Munich Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
The world was watching in 1972 as 11 Israeli athletes were murdered at the Munich Olympics. This is the story of what happened next.
During the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, eleven Israeli athletes are taken hostage and murdered by a Palestinian terrorist group known as Black September. In retaliation, the Israeli government recruits a group of Mossad agents to track down and execute those responsible for the attack.
| Eric Bana | Avner |
| Daniel Craig | Steve |
| Ciarán Hinds | Carl |
| Mathieu Kassovitz | Robert |
| Hanns Zischler | Hans |
| Ayelet Zorer | Daphna |
| Geoffrey Rush | Ephraim |
| Gila Almagor | Avner's Mother |
| Michael Lonsdale | Papa |
| Mathieu Amalric | Louis |
| Moritz Bleibtreu | Andreas |
| Valeria Bruni Tedeschi | Sylvie |
| Meret Becker | Yvonne |
| Marie-Josée Croze | Jeanette |
| Yvan Attal | Tony - Andreas' Friend |
7.80 out of 10 (38449 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Munich
posted on 28 Aug 2009Munich staring Eric Bana Wow! Went to see this film without knowing too much history about the 1972 Olympic hostage taking. I was not even born yet. I learned so much about Israel and walked out of the film with a greater knowledge of what the Israelites have gone through and the plight if there forefathers. I would highly recommend this film to all who have the slightest bit of interest in History and Israel. I now have decided to take a trip to Israel and check out the Kibbutz, and learn more of their history. The only problem I had with this film was the length, I think it could've had about twenty minutes shaved off, nearing the end I found myself looking at my watch wondering if it was ever going to end. Although I understood the need for it to be the length it was. If you can't sit still in a theater, wait for it to come to video. But do see this film and go in with an open mind. I applaud all the actors for a job well done and hope that this film gives people the message that was intended. Enjoy the movie!
Spielberg has done it again.
posted on 28 Aug 2009Spielberg has done it again. This film, combined with the tremendous acting power of Eric Bana and the up and coming Daniel Craig among others really comes together to create this epic masterpiece, some might complain about its length, but I have to be honest, the shorter the film (a good quality film) the worse, I love to watch the same characters over a length of time and watch them evolve and become a different character than the one they were at the start of the film. Visually this film is on par with nothing, as it exceeds every boundary while keeping true to the gritty realism that permeates throughout it. I look forward to more work from Spielberg since he seems to only get better with age.
Bold and worth watching, but significant flaws keep it from masterpiece status---6/10
posted on 26 Aug 2009Munich takes a bold look at the MidEast conflict by examining the 1972 Munich massacre and it's aftermath. Steven Spielberg, widely revered in both Hollywood and the Jewish community, puts his neck out by (finally) criticizing Israel and it's politics, if just a little. Israel would make you think it's an anti-semitic film, but in actuality it is a fair look at the pros and cons of both political views. Eric Bana and Daniel Craig lead a Israeli assassin squad ordered to hunt down and kill all those responsible for the killing of 11 Israeli athletes. While the movie has some really exciting scenes and tries to be fair, it is way too long and sometimes seems lost, like it doesn't know which direction it wants to go next. Spielberg could have easily trimmed a half hour of fat off the film. There were some really good scenes in the movie, but they were few and far between. I commend Spielberg for taking risks and giving Palestinians a few moments in the movie to speak; i just wish he packed up all the good stuff in a tighter package. 6/10
Brief summary of the plot and the message
posted on 24 Aug 2009The Munich terrorist attack is merely the film's setup, resulting in Israel forming a team of assassins to track down and kill the terrorists responsible for planning the attack. The film follows this team as they locate and assassinate their targets, and eventually become targets themselves. The main character is the team's leader, who after the job is done is plagued by doubts about whether his actions were morally justified and by worry for his family's safety. He insists that his boss proves to him that all the men he killed were guilty, which the boss is unable to do, presumably making Spielberg's argument for using the more formal court system in order to determine guilt. He also asks whether his actions actually made a difference in light of the fact that all the men he killed were merely replaced by more violent ones, which his boss is unable to answer but which is implicitly answered by the fact that this conversation is happening in view of the still-standing twin towers.
Enjoyed the movie, disagreed with the message.
posted on 18 Aug 2009Spielberg has described "Munich" as his "prayer for peace," and that theme has overshadowed most of the real events this film is based on. It tries to see the actions of both sides, Israeli commandos and Palestinian terrorists, as equal. This brings down the film in an idealistic and preachy way.When I first heard about this film, I was very excited that Spielberg would be directing it. I thought he could bring attention to the way Israelis have suffered under terrorism in the way he brought attention to the holocaust in "Schindler's List." Most of what I know about the Munich massacre and its aftermath comes from Aaron J. Klein 's "Striking Back," one of the most recent studies of the affair. What that work states is that the targets of "Munich" were high profile PLO members. The Israelis were anxious to fight offensively, not defensively, against Arab terrorists. Most of their targets did not have a direct hand in planning Munich. But in the film Eric Bana's "Avner" is not informed of this until the end, and it is presented to us as if the Israeli government is being shady, just eliminating people it had old rivalries with. The purpose of these assassinations was 1. to prevent terrorists from committing future attacks, 2.to deter terrorists by making them feel unsafe, wherever they were by knowing that while they sought the murder of Jews, they too could never sleep soundly at night, and 3. revenge."Munich" doesn't express well enough the motives for the reprisal killings, and the Israelis who take part in the operations are depicted as too somber and glum--Israel could not survive if its agents and leaders acted this way. Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, in the film, states the film's often quoted line, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." In reality, Meir knew well that the perpetrators needed to be hunted down and punished, mercilessly. The impact of the targeted killings, especially the operation "Spring of Youth" in Lebanon, is not given proper significance in the film. "Munich" implies that each of these missions was a bloody, unnecessary mess that lead to more tit-for-tat violence. "Spring of Youth" made Israel's enemies look at the Mossad with tremendous fear and awe; that Israeli agents could hunt down and kill supreme heads of the PLO in an Arab country, while their targets lay in their own beds. The "deterrence" motive definitely seems to have been achieved by these operations. Although controversial, "targeted killings" have proved to be very effective. Israel brings the threat of death to those who plan terrorist attacks, and as a result, the terrorists spend 90% of their time hiding and only 10% of their time planning attacks. Avner says in the film, "Those we killed are being replaced by worse." This is a myth held by the world. True, everyone is replaceable, but often when a highly experienced, skilled, and charismatic Arab terrorist is killed, his replacement is a young person who can't understand the intructions of his weapons because they are in Farsi. Targeted kills are a blow to their organizations, and it is particularly demoralizing to terrorists when their "best" leaders are elminated.My other complaint about "Munich" is that it feels rushed. Spielberg needed to slow down here, and he should have story-boarded the film. The Munich massacre is sped through too quickly, and there should have been more about how the Germans, with no anti-terror squad at the time, maddeningly bungled the rescue mission of the athletes. What Spielberg instead focused on was the violence (this is one of his bloodiest and most gruesome films to date). The final sequences, involving a concoction of scenes of Abner having rough, sweaty sex with his wife and the murder of the athletes, is bizarre and does not sit well. Many might find it offensive.What do I like about the film? Well, at least Spielberg tried to make a personal film about the conflict. You can tell that his heart goes out to both sides in an idealistic way. The cinematography, lighting, set pieces, vehicles and costume design appear authentic and dead-on. It has a suspenseful opening and tense moments throughout. It is skillfully cast and all the actors do very well--especially Eric Bana, Geoffrey Rush, Omar Metwally, and Daniel Craig, who needed more scenes. Craig is the toughest, most gung-ho character and has the more memorable lines in the film, like "Don't f**k with the Jews," and "The only blood I care about is Jewish blood." The movie gives us great exotic locales and interesting character faces, and a noir-ish feel with a look into a shadowy world of espionage. The film seems at times more about the toll taken on government agents who do hard and ugly things loyally for their governments than about Israel and the Palestinians.What we have in the end is a film that wears its heart on its sleeve. It is Spielberg's "prayer for peace," with some loss in accuracy as a casualty. Grade: B.
Anti-Israel Propaganda at it's Finest
posted on 10 Aug 2009If Israel was really full of weak minded left leaning Incompetent Pseudo-Intellectuals than Israel would not exist today. Let alone would they assign members of this mind set to an elite Mossad hit squad.From this movie we are supposed to believe Mossad is so incompetent they use an inexperienced Team leader, A bomb maker who has no experience building bombs and a Clean up man who questions so many things that it is completely implausible he would be doing this sort of work. Insulting to say the least - to the real Mossad agents who spoke openly saying they had no regrets and the film is completely and factually untrue.First of all I suggest everyone read up on the REAL history of Israel before you watch this Propaganda film: Google "Israel (05/06)"Spielberg irresponsibly has supposedly elite Mossad agents constantly questioning the evidence behind the Terrorists they are assigned to kill but freely lets the Terrorists spew their Propaganda without it ever once being questioned, debated or a single fact shown to prove these absurd claims. This happens over and over in the movie as he attempts to "Humanize" people who will kill woman and children civilians for their "cause", yet Israel is criticized for killing the killers? Spielberg not only demonstrates his complete lack of knowledge on the subject but deliberately misleads the audience to further his political agenda. No one has ANY right to take a factual event and turn it into a propaganda work of fiction like this.Then of course the incompetent Mossad foul up three separate bombing assassinations due to their incompetent bomb maker, the wise clean up man falls for a blatantly obvious beautiful assassin and dies and the courageous and wise forger commits suicide out of guilt. Oh please, Spielberg you are a fool or does he think we are?A very good in-depth review:Google "'Munich,' the Travesty"And for those interested in the real cause of the problems between Israel and the Arabs:Google "Walid Shoebat - Former PLO Terrorist who speaks out for Israel"
Munich (2005) A movie to provoke feelings.
posted on 10 Aug 2009I watched this movie with a certain hesitation. 1. Did I want to be reminded of this event in view of our current world situation, I was 19 when this happened and remember the news from the the time. 2. What has Hollywood done with this story, is it simplified, glorified etc.I took the chance on two things, 1. Steven Speilburg, no more need be said and 2. Eric Bana, here is an actor who can give some serious credibility to a character and he does.The movie is violent of course, the story is about violence and as Speilburg explains before the movie, it is trying to explore the ramifications of using counter violence and the pressure this puts on the people involved. This point comes out strongly as the story unfolds, to where we see the main character becoming a man haunted by his own ghosts and questioning his superior's' motives. Not unlike present times and current political situations. Although the story is dated, 30 years ago, it made me ask some serious questions. Did this event in fact escalate the terrorism to today's situations, did it actually achieve anything, apart from revenge and so on. If any thing this movie really provoked in me a new way of looking at current issues, and seeing the similarities from 30 years ago and now. As I watched this movie I found myself experiencing many different emotions, to mention one scene, where Eric Bana's character is talking on the staircase at the safe house with the PLO member Ali about their supposed ideologies. Many poignant points are made through out the movie, and while I found it to be politically evenhanded, there are still many questions which could be aimed at both sides of the conflict. The last scene in particular, with the skyline of New York in the background and the final conversation really left me feeling shaken by this movie. I actually watched all the credits and listened to the music until the screen went black, mostly because I felt too numbed to move and it was not due to the hard theater seats, I watched this on DVD in the comfort of my own chair at home.I feel that this movie has definitely delivered the goods, although I believe that those goods will be interpreted in many ways by any one who watches this movie. I know this movie was made in 2005, however here in Japan it has just been released on DVD (8/21), taking into account recent and current world events, the timing for release of this movie if anything gives it a bit more punch.
Thought Provoking...Movie of the Year
posted on 02 Aug 2009I just got back from watching this movie a little while ago. I wasn't too familiar with the Munich olympics and the murders of the Israeli team since I wasn't born for 10 years after that. I had heard some things about it and also did some research leading up to the movie. This was one of my most anticipated movies of the year and it has pushed right to the top of my favorite movies for 2005.Eric Bana as Avner was an amazing choice in casting. First of all, I saw him in Hulk and wasn't impressed seeing as it wasn't that kind of movie. I will be watching for him in future movies. The depth of his character was developed so well to the point where I could feel his fear, regrets, and other emotions by just looking into his eyes.The violence and blood was very tasteful and I really liked the way that some of the sequences were shot (not going to post any spoilers). Steven Spielberg really impressed me seeing as I never would have expected this kind of movie to come from him. A lot of people have said to me that they thought this movie was boring. I don't know how this movie could be boring. I asked those same people if they thought Traffic was boring (seeing as its the only long dramatic movie that came to my mind at the time) and they said yes. In conclusion, if you are not a fan of dramatic movies that tend to be long...then you don't deserve to be called a movie watcher.
Completely Tasteless Film!
posted on 02 Aug 2009I cannot understand any of the comments that claim this is some sort of masterpiece or even a well made movie. The movie is tasteless and pointless. I was expecting to see a very high quality, well made movie, as Spielberg is capable of making (on the order of Schindler's List) and was anticipating to take a position on the "political" side of the movie. What I found was a really bad movie and not much more. It was completely tasteless in the "sex scene" at the end where Avner is passionately screwing his wife while seeing scenes of the massacre in his head. It was just disgusting. This was after a movie with no certain direction, full of really bad dialogue, below average acting and an uncomprehendable presentation of the Israeli revenge team. Why did they try to make them look so unproffesional? Why does the movie have almost nothing to do with the massacre except as a background theme? Why did they put that corny, far fetched, unnecessary scene with the Israelis and Palestinians in the same room? What did Kushner want to say and show, besides that he is a really bad story teller? Don't bother wasting the three hours on this movie that I did. Watch the documentary on the Munich massacre instead. There you see a well made, intriguing film, without any political hints and fictional settings and tasteless scenes. Shame on you Spielberg.
A Half Cooked Masterpiece
posted on 29 Jul 2009Steven Spielberg has absolutely everything at his disposal, he can make an epic in no time at all. But, even he must know that films, most films have a soul and that can't be rushed. Why the need to rush this film into screens? For Oscar consideration? If there was a film that needed nurturing and thought was this one. The length is a flaw in itself. It makes it appear self indulgent and, quite frankly,annoying. If one could, and one should, put that aside, "Munich" is a remarkable experience. Tony Kushner and Eric Roth deal with people in all its complexity - a welcome new detail in a Spielberg film - and that gives "Munich" its most powerful aspect. Eric Bana is extraordinary and the humanity of his gaze is confusing and recognizable at the same time. His crying at hearing his child's voice over the phone is as real as his hardness when he massacres his targets. The controversy raising after the first public screenings seems pre-fabricated by a marketing machine. The questioning of Bana's character and the appalling nature of revenge can't be controversial it's at the base of human nature. To call Spielberg "no friend of Israel" is as absurd as it is suspicious. No, this movie is a thriller, based on actual events, directed by the greatest craftsman of the last 30 years in a record amount of time. Go see it.
Did not expect this from Spielberg
posted on 29 Jul 2009This movie made me very, very angry.Only an ardent supporter of Israel, who knows all the facts and past history, will not see this movie as sharply anti-Israel. For an *average* person this film is a pinnacle of irresponsible movie making.There is something Spielberg and many other liberal Americans (and I am a liberal person myself) don't understand: some guys are just violent freaks! No amount of reasoning and dialog would've changed Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam. Showing a Palestinian terrorist with agony on his face - almost driven to tears! - as he was executing five hostages by an automatic weapon epitomizes this dangerous misconception.The bulk of the movie is spent showing in details the Palestinian assassinations carried out by the Mossad team. The well-paid mysterious source of their names and whereabouts (a fictional character) is a "black box" which hides away most other details, allowing good two hours of the movie to focus solely on the killings. The very first target sets the tone: a very pleasant and courteous gray-haired man who was just applauded by his Italian audience in a streetside café in Rome after speaking about his translation of 1001 Arabian Nights into Italian, who is killed with a bag of groceries in his hands - milk, wine, bread he just bought at a corner store. Milk flows on the marble foyer floor, followed by blood, as the Mossad agents run away out on the street like children who have just done some booboo.One of the more poignant speeches comes from a young Palestinian fighter, later killed, an actor with beautiful, expressive eyes, saying that home and land mean everything, even if it will take hundreds of years to take them back. "How long did the Jews wait to get their country? We'll wait, make children, children will make children, and we'll get it back." He sounds prophetic; Avner, the team leader, has nothing to reply to that.Throughout the movie periods between the killings are punctuated by TV newsreels about new Palestinian terrorist acts, highlighting the main point of the movie: violence begets violence; vengeance like this for an unspeakable atrocity of Munich massacre is NOT an acceptable answer. Even more irresponsibly, the movie implies that there is no solid evidence, the kind a liberal Western person expects - especially in this era of political lies and intelligence lapses about Iraq - linking most of the assassination targets to the Munich massacre. That's untrue - and dangerous.Avner's torment results in the ultimate anti-Israel statement of the movie: from the initial sentiment, expressed by his wife, that "Israel is his mother", he travels the whole path to basically the rejection of Israel by immigrating to Brooklyn at the end of the movie.As for the cinematic quality of the movie itself (which is too long for what it does with most of its time) - when Avner passionately screws his wife while having flashbacks - rather, fantasies, since he couldn't have witnessed it himself - of the Munich hostages being killed, all I wanted to ask was, "How was sex - good?" If this is the roof of Spielberg's "artistic symbolism", he really should stay with "Jaws", I'm sorry...
What Price Vengeance?
posted on 29 Jul 2009Steven Spielberg's huge popularity means that he is frequently the target of critics, whether it is for shouldering the blame for the Hollywood "blockbuster" trend that started with JAWS, for alleged audience manipulation (as in E.T.), or for the more weighty issues behind SCHINDLER'S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. But nowhere does it seem that criticism has been as fierce as it is with MUNICH. Here he is, the most popular filmmaker in Hollywood, tackling the subjects of terrorism and vengeance with the same consummate skill he tackled with sharks, the Holocaust, and aliens--and here are people slamming him not only for doing so, but for doing so in a way they don't agree with. Why is this? For starters, as the title indicates, he uses as a focal point the murders of eleven Israeli athletes by members of the ultra-violent Palestinian terrorist group Black September at the Summer Olympics in Munich on September 5, 1972, and the response by Israel. Eric Bana is one of five Israeli Mossad agents sent to track down eleven high-ranking Palestinians who are believed to have had a hand in planning the Munich massacre. The purpose of the mission is to send a message once and for all to the Palestinians that Israel will not be intimidated into ceasing to exist as a country. The team goes about their business throughout Europe, though their operations are not the most perfect (which is so often the case in missions of this sort), and are always bloody. Very soon, however, they learn of other Palestinian terrorist acts, including the hijacking of a Lufthansa jet in Germany, and they find themselves not only being the hunters but also being the hunted and the haunted as well. Near the end, after he has moved to New York, Bana openly wonders to his superior (Geoffrey Rush, in an incredibly direct performance) whether they really got the exact ones who plotted the Munich tragedy. It is a question that remains open-ended, as the film ends with a view across the Hudson River to Manhattan and the twin towers of the World Trade Center.No film about real-life acts of political terrorism will ever satisfy everybody, but Spielberg has come in for some extreme attacks. On the one side are those who criticize his stand as being too pro-Israeli; and on the other are those who feel he gives too much credence to the Palestinian terrorists. The fact is, of course, being Jewish, he is hardly going to go against the state of Israel on anything. But he also sees the troubling ambiguity of the aftermath of Munich in relation to the decades-long Israel/Palestinian conflict and, with respect to what Israel did to avenge Munich, he asks the question: "What price vengeance?" How can a mission like the one Bana and his fellow Israelis undertake ever fully satisfy the need for vengeance for Munich without costing a huge price, in terms of human lives lost, and in human souls that are destroyed in the continuous cycle of bloody revenge killings? These are very troubling questions, and I think this is why certain people with extremist views are attacking Spielberg for MUNICH, even with its superb ensemble acting, taut editing, and compelling storyline. A lot of people don't want to deal with that painful reality; nor do they want to deal with the fact that the world doesn't work on a black-and-white/good-guys-and-bad guys level. Spielberg knows the world doesn't operate like that. And the film's final shot of the World Trade towers clearly states that the questions of vengeance and retribution are now being directed at his own country with respect to its war on terrorism, motivated by revenge for 9/11 and the price *that* war is taking on American lives and the soul of the nation.The consummate skill that Spielberg, his crew, and his cast put into making MUNICH work is what I think will outlast the attacks against the film. This is a film that is a must-see for all those who really care about where our world is headed, and how we deal with the always troubling subject of terrorism.
International thriller, sober and adult
posted on 29 Jul 2009Many viewers will remember the events at Munich as they unfolded. I remember Jim McKay announcing the deaths on television. Others should know about it just by keeping up with recent history. For those who don't know about it, Spielberg gives us a summary of what happened at the beginning of the film, mostly through TV news clips. The shootout at Munich airport is outlined in the first ten or fifteen minutes, after which the story turns to the organization of the Israeli response.My reaction was one of pleasant surprise because, by all the laws of commercial narrative, that horrifying, violent event should have been saved for the climax. (Eg., "In Cold Blood.") Not only should it have been saved, but the deaths should be gone into in gory detail with exploding heads and mushroom-like fireballs. And here was Spielberg treating us like grown ups, trusting the audience enough not to feel the terror of those moments must be put on the stage and spelled out.As it turns out, Spielberg, now a charter member of the Hollywood community, couldn't entirely disregard the demands of conventional structure, and we get an explicit flashback -- brief and powerful, but still unnecessary -- near the end, and while the protagonist is making love to his wife. Fantasizing about a bloody tragedy while making love is probably not what most people do, depending on one's partner, I suppose.The rest of the film is far above the usual standards of the international action genre. There is in fact no more blood and guts than is called for. John Williams' music tells us more than what we need to hear about suffering, but the photography and location shooting by Janusz Kaminski are nearly flawless. The lead player, Eric Bana, not only performs well but looks the part of someone plucked out of an office and suddenly transformed into a dedicated assassin. His most routine expression changes from boyish surprise to dismal disillusion at the end.As a director, Spielberg doesn't make a false step. The action scenes are sometimes a little confusing but it seems to make them all the more effective. The most graphic death on screen is that of an attractive young Dutch woman who has murdered (or caused to be murdered) on of the team of assassins. Naked, shot in the chest with two small bullets, dripping blood from her lips, she slowly walks away and fondles her cat absent-mindedly.The tale, "inspired by real events," is presented with all its moral ambiguity intact. Guilt is brought up, but only briefly, and there is only one speech (by an Arab nationalist) that sounds written deliberately for the screen. But the script is full of observations that violate everyday standards of deference. One of the Israeli assassins backs off on a killing, saying, "Thousands of years of suffering doesn't make you virtuous. We are supposed to be righteous. That is what I was taught." So much for the power of victimhood. Just because you've been stomped on by history -- abused as a child, persecuted by the state, unjustifiably blamed for something, born with some socially devalued characteristic like dark skin -- it doesn't necessarily make your actions or your views morally superior to others'. That's a pretty bold statement, the kind that can be made only by Jews, blacks, abused wives, or displaced Palestinians.I was grateful too, for the way the film ended. The conventions require the demoralized hero to join his family in Brooklyn, sulk for a while, then return to his homeland while triumphant music swells in the background and his mother greets him with a hug. It doesn't happen. That's what I mean when I say the film is "adult." There are higher authorities than the bureaucracy one works for.There are no easy ethical answers because who knows why we fight and kill one another? Each of us has a personal excuse for what we do, and groups have collective excuses for what they do. Conflict might be based on ethnicity, religion, race, pride, or territory. And if we could somehow take away all THOSE reasons for murdering one another I'm afraid some others would emerge as overnight replacement. "Your grandfather once insulted my grandfather." By now, Spielberg has made a couple of genuinely good movies, and his talent is on display in this one.
Great film
posted on 25 Jul 2009This is a very significant film. It hammered me hard, both with its action and with its powerful message. This is a dead serious movie. It is a mistake to think of it as a documentary or history. Fiction is better suited to portray the moral morass of terrorism better than any history. The protagonist's final resolution exposes the heart of terrorist darkness: whether carried out by Palestinian fanatics or the state of Israel,the entire cycle of terrorism is dehumanizing, savage and--in the end--futile.My only criticism is that the plot lagged occasionally, but this is a minor flaw. The biggest problems I have seen are the many reviewers who believe they have identified a pro-Israeli or a pro-Palestinian bias. These kind of reviewers need to get a life: Munich is a balanced pro-humanity work of art. Forget Arabs and Israelis: this movie could just as readily be portrayed through Croats and Serbs, Serbs and Kosovars, Turks and Armenians, Hutus and Tutsis--anywhere the cycle of terrorism, ethnic rage and revenge has shredded the bonds of humanity.
Wow
posted on 25 Jul 2009This movie is beyond remarkable. What it must have been to the men who lived it, and their families. I was only eleven years old at the time of the Munich Games, but I do remember the news broadcasts during that time. I applaud Spielberg for bringing the incident to younger generations, and filling in the memories of the rest of us. Even though the movie runs 2 hours and 44 minutes, it doesn't seem like it at all. There is so much action and keeps you pinned on every word from the opening credits until the end. Bano's performance was beautiful! And despite the very serious nature of the subject, several lines scattered throughout the movie brought giggles from the audience. Bravo!
Not Spielberg's best piece.
posted on 23 Jul 2009While the first half of this movie is simply magnificent, and keeps your heart rate at all time high, by the end of the second half, you're ready for the film to be over. The last half of the film is slow, and boring. It really covers too much information, that we could have surmised on our own without having to be shown or told. Spielberg always captivates audiences, and you might find that since this is also a film based on true events, it's very similar to 'Catch Me If You Can', which he filmed in 2002. Not that the stories are similar at all, but the way it's filmed, is in a lot of ways, almost exactly the same.I was so impressed however, with the cinematography and how Spielberg was able to make it look like it was actually filmed in the 1970s.If you don't know the story, you might get confused at times. I knew the story going into the film, and I was still confused. It's not the best Spielberg film for two reasons. That's one, and the other is that it's far too long. Like most of his films, he likes to take his time setting up the story before he gets into the actual movie, however, sometimes that's not always necessary. Sometimes, you can have a great film without going into a lot of detail. We're not reading a book here. This is a visual art form of story-telling, and so sometimes small details are not always necessary. Eric Bana was excellent, and he resembled Christian Bale so much in this film, at times I thought it was the 'Batman' actor. All of the actors in the film were great, especially the team that's sent to assassinate the assassinators. A little bit of life's ironies are thrown into play, which also makes the film that much more realistic, as well as the times when you don't know exactly what's going to happen, to whom, or when.There were times of pure tension, and other times of pure boredom. But, I think it works well for the most part, and I thoroughly enjoyed the film (at least the first half), and I would definitely recommend it to those who want to see what really happened in 1972-73. It's an amazing story. And, it just goes to show what people do to back their own.
Mumbled mess
posted on 21 Jul 2009In the interests of making it appropriate, I should probably make this review go on for ages and include a lot of heavily accented muttering and be really obvious in what I am trying to communicate with little by way of anything novel or new in there. At the same time, I should probably have a strong central effort to it, and make the whole thing look pretty. And that, pretty much, would be a fair summation of this mixed-bag from Spielberg. The subject matter was interesting and could have been substantially more thought provoking than it was. Eric Bana was good throughout, but the surrounding cast seemed a little muddled, and whilst the attempt to show a fluid morality was praiseworthy, the end result was just a bit flat and cold. Additionally, a good 30 minutes could probably have been lost without harming the end product. On reflection, I seem to have given the film a bit of a kicking, but that is probably just mainly down to disappointment, as it promised but did not deliver.
This may contain spoilers
posted on 17 Jul 2009It was a very good picture but my comment is, "What did the sex scene, having sex with a pregnant women have to do with the picture. Is nothing sacred today. I am tired of seeing scenes in the toilets,and vivid sexual acts. Don't you producers and directors have any imagination. Stop shoving such pornography down our throats. Give us some decent movies to watch.I have watched many movies directed by Steven Spielberg and enjoyed everyone of them, so I knew that Munich was going to be a good movie, but was very disappointed to see the scene with the pregnant women having sex. It wasn't necessary and also not in good taste. Please clean up some of these scenes in the future. Nancy Riley
Thrilling and Deep
posted on 17 Jul 2009One of the reasons I like listening to George Carlin is because he examines big themes that encompass all of society, like war and racism, but also themes that concern individuals, right down to "people who use quotation marks in the air while they're talking." A similar thing draws me to Munich. Munich is about the conflict in Israel, but it is also about how a few men handle being assassins, and how one man handles having some of his closest friends killed. I really liked how there were a bunch of scenes where people died, but the death isn't dramatized or slowed down. It almost happens faster than you expect, which creates a good effect. Munich also does a good job of not being preachy. I think Spielberg said something like "10 people could walk into this movie and come out thinking 10 different things about what it said about the Israel conflict." Spielberg does a good job of giving a voice to a lot of the viewpoints surrounding the conflict but not hitting you over the head with any them, letting you wrestle with them. The events in the movie seemed to say "This is real. People are going to die senselessly no matter what course of action is taken," but they didn't seem to be trying to pushing you to one side of the issue. Definitely a solid movie.A few minor notes: There were a few really cool ways the protagonists people and there was a lot of tension and excitement. There were a few scenes where it was hard to believe that the Mosad couldn't figure out a better way to do business.
Great film locations, but close to senseless
posted on 30 Aug 2009Munich is a thriller which depicts the 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes by Black September gunmen and the Israeli government's secret retaliation assassinations. Truthfully, I was pretty much lost throughout the film. I sat there wondering what is going on. The scenes move too quickly and jumped around several locations all around the world in a period of time too short, adding to the confusion. It did feel like an intelligent thriller, but the plot was way to complex for me to comprehend half of what the characters were trying to say.On the lighter side, I loved the locations the film was holding which had the genuine retro theme in Old world landscapes. The explosions were done very well too, not to mention the great acting from Bana and Rush.Perhaps I did not possess the intellect to appreciate this film, but this is certainly not Spielberg's work I've imagined to be, not to mention touching on a very sensitive issue. What happened to great shows like 'Empire Of The Sun' or 'The Terminal' which is appreciated by the larger audience and yet smartly written at the same time?