User reviews

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.

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/

"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-.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.