I just watched this movie on the The Movie Channel about an hour ago, and frankly, I must say that I am shocked to see that the 18 people who voted for it here averaged a 7.0 in their ratings of it. The plot is already explained here so I won't go into it, but I really must voice that I thought this was a truly awful movie. I understand that that may be "part of the point", the "in" joke on independent filmmaking, but what I viewed was a thoroughly - and at times, painfully - bad film. The art of satire is to mirror life while leaving an artist's touch (of opinion); however, if this is dir. Evan Oppenheimer's genuine take on indie films, he is missing something big. The basic idea for "The Auteur Theory" really isn't bad, but the script and acting are so genuinely awful that they really make it impossible for this film to convey itself as any kind of a legitimate satire. Maybe I'm just missing something, I don't know, or perhaps I don't know enough about the inner circles of independent film-making to be able to see how this film succeeds; but if that is the case, then what are we supposed to think of a film so "smart" that its audience doesn't even get it?
Or maybe, this was simply a bad film by a bad director who failed to convey his criticisms, let alone cast them as satire. If this is the case, then bam!, you hit the mark Oppenheimer.
Or maybe, this was simply a bad film by a bad director who failed to convey his criticisms, let alone cast them as satire. If this is the case, then bam!, you hit the mark Oppenheimer.