Showing posts with label George Clooney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Clooney. Show all posts

Sunday, February 9, 2014

NOW SHOWING: The Monuments Men (2014)




                “The Monuments Men” is a movie about the previously little known MFAA (Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives) program.  This unit was created by the Roosevelt Administration to protect and recover art works in WWII Europe.  The film was directed by George Clooney and is based on the book The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History by Robert Edsel.  It was filmed mainly in Germany.  The movie begins with the classic “based on a true story” claim. 

                The story starts with a prologue that establishes that the Nazis (in particular Hermann Goering) are looting art throughout occupied Europe.  The unit is the brainchild of an art conservationist named Frank Stokes (Clooney).  One selling point in his slide presentation to FDR  is a reference to what happened to the monastery at Monte Cassino.  Stokes recruits several colleagues (none of whom is reluctant to risk his life in what is clearly going to be a dangerous mission).  The recruitment is done without dialogue which is a nice touch, but negates much character development.  In a foreshadowing of the level of humor, one of the men gets a physical while smoking a cigarette and the doctor is smoking (and hacking), too.  The obligatory training sequence is mercifully short and inserted solely to establish that the guys can kill Nazis if necessary.  And they get to dress like soldiers.

"I'm putting together a unit and I need one hunk
for any romance breaks out"
                In his briefing of the six other unit members, Stokes points out that Hitler is looting art for his planned Fuhrer Museum in his home town.  In July, 1944 they land in Normandy and meet immediate resistance from the military.  It seems the Army is more interested in blowing things up than preserving art.  The idea of protecting sites is immediately nixed, but it’s okay for them to roam the front lines (and beyond) sans escort.  In particular, they are hunting the Ghent Altarpiece and Michelangelo’s statue “Madonna With Child”.  Along with these two subplots, Granger (Matt Damon) is sent to make contact with a French art historian named Claire Simone (Cate Blanchett) who works in a Paris museum which is the main conduit for French art being sent to Germany.  Claire is reluctant to confide in Granger because she suspects the U.S. of wanting the art for itself.  “How can I help you steal our stolen art?”  She is feisty and skeptical, but Granger is Matt Damon – you do the math. 

                The movie’s middle third is divided between the quests by segments of the unit.  Each is a little mini-war movie.  Campbell (Bill Murray) and Savitz (Bob Balaban) are tasked with the Ghent Altarpiece. Their relationship has the earmarks of a buddy film.  Garfield (John Goodman) and Clermont (Jean Dujardin) are sent out to get shot at.  The action scenes.  Jeffries (Hugh Bonneville) goes after the Madonna in Bruges.  The behind the lines scene.  Meanwhile, Stokes and his German interpreter Pvt. Epstein (Dimitri Leonidas) supervise and put leads together.  The detective story.  They discover that the Germans are hiding the art in various mines.  Oh, and the romance between Claire and Granger.  There’s something for everyone!


will these two art loving foes form a bond?  have you
never seen a buddy film?
                The last third deals with the mines as the crew is reunited.  Two races ramp up the suspense.  First, there is the Nero Decree which states that in the event of Hitler’s death, the Nazis are to destroy all the looted art.  Second, the Soviet Trophy Brigade is looting the looted art as reparation for all the damage done to the Soviet Union during the war.  This movie manages to have evil Nazis and Communist bastards.  In fact, the final set piece is a race to the last mine (and the Madonna) that, with the aid of clock-ticking music, has the audience on the edge of its seat as it frets over who will get possession of a statue.  Don’t watch this movie if you have heart problems!  (Which based on the age of my audience…)  The movie closes with a head-scratching cribbing from “Saving Private Ryan”.  This includes the “was it worth it?” query.

                This ain’t “Inglorious Basterds”.  It is more of a throwback to Old School war movies.  There is no cursing nor graphic wounds.  One main character stays loyal to his wife when tempted by an exotic mademoiselle.  The movie even manages to incorporate a Christmas song.  (Perhaps because the film was originally supposed to be a December release.)  The humor is far from cutting edge.  It is smile-worthy with some eye-rollers.  Even Murray’s character is subtle in this respect.  Fortunately, there are no unintentionally funny moments, although some of the plot enhancements are silly to anyone who is big on reality or does not like huge coincidences.  I’m talking about you - “mine scene”.
We were soldiers, too!
                The movie will probably be popular because of the cast.  Clooney chose well when he assembled his Oceans Seven.  They are all comfortably familiar actors.  It is hard to alienate an audience when you have Damon, Murray, and Goodman in your cast.  Kudos to Clooney for not dominating in his own movie.  The acting is fine, if unspectacular.  Clooney’s direction is workmanlike.  The cinematography features some off centered shots and multi-leveled compositions, but you won’t leave the theater marveling at what you have seen.  Clooney managed to round up enough period vehicles to give the movie a WWII war movie vibe.  There is little combat so the jury is out on his ability to stage war action.  In fact, the one brief fire fight is marred by an egregious disregard for common sense tactics by American soldiers.  There is also a sniper scene that is only saved from ridiculousness by the twist of who the German sniper turns out to be.

                The movie eschews cliches for the most part.  There is no command dysfunction and little conflict within the group, although we do get the trope of the authorities being uncooperative.  The unit is not heterogeneous.  You do get a redemption arc for Jeffries.  There is also something of a suicide mission, who will survive? feel to the plot.  Naturally, the script throws in the Jewish interpreter and Holocaust references like a cache of gold fillings.  We get two evil Nazis! One who inexplicably decides shooting at Clare with a luger from 50 yards is preferable to a firing squad for a French Resistance rat.  The other is the heinous heinie who kills one of the seven.  Hiss!   They keep popping up as those types tend to. 
Will Claire ever warm to James?  Have you never seen
a romance movie?


                “The Monuments Men” is what I sometimes call a WTF/WTF war movie.  This means it has scenes where you shake your head at what has to be complete crap and then you find out some of those scenes were actually accurate.  This film is a mixed bag and based on preliminary research I would have to say it is average for a “based on a true story” movie.  The Monuments Men unit did exist and was created to rescue as well as protect art.  However, it consisted of 350 men and women from 13 different countries.  The individuals did come from various art-related occupations and they did go through military training.  All the main characters but Clermont are based on real people, although the names have been changed.  Stokes is George Stout who was an art conservationist who played a main role in the creation of the MFAA and was one of the first to land in Normandy.  The other members never worked as a unit or even in pairs, as the movie depicts.  Claire was Rene Vallard and she is pretty accurately portrayed, including her reluctance to help the MFAA.  I seriously doubt the romance subplot is authentic.  The unit did learn about a cache from a dentist whose son-in-law was a former S.S. officer.  He did not have stolen art decorating his abode.  The Nero Decree was for real, but was never implemented.  No flamethrowers.  Hitler was planning on an art museum in his home town.  One of the mines did contain a huge quantity of gold that drew more press than the art recovery efforts.  As far as the deaths, one actual member was killed by a shell while moving an altarpiece.  The staging of both deaths is pure crap, but at least the movie does not have the men actively involved in combat.  For more details, wait for my upcoming “History or Hollywood” post.

It is hard for me to be too harsh with “The Monuments Men”.  It falls into my most valuable category of war movies – those that bring light to a little known, but deserving individual, unit, or event.  This category includes some great movies like “Glory”, but most are misfires like “Red Tails”.  Unfortunately, if the producer botches the effort, there is little chance for a redo.  (“Red Tails” being particularly disappointing as the rare second attempt after “Tuskegee Airmen” came up short.)  I think it’s safe to say there will no future films highlighting the MFAA.  “The Monuments Men” falls midway between “Glory” and “Windtalkers” (the two extremes) in quality.  If you want to watch a much superior movie on this subject, watch “The Train”.  And then remember that before there was George Clooney, there was Burt Lancaster.  Progress?

 
Grade =  C
 
 

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Three Kings

    


      “Three Kings” is a war movie released in 1999. It was written and directed by David Russell from a story idea by comedian John Ridley. The movie was a moderate success at the box office, but was critically acclaimed. At the time of filming, George Clooney was a TV star hoping to make a splash in movies. He worked hard to get the reluctant Russell to cast him. Spike Jonze made his acting debut in the film. The movie is set in March, 1991 – “the war has just ended’. This is a reference to the Persian Gulf War.


is this dude surrendering?
      The movie opens with a provocative scene in which a soldier named Barlow (Mark Wahlberg) shoots an Iraqi soldier who may or may not have been trying to surrender. This was a common situation at the end of the war. The scene shifts to the celebration back at base camp. The movie is outstanding in showing the chaos at the end of the war.

Gates, Barlow, and Elgin
      During the searching of Iraqi prisoners, Vig (Spike Jonze) finds a paper stuffed in a prisoner’s anus. “I didn’t join the Army to pull paper out of people’s asses.” He also didn’t join the Army to become a millionaire, but the paper is a map to a bunker where Saddam Hussein has stashed millions in gold bars. When Major Gates (Clooney) gets wind of the map, he takes charge of the trio of Barlow, Vig, and Elgin (Ice Cube) and they go off in a humvee to get rich quick. Surprise – complications arise.

      They find the gold, but they also encounter civilians being threatened by Hussein’s loyalists. The civilians are part of the rebellion against Hussein that was encouraged by the Bush Administration. Our heroes are only interested in the gold so they simply watch while the civilians are killed. Just kidding. Russell is not breaking new ground here. The quartet intervenes in a wild firefight that is one of the coolest ever filmed. The use of slo-mo and graphic visuals of bullets entering bodies is visceral. The battle is not depicted as a fireworks extravaganze, but more like a multi-player tennis match.

Vigs isn't giving up his gold
      They flee with the civilians, but the enemy fire chemicals which turn out to be tear gas. Their vehicle crashes in a minefield. Don’t you hate when that happens? Actually, it was probably common in Iraq back then. They are rescued by rebels, but Barlow is captured. The rebels are angry that Bush has abandoned them. (There is some time compression here as this stage of the rebellion would not have been reached this early.) Gates makes a deal with the rebels. If they help him rescue Barlow, the Americans will help them cross the border into Iran safely.

Gates negotiates
      Meanwhile, Barlow is being “interrogated” by an Iraqi soldier named Said (Said Taghmaoui) who lost his son to an American bomb. He is not a big fan of the U.S.A. He uses electric shock to show it. They debate the war and Said has some good debating points in his favor. When Barlow points out that the war was fought to stabilize the world, Said’s counterargument involves making Barlow drink oil. “This is your f****** stability.” Well played, Said.

      The plan to rescue Barlow revolves around making the Iraqi captors believe Hussein is coming in person and boy is he pissed. Since the Iraqi soldiers are Iraqi soldiers, they fall for this and most run off. Unfortunately, an Iraqi helicopter arrives to change the equation. (This is a reference to how Hussein used helicopters to put down the Iraqi rebellion due to the fact that the Bush Administration did not cover non-fixed wing aircraft in its no fly ban.) Too bad the insurgents did not have explosive Nerf footballs like Elgin uses on the helicopter. Why did the U.S. encourage the rebellion and then not provide the explosive Nerf footballs? What kind of foreign policy is that?!

       Barlow is rescued and in a “you had the better argument” recognition lets Said go. The quartet (minus one) get some trucks and head for the border with the rebel families. Unfortunately, at the border the Iraqis are not allowing anyone to enter Iran and Gates’ commanding officer arrives in a court-martialing mood. Luckily, being an American, he might be open to a bribe of golden bars. It’s redemption time for our scheming rogues.

       “Three Kings” takes an historical event (the Iraqi uprising after the Persian Gulf War) and injects a fictitious story into that chaos. When the Persian Gulf War ended with Hussein still in power, the Bush Administration encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up. The Shia in the South took up the call and at first were successful. Unfortunately, the war ended with the Iraqi Republican Guard crippled, but not powerless. It was able to carry out Hussein’s orders to ruthlessly put down the rebellion because fighting lightly armed civilians was more its skill set than combating the U.S. Army. To make matters worse, the peace agreement did not forbid the use of helicopters. An oversight that was to bring disaster to the insurgents.

a bullet trail
       The movie is very entertaining. It came out after “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Thin Red Line” and joined them in juicing up the war movie genre for modern audiences.   It is different and more unorthodox than those other films. It is the MTV version of war. The use of hand-held cameras and Steadicams gives it a journalistic feel. It also uses CSI-style graphics to show the effects of bullet wounds. There is one remarkable view of a bullet penetrating a body and the resulting sepsis. This style reappears when Gates plunges a needle into Barlow’s lung to help him breath. Another scene uses Matrix type visuals to portray a firefight. It’s a war movie for the new generation, but my generation can admire the viscerality of it.  Speaking of generations, "Three Kings" is the modern equivalent of "Kelly's Heroes".

      The movie is not just eye candy. The acting is stellar from the ensemble. Even the novice Jonze holds his own. Clooney’s charismatic performance conclusively proves that his decision to jump from TV was a wise one. Wahlberg cemented his status as a major star. More importantly, the screenplay is thought-provoking. It does not preach, but makes it clear that the period at the end of the Persian Gulf War was a messed up situation and the U.S. should not be proud of our role in the Iraqi Insurrection. It even includes a sympathetic Iraqi torturer (Said). In some ways it is a biting satire of the military and the media. Although the bigger picture is conveyed, the movie dwells at the human interest level. It depicts how government decisions affect civilians.

Carcker? Absolutely. Possibly in the Top Ten.

9/10



the trailer