Sorry, this movie sucks

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

The "Woman in Gold" of the title is a painting, Gustav Klimt's "Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I". (That Roman numeral was added to distinguish it from a second portrait of the same woman). Frau Bloch-Bauer was a beautiful young society lady from a wealthy Viennese Jewish family. She herself died in 1925, but the picture remained in the possession of her family until it was seized by the Nazis following the Anschluss of 1938. Klimt was not the Nazis' favourite artist- he was too modernistic for Hitler's ultra-conservative tastes- but he was not Jewish and was never officially condemned as "degenerate", so there was no ban on the public display of his art. In 1941 the painting was acquired by the Belvedere Gallery in Vienna where it hung for many years. (The Nazis were embarrassed by the fact that Klimt's sitter had been Jewish, so the name of the painting was changed to "Woman in Gold"). In 1998, however, Adele's last surviving relative, her niece Maria Altmann, now living in Los Angeles, began a legal fight to recover the stolen painting.The Austrian government resisted the claim doggedly, basing their opposition on the fact that in her will Adele had expressed the wish that the painting should hang in the Belvedere. There were, however, two problems with their defence. The first was that Adele had wished that the picture should only go to the Belvedere after the death of her husband Ferdinand, who was still alive in 1941. The second, and more serious, objection was that the painting was not actually Adele's to dispose of- it was legally Ferdinand's property, not hers.The film is based on the true story of this legal battle, concentrating on the relationship between Maria and her young lawyer, Randy Schoenberg. The two had a lot in common, both being descended from the cultured, intellectual Jewish haute bourgeoisie of Vienna. They shared a love of music; Randy was the grandson of the famous composer, Arnold Schoenberg, and Maria's late husband, Fritz, had been an opera singer. Intercut with the legal action are scenes showing Maria's early life and her flight from Vienna to escape from the Nazis in 1938.I watched this film when it was recently shown in television, partly because I am an art lover and partly because of my respect for Helen Mirren, but in many way it proved a disappointment. Mirren as Maria Altmann was certainly good, as she normally is, but she was about the only good thing in this film. There have been many excellent films based upon court cases, but such courtroom dramas have nearly all been about criminal trials, focussing on conflicting evidence and dramatic scenes of cross-examination in the witness-box. Civil actions, which rely more on legal argument and precedents and which may not even involve any testimony from live witnesses, rarely make for such engrossing drama.The case of Republic of Austria v. Altmann does not prove an exception to the rule. The lengthy scenes of discussions and legal arguments are worthy but wordy, and the flashbacks to the 1930s (for some reason shot in a very dull, muted colour) do not provide much relief from the tedium. (We know from the beginning that Maria will survive, so there is little tension). The story of the wholesale looting of European art by the Nazis, of the legal fight for restitution and of the various moral issues involved is a potentially fascinating one; it deserved a better cinematic treatment than this. 5/10

My original perception was that this was an indie flick that only played in the art houses because it was an artsy film. the truth is that it's a great film that simply didn't get the luck of the draw when it came with mass distribution. Woman in Gold would be at home with any of the Oscar nominees and contenders and would easily be considered more of an outright crowd pleaser than a film like Danish Girl (which got nominated in acting categories) or Brooklyn (which did make the final cut for Oscar). The film is based on an eight-year-long quest by a California-based lawyer of Austrian descent and a longtime family friend from the motherland (the prior relationship between the characters is erased in the adaptation process) to reclaim confiscated art by the Nazis. The film's main strength is that it's neither a holocaust story nor is it a standard courtroom drama, but it's a fresh new take on both genres. As for the former, the film feels fresh through its specificity to the Austrian experience and the specificity of a wealthy family. The film is more relatable to the experience of anyone descended of an immigrant who had to leave the old regime. As for the latter, the film's main challenge wasn't showing a guy having his flashy day in court but rather a long slog as it was taking a toll on his life. The film handles this challenge in pacing admirably. More than that, the film flies on the strength of its central relationship. You never think of Ryan Reynolds (best known for subversive leading men or a smug action stars) and Helen Mirren as occupying the same universe but the chemistry between the two goes a long way towards making this film transformative. The film is a powerful one about remembrance and loss. It teaches that one can't fix the past, but healing those wounds is a noble cause.

About this film. I give it 0/10 This is just another propaganda film made by wealthy Jews. I have nothing against them but I am very tired to see that we mix money and holocaust. That we say rich people are better than other and have more value. That's false and just rich can people who want to be one of their think like that. Probably at least 95% of human think that, that money make human. Sorry for me it's just big lie.And then they are not the only Jews the Nazis murdered during the Second World War.All other systems (capitalist, communist, fascist, monarchy, etc.) Invented by humans do the same but more subtly. More hypocritically. Take for example the capitalist (or democracy or other pompous name of the kind). In this system that claims to be just it takes money to have justice. You can do everything, even kill, but you need money. In this system with money one has access to all unimaginable health care, all the great schools, the best food, the best housing, and so on. By cons if you have no money and well die.Of course the Capitalists do not stop making propaganda (as this film makes it to justify having paintings without knowing how they were obtained at the beginning) using their favourite toy: The Television ("The Opium of the people ").When you watch TV you get the impression that all people are rich and happy. It is only a minority. And there is not one rich man who is honest.Rich people "give" a million for a "work of charity" so as not to pay billions in taxes. Billions that go directly into tax havens. The laws are them.So it would have been interesting to know how the relatives of the film's "heroine" have become rich. Of course they will say because they worked hard, and so on. Well, most humans work hard and they are not rich.But just look at the rich today to understand the rich of the past. To look at the history that is happening before us today to understand the history of the past.And we realize that nothing has changed, that nothing will change. How many Capitalists have slaves worked in China, India and elsewhere in the "poor" countries (led by bigger dictators) and who make money as is not imaginable.And we continue to say that these rich are good, and if we ever steal one of their paintings, we will make other films to show us how sad to be rich (so to be dishonest and thieves) steal.I have no respect for the rich whoever they are, whatever their race, their religion, the countries where they live. It is only Nazis who take themselves superior to others and who do everything to have more and more money.At the end of this film is said to have sold one of the paintings 123 million. How is a work of art worth? Easy to answer: it's worth what the rich are willing to pay to get it.If I had money and I bought the painting in question 1 billion and well its artistic value would be one billion. But this will not bring back the dead and human wickedness will continue to exist as long as human existence exists. Just like lies, avarice, dishonesty, pride, narcissism, egocentricity, and so on.The rich think to do good because they control everything and it is enough to think, that we are a God, to be. And if we are rich it is true that we are gods.The intelligence is not to mix Money with Holocaust. But all is good for misers to make money.Because few humans are rich they are like God, and 99% of people agree with that. Not me. No one has more value than other. NO ONE!How many jobs can be creating with 100 million? With 1 billion? With 1 trillion? Rich don't care about that. They want money, all money to put in tax heaven waiting other money from slaves. Government don't exist. What exist is "business men "(all bandits) who "work" for their friends, all rich, or other richer and make plan to make more money.Look the actual President. And Kennedy is a God! Money is the Power and the Power is the all the Thought of Humans.Quickly the robots arrive and they eliminate us. They will be truly intelligent and will be based on logic and not on money, lies, avarice, wickedness, and so on.It is sad to see that it is enough to talk about the Holocaust and the Jews so that all films of this kind have very high score here or other website. Like what money buys even the thoughts of most peopleWhen a rich man dies, this allows many who are not rich to live better.

After seeing the actually painting at the Neue Galerie in New York City, I wanted to see the movie behind it. I was not disappointed. Of course the acting is great, who doesn't love Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds was a super huge surprise as well as Daniel Bruhl, but it is the story that captivates. As beautifully done as the painting is, the movie also takes you on a beautiful, sometimes intense, haunting ride through a very painful part of history. Going back and forth between the contemporary age where Maria Altmann is trying to recover what is rightfully hers to the past when the painting was stolen you gain an understanding of the pain and fear of the time. It is one I will purchase to watch again and again.