I new nothing about this movie when I picked it up at a local Red Box. Judging by the cover, I expected a feel good romantic drama with all the excitement that young love and forgery schemes contain. I will say that I somewhat enjoyed this movie, but overall it was a disappointment. It was a B movie that I could easily imagine appearing on the Hallmark channel. It was predictable, cliché, and the characters were unrealistic. Also, for a movie staring as many talented people as it was, the acting came across as a bit lazy. It was not one of the better movies I've seen, but it certainly wasn't the worst. I give it 4 out of 10 stars.
21 Reviews
Just can't believe they did this as a mostly straightforward drama.
Boba_Fett113818 July 2012
This movie is taking a completely wrong approach to its story. Instead of making things lively, fun or thrilling to watch, it's being for most part a slow moving and very uninteresting movie, that is mostly taking a serious dramatic approach, which does boggle the mind.
So many directions this movie could had taken and so much they could had done with its concept but they managed to make the wrong choices, with just about everything. It makes the movie as a whole a really redundant one to watch. The movie isn't ever going anywhere good and interesting with its story and besides doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be or do exactly.
There is so much going on in this movie that felt like it was being something completely unnecessary for its story. The whole thing about the boy looking for his mother is going absolutely nowhere and the love-story between him and Hayden Panettiere felt completely unnecessary and as if it was being part of a totally different movie. Different story lines don't get handled or developed properly enough, making this movie feel like a messy and pointless one. Lots of story lines and characters could had so easily been left out and probably also should had been left so, so they movie could had focused more on its main plot line.
But what is worse is that this movie is feeling like such a lifeless one. They so easily could had spiced up things a bit more and better at times, to at least make this a somewhat entertaining enough little movie to watch. I won't call the movie boring but I only did wish some more good and interesting stuff would had happened in it at times.
It's surprising to see how many big names were involved with this movie but I guess that is what happens when you are friendly with the Eastwood's. Director Lawrence Roeck previously worked on a documentary about Clint Eastwood, which also would explain why his wife and son are in this movie. But also actors such as Alfred Molina and Lauren Bacall were involved. It's especially odd seeing Lauren Bacall in this. I mean, here we have an actress that once starred opposite to Humphrey Bogart, as his love interest, in a whole bunch of movies and now she is doing movies like this? She isn't very active in the business anymore, which makes it all the more weird that she agreed to appear in this particular movie, that in essence looks and feels like a made for TV movie. I do admit that she is still amazing looking though. I'm not just talking about her looks but more so about her vitality. She is an 87-year old woman know but she does look and move around like, let's say, an 65-year old.
And I'm also really fed up with seeing Hayden Panettiere doing these sort of roles. I honestly think she is an incredibly talented young actress, that just keeps picking the wrong type of roles, which prevent her from ever truly breaking through as an actress and it's the reason why she is always getting typecast in these type of roles. She's always playing the good, cute, happy. friendly girl, that can't stay mad or sad for 30 seconds. Guess this is an image she likes and feels comfortable with but it isn't going to get her anywhere in the serious movie business.
I also did wish that the main character of the movie would had been a more interesting and charismatic one. First of all, Josh Hutcherson doesn't exactly look very convincing as a 15-year old boy but he also isn't being really likable enough. The movie tries hard to make you sympathize for him, by inserting all kinds of dramatic stuff, with almost constantly dramatic music playing in the background. It just doesn't work that way and there really isn't enough to either like- or truly care for the movie its main character.
Not a very convincing or good or interesting enough movie to watch.
5/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
So many directions this movie could had taken and so much they could had done with its concept but they managed to make the wrong choices, with just about everything. It makes the movie as a whole a really redundant one to watch. The movie isn't ever going anywhere good and interesting with its story and besides doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be or do exactly.
There is so much going on in this movie that felt like it was being something completely unnecessary for its story. The whole thing about the boy looking for his mother is going absolutely nowhere and the love-story between him and Hayden Panettiere felt completely unnecessary and as if it was being part of a totally different movie. Different story lines don't get handled or developed properly enough, making this movie feel like a messy and pointless one. Lots of story lines and characters could had so easily been left out and probably also should had been left so, so they movie could had focused more on its main plot line.
But what is worse is that this movie is feeling like such a lifeless one. They so easily could had spiced up things a bit more and better at times, to at least make this a somewhat entertaining enough little movie to watch. I won't call the movie boring but I only did wish some more good and interesting stuff would had happened in it at times.
It's surprising to see how many big names were involved with this movie but I guess that is what happens when you are friendly with the Eastwood's. Director Lawrence Roeck previously worked on a documentary about Clint Eastwood, which also would explain why his wife and son are in this movie. But also actors such as Alfred Molina and Lauren Bacall were involved. It's especially odd seeing Lauren Bacall in this. I mean, here we have an actress that once starred opposite to Humphrey Bogart, as his love interest, in a whole bunch of movies and now she is doing movies like this? She isn't very active in the business anymore, which makes it all the more weird that she agreed to appear in this particular movie, that in essence looks and feels like a made for TV movie. I do admit that she is still amazing looking though. I'm not just talking about her looks but more so about her vitality. She is an 87-year old woman know but she does look and move around like, let's say, an 65-year old.
And I'm also really fed up with seeing Hayden Panettiere doing these sort of roles. I honestly think she is an incredibly talented young actress, that just keeps picking the wrong type of roles, which prevent her from ever truly breaking through as an actress and it's the reason why she is always getting typecast in these type of roles. She's always playing the good, cute, happy. friendly girl, that can't stay mad or sad for 30 seconds. Guess this is an image she likes and feels comfortable with but it isn't going to get her anywhere in the serious movie business.
I also did wish that the main character of the movie would had been a more interesting and charismatic one. First of all, Josh Hutcherson doesn't exactly look very convincing as a 15-year old boy but he also isn't being really likable enough. The movie tries hard to make you sympathize for him, by inserting all kinds of dramatic stuff, with almost constantly dramatic music playing in the background. It just doesn't work that way and there really isn't enough to either like- or truly care for the movie its main character.
Not a very convincing or good or interesting enough movie to watch.
5/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
A very OK movie that had the feel of a made for TV movie. Molina & Bacall were great in this but still slow moving. I say B-
cosmo_tiger3 July 2012
"People need to figure out how to find their success." Joshua (Hutcherson) has been abandoned by his mother in a hotel room and is on his own. After finding an open house he sneaks in for food and a bed. He stumbles on a secret room with painting supplies and his real talent is discovered by the owner (Molina) in the morning. Giving Josh a choice to stay with him in return for helping him forge paintings Josh thinks he has found his calling. Then he meets Anne-Marie (Bacall) and everything changes. This overall is not a bad movie but just a little slow. Molina and Bacall are a great choice for these roles and really helps the movie have a more legitimate feel and takes it above made for TV status. For a movie about forging paintings I do have to say that this was a really tough subject to stay interested in. For the most part I was entertained but during quite a bit of it I found myself not really caring and losing interest. Then Molina or Bacall showed up and got me back again. It seems like I'm bashing the movie, which I'm not trying to do. This movie isn't terrible just a little slow moving and hard to stay focused on. Overall, not bad but has the feel of a made for TV movie. I give it a B-.
A curious little movie, shot at Carmel-By-The-Sea with a strong Clint Eastwood presence.
TxMike9 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I found this one on Netflix streaming movies. It plays much like a Lifetime made for TV movie.
Josh Hutcherson is Joshua, who never knew his dad and was abandoned by his mother. He ends up in Carmel on the Pacific Ocean, and trying to survive by hustling. He also happens to be a very talented artist.
One day he meets Hayden Panettiere as Amber, when he sees her being hassled by a teacher and Joshua jumps the fence to protect her. Things develop between them, after a couple of rough starts.
The most sinister character is Alfred Molina as Everly, an artist who lives beyond his means, and his dark secret is art forgery. When he recognized Joshua's talent, he offers him a home, but his motive is to make $$Millions with Joshua's talent.
Even the venerable Lauren Bacall, pushing 90, has a role here as Anne-Marie, local art celebrity, who also takes an interest in Joshua. We could call this "all in the family" as Clint Eastwood's wife, Dina Eastwood as the social worker Vanessa has an critical role, as well as Clint's son, Scott Eastwood as Ryan . There is even a part for Hayden's brother, Jansen Panettiere as Aram .
My comments are in no way knocking the choice of actors, Ron Howard used his whole family to fine effect in many of his movies. But this is just not a very good movie. The actors do a pretty good job with the script, but the story is pretty obvious and it ends about where you would expect it to.
Josh Hutcherson is Joshua, who never knew his dad and was abandoned by his mother. He ends up in Carmel on the Pacific Ocean, and trying to survive by hustling. He also happens to be a very talented artist.
One day he meets Hayden Panettiere as Amber, when he sees her being hassled by a teacher and Joshua jumps the fence to protect her. Things develop between them, after a couple of rough starts.
The most sinister character is Alfred Molina as Everly, an artist who lives beyond his means, and his dark secret is art forgery. When he recognized Joshua's talent, he offers him a home, but his motive is to make $$Millions with Joshua's talent.
Even the venerable Lauren Bacall, pushing 90, has a role here as Anne-Marie, local art celebrity, who also takes an interest in Joshua. We could call this "all in the family" as Clint Eastwood's wife, Dina Eastwood as the social worker Vanessa has an critical role, as well as Clint's son, Scott Eastwood as Ryan . There is even a part for Hayden's brother, Jansen Panettiere as Aram .
My comments are in no way knocking the choice of actors, Ron Howard used his whole family to fine effect in many of his movies. But this is just not a very good movie. The actors do a pretty good job with the script, but the story is pretty obvious and it ends about where you would expect it to.
This is well done.....for a piece of crap
RondoHatton11 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Really well photographed, "High class" music, great scenery, but the bottom line is: It seems like an ABC After School Special!! The synopsis from the DVD kiosk sounded interesting, and I had some hope until Hayden Panetierre made the scene. She didn't damage the film, and the girl is undeniably cute, but plot and believability completely went out the door at that point, and quite frankly, with a crap script like this, not even Hayden Christensen would have done much damage. Regarding Lauren Bacall, there were glimpses of what a smoker she was when she swept Bogart off his feet, but she, Alfred Molina, and Billy Boyd must be hurting financially to have done this. After the Youth Services officer finds Joshua's mother, WTF happened, except for her to call for "a black & white". Total dreck for the junior high school crowd. Make that 13 and under.
Carmel looks like paradise on earth.
davidtraversa-113 October 2012
I suppose, well, no, I know, that most of the reviews before mine are right about the many holes in the script, the flimsy dialog, the wrong casting for the main character (a twenty year old actor to represent a fifteen year old character) and several other flaws.
But I enjoyed the movie from beginning to end.
I just watched it as if it was a Walt Disney production, knowing that I couldn't expect more than what was offered and so, I wasn't as disappointed as the other reviewers that were waiting to see an Eric Rohmer's "My Night at Maud's".
Well, sorry, There was only ONE Eric Rohmer, and he wasn't here. So, back to THIS movie: If you lower your expectations it isn't a bad movie to spend a couple of hours watching some very good actors practicing their trade in a gorgeous environment (Carmel) with some nice eye candy (Hayden Panettiere and Scott Eastwood) a very dignified Lauren Bacall and a born actor, Alfred Molina.
In contrast to all the other critics, what really bothered me as the weakest point of the script was the unpolished way to represent the forgery of an old painting (too long to go into specifics) but just one enormous flaw: Molina was an expert forger and surely he should have known that no matter how much you clean an old canvas to erase the original painting, traces of that painting will be seen when looking through the new layer of paint with special equipment.
Forget about all those weak points within the script and enjoy this movie as a very good piece of light entertainment.
But I enjoyed the movie from beginning to end.
I just watched it as if it was a Walt Disney production, knowing that I couldn't expect more than what was offered and so, I wasn't as disappointed as the other reviewers that were waiting to see an Eric Rohmer's "My Night at Maud's".
Well, sorry, There was only ONE Eric Rohmer, and he wasn't here. So, back to THIS movie: If you lower your expectations it isn't a bad movie to spend a couple of hours watching some very good actors practicing their trade in a gorgeous environment (Carmel) with some nice eye candy (Hayden Panettiere and Scott Eastwood) a very dignified Lauren Bacall and a born actor, Alfred Molina.
In contrast to all the other critics, what really bothered me as the weakest point of the script was the unpolished way to represent the forgery of an old painting (too long to go into specifics) but just one enormous flaw: Molina was an expert forger and surely he should have known that no matter how much you clean an old canvas to erase the original painting, traces of that painting will be seen when looking through the new layer of paint with special equipment.
Forget about all those weak points within the script and enjoy this movie as a very good piece of light entertainment.
Can't believe I paid to see this!
judie_bug6 July 2012
Terrible B style movie. Premise is predictable and stupid. The 15 year old actor is antagonistic, inconsistent, and irritating. They did not give much thought to the introduction of Josh's character or the way he was introduced into the art world....in real life he probably would have been shot at the first house he broke into....if not that one, the second. Is this really more believable than if he was discovered working at McDonald's and living in a homeless shelter? At least that would have given his character some redeemable value. Yes....we need to be shown that he is young and naive (WAAAAY too naive for a kid who's been living on the street!). It would have been a much better movie if they modeled the kid more after "Catch me if you Can", rather than making him an *sshole/wimp.
Tepid Script, Great Performances
dvdahatfield15 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
It was not a terrible movie, don't let anyone say so. The drama is a bit overplayed in certain parts - especially in one moment from Lauren Bacall, surprisingly. Though the fantastic cast did their best with the material. The film's flaw is the writing. I felt the actors gave very convincing roles given what they had: Dina Eastwood, Alfred Molina, and Hayden Panettiere especially. Josh Hutcherson shows a real natural talent, too. Spoilers to follow.
I thought it was weird that the norm of this town was breaking into people's places and snooping around or what-have-you. In a couple of places the sequence of events feels forced - like Molina's character appearing out of nowhere to chat with Joshua. Most awkward for me was how Joshua felt like he had to keep the painting hidden from Everly throughout the whole last third of the film, if he was just going to screw him over anyway. Obviously, he put Dennis in place long before he finished the piece, so why not let Everly keep the painting and enjoy a boosted confidence? It made Everly's search for Joshua not at all exciting.
Also, putting Dennis the Menace in the painting was genius, why didn't we get a very clear shot of that? I only just barely saw it when they're scanning the painting. And from a story-teller's perspective, Ann- Marie's "coming out" made the film clunky at the end when her purpose for it was already taken care of by Joshua's planning. She felt inconsequential and silly, whereas she could've admitted what she did to Joshua at the end when he decided to join her anyway (he knew she had done forgeries before). Would have made it more personal, and more redeeming for both of their characters.
In the end, I did enjoy it, but mainly for watching a group of actors I seriously enjoy work their craft.
I thought it was weird that the norm of this town was breaking into people's places and snooping around or what-have-you. In a couple of places the sequence of events feels forced - like Molina's character appearing out of nowhere to chat with Joshua. Most awkward for me was how Joshua felt like he had to keep the painting hidden from Everly throughout the whole last third of the film, if he was just going to screw him over anyway. Obviously, he put Dennis in place long before he finished the piece, so why not let Everly keep the painting and enjoy a boosted confidence? It made Everly's search for Joshua not at all exciting.
Also, putting Dennis the Menace in the painting was genius, why didn't we get a very clear shot of that? I only just barely saw it when they're scanning the painting. And from a story-teller's perspective, Ann- Marie's "coming out" made the film clunky at the end when her purpose for it was already taken care of by Joshua's planning. She felt inconsequential and silly, whereas she could've admitted what she did to Joshua at the end when he decided to join her anyway (he knew she had done forgeries before). Would have made it more personal, and more redeeming for both of their characters.
In the end, I did enjoy it, but mainly for watching a group of actors I seriously enjoy work their craft.
Hackers and forgers.
aventer-110 July 2012
This movie does for forgers what the movie Hackers did for hackers, which is attempt to make them look like the mainstream folks in the audience. Oh, sure, they had silly clothes and some goofy quirks but the bottom line was that they were like everyone else, only more so. And just as Hackers was nonsense, so is Forgers. Real hackers didn't sit around bragging about their computers' specs like a bunch of boy-racers talking about their engines.
In fact the Forgers characters are even worse, depicted as talentless con-men or child prodigies who can pick up a brush and dash off a flawless imitation of an old master in a few hours in a gloomy basement.
For a real insight to the persona of an art forger look up the career of Eric Hebborn, who really did paint stuff that was often mistaken for very valuable pictures. But he never became wealthy as a result of his work and he was not 15 years old at his peak.
Since the story is rather thin, the producers have made it more relevant to the intended audience by adding a drippy love story and a maudlin tale of parental abandonment, made even sillier by casting a 20 year old man for the part of a young boy. He is supposedly a high school freshman and at one point a character states that he thought the boy was "maybe 12 years old". There is no way Mr. Hutcherson would be mistaken for a 12 year old child.
One wonders why the writers didn't simply make the character a college dropout. The story would have been just as effective and the romantic dialog would have been more believable. The screenplay has all the traits of a work by a committee. Adults will probably find this movie tedious and rather predictable.Younger viewers may enjoy the romantic aspects of the story.
In fact the Forgers characters are even worse, depicted as talentless con-men or child prodigies who can pick up a brush and dash off a flawless imitation of an old master in a few hours in a gloomy basement.
For a real insight to the persona of an art forger look up the career of Eric Hebborn, who really did paint stuff that was often mistaken for very valuable pictures. But he never became wealthy as a result of his work and he was not 15 years old at his peak.
Since the story is rather thin, the producers have made it more relevant to the intended audience by adding a drippy love story and a maudlin tale of parental abandonment, made even sillier by casting a 20 year old man for the part of a young boy. He is supposedly a high school freshman and at one point a character states that he thought the boy was "maybe 12 years old". There is no way Mr. Hutcherson would be mistaken for a 12 year old child.
One wonders why the writers didn't simply make the character a college dropout. The story would have been just as effective and the romantic dialog would have been more believable. The screenplay has all the traits of a work by a committee. Adults will probably find this movie tedious and rather predictable.Younger viewers may enjoy the romantic aspects of the story.
Too Contrived For My Taste
larrys312 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I found this film to offer mostly stilted dialogue and terribly contrived plot elements as I felt it played like a made for TV movie.
Josh Hutcherson stars as a 15 year old drifter and hustler but who has amazing artistic talent. Set in the affluent community of Carmel, California, he breaks into a house owned by an art dealer Everly Campbell, portrayed by the wonderful veteran actor Victor Molina. Wow! What a coincidence! Molina is really a dealer of forged art for high prices whose main forger has just died and he needs someone to finish forging a famous Winslow Homer painting which he can sell for millions. So with Hutcherson's talent he's of course the right man for the job.
Down the road lives Anne Marie Cole. played by the legendary actress Lauren Bacall, who is a famous artist in her own right but has some secrets of her own.
One of the major problems with the believability of the movie is that Hutcherson exhibits clear nearly uncontrollable impulse and anger controls, perhaps even bordering on being a sociopath. However, everyone seems to welcome into their homes, show him where their valuables are kept and have him even live there. Bacall especially, being rich, aged, and alone sees no problem in wanting him to live with her although she barely knows him. In the real world, this leads to usually serious consequences.
Even a girl who lives in the town (Hayden Panettiere) wants to perhaps have a relationship with him, even after his anger had led to two serious physical confrontations with her own brother.
The whole thing is just not credible and as mentioned way too contrived for me.
Josh Hutcherson stars as a 15 year old drifter and hustler but who has amazing artistic talent. Set in the affluent community of Carmel, California, he breaks into a house owned by an art dealer Everly Campbell, portrayed by the wonderful veteran actor Victor Molina. Wow! What a coincidence! Molina is really a dealer of forged art for high prices whose main forger has just died and he needs someone to finish forging a famous Winslow Homer painting which he can sell for millions. So with Hutcherson's talent he's of course the right man for the job.
Down the road lives Anne Marie Cole. played by the legendary actress Lauren Bacall, who is a famous artist in her own right but has some secrets of her own.
One of the major problems with the believability of the movie is that Hutcherson exhibits clear nearly uncontrollable impulse and anger controls, perhaps even bordering on being a sociopath. However, everyone seems to welcome into their homes, show him where their valuables are kept and have him even live there. Bacall especially, being rich, aged, and alone sees no problem in wanting him to live with her although she barely knows him. In the real world, this leads to usually serious consequences.
Even a girl who lives in the town (Hayden Panettiere) wants to perhaps have a relationship with him, even after his anger had led to two serious physical confrontations with her own brother.
The whole thing is just not credible and as mentioned way too contrived for me.
Beautifully Done
marnifreedman186 July 2012
I have to say I was quite impressed with the movie. A few elements I wasn't expecting really made an impact. One was Lauren Bacall. She really brought it. All of her moments on camera were clean and precise, natural and full of impact. Another surprise was Alfred Molina. He was quietly menacing - not overstated. The biggest surprise for me was the discovery of both Dina Eastwood and Scott Eastwood. Both were genuine and understated. The Writing was well crafted and communicated the dramatic/haunting theme of the piece with softness and ease. I was sucked in by the plot. The use of the coast was spectacular. The film makers captured the ambiance and the quirky culture. As with any beautiful town - it might look perfect on the outside but there is always an underbelly. This movie did a nice job of exposing the underbelly without going over the top.
A chick flick. Who'd have known?
Nozz20 July 2012
I can understand scrapping the uninformative title CARMEL, and even the extended version CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, but the title THE FORGER fooled me. I expected a focus on the intricate labors of some fascinating criminals. I figured that if the movie is good enough to enlist Lauren Bacall and Alfred Molina, it's got to be good. In fact, though, not so much. The dialogue occasionally goes wooden with exposition or preachiness, Molina's accent isn't completely consistent, in places the characters' behavior isn't easily believable, and although a couple of interesting tricks of the trade are displayed, art forgery is made to look pretty easy, with first-time forgers capable of deceiving the experts. However, I'm criticizing the movie for not being what it wasn't shot to be. From the opening music, camera-work, and text font, you can easily tell that this is a movie meant to play on women's emotions. It's about an adorable homeless boy, an adorable well-groomed girl, an adorable old lady, and a series of misunderstandings that threaten to keep them apart, and as Spielberg has shown elsewhere, if plot offers a good dramatic structure it doesn't need to hang together logically.
Waste of $1.20.
mao-549 August 2012
Why would anybody with any sensibilities to the advancement of humanity and the nurturing of our youth invest money and time into this travesty? I saw Bacall, Molina and the Eastwood kids and I thought it might be OK, but no... it's drivel. The "kid" protagonist is a creepy brat thief who should garner no sympathy, but why the producers would want to engender that is reproachable. Besides all that, it's just a stinker script with no character development, bad over-lighting of scenes and worn out plot devices. And why does the punk kid deserve to get the girl? Is this really what we need to be saying in our media? Yes -it does matter. Did I say I wasn't wild about this flick...?
Thank god I didn't pay to see this.
angiris21 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
It is without question the most unbelievably boring excuse for a film I've ever seen... It just keeps on going and going and going towards absolutely nowhere what so ever. I'm not gonna reveal as much as possible but I'll be tell you this much. Everything here is exactly as the description for the movie states. Teen wandering in to town and discovers art forging...TADAAA!!! THATS IT!! They just keep on dragging it out endlessly i an extremely pointless manner that'll literally be able to bore you to death. There is nothing happening here. When I saw the title I expected maybe something like magic or teen action or hell something!! BOY WAS I DISAPPOINTED!. I didn't read the description which I deeply regret but simple based my reason for watching this on the fact that it had an interesting name and a cool action looking poster. Epic fail in my face was what I got. There is no reason to watch this what so ever unless you enjoy the performance of the actors...thats it. You wont learn or simple take the tiniest thing away from this. It should have never been created. THis is a prime example of actors with too much time on their hands and not enough work, simply deciding to cash in on some piece of ...well... I usually don't have a problem with that since the movies of the past where typically watchable. THIS ONE IS NOT! It's so boring, so repetitive, so uninteresting, so pointless, so... without any reasonable concept justifying its very existence. Good god... This alleged writer should be so ashamed of himself. Its outrageously dull. It takes the meaning...the definition even of excruciatingly, mind blowingly, lazy stream lined dull story making to the next level.
Stay away from this film. I haven't been specific on all that much of the content but thats because there isn't anything..as I said in the beginning. Teenager, homeless bum...town...art.. taking an interest....TADA!!! ooh yea and starting fights several times , freaking out and annoying everybody! Hutchersons character is profoundly annoying to follow. One of the most annoying and boring protagonists if you were to ask me. He has like the same immature, childish, brash type of behavior as Connor Kenway from Assassin's Creed 3 has and boy did I hate Connor. So cold, boring, pointless and SO NOT A HERO TYPE OF CHARACTER. He was more like an annoying side-kick that the audience can't wait for to die...thats hutchersons character here ..once again if you were to ask me. Filling in more of the blanks will result in a pointless and FAR too long walk-through of something without a freaking soul. Rios must have been on drugs or very drunk when writing this. No inspiration, innovation, imagination. It's a text-book build type of movie with some random main subject. Good guy...bad guy...conflict...helpers...objects... The plot I couldn't see through but thats because the film was literally making me fall asleep.
This is my experience with this! my advice....STAY AWAY. STAY AWAY. If you like interesting movies this IS YOUR CRYPTONITE! Don't EXPOSE YOUR EYES OR YOUR MEMORY TO THIS GARBAGE. 2 out of 10. Its not the worst thing I've ever seen by far but it definitely makes it within the top 5 under the most boring and pointless section.
Ultimate conclusion: Hazardous filthy horrible garbage excuse for a quality film that SO DOESN'T DESERVE A 5.1 that IS HELLBENT ON HURTING YOU! It will scar your mind with its badness! It will engrave its symbols of suckiness on every bit of your body! It will give you nightmares! THIS IS THE PLAGUE. BLACK DEATH FTW. stay the hell away. Don't you this to yourself and watch this dear viewer.
Spare your eyes and your mind the pain. We saw this so that we could report to you what it really is SO THAT YOU Don't HAVE TO EXPERIENCE IT FOR YOURSELF.
Stay away from this film. I haven't been specific on all that much of the content but thats because there isn't anything..as I said in the beginning. Teenager, homeless bum...town...art.. taking an interest....TADA!!! ooh yea and starting fights several times , freaking out and annoying everybody! Hutchersons character is profoundly annoying to follow. One of the most annoying and boring protagonists if you were to ask me. He has like the same immature, childish, brash type of behavior as Connor Kenway from Assassin's Creed 3 has and boy did I hate Connor. So cold, boring, pointless and SO NOT A HERO TYPE OF CHARACTER. He was more like an annoying side-kick that the audience can't wait for to die...thats hutchersons character here ..once again if you were to ask me. Filling in more of the blanks will result in a pointless and FAR too long walk-through of something without a freaking soul. Rios must have been on drugs or very drunk when writing this. No inspiration, innovation, imagination. It's a text-book build type of movie with some random main subject. Good guy...bad guy...conflict...helpers...objects... The plot I couldn't see through but thats because the film was literally making me fall asleep.
This is my experience with this! my advice....STAY AWAY. STAY AWAY. If you like interesting movies this IS YOUR CRYPTONITE! Don't EXPOSE YOUR EYES OR YOUR MEMORY TO THIS GARBAGE. 2 out of 10. Its not the worst thing I've ever seen by far but it definitely makes it within the top 5 under the most boring and pointless section.
Ultimate conclusion: Hazardous filthy horrible garbage excuse for a quality film that SO DOESN'T DESERVE A 5.1 that IS HELLBENT ON HURTING YOU! It will scar your mind with its badness! It will engrave its symbols of suckiness on every bit of your body! It will give you nightmares! THIS IS THE PLAGUE. BLACK DEATH FTW. stay the hell away. Don't you this to yourself and watch this dear viewer.
Spare your eyes and your mind the pain. We saw this so that we could report to you what it really is SO THAT YOU Don't HAVE TO EXPERIENCE IT FOR YOURSELF.
beautiful
Kirpianuscus1 July 2018
At first sigh, a film for see only for actors. or for location. in fact, this is not the only motif. but the story. sure, simple, nice, full of flaws. but working. in nice manner. a film about choices. and, maybe, about art. about refuges. and about the way to define yourself and the others. not special. just beautiful. and that is enough for see it. for the not bad reflection of feelings, first.
Cheap and boooring
Shizuka20084 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Everything about this movie is just cheap.
Must have had the production value of one episode of "The young and the restless" Everybody involved in this flick must have either been very bored or they didn't get enough money - so they said to themselves: why bother and put in any effort.
Just after watching a few minutes of this cheapo you immediately fall into a coma of ultimate boredom.
There is also the appearance of some kind of story about a young forger of painting who of course gets into trouble, meets a pretty girl and....
Sorry but just remberring having wasted time on this flick makes me drowsy...
Must have had the production value of one episode of "The young and the restless" Everybody involved in this flick must have either been very bored or they didn't get enough money - so they said to themselves: why bother and put in any effort.
Just after watching a few minutes of this cheapo you immediately fall into a coma of ultimate boredom.
There is also the appearance of some kind of story about a young forger of painting who of course gets into trouble, meets a pretty girl and....
Sorry but just remberring having wasted time on this flick makes me drowsy...
This film has given me a new insight on the authenticity of works in general.
parisholmes427 December 2013
What a awesome story. This film has a uniqueness of it's own. I've never seen a film that evolves around a young motherless child who's gifted at painting art. Movies like this are good. Keep you looking at individual characters to see who's worth routing for. The lighting was perfect, the editing was perfect of course but I think the casting was very good. Each person played the role very very well.
Before watching this film, I never knew people forged paintings. I always just assumed people stole them and tried to sell them. This film has given me a new insight on the authenticity of works in general. You have to really look deep into things to be sure of it's authenticity.
Before watching this film, I never knew people forged paintings. I always just assumed people stole them and tried to sell them. This film has given me a new insight on the authenticity of works in general. You have to really look deep into things to be sure of it's authenticity.
Film about belonging & its impostors
quantumwav522 July 2012
Anyone who's felt out of anyplace safe in their lives will relate to this movie.
Many who have no clue about the subject matter (abandonment, talent with zero outlet or nurturing) will themselves be lost and clueless.
When you're lost most will try and use you for whatever they see of value to them in you. Even those who see something worth helping along will not be perfect; to the lost, any flaw will be magnified. They will see a forgery, as so much of their own lives seems like a bad knockoff.
This film gives you some sense of that, with broken dream being the cracks that's all you see ahead. Maybe between those a true light shines through that's worth believing in.
We should all be so lucky.
Molina, Bacall & Hutscherson are terrific.
Many who have no clue about the subject matter (abandonment, talent with zero outlet or nurturing) will themselves be lost and clueless.
When you're lost most will try and use you for whatever they see of value to them in you. Even those who see something worth helping along will not be perfect; to the lost, any flaw will be magnified. They will see a forgery, as so much of their own lives seems like a bad knockoff.
This film gives you some sense of that, with broken dream being the cracks that's all you see ahead. Maybe between those a true light shines through that's worth believing in.
We should all be so lucky.
Molina, Bacall & Hutscherson are terrific.
A vastly underrated movie--well worth watching
dfcurran15 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This was a delightful look at forgery. The script was excellent. And the acting very good. I really enjoyed Lauren Bacall in this. Her character and her character's secret are well intertwined in this tale of redemption. From reading the other reviews I was saddened to see that many viewers simply did not understand that every lead character cannot be sympathetic. Here our lead is very messed up teen--but the proof of a good script is that why he is messed up is so well integrated into the story. His redemption is what makes the story well worth the time to watch this move. It is played flawlessly. In fact, the only thing that confused me was why he kept visiting Hayden's character in her bedroom. And then I realized they were never together in the filming of those scenes. The actually scenes where they are together probably could have been shot in a day. HERE IS THE SPOILER...DON'T READ FURTHER IS YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS.
I got a kick out of the one review that complained that the master forger should have known that in a scientific test, underlying work would show through. Now as a verified LOVEJOY fan I feel like an expert in the area. Perhaps, that is an underlying flaw in this movie--that the scene where the expert sees the underpainting on his computer shows the painting so small and so quickly that without the ability to stop the frame the image that proves this is a forgery could be missed. And some viewers obviously missed just what the underpainting is. It is a painted drawing of Dennis the Menace. What the master forger did not know is that the 'kid' decided not to go through with it. And what is really nice is that many reasons are given for him doing just that. Which makes the character complex and movie very interesting.
I got a kick out of the one review that complained that the master forger should have known that in a scientific test, underlying work would show through. Now as a verified LOVEJOY fan I feel like an expert in the area. Perhaps, that is an underlying flaw in this movie--that the scene where the expert sees the underpainting on his computer shows the painting so small and so quickly that without the ability to stop the frame the image that proves this is a forgery could be missed. And some viewers obviously missed just what the underpainting is. It is a painted drawing of Dennis the Menace. What the master forger did not know is that the 'kid' decided not to go through with it. And what is really nice is that many reasons are given for him doing just that. Which makes the character complex and movie very interesting.
No Faking Here
marilyncarnahan23 February 2014
Without exaggerating, this could quite possibly be the best movie I have ever seen. Joshua, a 16 year old boy abandoned by his mother and left homeless, must struggle to survive. His talent for art is his saving grace. Without going overboard into "wholesome" territory, The Forger tackles some heavy themes such as integrity and how to treat women. This is one of those films that can be enjoyed by adults, yet could also be shown to a youth group. It's that good. And yes, Josh Hutcherson is amazing. He shows off his acting chops in his portrayal of a confused teenage boy. Oh, and one funny thing...I watched this whole movie without realizing Lauren Bacall was in it (head smack)! I should have known by her voice. Definitely put The Forger as #1 in your Netflix queue.
Pretty good, some good acting, great art
vchimpanzee5 March 2023
Once I realized this movie seemed familiar, I decided to go back to the computer to make sure I hadn't reviewed it. I never did that before. I'm glad I did because I discovered this was the last film of the great Lauren Bacall. She's still got it. And she doesn't seem old here. Her quirky rich woman is a little unrealistic (too trusting?) but quite likable and intelligent.
Also good is Alfred Molina, who is deceptively nice but later shows he can be mean if he's not getting what he wants.
And the cute girl was Hayden Panettiere, who was so good in "Nashville". She is quite likable here but will let you know if she's not happy with something. Her first scene with Joshua didn't seem realistic, because she's not that naive, but if she's just friendly, that's fine.
Billy Boyd was so obviously gay and more sophisticated and cultured than his boss. Also quite good.
I didn't know Dina Eastwood until I saw the credits, but I've seen her before. Not up to the standard set by her husband, but she had her good scenes. She was determined to make sure Joshua had proper supervision.
Josh Hutcherson at least made us like him and root for his success, but I won't say he was close to the best actor.
The real star of the movie is William Rose (didn't he change his name to Axl and sing for Guns 'n Roses? No, probably a different man). I finally saw the artist's name in the credits. And yes, in an unusual move, the credits showed a drawing of each character beside the actor's name, rather than the character's name, which was nice but not helpful if I didn't recognize someone. His amazing drawings are shown throughout the movie, starting on the wall and ceiling of Joshua's motel room. Some of the drawings are disturbing, such as the ones that suggest Joshua was abused by his mother. I assume he did the Winslow Homer forgery (magnificent) and the other painting that was sold (that was supposed to be talent?).
A lot of work goes into making a convincing forgery, and this film attempted to show us that. Realism isn't a priority because of course Joshua is a genius.
There is great looking architecture and other scenery, and nice art on the walls in galleries.
Family friendly? Some words were missing, but the version I saw seemed okay. I won't call it violence, but just schoolyard scuffles with some blood. Don't look for high moral standards here. Most people here do what they have to in order to get by, or to have more than their talent will legally allow them to do. But there is a sort of redemption late.
The music varied a lot. At sophisticated events, I liked the music. Young people listen to music I don't like, or music I don't like is played for their scenes. A pleasant song was played during the credits.
Not great art, but you get to see some.
Also good is Alfred Molina, who is deceptively nice but later shows he can be mean if he's not getting what he wants.
And the cute girl was Hayden Panettiere, who was so good in "Nashville". She is quite likable here but will let you know if she's not happy with something. Her first scene with Joshua didn't seem realistic, because she's not that naive, but if she's just friendly, that's fine.
Billy Boyd was so obviously gay and more sophisticated and cultured than his boss. Also quite good.
I didn't know Dina Eastwood until I saw the credits, but I've seen her before. Not up to the standard set by her husband, but she had her good scenes. She was determined to make sure Joshua had proper supervision.
Josh Hutcherson at least made us like him and root for his success, but I won't say he was close to the best actor.
The real star of the movie is William Rose (didn't he change his name to Axl and sing for Guns 'n Roses? No, probably a different man). I finally saw the artist's name in the credits. And yes, in an unusual move, the credits showed a drawing of each character beside the actor's name, rather than the character's name, which was nice but not helpful if I didn't recognize someone. His amazing drawings are shown throughout the movie, starting on the wall and ceiling of Joshua's motel room. Some of the drawings are disturbing, such as the ones that suggest Joshua was abused by his mother. I assume he did the Winslow Homer forgery (magnificent) and the other painting that was sold (that was supposed to be talent?).
A lot of work goes into making a convincing forgery, and this film attempted to show us that. Realism isn't a priority because of course Joshua is a genius.
There is great looking architecture and other scenery, and nice art on the walls in galleries.
Family friendly? Some words were missing, but the version I saw seemed okay. I won't call it violence, but just schoolyard scuffles with some blood. Don't look for high moral standards here. Most people here do what they have to in order to get by, or to have more than their talent will legally allow them to do. But there is a sort of redemption late.
The music varied a lot. At sophisticated events, I liked the music. Young people listen to music I don't like, or music I don't like is played for their scenes. A pleasant song was played during the credits.
Not great art, but you get to see some.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
