O Falsificador

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 new nothing about this movie when I picked it up at a local Red Box. Judging by the cover, I expected a feel good romantic drama with all the excitement that young love and forgery schemes contain. I will say that I somewhat enjoyed this movie, but overall it was a disappointment. It was a B movie that I could easily imagine appearing on the Hallmark channel. It was predictable, cliché, and the characters were unrealistic. Also, for a movie staring as many talented people as it was, the acting came across as a bit lazy. It was not one of the better movies I've seen, but it certainly wasn't the worst. I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

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 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 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.