Art Thief

It's one of the most poorly written, poorly directed, poorly cast, and poorly acted films you'll ever seen. It's the kind of thing you'd see at the local community college's end of year student film festival, and that's being generous. The actors were so bad and so poorly directed that it looked like they were rehearsing for a scene study class. There's no thought given to structure or pacing, character development, lighting, or plot. The music sounds like it was pulled from a free music library online. It's like someone got money from a wealthy relative and decided to go play movie director. Watch anything else.

I'm a huge fan of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, so I expected much more from this film. The premise and plot are fascinating, but as presented in this film, the story fell flat.

First of all, the acting was mediocre. I always had a sense that the principal characters were "acting" rather than the drama feeling natural. I also found some of the character choices quite unrealistic.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but the museum as depicted in the film bore no resemblance to the actual Isabelle Stewart Gardner Museum.

And lastly, the costumes, especially those of uniformed law enforcement personnel, were so unrealistic that they gave the sense that I was watching a high school student production of Guys and Dolls.

This independent 2023 film, "The Art Thief," is a very enjoyable, small, fictional movie based on the very real 1990 theft of $550-million worth of art stolen from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston. In real life, the crime was never solved, nor was any of the stolen art work recovered. The real Museum guards were impossibly stupid, and the initial investigation did not have the benefit of the forensics we have today. So, the story was ripe for someone to invent a plot around, and the filmmaker took the opportunity to do just that. It was a clever idea, and despite the absence of any bankable stars, the film's hour and 35 minutes flies by.

While there's an obvious plot hole in the beginning, willing suspension of disbelief is required. But, speaking from the perspective of someone who has spent the past 27 years as a civilian in law enforcement, I can attest that willing suspension of disbelief is almost always required for any fictional crime story. I thought the film was absolutely charming and I would pay NO attention to the previous reviewers who sound to me like folks with very personal axes to grind. The actors in this film are very competent, the cinematography lovely, and it was shot on location.

Of course, the Museum depicted bears no relationship to the real Museum, which isn't going to allow any fictional stories about its historic theft to be filmed there, lest it inspire another heist. Before one of those reviewers claim I don't know what I'm talking about, before law enforcement I ran the largest student filmmaking awards program in the nation, so no, this doesn't look like "a student film," although seven of our winners were nominated for Oscars, so let's not knock student film, either. In real life,

The Museum is still offering a $10-million reward to anyone who can lead the FBI, the Museum, and the U. S. Attorney's Office to the safe return of the 13 stolen works, and another $100,000 reward is offered for the return of the Napoleonic eagle filial. This film is fiction, inspired by fact. That's all. Anyone criticizing this charming, little movie simply has no idea what it takes to make an independent film. I highly recommend it. It's adorable and you won't be disappointed.