The Washington Post did not like Clooney's Film

Why am I not surprised? The Washington Post review of the Monuments Men Philip Kennicott, 'George Clooney saves puppies from Nazis', Washington Post, February 7:

The film doesn’t lapse occasionally into cliché, it is grounded in cliché, woven of cliché and consists of nothing but cliché. Director, producer and screenplay co-author George Clooney may believe he is serving art, but “Monuments Men” serves only cliché, and cliché is the enemy of art. “Monuments Men” is so bad I will save you the trouble and expense of seeing it with the following summary. To make the film a bit more coherent, I’ve substituted the word “puppies” for art. [...]

This is followed by an interesting bit addressing the way the film merely reflects a certain set of stereotypical attitudes:

It’s time to stop giving Hollywood a pass when it comes to this kind of dreck. Clooney isn’t doing art a service by appropriating, distorting and trivializing the story of the real “Monuments Men,” whose service was commendable. Clooney uses this story to assert his own ideology, a farrago of Hollywood banalities that align remarkably well with standard-issue beliefs about capitalism, freedom and America. Struggle and you will succeed; everyone can rise above their demons; teamwork will lead to success; faith in yourself is the key to everything. And of course: America über alles! Which is the only message one can take from a ridiculous scene near the end of the film when the Monuments Men apparently take time away from saving puppies to hang an American flag above a salt mine, just to poke a stick in the eye of those notorious puppy wranglers, the Russians. Norman Rockwell wouldn’t touch this slop.