Cinema can serve as a wonderful introduction to real-life stories, especially those which have, for many reasons, remained largely hidden from public view.  I have always held a special appreciation for movies like Argo (2012), or The Raid (1954) or The Man Who Never Was (1956) which begin with historical events and build upon those solid foundations to deliver exciting stories.  Wartime exploits, perhaps because they are often startling and hard to imagine, work very well as such foundations. Such is the case with The Monuments Men, in which several unlikely art experts are recruited during World War II to find and rescue European art treasures being hoarded by the Nazis.  Unfortunately, when compared to those aforementioned excellent adventures, The Monuments Men is a disappointment.

George Clooney co-wrote (with Grant Heslov, who appears as a doctor in one scene) and directed the movie, and stars as the group’s leader, professor Frank Stokes. Stokes persuades President Roosevelt that it is important to try to rescue as much stolen art as possible, and is given permission to “put together a team” to recover it. Thus, experts portrayed by Matt Damon, John Goodman, Bob Balaban, Jean Dujardin, Bill Murray and Hugh Bonneville are employed to spread out across Europe, track down the missing paintings and sculptures, prevent Allied troops from inadvertently destroying them, and bringing all that cultural history back to where it belongs.  It’s all based on fact, and is really an amazing story — which is why it is such a shame that Clooney’s film is so flat and unexceptional.

The film doesn’t have the rhythms of a typical Hollywood search and rescue movie, perhaps deliberately, but boy, could it use some dramatic pacing, ebbs and flows, and traditional building of suspense.  Certain sections are detailed and thorough, feel complete and whole, and work pretty well.  Other sections are sketchy and even confusing, have little sense of place or importance, or are so earnest that they sledgehammer the “arts are important” message into polemic.  The script is to blame, I think; it feels like a second draft, where some passages are polished and others are still in need of revision.

Another problem is that the talented ensemble has so little to do.  Bill Murray especially is underused; he has a few quips and one really nice dramatic scene in a shower, but his role could have been played by anybody.  The same with Goodman, Damon, and even Clooney for that matter.  Only Bob Balaban seems to really connect with his character, and he isn’t great, he just makes a stronger impression than the others.  These people, however noble their cause, have little character depth and that is due to the writing.

The premise is an important one and a really good movie should have been made of it.  A better filmmaker with a better script was evidently necessary.  What Clooney has delivered is well-meant and occasionally compelling, but it doesn’t fulfill its admirable ambition.  It’s affable enough, but that isn’t saying very much.  This movie should have been much more thrilling than it is.  ☆ ☆.  8 February 2014.