The Monuments Men

I'm weird when it comes to movies. When I catch wind of a film in production, of an actor being attached to a project, stumbling across a trailer, I look forward to said movie like a crazy person. We're talking kid on Christmas Eve excited. Over the years, I've looked forwarded to The Alamo, Skyfall, Casino Royale, the Dark Knight series, the Fast and Furious movies, and most recently released in theaters, 2014's The Monuments Men. Where does it fall among that list? Read on.

It's mid-1943 and the tide of World War II is quickly turning to the Allies, the Axis retreating on almost all fronts. An American officer, Frank Stokes (George Clooney), with an art background is proposing a plan to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the tide turns, presenting an idea for a small squad of specialists and experts in art, architecture and history and dropping them into the war zone in France. Their goal is simple, try and save as much famous and historical art, statues, structures and buildings across Europe. Germany, the Third Reich and the Nazis -- led by Hitler and Goring -- have been stealing and stockpiling priceless pieces of art for years, more than that stealing hundreds and thousands of years of history and culture. Stokes gets his right-hand man, James Granger (Matt Damon), and goes to work assembling his small team. The war is definitely turning though, the Germany army retreating all along the front. Countless pieces of art, treasures and items of historical significance are at risk, the Germans having received an order from Hitler to destroy everything they can.

This story is a prime example of how powerful history can be. There are countless stories out there just waiting to be told. This WWII story with Clooney directing (and co-writing the script with Grant Heslov) is based off a true story and the book of the same name (check it out HERE by author Robert M. Edsel). The fact that this really happened -- the Germans hoarding history's treasures, the Allied effort to recover said treasures -- is pretty crazy in itself, a hugely interesting and entertaining premise. I loved the book, a window into a chapter of WWII that was almost completely forgotten by history until the last 20 years or so. It was fascinating and terrifying all at once, unlikely heroes in an unlikely situation. I was worried then when Clooney's film was pushed back from an original December 2013 release to a February 2014 release. Should I have been worried?

Unfortunately, yes. It's a good movie that entertained me. The truth is though with the story at hand, the real-life incidents, the flesh and blood people, it could have been a classic. A true classic, and it isn't. The positives are obvious. There is a throwback feel to the story reminiscent of so many good 1960s World War II movies. Clooney clearly has a ton of respect for his subject matter and rightfully so. What these Monuments Men accomplished in a live war zone is remarkable, and yes, there were casualties. For a cliffsnotes version of what the force/organization accomplished, read HERE. This is a movie interested in really illuminating what these men accomplished. They were soldiers, if not the classic idea of what a soldier is. The movie is gorgeous, filming on location in Germany adds a perfect sense of authenticity to the story. The score from Alexandre Desplat is okay, nothing too memorable, a little too adoring at times. There's a lot going for it but.....

There's also a lot of negative to mention. A couple hours after watching 'Monuments,' it's hard exactly to say why. The task in transitioning Edsel's book to a manageable film is daunting. We're talking almost double-digit characters traversing across Europe over a year-plus. The result in Clooney's 118-minute long film? A generally disjointed feel with no real unifying link to the characters and set pieces. Episodic is a more than apt description, one episode, one bit or routine bouncing to another as quick as it arrived. The early portions are rushed, characters introduced far too quickly. The middle portions drag as if the script doesn't know exactly how to get to where it wants to go. The finale definitely is the saving grace, the Monuments Men traveling deep into Germany to rescue extraordinary amounts of art. It's disappointing because I expected so much more. The drama is good but not great, wandering too much aimlessly, and most of the attempts at wry, subtle humor fall short.

The movie's savior and strongest attribute is the cast that almost makes up for the disappointing script. If Clooney is attached to a project, it instantly has cache for me. He's good, not great, leading the ensemble as Lt. Frank Stokes (based on George Stout), the creator of the Monuments Men. Damon has the more scene-stealing part as James Granger (based on James Rorimer), the art director at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. His subplot with Claire Simone (Cate Blanchett), a volunteer who survived years in Paris in efforts to protect invaluable pieces of art, is a cool departure from the story, including a great scene where Claire (based on Rose Valland) reveals a huge secret to Granger. The rest of the Monument Men include Campbell (Bill Murray), an architect, Garfield (John Goodman), a sculptor, Clermont (Jean Dujardin), a French artist, Savitz (Bob Balaban), an art expert of sorts, Jeffries (Hugh Bonneville), a disgraced Englishman, and Epstein (Dimitri Leonidas), a young soldier who grew up in Poland, now working as the group's translator.

While the formula is tweaked, the premise here at its heart is a 'men-on-a-mission' movie, Clooney's Stokes assembling a small group of specialists to help pull off an impossible mission. The formula is rushed too much to the point I never really felt I knew any of the characters. I felt like we were supposed to root for them because it was Bill Murray, because it was John Goodman, not because we get to learn anything about them as individuals. Like so much of portions of the movie, I came away disappointed with the characterization. The acting is uniformly good but cold for lack of a better description. Some parts work very well, especially Goodman and Dujardin teaming up as the group is split up to cover more ground. Murray and Balaban are the odd couple, almost constantly arguing, but overall, it's just more wasted potential.

I'm wavering here. This movie seemed like a gimme for me, a sure thing review at 3.5 or 4 stars, but it wasn't. Some moments work perfectly, like a Christmas montage as we see the war starting to wear on all the Monuments Men, a message from Murray's daughter playing on a phonograph. A late interrogation between Clooney's Stokes and an SS officer is foreboding and subtle at the same time. the last 30-40 minutes pick up the momentum, providing the movie's strongest moments. Getting there though can be a trial at times. Most of the issues can be chalked up to the script that falls short in so many ways. A disappointingly average film that should have been so, so much better.

The Monuments Men (2014): ** 1/2 /****

Robin Hood

Some characters from historical literature have just had more of an impact than others, characters like Hawkeye in Last of the Mohicans, Captain Ahab in Moby Dick, King Arthur, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn just to name a few.  One that I started reading about when I was younger who still remains a favorite is Robin Hood. Countless books have been written about the legendary outlaw and even more film versions that include stars Errol Flynn, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner, and even a Disney animated version that I love.  Well, they can't all be winners, like 2010's Robin Hood.

A pairing of director Ridley Scott and star Russell Crowe with a great character like Robin Hood seemed like a no-brainer to me (Gladiator for anyone confused) even though I never got to see it in theaters. Going into this, I should say I'm a fan of the legend, the myth of Robin Hood. Like so many movies dealing with stories already known by audiences (Bond, Batman, Hulk), Scott goes with a reboot, telling the story of how everything we know about a character -- in this case Robin Hood -- came to be.  So basically, it's an unofficial prequel.  Bigger than that though, the title character is almost a throwaway addition.  This movie could have been any 12th Century archer fighting royalty.  I wanted to like this movie, and it just didn't happen.

After fighting for King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) in the Crusades for 10 years, archer Robin Longstride (Crowe) returns home to England with three of his closest friends and allies he's fought these many years with. Completing a mission he told someone he would honor, Robin rides to the town of Nottingham where he meets Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow) and his daughter-in-law, Marion (Cate Blanchett). He agrees to say on with them, posing as Marion's dead husband so they can hold on to their land.  Bigger things are at work though as a treacherous Englishman, Godfrey (Mark Strong), is pitting new king John (Oscar Isaac) against his people while also arranging a surprise invasion from the French. Standing in their way is Robin himself, ready to defend England to the last.

I made the unfortunate decision of watching Scott's Director's Cut, clocking in at 156 minutes instead of the theatrical 141 minute-version.  Bad choice.  I'm all for historical epics in just about any form, any historical time period, but there's both too much going on here and not enough at the same time.  Maybe the best thing going for the movie is the cast, but there's too many worthy actors here so they're in and out of the story too much.  After the introduction of all the players and settings, basically an hour goes by before any conflict is even introduced.  Then when it is presented, it's another 30 minutes before SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAPPENS.  Maybe I was expecting a different movie, but I was bored to tears and only stuck with it because I kept waiting for it to get better.  Insider tip? It doesn't.

With Scott directing and Crowe starring, Gladiator is one of my all-time favorites.  Reviews even identified this one as Gladiator with a bow and arrow.  Playing the title character (although he's only identified as Robin Hood once), Crowe makes this otherwise dull flick somewhat interesting.  The man is cut out to star in historical epics, and he makes Robin a believable leader, a man capable of convincing others to do something they never would have on their own.  Crowe also looks to do most of his own stunts -- fighting and horse riding -- so he gets points just for being cool.  As Marion, Blanchett is like a female equivalent of Crowe, an actress cut out for period pieces.  The two of them have some definite chemistry, but it gets lost in an endless series of scenes that go nowhere.

The name recognition alone for the supporting cast is great, but that's about all they get.  Over 80 now, von Sydow is still the man and just by being in the movie makes it better.  William Hurt looks like he stumbled into the wrong movie playing William of Marshal, a royal caught in the middle of a possible English civil war. Strong is a great villain, a man with NOT ONE redeeming quality, making it that much easier to hate him. Matthew Macfayden is the sheriff of Nottingham, relegated to background duty here. Huston makes the most of a quick appearance as the Lionheart. Robin's not so merry men include Friar Tuck (Mark Addy), Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes) and Alan A'Dale (singer Alan Doyle). I would have loved to see a movie more about Robin and his men in Sherwood Forest, but I guess I can add that to my list of complaints.

One thing that still surprised me about this movie was the PG-13 rating because without the R-rating, the action and violence seem pretty tame, almost boring.  I don't need decapitated heads or gushing blood, but it felt very whitewashed here.  Not that the action is top-drawer by any means, but it was certainly more watchable than just about anything else here.  Like the rest of the movie, it just didn't impress.  On scale alone, this movie gets some points but other than Crowe, Blanchett and an underused supporting cast, I've got to pass on this one.  A disappointing result, and a surprising one too.

Robin Hood <---trailer (2010): **/****      

The Missing

A child actor turned huge star director, Ron Howard has directed a variety of movies that make it hard to peg him down.  The movies are all over the place in terms of time and place setting, but maybe more than anything else Howard has focused on period pieces from Cinderella Man to Apollo 13, Frost/Nixon and several more.  But as wide-ranging as his films has been, he's only done one western, 2003's The Missing.

This is a movie that struggled in theaters -- making about $30 million in the U.S. -- while receiving some lukewarm reviews from critics.  It's a difficult one to put into any sort of category because it features so many different elements from old west mysticism to an estranged family working together after years apart.  The movie was shot on location in New Mexico and is the better for it.  If we were judging on the look of a movie alone, this would have been a huge critical and box office success.  You get the sense of a journey through the wilderness, but then you keep on traveling.  A story that at times doesn't move along too fast clocks in at 137 minutes.  Potential? Sure, but it's hard to find at times.

Living in 1885 New Mexico with her daughters Lilly (Evan Rachel Wood) and younger Dot (Jenna Boyd), single mother and "healer" Maggie (Cate Blanchett) have a tough life but a good life. One day Maggie's estranged father Sam (Tommy Lee Jones) arrives on their doorstep having abandoned Maggie and her mother and siblings as a child to live with an Apache tribe. She wants nothing to do with him at all, but when Lilly is abducted by a gang of renegade Apache scouts she has no one else to turn to.  With Dot along, Maggie and Sam ride south tracking the gang, hoping to catch up before they can cross the border into Mexico where all the women/girls kidnapped along the way will be sold to the highest bidder.

At its most traditional, 'Missing' deals with a kidnapping plot that has been used fairly often within the western genre.  There are good guys and there are bad guys, the lines pretty clearly dividing them with no middle ground.  The added element of an estranged father trying to fix a rift between himself and his daughter works surprisingly well if at times unnecessary.  We've got a band of murdering Apaches selling women, and Blanchett's Maggie still shoots daggers at Jones' Sam whenever she gets a chance.  Thankfully this isn't pushed down our throats with Sam admitting he's not looking for forgiveness, he just wanted to explain himself.  Helping bring back his granddaughter though is his chance at redemption, and he's going to take it.

Where that part could have been overdone and obnoxious, the two stars just don't let it happen.  Jones doesn't push it too far, and Blanchett is able to reel it in instead of being a stark, raving lunatic.  This is Tommy Lee Jones' movie with a quiet, understated performance.  After years away from his family, he just wants to explain himself and all his actions (or lack of) over the years.  He's a very capable man on the trail and isn't going to let anything slow him down along the way.  Other than my issue with so many foreign actors starring in westerns, Blanchett's part as Maggie is very strong.  Anytime a female character in a western can be a strong woman capable of handling herself, I'm all for it.  Other supporting parts include Val Kilmer as a cavalry officer, Aaron Eckhart as Brake, a ranchhand and Maggie's live-in boyfriend, and Jay Tavare as Katiyah, an Apache working with Sam.

For a movie that is basically one long chase, the story tends to drag in certain places.  Most of that can be chalked up to the story's reliance on Indian/Apache mysticism with a hint of witchcraft thrown in.  The leader of the renegade Apaches is called El Brujo (Eric Schweig) which Sam translates as 'an Indian witch.' The character is able to put curses on people, seems to have some link to evil and the devil, and has an all-knowing feel that he's aware of everything.  His look alone is scary, and he's a more than capable villain on his own.  The story would have been just right with him as a renegade Apache looking for blood and money without the mysticism and voodoo.  Cut those segments out, and you've got a more mainlined 100-120 minute movie.

Working with this story with so many different elements, Howard never gets graphic in his depictions of wild west violence, but he always is able to paint a picture of what's happening.  Sometimes not seeing the violence is more effective than seeing it.  We know what's going on, and actually witnessing it would be overkill.  That said, the last 30 minutes is full of action that makes up for some of the movie's slower portions.  Like most of the rest of the movie, the ending doesn't preach or make any sort of judgment, it just ends.  It is an uneven movie, but with enough positive elements to recommend it.

The Missing <----trailer (2003): ** 1/2 /****