In London, Harry Donovan (Jason Patric) is arrested for the murder of a Rembrandt owner. The movie flashes back four months earlier. Harry is an art forger in NYC struggling to get his own work noticed. He's approached by three mystery men to paint a Rembrandt for $500k. He goes to Amsterdam to study Rembrandt and decides to fake a lost picture. In Paris, he gets romantic with Marieke van den Broeck (Irène Jacob) who claims to be a student. She unwittingly helps him. However it turns out that she is the pre-eminent Rembrandt expert and she is the only one who won't authenticate his picture.The movie is solid for the first half. Then the movie suggests that Harry killed the Japanese guy. It makes it impossible to root for Harry. The movie should show the bad guy killing the Japanese dude after Harry leaves right at that point. It's not a worthy mystery to keep if it takes away the rooting interest. Also the court case and everything afterward is too rushed. There is no case against the villain other than the testimony of his co-conspirator. The defense seems to hinge on proving the picture as a fake but that proves nothing about the murder. That would change his motivation but the murder still stands. Once the courtroom scene starts, the movie stops making sense.

a film about art. and its roots as way to survive. a film about Rembrandt in a special style. and a love story. short - a clever film with elements of art history, thriller, crumbs of Hitchcock and full of beautiful images. not sophisticated but far to be disappointed. not special but far of waste of time.a perfect target for entertainment and, in same time, a lesson about beauty in not ordinary mode. adventures, secrets, various battles , good actors and flavor of correct work. its public - many slices of interest. because action near love, art near chase, conspiracies near industry of fake masterpieces, delicate homage to Rembrand near need to survive and, a beautiful couple are ingredients for everyone.

This is a typical B-thriller that airs on a Friday night. Because of that, my expectations for the movie weren't exactly huge. But I really felt enjoyed when watching this, it was in fact quite exciting. The story about a an art forger who fakes a Rembrandt picture is a quite good one, and was a relieving difference from most other B-thrillers. Although I doubt that the way he fakes the painting is possible in real life, it was very well made for this film. Remember, it's only a movie. The acting is mediocre. Not good, but not bad either. That doesn't matter much here, because it's the story that makes this a pretty good movie. The film takes place in Europe, something I liked for a change.

I was too far away from the remote control late one night and ended up watching the beginning of a cheap looking HBO movie. In the first 5 minutes there was a nude girl. Shortly after, a topless girl dressing. Thank goodness it turned into an interesting movie, the rest of the film was spent clothed.Looking at the other comments, I'm disappointed that more didn't realize that the art was the show. That, and the question of what is and what isn't art. If it can fool the experts without technical testing, is it any less real or valued??? There is more cynicism in the art world than there is in politics. I loved the museums and the Cathedral Notre Dame back-drop to many scenes. I enjoyed these scenes more than I did the chase and courtroom scenes. There must have been enough edits on the cutting room floor to make a mini-series to get this to movie length. Several plot lines could have been followed further.I found it entertaining and interesting. It made me sad about the things and places I might never see in person. The acting is adequate. The story is adequate. The 'phonetic' reading of lines was lost on me. The other comment that mentioned that reminded me of an early Catherine Deneuve film where she had to do the script in english phonetically. IT DIDN'T BOTHER ME A BIT.....