The Auteur Theory

Caught this movie on Showtime. Very funny writing, some really clever directing (especially in the intentionally-bad student films). Suffered a bit from what I call "first film-itis", but that's not really a big deal. Actors did a good job.

Film was obviously done on a low budget, but the filmmakers did a good job of taking advantage of that, as much as they could. I would've been glad to have caught this on the big screen.

I give it 3 1/2 stars out of 4.

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!

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.

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!

If you've seen a lot of independent films, and have a sense of humor about them (i.e. appreciate them but can laugh at some of the absurdities of them and their world), you should really enjoy this film. It's got a lot of inside jokes about student and low-budget filmmaking, but also lots of stuff that the average moviegoer should catch. Also, a very cool cast. Natasha Lyonne from "Slums of Beverly Hills" and "American Pie" is one of the stars, and there are lots of other recognizable faces.