Clearly someone thought this was a film worth releasing, but I'm struggling to find any reason why.
"Polanski Unauthorised", did Roman Polanski actually bother offer a view one-way or the other?
My guess is those that will choose to watch this film will know enough of Polanski's history to worry about the factual inaccuracies and the lackadaisical film making.
However, for me personally if I was lecturing in film studies, I would use this film as a demonstration in how to get the basis wrong and to simulate debate on 'Auteur Theory'.
Is it solely the director's fault that he gets it wrong and so does every just about every discipline involved in this film?
On the upside "Polanski Unauthorised" does possibly provide some educational value, as truly atrocious, films at this level of 'bad and incompetent' are actually hard to find as they never get a release (thankfully).
Some like the consume department would have struggled to get it more wrong if they tried, however some examples of bad can become funny, I loved those Officers' dress uniforms with aiguillettes while on active duty and the semi-automatic bolt action rifle (you could had taken the aiguillettes off, to make it less obvious).
Location scout, set designer - really?
Make-up artist, did you think this was a comedy?
Props: The selection of a typewriter manufactured 25+ years in the future, was both incompetent and funny.
Okay, if the part of the excuse was, 'We didn't have the budget', try "Two Men and a Wardrobe" and "Knife in the Water" they are films by a director call Roman Polanski, I don't think they had much of a budget either.
