Mjeteconer Just perfect...

ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

SnoopyStyle 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.

marysz This is a passionately made documentary about how the rug was yanked out from under the legitimate trustees of the Barnes Foundation in order to move its priceless art collection to Philadelphia. I was lucky enough to have visited the Barnes when it was still in Merion. Barnes unintentionally created intractable problems for his collection when he put it in a quiet, affluent, suburban neighborhood, while at the same time intending that his collection should be for ordinary people. This has always puzzled me. Originally, he actually hung the paintings in his factory in Philadelphia so the workers could see them. When the power brokers zoomed in on the Barnes, the residents of Merion, on one hand, wanted the collection to stay in the neighborhood but, on the other hand, made it as difficult as possible for visitors to see it by restricting their numbers. Also, there was no way to reach it by public transportation.The septa station is not close by. This stubbornness on the part of the residents was their fatal flaw--and it made the Foundation vulnerable. By the time the town and county were willing to change the zoning, it was too late. The Annenbergs and the Pew foundation are no angels, but if Barnes had originally put his collection in Philadelphia in the first place, in a working-class neighborhood instead of in a wealthy suburb, he could have fulfilled his ideals about making art accessible to everyone, not just the elite. Unfortunately, even in its new location, it's still not easy to get in and see the collection. Visiting it has always been an elitist experience, ironically.

snsh The film offers an insightful message beyond the obvious ones that after you die, you really have no control over the stuff you leave behind, and the message that the greatest art heist of all time is the one you've never heard of.The message is about how power is wielded and leveraged at the highest levels. Organizations are power, and whether they are non-profits or governments they are always run by men, and men who crave power will eventually find a way to control those organizations. If you set Game of Thrones in a modern setting, it would look a lot like this film.This quote from the film sums it up:"We're used to hearing about corporate takeovers with for-profit corporations. But this was a non-profit corporate takeover. And the first thing you have to do is remake the board of trustees... (This) is what takes place all the time in the corporate world, which is to take over the board by adding new positions on the board. You don't go in and kill all the board members that are there. You just put ten more on."The film helps you appreciate how the world works, especially in our incorporated and securitized business climate.

charleski The scenario in brief: Albert C. Barnes is an idiosyncratic, but very wealthy man who has a good eye for art in the early 20th century and manages to snap up a large collection of post-impressionist paintings that becomes very important. Instead of opening this up to public view, he hides it away in a suburb on Pennsylvania, accessible only to a select elite. If we are to believe this documentary, his act of cultural kidnapping was founded on personal animosity towards the eminences running the public works in Pennsylvania in his day. Hardly an excellent reason to deprive the nation of the opportunity to view great works of art.But Barnes is not content with depriving his contemporaneous generation of these works and decides to drag his collection with him to the grave. He draws up an elaborate will that sets up a foundation that will keep the paintings sequestered away, mouldering under the gaze of small groups of specially-selected 'students'.The film covers the efforts made to wrest control of this vitally important collection away from a group of preppy blue-bloods who wanted to remain true to Barnes' exclusive vision. We are shown a series of sniffy elitist aristos whining as the barriers that Barnes set up are slowly broken down. We are told, in shocked tones, that one common gent decided to leave the exhibition after remarking that Reubens' paintings contained a lot of fat ladies (gasp! - the implication is clearly that mere commoners should not be allowed to view and pass judgement on these cultural fetishes).Finally, the Foundation teeters on bankruptcy and elected officials step in to ensure that the collection is maintained for the public good. In a final act of cultural vandalism they move it away from the tiny and vastly inappropriate secluded mansion Barnes provided and house it in a modern gallery where anyone can visit and enjoy these treasures. At this point the chosen talking heads erupt in a fury - the idea of common people leaving the imprint of their common eyeballs on work that should be restricted to the privileged elite is clearly beyond bearing.Make no mistake, the intent of this film is to argue the case for the Barnes elitists, and it spends a lot of time spewing rants about how evil it was to open up the collection. I knew very little of the Barnes Foundation before seeing it, but based solely on the information the film provided it is blatantly obvious that the terms of Barnes' legacy had to be overthrown.This art did not belong to Barnes, he only got to hold it for a while. This art belongs to the world, and the world finally has the chance to enjoy it.