dfcurran This was a delightful look at forgery. The script was excellent. And the acting very good. I really enjoyed Lauren Bacall in this. Her character and her character's secret are well intertwined in this tale of redemption. From reading the other reviews I was saddened to see that many viewers simply did not understand that every lead character cannot be sympathetic. Here our lead is very messed up teen--but the proof of a good script is that why he is messed up is so well integrated into the story. His redemption is what makes the story well worth the time to watch this move. It is played flawlessly. In fact, the only thing that confused me was why he kept visiting Hayden's character in her bedroom. And then I realized they were never together in the filming of those scenes. The actually scenes where they are together probably could have been shot in a day. HERE IS THE SPOILER...DON'T READ FURTHER IS YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS. I got a kick out of the one review that complained that the master forger should have known that in a scientific test, underlying work would show through. Now as a verified LOVEJOY fan I feel like an expert in the area. Perhaps, that is an underlying flaw in this movie--that the scene where the expert sees the underpainting on his computer shows the painting so small and so quickly that without the ability to stop the frame the image that proves this is a forgery could be missed. And some viewers obviously missed just what the underpainting is. It is a painted drawing of Dennis the Menace. What the master forger did not know is that the 'kid' decided not to go through with it. And what is really nice is that many reasons are given for him doing just that. Which makes the character complex and movie very interesting.

David Traversa 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.

mao-54 Why would anybody with any sensibilities to the advancement of humanity and the nurturing of our youth invest money and time into this travesty? I saw Bacall, Molina and the Eastwood kids and I thought it might be OK, but no... it's drivel. The "kid" protagonist is a creepy brat thief who should garner no sympathy, but why the producers would want to engender that is reproachable. Besides all that, it's just a stinker script with no character development, bad over-lighting of scenes and worn out plot devices. And why does the punk kid deserve to get the girl? Is this really what we need to be saying in our media? Yes -it does matter. Did I say I wasn't wild about this flick...?

Nozz 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.