Monuments Men: Ungewöhnliche Helden

I have to say that I think a 6.1 average rating is a little unkind to this film. There are a multitude of super serious, heart wrenching, melancholy dramas about WWII. And I understand that those are appropriate for one of the greatest collective horrors to ever grip mankind.

That said, this movie being more jovial and about kinship amongst the men who swore to save art and culture felt like an appropriate tone. It made the film fun.

Having enjoyed it, there are still flaws. Not enough focus on the actual works of art for one, and for another, a little disjointed and rushed in some spots while other scenes that have little impact on the story take up screen time. It could have been a more art-centric celebratory movie than it was, given the heart of the matter.

This is not a terrible film. Maybe not what some would expect, but I had a nice time watching it, learned a lot, and even at times felt compelled about the accomplishments of humanity. That's a hard feeling to come by, so I embrace and appreciate it.

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.

Before I review the movie proper, some anachronisms: While there was a song called "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" in 1944 (Judy Garland introduced it in Meet Me in St. Louis), the words Ms. Garland sang then were a little different from what we know today. Like, instead of "Hang a shining star upon the highest bough" which was the line introed by Frank Sinatra in his 1957 recording, the line should have been "Until then, we'll have to muddle through sometime" which Judy sang in that movie I mentioned. Anyway, I very much enjoyed this dramatization of some art experts attempt to save as much of other countries' art from the Nazi regime as possible during World War II. Nice characterizations from Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett, John Goodman, Bill Murray, Bob Balaban, among others, and George Clooney who also did a nice job directing as well. Maybe there could have been a bit more drama in characterization but I was satisfied with what I got. There were some nice humorous scenes as well. So on that note, I recommend The Monuments Men.

The Monuments Men is directed by George Clooney, staring himself, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin, Bob Balaban, Hugh Bonneville, and Cate Blanchett. It tells of a group of soldiers tasked to locate and preserve pieces of art that have been stolen by the Nazis during World War II.

It's no secret that The Monuments Men was one of everyone's most anticipated movies of 2013, and looked like a solid awards contender, until it was pushed to a February release date, purportedly due to the need for more time to be spent on the special effects.

The truth is, The Monuments Men could be, and really should be much more entertaining than it is. The best part of the film, and at the same time, its major problem, is the script. There are seemingly continuous laughs coming from quick one liners and witty character interactions, which keeps the audience somewhat engaged, although with such bleak subject matter, it's debatable that a movie dealing with the eradication of an entire culture's achievements should be as lighthearted as it is. But the flaw with the script is that it seems like the first act eats up almost all of it's running time. It's as if the film is missing large portions of the actual plot to make room for massive amounts of unnecessary exposition. Secondly, the film's characters are stale and one dimensional at best. I invite anyone who sees the film to wait an hour after finishing the movie, and try to remember even three of the character's names or what their role in the mission was. There isn't a moment in the entire film where it isn't simply John Goodman or Bill Murray dressed as World War II soldiers and not fleshed out characters. Albeit all of the actors are exceedingly fun to watch, I assume that just watching all of these actors talk together at a press conference would be just about as entertaining.

The Monuments Men isn't even close to the worst movie of 2014 by a long shot, even though it is only February, but it's arguably the most disappointing film of the year as of yet. I take no pleasure in saying this, but it's noble intentions fell utterly short due to awful pacing, and forgettable characters. I haven't read the book, but I have to think that it must be much better constructed and does this fantastic real life story more justice.

"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.