National Geographic Channel (IIRC) ran a special on the real Monuments Men, using some footage from the movie. According to that special, basically only the names were changed so the movie is pretty much correct, just missing some details, unless the special also wasn’t that close to the source material.
That guy likes the movie in general. He has a couple of minor quibbles, as do we all, but it’s mainly only the soundtrack he REALLY dislikes. Since I can’t remember anything about the music other than the moving “Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas” sung by the Murray character’s daughter, obviously I didn’t find the music distracting or intrusive. If I see it again I’ll try to pay attention.
I’m also glad they didn’t have the Damon and Blanchett characters have an affair. The stereotype of the “typical Hollywood movie” would have had them under the L-shaped bedsheets in no time. She had a bit of a thing for him by the end, and he liked her, but he was a good man and a faithful, loving husband and an affair was not going to happen. None of the other men took time out for local scenery either. What kind of “Hollywoodized” movie is that?
Merged duplicate threads.
It’s 34% Rotten at Rotten Tomatoes. If you would check this site (and/or MetaCritic, where it has a meager score of 52) before you plunk down your money, you could avoid certified turkeys like this or at least not be surprised and disappointed as you would be going in with the knowledge that it was going to suck ass.
Meh. Last I looked, The Lone Ranger scored even lower and we enjoyed it.
Despite Equipoise’s desire to discuss this movie without the appearance of endorsing a critical opinion of it, we don’t need more than one thread on this movie. I have edited the thread title (originally “Wow, Monuments Men sucked ass”) rather than removing all of her posts from the merged thread, as she demanded.
And, Sitnam, you might want to consider the possibility that a more interesting conversation will ensue if you don’t poison the well in your thread titles.
twickster, Cafe Society moderator
Heh, I haven’t seen the movie, but the real person that I understand Cate Blanchett’s character was based on (a woman named Rose Valland) was physically notable mainly for her dowdy plain-ness - it was her ability to, basically, fade into the background that allowed her to escape Nazi scrutiny, and to spy on their stealing.
It is very Hollywood that they have the glamorous Cate Blanchett play her. 
I read the book last year and enjoyed it very much. But I doubt that I will see the movie. I feel like it would not add anything to the experience of learning about the subject. One question though: do they talk about the French efforts to protect state-owned art (like at the Louvre) from theft?
Thanks, SpoilerVirgin. So it really was essentially the German gold reserves. Early-ish April. Too late to affect the continued financing of the Nazi war machine. So the actors were exaggerating the effect on the war.
And, oops. Swiss, not Swedish.
Fair enough. I hated the movie and was pissed at wasting money to see it. I wasn’t really concerned about discussing it merits. I should have put it in the Pit, but don’t care either way now.
Checking MetaCritic I was surprised to see such a wide gap between the critic’s consensus (37 out of 100) and audience score (6.4 out of 10). Rotten Tomatoes has it at 30% Rotten with only 54% audience liking it.
Saw it last night and I’m in the meh camp. Neither particularly bad, nor all that enthralling. I think it fell a bit into the too convenient trap of “stunt casting.” IMHO the characters are not particularly well-developed, instead audience familiarity with folks like Goodman, Murray, Damon, even Bob Balaban and the tropes associated with them substitutes for development. I felt no particular emotional connection with any of the characters when they came under threat. It unfortunately also felt a little rote, in addition to being a little incoherent - I’m not sure I’m really sold on Clooney as a writer/director.
I agree this could have worked as an HBO mini-series, but kinda falls down as a movie.
Fabulous cast and story Yes, the plot-line is a little odd. Still, I really enjoyed it.
I agree with Equipoise in that the NON=-love story was a nice turn of events. So non-Hollywood.
Too much emphasis on smoking.
We plan to see it with a friend this weekend, assuming we’re over our colds by then.
My biggest complaint. The script just glosses over the characters. As just one example, why did Bill Murray get so weepy at his record from home? That scene needed some earlier characterization moments for the audience to buy into Bill’s pain.
This was a George Clooney vanity project wasn’t it? He co-wrote it, produced it, and directed it.
I like Clooney just fine, and I share his politics, but I think what this movie taught us is that while Clooney is a terrific actor, he is not much of a writer, and maybe not such a great director.
The tobacco companies looked upon WWII as a huge sales opportunity, including cigarettes in C-ration packs.
They apparently looked upon this movie as a sales opportunity, too. Wouldn’t be surprised if there were some off-the-books product placement money on this one.
All the complaining about historical inaccuracies, and you’re griping about the most historically accurate thing in the movie?
No need to dwell on it. No need to make the focus of two scenes. And although it’s true soldiers smoked a lot, they also ate, chewed gum, pissed and crapped, not to mention jerked off. I remember one alluded to urination, a couple of eating scenes, and none of anything else. Soldiers obsessed about food, yet only one such scene?
Saving Private Ryan only had one scripted smoking scene, and that was a famous one in one of the source books. Then we have the Longest Day: filmed during the heyday of smoking, but it’s still not focused on.
Long, loving camera focus shoots on the cigarette ? Not needed.
No doubt there was a pay off. Easy to do.
The Wife and I saw it last night. It entertained me. I don’t ask much more from any movie.