The Forger

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.