What a awesome story. This film has a uniqueness of it's own. I've never seen a film that evolves around a young motherless child who's gifted at painting art. Movies like this are good. Keep you looking at individual characters to see who's worth routing for. The lighting was perfect, the editing was perfect of course but I think the casting was very good. Each person played the role very very well. Before watching this film, I never knew people forged paintings. I always just assumed people stole them and tried to sell them. This film has given me a new insight on the authenticity of works in general. You have to really look deep into things to be sure of it's authenticity.

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.

Really well photographed, "High class" music, great scenery, but the bottom line is: It seems like an ABC After School Special!! The synopsis from the DVD kiosk sounded interesting, and I had some hope until Hayden Panetierre made the scene. She didn't damage the film, and the girl is undeniably cute, but plot and believability completely went out the door at that point, and quite frankly, with a crap script like this, not even Hayden Christensen would have done much damage. Regarding Lauren Bacall, there were glimpses of what a smoker she was when she swept Bogart off his feet, but she, Alfred Molina, and Billy Boyd must be hurting financially to have done this. After the Youth Services officer finds Joshua's mother, WTF happened, except for her to call for "a black & white". Total dreck for the junior high school crowd. Make that 13 and under.

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...?