The Monuments Men

                                            The Monuments Men

                                         Mediocre film based on a compelling true story

If you want to see George Clooney play George Clooney, Matt Damon play Matt Damon, Bill Murray play Bill Murray, John Goodman play John Goodman, and Jean Dujardin play a clichéd Frenchmen (right down to the French beret and scarf)...in a incredibly mediocre film based on a compelling true story that's badly written and directed, go see "The Monuments Men".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.

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, except Kate Blanchett who plays a tough French woman smoldering with an inner burning anger, and she is convincing in every scene she was in.The movie is flawed. Its editing is choppy. It feels rushed.if the original Monuments Men could see this film they'd be rolling over in their graves.

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.How much of this film is true and how much is fiction is open to question. The real 'Monuments Men' were of course much more than platoon strength - in the film we are told there were just eight (led on-screen by Clooney, who also wrote and directed), in reality there were a few hundred. Some of the characters are apparently loosely based on real people, but their names have been changed. 

It seems Clooney was making his film for people with short attention spans who want the shallowest treatment possible of the subject matter. That's too bad, because with a little more tender loving care, this could have been a great movie rather than a good one. 

Now see History in action. in 1964 the Great Hollywood Director John Frankenheimer created classic on the same subject. it is better to watch this classic than The Monuments Men.And why "The Train" is classic?
Because Frankenheimer choreograph the real trains… Frankenheimer and his cinematographers capture the heat of the engines, the noise and sound of the cars in motion, the fault in the oil line, the crushing strength implicated when the machines come into collision and the derailment…Beautiful deep-focus black and white photography, and solid supporting performances by a mostly French cast (of which Jeanne Moreau may be the best-known), convincingly evoke the bleak misery of the Occupation. John Frankenheimer's economical direction manages to present highly-charged action scenes without glossing over the human cost, as Von Waldheim exacts savage reprisals against escalating efforts to hinder the train's passage.Ah, only Clooney missed the point !!!