Reviewing the Art Critiques of The Monuments Men

Name:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:
Reviewing the Art Critiques of The Monuments Men
The art film, The Monuments Men, has garnered considerable reviews among art critics globally. The motion picture, which stars George Clooney, follows the true events of a faction of men and women within the Allied Armies who were responsible for the protection and preservation of the treasures stolen by the Nazi during World War II. Due to its major focus on popular art, The Monuments Men has attracted differing opinions on whether it accentuates the history and design of the most renowned paintings. In order to draw a comparison of such opinions, it is imperative to assess two reviews regarding the same film. The reviews by Richard Corliss and Tunzelmann offer different critiques of the film in relation to artistic quality and depiction.
Art reviews offer a history of the work under assessment. Similarly, both films offer a significant and detailed history of the theft of populist art compositions during the Nazi Era. Accordingly, both critiques engage the reader into the structure of the film by discussing key points of the narrated chronological event. However, the levels to which these particular appraisals criticize based on art differentiate considerably. Corliss’ review, The Monuments Men is George Clooney’s Art of War, deviates considerably from offering a critique predisposed on fine arts. Indeed, Corliss only concentrates on creating a comparison between Adolf Hitler’s involvement in stealing the pieces of art as well as other key historical figures such as Napoleon Bonaparte (Corliss 1).
Nevertheless, The Monuments Men: A Rickety Plot Ruins This Relic Hunt, by Alex von Tunzelmann draws on artistic references in order to criticize the film. For instance, Tunzelmann (1) corrects the error that has been surrounding Leonardo Da Vinci’s name especially after the creation of the Mona Lisa. By using the film as an example of this error, the review dispels the rumor that Da Vinci was actually the surname for the famed painter. In addition, Tunzelmann also points out the incongruity of the film’s art predispositions especially when the curator, Frank Stokes, says, “This is Da Vinci’s Last Supper”. From this, the critique asserts that it should be ‘Leonardo’s Last Supper’ (Tunzelmann 1).
In conclusion, both reviews do not border on various elements in relation to art. For instance, the critiques do not provide a considerable detail of the miscellany of art pieces regardless of their portrayal within the film. Adding on, these reviews fail to capture the positive and negative sides of the artworks represented throughout the motion picture. Consequently, Tunzelmann and Corliss fail to conduct a comparison of some of the compositions, which were famous and part of Hitler’s stolen treasures. Lastly, the reviews do not focus intimately on the artists responsible for the different compositions as well as the reason behind their fame.

Works Cited
Corliss, Richard. “The Monuments Men is George Clooney’s Art of War.” Time Magazine. 6 Feb. 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <http://time.com/4978/the-monuments-men-is-george-clooneys-arty-dozen/>.
Tunzelmann, von Alex. “The Monuments Men: A Rickety Plot Runs This Relic Hunt.” The Guardian. 6 Feb. 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/feb/20/monuments-men-reel-history-true-story>.