The Monuments Men

World War II movies have been done to death, am I right?

It seems like every year we get some new shape or form of a team that did something extraordinary during the most devastating war this world has ever known.

Sure there are classics like Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, and Inglorious Basterds (didn't say that they had to be historically accurate), but for the most part a lot of them tell tales of courage through an unmemorable lens.

Which is probably why I appreciate The Monuments Men so much, and far more than many critics did.

It is based on a true story about a team of art scholars and art historians that went into World War II to find and return all the art that Hitler stole. Many people tend to forget that Hitler was a failed artist in his youth and that failure was a significant reason as to why he became the man he became. During World War II he took (read: stole) as much art as he could in order to add to the wealth and prestige of the new Germany that would rise after they won the war. We all know how that panned out for him...but regardless, there was a statement issued by the Nazis near the end of the war that should Hitler die, they would destroy all of this art. And according to some of the film's final statements that totaled up to be around 5,000,000 various masterpieces of paintings, drawings, books, sculptures, etc.

"Boys, we have got to find Sandra Bullock!"

"Matt, I mustache you a question."
"Ok George."
"Do you think I look sexy in with this lip rug?"
"No George..."

Now, I'm not sure what your opinion of art is, but I'll tell you of mine: I generally don't give a crap about it. I appreciate really unique architecture, but that's about it. Paintings, sculptures, and drawings are nice to look at but I often don't get the deeper meaning. What excites me more is knowing the fact that some incredibly important person in history touched that object hundreds of years ago. What The Monuments Men does so well is explain as to why these men had an important job. By the end of the film, I sincerely had a tough time answering the question, "Is a piece of art worth a man's life?". Might sound easy to answer while reading this review but many of us tend to forget that art is part of what defines society. Art is some of the last remaining proof of where humanity as a whole has been and where it has come from. There is a line in the movie that says it very well (trying to remember it as best I can): "You wipe away an entire population...they come back years later, they survive. But you take away their achievements, the fabric of what makes them who they are? They can never come back from that." Again that was probably not nearly accurate to the actual line in the film, but the same meaning is there. It was a thought that, until this movie, I had never really contemplated or believed true. The overall story that The Monuments Men tells is an immensely unique and interesting one and for me, elevated the movie a great deal.

"So you just told him to paint you like one of his French girls...and he did?"

"Hey guys...we are kind of like the Avengers!"
"Who the hell are the Avengers?

But (there's always a but) as captivating as the story is, this is not a well made film...at least not by the standards set from Clooney's previous directing efforts. For starters, the cast full of superstars is incredibly under utilized. Clooney, Daman, Goodman, and Murray are essentially all playing World War II versions of themselves on screen for most scenes. It's a fun group of guys, but I wish they had taken advantage more of the talent at their disposal other than a couple emotional scenes. And that's the other thing; the movie's tone is all over the place. World War II was not a happy time. Millions and millions died. I would have been perfectly okay with The Monuments Men going for a lighter tone IF it had stuck with it. But the jarring shifts from serious Hitler-is-an-evil-monster-people-are-dying moments to Haha-look-at-us-we-are-being-shot-at-and-we-are-out-of-shape moments really made me question just which direction Clooney wanted to take this. Also uneven is the editing. I mean good Lord is there some awful editing in this film. At one point we have the men separated doing various tasks to protect/research where stolen art went. During this time, scenes shift sporadically back and forth without really any reason to do so. Clooney has a hard time letting certain scenes breath by worrying too much about the audience worrying about what the other characters are up to. We are generally smart people, George. We don't need to check in with every character every 5 minutes.

I've talked before about what I consider to be one-time view films. For whatever reason, they are films that you enjoyed once but never really need or want to see it again. The Monuments Men is, in my opinion, the quintessential example of that.

I really enjoyed my time with it mainly just to hear and see the unique and important story it had to tell, but a Mona Lisa masterpiece it is not.

CONS:

• The cast is impressive on paper, but in the film it becomes obvious that they could have gotten anyone to do these parts
• Tone problems between light and dark. With World War II films you really gotta pick one and stick with it
• I was really getting tired of the editing. It seemed like there were scene changes in the middle of a damn scene sometimes. It does a much better job once the team is all back together, but when they are apart it's rough

PROS:

• A VERY interesting story about World War II. I appreciated the fact that it was so different from what audiences are used to
• Really makes you appreciate what art actually means to a culture and just how important it is to protect and preserve during war time
• Some genuinely funny moments as well as some heartfelt ones
• Has a pretty good original score
• A really solid one-time view movie

Rath's Review Score: 7/10