User Reviews

The idea would also be good as an alternative to the classic film about the Second World War, but the plot is rather flat, with little content and ends up boring in large parts, without ever giving a change of pace to the story.

Ne kadar gerçeği yansıtıyor bilmiyorum ama iyi propaganda yapıyorlar. Dünyayı **** yetmedi bir de insanlığın mirasını da kurtarıyorlar. Film güzel olsa sesimı çıkartmazdım belki ama zamanınıza değmez.

Such an immediately boring and flat film from such an accomplished classically bent creative team and a potentially rich premise. But something is off, the writing, the pacing, the editing, the visual style and the directing are all woefully sub par. Maybe this is a **** version of a much longer much slower film but as it is it’s too plain and unexciting to feel relevant and not artistically connected to great heist/chase/war films from the past feel inspired by great cinema of the past.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

A good message, a good cast that does little, a good story without anything special. A warm film, in short. I confess that this film tells me a lot. I am a historian, I understand the importance of art, the historical and artistic heritage, and I am well aware of the irreparable loss that all wars cause in the cultural heritage of nations. Portugal, my country, has always kept a little distance from European war conflicts, a situation conditioned by geography, but which has allowed my country to pass through raindrops and to be spared in many times of difficulty. Even so, we know what a large-scale war is: we were invaded by Napoleon Bonaparte, with great devastation and loss of life and property, and many pieces of art (mainly sacred art, furniture and jewelery) were stolen and taken to France at that time. So, watching this film and seeing the efforts of a handful of men, lovers of art and history, to save pieces of European culture, is something that has meaning for me because it is something that, in such a dramatic war, I would also be able to to offer to do. Yes, without a doubt ... it is worth risking to save pieces of art and culture that are truly irreplaceable and allow them to return to their rightful owners. George Clooney is a multifaceted man. Director, screenwriter, one of the main actors ... he certainly embraced this project with commitment, and the cast is full of stars like Matt Damon, Cate Blanchett, Hugh Bonneville and Bill Murray, great actors who have, in the past, given proof of talent beyond any doubt. The problem is that there are so many good actors that I felt that they never reached the potential they deserved, limiting themselves to a warm and sometimes lazy performance. So much money and good human capital involved and Clooney doesn't know how to take advantage of all this and make an incredible movie with these stars? The script is good and the story told is very interesting. In fact, the film entertains and captures the audience but it is a little boring to feel that, in some parts, it tries to be dramatic and, minutes later, it is desperately trying to make us laugh. The length of the film is also a bit exaggerated, given the story told. At a technical level, the film has good production values: a photograph that is pleasing to the eye, good sound, visual and CGI effects, good costumes and scenery, but something that really surprises us is missing. It is a very average film in everything. And the most tiring is the soundtrack ... composed by Alexandre Desplat, it constantly sounds adventure with touches of comedy and announces a light and fun film, with some sense of grandeur. Actually, the film has funny parts but it lacks that sense of adventure and has nothing grand or epic about it, which makes the soundtrack a little too presumptuous. I liked this film for its message about the importance of heritage, culture and preservation. I liked the story told and felt that the film is worth it but there is nothing fantastic or special about it. It's just another movie set in World War II, good for spending some idle time and nothing more.

I greatly appreciate the value of a movie like 'Monuments Men' in showing those people who cared to preserve that historical memory that we can now admire. I don't understand how professional criticism may seem like a mediocre movie.

Although some of the writing in this is way off, the cast is good and the story is is quite charming.

The heist isn't thrilling, the jokes aren't funny, the drama isn't moving and the film is long. The Monuments Men I sympathize with Clooney. Especially his films. An actor turned director, George Clooney draws a lot from current generation, my generation directors, which I can see. And hence also regret. Take just the Coen Brothers, for instance. And specifically their projects hovering around their obsession of nailing down the best comic film. That is not to say, in any way that they aren't good. It's just that compared to their dramatic ventures, these ones feels outdated and short handed on possibly everything. And Clooney coming from that same field, grows his fruits with those same expectations and instead fails more miserably than they ever do. Comedy of errors is the genre it is often mentioned under, and error it comes out. And the theory of passing the artistic skills like materialistic possession comes alive in this film like no other. Another fine example is the electrifying resemblance between Clint Eastwood's The Bridges Of Madison County and Bradley Cooper's A Star Is Born. Now, Clooney's latest exploration resembles eerily with his own collaboration in Steven Soderberg's Ocean's Trilogy. But what it is subtexted- not actually!- is a pretty loud metaphor that they, now that I think- shouldn't have mentioned to keep it nuanced. Instead to reach a higher level, the film wishes to have Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds like narration. Remember that sweat inducing conversations that marked a whole new scale on the "close call" term. But no one can do it like Tarantino does. Clooney gets a nod from us for his attempts and that is it. The Monuments Men is everything a guy at the stage and state of his career like Clooney, could pull off. And that is good, he and his fellow actors live by the big name they come with, the material though, ironically, lacks art.

The characters were good, and the second half was also. But, the start wasn't good, at all. I was bored and didn't like the script. But, once the second half started it became better. Even then though, it went fast. I liked it though, worth a watch.

A première vue, mettre en lumière cet aspect assez singulier de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale est une bonne idée mais à première vue seulement, car l'exécution et la mise en oeuvre sont à la rue. Il ne s'agit pas de considérations techniques comme la mise en scène au sens strict (plutôt appliquée) ou la reconstitution de la période (si souvent reconstituée par Hollywood) mais bien du scénario (à la masse) et de l'approche choisie (qu'est-ce que c'est que ce truc ? une putain de comédie ?). Monuments machin est donc peu crédible et souvent chiant, en plus de se révéler superficiel, pontifiant et donneur de leçons... et maladroit avec ça ! En outre, Clooney derrière la caméra, pourquoi pas, mais devant, certainement pas ; lorsque de surcroît Matt "tronchedecon" Damon s'en vient polluer une bonne partie du film avec sa médiocrité crasse intrinsèque, ça devient carrément pénible. Dujardin pour sa part est venu faire un petit tour et puis s'en va, le rôle du français faire-valoir comme d'habitude ; seul Goodman (qui me semble avoir maigri) tire un peu son épingle du jeu, Bill Murray étant "absent". Quant à la radasse blonde sur le retour, je ne ferai -Dieu m'en garde- aucun commentaire... En conclusion, nous tenons là un monument de merde que personne n'emportera, si ce n'est pour le jeter dans le broyeur.

Just watch Frankenheimer's "The Train." Virtually nothing in it actually happened but it succeeds where "Monuments Men" utterly fails, in that you will give a damn about the characters in the film, and you will gain a sense for why people would risk their lives to save art. Also, "The Train" has an actual plot. "Monuments Men", by contrast, makes extensive use of comic relief. Never a good sign.

2/5★ Its all very adequate, but it feels...indulgent. Its not a bad film just dull, and with a story that is actually quite interesting, I wonder what a better director could have done with it. The tone is proudly old-fashioned and there is a mini-series feel, a splintered focus on too many characters and locations. Despite a fantastic cast, Cate Blanchett is the only actor who gives a serious performance. Verdict: For a really rainy day.

This is a movie that you should watch just because of the cast ensemble!! Too once you start give the movie give a chance as the first is kind of slow, but picks up pace. With Bill Murray and John Goodman expect some humorous moments, and btw those 2 can act with the big boys! Some action and tense moments, nice story line, and ended up nicely. The movie makes you realize the tragedy of war along the way, and that not only lives are lost. Glad I didn't pay at the theatre as I borrowed the DVD from a friend, but again worth watching once! I gave it a 7 based on the characters and the story!

What was Clooney thinking. This film was dreadful. With almost no pacing evident, a rippes off dads army vibe that's been americanised, and one very annoying scene ripped straight from full metal jacket with a lighter outcome due to its 12 rating. The tone is also all over the place, not knowing whether it is a historical biographical piece, a comedy, a drama or a war film. The comedy that does happen always falls flat. The acting overall is pretty average, however Cate Blanchett is still very believable in the film. Also, typical american film killing off the British and french characters, nice one Clooney. Overall the way most scenes are directed are fairly awful, with little direction really. With a brilliant cast, this film disappoints on many levels. Lastly, transitions from one scene to another is so terrible and sloppy that it's actually a frustrating watch. Oh and also, that ending was suh a rip off of Kelly's Heroes. Obviously Clooney watched Kelly's Heroes and wanted to direct his own version. I usually love Clooney, but this truly makes me angry at him. I sighed. A lot.

Well casted and filmed, but thoroughly unoriginal and tedious, "Monuments Men" wastes all of its potential in a clunky narrative and a tone without consistency.

The Monuments Men unfortunately is an average movie. I was hoping for so much more and the worst part is that it wastes such a great cast. I never thought for a second that these actors were these real men not to mention the extremely boring plot. While this is a story to be told and these men need to be known, this wasn't the representations they deserve.

When I saw the preview for The Monuments Men, I was really excited. I've never been all that crazy about George Clooney, but I love Matt Damon, and the film is based on a little known tale from a famous historic event. Stories like this one, are often turned into some of the best films that Hollywood has to offer, and I was sure this film would be a can't miss. Clooney stars and directs this extremely large and diverse cast, which ultimately turns into it's downfall. When you have a large cast of talent, you need to be very careful about how you use them. In The Monuments Men, the cast is split up all across Europe, leading to short scenes, that jump from location to location far too quickly. When the crew is reunited towards the end, the film becomes much better, and in my opinion, this is how the story should have been told right from the beginning. The story centers around a community of art lovers, who are distraught about the **** theft of historic works of art. As the war is winding down and the **** defeat is imminent, these men want to make sure that the worlds greatest works of art are protected, and their willing to risk their lives to do so. As I stated earlier, George Clooney stars and gives his usual performance. When Clooney first started doing movies, he was exciting and really gave audiences their moneys worth, but lately all he does is play the same character over and over again. Clooney is the mysterious, handsome stranger, who does a lot without saying much. Some people love that kind of thing, as for me, I find it to be lazy. If you just wanted to direct, there was more than enough talent to carry this film, and in fact, I would have preferred to see Bill Murray or John Goodman in larger roles. The story told in The Monuments Men is extremely interesting, but it's told in these fast paced, short scenes, that do nothing but confuse the audiences and squander the extreme amount of talent this film has to offer. Needless to say, while I thought the film was a great idea, I was far from impressed.

The story takes place in Europe when the US was an integral part of the allies in during back the Germans in World War II. Frank Stoles, a Lieutenant, was trying to persuade the President of United States, that winning the war will not be completely successful if all of the priceless works of art were destroyed by the Germans. Frank said, “While we must and will win this war, we should also remember the high price that’ll be paid if the very foundation of modern society is destroyed.” The President half-heartedly agreed with Frank’s statement and gave him permission to recruit a handful of people, nicknamed “The Monuments Men”, to support this mission. Frank was able to recruit six other people who were mainly museum curators and art historians. Almost all of them had no previous military experience but all of them were willing to support this mission since they saw the value in recouping all of those invaluable artworks. The Monuments Men were divided into different groups or individuals to try to track down where the Germans were transporting and storing the artworks. James Granger went to Paris to understand where the Germans transported all the stolen treasures from France. James was attempting to befriend Claire Simone, a curator in occupied France, who might know the details of the stolen artworks. Claire initially didn’t trust James since she suspected the allies will confiscate all the treasures. But later Claire realized the James returned a stolen art to a Jewish home, and she trusted that James would keep his word and gave him a ledger that contained important information of the stolen art. Richard Campbell and Preston Savitz tried to figure out a set of stolen Belgian artworks. They were able to identify and arrest a German officer who was healing as a farmer but decorated his home with the stolen artworks. Walter Garfield and Jean Claude Clermont were on their way to look for the stolen treasures. Unfortunately, they accidentally ran into Germans patrol and Jean Claude were hit and died. Donald Jeffries went to a Belgian church and was trying to transport the valuable artwork out of the church. However, the Germans came and shot him to death. With two members died, the Monuments Men came together again as a team with only five members left. They understood that **** would want all the artworks to be destroyed if Germany lost the war. He issued the Nero Decree to his military to do that. The team was rushing against time since Germany is faltering. At the same time, the Russians were advancing from the East, and they would confiscate all the artwork in order to help to rebuild their country. The team realized that the Germans were storing most of the art treasures in mines and castles. The team was able to recover substantial amount of artworks from mines and castles in Austria and Germany. At the conclusion if the war, President Truman asked Frank Stoles whether it was worth for two people’s lives in order to rescue those art. Frank had no doubt and responded back it was all worth it. At the end of the movie, Frank took his grandson to visit Michelangelo's Madonna sculpture.

It has got a fantastic premise and an all star-cast led by the talented George Clooney, but unfortunately, The Monuments Men wastes them with a very bland and dull script that fails to recreate any of the excitement or the intensity of the subject matter.

The Monuments Men is a war-centric film without the typical action and gore found in these epics. Instead George Clooney opts to take a dramatic approach to this non-fiction caper story only to end up with a rather stale product. The terribly slacky narrative brings absolutely no suspense or thrills, filled with corny comic relief. The cast is misused with their powerful star potential on characters with zero development causing the story to drag on until its inevitable anti-climactic end.

I do not really get all the hatred for this film. The cast is fantastic, led by George Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, John Goodman, Cate Blanchett, and Bob Balaban. The story is also very interesting as this group of misfits try to recover art stolen by the ****. It is surprisingly funny at times, which I did not expect and there are plenty of thrills and exciting moments. I never really found it boring, though it was of a slower nature, but for me, I was always interested. The whole point here is to argue about the worth of art in a caper film about stealing it back, so that way it can be preserved and displayed by their rightful owners. Ultimately, if you truly do not care about art, you will be left wondering why these idiots are almost getting killed trying to get it back, but if you, at the very least, respect the work of the artists, you will get what is so important. Now, I have heard a lot of debate over its actual historical accuracy, but to me, that is irrelevant. It is, at least somewhat, based on real situations and a real group of people sent to try to preserve art, but made more exciting and funny. You do not hear anybody giving a negative review to Braveheart for not being historically accurate, so I do not understand the different treatment for this one. As a whole, The Monuments Men is a well made, well acted, and well directed film that in lesser hands, could have been worse.

Cool movie went there with friends, got some popcorn and had a great time. Movie was awesome, had to see it and recommend it. It is actually real story

Very interesting and informative. It is a great look at an often unknown consequence of **** war, and I enjoyed learning about this. I did not have high expectations, so I was not disappointed. I did not find it boring, and the cast was superb in my opinion. It you are looking for nudity, sex, violence, or blatant romance, this movie will disappoint. But if you want an in-depth look at some lesser known consequences of what was happening while Germany and Russian invaded Europe, from France to Italy, this is one I recommend.

The movie quickly went from being boring to flat our irritating. This proves once again that George Clooney can't direct or write a film if his life depended on it. A humorless idiotic film.

Boring, badly written and illogical. Directed for your Average Joe who has no idea about WW2 history and attention span of a chicken. And of course US won WW2, because allies attacked Germany even from Poland side as it was explained at the beginning of the movie. Russians were just making angry faces and stealing art. Because Russians. Not mentioning that lots of military-related things shown were just plain idiotic and unrealistic. Clooney should stick to acting, he's much better at it. Waste of time and money.

It was far worse than I was anticipating and I didn't have high expectations to begin with. Terribly written screenplay. George Clooney seemed totally incompetent about the components that make a good movie.

This if officially the worst war movie I have ever seen. I completely understand why both then users and the critics hated this disastrous movie. All in all, it didn't even make sense. The Monuments Men is just a waste of time.

As an European, I appreciated this film. It's a masterpiece among films about World War II. Many of interesting paintings and sculptures are shown in the film. Moreover, it is an interesting historical fact this movie show to us. Some scenes are funny, others are more serious and quite sad. The Monuments Men is truly a good movie.

It is a bummer when 20th Century Fox rescheduled Clooney’s fifth director endeavour THE MONUMENTS MEN into a lukewarm February release, bodes ill for its craftsmanship which may not up to Oscar’s calibre. But gauging from its stellar cast, a more probable upshot could be a fun-loving teamwork like OCEAN 11-13 fanfare, yet, it does’t even achieve this lesser goal. continue to read rest of the review on my blog, google cinema omnivore.

While it's great to see this true WWII story being given attention, I just wish it was done in a more interesting way. There's a great cast here, but the story isn't filled with enough humor or action to become compelling. Instead it's almost two-hour running time feels uneventful and largely boring outside of a few high points. I can definitely see history buffs getting enjoyment out of this, but those less interested in the history and more interested in humor or action will be left largely bored. Heck, even the history buffs might have a problem how dull the majority of the film is.

The cast is the highlight of this film. The movie is disjointed with terrible pacing that seems to take away from the experience of watching it. There is little explanation of the jumps in time and distance and this leaves the viewer lost at times. There were unnecessary elements in the movie that did nothing other than take up time that could have been used to more fully flesh out an excellent story. This is a story that is deserving of more than this attempt.

What is wrong with people? I really think people have become desensitized to what a good movie is. It slowly started with the "professional" critics, and now, to my disbelief, the consumer. It's not just about this film being scored low, it's about others as well. Unless a movie has insane violence, meaningless nudity, infidelity, subjects that are taboo to most cultures, then it get's knocked down. Note that, when one of the characters in this movie has a chance to cheat on his wife, he takes the higher road and remains faithful. This is almost NEVER seen in movies anymore, hence, a reason why some critics didn't give it higher marks. People, movies are meant for entertainment, not just shock value. Is this movie really deserving below a 8 of 10? Below a 7 out of 10? George Clooney got it right making this film. A return to what movies are truly made for. Feeling, entertainment, chemistry with the viewer, and relativity. Once you begin to break down every scene in a movie, pick it apart, compare it to "the book," and intentionally look for flaws, then you've lost sight of what going to the movies is all about. Why even go? Save yourself the time and $9, and breathe for a little while until you reset and can learn to enjoy films for what they are, an entertaining escape. I don't know, try making a movie yourself that has a fraction of emotion and meaning that this film does. Then, maybe you will come to appreciate a good film when it is staring you in the face. The Monuments Men is a true return to American film making. Does it deserve a 10? No, but I will rate it with such, so that more people won't be turned away from it because of unnecessary negative reviews. Sit back, breathe, and enjoy it.... oh and come off your high horse and stick to what you get paid to do.

This movie was loosely adapted from the book of the same name which was originally based on the true story of the world war two. It was a war drama with a theme of the treasure hunt directed by our own George Clooney. The movie had multi top stars who team up for a specially assigned task. Just like the Alistair MacLean stories they lead their way to the war zone to accomplish. I don't know how much close to the original story it was, but this movie was a bit slow and drag, all the way dull. But not to forget the story intentionally serves its elements to us without surprises and twists. What we really miss was the scenes that pull us to our seat's edge. Yeah, the fast paced furious thrillers, especially in the last few minutes I was desperate for that and it did come, but did not please me. Even the deaths in the movie were not convinced or appeals strongly. Most of the time I thought it was a dark comedy, especially in the last scene of Jean Dujardin. Other than cinematically transformation fail, I really liked the story. In the real story with real people it would have been a hell of a job than in the movie, which portrays few pieces of the real incident. Heartbreaks to know that many valuables were destroyed during **** invasion of Europe and also makes me happy that these men saved most of it. No doubt, it was a reasonable attempt by George Clooney. Because this story must reach widely to expose these men's bravery and it's only possible through a movie. This is not a must see movie, but for story wise it is.

This should have been a great movie, one that could have possibly swept the Oscars. A small group of aging artists and art scholars who are physically out of shape get together out of a sense of universal and moral obligation, join the armed forces and undergo a painful basic training in order to undertake Mission Impossible. Theirs was not a separate peace, but actually a separate war—they were trying to save the history of Western culture and civilization. **** criminality as an insane, hysteria-ridden, and sadistic mass murderer was a separate issue from his interest in art. He had started out as an artist who flunked out of the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts. His paintings and sketches were mediocre, dull landscapes and uninspired figures. **** lacked originality, style, and anything that even came near creative imagination. His rejection from the academy reportedly caused him to fly into a hysterical rage that was frightening to witness—it was a harbinger of what was to come. In the film,George Clooney, in the role of museum curator Frank Stokes (based on the real-life George L. Stout), is the leader of the seven men who were selected to try to retrieve the millions of paintings and sculptures that were stolen by the ****. Most pieces were stored in underground caves slotted to go to German museums. A significant amount of art was destroyed by the ****, not because of the “Nero decree” (**** instructions to destroy all military and transportation infrastructure if he should die or if Germany should lose), a decree which apparently did not mention art, but because avant-gardism (Picasso, Miro, Dali, Klee, and others) was considered by the **** to be unworthy of the spirit of the Third Reich and of poor or degenerate quality. The film, like most Hollywood cinema of a historical nature, is historically inaccurate, which is probably why director Clooney changed all the names of the original team. For a blow-by-blow analysis of all the inaccuracies, read “How Accurate Is The Monuments Men?” at ****. But even as a fictionalized account loosely based on a true story, the film runs amuck because it is difficult to follow the plot as the seven men split up and tackle different aspects of the situation, later reuniting for the final coup that takes place in the underground mines. Some of the best scenes are shown in the film trailer, such as the scene where Matt Damon, playing art restoration expert James Granger, is frozen in place because his foot is firmly planted on a land mine. When Clooney's Frank Stout has to recruit Damon's James Granger, there is an amusing chat at a bar where Stout informs his friend that the entire squad will consist of six men. When Granger objects to the small number, he's informed that he will bring the total to seven. “Oh, that's much better,” Damon (Granger) replies with a dry sarcasm. Clever conversations, which one would presume are Clooney's forte, are not predominant in the film. A much touted scene where Bill Murray, playing architect Richard Campbell, is in the camp shower and hears a Christmas recording from his family over the PA system gives an up-close and sensitive portrayal of his reaction. Nevertheless, the scene was set up in such a way that it was telegraphed well in advance and looked like it could have come straight out of MASH. The musical score is dramatic but at times distractingly grandiose. There's no romantic intrigue, except for an awkward flirtation between Damon's character and that of Cate Blanchett. They should have had an affair—it would have made Damon's character more complex and less dull. But with a brilliant round-up of actors like George Clooney, Matt Damon (replacing Daniel Craig who quit just before filming began), John Goodman, Cate Blanchett, Bill Murray, Jean Dujardin and Bob Balaban, not to mention Hugh Bonneville from Downton Abbey, this film was surprisingly low key and slow moving, and in the end it's the art that holds the viewers' interest, even though we did not get to see nearly enough of it.

A well acted, but flawed and at times boring film. The acting allows for the recommendation all the performances are strong. Wish there was more character development and more things would, but one watch will be worth it. B-

Not a good written movie. It's not that bad but at the end it looks like a lot of money and good actors were just wasted. Some part of the movie just don't have anything to give to the narration and could be cut without noticing, making it less boring. Some other parts are just dumb...

This movie was so painfully lame. It could have had something. The cast is phenomenal. But the characters they play? Eh, not so much. Bill Murray shows some good acting in a few segments. John Goodman and Jean Dujardin's characters almost connected with me. But other than that, everything feels cheesy and slow. It also had some of the most forced scenes ever. Cate Blancett and Matt Damon have some sort of weird, forced relationship as well. Some characters die, and by the end, I had forgotten all about them. Its really a shame.

I liked this movie. It has really good acting, a very interesting story, engaging and memorable characters, etc. Honestly there's not much to complain about. It's a good break from all the typical action movies out there now and nice to watch a story about WW2 not focused soley on the war itself.

Despite the poor reviews I gave it a shot, due to the talent involved. However, it was quite a letdown. Generally flat and uninteresting performances, dull pacing, and a plot that doesn't make you feel invested at all. Not recommended.

It has nice aspiration and strong cast, but the script just isn't up to par. A bit resembling Ocean franchise, George Clooney assembles a squad of intelligent men, not to steal valuable goods, but to preserve artworks from being destroyed at World War II. Contrary to usual war theme movie, The Monuments Men takes a lighter, more humorous view of the brotherhood and their cause. It works moderately in its own way with the interesting concept, although uneven pace, shallow screenplay and feeble dialogue confine the movie in mediocrity. The story takes place in dusk of World War II, just as German was about to be defeated by Allied forces. Since the **** has confiscated a large amount of art from its occupation time, not to mention the war's toll on many other unprotected objects, Franks Stoke (George Clooney) inspires to save as many historic legacies as he can. The unit he established consists of museum curators, architects and historians, a very unorthodox squad by any means. In the casualty heavy struggle, their cause may seem trivial, and the movie tries to present this angle even though it may not rise in its fullest. Cast is composed of famous line up, such as Matt Damon, Jean Dujardin, Cate Blanchett and more. Each contributes in their own way as one only has a couple of fervid scenes. Cate Blanchett delivers the most somber role of the somewhat light-hearted movie, she displays a cynical unyielding will and probably would fit in more intense direction. Bill Murray and John Goodman as veterans give a comedic side as they're aware they might not be soldier material, but they offer vivid reaction when faced with mortality. Jean Dujardin in the few scenes he's in manages to be suave and persistently spirited. The most unfortunate thing is the screenplay doesn't allow the talented cast to reach their best potential. Dialogues sound tedious, stiff and frankly inauthentic. Pacing is monotonous, the unit splits into different teams and it's meant as an effort across the war torn Europe, but it never manages to create an intertwined flow. The pace feels fragmented as there's barely any consistency to string everything together. Its dramatic moments mostly seem dull and humor is unsuccessful at times. There are some good scenes here, although they are brief and numbered in only a few stretched across the two hours movie. Ironically, the above average length can't form a compellingly structured plot because the content is sparsely divided the many characters. More than half of the movie is spent on comedy, sadly the jokes are stale, and they don't amount to much laughter or enjoyment. Aside from these short-lived moments of fascination, the movie is mundane. The Monuments Men is based on cultural achievement, a good intention by George Clooney and it's presented in easily accessible fashion. However, the pace, direction and screenplay are subpar, making the movie muddled and far less inspiring than it could have been.

The adaptation of the true Monuments Men's story is bad. In fact, George Clooney did not take the best angle for his story. The screenplay is based only on two artistics painting.

George Clooney directed this old-fashioned movie and starred in it looking like Clark Gable. Despite the negative reviews, there is nothing basically wrong with the movie. It tells a straight story, based on facts. It has a short introduction, where we get to meet all the main characters; a development, where we follow the different characters in their adventures and an end that wraps up the whole film. Granted, today’s audience, used to fast editing, special effects, gore and over the top scripts may find it difficult to appreciate what is really old school story-telling. However, some of the reviews I read do not make any sense: somebody complained about “lack of character development”, but they should know that in movies with a large cast, character development is hardly a priority. Somebody else mentioned that it is “absurd” to leave gold and art in cave. Well, that actually happened for real, as the retiring **** could not carry all that stuff with them. Just check the historical records… Other complained about “yet another movie about WWII”. Perhaps they should check in advance which movies they are going to see, if they do not care about WWII movies. I agree about the fact that given the premises it could have been a better movie, but I still found it entertaining. Murray, Damon and Clooney were good as usual and even Blanchett, in a small role, managed a decent performance. Definitely not a masterpiece but an enjoyable movie to watch, especially if you like classic movies moving at a slower pace.

BOARING historically a documentary with no action and long and nothing to hold your attention don't bother watching it In fact the whole story was slow and hard to follow with scenes that had nothing to do with the story line it just seemed to be fillers

Critics set their expectations too high these days. I read the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for Monuments Men and was surprised to see how many of them were negative. When I saw the film for myself I felt so differently. Here’s my opinion: This is a war movie unlike any other. In fact, it’s really not a war movie at all. World War II just happens to be the backdrop. This is a movie about art. What it means to our collective culture. The movie stresses that “art cannot have a single owner,” meaning that it was intended for the public. It preserves history and encapsulates the qualities of an era. The public needs to view art to understand the past. So **** wants all the art. He wishes to use it to create a massive museum called der Führer Museum. Understanding **** vision for the Aryan race it’s implied that the museum would be a private collection reserved only for the ****. George Clooney’s character (Frank Stokes), a professor, is aware of this and asks the federal government permission to create an operation to find the stolen art and return it to its rightful places. He recruits a team, most of which are connected to the Arts in some way, and they head overseas into the war-zone. The team is in no way ready for war conditions. Most of them are older and inexperienced. This makes for a humorous tone since the team relies on desperate optimism to get the job done. All the actors perform brilliantly, not a surprise since they are all talented. The story does get a little mish-mashed. The team splits up at one point in the film creating separate storylines that are hard to follow. The film as it stands, however, is entirely believable. While watching it I truly felt as if I were in World War II. The music does come off a little patriotic, creating a “cheesey” tone at certain places. All due credit to George Clooney for attacking this project as both writer and director. I recommend this movie. It’s not perfect but for what it lacks, it makes up for it with the actor’s performances. Don’t let critics fool you.

the mounments didnt have enough violence but i enjoyed anyway . george clooney aka the co star of gravity directors and co wrote this but i loved it but the comedy stinks .

Trying to save the memory of a murdered people shouldn't be this whimsical but other than a fun movie . I get the premise of this film but really seems a little shallow how it focuses and their on intercourse being funny. Goal was noble but unnecessary whimsy was not .

The movie has many good actors like George Clooney and Matt Damon and many more. The movie doesnt know what it wants. It is a good time wasting movie but nothing special.

Great cast (personally way better than the American hustle cast) It was ok it wasn't serious but I didn't hate it I kinda liked it... I liked bill murray John Goodmans and Matt Damon's charecters, Cate blanchett was basically the most serious in the hole film but it is a Greta film for the whole family

This is a great movie everyone should watch and based on real events. George Clooney and Matt Damon performance is just amazing really loved it and made me think about the Nazy's actions

I can't bring myself to say this is a bad film because there are some genuinely entertaining and heart warming moments but by the same token I can't say it's particularly good either. The whole thing feels very disjointed, jumping around from one place to the next with the tone being equally sporadic. Several times within the space of a minute we're taken from a light hearted, slightly comedic feel straight to a darker melancholy scene and then back to the happier atmosphere just as quick. I can't fault the actors, John Goodman in particular puts in an impressive performance but we're never told that much about the characters history, how they all seem to know each other before the events of the film or why none of them seem to object to putting their lives on hold to jump head first into a war zone just because George Clooney said they had to. I give this film a 5 because about half of it is really good. Had they taken 50% of the footage from this film and got a better writer and director to fill in the blanks then it could have been much better. As it stands there are a lot of good ideas being poorly executed.