Wonderful character development!

Simply Perfect

Just perfect...

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

SPOILERSThe major point this movie tries to make is that powerful forces conspired to defy the will of an art collector and move his art collection from it's residential suburban setting into the downtown area of the city. It does a good point of proving that this conspiracy did happen.What it doesn't do is prove the other point it kept hammering throughout the movie -- that this move was a tragic event. It's a shame that Barnes' will was not adhered to exactly as he wanted. Does that make it a tragedy? Does any instance of a will not being followed to the letter constitute a tragedy?It does not make a very good case for why the move downtown was a tragic event other than the wishes of the art collector were not followed.Some of the points the movie made that do not make logical sense:1) Several charities contributes gobs of money to move the museum downtown -- those charities could have easily donated the money instead to keep the Barnes where it was. The move makes no case at all about what would incite those charities to do that. Why would other charities donate money to keep the Barnes in its residential setting when the whole reason it was set there was to make it inaccessible to the public? Especially when the decision to put it there in the first place was seemingly made out of pettiness, revenge, and spite. Seems reasonable to me that outside charities would want to make the art collection more accessible to the public as a concession for donating millions and millions of dollars.2) The movie goes on and on about how tragic it is that the art was moved and now people won't get to experience the art in the way Barnes intended. I'm not sure I understand that point either. The movie said the new location laid out the art in the same exact way the original museum had it laid out -- that the blueprints for the rooms were modeled on the original. That means the argument the movie is trying to make that it is tragic that the art must be viewed in a city instead of in a residential neighborhood? It definitely stinks that Barnes' will was not followed to the letter, but the movie does make it seem like he wanted to control who got to see his art -- NY Times art critic = NO, plumber = YES. I don't know. What if his will stipulated that the art was to be burned to ashes to keep NY Times art critics away from it forever? Should that have been followed too?I'm sure this review will be downvoted because there do seem to be some very vocal advocates for keeping Barnes residential. I'm sorry, but the violation of Barnes' will doesn't quite raise to the level of tragedy based on what the movie is showing. Seems like making the art more accessible isn't a terrible outcome in the grand scheme of things either.

In 1922, Albert Barnes created the Barnes Foundation outside of Philadelphia to house his collection of post-impressionist and early modern art. In 2007, the $Billions collection was 'stolen' from its Lower Merion location to downtown Philadelphia with the need for high-end art for public consumption, crocked politicians, money-hungry non-profits, and big moneyed establishment. Barnes had made his fortune creating a cure. He hated the conservative establishment in Philadelphia and collected great modern artists in Paris when they were dismissed by the art world. His collection was initially attacked by art critics. Then he was criticized for not showing the collection enough. He got into a life-long fight with Philadelphia Inquirer's owners tax-evading Moses Annenberg and Nixonian son Walter. After Barnes' death in 1951, it begins a long running battle to gain control of the foundation. This is very informative and more insightful than most fictional movies. It also proves that the good guys don't always win and money talks. It's a great if one-sided investigative documentary.

A remarkable, thought provoking documentary that I thoroughly enjoyed, even though I had no prior knowledge of the events – already well explained in previous reviews.I couldn't help but bring to mind the putative words of Pretty Boy Floyd:"Well, as through the world I've rambled, I've seen lots of funny menSome will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen".There's an awful lot of robbing going on here, poignantly underlined in the scene as flamboyant signatures are exchanged by the mayor of Philadelphia and the Barnes Foundation as they signed their 'deal'. I can't say that any of the robbers in this film were particularly funny. In fact every time the story cried out for the other side of the story, a message on the screen said so-and-so declined to be appear on film, or declined to be interviewed, or declined to speak on the record… whatever. I'm not sure how the film can be accused of being one sided when the other side wouldn't say anything. Actually the cowardly shame of their silence spoke volumes…Kudos do, however, go to governor Rendell for actually appearing on film and putting his view, sincere as it appeared, although quite clearly having little regard for the fundamental issues at root – the clearly stated wishes and the will of Dr. Barnes about his art collection. In these reviews I've seen arguments about how it's going to be seen buy more people, in a more accessible location etc. But it's quite obviously not what Dr Barnes wanted for his collection. Call me old fashioned but I think his wishes should have been be accorded priority.

The Art of the Steal is a "documentary" about the war between two factions of people, centralized in Philadelphia: The politicians who want the priceless art collected by the Barnes Foundation to be moved to all of the major museums of downtown Philadelphia no matter the cost, and all of the pretentious snobbish Barnes-loyalists. I put quotes around the word "documentary" because it's a documentary on the same lines as Triumph of the Will: one-sided propaganda for the sole reason of making the Barnes loyalists even more self righteous. In terms of subject value, it almost had a chance to be interesting, until you take a step back and realize how absurd the whole debate is. Don Argott was hired by the proprietors of the Barnes Foundation to make a one-sided film, villainizing anyone who favors moving the Barnes Collection. The various people interviewed in the film is almost like the cast of a Christopher Guest movie. There are some people interviewed where you actually have to say to yourself, "Is this person for real? This has to be an act." Such delightful art snob caricatures include a guy with a ratty mustache who gasps and contorts his face in hyperbolic shock at every trivial little detail. We also have the older gentleman who's views are: if it's at the Barnes Foundation, it's better than any other art anywhere else on Earth. Such great quotes of his include, "This is a nice Matisse...but it's not as nice as the Matisse at the Barnes." It's funny until you realize he's serious and that yes, his head is indeed that far up his own ass. Then we have shrill crazy former Barnes student, a wonderful little over reactionary individual who loves to protest and scream catchphrases like, "PHILISTINES!" and "YOU'RE LAUGHING NOW, WAIT UNTIL IT'S YOUR WILL!"In terms of cinematic value, there is none. It is presented in the most typical, tired, and boring documentary style of people talking at the camera inter cut with stock footage of time lapses of large skyscrapers and clouds.An unbiased documentary showing both the pros and cons of both sides may have actually been a decent film. Heck, there may even be the possibility of a decent film with the existing footage if it were to be edited differently. I would love to see a re-edit of the film where instead of ignorantly biased, it would be self aware at how ridiculous not only the whole debate is, but how absurd all of the Barnes Loyalists are. If it were edited in a similar style to "American Movie" or "Some Kind of Monster" and showed the subjects for how obnoxious they all were, it would exponentially improve an otherwise dreadful film. I hope Dan Argott received a nice, fat paycheck from the Barnes Foundation, because his film has pretty much no merit anywhere else than in the minds of the people he made the film for.I didn't know much of the Barnes Foundation before I saw this movie, and I certainly knew nothing of this petty debate that was occurring. After watching the entire film, I found myself so disgusted with the extreme bias of the film and everyone interviewed in it, I was actually rooting for the other side to win. The debate is about ownership of stuff that has every right to be public; who gets to have the pride of owning some priceless painting. Barnes took all of his painting from their native countries anyways. Maybe neither the Barnes nor the city of Philadelphia are the rightful owners, maybe it's France. I've talked to people I know who've been to the Barnes, and the general consensus is that there is great art, but it's poorly presented with upwards of 30 paintings are crammed onto a single wall, inhibiting one's ability to actually appreciate each on its own individual level.In the end, isn't it more about the art being accessible to everyone? Who cares if it's in a museum or some house out side of the city. Matisse doesn't care, Rembrandt doesn't care, Cezanne doesn't care. No one in this film should be celebrated. The politicians are selfish and go about the movement of the art is a sneaky corrupt fashion, and the Barnes loyalist are all stuck up, annoying, reprehensible people who take the whole situation far too seriously. They have gotten too wrapped up in a silly debate, that they have forgotten what truly was important that started the debate in the first place.I gave it 2 stars, because while the film was awful, the poster is actually really well done.