I could never count a film out for a reason as dull as, "Oh? It moved from Christmas to an early spot in the next calendar year? Out of the red-hot awards race? It must be a total dud!" Particularly not a film such as The Monuments Men, with its dream-team cast of A-list stars and scene-stealing comic character actors, not to mention an interesting true story showing an often filmed conflict (the Second World War) from an unusual perspective (a team of out-of-shape, untrained collectors, historians, and scholars traveling into the line of fire to recover stolen art and protect historic buildings). After viewing the film, though, I must say: it is not hard to understand why the studio dodged the extra unforgiving spotlight of a year-end prestige release date because this is an unprecedented disaster which finds a thousand and one ways to fail to realize its vast potential, fail to utilize its ace cast, and otherwise frustrate and bore audiences.

One major problem is its borderline insane shifts in purpose and tone. A great film can amuse, excite, frighten, and uplift in turn, but no shift here, always signaled by the overbearing score, is completed with grace. One second it goes for grave tears (the characters find a container overflowing with small pieces of gold, and one among them recognizes them as Jews' gold teeth). Five seconds later, it is again a pure and farcical caper film: Ocean's Wartime Eleven, but without any genuine sense of danger, fun, style, or wit. Another major flaw: a near total absence of structure. A few characters go here. A few characters go there. Maybe this one slightly bonds with this one. This story calls out for suspense and wonder, for a sense of propulsion, but the end result is defined by heavy eyelids and so-measured-as-to-be-inert pacing. None of the actors shine; there is definitely trouble afoot when a film has Bill Murray and John Goodman in the same room, and the pairing results in nothing memorable or even modestly playful. Either Matt Damon's character or George Clooney's is intended as the driving hero of the piece, but it never becomes completely clear which. Character development is close to nonexistent beyond brief references to each man's profession and perhaps whether or not he has a family at home. There is also a self-important and groan inducing cameo in the very last scene which is almost embarrassing to endure considering the low quality of what has come before, but do not even get me started regarding this final spot of indulgent nonsense.

Yet another sin of The Monuments Men: despite one, two, three, four...I do not know, maybe ten heavy-handed monologues/sermons regarding the importance of protecting art and preserving culture during times of crisis (Art Is the Ultimate Record of Our Very Existence, Damn It!), the film has a curious and notable disinterest in the subject, almost never pausing to truly absorb the glory of a particular painting or sculpture. The "monuments" are the point, or so we are told, yet they are also incidental and presented in such a way as to go in one eye and out the other.

F

Oh, and the one scene near the end in which Clooney's character interviews the Nazi regarding what is in the mine? So bad. Lest it play out with a dynamic even a hair more complex than AMERICAN MAN NOBLE AND HEROIC/GERMAN MAN PURE EVIL, the film forces in the, "Say, I, out of the blue, know you ran one of the concentration camps before coming to this small hamlet" exchange. The film in general is so full of bullshit moments of simplification: moral simplification, geographic simplification, etc.

what other flicks have you given an F?

A few recent ones are The Apparition, Branded, The Devil Inside, Piranha 3DD, and Dario Argento's Dracula.

An apt comparison for The Monuments Men as a World War II film with pedigree might be Envy as a star-driven mainstream comedy. A disastrous thud of a movie despite so many "can't-miss" elements in place in front of and behind the camera.

It was an odd film, mainly filled with people dropping bikes against a wall in a hurry. Murray and his partner were the highlight for me. The movie managed to suck any tension or fun from the plot's potential.

C

I might want to get you started on this since I don't remember this at all.

Who's the cameo?

Oh, it is not a celebrity cameo. It is Nick Clooney, the newsman and George's father.

Bahaha, wait that was supposed to be George Clooney's older self?? I totally didn't catch that.

Indeed. Note the corny way the question ("Was it worth it?") is posed, for around the 35th time in the film, in the past, then it cuts to Nick Clooney in 1977 saying, "Yeah."

Wow. I really liked it. For one thing, it's not a George Clooney or a Matt Damon film. They are mostly filler for an hour of the film. The supporting cast of Murray, Goodman, Frenchie, and Balaban have some really great scenes. And when the whole group is together, it really starts to flow great. These are great actors, and there really isn't a bad moment between them. Secondly for such WW2 film starring iconic American actors, it was rather refreshing how Anti American the film was. Despite a few heavy handed speeches from Clooney (All pretty effective) it's the drive to save not art, but the spirit and culture of the international world, including Germany that is the heart of the film and these few guys understood how important it is.

The downside. This is a film that screams R or at least hard PG-13. The film has truly great moments, but they gloss over so much that you wish they didn't play it safe. One scene involving Murray getting a message from his family interplaying with an unknown soldier dying in front of Clooney is great, and you wish the film explored these aspects more of this group here for one thing, has to learn the true hardships of war. Secondly the structure is off. It glosses over what could have been great scenes (Basic, people deciding on whether to join, having great dramatic moments and not following the reactions) and we jump almost 2 years at times and the group is really separated into vignettes, that either you will like or dislike (Tarantino can do this, Clooney can't)

Bottom line is I liked them all, and there is a lot to really admire about the film. It gets the message across, and people really hoping to see Bill Murray have a great role, or most actors at least having one great scene shouldn't be disappointed, but the film does play it safe and for Clooney knowing so much about the story should have gone balls to the walls. It could have been epic, instead it's a fun time and might make you think if for just a minute.

B+

PS, the crowd really seemed to like it. People laughed and no one really seemed disappointed. Should have solid legs.

yep, there was actual applause in my screening

This was so boring. It's not a bad movie (it looks great!), exactly, but it lands with a totally vanilla thud. A great cast and a potentially interesting premise are undone by the narrative equivalent of swimming in molasses. Has a few interesting moments and a couple of laughs, but definitely the weakest directorial effort from George Clooney so far. C

Hmm. From a story and characters standpoint there's so many decisions to criticize in this, I don't know what Clooney was thinking half the time, or if he intentionally wanted it to come off as a series of mostly super light vignettes more than anything. A high proportion of the scenes neither add anything to the plot or character development, put it that way. It's not really a heist caper because it never focuses on its plot enough to get there. It gets too distracted by cutesy Murray/Baladan scene or Matt Damon doing... stuff or Clooney art speech, to think about stacking plot developments on each other

But I genuinely had fun watching it on a pure cinematic level. It flows nicely and is entertaining and the actors do good work (especially Blanchett). Clooney had to be doing something right as director to make it engaging the whole way through. This movie made me think Clooney should make a romantic comedy or musical or something that's intended to be some light froth

I'm not too bothered by making WWII into a joy filled picnic most of the time. I mean I understand why some would be upset at how insanely light the tone is, but it's meant to be cinema. W/e

He already did that (Leatherheads) and it was not well-received.

I honestly still believe George Clooney's best outing as a director is Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, even though it was not as "prestigious" or received with as much awards-season fare as Good Night, and Good Luck. or even The Ides of March. And this stills me he is most adept at stylized, slightly dry, slightly macabre comedy, a vibe similar to the Coen brothers at their most nasty and playful (The Man Who Wasn't There, Burn After Reading). He does not shine when playing David Lean or even Richard Attenborough.

The Monuments Men is such a strange film for me. It plays as if it is showing in theatres in an unfinished, still-drying form. Just on a very elemental/fundamental level, there are moments where the editing and the pacing is lurching and unfocused beyond reason, indicating a film confused regarding basic character motivation and geography, let alone overarching thematic purposes.

Sometimes, when a movie moves out of Oscar season, it's a sign that the film is good on its own merits, but perhaps not a fit for all of the end-of-the-year prestige; other times, it's a red flag that the film is a disappointing miss. Regrettably, The Monuments Men is much more of the latter than the former. The story it tells is interesting and certainly has the potential to make for an entertaining or powerful experience, but this film suffers from trying to do far too much with it over the course of less than two hours. The script is a mess that gives no character the proper time to fully develop, the tone oscillates between lighthearted and self-serious, and it's all too apparent that there was probably a good deal of material left on the cutting room floor. The film does have a few shining moments, and it works best when it tries to be funny. Several members of the ensemble are best known for their deftness at comedy, and it shows in scenes like the ones that Bill Murray and Bob Balaban share, or the brief argument between John Goodman and Jean Dujardin to determine who will distract a shooter, or Matt Damon when he accidentally steps on a landmine. However, the dramatic portions of the film - which make up the bulk of the running time - fall flat because George Clooney is wont as a writer, director, and star to tell the audience how significant these events are rather than showing that significance; any time he's onscreen, the only function he seems to serve is to remind us of the Very Important Messages about Art. While there certainly are parts that work, the film as a whole is a sloppy disappointment.

C

I mean... it's not bad.

It's all over the place. And doesn't really know what kind of movie it wants/needs to be, but it's fairly enjoyable throughout.

And like others here, my crowd really enjoyed it. Even though I hated my crowd because OLD PEOPLE SUCK.

B-

It's not as offensive or offensively bad as David makes it out to be (worse than Getaway? Seriously?), but this is a MONUMENTALLY boring film. It felt longer than three hours despite running just under two. And what's the point in bringing such a cast together only for them to be apart from one another for most of the film?

Absolutely. I was thinking at multiple points that The Wolf of Wall Street felt significantly shorter despite actually being more than an hour longer.

The Monuments Men

It played out exactly as it should for the film that it was; a delayed Oscar hopeful. It didn't have enough laughs to be a comedy, not enough history to be a war film, not enough action to be an adventure film, so it plays out as some kind of weirdly boring hybrid of all three. They failed to make good use of the delectible World War II setting, and with odd pacing and a failed sense of Dad's Army, I can see why Fox decided to delay it and save any embarrassment at the Oscars.

It wasn't too bad, actually...I am being harsh, but it wasn't what it could and should have been. George Clooney rang in his performance and basically played himself, as did Matt Damon, Bill Murray and John Goodman (who was pretty much wasted). The best players were the great Jean Dujardin, the respectable Hugh Bonneville, and the quirky Bob Balaban.

It was nice to see a World War II film again as I hadn't seen one in while it seems, and there were a few parts of comedy that were good, and having Clooney Sr. at the end was a nice touch (which also felt too preachy), but ultimately The Monument's Men is a wasted opportunity. George Clooney is just a very bad director. Some actor-turned-directors can master the art quickly (Stallone, Penn, Eastwood etc.), but Clooney just makes boring films.

C+

I lean somewhere in the middle on this one. David is right in almost every point made, but I had some enjoyment from it. It's almost like a complete amateur made the film and had every resource available and still cut corners and took shortcuts. I would expect better, even from an actor-director.

I never felt any sense of danger, tension or conflict, and that's what the film needed. They even kill off one main character and it almost seems like they said "Eh, fuck it, let's off one more guy to add more emotional punch" but I don't care that either guy kicks it.

But with such an exceptional cast, there are still decent moments throughout, mainly from Murray, Balaban and Goodman. Clooney, despite all of his charms and talents, feels disconnected with the film and the rest of the cast. Considering he's the actor/director/co-writer of the film, I can't imagine that's what he was going for at all.

**

Yeah it is fairly boring and the cast tries their best to make it entertaining. However, you just move slowly through the whole thing. I did quite enjoy the interactions between Goodman and Dujardin though.

The more I think about Monuments Men, the more I feel bad for Clooney. There's a good movie buried deep in there. Maybe, for lack of a better answer, it just showcased his shortcomings as a director. He does seem tremendously disconnected, which may be less to do with his acting and more to do with spreading himself thin on an ambitious flick.

That doesn't mean it's a better film in my eyes.