The Forger

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 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.

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.

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/

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.