Avis des utilisateurs

It's a good effort by all, especially guy Pearce and Claes Bang. It had a proper period feel and told a little known story. It is based on a true story, although some of the facts differ from the film.

Definitely worth watching and learning something new. Prepare to google the true story after, the details add more layers and depth that made me appreciate the film more. I wish some of these details were incorporated. IMDB has it right- almost a 7/10!

After the war, Hermann Göring's stash of stolen art is found. Among them is a Vermeer painting titled Christ and the Adulteress. Joseph Piller investigates how it ended up there. The Dutch Jew was a tailor before the war. He joined the resistance and is now a Canadian Captain in the Allied Command. He traces the painting back to uncooperative art dealer Han Van Meegeren (Guy Pearce). The Allies are slowly being replaced by the Dutch government and Piller has to solve the mystery before losing his case.

I don't know anything about the history which is part of the point of the movie. It's rare to be completely surprised these days but this one takes an unexpected turn. It's a fine crime drama and mystery for the first half. I did find Van Meegeren's reticent somewhat repetitive until the reveal changes it all. I was expecting a vast conspiracy but this has something on a more human level from everybody like Piller's wife and Dirk Hannema. It's a fascinating true story.

The Last Vermeer

A niche art house movie set in Holland immediately after the last war. It was a slow burn of cat and mouse but the central performances and tight script was really quite mesmerising.

Overall this was brilliantly done, the sets were sumptuous and attention to detail was truly astounding, clearly no expense was spared.

Clearly the subject matter will not appeal to everyone, "nerdsville" for forgers lol, but hey I watched it and it held my attention. This is a perfect example of how the 40's need to be portrayed, BBC take note!

I'm going to give this a hard 7, the whole movie rested on Guy Pearce and this much undervalued actor never fails to deliver, a masterclass in characterisation and micro-gestures, and quite a glorious relief from exhausting method style.

Most of the main characters were real people and much of the story line is authentic, however a number of things were changed for movie-making reasons.

It is 1945 and teams of allies are looking for artwork stolen by the Germans, with the goal of returning them to their rightful owners. The hunt leads them to Dutch painter, Guy Pearce as Han Van Meegeren, who it seems might have been a Nazi sympathizer. His name came up in the trail for one of the paintings which might have been the last Vermeer from the 1600s.

Pearce s really good in his role, as are the other actors. The story moves along deliberately most of the time but that is good, it is a good story to tell.

I watched it at home on DVD from my public library, my wife skipped.

It was the two main actors, Claes Bang and Guy Pearce that made this historical film a watchable event. I really enjoyed it. The film is more of a drama/thriller than a bio movie which elevates it a little better than a boring bio feature. There was a touch of humor there and there which lifted the mood a bit which I appreciated throughout the film. A good watch if you are into historical dramas or have a interest in the art world. 7 stars.

Guy Pierce steals the scene in every scene he's in. Very charismatic, boozy, apolitical and passionate painter with a fragile body and delicate upturned eyebrows. Great performance!

Everyone else gives solid performances, but seems to struggle with their accents which distracts sometimes from what they're saying.

A good movie with worthwhile questions about morality and survival during wartime; however many questions are not as satisfactorily answered as they could have been within the film. However a movie that leaves a question in your mind is worth a watch anyway.

I liked that the film dealt with a time that is not as covered in mainstream media, such as the dissolution of the allied powers after World War II, and the change of occupying such as the American military as liberators to nuisances during the Dutch reconstruction.

Interesting film based on a true story, but thought Claes Bang was robotic and miscast in the lead role

Acting wise the under rated Vicky Krieps was good again.

What saves this picture from being another well meaning pseudo doc/drama is a riveting performance from Guy Pearce as Han Van Meegrern and Claes Bang as Joseph Piller.

This is a story I hadn't heard about, (no spoilers here), about one of the worlds greatest forgers, and how he pulled the wool over not only the art world, with it's 'up them selves', I know better than you attitude, and the head of the Nazi regime.

It's a fantastical story made all the more watchable by the roles of Guy Pearce and Class Bang). You have to keep reminding yourself that, it's real, it really happened, it's not Hollywood.

There's no doubt that Guy Pearce's plays his role so well that I actually thought to myself at one point why would you go to all the effort they did to save this man......he's insufferable to the point of self destruction. But it the space of just a few minutes he does a full 180 and demonstrates why he'd acted the way he did. I'm not sure how true to life that was, but if it was as acted then that surely must have been the best day ever in any court.

Deserving of a better rating. A must see movie. I don't do very many reviews but this movie is worth taking the time. Especially if you like true stories.

Guy Pearce plays snotty Han Van Meegeren, a self-proclaimed master forger who managed to sell a fake Vermeer nonetheless to the despicable Herman Göring, war criminal and notorious thief of works of art.

In a bid to acquire a better collection than Hitler himself, Göring actually paid for this canvas, also because he couldn't have stolen it, being presented by Van Meegeren as a private possession unknown to the world of fine arts at large.

At the end of the war, Van Meeger ended up in trouble as a collaborationist and managed to escape capital punishment only by proving he was a forger.

The movie is largely fictional and about the Jewish Captain Joseph Piller pursuing Van Meegerer first and then protecting him so that he could prove the Vermeer was a fake.

The movie is well made and entertaining, despite the fictional liberties it takes, but after all, it is not a documentary.

"The Last Vermeer" paints an intelligent, intriguing picture of World War II involving art, Nazis and an unlikely Dutch hero. Dan Friedkin's directorial debut manages to deliver a thriller while offering instruction on the art of Johannes Vermeer. Guy Pearce stars and gives a work of art performance as the flamboyant Han van Meegeren, a Dutch painter, art dealer and enigma who became famous for selling a rare Vermeer to Hitler's second in command, Hermann Göring. This act led Meegeren to be tried in 1945 as a war criminal. Captain Joseph Piller, played by actor Claes Bang, is the former Dutch Resistance officer who believes Meegeren's innocence, helping and defending him in court. The screenplay, written by Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby (writers of 2007's "First Snow," also starring Guy Pearce) & John Orloff, is based on an adaptation of Jonathan Lopez's, "The Man Who Made Vermeers."

I dont think this movie knows what it is trying to do. The premise and the story is very intriguing but they didn't have a good script. Is this movie a political thriller? An art drama? A biography? I would have to say it tries to be too many things at the same time. The pace of the movie is also very slow, too slow, it drags from time to time. If you are interested in history or art I would highly recommend it but for the casual viewer I am afraid this movie might be too dull.

I will start by saying the film was well acted, full of tropes, and a little slow at getting to the point but it moves along once it gets there.

I had never heard the story of Han Van Meegeren before seeing this movie. Afterwards I got the feeling there was more to the story so I read a little more about the man and it is truly an interesting tale, but not as cut and dry as it's presented. The filmmakers decided to take the path of a very shallow feel-good story about a man who did the wrong things for the right reasons instead of exploring the fascinatingly grey depths that a man like Meegeren presented. It provided convenient excuses for his actions and fell back on a message of "we do terrible things to survive", echoed by a half explored story of an officer's marital problems. My takeaway from the story of Van Meegeren is "the evils of the world are many and they often run afoul of each other". I would much rather have seen the movie go there.

Interesting and intriguing story of post ww2 society in Holland .

Great acting but Pearce and others . Directed and beautifully filmed .

If you like historical dramas I would recommend this movie .

A very good story line and a cast of good actors and actresses. Don't let this one pass you by. Based on true events during and post World War Two. Guy Pearce is very good in his role.

This was entertaining. But on checking further, it seems that certain elements are in the realm of historical fiction. How sad. I initially thought, silly me, that they might have stuck to the true, factual story, for a change, when making a biopic. Such a rare thing to be shown the truth. Nonetheless, entertaining, good acting, based on a true story and a real person.

In the world of art, and in fact many pursuits, it's not what you know, but who you're prepared to bend over for. That's a fact. This story mainly focuses on this: imagine that you're brilliant in some way, truly bordering genius type brilliant and because you didn't bend over, you are besmirched by the critics. Only an artist of any kind or an inventor or a badly done-by brilliance knows that feeling. And then there goes your livelihood with it. This has been a massive issue throughout art history and those who have studied that know how horribly some geniuses have been done by. Meegeren finally found a way to be seen, and it seems, profited from it. I have no idea about the rest of his journey but as he says in the movie, 'survival.' No one can ever know...

The acting is good, the pacing good, the dialogue fine and the story gripping at times. An enjoyable watch.

This just happened to be the most booooring movie so far. They were filming in my town, I wondered what was in the film of that, waited a long time to see it (it never came out on DVD in the Netherlands, so import it is...) and what do I see? What do I spot? All the signs in real life are STILL LEFT ON THE BUILDINGS! Wasn't it a job to REMOVE these digitally, or was that too hard? Even near the bridge at the apartmentbuilding called Zeeland you can see very clearly the ANWB-sign with info about it. (among other signs, also when the captain is going inside the building at the Lange Haven in Schiedam you can easily spot on the plaque: PARKET.)

Sorry, but very sloppy!

I'm rating this film based on its merit, acting, script, and the compelling courtroom third-act. The first half of the movie struggled to hold my attention but the excellent script and particularly Guy Pearce's performance pulled me in. So I hung in for the ride, and the historical experience. The bit of undeniably bittersweet "soul" at the end of the movie was what helped seal my 8.

How historically accurate is this, at times, humorous recounting of one episode (Vermeer paintings) in the Nazi art confiscation quest (starting w/German museum art)? Eventually the acquisition process expanded to include art from the wealthy who coincidentally may have acquired the art through questionable means & wealth, and on & on through time. The question: Is our central character dealing w/stolen art thus helping a Nazi program or were the Nazis being scammed? If not familiar with this part of WWII history the movie was an easily watchable introduction.

Post war Amsterdam and the army and government are seeking out nazi collaborators, with the government keen on being seen to bringing them to 'justice' quickly to appease the baying mob. Claes Bang is an army captain investigating Han van Meegeren (Guy Pearce) who may have sold Herman Goring a classic, rare Vermeer. Initially out to get him, Bang starts to realise all is not as it seems and looks to investigate further, whilst trying to keep the ministry of justice at bay.

Interesting and intriguing piece of true post war mystery which highlights the mood people were in after the war, executing collaborators in the streets. Bang is ok as the investigator and later defender in court whilst Guy Pearce gives a terrific turn as the eccentric and somewhat effete painter.

The story takes a turn from a wartime story to a court room drama. Both parts equally interest me. I enjoyed it.

Very pleasant movie, which gives you a warm feeling at the end, with a taste of bitterness. As cinephiles, we should look for beauty, photography, a good script, and especially to the forest and not only the trees, which are characters well performed, an epoch recreated with its enormous challenges, a people and its history. A very interesting forest that we have seen. Congratulations to all the people who are at the center and also those who are behind. Afterall if the team does not want to provide quality, even great productions may fall.