the audience applauded

Lack of good storyline.

From my favorite movies..

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

I don't know what it is, but I love movies about art theft and art fraud. I can't draw a straight line with a ruler, I don't collect art, but this story of the Isabelle Stewart Gardner Museum robbery intrigued me.It's been 24 years, and the stolen paintings, valued at something like $300 million, have never been returned. There has been conjecture that the IRA has them, and it was postulated that if Edward Kennedy (this is back in 2005 or so), very admired by the Irish, went to a particular senator with IRA sympathies and asked for their return, it would start a conversation. Evidently that didn't happen. Also, one of the gentlemen working on the case suddenly decided to stop talking about it, so the documentary really had nowhere to go.The main focus is on Harold Smith, an insurance investigator who spent years, right up to his death, search for the paintings and following up leads. As a young man, Smith suffered from a dry skin condition and agreed to be part of an experimental treatment. Lanolin was put all over his body and then baked in, and he was exposed to ultraviolet light. He developed skin cancer, and along the way lost an eye, a lung, and had to wear a prosthetic nose.When we see Smith in the documentary, he is an old man; he died not long after the documentary was completed. In reading the reviews here, some people seemed to find him repulsive and complained that the camera was on him too much. He was a human being like the rest of us. I think there is room in the world for people besides models, especially since this particular person had been working on a case since 1980 and filmmakers were doing a documentary about it.This documentary isn't entirely successful - it's slow and it's too long. There definitely were some interesting sections, the information about the stolen art; information about the museum itself, and the fact that no art replaced the stolen art as Gardner's will ordered that the museum be left as she had put it together, with no art added.The museum robbery is a fascinating story, but it's unresolved. When it's over, you really don't know who has the paintings and for what reason. If the paintings are ever returned, there perhaps may be an exciting story about how it came about.

This is a very flawed film but might be of some interest to some(though not really to me despite my love of art). The subject of the film is a famous theft of some amazingly expensive paintings at a art gallery in Boston and the efforts of a few (particularly Harold Smith) to track down the stolen works. It's a documentary and is told in a rather peculiar manner--showing the efforts of Smith today to recover these treasures as well as flashback scenes of the lady's life who created the museum and assembled the collection.So why do I say it was flawed? Well, the biggest problem it has is trying to make the viewer interested--which it seldom does despite the precious loss. Very subdued music, low-key performances and a somberness that is almost sleep-inducing all contribute to this. The bottom line is that the film needed energy--which is sorely lacked. In addition, this problem was made worse by its running length. There really only seemed to be about 45-60 minutes worth of material at best and its padding just made the whole thing drag. Not bad, but it sure could have been a lot better.

I do not understand why these documentary filmmakers feel that it would somehow compromise their work to use a narrator to explain those things that cannot be covered by interviews. Unless of course they're being hounded by commercial forces who think that documentaries should resemble reality television because it's more "mainstream" these days. The "let the interviews tell the story" sans narrator approach which is very much in vogue these days not only leave me feeling like the work is incomplete but it starts to lose my interest as the questions that pop up in my mind start to overtake what I'm seeing. This documentary should have been a lot better than the resulting final version. The subject-matter is first rate: the heist of some of the most priceless artwork, one of the most significant art crimes perpetrated during the late 20th century. Relying exclusively on interviews always leave me with so many unanswered questions. In short, this is a story, and I feel like I'm not watching a story just watching a bunch of people being interviewed. Tell me the story! Also, it wasn't clear exactly the main point of the documentary. It's like the producers didn't understand the difference between topic and thesis. Certainly the topic is the art heist. But the point or thesis is what the film is trying to say about the heist above and beyond simply that there was a heist and there is an on-going investigation. A narrator would help on both counts: to explicitly state the reason for the documentary besides just clarifying a topic, which is essentially what Wikipedia does. Besides the need for a clear thesis to give the piece its much-needed focus, here are some of the things I would like to know that were not made clear in the documentary: 1. The names of all the paintings and their respective artists. 2. The market value of each of the works. 3. The exact circumstances of the heist. 4. Who were the first investigators? 5. Who was in charge of the initial investigation? 6. Who were the first suspects? 7. When and why was Harold Smith called? 8. What is the history of Harold Smith? 8. When did he become a recognized art detective? 9. What was the state of the investigation when he signed on? I could go on with about 50 more questions that could have been easily answered by a narrator.None of the above points are made clear. I think the history of Harold Smith would have really given a nice flavor to the whole documentary, chronicling his early successes as an art detective. I would have liked to hear not only his previous cases but also what had happened to his body, which is referred to but never explained. Did something happen during one of his investigations? Overall, I couldn't keep my interest in the documentary because so many questions kept popping up in my mind and again always unexplained. I would rather hear that the footage showing people introducing each other in front of a home before a major interview. Even CBS' 60 Minutes pieces use a narration to keep us focused. And maybe that's the best way to sum up my problem with this documentary. It never seemed focused. It comes off more like reality television. Maybe more people want reality television. I want the story.

Believing this was intended to be a combination of a clever mystery, and perhaps a pilot film for a cancer victim recouping his great loss through becoming a well-sought after art detective, I watched this develop into lovely if cumbersomely collected art documentary on a number of Vermeer's finest art, as well as a number of Rembrandts, and four other of the greatest artists known.It seemed a bit of a slow moving hodge-podge of bits of this grotesquely disfigured 75-year man pursuing one tired lead after another cruel prank after having to interview reward-wishing-publicity-seeking people trying to make their names known.If you love art as I do, you'll put up with the clutter, the slow pace, and having to gaze time and again on this poor man's brutally damaged facial tissue, and totally enjoy the art lesson documentary buried in this hour and twenty-three minute piece ... really not concerned whether you might or might not find all the answers to this perplexing puzzle.The close-ups of these fantastic art pieces are something most of us have never had, nor might ever have occasion to behold. ENJOY!