Polanski

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.

Adjectives will fail you, as you try to classify this load of crap, as you try to get over the sadness of having spent actual lifetime watching this, as you fail to get anything out of it - either artistic or historically relevant.

Nothing. Not one thing.

This is a poorly (seriously poor) filmed 'something' made just to make a fool out of Roman Polanski (something that, among everything you can say about him, he will never be). It's a piece of fundamentalist propaganda that doesn't even try to be smart. It looks like it's done by unloved Sunday-school teachers. One of the guys that was trying to sell this at the Film Market in Cannes refers to Polanski with racist, anti-Semitic remarks. His face trembles in anger as he speaks. "Do you know who's a great, underrated filmmaker?" he asks. "Mel Gibson!" he concludes.

This is a very good movie showing the confliction in the life of Polanski, a great artist, but with great personal issues. I loved the use of mosaic to show the parallels in his life as a child to the decisions he makes as an adult. Can a man outrun his experiences? Can a man outrun the law? Can a man outrun his desires? Can a man out run his decisions? I praise Chapa's courage to make the controversial film, while others will hate him and find flaws in every detail of the film to chastise him for presenting this portrait of confliction in a man. Really worth the time and really worth the discussions the film will initiate.

I think a lot of work, creativity and talent went into the scenes depicting his family and the Nazis.

I think the scene with him scrubbing the word PIG written in blood in the carpet to get his deposit back wasn't even funny or realistic. Hello!