Stolen

2006
6.1| 1h24m| NA| en| More Info
Released: 21 April 2006 Released
Producted By:
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

In 1990, thieves absconded with 13 masterpieces -- including works by Rembrandt and Vermeer -- from Boston's Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, pulling off the greatest art heist in U.S. history. Rebecca Dreyfus's investigative documentary delves into this modern mystery, piecing together clues gleaned from archival documents, art critics, historians, collectors and informants (both credible and dubious) to shed light on the as-yet unsolved case. Instant QueuePlay Trailer

Genre

Documentary

Watch Online

Stolen (2006) is currently not available on any services.

Cast

Director

Rebecca Dreyfus

Production Companies

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime.
Watch Now
Stolen Videos and Images
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Stolen Audience Reviews

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece
Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.
Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny
Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.
blanche-2 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.
MartinHafer 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.
cytharea As an American woman of African, and a little bit of European, descent, I found it interesting how the people featured in the movie identified so intensely with European art objects. It explained a lot to me about European cultural dominance. Much is made in the film about Mrs. Gardener's love affair with Venice, obsession with "salvaging" European architectural fixtures, etc., to the point of even calling herself "Europa." I understand the concept of how certain human-made objects can be esteemed to the level of the sacred by the culture that produced them. But I just can't get worked up about these stolen paintings as if their theft represents an atrocity against humanity. I do love paintings, and have been moved greatly by looking on many wondrous works over the years by a diverse range of artists, from Goya to Jacob Lawrence, but there's always more where that came from. Let's move on to supporting the next generation of Vermeers. Or just wake up to the beauty of a neighborhood mural celebrating local lives. Just because these paintings were enshrined by this museum did not make them impervious to criminality. In terms of style, this documentary was repetitive and low on insights. I was disappointed in the way the filmmaker so often took the sappy, handwringing route, spent far too much screen time on the suffering art investigator, without exploring what one of the experts said: "It's not about the admiration of art; the theft was about power."
donbren-1 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!