Talk:The Monuments Men

Change headline?

Shouldn't the headline be modified to The Monuments Men from just Monuments Men as done elsewhere in the article and evidently used at IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2177771/)? Alandeus (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The Monuments Men has received mixed reviews. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a 35% rating

Hardly mixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.78.37 (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is not a good gauge. It only categorizes a review as positive or negative. Metacritic is better because it categorizes as positive, mixed, or negative. That website's survey says 15 positive reviews, 25 mixed, and 1 negative. So Rotten Tomatoes is shoddy in its simplistic dichotomy. Same reason why The Avengers has a very high % on RT (because it fails to reflect that while critics liked the film, not all found it perfect) where MC has a more reasonable score. Per MOS:FILM#Critical response, we should seek out individual assessments of reviews. We can Google for "monuments men" "critics" or "monuments men" "reviews". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 05:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Historical accuracy of von Tunzelmann

Why include an historically flawed review quote of the historical flaws in the movie? "von Tunzelmann" (a Guardian blogger/'historian') suggests that Stokes would not use 'Da Vinci' to refer to 'The Last Supper' since it's merely a phrase indicating that "Leonardo" was from Vinci, a community near Florence... and further suggests that using 'Da Vinci' was not common until after Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code". Those suggestions reveal her youth and/or a definite lack of knowledge of American culture as bad as that which she cites Americans have for European surnames. Americans' preference for referring to everyone by first name, last name has existed for quite a long time, and 'Da Vinci' usage has been around far longer than Dan Brown himself, not to mention that the more learned Stokes would have been explaining to Americans who would, most likely, have long known Leonardo as 'Da Vinci'... a short form appelation of convenience favored in America at least. von Tunzelmann's own surname means 'of' or 'from Tunzelmann'... and she suggests 'da Vinci' is inappropriate as a surname. This is just comical. Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (Leonardo son of Piero from Vinci) is listed as the full name in Wikipedia... which may not include a definite 'surname' as Americans may expect. However, many American surnames are simply convenient short forms also indicating lineage or origin as does Da Vinci's appelation. The entire von Tunzelmann quote is specious, and likely simply opinion and not researched as to the usage in the 1940s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RpDn (talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Just google for books pre-Dan Brown-2003 with "Da Vinci's" -"Leonardo Da Vinci's" and you find tons of often academic books containing sentences like "da Vinci's painting search us out with its eyes", "testing apparatus depicted in da Vinci's notebook", and, from 1940, "one remembers the copy of the painting by Da Vinci which has disappeared". I've removed the text. Afasmit (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bloated 'Reception' section

The length of this section here is ridiculous. It feels like half a dozen reviews are nearly quoted in entirety. Someone care to clean it up? Walkersam (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I entirely agree. It needs to be cut by about 80%. Fifty (fifty!) citations of Rotten Tomatoes, all of them simply copypasted quotations, is way too many. Ever heard of "more is less"? GrindtXX (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Vyselink (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Diff. It was a mess, it was wise to trim it back. -- 109.79.65.192 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

This movie makes the point that a psychopath like Hitler wanted to seize or destroy symbols of sane western culture. However, this movie could not even be produced today because, all over America, statues are being pulled down or destroyed by the current Left in an attempt to destroy our own historical and cultural symbols. And for the same sad reason -- to start afresh. Of course, Hitler was an insane fascist dictator, but the modern Left also wants to start fresh by destroying social icons and pretending America's history consists solely of racist, sexist oppression when in reality America has been the best large experiment in democracy on this planet. Not perfect, but the best big experiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing possible improvements to the article, not for airing personal opinions about the wider topic. WP:TALK GrindtXX (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Um... anyone here heard of Janet Flanner?

... and her ‘The Beautiful Spoils’ ? Flanner’s thoroughly researched (and beautifully written) account of the Nazi looting of Europe, and the work of the ‘Monuments Men’ in recovering and returning these artifacts, was published in 1947, collected in her Men and Monuments (Harper and Row, 1957), and originally appeared in The New Yorker. I saw this silly movie, and considered it should be re-titled Ocean’s Eleven Save Private Ryan From the Temple of Doom. --2001:44B8:3102:BB00:507B:4DB7:1FD6:A81B (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)