Because I only watched 30 minutes! Then I watched the rest on fast forward. The 30 minutes I watched at normal speed, I multitasked with the subtitles on, surfing between audio options (normal, commentary of director and camera guy(?), commentary with director and actors).
From the start of Roger Dodger, everything screamed "film!!!" Not "story," and not "characters to follow," but "film!!!". The cameras added realism -- if you're a bobble-head. The dialogue (clever by half) made me visualize the writers with their pens and pads. And the cameos by Elizabeth B. and Jennifer Beals (best darn actress/welder ever!) seemed maybe a bit neo-Tarantino... a distraction... but by that time I was fast forwarding. (Yup, they look *real* good, keep forwarding).
I'm giving two stars instead of one because there was nothing offensive, and the movie is not a cynical grab for fame or fortune. It seems to be made with good intentions. Main criticism, again: The technique and sometimes over-clever lines get between the viewer and story. And I didn't feel strongly about any character, one way or another. (The main character wasn't *that* bad). American Psycho's Patrick Bateman (Roger in two more years if he doesn't get therapy) made me feel *something*, but Roger made me blank. By the way, Roger seems like some early Bill Murray characters (SNL and Meatballs) -- the mock arrogant, pseudo-smooth, know it all... except Roger doesn't have the mock part down. (Murray may have made this film a killer comedy).
In short, the movie wears its "filmness" on its sleeve, and there's not much entertainment to back it up. I must say though, for film students the educational commentaries may be right down your alley. (Glad I'm not in a film class, where I'd probably have to applaud this stuff to get a good grade). Now I can go back to watching Night at the Roxbury. Peace out!