Auteur (2014) Reviews

• What Is Up with Sizemore?

  arfdawg-12015-05-05

  The Plot. On the brink of reaching the pinnacle of his film career for his latest theatrical masterpiece; Director Charlie Buckwald suddenly disappears. Taking all of the footage and leaving virtually no trace of his existence. Soon to follow are the sudden deaths of his film crew and pieces of evidence that all point to one incident on set. Intrigued by the strange coincidences, documentarian Jack Humphreys decides to investigate the circumstances that surround both Charlie and the untimely events. What he unearths, however is far more sinister than he would be ready for. What is Tom Sizemore doing in this monstrosity? He looks like he's off the wagon. Maybe he needs the dough. He seems to be adlibbing the role and his scenes are all shot in one place and edited in later. And he's drinking red wine!!!! He's wild eyed and very scary hyper. And all over the place with his dialog. TMZ???? The movie is not very good. It's rather boring. And the Tom Sizemore scenes look as if they are from an entirely different movie making the whole thing disjointed.

  More

• My Review Of "Auteur"

  ASouthernHorrorFan2015-05-03

  The story is a very creative, well written one that gives rise to a twisted journey of a rock star indie Director and his unfortunate downward spiral. The arc is filled with very few holes, heavy on macabre, and laden with classic found footage staging. Things that both give "Auteur" life on screen and ultimately plague it to the point of almost being non-watchable- almost. If you hang in there until midway through the film the momentum does pay-off somewhat. The film is mostly crippled by bad acting, poor dialog delivery and heavy over-acting- even in scenes that were meant to feel natural and realistic. The special effects are a blend of low budget practicality and expected supernatural CGI inserts. The supernatural aspects are classic, and part of what makes "Auteur" watchable and at moments entertaining. The possessed and pathetic soul is a big draw in horror- always. The horror elements are sparse, most taking place in the last act of the mockumentary. The practical effects are more "off – camera" suggestive insights that make indie, "stripped-down" projects work. The blood and gore is non-existent but the effect is very much prominent in "Auteur". The soundtrack and effects are more of the same expected sounds that build the suspense, help the emotionality of it all, and ultimately bore the viewer until that magical third act when it seems everything about the film and intended vision really come alive. Overall "Auteur" fails to impress. The story is strong enough and the talent should have been there to really sell this nightmare. The execution of the story arc falters consistently through the first half of the film and give us more of the "same ole, same ole" in found footage gimmickry. The last act does allow the film to rebound somewhat, especially when during the second half what seemed a train wreck miraculously rights itself enough to make it watchable. Not enough to save the film completely or forgive the first half- but whatev'. The effects and soundtrack work, the supernatural element and story concept work. Basically check "Auteur" out but in order to not be disappointed you need to set through some really bad material to feel okay with watching this movie.

  More

• I was surprised that I liked this one as much as I did.

  MartinHafer2015-12-29

  As a film reviewer, I get a lot of requests to review horror films...mostly because many filmmakers seem to be enamored with this genre. However, because I've seen so many bad horror films, I really was apprehensive to watch Auteur. Fortunately, I fought against my instincts and saw the movie anyway, as it turns out that despite being a low-budgeted picture, it was also surprisingly fresh and original. The film is a mockumentary of sorts, as it purports to be about a famous film director who disappeared. While he and the story is fictional, it looks at times like Charlie Buckwald is a real director and he really disappeared! To make it seem more real, they used Tom Sizemore to play himself in the movie and Sizemore is a prolific actor. They also interviewed one guy whose back was always to the camera and his voice was distorted! According to the documentarian who is narrating the film, Jack Humphreys, Buckwald disappeared while making his latest film, Demonic, and he's also refused to allow it to be released...and no one knows why. For the first half of the film, Humphreys and his crew interview folks and traipse about town looking for the missing guy. Ultimately they find him and learn, slowly, why he's unwilling to release the film and why he is terrified. I'd tell you more, but don't want to spoil the suspense. The guy who directed this film is a very interesting choice. G. Cameron Romero in the film's credits turns out to be George Cameron Romero-- the son of George Romero who gained fame for horror films, such as the seminal Night of the Living Dead! It reminds me of the old expression 'like father, like son', as G. Cameron did a really nice job creating a nice sense of suspense and this film works well despite its limited budget. Considering that I generally dislike horror films, it's impressive that I gave this film a B+.

  More

• Noughter

  begob2015-05-05

  Documentary maker is promised a big break if he tracks down a famous director who went AWOL with the footage of his latest horror movie. . Wow. This staggers all over the place. Regular plot and continuity holes, uneven acting, unconvincing motivation. There's one scene with the doc maker's father that is awful for many reasons. And when the doc maker and the director have their big confrontation I didn't believe a word of it. One character seems almost disconnected from the film, with an ad libbed interview in a bar. Then you find out what happened during "that scene" and the whole thing falls apart. After all that I still felt entertained over the short run time. Must be something to do with movies about movie making. And the final scene was fairly spooky. Still would have been better as a study in the nuttiness of film makers, maybe with humour, rather than a tame horror.

  More