You are roped into this movie within the first few minutes. It is very clever, entertaining, historical and informative. The acting is superb. I've watched this movie four times so far and would watch it again tonight to share it with someone special. My wife never watches a movie more than once but has viewed this one three times. Her comment was that there is something about this movie that makes you want to see it again.They should have eliminated the scene with the telephone booth because the lock on the outside of the booth made no sense at all. I don't know what they were thinking. But if you can overlook this one flaw you are in for a real treat. Ignore the few pans above and trust the people that gave it good reviews. My recommendation is that you buy the movie instead of renting it because you will want to watch it again and again. By the way, this is the first movie I have ever been tempted to submit a review for.

Art forgery cloned into a James Bond" movie, with an utterly bad script. Coincidences abound, and everything seems totally contrived, like they started out with the ridiculous court scene, and then tried to make everything fit leading up to it. To think that a judge and jury would sit "spellbound" for hours on end watching Jason Patric paint a "masterpiece" in an afternoon is beyond ridiculous. And speaking of Jason Patric, his character is so unlikable that the only one to sympathize with is the long suffering audience. Rod Steiger is totally wasted, and so was my hour and forty eight minutes, watching this total nonsense. - Merk

It's not as bad as I'd expected. It's one of those British crime dramas in which people walk around in Saville Row suits, visit Paris and Spain at will, and drive Jaguars -- and the plot centers around a fake Rembrandt painted by Jason Patric, who is double crossed by a couple of co-conspirators and aided by art expert Irene Jacob.The sociologist Dean Maccannel, in his book "The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class", has a delightful anecdote about a group of young American tourists in the Louvre or the Prado or someplace, noticing that a number of paintings were designated as having been executed by P. ignotus, Latin for "painter unknown." The kids loved P. Ignotus's work, rushing from hanging to hanging, exclaiming, "Oh, here's another one by Ignotus!" This has nothing to do with the movie unless I want to squeeze it in by saying that I was reminded of Maccannel's story by an argument the fakers are having near the beginning of the film. The production of this fake has taken a long time and Patric has not signed it as Rembrandt van Rijn. The others (who are supposed to be art experts) want him to sign it so they can be sure they'll palm it off as the real thing. But Patric knows (as they should) that not every artist signs every one of his works, Rembrandt included. Without the signature it is less likely to be obviously faked. (I think Michelangelo signed only one of his works, La Pieta, although flamboyantly.) It's kind of interesting to watch Patric fake the painting. Looks convincing enough to me, and I once won a prize for window painting in the 8th grade. The rest of the movie -- with the thieves and murderers in pursuit of Patric and Jacobs -- is kind of routine, with one or two scenes very redolent of Hitchcock. But there's nothing spectacularly WRONG with it. It simply doesn't seem too original and hasn't much in the way of sparkle.Except for Irene Jacob, the art expert who falls for Jason Patric for reasons that escape me because he looks quite ordinary. SHE doesn't though. I think it was Anthony Burgess who remarked of a chapter in James Joyce's Ulysses that "it may be gibberish but it's English gibberish." Something like that could be said of Jacob's face. She has even features but they are distinctly French even features. She has deep unripe-olive eyes, is not glamorized in any way, but is nevertheless striking, like the girl in a senior high school class that was only available to the captain of the football team. She has a slender modelesque figure with matching breasts. Badham, the director, is tasteful enough to have her disrobe on camera.The film ends in a trial which is pretty tense and enjoyable, although not in the slightest believable. On trial for murder, Patric has a chance to prove his innocence by reproducing the faked Rembrandt in court, which he can do in a jiffy. One afternoon, in fact. He is well on his way to succeeding, to the dismay of the prosecution and the satisfaction of his counsel, when he stops, throws his palette down, and refuses to go on because "Only Rembrandt can paint Rembrandt." Faking someone else's painting hasn't bothered him a whit before and, man, does this epiphany come at the wrong time.No matter. It's kind of enjoyable. Worth watching if it comes up but not worth working for.

Well, I was surprised, this film ain't that bad. I wasn't expecting much but by the end, I quite enjoyed it.Badham's direction is fair, he didn't always make good use of the frame and show off the European cities. The acting isn't bad, quite good actually. Jason Patric produces a worthy performance here. The female lead is pretty good, the French certainly produce some terrific actresses.The plot does feature a few problems, but still, a lot of it ain't bad. The screenplay required some more thought to cover up some of the problems. The film wasn't always running at a consistent pace and a few scenes were rushed. The villains were fine but needed more development.Worth watching on a Friday evening.