Search

» » The Monuments Men (2014)

Short summary

An unlikely World War II platoon is tasked to rescue art masterpieces from Nazi thieves and return them to their owners.
Based on the true story of the greatest treasure hunt in history, The Monuments Men is an action drama focusing on an unlikely World War II platoon, tasked by FDR with going into Germany to rescue artistic masterpieces from Nazi thieves and returning them to their rightful owners. It would be an impossible mission: with the art trapped behind enemy lines, and with the German army under orders to destroy everything as the Reich fell, how could these guys - seven museum directors, curators, and art historians, all more familiar with Michelangelo than the M-1 - possibly hope to succeed? But as the Monuments Men, as they were called, found themselves in a race against time to avoid the destruction of 1000 years of culture, they would risk their lives to protect and defend mankind's greatest achievements.

Trailers "The Monuments Men (2014)"

From a newspaper report dated 13 December 2013: Police broke into the flat of Cornelius Gurlitt, the son of a Nazi art dealer who hoarded hundreds of works believed to have been looted by the Third Reich. Gurlitt has been the focus of huge media attention after a trove of over 1,400 previously unknown masterpieces were uncovered in his München flat. A task force appointed to research the origin of the art has said that around 590 pictures fall into the category of art looted or extorted by the Nazis from Jewish collectors. These include pieces by Pablo Picasso, Henri Matisse, Edvard Munch, Paul Cézanne and others.

The "Monuments Men," were a group of approximately 345 men and women from thirteen nations, most of whom volunteered for service in the newly created MFAA section during World War II. Many had expertise as museum directors, curators, art historians, artists, architects, and educators. Their job description was simple: to protect cultural treasures so far as war allowed.

Originally slated for a December 2013 release, with an awards/holiday season aim. In a rare move, Director George Clooney asked the studio for more time for post-production due to the visual effects not being ready, knowing this would make it very unlikely to receive awards attention (uncommon for an early-year release). Reluctantly, the studio pushed it out to the following February.

Leaked e-mails between director/writer/producer/actor George Clooney and Sony Pictures chairwoman Amy Pascal reveal that Clooney was extremely worried over the job he did on the movie when it got some bad reviews. He even apologized to Pascal.

Daniel Craig was cast in a role but ultimately dropped out due to scheduling conflicts. Matt Damon replaced him.

Some viewers incorrectly assumed that it would be unlikely, if not impossible, for the German soldier who holds Savitz at gunpoint to have been familiar with John Wayne. While it is true that Germans had very limited access to American films during the war, Wayne had been working steadily in Hollywood movies since long before that rule was in place. Furthermore, even if the German soldier didn't know about John Wayne through actually seeing his movies, historians know from many contemporary historical accounts (including Anne Frank's autobiography The Diary of a Young Girl) that Germans were a huge audience for movie magazines and Hollywood gossip publications, so the young man might have read about John Wayne in those.

James Payton previously played Adolf Hitler in Captain America: The First Avenger (2011).

Some British troops in Monuments Men wore the "Turtle" helmet more closely associated with the British Army of the 1960s. This would seem to be an error, especially since wartime newsreels and movies about World War II showed British soldiers wearing the more familiar Brodie helmet. However, the Turtle was in fact first issued in 1944, and since the action of the film took place in 1945, George Clooney is correct in using it in the film.

The cast includes five Oscar winners: George Clooney, Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett, Jean Dujardin and Grant Heslov; and two nominees: Bill Murray and Bob Balaban.

The sculpture found in the Castles courtyard is The Burghers of Calais by Rodin.This piece is now on display in The Metropolitan Art Museum NYC. Matt Damon's character who first sees the piece is a former director of The Met.

The opening scene shows several details of the Ghent Altarpiece (aka The Adoration of the Mystic Lamb): The Almighty, The Lamb, John the Baptist and the Virgin Mary. Art scholars are still discussing whether the Van Eyck brothers wanted to depict God, Christ, both or even the Holy Trinity in the central "Almighty" figure.

Clooney's character says "...he helped me with the World War I memorial in St. Louis." The memorial is actually in Kansas City, Missouri.

It is true the Axis and Allies would seize each other's war materials. However when an officer is in a vehicle with a NCO, the NCO would be doing the driving. This is Military protocol.

The second time that Matt Damon plays a World War II soldier, after Der Soldat James Ryan (1998). Interestingly, both movies are about a group of soldiers risking their lives in a war-torn Europe looking for something specific (a person in Saving Private Ryan, an art piece in Monuments Men).

The German vehicle (A "Kubelwagen") commandeered by Epstein and Stokes is eventually adorned with a hand-painted star in a circle on its side, redesignating it as a U.S. military vehicle. This is a recreation of an actual photograph taken during the war of a member of the Monuments Men driving the exact same model vehicle, complete with a hand-painted circled star on the side door. The recreation in the film is perfect, right down to the American military trailer it pulls behind it.

Both this movie and the film Michael Clayton (2007) feature or mention a character named Don Jeffries and both films coincidentally star George Clooney.

While the German army is in full retreat and destroying bridges to prevent the Allies from chasing them, the Monuments Man arrive in a German place called Remagen where the US army has been tasked to prevent the destruction of said bridges. The battle over the bridge at Remagen was the subject of another World War II movie, Die Brücke von Remagen (1969).

The airfield shown near the beginning of the movie is Duxford, Cambs, UK. The control tower is clearly visible, as are some of the hangars.

The film takes place in 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1977.

Stokes (George Clooney) says he worked with Garfield (John Goodman) on the World War I memorial in St. Louis. John Goodman was born in St. Louis.

George Clooney frequently appeared on "Roseanne" which started John Goodman.

Bill Murray and John Goodman both played real-life politicians who were at odds with each other in real-life; Murray as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in Hyde Park on Hudson (2012), and Goodman as Senator Huey P. Long, in Kingfish: The Story of Huey P. Long (1995).

On the flight back to the US, Matt Damon's character sits next to a soldier of the 28th (Pennsylvania) Division, recognized by the keystone (or red bucket of blood) flash on his shoulder.

Bill Murray and Bob Balaban are set up as a pair of not particularly friendly partners. Prior to this movie the two of them have appeared in a number of Wes Anderson movies together.

George Clooney and Matt Damon previously starred together in the Ocean's Trilogy.

In the movie, Matt Damon's character mentions he learned French in Montréal, Quebec. George Clooney filmed Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) there.

Alexandre Desplat: (the film's composer) as the French man that lends his airplane to Matt Damon's character.

The actor playing the older Frank Stokes visiting the Madonna of Bruges at the end is George Clooney's father, Nick Clooney.

The character of Claire Simone appears to have been based on Rose Valland, a Parisian museum curator who was drafted by the Nazis during the occupation of Paris to assist with art acquisitions. As depicted in this film and in the documentary The Rape of Europa (2006), Valland secretly kept a detailed ledger of all works that passed through Nazi hands, the original (often Jewish) owner of each work, and the location in Germany where each item was eventually transported.

True to depiction in the film, Neuschwanstein Castle served as a repository during World War II for many works of art looted from conquered European nations by the Nazis.

When Sam Epstein finds the lost Rembrandt van Rijn self-portrait from c. 1645, his face is lit with a Rembrandt style (a key light coming from a side of the frame creates a chiaroscuro marking a small triangle on the cheek not receiving the light directly.)

As mentioned in the jail scene between James and Claire, the office in Paris where the Nazis amass their stolen art was the Galerie du Jeu de Paume, located next to Place de la Concorde in the heart of the city. The real Hermann Göring visited the museum 20 times during the war and cherry-picked over 700 items for his private collection.

User reviews


  • comment
    • Author: Erthai
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Zugar
    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's an "Oceans 11" team of art curators, historians and architects sent into France and Germany. Their mission? "Saving Private Art". The obstacles? Almost none, once they knew where to look. It was apparently the easiest art heist in history. The plus side? it's a stretch...but I did like Hugh Bonneville playing someone kinder and gentler than Lord Grantham in "Downton Abbey"...and Cate Blanchett? She's always great, but she truly doesn't have much to do here, other than speak with a French accent and look irritated. Don't be fooled by the star-studded cast like I was. This movie is a waste of your money and time. All of these actors have made far superior films. And this story would have been better served by a more accomplished screenwriter and director.
  • comment
    • Author: Amis
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Flower
    This film is definitely not terrible but missed a big opportunity at making something memorable. And needless to say it unfortunately has a lot of problems that do it (and its intriguing story) a huge disservice. Before listing the problems I will note its positives: The acting, cast, direction and visuals are all good. OK...

    And now the problems:

    1) The quips and zingers every few minutes: Is this a sit-com or a drama about Nazis stealing art? It was hard enough to believe any of these characters are allowed to simply meander around Europe without strict supervision but even less believable that these men snap out witty one- liners back and forth after every few minutes. And the problem is that these one-liners are often during times of implied danger or tension, which gets broken immediately with the comedy relief.

    2) The musical score/tone is absolutely bizarre and out-of-place in many areas: When taking on a subject as serious as WW2, it's not a great idea to constantly have happy-go-lucky comedy relief music going on in the background. It really is tonally all over the place and is out of place when considering the message trying to be sent about the importance of human art/culture, etc. Half the time I was expecting either a Broadway musical dance-line to jump out and start kicking their legs in front of the screen or at least see the Rocketeer fly past a Nazi blimp.

    3) The one dimensional characters. We learn very little about the actual personalities of the main characters so there is little to invest in, especially between the characters and their relationships. It's hard to feel bad for characters who you don't know and are acting really stupid in very dangerous circumstances. I also felt there were many scenes missing from the film because we never see the main characters even bond or have much meaningful dialog within the first hour of the film, and are expected to cry for characters we do not know and expected to care about relationships we have not established.

    4) The villains (are even worse:) The bad guys (Nazis of course) might as well have been twirling around their mustaches and laughing maniacally. Are we to believe that even the "bad guys" in a real historical situation did not have other emotions besides crazy and evil? And as if if the Nazis were not bad enough villains, the writers needed to include a sub-plot with the big bad Russians, who although helped us beat the Nazis, are apparently evil for wanting to take art for themselves, I guess.

    5) Missed opportunities: Many scenes have a lot of potential to lead up to something interesting, intense, or memorable. They never deliver in any way, however. Every single moment where there is action,drama, or a threat of danger/death, it is resolved with some type of comic relief or very random exposition designed to move to the next scene as quickly as possible. Very sad to say because every scene starts out with promise, then fails.

    6) The heroes/the Title: Not even sure about the accuracy of this film: But if true, the heroes are not even the Monuments Men, but the ONE German-speaking member (hired on a fluke) who figured out where the art was being hidden and the same guy also finds hidden Nazi gold. It should have been named after this one character, the other members are idiots. Any man who steps out of a vehicle in war-torn France to offer a cigarette to a horse, deserves to be shot.

    7) The WW2 tropes cliché festival: Yet again another movie showing the "greatest hits" of WW2, relying on its audience to be a bunch of stupid simpletons who only respond to iconic images or names they know from grade school text books. "OH, OMAHA BEACH! OH, BATTLE OF THE BULGE! OH, SCOWLING Hitler! OH PICASSO! THIS ALL MEANS SOMETHING!" .. No, it's time to stop going for the low hanging fruit and bring something unique.

    8) "If it weren't for us you'd be speaking German" ... This is an actual line from the movie, directed at a French woman from an American soldier. The problem is that only a few scenes before we see a German Nazi soldier speaking English to that very French woman. So apparently she would have been speaking neither German or French, she'd be speaking English so that the English-speaking audience wouldn't have to read subtitles. Ridiculous jingoistic quips would work fine in a more clever WW2 film, but definitely not this one.

    9) Last but not least: George Clooney as Danny Ocean/Prince Charming/Hero Astronaut:

    I cannot take him seriously in a WW2 film when he does the whole "I'm not just a pretty face" smooth talking nonsense. In an Ocean's 11 film, yes. He's a good actor, why did he choose to play it like this AGAIN? It's annoying and takes us out of the movie, especially when trying to believe him as a humble hero who cares about art and not just how cool he is.
  • comment
    • Author: playboy
    "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.
  • comment
    • Author: Bandiri
    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.
  • comment
    • Author: Vertokini
    The main theme that seems to run through this film is a love for cigarettes, not historic accuracy. It certainly wasn't a love of art. Because as an art form itself, the film was bad, which is more amazing due to the large stellar cast.

    The main problems with Mon. Men are a lousy script, filled with pointless time wasting padding and an attempt to recover art all over Europe in 90 minutes or so.

    It begins in 1943 when Clooney is trying to convince the Roosevelt to form a unit to rescue looted art. He's using the bombing of Monte Cassino in Italy as an example of what could happen to object'art all over Europe. The problem here is, Monte Cassino wasn't bombed until 1944.

    Then it takes an entire year for his unit to be formed and six months later in July 1944 they land in Normandy to being their 10 month quest, which is filled mainly with boring small talk and careless excursions around enemy territory as if the war was over.

    Their final big haul of art comes on the heels of the Russians arriving. They have to leave immediately, which in fact takes 10 minutes of disbelief.

    Seeing this film you get the feeling Clooney feels he can sell anything to the public.
  • comment
    • Author: BeatHoWin
    This much anticipated film is a dud. Too bad, as it had the chance to tell one of the more fascinating stories of WWII. A plodding plot drove a dozen viewers from the theater well before the film's end and Mr. Clooney wasted what could have been, at the very least, an entertaining cast. The thinly developed characters - Bill Murray seemed to have no more than four or five lines - gave the actors nothing with which to work and the viewer next to no emotional connection. I was hoping for a somewhat serious take with a few dashes of Oceans 11/12 and Kelly's Heroes spliced in, but found only one of the more disappointing films of the last few years. And the movie's fixation on cigarettes was a bit over the top. Yes, smoking was a big part of a soldier's life in WWII, but making a smoke part of the supporting cast is a little much. Any interest in this film is probably best sated by waiting for its release on cable. Not recommended.
  • comment
    • Author: Swift Summer
    Having read the original book from which "Monuments Men" is taken, I was very interested to see the movie. There is a really fascinating and historically important story here, and it could have made a great film. However, soon after the show begins, it all starts to fall apart. The reason? George Clooney. He directed, and he wrote the screenplay. It's amazingly obvious that in neither of these capacities does Clooney know what he is doing. The screenplay is an absolute joke, totally disjointed, disconnected, silly, trite, and incredibly amateurish for a major Hollywood star of Clooney's stature. The same goes for the directing. George Clooney is obviously a guy with a huge ego, capable of fooling himself and a lot of other people who should know better, that he knows what he is doing. Film-making schools should show this movie as a classic example of what not to do. It's fundamentally flawed in every respect. Editing, music, etc.------one is taken aback by the unbelievable ineptness. Co-stars Matt Damon and Bill Murray and John Goodman and the rest of the cast merely parrot their lines in strange, disjointed scenes that beg to be rewritten by someone with a brain in his head. On the one hand, I totally condemn this piece of Hollywood egotistical stupidity, but on the other I heartily recommend it as an example of how bad movies can get in the hands of people with enormous egos. Stick to acting, Clooney---for God's sake don't direct and write screenplays ever again.
  • comment
    • Author: Elastic Skunk
    What a waste of money and time. Had George employed the editors making the trailer to write, direct and edit this film, it might have actually been enjoyable. This was unfortunately one of the most disjointedly scripted movies I have ever had the misfortune to watch. The story was randomly hopping this way, that way, presenting completely unrelated anecdotes from the different missions the Monuments Men were on. As another IMDb reviewer (Wilbrifar) pointed out: " It's like watching a sequel to a movie you didn't see; the characters are acting like "here we are, old buddies together again in Part 2" and the audience is left totally out in the cold because there was never a Part 1. " That is very much how the movie felt; the actors were proficient in delivering their lines as well as they could, given the nightmare of a script they had to follow - but there was no chemistry between any of them at any point, so when they were getting all joking and friendly with each other, it just looked and felt awkward; like being at a party where you're watching someone be overly friendly to someone else. I would never watch this again.
  • comment
    • Author: Mopimicr
    The Monuments Men is being too critically shunned. It is not what you expect from watching the previews, but comes through with heartfelt stories that are designed to show you what these men endured. Each of The Monuments Men characters come from the arts world and are driven into action by the need to save precious art works spanning across Europe. Bill Murray is a genius per usual but lacks when it comes to on screen time. I feel as though many characters like John Goodman are overshadowed by the likes of Matt Damon and George Clooney. They make themselves very prominent in the script but often take time away from those who would truly make this film shine (Murray and Goodman). Even though it is not as good as expected it shines in many scenes. I still give it a 8/10
  • comment
    • Author: Nahelm
    Only three stars. First, a glaring mistake. When the map of April 1943 is shown to President Roosevelt, is clearly shows Vichy France. Which no longer existed after November 1942. A similar map is used in 1944. Doesn't anyone check a history book?

    I will agree, this movie is interesting, but poorly structured. For example, we have no clue as to how the extra soldiers were ordered to help the 'Monuments Men'(MM). The MM find a mine loaded with art, then suddenly, 100s of men and trucks show up to retrieve it. And yet earlier, a MM, could not even get two extra soldier as guards to go with him.

    As far as the sets and equipment, it gets a passing grade. The Kubelwagen was a nice touch.

    Three stars, that's it.
  • comment
    • Author: Pedora
    I know this movie received mixed reviews, but I thought it was excellent. With so many disappointing movies lately I was pleasantly surprised that Monuments Men really delivered. I had never heard this story before and I was impressed at how it was presented. The actors were perfect for their roles and it left me feeling proud of what these men were able to accomplish.

    One thing that really struck home with me was seeing the beaches at Normandy. My uncle actually landed in the first wave, lost most of his battalion and was wounded. He never spoke about it but I know he carried the scars throughout his life.
  • comment
    • Author: Vareyma
    The plot is similar to Burt Lancaster's The Train, done in the early 70's. The major difference is that in The Train, it was French Nationals trying to save their national art collection that was being stolen by the Nazi's near the end of the war. Trains were used to transport the valuable art to Germany. The French showed ingenious tricks to fool the Germans . It was a very well done movie and Burt Lancaster showed his greatness as a true movie star. This mess Americanized the French which made it very unrealistic and dishonest. The All Star cast with poor script, and equally poor dialog, must have been a big financial incentive for the casting associate, because no one including Cate Blanchett earned there salary. It was a very disappointing performance by George Clooney. I will think twice before a see another movie with George Clooney in it.
  • comment
    • Author: Fearlesssinger
    This was a lousy film and George Clooney's performance was really "stupid". Mr. Slap happy, putting together team of goof balls to save the worlds plundered art? You've got to be kidding me. After reading the book I can't believe that Clooney could come away with this kind of an interpenetration.

    I'm certain if the original Monuments Men could see this film they'd be rolling over in their graves. The movie was totally dis-respectable to those great hero's.

    This was a great story that was completely ruined by George Clooney. The National Geo documentary was the real story. I really hate it when they "hollywoodize" true story films and try and turn them into a comedy.

    I wouldn't give this film a quarter of a star!!!
  • comment
    • Author: Castiel
    Despite the star-studded cast, the movie displays fell very short for me. The story is amazing however, in order to perhaps attract a younger crowd, the movie removes itself from the struggle of warfare during WW2. There were some good/funny scenes and I'm not going to say the movie was awful but, considering the topic that is being talked about, I feel that the directors cut back on the potential in order to stay at PG-13.
  • comment
    • Author: Nuadador
    Sure, many are intrigued to watch a group of professionally educated art lovers attempting to save priceless paintings and sculptures from the Nazis during the Second World War, and yet there are a few others curious to witness, after over thirty years, an out of shape Bill Murray going through boot camp all over again...

    Well that's the first of many downfalls with George Clooney's MONUMENTS MEN… What could have been a colorful first act – that being the gathering up and transforming of an "unlikely" group of civilians into soldiers – is all but rushed during the opening credit montage: thus followed by their quick training and soon enough, the plot's underway...

    The problem is we hardly know these guys at all, and with a seemingly dangerous mission ahead, the unequipped yet idealistically intrepid characters should feel like old friends more than paper mache cutouts.

    Bill Murray and Bob Balaban are two extremely unique, wonderfully quirky actors not only wasted but given a love/hate anti-camaraderie so forced and unfunny, much of the subliminal attention will depend on John Goodman and his French sidekick, a young man with more passion in his optimistic smile than the script offers point or purpose.

    Although the main "couple," trumping even Cate Blanchett's weak attempt as a love interest later on, is George Clooney's mellow leader, Frank Stokes, and Matt Damon as the buried-lead, James Granger… Clooney and Damon have a sluggish comfort level of two workmates meeting for lunch after having devoured a large breakfast. But MEN aren't the only problem… The MONUMENTS fail to grab our attention as well.

    First off, if you counted how many rationalizations are made about saving artwork when so many humans are dying, you might get dizzy. With an exception of a few untimely deaths along the way, the artifacts are lazily gathered like an afternoon garage sale shopping spree. With all the running around, there's hardly any threat, in any direction... And speaking of direction: Half the time it's difficult to tell where we are, what we're doing, or what each mission entails.

    You'll hear a lot of comparisons with Quentin Tarantino's INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, another underdog in peril WW2 flick that, in this reviewer's opinion, also wastes an ensemble cast of ragtag heroes. But at least that portrait had a scene-stealing villain: These guys could have used someone more than an off-screen historical tyrant to keep them on their toes...

    In fact, if it weren't for the bombed-out buildings and sporadic gunfire, you'd forget there was even a war raging at all.
  • comment
    • Author: Eng.Men
    We just saw Monument Men. It makes no sense that this movie has been so roundly panned. What a masterpiece! See it! It's a true story, an important story that needs to be told.

    George Clooney wrote and directed this movie. Heard that he had been trying to make it for a long time. Never thought much about George Clooney, wanted to see it because of the cast (Matt Damon, John Goodman, Cate Blanchett, Bill Murray, someone I thought was Joel Grey but wasn't).

    Every frame is art.

    It's a movie for someone who loves art history and world history and beauty and risking everything for a cause greater than yourself.

    Driving home, we wondered why this movie was not better received. We guessed that it is because there is no sex or violence.

    George Clooney is worthy.
  • comment
    • Author: Inertedub
    I was drawn by the stellar cast to see this and the storyline looks like interesting. But I was let down from the very beginning.

    This is by far the weakest script I have seen for a long time. The story is worth telling as art is part of our collective heritage. How Hitler loved art and his subsequent snatching collections over Europe seemed a natural development of his invasion over Europe, but destroying these tens of thousands of priceless artwork when he failed was something the Allies had to stop. This aspect of WWII has not been told and how these brave men from the Allies saved our heritage – tens of thousands of paintings, altarpiece, water color, sculptures and archives - should be a fascinating story – if it was told well.

    We have an excellent cast to start with - George Clooney (who also directs this piece), Matt Damon, Bill Murray, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin, and Cate Blanchett etc - all with superb acting skills. But the poor script and plot development scatter them in areas where we neither see their character development nor their passion in art even though they play the roles of architect, museum curator, professors and art historians who are sent to the warfront to save seized art collections from the Nazis and return them to their owners. With these experts' passion in art there should be a sense of solidarity and admiration but we do not see it. The portrayal of leadership and hard work by Frank Stokes (George Clooney) is also very weak.

    The script structure is very loose and often focus on unnecessary details such as their hasty military training and how they interact with the frontline soldiers. The total positioning and tone of the film is misplaced. Art can be solemn and serious and it can be portrayed in a light-hearted way. Perhaps the producers were trying to create a lighter and comic atmosphere to lighten up the seriousness of art and history but it did not work very well and the audience is always left in mid- air.

    The way they distilled the troupe of 300+ monuments men and women in real life to seven people is a good try – if they can vividly depict their characters but the film failed to do so. And towards the second half of the movie, showing how the task force discovered the hidden treasure and shipping them are just too bland and hasty.

    All these pretty faces and excellent acting skills are wasted. It could have been much much better. I can perhaps only remember Cate Blanchet's sexy and strong French accent and her seductive gesture towards Matt Damon when she gives him her only copy of detailed ledger of art collections whisked away by the Nazis. Yet even her repeated line of "This is Paris" sounds pretentious and unnatural for her character.

    It is a good intention to tell a WWII story from the point of preserving art and culture how brutal the Fuhrer is toward art, even though it is his interest and passion to loot them all into his Fuhrermuseum in Austria. Some of the haunting scenes, such as barrels of gold teeth from the Jews, and rows of paintings, sculptures and gold bars can be made more dramatic with camera angles and tracking. Another waste. The whole movie was like a buffet with excellent ingredients but poor cooking skills and display arrangement so the whole dining experience is ruined. Lot of sighs. It is in fact quite heart-wrenching to see such potentials wasted. It could have been an otherwise brilliant and amazing story.

    Purely for your interest, for more details on the real Monuments Men, please see: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-monuments-men- 180949569/
  • comment
    • Author: Dozilkree
    In 1943, the American Professor Frank Stokes (George Clooney) convinces President Roosevelt that the art stolen by the German should be retrieved and he recruits six art experts to form the Monuments Men's unit to travel to Europe with him to search the treasures. On the arrival, they split to several cities to guide the Allies to find the arts to return them to the owners.

    I do not know how accurate "The Monuments Men" is but this movie has a boring story, terrible screenplay and unconvincing performances. The movie is neither a drama nor an action movie or comedy and has several main characters divided in subplots, some of them interesting and others pointless. In the end, "The Monuments Men" is a very disappointing film and sort of war propaganda. My vote is four.

    Title (Brazil): "Caçadores de Obras-Primas" ("Masterpieces Hunters")
  • comment
    • Author: SmEsH
    If one doubts the importance of those people called The Monuments Men in saving nothing less than the ornaments of civilization I would commend them to read some ancient history. What Adolph Hitler had was a two fold aim. A museum where he could house the stolen beauty of his conquered countries and view it for himself and his chosen elite. And to destroy the accomplishments of his conquered peoples so that only that what was deemed Nazi acceptable should survive. Remember what the Romans did to the civilization of Carthage. All we know about it is from the view of their conquerors. It's what Hitler ultimately intended.

    George Clooney gets a special commission from FDR after he sells the idea of a picked crew of art historians to go in and try to save as much as they could. All in all I'd say that Clooney and his team which consisted of Matt Damon, Bob Balaban, John Goodman, Dimitri Leonidas, Jean Dujardin, and Hugh Bonneville went into harm's way in their mission. They had to persuade our side to let them do their work and not interfere with the war. And the married Matt Damon manages to mix a little pleasure with business with Cate Blanchett who worked at the Louvre and told them what to look for and a general idea where to look.

    The Monuments Men is a wonderful film about a little known, but vital mission in World War II. Vital because these men and women were trying to preserve what our civilization is all about.
  • comment
    • Author: Ballalune
    Started with a full theater and literally 75% walked out halfway through. This was one of the most pathetic movies I've ever seen. Awful awful awful script. No dialogue that was worth mentioning. Nothing made any sense. It was boring as hell and overall it was a cigarette commercial. They mentioned cigarettes a million times in the movie and how much they enjoyed them. This movie was awful. All the actors looked out of place as if they all phoned in the performance but that's okay because none of them had lines. Matt Damon was completely gone for most the movie then just showed up out of the blue. I can't remember any of the characters names. I could go on and on. The cinematography was poor. The movie lingered on stuff that was not entertaining then rushed like hell to get through anything with a point. None of the cast cared and neither did I.
  • comment
    • Author: Wyameluna
    The worst WW2 related movie I've seen in my whole life. It seems like those movies made to be presented in a warm afternoon, where probably nobody cares about it. It starts like would be enjoyable, but at the first minutes we can see takes that make us believe we are seeing some comedy for grandmas movie. And it goes, all 2 hours with no big surprise, no reliable story line, poor action and texts. Remember: Disconnect scenes. Boring WW2 propaganda. No action. No good talking. No reason to see such a lame movie. I was so disappointed with it, mainly because of the credit I give to George Clooney and Matt. But... Avoid this movie and save 2 hours of your life!
  • comment
    • Author: Bremar
    Actors are professional pretenders. Movies that depict real life events, or literary works,are successful if they present persuasive indications, hoping to capture the spark of reality on stage or screen.

    George Clooney is a sentimental man who conceals his sentimentalism well. He makes movies whenever he can about topics, people, and issues he cares about.

    Having read the book this film was based upon, I was looking for gestures, expressions, persuasive indications of a movement most people, including me until very recently, were not aware of.

    A story in today's Wall Street Journal proclaimed that the desire to save, protect, salvage and restore, and allow the present and the future to continue to enjoy art - is ongoing - even in such places as Afghanistan and Iraq. That article also dramatized General Eisenhower's efforts to ensure that American soldiers were respectful and appreciative of other countries' cultures and their artistic and other achievements.

    I thought that the exposition, the part of the movie that was slowest moving, where each character had to be introduced and developed, then inserted into the rather tense and nervous camaraderie, such as it was, was the weakest part of the film; but even this part had the feel of a recapturing of the mis en scene of 1944 global Armageddon in the world.

    I often forget that many of the Chicago group that made Saturday Night famous: John Belushi, Bill Murray and many others, were classically trained actors. Bill Murray listening to a record while in the shower is a great moment in theater, in acting, in verisimilitude, the art of making the gesture, the moment, seem so real that the audience forgets it is only a movie.

    The entire cast behaved as if they truly were the architects, curators, sculptors, and connoisseurs they were portraying, and I felt that the movie got stronger and stronger after the going got really tough in their mission.

    Kate Blanchett plays a tough French woman smoldering with an inner burning anger, and she is convincing in every scene she was in. I thought that she inspired and uplifted Matt Damon's performance.

    I think the quality of the writing is uneven, but that is true not only of art, but of life. Sometimes, ordinary people utter mundane statements; sometimes, we are inspired to be eloquent, elegant. I think that "The Monuments Men" captured that reality, too.

    I would love to see it again, and I urge anyone who is interested in the idea of saving precious works of art from military and other predators, to read the book by Robert M. Edsel.
  • comment
    • Author: Thetahuginn
    After having seen the trailer I was really looking forward to seeing this movie, not only because of the cast, but the plot as well. However, I couldn't help noticing the bad reviews, made by the critics and/or IMDb users and its poor rating. Honestly, I really liked it. This movie isn't supposed to be a heart-breaking drama or a war-action movie. It's just a movie about art and some things that happened during the war. It presents facts and raises awareness regarding arts and our history.You can't expect to see fights or violence in such a film. People say that the performances weren't good and there was little and unconvincing dialog. I disagree. The main characters are a group of art critics and university professors, who are obviously calm and mild people. It won't be an academy award winner for sure, but it's good and I for one recommend it
  • Cast overview, first billed only:
    George Clooney George Clooney - Frank Stokes
    Matt Damon Matt Damon - James Granger
    Bill Murray Bill Murray - Richard Campbell
    Cate Blanchett Cate Blanchett - Claire Simone
    John Goodman John Goodman - Walter Garfield
    Jean Dujardin Jean Dujardin - Jean Claude Clermont
    Hugh Bonneville Hugh Bonneville - Donald Jeffries
    Bob Balaban Bob Balaban - Preston Savitz
    Dimitri Leonidas Dimitri Leonidas - Sam Epstein
    Justus von Dohnányi Justus von Dohnányi - Viktor Stahl
    Holger Handtke Holger Handtke - Colonel Wegner
    Michael Hofland Michael Hofland - Priest (Claude)
    Zachary Baharov Zachary Baharov - Commander Elya (as Zahary Baharov)
    Michael Brandner Michael Brandner - Dentist
    Sam Hazeldine Sam Hazeldine - Colonel Langton
    All rights reserved © 2017-2024 hd.thomson-multimedia.com