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.

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.

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.

"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.