I really like Saving Private Ryan - it is gritty, realistic and makes you feel like you were there, and tells a heck of a WW2 story. I also really like this movie - it is not gritty particularly, does have a more humoristic approach at times, and tells a heck of a WW2 story. I honestly don't understand the criticism about this movie. It feels like a lot of people were either expecting the same thing they've seen over and over with grit, gore, and length, or frankly had a skeptical/cynical attitude from the start and immediately I-phoned in snarky reviews about how the movie didn't entertain them enough.

This movie was not a gore fest, so... it's unrealistic then? This movie does not have each character sit down, stare at the camera and tell you some long back story that is designed to tug at your heart strings, so... the characters are not developed enough? There are many characters in many different storylines/missions that sometimes meet back together, as is the case with any ensemble cast movie, so... the movie should have been 3 hours long with a narrator explaining to you what was going on with each scene change?

The point of the movie was about the Nazi threat to the cultural achievements over the past centuries, and how that threat was identified and combated by a group of middle-aged art professionals. I really liked that for once we didn't have some Tarentino-type decapitations, or intestines sprawled on the ground, and cussing for the sake of cussing. No shock value kind of stuff, which I suppose maybe made some people bored. But this is not that kind of movie. This movie told a valuable story based on a true story, in an older-type way, with men who you felt were leaders who led with courage. It is another tale out of many, of lesser-known heroes overcoming adversity against Nazis. This movie is focused more on the overall story of a broad mission like as if looking down at the entire chess board, rather than following just one piece.

Bottom-line: This was an enjoyable movie, and I do feel well-articulated a valuable point about the importance of protecting our cultural achievements in the face of evil who would either highjack that history or destroy it. I feel like it was well-acted in part because none of the actors seemed like they were there to steal scenes, but rather play their parts more subtly and just respect the history. You could follow the story just fine contrary to what people have said. Not the best WW2 movie I've ever seen (thus 4 stars instead of 5), but still a good addition to any WW2 movie collection.

I don't know how historically accurate the movie "The Monuments Men" is.
I do know, however, that it is an excellent film.
The movie focuses attention on a little-known effort at the end of World War II to recover art stolen by the Nazis during their reign of terror in Europe. The subject of a book written several years ago, "The Monuments Men" is an interesting movie for many reasons including the fact that it broadens our understanding of the war itself. The Nazis are notorious for many reasons but many people are unaware of the fact that in addition to murdering millions of men, women, and children they were gangsters who stole anything and everything they could get their hands on. The depth of their immorality and their cruelty is almost bottomless and their desire to possess the treasures of other people is almost without parallel. It's been said that the only real difference between them and criminal organizations such as the Mafia is the fact the Nazis wore uniforms and that might be closer to the truth than we realize.
That said, I think this movie does an excellent job of highlighting the efforts on behalf of the Allies to recover this stolen art, preserve classic buildings from destruction, and - in the process - help to save civilization. That may be too grand a claim but I would argue that had these artistic and architectural treasures not been recovered and saved this world would be a much poorer place.
George Clooney, Matt Damon, John Goodman and the rest of the cast were wonderful in the film as a small group of academics charged with the task of finding and recovering the stolen art. The script allowed them to show a wide range of emotions and the director was sure handed. The costuming, cinematography, and musical scores made the movie come alive for me and helped to enhance the performances by a truly gifted cast.
My conclusion: An excellent piece of film making and a movie I highly recommend.

For the last several years, I have found accounts of the "Monuments Men" fascinating as well as the Nazi's systematic, almost industrialized looting of art confiscated from Jewish families; private and public art museums; even churches for shipment to Germany; this film also uncovers the systemic destruction of art deemed decadent by Hitler such as works by Picasso and other modern artists. It is remarkable that such a tiny team of dedicated museum curators, historians turned into unlikely soldiers managed to rescue, recover and restore so many pieces of art sometimes just ahead of Russians bent on finding art treasures for transport to Russia as payment for their horrendous losses at Nazi hands. The actors were so skillful that I forgot at times they were acting as they melded into an unlikely, but highly disciplined, dedicated and effective team. That Matt Damon turned down a French curator's offer to spend the night was believable and represented the best of gentlemen of the time as was the true shock of team member's quiet loathing of the Nazis as they contemplated the enormity of the Nazi horror when they find huge barrels filled with gold fillings from Jews who died in the camps.