My Kid Could Paint That - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

My Kid Could Paint That Reviews

Page 3 of 40
½ February 1, 2011
Top notch documentary!
January 28, 2011
I really enjoyed this. An amazing story about a child prodigy painter, who is absolutly incredible. Does a good job of showing both the positive and negitive sides to the issue, and does not really end up taking a side. The documentary itself is well filmed and well composed, but the real reason I liked it so much was that I just wanted to keep looking at these paintings, because they are on par with some of the best abstract art I've seen. As an artist, it both inspires me, and makes me feel like a failure, because this 4 year old is a way better painter than I am.
January 12, 2011
The documentary starts out to tell the story of a young girl, who at the age of 3 begins to paint what many in the art field saw as brilliant abstract paintings that were "good enough to hang in the museum of modern art". But mid way through the film (and without giving too much away) the film takes another turn and becomes far more interesting. It opens up a lot room for discussion on many counts. Did her parents hand away her childhood for fame, and bite of more than she could actually chew? Is the child actually doing the artwork herself, or being coached - or even assisted with the painting? Are the parents together on this journey for the right or the wrong of it, or is it dad who has his own agenda? It's very intreging and I would recommend to anyone. Be sure to watch the special features as well as it will add to how you view and surmise the documentary itself.
½ January 10, 2011
I tried to keep an open mind while watching this but I couldn't help but find the father and art dealer sketchy. It was very interesting how it not only looked into the validity of modern art but also the child prodigy.
½ November 11, 2010
bland and boring...although i do like paintings and such, this documentary didnt really go anywhere... and just for the record i would not use the word "genius" to describe this girl, same goes with "prodigy" (also bc i dont think she painted them)
oh and the lady that bought 'ocean' is a dumbass! never buy a painting unless you absolutly love it! geez!
½ September 2, 2010
Neatly pits the notion of art as subjective truth against sober reasoning. Remarkably, a great deal of art critics and journalists still maintain their belief in Marla as sole author of the works, while most laymen with the power of sight can clearly see it's bunk. You wouldn't need a doctorate in Literature to know that a four-year old probably isn't writing Dickens only when left alone. Well worth the hour and twenty-two.
August 23, 2010
This documentary opens so many cans of worms that my brain is still swirling, but on it's surface it's the story of a 4-year old girl who likes to paint. It just so happens that her paintings are worthy of being considered art. There's quite a lot packed into the 82 minute running time, and a lot more that can be interpreted in discussion following the viewing. It turns out this isn't so much the story of a 4-year old artist as it is the story about the role of art in society, why we care so much about it, how art has "sold out", how everyone has an opinion and the role of the media. It's frightening and sad all at the same time. It's obvious that Bar-Lev actually cares deeply about the subjects of his own art, and it's, ultimately heartbreaking, at least it was to me.
August 1, 2010
This is a good film. It doesn't go everywhere I would like it to (I would really like to know if the parents are actually going to give this girl her money) but it's got great ambiguity to it. The question I want to is, if this man did indeed help his child to paint these paintings, is it really fraud? People ostensibly bought these paintings because they were good. Does it matter how the artist is/was or if it was more than one person? If it is fraud, as some suggest, then it is fraud because the buyers were buying these paintings because they were done by a four year old, which I'm sure they would have downright denied earlier. Nobody will ever know, unless Marla or her father admit it. I agree, the filmed ones look worse than the earliest ones, but we are measuring these against standards Marla isn't even aware of. If Marla did indeed paint all of these paintings with little help, there's no way of ascertaining the why of the apparent change in style, as she was a little girl. We may just see adult things in these paintings because we want to. Who knows? That's why it's a good movie.
½ June 29, 2010
Fascinating and in the end heartbreaking. I don't think she completely did all the paintings. Marla is just a sweet little girl and her parents probably fell into a trap that seemed impossible to escape from once the hype machine was running and the money was pouring in. How do you STOP a lie once the machinery is flying in full force. I hope Marla can one day forgive her parents once she realizes that the con was in. A very well made documentary in that the position of the piece shifted when the filmmaker started to have doubts.
June 28, 2010
Interesting film about a dad who paints and gives the credit to his daughter.
½ June 22, 2010
fascinating. the documentarian doesn't explicitly state who he thinks created the work. interestingly, when he films marla painting, she continuously asks her father to finish it... did she create all her own work, or did she have help? its really hard to say... one question, did she title her own works? i mean how can a 4-year old come up with the title "tribute to pollock."
½ June 19, 2010
Almost more interesting for the incidental questions about documentary ethics than for the actual "what is art?" exploration.
May 27, 2010
Very interesting documentary about a four year old girl, Marla, who becomes an overnight sensation in the art world, but then has her ability come into question amid rumors that her father is helping her paint. Knowing what the film was about before watching it made me pick up on and analyze things that the father, mother, and other people involved said about Marla's work and the frenzy surrounding it. While this part of the film was done very well the most interesting aspect of the movie to me is how the filmmaker and family interact and how the purpose of the documentary evolves throughout the movie. I would recommend this to anyone who has even a faint interest in art or the art world. One of the few times I wasn't disappointed in an abrupt ending.
May 9, 2010
A documentary that does a great job of making its case without making accusations. The evidence, subjects and inclinations speak strongly for themselves. Perhaps the film leans towards one direction, but only because it seems the truth does, as well. It's excruciating to watch Marla seemingly and inadvertently rat out her parents.
½ May 1, 2010
"All writers, all storytellers, are imposing their own narrative on something. I mean, all art in some ways is a lie. It looks like a picture of something, but it isn't that thing, it's a representation of that thing... Your documentary is itself going to be a lie. It's a construction of things, it's how you wish to represent the truth and how you've decided to tell a particular story. By that I don't mean that certain things don't happen. Of course they do. It's not that there is no such thing as truth. But we come to like and trust a certain story, not because it's necessarily the most absolutely truthful, but because it's a thing that we tell ourselves that makes sense of the world, at least at this moment. "
½ April 25, 2010
This movie pissed me off.
April 6, 2010
The gallery owner is/was such a hilarious fraud it made me gawk. As he copies photographs and manifests himself as having a hidden agenda I was convinced that this is such bs. "Yea modern art is bs and that was my goal along, to convince the abstract art world what bs they are, that is why in a few weeks im going to have another show and sell more abstract paintings! While saying how great they are" Oh please. The fact that he thought sense he spent more time on a work that it justified he earn more money or that his work was better, is so overt and idiotic.

People need to understand that the reason abstract art is not considered dumb, is because it isn't trying to be something unoriginal and useless, like the gallery owner's photorealism. With that said, it is evident that the paintings which people liked were just copies of Kandinsky, Pollock etc. No one would care about those paintings if they were done by an adult becuase the banality is so obvious but if a kid does work like kandinsky ohhh it must be legitimate because a kid is incapable of understanding and mimicking beautiful art.

The fact that the two videos of her paintings showed her paintings the same way in the same style reveals that in no way could she be responsible for the prolific and expressive output of art which made her famous. And on the "ocean" paintings I wouldn't doubt if the kid was being told exactly what to do by the dad who was filming her girl, who apparently cant paint when people are filming her? On the better paintings it is obvious the father, or anyone for that matter, did them physically. The mark quality is just so different.

I had not even seen the documentary and I knew this was bs. It is impossible for a kid to create legitimate abstract art that is masterful and thematic because it is a kid, isn't that obvious. What the hell could a 4 year old express? Her trip to the water park? It will be clear a decade from now when Marla is attending community college and contemplating suicide because her parents used her as a front for as Welles would say "trickery and fraud."

The only argument against is one that would detail that the parents could not be that stupid to think they could get away with this, now or many years from now. They would have to then convince their kid, who would have developed a mind by then and realized what her parents have done to her life, to also play along. Right.

As a documentary though it is good, lucky. It isn't remarkable if you want a remarkable documentary on art then watch "F for Fake."
March 22, 2010
The film deals with the life of a then 5 year old whose paintings took the art world by storm. As the film progresses a scandal unfolds about the alleged intervention of her father in creating the sell out paintings.

The films director misses his opportunity to discuss in depth conflicting notions of authenticity and artistic merit or the worrying amorality of the dissecting media gaze that the family is subject to. Instead the creator glosses over these elements and plays a shallow self reflexive card whereby he attempts to assuage his own guilt for befriending the family and ultimately calling them liars.

Ultimately I feel that the parents have become somewhat trapped in a lie, whereby although the father did influence the creation of the paintings, they are forced to pretend otherwise for fear of ridicule at the hands of the population of the world. The idea that artistiuc genius is some kind of abstract, essential truth which is only ever corrupted by influence from the world seems totally absurd to me but it seems to be this concept that is absolutely pivotal in this whole scandal.
March 8, 2010
Amir Bar-Lev is one luck SOB. What a fascinating subject to exclusively capture on video! My Kid Could Paint That simultaneously explores modern art, truth in fiction, a family, the media, documentary filmmaking and one little girl who likes to paint. It is fascinating and rewarding.
Page 3 of 40