Jean-Michel Rene SOUCHE This Documentary shows how Beliefs are the most essential part of our Life... In Swann's Way, Marcel Proust wrote : « Facts do not find their way into the world in which our beliefs reside; they did not produce our beliefs, they do not destroy them. » Nobody will destroy Teri Horton's Belief that she has bought a $50 million Pollock... As nobody will destroy the Expert's / collectors Belief that Teri has bought a $5 Fake. Science (also a Belief) does not enter the Realm of Art Experts, as Experts' Judgement does not enter Teri Horton's Realm. Because they both stick to their respective Beliefs, and, as said Proust : Facts do not enter the world of Beliefs...Thus, Teri Horton & the Experts are Both right. We simply all BELIEVE that Da Vinci has painted the Mona Lisa...

jwelch666 Spoiler alert. Read the other reviews to determine whether you want to watch this movie. I definitely think it's worth the viewing, and my opinion of the answer to the main question raised might constitute a spoiler.I won't bother to give a summation of this movie, which is been done already umpteen times. I'm surprised nobody seems to have drawn what to me seems an obvious conclusion. The forensics are fairly conclusive as to the authenticity. Why can't people just see that this probably (or surely) is a Jackson Pollock, just not a very good one.That may even explain why he got rid of it. Not everything done by a master is a masterpiece, unless you just want an autograph. Marc Chagall used to write checks for everything, a loaf of bread, a cup of coffee, knowing that people would not cash his checks, preferring to have his autograph in their hands, also knowing his signature was more valuable than the value of the check.Look at a Jackson Pollock in the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Pictures and posters of those same paintings never really capture it. There is an inexplicable power when looking at these paintings in person. I don't understand it, nor can I articulate what it is, but it is a visceral experience, supra rational. The painting in the movie did not have the same power. It was probably done by Jackson Pollock, but probably one he was not proud of.

dwissba So what is it with the truck driving woman who is the center of this documentary? She finds a painting at some second hand store that may be an original Jackson Pollock for $5.00. She later finds out that it may be worth a lot more (25,000,000 more)than the $5.00 she paid for it. She has the painting taken to a lot of art experts who can't seem to agree if it was done by Pollock himself or was just a copy by someone else. A fingerprint is found on the back of the painting at one point. No finger prints of Jackson were ever put on file so an investigator goes to Jackson's old studio (which is a museum now) to see if any of his fingerprints can be lifted from any old paint cans he may have handled. A finger print is found and does resemble the one on the back of the painting...but still no one can seem to agree. Teri Horton (The woman who found the painting) is first offered $3,000,000 for it by someone who believes it is a Jackson. She turns them down for reasons that to me at least are confusing. She stated its the principle of the thing. OK So she wants more for it if in fact it can be proved to be a real Jackson Pollock. No one in this documentary ever does conclusively prove that the painting was from him. I would think if it can't be proved for sure I would take the $3,000,000 like a bandit. The real kicker to me about this film was before the credits started rolling it was said that Teri Horton was offered $9,000,000 from another buyer, in which she turned down also. Is this women dumb or what? What bothered me most about this film was the ignorance of this woman. Is it greed? Maybe. But if a painting can't be proved to be from an artist as an original and someone offered me $9,000,000 I would take it. Why not? Any smart person would I think but she appeared to me as some redneck who has the attitude that the less she knows the better she will be. Well, in any case she should go back to driving a truck.

edstock707 This movie always keeps its tongue in its cheek. It could have made characters such as Hoving out to be despicable know-it-all who refuse to be wrong. The movie does have a "60 Minutes" feel to it, which is not surprising considering the involvement of Don Hewitt. A tendency to shade things might be expected, but really, no matter which side of the story one supports, there's plenty there to appreciate. Even the heavies in the film seem to be having a good time, maybe because they realize this isn't about some evil art forger trying to pass off a masterwork while bilking unsuspecting art lovers. It really is about the principles involved - and everyone in the movie truly does appear to be driven more by principle than anything else (with the exception of the sleazy art agent, perhaps).If nothing else, the film should end up encouraging viewers to learn a bit more about art appreciation and art history. With the ongoing controversy about the Alex Matter alleged-Pollocks, the story is timely and provoking while remaining highly entertaining. Side notes: I disagree that Teri Horton comes off as money-hungry. She reportedly turned down at least two multi-million dollar offers for the painting.The comment in a previous review regarding her unwillingness to meet with Frankie Brown, the Pollock-esquire splatter artist, is a bit inaccurate. You can read more about him and Teri Horton at www.fine art registry.com/articles/ Further investigation into the matter by Paul Biro, the art forensics specialist, is reported at his web site (Biro fine art restoration).