The Auteur Theory

I really enjoyed this movie and it's spirit of anarchy. Featured everything under the sun, and the kitchen sink (if ya know what i mean).

But why didn't it have more New York in it? there was one hilarious over-the-top student film called "young and hungry in new york", which was great (looked like the lower east side to me), but i would love to have seen more of New York in this movie. I have a feeling most of it was shot somewhere else, the movie never really says.

Still, this movie shows that anarchy can be funny!

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.

The Auteur Theory tries hard to be a quietly clever comedy about a self proclaimed "documentary filmmaker" , who believes his work deserves attention and appreciation, and his umpteenth effort to pitch an idea to the snooty bigwigs at the BBC that will open the door to his long delayed stardom and career in filmmaking. Alan Cox plays GEORGE SANDS, the documentary filmmaker, and before he even sits down in front of the snoots, they are ready once again to reject him and send him packing. But he is determined that they should listen to him this time. He had gone to a film festival to shoot a documentary about film festivals when he became "involved in something much much bigger". This movie is not the best of its genre. It's hard even to describe the genre...maybe a comedic mystery. Cox is amusing but Natasha Lyonne, who plays a fellow filmmaker, is really dull and lifeless here. The character's wardrobe seemed interesting, but I have to say her personality was far less colorful. I liked Lyonne better in her other movies. The funniest thing about this film is the films depicted within, the horrible, unintentionally funny student films, especially "The Crap Shoot of Life".

Well, I certainly had a good laugh -- actually, many good laughs -- while watching this film. Quite clever stuff, and a delightful savaging of the pretensions of student and "indie" filmmakers.

Especially enjoyed the exploits of The Unknown Filmmaker -- perhaps, following in the footsteps of the protagonist here (the delightfully-named George Sand) I'll do my own documentary, "In Search of The Unknown Filmmaker"!

A rousing cheer for this film, what what!

Just caught this on The Movie Channel. Downside: it's occasionally a little goofy. Upside: it's really funny most of the time, and more than that, it's INCREDIBLY clever. Looking forward to more and bigger films from this guy.