Munich (2005) User Reviews

Justice or Vengeance?

[jon.h.ochiai · 10/10 · 7 January 2006]

Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind." What distinguishes justice from vengeance? This echoes throughout Steven Spielberg's "Munich". "Munich" is powerful and perhaps Spielberg's most compelling and thought provoking work. He weaves a tapestry of political and social threads focusing on terrorism and the cost of violence. "Munich" is truly amazing in balancing linear storytelling and horrific acts of violence, demonstrating the impact of the aftermath. Spielberg's "Munich" seen through the eyes of Eric Bana's Avner is a powerful allegory that even in the most just and noble fights against terror we eventually become that which we despise. "Munich" really serves as a reminder. Mossad team leader Avner played by Eric Bana is absolutely riveting as the man who begins this righteous cause only to find that the cost is his soul. Anver asks, "When does it ever end?"

At the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, Palestinian terrorists brutally murdered the Israeli wrestling team. This political statement was seen around the world and depicted in gory detail by Director Spielberg. Based on the book "Vengeance" by George Jones, the screenplay by Tony Kushner and Eric Roth tells the story of the aftermath of this tragedy. A great Lynn Cohen who plays Prime Minister Golda Meir says, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." Poetic words for what follows are a search and destroy mission. The Mossad assembles a team lead by Avner (Bana) to track down and kill with extreme prejudice all those involved in the terrorist action in Munich. 11 names are identified for execution. These executions are also intended to serve as statements. Anver though an inexperienced operative and not an assassin is selected for the covert mission by Ephriam (the great Geoffrey Rush) for being a strong and effective leader of men. The assassin team is composed of Steve (Daniel Craig—the next James Bond), Carl (Ciaran Hinds), Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz), and Hans (Hanns Zischler). They are dissociated from the Mossad, i.e. they technically don't exist.

In accepting the lead, Avner must leave his beautiful and pregnant wife Daphna (a very strong Ayelet Zorer) for what could be a number of years. Carl has his doubts about Avner, telling him that he was chosen because he is a "good soldier". Soon Carl respects Avner for his quiet force and conscience. Attack of conscience and paranoia soon engulf the team as they become entrenched in the world of underground intelligence for hire. Avner pays large sums of money for information on the whereabouts of his targets from Louis (wonderfully shady Mathiew Amalric) and his wealthy Papa (weary and noble Michael Lonsdale). Avner soon finds that whomever he kills is eventually replaced, and that he and potentially his family is now a target for the terrorists he was assigned to hunt down and kill. The realization is that it truly never ends. Bana is amazing as a trapped animal in the scene in his thrashed apartment—searching for weapons of his demise. Paranoia sets in, and the path of justice and vengeance become blurred. In a poignant scene Robert pleads to Avner, "When I lose my righteousness, I lose everything…"

Nothing about "Munich" is easy, though it is simple. I believe that is Steven Spielberg's intention. "Munich" could be tighter in spots, though this does not diminish the movie's power and impact. Eric Bana emerges as the noble hero battling to salvage his own humanity and his very soul. "When does it ever end?" Perhaps even in the current context there is no real answer—maybe what Spielberg is getting at. It is a reminder of our humanity, that even the most righteous cause may cost our souls. "Munich" is truly a powerful movie worth seeing.

Mr. Spielberg's "Prayer for Peace"

[lavatch · 10/10 · 23 December 2005]

In an interview given shortly before the release of "Munich," director Steven Spielberg discussed his film in the context of world terror today, as follows: "Somewhere inside all this intransigence, there has to be a prayer for peace."

I personally recall the tragic events of the 1972 Olympic games in Munich, as I had just graduated from college and was following closely the moving and graphic images on television, as described so vividly by newscasters Jim McKay and Peter Jennings. The opening scene of "Munich" recreates the attack on the dormitory and the subsequent killing of the athletes at the airport. Those were ten minutes of taut and riveting drama.

But the main dramatic impetus of "Munich" is the retaliation on the Palestinian planners of the "Black September" massacre. The strike force is led by the character Avner, a zealous and patriotic member of Israel's Mossad. Along with Eric Bana in the role of Avner, the entire cast of "Munich" is superb. Geoffrey Rush is a standout as the Mossad handler of Avner, and in an all-too-brief scene, Lynn Cohen turns in a charismatic performance as Golda Meir.

But "Munich" is not a film to discuss in terms of star performances, and much credit should go to Tony Kushner and Eric Roth for the thoughtful ensemble screenplay. The most memorable moments in the film are those involving the hit team led by Avner. In the planning and carrying out of the assassinations by a small group of men, it becomes clear that the participants are no more than ordinary people who become obsessed with killing. Thus Avner, who would prefer the domestic world of living with his wife and newborn daughter, descends into a virtual state of madness as a result of the killing frenzy.

The Greek poet Aeschylus wrote one of the most expressive works of literature on the theme of "an eye for an eye" in the revenge trilogy "Oresteia." That epic work dramatizes the culmination of the long cycle of murder within the ill-fated House of Atreus in Greek mythology. The killings finally end when the goddess Athena establishes the law court in Athens to provide human justice, as opposed to blood vengeance. Orestes succumbs to the pursuit of the furies and spirals into madness. That was the precise tragic journey of Avner, as depicted in "Munich."

Mr. Spielberg's concept of "intransigence" gets to the heart of the matter in our own modern tragic experience. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the word intransigence is defined as "uncompromising hostility; irreconcilability." Like the "Oresteia," the film "Munich" provides a balanced and powerful commentary on the human impulse of "an eye for an eye" revenge. The ancient Greek concept of justice meant something like "scale" or "balance" used to resolve a seemingly irreconcilable conflict. The thoughtful and powerful film "Munich" offers us the opportunity to meditate on this concept, not for the 5th century B.C. world of Aeschylus, but for our own.

Spielberg may be out-of-touch with the masses in terms of entertainment today (WOTW) – but when he sticks to serious topics, he carves out sensational fares like this one

[Flagrant-Baronessa · 8/10 · 14 July 2006]

Munich may just be Spielberg's greatest accomplishment ever and it isn't a sweeping epic like you'd expect, but a patient psychological thriller that sneaks up on you and takes you and shakes you. It not shy away from blood, politics or nudity in its portrayal of events and this makes it extremely intense, absorbing and occasionally very violent.

The first half of Münich is not altogether different from a heist drama; a group of diverse men with different skills team up to accomplish a mission. They get to travel across Europe, make deals, infiltrate suspect facilities and manufacture explosive devices. Unlike heist films, however, their mission is not for personal gain, but for the government. They are to assassinate eleven Arabs who were alleged to be behind terrorist attacks like Münich 1972. So the more accessible part of the film sees Bana and his men botch their way through a hit-list as inexperienced hit-men, fumbling and trembling with the weight of this somber new task.

This part is so extraordinarily well-handled and engaging with a tone so tense and shadowed by politics and ethical dilemmas that every slight pause is mistaken for humour. It is also an excellent portrayal of an era - the 1970s - with great eye for detail, all carefully sewn together by a master tailor (Spielberg). It is a fantastic piece of film-making.

While Munich keeps you interested throughout, it gradually loses its fresh thriller edge by opting for more typical scenarios. Eric Bana's character goes through emotional struggles because he finds it too hard to kill people. He thinks about his family--his wife has just had a baby girl. He wonders if he is doing the right thing. He starts sympathizing with the Arabs. He wonders if they killings will stop once he has completed his mission. Everything is classic and you saw it coming. It needs to be present in the film for a balanced portrayal but the hackneyed formula with which it is expressed is disappointing. It started so promising, after all.

Sadly, the culmination of this slightly hackneyed recipe manifests itself in the final scene of the film and it is absolutely dreadful and drags the whole film down by at least one star - but overall this is superb quality that is carried by a strong ensemble cast (Geoffrey Rush, Daniel Craig) although it is ultimately Bana's show. He captures the inner turmoil and hesitation of his character in the most believable way, making Munich into a worthwhile adventure for its performances alone. But most importantly, it dares to asks questions.

8/10

An Outstanding Thriller

[Rathko · 9/10 · 10 January 2006]

'Munich' is, on the whole, a straight forward hit-man movie. The assignments are handed out; the team is assembled, each with their own specialty; and they travel about Europe plotting and carrying out their hits. We have the inevitable paranoia, the double agents and suspicious loyalties. So far, so familiar. Only 'Munich' is wrapped in the thin veneer of 'history' and 'fact', and mob bosses and corporate espionage is replaced with Middle Eastern politics and Israeli-Arab relations. I mention this because the politics of 'Munich' are really nothing more than a topical plot devise, used the same way as cold-war relations and soviet villainy was used thirty years ago.

What prevents 'Munich' becoming just a generic updated-cold-war thriller, is the sheer quality of the production. From the flawless recreation of European capitals in the early seventies to the impeccable costume design to the beautiful cinematography – 'Munich' is a visually fascinating movie. The performances are universally outstanding, with Bana in particular bringing a sense of tough nobility that seems to be his forte. The script is intelligent and thought-provoking, and it is Kushner's focus on the emotional and psychological landscape of his characters rather than the details of political contract killing, that ultimately lifts the movie above the generic. The kind of self-consciously poetic prose for which he is known, so often seeming unrealistically erudite, is kept to a minimum, and when it does appear, is so beautifully written and performed that all reservations are forgotten.

Ultimately, the greatest praise must be reserved for Spielberg, who has, with 'Munich', created perhaps the first truly adult movie of his career. We see no signs of his trademark sentimentality, his descents into fantasy, his childish simplification of motivation. With 'Munich', he embraces ambiguity and complexity, and as a result, has invited criticism from those who prefer their drama simplistically black and white. Above all, one can't help but wonder what the Spielberg oeuvre would look had he not dedicated his career to kid's movies, fantasies and feel-good sci-fi.

'Munich' is an intelligent and gripping thriller that is a major contender for award recognition, and deservedly so. An outstanding achievement.

A Half Cooked Masterpiece

[marcosaguado · 8/10 · 23 December 2005]

Steven 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.

Terrorism, Then and Now

[nycritic · 10/10 · 30 January 2006]

What should have been an uneventful Olympics in Munich, 1972, became the bloodshed that unfolded like a Moebius strip and unleashed even more blood unto the world. On September 5, 1972, eight Palestinian terrorists killed two Israeli athletes, kidnapped nine more, and asked for safe passage out of Germany and the subsequent liberation of Arab prisoners in Israeli and German prisons. Once at the airport they encountered resistance from the German authorities, and in a scuffle, all of the other nine hostages were killed.

This led to the Israeli government to have the Mossad -- Israel's intelligence agency -- track down and kill every terrorist responsible for the killings. For this they hired one of Golda Meir's bodyguards, known as Avner, put him in a special ops team, and gave them minimal information about these terrorists. Avner on his own is able to strike back at the "supposed" terrorists via the appearance of a shady Parisian named Louie, but as the assignments become more and more difficult, he wonders if it is all worth it, and once his own team gets decimated by counter-agents, he wonders if behind every terrorist there is a even more dangerous one just waiting in the wings with ways to get back at him and his family.

Steven Spielberg is at his best when not directing sci-fi movies. The world of 1972 hasn't changed a bit then from now: when one sees the events of September 11, 2001 (and the World Trade Center inserted into the New York City skyline right at the final scene), and the political interests which led to their horrific unfolding on American soil -- once a concept thought unthinkable -- it becomes food for thought if behind every Saddam, every Osama, there aren't tens, if not hundreds, waiting, with more reasons to hate the Western world for butting their heads in their business. Avner, while a minion of Israel, ponders these things, and is himself terrorized when he comes to America to live a life away from the madness he was involved in: namely, the never-ending conflict between Israel and Palestine, both fighting for what they consider home. As one PLO member effectively says: "Home is all we know."

No right, no wrong, but a grey middle is the prevalent tone in MUNICH. While re-enacting a swift retribution against those who destroy order would be the thing to do, what does it solve? Spielberg doesn't say. What he does do is create an increasing, nail-biting suspense that Hitchcock himself would have loved -- and this film, reminiscent itself of SABOTAGE, is proof that terror and mayhem at the hands of subversives is still a thing of now as much as then and that innocents are always on hand to pay with the intended victims. One sequence, as the foursome wait for their first target to pick up the phone but find that his young daughter has not left the house yet, is incredibly powerful. Another one is when Avner waits for a bomb to go off in the room beside him. Nothing is ever clean and easy in the real world, and even bombers can never really know what to expect from their toys, and all one can do is wait and wait and wait.

MUNICH has strong performances all throughout. Eric Bana is tortured as Avner, a man who only wants to be with his wife and young daughter and cannot escape the horrors he has seen. Geoffrey Rush, Ciaran Hinds, Daniel Craig, Mathieu Kassovitz, Lynn Cohen, Hans Ziechler, Michael Lonsdale, and Mathieu Amalric all supply great support in a well-rounded cast and flesh out great characters in this excellent, if morally ambiguous story.

Another silly Spielberg fantasy

[tieman64 · 20 May 2008]

"Munich is serious, adult film-making at its most nugatory, and America will never produce political movies of any depth if we reward work of this calibre." - Alan Dale

"Munich" begins on a strong note, Spielberg's documentary camera capturing Black September gunmen as they break into the Olympic dorms and mercilessly gun down a group of Israeli athletes. Like "Schindler's List" and the best bits of "Saving Private Ryan", Spielberg's camera dispassionately and objectively records what it sees. There's no forced storytelling or clunky moralising.

Unfortunately it's all downhill from here, as Spielberg turns what would could have been a riveting docudrama into a simplistic morality tale. Everything about Munich reeks of bad art. Its dialogue is didactic, its pacing is awkward, its flashbacks are jarring, its politics are sanitized, its music is hokey, its characters are cardboard, its plot is completely ahistorical and its "family metaphors" are tedious. Throw in Avner's (the film's lead assassin) forced "moral tragedy", the obligatorily "child in peril sequence", comedic sex and countless needlessly long scenes, and you have Spielberg's most annoying "serious project" since "AI".

When promoting the film, Spielberg said: "The thing I'm very proud of is that Tony Kushner and I did not demonize anyone in the film. They're individuals. They have families."

Yes, there's no evil in Spielberg's world. There's no complex motivation, judgement, ambivalence or scepticism. No understanding of how the world really works. Spielberg doesn't deal with irrational motivation, passionate beliefs, unforgiving rage- all facts of life commonly found in the Middle East. Instead it's all "lets just get along". As a result, there's no real understanding of why the athletes were kidnapped, no talk of Palestinian oppression, or how ideologies are bred and mismanaged.

Not once did I believe that this was how real assassins act, look, talk or behave. The real Avner faced no moral dilemma nor did he question whether or not killing 11 Palestinians was the same as killing 11 Israelis. George Jonas, the guy who wrote Vengeance, even disliked the film. His book was written to justify counter terrorism by showing the evil of, not the Palestinians, but the elite who used patriotism and islamofascism to breed hate among their own people. "Munich" washes it's hands of all that. It's simply content to regurgitate the same clunky message preached in Adam Sandler's "You Don't Mess With The Zohan". IE-"violence breeds violence" and "everyone has a family, so lets chill out baby, because deep down we're all the same!"

But of course if everyone were equal, there would be no conflict. It is precisely inequality and injustice that is the problem. But no, Spielberg romanticises everyone. Far from being an oppressed minority, the Palestinians are portrayed as educated intellectuals and sexy hit women. Similarly, the Israeli's go to great lengths to prevent collateral damage. When they do accidentally kill innocents it's only because the French (those pesky French!) intentionally gave them the wrong explosives. And of course Spielberg's Israeli's aren't stone cold killers and trained professionals. No, they're toy makers and accountants with silly moral dilemmas.

It's all well and good to paint everyone in a falsely positive light, but if you're not going to examine the roots of anything, at least show the evil on both sides. Show some sort of truth. Spielberg says that counter terrorism is just as bad as terrorism, but you can morally justify between counter terrorism and terrorism, the same way you distinguish between war and war crimes. It is possible to say that the Palestinian cause is as honourable as the Israeli cause, but it's not possible to say that terror is as honourable as resisting terror unless the initial terror is portrayed as being rational resistance.

And so the film pretends to be critical of Israel, but in actuality it dare not show the true horrors of Israeli violence. We can see the brutal horrors of the Munich massacre, but we are denied the Israeli violence that instigated it. The end result is that Spielberg turns Avner into yet another Jewish victim, an object of sympathy in a situation in which he is precisely not the victim. In contrast, the Palestinian Other is denied a voice, denied any context, history or motive. The symbolic necessity, as Sartre argued, of targeting the Olympic Games, is thus completely ignored.

The reason Spielberg takes his silly "we're all the same" stance is because he can't bare to paint either side in even the faintest of bad lights. He thinks he's chosen the moral high road, when in fact, by ignoring all truth he's chosen no road at all. The high road is cold objective truth, but Spielberg has always been more interested in sanitizing history by avoiding painful traumas.

But ignoring the philosophy of the film, "Munich" still fails as basic entertainment. It becomes tiresome and repetitive, utilizing an obvious and predictable narrative progression which attempts to show that Avner's growing doubt is proportional to each assassination. Too slow to work as a thriller, the film also fails as a personal tragedy, Avner's inner turmoil never convincingly explained. Thin Spielberg characters are usually not this bothersome, but here their sign posted, theatrical moral monologues come across as obvious and lowbrow.

There are other problems too. Why would a hit-man be so traumatised? Why would he "recollect" events he didn't witness? Of course, by showing the massacre in flashbacks, Spielberg hopes to build to a horrific death/sex crescendo. But it all feels silly. Spielberg's handling of sex and adult relationships has never been good.

4/10- A superficial, safe and self-important fantasy movie, churned out without much intelligent thought. "Paradise Now", "Z" and "The Battle of Algiers" tackle similar material in a much better way. Similarly, see "Day of the Jackal" or "Black Sunday" (anything by mid-period Frankenheimer and Costa Gavras) for Spielberg's "70's thriller" aesthetic done right.

Intriguing Thriller But One That Never Rings True

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 9 August 2009]

This is a film that many people consider to be Spielberg's masterwork . In many ways Spielberg amputates much of the sugary sentiment that has spoiled a number of his other movies and makes a rather dispassionate film . Unfortunately the film starts with the claim that it's " inspired by actual events " thereby making an uncritical audience believe they're watching a film heavily based upon fact when in fact the opposite is true

The basic premise is correct : A PLO splinter group called " Black September " murders the Israeli team in Munich during the 1972 Olympic Games and in retaliation the Israeli leader Golda Meir organises a Mossad hit team to wipe out the terrorist leaders responsible . Unfortunately this is where the premise runs out of facts and replaces nearly everything with invention , speculation and farce

Stop to consider the team put together . Probably the most important member is the bomb maker so who do Mossad employ ? Someone who strangely has no experience of making bombs ! He's such a liability he almost kills a fellow agent , fails to kill a target during another operation due to his lack of bomb making experience and eventually blows himself up a farm house . I guess the rest of the team had so little faith in him that's the reason they weren't around when he was making bombs ?

Mossad uses a secretive unnamed French organisation to find the whereabouts of their targets . In reality this organisation almost certainly doesn't exist but makes a good cover story . Unfortunately as it plays out on screen you find yourself questioning the logic of it all . It's even brought to the audience's attention when Avner suggests it may be a cover for Fatah to liquidate PLO rivals . There's no suggestion or hint what the organisation is . Would Mossad even think about dealing with an organisation if they're on a top secret mission that can't fail ?

Avner himself has doubts about the mission , so much so that he suffers a paranoid breakdown and is mentally scarred for life . There's also the notorious sex scene at the end with Avner and his wife intercut the Munich massacre . What's the point of this ? Is there moral equivalence ? Are we to think that if a democratic government surrounded by murderous foes on all sides takes part in assassinations this makes them no better than terrorists ?

The production team could defend themselves on the last point by saying it makes for a more dramatic film because the protagonist has an inner turmoil and this is what drama is all about but there was no need to do this . From what I've read about Operation Wrath Of God none of the Mossad hit team had any qualms about assassinating terrorists . What Spielberg has done is make a film believing because " good people are doing bad things " they must be traumatized by it when in fact this isn't the case in life . He made the opposite mistake with SCHINDLER'S LIST by painting Oskar Schindler in an overly saintly way and his simplistic world view has once again got in the way of a good film that could have been much better

My extended review of the film

[sol- · 10/10 · 30 January 2006]

The word limit unfortunately limits how much I can say here, and I'm sure that there is more to say. These are however some thoughts of mine after seeing 'Munich' for the second time in a cinema after a friend invited me to see it again with him.

'Munich' has been criticised by some for its ambiguity, but if anything, I think Spielberg's refusal to take sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts is the best aspect of the film. It is not condoning the actions of Palestinian terrorists, but neither is it supportive of the way in which Israel reacts. There is hardly any bias in the film, which should satisfy those who thought that 'Schindler's List' was not ambiguous enough. According to some reviewers, Spielberg's film is too ambiguous this time round though. Personally, I do not agree to either of those charges. Sometimes the pettiest of reasons are used to badmouth a film. Then again, I'm sure some will regard my supportive comments as petty. So, I will not call 'Munich' the second best film that I have seen this decade, even though it feels that way to me. I'll just take this opportunity to provide some thoughts on why I believe it to be very good. The plot of the film is best discussed when one knows everything that happens in the film. Therefore, I would advise to not read ahead if you have not already seen 'Munich'. My discussion from this point forth, contains spoilers that may ruin a fresh experience.

It is hard to condense what the film is about to just one issue, but ultimately it is about the futility of the violence between Palestinians and Israelis. Spielberg does not try to argue who is right or who is wrong, as the reason why the conflicts have started is not important, and this idea is mirrored in the five men unofficially hired by the Israeli government. The assassins do not have any proof of the guilt of those who they are going after, which leads them to at times question whether they are doing right. The one thing that they seem to all fall back on is that even if their targets were not responsible for Munich, they are responsible for other acts of terrorism against the Jews, a point emphasised at the end by Ephraim. But is that good enough reason?

Something I find interesting is that none of the killings go as planned, except for one. With the first killing, they are nervous, with the next couple the explosions are too big, and the list goes on. Also, they meet innocent bystanders or other people who may indirectly suffer at every killing scene except the first. The only assassination that they get right, and do not meet any possible indirect sufferers at, is the Dutch woman who was hired to kill Carl. The whole temptress subplot involving her is significant. The reason why they are able to do such a good job killing her is because there is no doubt to her guilt, and they were directly affected by her actions. Avner experiences twice the effects of the others though, because not only did the temptress make him think about cheating on his wife, he was also the one who recommended her to Carl.

The film is also about how involvement in conflicts can have everlasting effects. Each of the five assassins experiences suffering as a result of their work. The characters are all very human - not at all like the typical image one has as a hired assassin. They come close to mucking up their very first job, and they dash frantically out afterwards. They are insecure and doubtful about how much of the truth they are being told. As for the actual effects that they suffer, the details are unimportant. It does not matter whether Robert and Hans decided to kill themselves or whether they were assassinated (Spielberg leaves this question hanging). Their involvement in the conflict killed them. Carl died too, and Avner emerges paranoid. We do not see the detrimental effect on Steve, but we still understand it to exist. Steve is strong on the outside, but who knows what he is like inside.

The technical aspects of the film are excellent. The camera-work is stunning, with plenty of movement, both following the characters around, and dollying to get close up to television screen and important details. The editing is brilliant, with scene changes including papers being shuffled on a desk turning into papers flying in the street, and the editing in of actual footage flows perfectly. The film actually balances two plot lines that are weaved in thanks to clever editing. At certain times, the actual hostage happenings at Munich are shown, almost like flashbacks - they fade in and out, with matching colour designs. The colour and lighting work is general is great too.

There is no doubt something to admire in the art direction also. The backgrounds are mood setting, and it is really interesting to look at the contrast between set up between children in swimwear, running around when Ephraim and Avner first go for a walk, compared to the stillness of the New York backdrop at the end. John Williams' music score includes some drum work this time round, and it is most effective in keeping up the suspense and intensity of certain scenes. It goes without saying that Spielberg does a good job in the director's chair, so the last thing to mention is the acting. Eric Bana is probably the best of the cast, as a man who loses any innocence that he might have once had forever, but all of the supporting cast do fine. Overall, it is a very impressive piece of cinema with plenty that can be looked into in finer details. I would consider say some more here, but IMDb's word limit plays a limiting factor there.

"It's strange, to think of oneself as an assassin." - Carl

[MichaelMargetis · 10/10 · 9 January 2006]

If you ask me who was the most talented director working in film today, I'd hesitate for a while. Then I'd look at you and say, "Probably Steven Spielberg'. A lot of film directors in Hollywoodwho are well-known are overrated (Oliver Stone, Sofia Coppola, Anthony Minghella, etc), but one that is not overrated at all is Spielberg. The man is obviously a cinematic genius who thrilled and enthralled us with his grim but unimaginably powerful WWII epic 'Saving Private Ryan', his still-frightening 'Jaws', his severely underrated 'Amistad' and of course, his heart-breaking masterpiece that still remains one of the twenty best films of all time 'Schindler's List'. I can't even begin to describe to you how jazzed I was about the controversial vengeance drama 'Munich', which was Spielberg's first Oscar-contending movie in seven years. After viewing it I have to say I was a bit let down, but I still got what I predicted I'd get going into the theater -- the best film of 2005. Spielberg challenges our beliefs on justice with his intense but painfully realistic bone-chilling masterpiece. You have to see this movie.

Almost around the age of 45-50 remembers the 1972 Olympics incident that happened in Munich. On a gloom September day, eleven innocent Israeli athletes were abducted and taken prisoner by a mob of Palestinian terrorists. The terrorists held them hostage at the Munich airport, then based on a mistake by the Munich police department many terrorists were killed and took all of the unfortunate hostages with them. The film starts after these events when Prime Minister Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen), secretly decides to start a small mission to find the Palestinian's responsible and murder them. She hands the case down to case officer Ephraim (Academy Award Winner Geoffrey Rush - Shine) who hands it over to Meir's ex-bodyguard Avner (Eric Bana - Troy). Avner must leave his family to undergo this mission and form a team to help him complete it. The team is; Steve (Daniel Craig - Layer Cake), the trigger-man, Carl (Ciarin Hinds - HBO's Rome) the clean-up man, Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz - Birthday Girl), an ex-toy maker turned explosives expert, and the elderly Hans (Hanns Zischler - Undercover) who is a forging expert. They five go on a mission of vengeance, but are soon faced with unexpected problems in the process and feelings of guilt which lead some to believe maybe what they are doing isn't righteous.

When creating 'Munich' Steven Spielberg could have sided one way or the other on issue 'revenge killing', but he doesn't, and I strongly admire that. Instead, Spielberg does what any intellectual would do, he presents situations and historical truths and makes you decide for yourself. That's something you can't expect nasty politically-slanted morons like Michael Moore to do. Spielberg provides us with the best film directing in two years with his quiet stroke of genius that is Munich. Spielberg's directing is both electrifying during the action sequences and beautiful during the poignant and thought- provoking scenes like when Kassovitz's Robert questions Bana's Avner about the good of what they are doing in a subway station on the way to assassinate another target. Munich's film editing and cinematography both should win Oscars, while the acting (which isn't getting much acclaim from award mediums) is frightfully close to perfect. Eric Bana gives the performance of his career as Avner that will no doubt impress you, while Kassovitz, Zischler and Craig exceptional also. Rome's Ciarin Hinds turns in an outstanding performance as the ultra-cool clean-up guy Carl that should also win an Oscar nomination, while Geoffrey Rush does wonders with a small role as Avner's case officer (so does Lynn Cohen as Golda Meir).

If Spielberg's 'Munich' doesn't tug at your chest at the end, I would question your humanity. Spielberg doesn't butter this up so it goes down easier, he aims straight for the gut with his razor sharp realism and rubs salt in the wound. 'Munich' isn't a fun film, but there is no question it is a riveting and nearly flawless one. You will have a lot to talk about after the film has ended. With 'Munich', Steven Spielberg gives us one hell of a history lesson. Grade: A (screened at AMC Deer Valley 30, Phoenix, Arizona, 1/7/05)

Great Film, Exceeded Expectations

[ccthemovieman-1 · 10/10 · 15 May 2006]

It helps when you aren't overly-hyped on a movie before seeing it. I wasn't that interested in seeing this, for some reason, but did....and, wow! This is a fine movie, one of the Steven Spielberg's best efforts. Yes, he gets a little preachy in the end but overall, this is enjoyable and top-notch film-making.

Even though this had some violent moments, what impressed me was the restraint not to overdo the violence. I thought there was just the right amount. Being a long movie at two hours, 45 minutes, too much action would have worn out the viewer and too little would bore he/she. It also was fascinating to me as almost a travelogue, seeing a lot of different cities around the world, following this team of Israelis as they track down and kill many of the men responsible for murdering hostages in the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich.

That's the story of this film: not what happened at the Olympics, but how the Israelis tracked down the killers/terrorists afterward.

Some of the violence is room-shaking if you have good speakers as a few of the explosions felt like it made my room shake when they went off! However much of the film deals not with that but with the men involved and how this mission affected them. In the end, Spielberg gives us a chance to reflect on a big question: how do you respond to terrorist attacks? Hopefully, the film can lead to some intelligent discussions. I have read where the Israelis were not happy with Spielberg's position on the matter. Since they have dealt with that issue for many years, I would listen to them carefully but be open for any viewpoint on this crucial issue. See the movie yourself and see what you think. Overall, Spielberg went out of his way to present both sides, so kudos to him for doing that.

The bottom line, as far as the film goes, is that it is simply good entertainment. The movie is well-acted and has a story that will keep most people very involved while watching it. We plunk our dollars down to get entertained....and this movie delivers. Highly recommended.

Truly a "Mission: Impossible" ; Bana superb; Spielberg masterful - one of the year's best & not to be missed!

[george.schmidt · 10/10 · 3 January 2006]

MUNICH (2005) **** Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Ciaran Hinds, Mathieu Kassovitz, Hanns Zischler, Ayelet Zorer, Geoffrey Rush, Gila Almagaor, Michael Lonsdale, Matheiu Amalric, Lynn Cohen, Marie-Josee Croze. Excellent depiction of the aftermath of the 1972 Olympics terrorist plot and ruthless murders of Israeli athletes and their managers and the plan initiated for swift retribution by a covert force of Mossad (led by a fiercely superb Bana proving to be an actor to watch) in the attempt to assassinate the 11 members of "Black September" responsible for the heinous acts. Filmmaker Steven Spielberg does a masterful job in balancing the high stakes tension not unlike Hitchcock with precision timing, pacing and editing (kudos to ace cutter Michael Kahn) and the cleverly canny and sharply smart screenplay by acclaimed playwright Tony Kushner and ace screenwriter Eric Roth (based on the account by George Jonas' "Vengeance") that does the damn near impossible: show both the conflicts within the corps group and Palestinians and the ongoing struggle of the Middle East that rings true throughout and doesn't whitewash the harsh, horrific bloodshed and the means outweighing the necessary eye-for-an-eye retaliations. One of the year's best films and most important as well.

A fine effort indeed

[filmforum1 · 8/10 · 15 January 2006]

Just because this film has been attacked by pols and shills, here's my 2 cents. Spielberg manages to set the agenda, and sets it correctly. It is indeed about the antecedents to 9/11, and bravo to Spielberg for taking it on, but not somewhere in Afghanistan, but at its genesis, the squalor of Palestine.

Spielberg's film is an essay on revenge and how hopeless and self-defeating that ancient temptation is. It's brave of Spielberg to say it to us now; brave, too, to paint the avenging Israelis as somewhere below the Angels. Let's be candid: There are harsh sentiments expressed here, by some Israeli characters, that the Evangelical Lobby simply doesn't want aired.

Spielberg's handling of the Bana character is masterful. Noteworthy is how uncompromising it is: this is a man whose identity has collapsed. It's entirely right that his Israeli handler should refuse the Sabbath-meal invitation at the end, realizing that the bonds of the older religion (and pre-Zionist identity) are shattered and meaningless.

Spielberg might have improved this product (some of the dialogues are horribly wooden). But that's not important. That a mainstream US film should go where this film goes is significant. This is a major-minor event in Spielberg's long and luminous career.

Depth and detail - with no sides taken

[hafeez-2 · 9/10 · 26 January 2006]

This movie relates more than just a story of "Vengeance". Besides proving that killing begets killing - it consists of numerous fine details that reveal the hard work done at getting to the depth of things:

For instance, only characters that get shot in the head slump to the ground. The rest take time to die - they walk a few steps, spurt blood and express a look of helplessness and inevitability before going out. Yes its horrifying to look at, which is the point, but it is also real.

Every character is different, and though common in their desire for vengeance, their temperaments are clearly distinguishable in the way the hit men approach their task. Even the terrorists are not stereotyped into hysterical, screaming lunatics. They range from the visibly nervous to the cool Abu Salameh with the movie star style. They are poets, intellectuals and guerrillas each with his story of the conflict. They speak passionately about home - a recurring theme, along with "family". Moreover, Spielberg does not attempt to mitigate the grotesque manner of their deaths, for the blood of the targeted men flows as freely as that of their victims - and when they are blown up, their body parts dangle from ceiling fans. You are not here to feel satisfaction over anyone's death, Spielberg says to the audience. Or as Caine would say in Kung Fu: "The taking of a life does no one honour."

There are no easy "shoot-em-dead" eliminations. There are neighbors, bystanders and obstacles that must be avoided and protected - with variable success. Innocent people may be harmed - and one has to live with that.

There are no mathematical certainties about the potential damage a bomb will cause.

Perspectives and convictions can change, sometimes regrettably. "Don't think about it - just do it" says Avner at one stage when a member of the team expresses doubts about a target's guilt. But at the end he wants evidence that the men he despatched were justifiably killed. Implausible? No; it is only when he has been reunited with his family and experiences the affection of wife and child that he allows himself to reflect from a different perspective - their targets had families too - what if he had killed the wrong men?

The paranoia that permeates the world of spies and assassins is built up gradually - to the point where every survivor mistrusts everybody else. One is doomed all one's life to walk with ears strained for following footsteps. The length of the movie creates the right atmosphere for this idea.

The end dissatisfies many because they would like a reassurance, a note of optimistic finality - but Spielberg rightly offers none. It would be dishonest of him to offer a false but comforting illusion.

It is interesting to contrast this movie with "Paradise Now" that has no violence, a modest budget, and views the conflict from the Palestinian camp. Both narrate completely different stories - yet, in their respective ways, both humanize their subjects, defuse myths about glory, and arrive at the same conclusion: "There's no peace at the end of this."

An extraordinary film—riveting, involving, challenging

[mlg-2 · 10/10 · 23 January 2006]

I am not a big Spielberg fan, and find he often goes for cheap emotional manipulation in his films, especially his endings. I was there fore amazed at the unflinching control he exercised in Munich, his utter unwillingness to flinch at complexities, his ability to dissect the ideological and moral sureties of all sides within the natural rhythms of the thriller genre. There is so much to praise in this film, because it is utterly seamless film-making with a keen eye for every little detail that never reveals the intense precision behind its construction.

While some have found the film "disengaged," I found that it pulled at the viewer's conscience through the central characters, not only Bana's Israeli agent Avner and his cohorts, most of who slowly find themselves gnawed by doubts of their mission's morality and effectiveness, but also smaller characters as well, drawn with indelible deftness—the weary ex-French Resistance fighter now a trader in deadly information to stateless agents because of his cynicism about recurrent corrupt regimes replacing each other, or the PLO operative who debates Palestinian strategy and justification with Avner, who he wrongly believes to be a German left-wing terrorist who is "soft" on Jews because of the Holocaust. The economy of Spielberg's film-making is breathtaking in hindsight, so that what at first seems a relatively flat and emotionless exercise in historical recreation slowly seeps into one's subconscious and then moves upward, in quick bursts of sudden bursts of emotional and intellectual recognition by the viewer. These are real human beings, these are fighters in a war they believe in desperately and whose people have suffered terribly yet can find no real peace.

For this Kushner and Roth's screenplay must get much credit, the crisp narrative development intertwined with intellectually rigorous set pieces and flat-out armrest-clutching actions sequences. John Williams, who has managed to be understated in the past, is equally adept at building (or feinting) tension and subtly commenting on character development. Check out the slightly dissonant piano in the last scene to see what I mean. Longtime Spielberg collaborator Janusz Kaminski creates some amazing framing devices, especially as the action sequences are about to unfold and during moments of intimate conversations imbued with tension. Michael Kahn's editing is crisp and occasionally startling, as in the way the conclusion of the horrifically bungled Munich "rescue" is related. The retelling of the entire event from break-in to conclusion is doled out in bits and pieces in what seems at first an attempt to soften its impact but in the end, entwined as it is with all of the complicated issues, is finally revealed as a masterful means of achieving the fully deserved emotional impact within a complexly rendered ideological, moral and strategic matrix. There is not a false note in any of the acting, and the casting is uniformly spot-on.

About the politics. The radicals on either side will reject the film out of hand because it dares to render both sides as human and worthy of understanding. But attempting to understand choices of violence and vengeance as strategies does not in any way mean condoning them. Certainly, anyone who feels that the film somehow allows a viewer to walk away thinking that Black September was justified in its attack is probably projecting his or her fears about how some imagined uninformed viewer might react. Instead, the film demonstrates that whether one feels either or both sides justified it doesn't manner—neither side can win through violence at this point. This was Yitzhak Rabin's great insight—you don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies. His Israeli Jewish murderers wanted violence to continue, believing that only a continued state of war would keep Israel from giving back land they saw as bound up with their faith but which international law, historical study and the basic "facts on the ground" reveal to be bound to be returned to the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon, of all people, came to understand this, though without the larger vision and magnanimity of spirit that his fellow warrior Rabin discovered. Spielberg's message is clear—the extremists will choose war over peace, but must so many of us side with the extremists because of our fear of appearing weak or "giving in"? A last note on politics—there is clear relevance to the United States' current predicament post-9/11. One can almost here Cheney or Bush making the speech made by Israeli premier Golda Meir in the film (an extraordinary piece of recreation that transcends mere imitation), only probably with more moral surety and less sense of resignation. Anyone paying attention to world reaction to Guantanimo, Abu Gharib, the bombing of Afghan and Iraqi villages and the spiriting away of suspected terrorists through "rendition" for torture in "friendly" nations must be aware that whether one leans hard or soft on such matters, there is going to be a price to be paid. The hardliners believe we will just keep punching and slugging and eventually the bad guys will go down; that they will not reproduce themselves like the many-headed Hydra or germinate and reproduce by the thousands in the fetid waters of our perceived hypocrisy—whether you think it justified or not it doesn't matter. As Spielberg makes clear in this film, all that matters in the end is peace or violence, and whoever ultimately desires the former had better be damn sure that their use of the latter is measured by the awareness that it use will create debts that will need to be repaid in the end, and the debtors will most likely be the generations to come on all sides.

Okay but not great retelling of the aftermath of the Munich Olympic tragedy

[dbborroughs · 6/10 · 3 January 2006]

This is a movie that looks and feels unlike any other Steven Spielberg film. Its a well made and mostly well acted story about the Israeli hit squad sent out to kill the plotters of the terrorist attack at the 1972 Olympics. The problem for me was that I was never emotionally engaged except when we see the recreation of the attack. I never really felt any connection to any of the Israeli agents taking revenge. A large part of the problem is that Eric Bana seems completely out of place in the film. He's much taller and much too good looking not to stand out in a crowd, which struck me as odd since he was chosen to lead the team in part because he didn't look Jewish. Bana also seemed to have only one expression through most of the movie and I wondered whether he was actually Buster Keaton in disguise. This isn't to say the film is a bad movie, its not, Its just not a particularly engaging one. For my money I would rather see the 1986 version of the same story The Sword of Gideon, or better yet the excellent documentary One Day in September again since at least I would actually feel some connection to the events rather than just an admiration for the film making skill.

Simple thriller dressed up in impressive technical details

[The_Void · 5/10 · 14 February 2006]

It's been eight years now since Steven Spielberg picked up a 'Best Director' Oscar for Saving Private Ryan, and a massive thirteen since he snagged 'Best Picture' with Schindler's List. I'm sure that Spielberg had these things in mind when he decided to take on Munich; as it becomes obvious while viewing this film that so much time has been spent on trying to ensure that everything is professionally done, that Spielberg has forgotten to actually make a film. Munich is about the tragedy at the Munich Olympics, which saw eleven Israeli athletes lose their lives to Arab terrorists. This plot, obviously, is very relevant these days with all the hype surrounding terrorism; and Spielberg has made a film with the central idea being that 'violence breeds violence'. This is an admirable base for any film, especially given the fact that this film follows a plot that is grounded in real events; but in order for the story to carry any weight, the audience really needs to be involved in it. And this is where Munich falls flat on its face.

By making the central character a terrorist, Spielberg puts us at the centre of the action. The director tries to make us believe that the lead is a complete character, by showing us scenes where he's blowing people up, as well as sequences with his wife and new born child; but this is far too black and white. Thrillers have got by with far less characterisation, but if you're going to make us believe that your lead is more than a cardboard cut-out, you're going to need to do a better job that that. At its base, the film is a list of assignments that need to be carried out by the Mossad agent at the centre; but these are caught up in far too much waffle, and while the murder sequences themselves are beautifully stylised - tension is stripped from the film by the way that the plot goes from exciting to achingly boring. As mentioned, technically the film has no problems at all. The cinematography is great, as is the direction and Eric Bana, as ever, does an excellent job of leading the film; but like Schindler's List before it, Munich just feels like nothing more than an attempt to win an Oscar. Personally, I'd rather see the award go to 'War of the Worlds'. It might not be as critically friendly, but at least it sees Spielberg doing what he does best.

Intriguing But Rather Hollow Morality Tale Of Israeli Secret Agent Assassins

[ShootingShark · 6/10 · 16 August 2009]

Following the kidnap and murder of the Israeli team at the 1972 Munich Olympics by the Palestinian terrorist organisation Black September, a team of Mossad secret agents are tasked with killing all those known to have planned the attack. Avner, the lead operative, goes about this grim work with skill and resolve, but slowly finds himself increasingly paranoid and disillusioned with the futility of revenge …

As with all of Spielberg's work, this film is immaculately constructed, with exceptionally fine attention to detail as Rome, Nicosia, Beirut, Athens, London and New York in the early seventies are brilliantly reconstructed. It's also particularly well edited, with several sequences stylishly intercutting between scenes to great dramatic effect. It also tackles one of the most difficult political issues there has ever been - the Arab-Israeli conflict - with feeling, intelligence and objectivity, and those who have derided it as both pro and anti-Zionist propaganda are, in a word, wrong. However, the movie's mixture of politics and thriller don't work very well - the action scenes aren't that tense, the gun-battles don't have bite because we don't know the victims and the deaths of Avner's three colleagues are puzzling and inexplicable. Avner's descent into guilt and indecision over his actions is laudably acted but weakly written - the morality of being a paid assassin is explored with much more vigour and honesty in films like Leon or Grosse Pointe Blank. The problem with movies "inspired by real events" (man, I hate that phrase) is that filmmakers feel a moral responsibility to report like journalists, rather than entertain, which is what movies do best, and so often settle for a watered down middle ground. Compare this film with something like Brian DePalma's Mission Impossible; it too has stylish European layouts and moral dilemmas aplenty, but also fabulous car chases, sneaky intrigue and neato spy stuff, since it's unfettered by any chains to reality. Well played throughout by an unusual international mix of actors; the five Israeli agents are really an Australian, an Irishman, an Englishman, a Frenchman and a German ! I particularly like Hinds as the bespectacled cleanup man, who seems the most professional but ends up making the stupidest mistake, and Lonsdale and Cohen both have flashy parts as a Don Corleone-style patriarch and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir respectively. This is a moving, extremely well made, thought-provoking film, but in the end its potted mixture of history and fiction make it dull and sober. Based on a book by journalist George Jonas and filmed before in 1986 as a Canadian TV-movie called Sword Of Gideon.

I never checked my watch more often

[pefrss · 1/10 · 3 February 2006]

I lived in Munich in 1972, so I wanted to see this movie. I understand that the movie is only loosely based on actual events and the rest is based on a fictional book. I understand that Spielberg wanted to give us a message that violence against violence will create more violence.

But did he have to make that movie so boring? I do not like to see violent movies but in some instances it may be necessary to make a point. But I see no point in showing a bleeding completely naked woman as long as possible, but for some sick gratification. I also found the copulation scene at the end a step in the wrong artistic direction. There was really nothing in the movie which could hold my attention. And I should have been fascinated because I practically knew every location they showed. Maybe Spielberg should think about retiring? I heard that no attempt was made by Spielberg or Kushner to contact anybody who was actually involved in Israel. Why make a movie and use on one side actual material and then make no attempt to try to portray the truth and facts? At least this movie did not get much attention at the Oscar nods.

I don't exist and you don't know me!

[sol-kay · 8/10 · 2 January 2006]

****SPOILERS**** Planning to put the Israeli/Palestinian dispute on the front pages of the world's major newspapers the shadowy Black September group storms the Israeli dorm, in the Olympic village, where it's Olympic athlete's are housed in Munich Germany. Within 24 hours, September 5/6, 1972, during a tense and nail-biting stand-off all eleven Israeli captives and their eight Palestinian captors are killed in a shootout and grenade assault between the German police and Black September terrorists.

Back in Israel Prime Minister Golda Meir,Lynn Cohen, gets the heads of the Mossad and IDF, Israeli Defense Forces,to plan what to do in the aftermath of the murdered 11 Israeli athletes. Even more important Premier Meir wants to show that actions like that in Munich will not go unavenged and unpunished.

Trying to distance herself and her government Premier Meir has a secret group of Israelis assassins lead by her former bodyguard Avner, Eric Bana, get all the money and assistance that they need in finding the Munich 11, the Black September members who planned the Munich attack, and bring them to justice; instant justice with Avner and his men being judge jury & executioner.

The movie "Munich" has Avner and his fellow covert Israeli Government assassins track down most of the Black September killers terminating seven of them including scores of accomplices by the time Avner's group was finally disbanded by Prime Minister Meir in June 1973. Still the Israeli hit team was unable to find and terminate the Big Salami and leader of the bunch who's name ironically is Ali Hassan Salameh, Mehdi Nebbon; were told at the end of he movie "Munich" that Ali Hassan Salameh was indeed killed by the Israeli Mossad in 1979.

Penetrating and thought provoking real life thriller that shows the fine line between the Israeli hunters and Palestinian hunted. We also see how they suddenly switch later in the movie when the Black September terrorists start to turn the tables on the Israelis by tricking and trapping three of their agents, with the help of a beautiful but deadly Dutch femme fatal Jeanette(Marie Josee-Croze),leading to their deaths.

Avner who was so eager and determined to do his job later started to get sick of killing and even felt a bit of sympathy for the hated Palestinians seeing that they, like himself an Israeli Jew, have a right to live in a land of their own. There's a very emotional exchange between Avner and Black September member Ali, Omar Metwally, who didn't know that he, Avnar, was Jewish and a Israeli covert agent out to kill him, which he did. This talk with Ali seemed to open Avnar up to seeing things beyond what he'd been exposed to as an Israeli, or native born Sabra, all his life.

The movie ends with Avner together with his wife Daphna, Ayelet Zorner,and new born daughter living in Brooklyn New York unable or not wanting to return back to his native Israel and having nightmares over what he did and went through as a Israeli assassin. Avner now feels that he may well be terminated himself by the very people, the Israeli Mossad who he so secretly and effectively worked for. The reason Avner felt that way may have been because he couldn't keep what he did locked up within the four corners of his troubled mind.

Intense, worth every minute

[skcummings · 9/10 · 6 January 2006]

Another dip in the Spielberg pool and I come away drenched in emotion. I was a freshman in high school in Texas during the Munich games. I was stunned by the events and understood little.

Today, I am still stunned by Munich and every terrorist act that followed, but I understand so much more and grieve. Spielberg gives us a powerful glimpse into the meaning of home, family, honor, history, ethics, and faith. The movie is not about the Jews and Arabs. It's about human beings. It's about us.

The narrative is driven by our connection to Avner. We watch as Eric Bana opens himself up in a way that the likes of a George Clooney in Syriana only dreams of.

This is a must see.

One of the most important films from Spielberg

[dakjets · 10/10 · 6 July 2015]

This Steven Spielberg movie tells a haunting and compelling story, based on a terrorist attack during the Olympic Games in Munich. Spielberg manages to tell a story about violence, who eventually takes a brutal turn of those who gets involved. You don't have to be interested in politics to watch this movie, but it can be an advantage. The casting is good, but I have to say, that this is Eric Banas movie.What a performance! He portraits the main character with wisdom, depth and is really convincing. This is also a film you may recommend to friends who like a real compelling story in films,and like films with a important message. I highly recommend it. But don't watch it with people who likes to chat, and interfere during showing. This film deserves to be watched carefully and without interruptions of any kind.

Close Encounters of the Spielberg Kind

[tedg · 8 July 2008]

I like to swim more deeply in film than Spielberg. So although he makes somewhat effective films, they leave me wondering why they were made.

Well, we know why this, "Schindler" and "Ryan" were made. Its because after skimming a gazillion dollars by amusing us, this man wants to be seen as a weighty, "real" filmmaker. A Kubrick that likes to occasionally have fun. We all know these films to be made on ostentatiously weighty material, so they must be deep.

I had the highest hope for this one, because I know he was stung by how poorly the others were received by people he trusts. So here, he goes back to his method of "Close Encounters" which was supposed to use New Wave techniques and to circumnavigate what was then new ideas about noir. I liked it. It took chances and where it failed it did so interestingly, even in the more ambitious later cut.

This uses standard (meaning later) Spielberg techniques. Despite his vaunted cinematic storyboarding technique, all the emotional content here is spoken. All the emotional reference is off screen. There are violent acts, but these seen deliberately bloodless, like an Indiana Jones movie would have then, something abstract to talk about. The intended effect was to haunt by the reality that punches through the rationalization. The reality here never gets a chance because its all so movieworld.

That's the problem. He wants to make a film that resonates because it hurts, because it ties knots in us. He just cannot. Its still just a script. Consider the last scenes. These are powerfully written. There are a dozen other filmmakers who could have made them work.

We've been through an entire story to set up the haunting ambivalence in our hero. He is finally able to be with his wife and as he makes love to her, the only think he can see are the hostage deaths not fully shown until this moment, charmed into their horror by human touch. This is followed by her gently caressing the face of her man, accepting all that has come before. If I read this by a good writer, I would be crippled for weeks.

But see how Steven has rendered it. All the pieces are there but the cinematic machine isn't assembled. We have gone all this time, and been set up so well for nothing. I am reminded of "Monster's Ball," which is constructed the same way. Its value is all in the very end, where we have Berre sitting on a stoop in a state of bewildered acquiescence. This could have been more. It was far less, a remote poster.

Good script. I intend to read it and imagine the film that could have been.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Ouch!

[xredgarnetx · 1/10 · 6 May 2006]

I wish I could use my wife's one-word description of this dreadful film: Boring. But since I can't, MUNICH is about the killing of the Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympics, and the deadly aftermath as the "eye for an eye" Israel government sends out a hit squad to kill those involved in the massacre. All too quickly, the squad starts killing people not on its list. Then the squad itself is decimated. And in the end the squad leader starts having second thoughts about killing anybody else and even those he has killed. Each time he successfully kills a terrorist, the terrorists undertake much larger-scale retaliations. And to top it off, some terrorists are portrayed sympathetically! The movie ends on a very sour, open-ended note. Jews everywhere must have loved this one -- that is, assuming they or anyone else saw it. MUNICH is very long, very boring and confusing. And in his attempt to make the film ultra-realistic, Spielberg manages to make us not care about anybody. There are no good guys, no bad guys. I have no idea what he thought he was doing when he undertook this project. Certainly, it was not to entertain or enlighten the masses, which are the things a good movie does. I suspect Spielberg made MUNICH for his own private purposes, the audience be damned. As for the actors, I would have preferred someone like Viggo Mortensen in the lead, but then we would have had a distinctive, charismatic character with whom to identify, and Spielberg apparently did not wish this. He instead gives us the very bland, nondescript Eric Bana. The very detailed early 1970s look is wasted on a movie that never should have been made. You know how bizarre Hollywood has become when it nominated MUNICH for five Oscars and a best director nom for Spielberg. Unbelievable. Skip this one, big-time.

Not your typical 'revenge/action' movie, but an absorbing, potent look at the cost of taking lives

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 23 December 2005]

Steven Spielberg has here his best film- or at least the best in his 'gritty' sort of tradition that was hinted at in the Indiana Jones films, went full bloom in Schindler's List, and matured further with Saving Private Ryan and Minority Report- in many a moon. He uses his perfected skills at maneuvering the mis en scene, using some manipulation, but dealing as seriously as possible with a tense, haunting subject. I've seen many reviewers say the film is haunting, has a haunting quality. Indeed this is true, and it is certainly a running theme in many of Spielberg's best films. And much as it was as well with his two films which he won best director Oscars for, here he deals with not so much the difficult, intensely emotional, and seemingly un-ending power struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but about the increasingly horrifying existential crisis for a man who to the government that hired him does not exist.

This man is Avner, played with the utmost conviction by Eric Bana. Spielberg must have seen something in his eyes that could make him work in this role, and he does- when one looks at him, one can see the conflict that only grows deeper and darker as the film reaches its third act. He's been hired to track down and kill, with his team (which includes great character actors like Matthieu Kassovitz and Daniel Craig), the eleven Palestinian terrorists who killed the hostages in the 1972 Olympics massacre. Things go well, at first, at least under the circumstances, as Avner also gets a little close with his 'source' giving him the names of targets for hefty sums. But as they close in closer, and as the tension is consciously squeezed tighter into paranoia, things aren't going quite as planned.

What makes a film like this work so brilliantly really is not what could be turned by another director into something more routine, and, indeed, condescending. Spielberg, when working with his rare R-rating to the maximum, doesn't shy away from giving us the full lot of what goes on in these raids, these bombings, shootings, plans of killing and striking back. But along the way he also gives some food for thought, so to speak, like an intriguing scene of dialog between Avner and a man in Athens (not to say too much about it, though Al Green is playing in the background). And certain scenes rank with Schindler's List showing Spielberg with a full grasp of what he MUST show the audience, however some might find it to be eye-widening or cringe-worthy (as it was for me). With his usually intuitive cameraman Janusz Kaminski, he creates this world as hellishly vivid as possible with a hand-held camera, and different color saturations for scenes (plus the lighting, which has now become Spielberg/Kaminski's trademark for the past decade).

And, in the end, it comes back down to what we care about with the character(s), and the protagonist's story. Avner knows he has a job to do, getting paid immensely for something (much like the Kurtz job in Apocalypse Now) that does not 'exist'. But the questions raised about what may or may not come of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict of course cannot be answered in the course of the film, only raised to a certain extent. If there is any message to the film- and I'm sure being it a Spielberg one there is (and perhaps I didn't fully comprehend it on the first viewing, being wrapped up in the pure film-making aspect of it all)- it may be that killing, taking life, even if it is OK'd by certain interested parties, will affect the soul, and the souls of those around you. That the message coincides with a taut precision with the characters, and the impeccable storytelling, makes it all the more worthwhile. The controversy around the film may be more from people who haven't see the film than those who have. Once seen, and the initial ideas of what the film might be about are gone, the story can be watched on its own terms.