Monuments Men

The movie deserves an A for effort but misses the mark dramatically. The question is: why? The story is evocative and the cast is excellent. Where the movie goes wrong is how it presents the story. The movie attempts to inject a whimsical element in story which is out of context. There was nothing whimsical about the plan to save priceless artwork. Also, the story moves at a slow pace and inspires little if any excitement or drama. The discoveries of the hidden artwork has little dramatic impact, nor do the interpersonal relationships between the characters which in the movie are shallow. Even the attempt at romance comes off as tepid and half-hearted, as well as implausible. The idea of a young, handsome, married American officer, alone in Paris, having dinner in the apartment of an attractive, intelligent, single French woman who made him dinner and not staying for at least another drink is a stretch. True, he is married and his faithfulness is commendable, but still .... The movie does have some strong dramatic moments, but in general the story is bland. Yet despite the movie's drawbacks, it still manages to tell a story about an historical event of great importance and significance, and for that reason alone is worth watching.

Just to Get one thing straight, i don't dislike this movie. In my Opinion it's entertaining in his own way. But i'm still disappointed by this movie, the Trailer really got me interested and i was really looking forward to see this movie. But i was probably expecting too much. The Story about a group of People, trying to Return some of the most important Pieces of Art in European History, to there rightful Owners is great. It's Characters Motivations are believable, those people weren't just some Art-Crazy Nutjobs that risked their lives to Save some Paintings they've only saw in Books, it goes deeper. I give this Movie Credit for not being an over-the-top patriotic WW II Flick. It's big Problem is, that it can't decide which kind of movie it's trying to be. Is it supposed to be a serious Drama or a Comedy with some serious Moments. And if you cast a Actor like Bill Murray, i would've expected a Comedy. So we get a mix of Dramatic Scenes, a few funny Scenes and unfunny Scenes which were supposed to be funny. On top of that, this movie is not good edited. Early in the Film the Group splits into several Groups, so the movie keeps switching between these Groups, which makes it sometimes hard to follow the Plot. Sometimes the time Gap between the cuts are crazy. In one scene we are in France during Autumn, then they cut and next they show us a scene in deepest Winter during the Battle of the Bulge. For all i can see, the acting is good, but because i watched the German-dubbed Version of this movie i can't fully Judge the acting. Now, is this movie horrible? Well, no it got some weak Moments and some strong Moments. When this movie was was over i thought to myself "this movie was OK". But maybe that's the Problem it's just OK.

"The Monuments Men" is a group of men (in real life around 350, and in this film 7) who are tasked with saving the historically and culturally significant monuments, fine arts and archives during World War II. They have to find and return that which the French hid and the Germans were finding and stealing and then hiding. And the film decided to tell this story comedically.

The film took a really long time to get going as they wanted it to be about the men that took on this task. But they changed their names and I also couldn't tell you a single characteristic of any of them. The men were paired off so they each had their own region to investigate, but none of that was interesting. The worst part was giving James Granger (Matt Damon) and Claire Simon (Cate Blanchett, representing the real- life heroine Rose Valland) a love story. They did have a reason for such nonsense, or how about just sticking with how it actually happened.

George Clooney has said the film is about 80% accurate, and that seems fair enough. But the problem isn't the historical inaccuracy; the problem is that the cheap humour diminishes the very people and story they're trying to empower. The humour was just a handful of lines wanting to kill Hitler and standing on a landmine. It just didn't make the film entertaining. The story could have done that but it didn't become interesting until they started discovering where the Germans hid the art. Coincidentally, the same point when the film started following the real story.

"The Monuments Men" very clearly wanted to help remember an important part of history and spark a debate about the cost of war on soldiers, civilians, and history and society. The debate is raging on, but the film missed the level of entertainment by not trusting its audience to be interested in exactly what happened.

In bringing together elements from Inglourious Basterds, Ocean's Eleven and Museum Hours, George Clooney certainly had plenty of opportunity for a rich and interesting story. War heroes who appreciate fine art played by the likes of Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray and John Goodman (plus a few "that guy"s), attempting to steal back priceless works of art from the Nazis, it sounds amazing.

So what went wrong? Well, to begin with, for a movie about a team, we're given very little time with them as a group. Almost immediately they pair off on their own little adventures. Instead of using these exploits to let us know a little more about the characters as individuals, we get the usual oddball pairings and some mildly amusing, but ultimately hollow, vignettes. Even when we lose some of our team, it really feels like nothing more than just something that happened on the trip, like "oh, and I also saw a horse." We have hardly any sense of them as a group and far less about them as people. The only character whose motivations we can understand is the one played by Cate Blanchett, but her limited chemistry with Matt Damon dooms what little redemptive quality her character had.

Also, and particularly troubling for a movie involving art, George Clooney's lens has little reverence for the work it shows. Though the film heavy-handedly ponders whether a piece of art is worth a human life, the camera never does. Even when a character lays down his life for a sculpture, it comes off less dramatic than inevitable. The film treats the works as being mostly historically significant and never finds that lover's gaze that tells the audience why.

What we're left with is a bag of spare parts. It's a popcorn movie with no setpieces. A war movie with no battles. A heist movie with no scheming. An art movie with no inspiration. Were they to have found some of Inglourious Basterds' bluster, Ocean's Eleven smarts or Museum Hour's insight, they may have found a formula that works, but that's not the movie we have here. I'll be damned if George Clooney doesn't look good in a moustache, though.

I really knew nothing about this band of rag-tag soldiers before going to this movie, and it certainly piqued my curiosity to read the book and do a little more research. So anything like this that has more of just an "entertainment value" is a good thing. I'll admit, I was drawn to it because of Clooney, and was not disappointed. It was also refreshing to see Goodman and Murray in dramatic roles.

No, it's NOT supposed to be a comedy, nor a WW2 "Ocean's 11." For those who criticize that there is TOO much comedy, I disagree. The comedic relief comes primarily from one-liners, and who among us is serious all the time? Funny people often find themselves in serious situations and it would be difficult to believe that soldiers do not enjoy--and need--to laugh and be smart-alecks occasionally.

And a BIG thumbs up for the lack of the f-word and other profanity. I am getting so tired of nearly all movies peppering (and usually overdosing) their scripts with profanity. Sure, these soldiers probably used colorful language, but it wouldn't have added anything to the film to include it, and really, we need to show young people that you can communicate (more) effectively without profanity.