re strongly discouraged from holding a job. I can’t speak for my cohort, but I can only speak for myself—I’ve been done very dirty by TFT and this is a barely-running pyramid scheme that asks for $36k from me to sit through lectures where we’re barely shooting or building our portfolios. The cinematography teacher does not have a strong portfolio herself nor does she possess a strong knowledge of equipment or set etiquette—she has deferred most of this responsibility to the grad TA. That’s another weird thing—grad students a year or two above you are running this program for us. They are overworked and underpaid or vice versa.

The department didn’t demystify what access to equipment we had, but left us in a vague limbo state where none of us knew what quality of things we had access to were. The department doesn’t even have a fully functioning website and has placed all the responsibility on a grad advisor who is also extremely overworked. Sylvia has been one of the very few people in this program who actually does her job and isn’t full of it 99.99% of the time.

My advice—save yourself the money, go buy yourself a nice camera and some decent equipment and make your own shit. Or, go to a smaller program or for an Art MFA, I don’t care but don’t come here if you want to feel like you’re not being scammed. On top of our yearly tuition, we’re expected to fund most of the costs of our shoots or apply for funding which is basically just a minor refund of the professional fees paid out. If you go to the meetings to give feedback, Fabian sits and pontificates and deflects instead of reasonably brainstorming or receiving any sort of feedback on how this program can improve. It’s truly a shame, but don’t say I didn’t warn you. The UCLA Coppola attended is NOT the same UCLA that exists now. It’s a moneymaking scheme!! Also our program is 3 years long, the third of which you barely do shit and still pay full tuition which is another example of this program being a complete and total scam :-/

I graduated in the early 2010's, so this review may not be entirely relevant to the state of the program/institution as it is now. With that said, I do know that the college closed its Tarzana location and relocated somewhere near DTLA. I know that they were absorbed by ASU as a way to survive the pandemic. I know that nearly every good instructor I had no longer teaches there and now teaches at either CSUN or other surrounding universities.

As for my experience over a decade ago:

It was...a mediocre trade school. A lot of the people in my classes really had no creative drive or unique voice. They were passionate about movies, but not many of them knew how to make a halfway decent one - even at the time of graduation. This is in part due to the fact that the school really did accept the vast majority of applicants with no real care for how creative they were and how well they could tell a story. I'm unsure if the admission requirements have changed.

The administration at the time (it has since changed) was very dishonest as the school was receiving its WASC accreditation. The then-dean lied to the entire student body and said they anyone who was graduating while the school was in the process of getting accredited would be granted WASC accreditation, as they would be viewed as graduating while the school was "pre-approved." Well, that wasn't the case, and many of us who want to do graduate school ended up with a diploma that isn't recognized by the majority of major universities.

There were a few really great teachers there. Some were graduates of NYU, AFI and USC whiles others also simultaneously taught at AFI, USC, CSUN, UCLA, and NYFA. However, all of those teachers left the school during the pandemic due to the schools uncertain future and now teach at CSUN, AFI, USC, and the surrounding established institutions. I can't speak on the type of teachers that are there now.

Lastly, very few of us while we were there were actively making content outside of what was required for our coursework. It was frowned upon by many students to have access to a budget, to spend money, to invest in yourself for both your coursework and your individual projects. The vast majority of people that I graduated with don't work in the industry anymore.

I won't speak much on the old location or equipment as I know it holds no relevance to the current state of the school.

All in all, as the other review said, you get what you put in. It can be a great environment to create and experiment. However, it's entirely up to you if you want to do that or not. You kind of had to push yourself. Your peers wouldn't push you. A few teachers would, and they'd also gladly impart their knowledge , but the majority of them just kind of...gave you a grade.

After finishing my MFA at CMU, I, like many of my peers, was unable to do anything with my career. The program was a nightmare because it advertises itself as the top school for moving image media arts but that couldn’t be further from the truth. The faculty are all random and there is no structure to the program. I wasn’t given any opportunity to advance in my work or career while there. The program seriously needs to reorganize itself and change its outward facing image so people don’t keep attending with the assumption that they will have careers in the media arts as a result.

2 things stand out in my second year of film school.

#1: In my directing class, the professor insists everyone does their own camera work (we shoot weekly exercises with small crews) ...and it is incredibly challenging. But I'm learning how to get the shots I need to tell a story, how to frame those shots, how to work more visually and work with sound to make the stuff I write more effective and evocative. I'm getting so much more than I bargained for and it is awesome!

#2: I'm a pretty confident writer, though my writing is becoming a bit less laborious because, with this program, you're also writing all the time. But being thrown into the deep end of crewing my classmates' projects, from the first semester on, is also making me a stronger all around filmmaker and storyteller. I am the sound person or the AC or the gaffer, depending on the project, touching every aspect of filmmaking. I feel more confident in my technical abilities with each passing semester and I cannot wait to shoot my spring project in March.

Look into it while it's still a quiet little gem of a school!

My Bachelor's was a strange experience because it was all remote (COVID) --transferring from the great Los Angeles Valley College. Even though it was "strange," it was pretty good.

On the other hand, the Master's in Screenwriting was just AWFUL.
It was a terrible experience having bad and unprepared professors, all-white faculty with 0 diversity, and the chairman (Mr. Jared Rappaport) was pretty lost; he had no idea what he was doing. The whole body of professors was just terrible --aggressions and lies all over. I had two classes that were a repetition of the same classes I had as an undergraduate --even the same professors.
Also, in my thesis examination, one of the three professors who were supposed to give me feedback didn't read my script. So, I only received two feedbacks out of three.

In summary, I paid for a Master's that honestly taught me pretty much nothing. I learned so much more in the Screenwriting courses I took at Los Angeles Valley College than in the CSUN Master's. And, if you are thinking about "networking..." forget it. The network you can have out of that institution is honestly BS.

I DO NOT RECOMMEND that program. Look for a more serious institution if you want to learn and feel really appreciated. DO NOT take the Master's in Screenwriting at CSUN.

I don’t usually leave reviews, but I feel this could genuinely help someone. Please note that my review is personal and is based on the semester I spent at this school (I did the semester program). When I was considering film schools, I wish I had found a comment like this. So here’s my honest take. It is important to note that I went to Prague few years ago so things might have changed for the better or the worse. This is a personal opinion and review, my colleagues had different opinions, I've heard people calling the school shit and a scam, and other people calling it the best film school in the world and "a life changing experience". For me, it's somewhere in the middle, not the best and surely not the worst, I do not regret the time I spent there and I learned some important stuff about filmmaking. It's going to be a long review so try to stay with me

The Value of Film School

First, I believe in the idea of attending a film school—any film school. Even if it’s not the best, there’s something unique about being in an environment entirely focused on filmmaking. It’s about the immersion: everyone around you is making films, your classes revolve around cinema, and your daily life is centered on creativity. It’s a space to experiment, make mistakes, and grow. For some, it could even lead to making a career-changing project.

About Prague Film School (PFS)

Now, onto Prague Film School specifically.

Strengths:

• PFS is very practical. They hand you a camera, teach you the basics, and encourage you to go out and shoot. The equipment is decent: Blackmagic cameras at first, and later more professional cinema cameras like Red and now I beleive they have some Alexa Arri series. Some of the teachers are excellent (Not all of course, I had a great camera teacher and a solid directing instructor). It’s ideal if you’re looking to dive into hands-on filmmaking with minimal theoretical distractions.

Weaknesses:

• It’s a for-profit school, so the fees are high. The quality of teaching is inconsistent. While some instructors are great, others are less so—and a some are outright bad (I can say that out of the 6 teachers I had, 3 were really bad, but the instructors might have changed). Resources are limited compared to prestigious film schools. There are no big studios or substantial funding for projects. it lacks the prestige and industry connections of schools like FAMU (the renowned Czech national film school), which makes a difference in Europe, where reputation matters. (You should also know that it seems to have a more of an american style film school not a european one)

My Experience

I attended the semester program and produced two short films with almost no budget and tight deadlines. Both were selected for several B-class film festivals, which felt like a big win. (In the semester program you have to make 4 projects, but two of them are basically camera trainings).

However:

• PFS doesn’t guide you toward making the type of polished short film that could change your career or land in top festivals.
• It’s great for learning technical skills and getting a lot of practice in a short time.
• Coming from a theory-heavy Master's program, it was refreshing to dive straight into production, but it lacked the depth of preparation and mentorship that prestigious film schools provide.

(Basically, my friends who went to Colombia, Femis, UCLA, London Film School, had big chances when it came to get their films selected in A class film festivals. Cannes, Toronto, Berlin, Clermont Ferrand,... That's something that usually is not written on the website of any film school but it plays a role.)

What to Expect

International Environment:

• The school is extremely international, with many students from the US and India. This can be good for diversity, but it also leads to some cliques based on nationality and varying levels of seriousennes. In my semester group, many students were less focused, though the year-long program seemed to attract more committed individuals. I would generally advise you to a the sulmmer workshop or the year program, the semester program seems to be somewhere in the middle.

Practical Approach:

• PFS pushes you to work fast, sometimes with unrealistically short deadlines. While this can feel stressful, it teaches you to adapt and deliver under pressure. If you’re interested in cameras or lighting, PFS excels in those areas (or did when I was there).

Limitations:

• The school doesn’t offer financial aid or funding for your projects. There’s little emphasis on building a long-term community or network, especially if you’re not staying in Prague after the program.

Who Is It For?

• Perfect for someone who wants to experiment, learn the basics, and get hands-on experience before committing to a prestigious program or industry job.
• Ideal for technical roles like camera or lighting, where the focus is on learning tools and workflows.
• Not recommended if you’re looking for a reflective, research-heavy education or a polished portfolio film backed by extensive resources.

Final Thoughts

Prague Film School isn’t the best, but it’s not the worst either. It’s practical, focused, and provides a solid introduction to filmmaking. That said, its focus on international students and for-profit nature limits its prestige in Europe and depth as film school. If you’re aiming for top festivals or long-term industry credibility, a more prestigious school or others in your home country might be a better choice. The Czech Film industry is not that huge in case you are planning to stay there.

For me, it was worth it: I learned technical skills, met interesting people, and created short films that opened some doors. But I recognize its limitations. If you have the money and want hands-on practice, PFS could be a good fit. Just know that it’s ultimately what you put into it that matters, it's really that type of school. If you want to make films in your own country, it’s often better to choose a film school there. This way, you can build a local network and community, something I couldn’t fully achieve in Prague, as both my colleagues and I eventually left the city. That said, if attending film school isn’t an option, and you do not have that kind of money, you can still learn and create films independently. However, I’m a firm believer in the value of film schools. There’s something unique about being in an environment where filmmaking is the focus of every conversation, class, and interaction—it pushes you to grow and live immersed in the art of cinema every single day. If you think you have the discipline needed to learn and make stuff on your own, with the help of some people around you, then and only then you maybe do not need film school, since everything you might learn today is online and in books. But not everyone is built that way, most people are not built that way and this is when film school is important; If you are this exception then learn on your own, save that money and put it into making your films. It’s not an average film school like PFS which will change your career. PFS is a nice experience where you will learn some technical stuff, basics of filmmaking, practice what you learn in class and if you are lucky make a nice short film that might be screened outside the classroom. You might meet some interesting people if you are lucky, and spend some magical moments in the beautiful city of Prague.

I wanted to get my MFA to develop a strong portfolio and refine my voice as a writer. I'm getting all that and so much more. The TV program is so comprehensive, and I can also take Film and Creative Writing classes. My cohort of 8 students is terrific, as we all bring very different voices and perspectives to our work, and it's a supportive environment. I'm learning important skills outside of writing so that I can create my own content (a must in today's industry), and I landed a development internship at Killer Films after my second semester.

Getting to take a production master class with Christine Vachon is WILD. She's one of the most connected and knowledgable (and badass) producers in the world and brings in impressive industry guests each week. Alan Kingsberg, the director of the TV Program, is the most involved and passionate head of an MFA program imaginable. He genuinely cares so much about the program and his students in a way I've rarely experienced in academia. He's constantly looking for ways to create more value in the program, and his connections to industry and faculty are fantastic.

I'm also currently taking a very comprehensive teaching practicum, and next year I'll have a chance to teach my own undergraduate class on main campus, which I hear is rare in these kinds of programs.

From the classes to the faculty and administration, Stony Brook really hits it out of the park.

I'm an international student from the Philippines and initially I had chosen this school due to financial concerns. I had applied and got accepted to a wide array of schools, but the financial aid all of them gave were measly compared to the cost of attending. SBU gave me the highest scholarship offer, a Sklar Prize award, and the opportunity to work as a GA/TA for extra income right when I entered.

I was just telling our Executive Director, who is so passionate about growing this tiny program of ours, that I'm happy for having chosen this school. It's really a space where your own personal voice can be developed, where every professor really cares about you and what you write.

I love that we own our films (we sign a clause at the beginning of the semester stating that the school does not own our films), and that the directing track shoots one they wrote themselves at the end of every year. This instantly gives you a portfolio when you graduate. I know I had written about the limited number of crew due to the small cohort, but there are Facebook groups for film students in NYC looking for outside crew. I think that challenge exists in every school.

If you're a storyteller who believes that the most important aspect of filmmaking is the story, then USC is not the right school for you.

I deeply regret choosing this school over others. The place is full of video-makers who just obsess over YouTube videos and mega-budget films. They could be interested in other kinds of films, but they don't want to make those kinds, and even if they did, they wouldn’t know how. About 90% of the students don’t care about writing. I was shocked to find that many have never even read books like Story or Save the Cat. I’m not saying these books are absolutely necessary to become a better filmmaker, but as a filmmaker, it's crazy to have never even attempted to read them.

Do you think cinematography really matters?

Audiences don’t care about lighting, glossy flares, color tones, or fancy VFX. Yes, great films need great cinematographers, but the one thing that truly matters in filmmaking is writing a good script—a genuine, unique, well-structured script.

At USC, almost no one seems to understand the importance of writing. If you attend, most of what you'll be doing is miscellaneous tasks that they call "producing." But producing isn’t something you need to learn in school, and honestly, you’ll eventually get someone else to produce your film anyway. The problem is, there’s a high chance that you’ll end up with a producer who doesn’t know what they’re doing, because most students here have only worked as PAs or 2nd ADs on random productions.

Even at the master’s level, most people in the school are irresponsible. They don’t know how to work or communicate effectively. Sure, some are talented, but not many.

To be honest, I think most film schools are a scam—but USC is the worst.

There’s no sense of community, and you won’t have enough time to focus on writing and storytelling. In screenwriting classes, students stay silent, and the professors don’t actually teach you how to write. If you’re a tech person, and totally fine with repeating every trivial exercise you did before (e.g how to set ISO), then maybe USC is for you. But if you're looking to expand your creative insight and hone your storytelling, don’t even think about USC. And as for "networking"? Please, stop believing that hype!!!!!

+Most of the faculties are also just eager to get a job in Hollywood. I requested resume counseling but none of the prof replied. They are the one who told me I can get a counseling whenever I can.