cruel film (Major Spoiler)

It´s really an amzing movie, I also feel very sorry for Virgil, I wonder how his life will proceed, I know he was robbed of his masterpieces but was he also impoverished?

I´m a it confused regarding the ending, what happened there? He was in a hospital and then he was in that restaurant "Day and Night". Did he expected to see her there?

I really hope there will be a sequel, maybe he will have his revenge or his paintngs back.

I wish the last part never be in the movie. Without the mistery, i wish movie ended with a happy marriage of these two different kind of lonely people.

Actually, throughout the movie, I seek and waited something bad to happen, like death, murder or suicide (because of the cinematography and the soundtrack). But after his retirement, i felt kind of happiness and almost think that that movie is a happy ending... never suspected that any scam by a large-scale scheme!

While there is probably meant to be some kind of "justice" involved, I agree that it was very cruel to Virgil's character. He may have cheated people in the auctions (at least once by misrepresenting an item), but if people aren't aware are they really harmed? It's not the same thing to me.

Passion is just insanity in a cashmere sweater!

(I posted this on another thread, but felt the desire to post here as well.)


Superb film! Saw it for the first time before bed last night, kept me up for some time.

It was a horrible conspiracy. But I have to keep in mind that there is no honor amongst thieves. Oldman's thievery might have appeared somewhat more palatable, while Billy's conspiracy was intensely orchestrated. But measured side by side, they were both criminals. And upon further reflection...Billy was a tiny bit more of a Robin Hood, as he stole from the rich, while Oldman stole from pretty much anyone that he could scam out of an original--even little old ladies.


Oldman had to know this in the end; that the crime was just and deserved. However, the film was difficult for the viewer to digest, as we basically saw a rather cold and eccentric man in his coming of age story.

But this was unlike other redemption scenarios where characters like Scrooge or Melvin Udall (As Good As It Gets), turn good or find love. We were prepared for this, the softening of a hard man--then the film turned on us, giving the main character exactly what he deserved. That's new, and rather shocking.

I couldn't disagree more. He was a con man who got exactly what he deserved -- conned out of everything he'd illicitly collected throughout his life. It's called justice.

"Lettin' the cat outta the bag is a whole lot easier 'n puttin' it back in." -- Will Rogers

Unbelievably cruel. To steal his ill-gotten collection, that was fair play within the den of thieves he joined so long ago.

But to steal his heart, ensuring that the only experience of love he would ever have would leave him devastated permanently... unbearable. Thematically, it's beautiful, the long con employed being such a work of art itself, but breathtakingly cruel.

Stunning film.

"Oh, dear. Mr. Dictionary seems to have deserted us again."

I agree. . . cruel. He seemed to be dealing fairly with his biz partners. When did they begin devising such a cruel plan and why???

One of the number one flaws in the film -- it is not credible that a decent looking man of about 60 is a VIRGIN - unless he's really mentally screwed up or gay. Or perhaps very, very religious.

If any of those, then nothing else in the film is credible. A gay man wouldn't fall for Claire. A deeply repressed man who is revolted by physical contact (the gloves) wouldn't want to have sex at all -- not even with a pretty girl. Someone deeply religious probably wouldn't be faking paintings, or using a shill buyer to cheat people, or falsely appraising paintings as fake when they are real.

You don't go from "no sex ever" for over a half century, to suddenly being able to perform perfectly, and with a pretty girl who is young enough (really!) to be your GRANDDAUGHTER.

I found it creepy, frankly, It would have worked fine with a woman who was 37, rather than in her early 20s.