Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

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.

I've watched this film many times because it is in itself a masterpiece. I'm a fan of Vermeer and this film attempts to divulge that it would be nearly impossible for any artist to create the works that Vermeer did without some kind of assistance.One aspect is that Vermeer did not sketch this work beneath the paint; something always found within other works by other renowned artists. As pointed out, microscopic tests suggest that Vermeer painted without having drawn anything on the canvas of this particular work, "Music Lesson".It is captivating to see how a modern day man can mix pigments to make paint as it was made in the 1600's, no less that he could re-create a masterpiece in modern times as exact as well. The attention to details by erecting a room that was so much like the original is simply amazing.This is a must see film for anyone who enjoys art and especially those of the great masters. It does question how great they really were, given that a priceless artwork can indeed be reproduced in what can only be called, "brilliant". However given that we can "copy" such works, they are still appreciated as masterpieces no matter how they were created. Does age alone make such works stunning or valuable? Perhaps yes. Were the artists that great? Perhaps no. Either way, this film is an incredible view from the perspective of the only man who has challenged what we thought we knew. It is up to the observer to decide the truths.

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.

The most fascinating about this documentary about a piece of painting is that it never touches upon the subject of why the painting contains what i does, why Vermeer decided on the setting and the players that he did. And the documentary does not argue that it is pointless to discuss such a thing, but it just isn't relevant to the topic of the documentary. The documentary is not about Vermeer's painting.I have no horse in the race of how Vermeer painted his paintings, and if I did, I would not consider this documentary as a proper source for such information. It's clearly biased, and does not try to convey the other side of the argument (but states multiple times that there is one). It's not as evidence this documentary is interesting. Tim's painting, and his study of it, is (as they say) more like evidence, and I'm sure it will be examined and discussed by scholars and experts.In a sense, the documentary is not even about Tim's Vermeer. It's about Tim. Seeing how he is able to completely put his mind into something, and has the willpower and motivation to pull it through, is inspiring. And Penn's comment on the line between artist and inventor is really what I find this documentary being all about.

Nowadays, realistic digital images can be achieved through all kinds of technological tricks and specialized software. That's why I'm amazed by the capacity from painters such as Johannes Vermeer to achieve practically photo-realistic images 4 centuries ago, employing the archaic tools from the craft: pigments, oils, brushes and canvas. I don't know too much about art, but there's no need to be a connoisseur in order to appreciate the perfection from paintings such as The Art of Painting, The Little Street and Woman Holding a Balance (not to mention Girl with a Pearl Earring, which inspired an excellent movie with the same title that considerably extended Vermeer's fame). And now, in 21st century, inventor Tom Jenison (founder of the company NewTech, whose most famous creations are the animation software Lightwave and the video switcher Tricaster) is an authentic connoisseur, and his curiosity about Vermeer's techniques made him to conceive a possible solution to the mystery of the realism achieved in his paintings. It is known that many artists in that period employed the "camera obscura" (a dark room with a small hole through which an inverted image from the exterior is projected) as a guide to make the sketch of the person or landscape to be painted; but none of that explains Vermeer's extraordinary handling of illumination, atmosphere and detail. What is more, there aren't any documents which describe his techniques, and there aren't even any records of his studies, whether they were formal or as a learner from some other master painter. In summary: an authentic historical mystery accentuated by the value and beauty from his artistic legacy... until Jenison conceived an ingenious system of lenses and mirrors which, in his own words, "turns the artist into a machine", and allows him reality without the need of possessing particular talent... just inflexible discipline and dedication. But all this will just be an interesting theory, until Jenison will be able to recreate the painting The Music Lesson. The irreverent duet of magicians Penn (Jillette) and Teller are friends of Jenison's, and when they found out about the unusual project, they decided to make a documentary about it, alternating interviews to experts (such as David Hockney and Philip Steadman), testimonies from aficionado painters (such as actor Martin Mull) and "talking heads" such as Jillette himself, whose long relationship with Jenison humanizes the documentary, bringing personal anecdotes and videos which illustrate us about the inventor's tenacity and geniality. I will refrain myself from revealing Jenison's technique, because it deserves to be seen in order to appreciate its elegant simplicity, and at the same time, the necessary ingenuity to design it. Besides, like a good magic trick, it's better not to know everything from the beginning, in order to enjoy the surprise and suspense from the project. Will Jenison be able to recreate the masterpiece? Or will it be a simple exercise of compulsive obsession? The result doesn't matter as much as seeing a genius trying to emulate another genius who lived 4 centuries ago. So, even though I wouldn't consider Tim's Vermeer an excellent documentary, I liked it pretty much, and I can recommend it to those who like art, technology or the simple pleasure of chasing an obsession until its last consequences.