Farben der Liebe

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.