ThiefHott Too much of everything

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Ersbel Oraph This is the story of a magic trick. By the half time I was rooting for Tim. I knew he would finally get the good product. Or else there was no movie. So the happy end is obvious once you get past the introduction. But there were nice twists. And the building of the background, than of the painting were made interesting, when they were quite boring. So probably the showbiz skills of Penn and Teller are weighting in quite a lot. But it is a cheat. The description, including the extra mirror were already described by David Hockney some 7 years before this documentary project even started in the book called Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters. Me, I was left with the impression that Tim did it all, when in fact his merit might be limited to a 3D description of the original painting (improbable) and for coming up with a simple device known from the late Middle Ages called Camera Lucida. No, in fact, he was the director of the whole construction site and he did the very impressive 130 (?) days of paint including an attempted suicide involving carbon monoxide. He did prove that David Hockney is right and the books comparing Vermeer's so called style are pure bull.Which reminds me of the Bullet Catch trick done by Penn and Teller. It is only a trick. Like Tim who did not discover the device, Penn does not catch a bullet shot from a gun. But it is a good show. And it is still there to prove something: that science could win over the ignorance of art critics.Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch

Juan Antonio Arquero This is the first time I write a review in IMDb, and first things first, sorry for my bad English. This documentary -reccomended by a friend who has a degree in Fine Arts- is made, in my point of view, by and with people who doesn't know nothing about art, and in particular, painting. There's no real mystery in the art of Vermeer. The only mystery to me is how much money has this Tim whatever to make his whim reality. For me, this documentary doesn't has anything to do with the art of painting. It's the mere tale of a "savant" with an intelligence of and autistic, so much money in his pockets and a bit of boredom who decides to copy a Vermeer's painting. That's all. The scenes where shows his "technique" and results to their ass-lickers are hilarious and ridiculous. Seeing an extremely senile David Hockney bowing his head in agreement with the stupid theories of "Tim" are embarrassing. And the final "painting" is horrible as well. Is the painting of somebody who's not a painter -he says it-, a picture without soul. I'm an "aficionado" of the history of art and some of the "mysteries" of the documentary are not. For example, that Vermeer didn't leave any traces of retries or sketches in the canvas, so what? All the venetian painters of the XV and XVI had the tradition of painting directly in the canvas, without previous sketches (Tintoretto, Tiziano, Veronés, Giorgione, the Bellini brothers...), and no one has hit the roof about that. Oh, excuse me, there's a recent crappy best seller and a movie with Scarlett Johanson about the life of Vermeer... That explains all. The inhabitants of United States -not Americans, you're not the only people living in this continent- are very peculiar. It seems they see us -the europeans- as martians or something. I don't understand their talent in technical stuff and, opposite of that, their absolute ignorance about the most basic things. In this case the simplest conclusion is this: Vermeer used the camera obscure, just like the most Flemish painters of the XVIIth century. Period. The only detail is that he had more talent than most of the rest. I would like to see if Tim could "copy" the Garden of Delights of El Bosco. I don't think so. You don't become a genius with a couple of lenses and mirrors. By the way, as documentary, is below average. I recommend the "Palette" series by Alain Jaubert.

shanemenken Yawn, was this thing dull. Sorry, but even in documentaries one must establish basic storytelling techniques like purpose or conflict. They never established any historical context for Vermeer or why there is a question about his technique. It was just a series of slow scenes about some really rich guy and his obsession, yet not developing at all any understanding of his obsession. Talk about watching paint dry.The montage of the 200 days to construct the room was terrible. Slow, pointless, dull. In the first place, why not have a scene shop build it for you to save time? In the second place, why have us watch him do, well, what? What was he making? Documentaries need to explain. (Compare this to "The Train" where Burt Lancaster makes the brass bearings himself. That was a dramatic, visually stimulating scene that deepened the character.) That would have been a good time to talk of obsession.Dull Dull Dull. I learned nothing from watching this film. And yes, he did manage to make a copy, but he proved nothing as he never established what needed to be proved. How did Vermeer make his paintings? Still don't know. Avoid this film.

john32935 This is an extremely well-made documentary about one man's curiosity, his relentless pursuit of an answer, and ultimately the possible solution of one of the art world's mysteries. But is that enough to recommend watching this movie? Not really. At times, this movie is as exciting as literally watching the paint on the canvas dry.I applaud the dedication of the subject to re-create the exact supplies, tools, and environment used by Vermeer. However, his efforts to demystify the artist's creation does not do anything other than to propose that the art is nothing more than a something that can be created by a dispassionate exercise of skills. What his recreation misses is the art of creating a scene, the passion of a painter to express something original, and the genius of capturing it all.To view my other movie reviews, please visit:https://nomorewastedmovienights.wordpress.com