The Monuments Men

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 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.

"This is our history. It's not to be stolen or destroyed. It's to be held up and admired." Frank Stokes

Considering the great art works recovered from the Nazis in 1944 by the Monuments Men, losing 2 lives in the operation might have been worth it. Or at least that's the struggle of the hero in the titular film inspired by the events: Frank Stokes (George Clooney), a curator at Harvard's Fogg Museum, goes back to the Army to head a small art recovery contingent (7—most out of shape and aging like John Goodman), with echoes of the Magnificent Seven and Dirty Dozen recruiting sequences, promising exceptional wit and action that doesn't materialize.

Why is such a high-concept plot lost in a February opening? Possibly because it's enjoyable but not remarkable, a pastiche of brief episodes not always connected to the plot's central vision (shooting at a German sniper youth thought to be an adult?). The episodes may be meant to establish character while sliding over them to chronicle a not always interesting path to the mines and castle where the Nazis have hidden the loot. At least the studio had the good sense not to pit this modest adventure against, say, American Hustle or 12 Years a Slave in the Oscar prelims in November and December.

The action picks up as they find the destinations, but along the way James Granger (Matt Damon) interacts with Claire Simone (Cate Blanchett) in a low-key romance that finds great art but small love. Changing Claire from the original monument woman Rose into a love-seeking operative angers some historians. Another concern besides history and coherence is tone: Reverence for the mission clashes with the jokey camaraderie of old-fashioned WWII movies.

It is a delight to hear the names of artists like Picasso and Rembrandt even though they had little influence on the film's fair-to midlin' screenplay penned by Clooney and Grant Heslov. Looking for Michelangelo's Madonna of Bruges and van Eyck's Ghent Altarpiece is definitely grand, but the grandeur is not matched by the screenplay.

As for directing, Clooney misses the sharpness of his Good Night and Good Luck while he helms here what seems a small story about an odd group of soldiers struggling to rise to the occasion of history's greatest art reclamation. It's an enjoyable film but not a great one.

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.

"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.