A Brilliant Conflict

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Spoilers herein.I am deep into a study for a book on folding in film. "Folding" is a general term for various types of selfreference, awareness, self-creation and reflection. The very idea behind my study is that this is a very useful thing to understand and use because it makes things more powerful. When exposed as the point of the art -- as in "Adaptation" or any number of similar films -- it serves as a fun playground, for particularly intelligent games.This film puts the lie to that. It doesn't work. It isn't fun. It DOES march through a few of the folding types I have categorized: films about other films, films that make themselves, films about the pretense of folding, films where the game of detecting gets wrapped up in both the story and the story about the story. Judges judging judges.Metadocumentaries.But there isn't a shred of cleverness, not a speck of fun. Even "Final Cut" was better. What could have made this work was better reflection between the two panels of judges and the revelation that the redhead executive was the murderer for reasons having to do with artificially enhancing the folding.When Chris Guest tried this, he knew that the films within the film within the film had to be really good. JJ Leigh worked in "The Big Picture."Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life

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!

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".

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.