My new role, champion of lame ducks

Rating: Null/10 (2 February 2015)

I certainly didn't ask to become the champion of lame ducks but having been exposed to such diabolical reviews of the 2013 "Romeo and Juliet" and now an even worse batch on "The Monuments Men" I suppose I shall have to accept the role. For the second time in under a year I find myself completely out of step. It is almost as if I have watched entirely different films from the multitude of pen blasters. Not that I would place these two works on the same level. Carlo Carlei's Shakespearian adaptation is for my money one of the finest cinematic takes on the Bard, a work imbued with passion, excitement and visual beauty that had me reeling to an extent I have not found anyone to share. Clooney's "The Monuments Men" is no more than a worthy middle-of-the-road film, what in terms of literature one might deem "a good read." As I tend only to submit reviews of films of outstanding quality, as a means of imparting enthusiasm for those I particularly admire, I would not have been writing this. My motive here is rather different, to lambaste injustice that I find near incomprehensible. Not only is the exciting true story of the rescue of great works of art from the Nazis during the latter parts of the war well told, the art direction capturing the devastation of the period is visually most impressive. If the film has a fault which places it on a lower level than such wartime epics as "The Great Escape" it is short on character development which tends to be swamped by emphasis on action. For once a better balance needs longer running time, rare to ask for from one of today's action flicks. Reports have it that George Clooney was deeply upset about the adverse reaction to what to all intents and purposes should have been a popular hit with audiences. If it is any consolation, George, I lapped it up and am probably as puzzled as you about the extent of such unjust denigration.