Munich

[Pozer]

Soo happy that this is the last film I will see of the year. 

SPOILERS
My only series of gripes are as follows.  Something didn't feel right with how they (Bana's character) found Louis in the first place.  It was like, he calls up his buddy he knows and tells him and his girlfriend that they don't know the peeps hes after, but they might know someone who does.  And surely they do and set it up.  And not only that, the guy and his team happen to know where every flippin' one of them  is in the whole flippin' world.   It may be how it really happened, I don't how much the truth it is based on and what not, but for some reason it felt weak.  This leads to how it didn't really show how they found each target.  We always got, "He's in London" or whaterver then cut to the scene of them hunting the target or planning it out.  Again, this may have worked, it just felt weak to me.  Last one in my trilogy of gripes would be that if each target sees that this pattern is happening through the news, wouldn't they make it a little harder for themselves to be found.  I know they're always being guarded, but not heavily in some cases espeacially with the one who was supposedly the hardest one to find.  Well that's not true, he was pretty heavily guarded at the home.  I don't know, maybe these aren't problems at all.  Something about them just felt a little off to me.

I LOVED this film however.  I feel I don't really need to point out why, hence only reflecting on the small and maybe not even well explained gripes.  Spielberg just did it soo right.

[w/o horse]

It did a great job of introducing the hammer to the head, the hammer to the head, hit the nail, hammer to the head.  My favorite moment was like twenty seconds in when the camera tracks past the terrorists changing their clothes in the lawn.  I really liked that shot and one or two more.  The this land is my land stairway conversation about having a home to come back to was the best dialogue for my buck.  Oh yeah there was good dialogue sprinkled in.  And a damn fine action sequence, when they go to kill that one Middle Eastern guy and the army comes and they're like "Oh no you didn't dress like girls and then come kill my man."

Thinking about it I liked it more than I thought I did and probably a little more than War of the Worlds.  But goddamn, hammer to the head.

C.  Perhaps C+.

[pete]

I felt like the weariness was too intellectual and not emotional enough--most of the weariness was revealed through dialogues and there wasn't enough emotion--wasn't like andrien brody in the pianist where the viewer actually felt the weariness.  I felt like the film was really good but it missed the main emotion it was trying to nail.

[squints]

Just saw it. Enjoyed it a lot. Anyone else reminded of Coppola's The Conversation watching this?

[SHAFTR]

Very good.

Possible spoilers.

I know some people were worried about the aesthetic of the film, considering the source material, but it all worked out perfect.  The action sequences are never gimmicky or flashy, they are just perfect.  Unlike most action films, the sequences were filmed by a director with confidence.  The shots linger, space is created and maintained and the viewer is oriented.  All of which is extremely refreshing. 

Emotionally, I was very involved with the team of characters.  Unlike syriana (which I also enjoyed), everyone feels real rather than a member of an event.  Much like Saving Private Ryan, Munich balances entertainment with grace.  Nothing is dumbed down or cheapened.  At the same time, it isn't obtuse and pretentious.  Spielberg remains our best storyteller.  His move from fiction > fact has only increased his worth to cinema.

As for the sex scene, it is shocking and difficult to watch...but that's the point.  It really shows how much Avner has gone through and what it has done to him.  Also, I like that the film doesn't take a political stance.  I'm not going to say that I don't like politics in film, but I respect a film that can maintain a political ambiguity.  A film that respects the audience (and in this case, the real events) rather than trying to promote a political idealogy.

One of the top 5 movies of 05.

[MacGuffin]

Spielberg blasts 'extremist' critics of 'Munich'

Steven Spielberg hit back at critics of his latest film "Munich" about the targeted killing of Palestinians behind the massacre of Israelis during the 1972 Olympics, in an interview to be published Monday ahead of the picture's German and Israeli release.

Spielberg, 59, told German news weekly Der Spiegel that "Munich" aims to reclaim the debate about the moral costs of the struggle against terror from "extremists" and engage moderate forces in the West and the Middle East.

"Should you leave the debate to the great over-simplifiers? The extreme Jews and extreme Palestinians who consider any kind of negotiated settlement to be a kind of treason?" he said in remarks printed in German.

"I wanted to use the medium of film to make the audience have a very intimate confrontation with a subject that they generally only know about in an abstract way, or only see in a one-sided way."

"Munich", which hit US screens last month, depicts an Israeli campaign to hunt down and kill Palestinian radicals behind the hostage-taking of Israeli athletes and coaches during the Munich Olympics.

The drama ended in a massacre: 11 Israelis, five Palestinians and one German police officer were killed.

The film, which will be released in Israel and Germany this week, looks at the psychological and moral toll the assassinations took on the Israeli agents. It is billed as "inspired by real events" to deflect criticism about its historical accuracy.

"Munich" was blasted by some US Jewish commentators who accused Spielberg of equating the Israeli assassins with the Palestinian militants.

Spielberg dismissed the charges as "nonsense".

"These critics are acting as if we were all missing a moral compass. Of course it is a horrible, abominable crime when people are taken hostage and killed like in Munich," he said.

"But it does not excuse the act when you ask what the motives of the perpetrators were and show that they were also individuals with families and a history.... Understanding does not mean forgiving. Understanding does not mean being soft, it is a courageous and strong stance."

[polkablues]

Charles Krauthammer's column on "Munich".

This is one of the most truly vile things I've read in a long time.

[grand theft sparrow]

Charles Krauthammer's column on "Munich".

This is one of the most truly vile things I've read in a long time.

That's really amazing.  I'm pretty sure I saw the same movie as this guy but I don't remember seeing what he saw.  There's a difference of being critical of Israel and being anti-Israel.  In the United States, up until recently, we knew we were allowed to criticize the government without being labeled a traitor.  This invective is runoff from that type of thinking.

The massacre looked like pretty straightforward terrorism to me.  We don't know anything about the athletes except... that they're athletes!  They were Olympians for Christ's sake!  But the movie isn't about them.  Even the poster says, "This is the story of what happened next." 

I was just having a conversation with a friend of mine who was saying that Munich defined the difference between a terrorist and an assassin.  A terrorist would have set the bomb off when the little girl answered the phone... the end. 

Either way, murder is murder whether it's for revenge or whatever.  So why depict the Palestinians as inhuman savages and the Israelis as saints just to placate the neo-cons who don't want to believe that real life isn't that black and white?

This article is like interpretations of Nostradamus' quatrains: if you believe it pinpoints the end of the world, you're going to see it in there.  And if you think that showing Israel in a (minorly) unflattered light implies that the filmmakers are anti-Israel, then you'll find plenty of "examples" to back that up?  But it's all a great big stretch.

[polkablues]

Thanks, hacksparrow.  You just summed up exactly the way I felt about the article but was way too pissed off to type out last night.

There's a difference of being critical of Israel and being anti-Israel.

Even worse, Krauthammer seems to be of the belief that being critical of Israel makes you not only anti-Israel, but an anti-Semite as well.  It's the "with us or against us" mentality taken to this disgustingly exploitative degree.  He uses the historical victimhood of the Jewish people as a blunt weapon with which to batter anyone who questions Israeli policy.

[Alexandro]

I had high expectations, and Munich still managed to surprise me. I think is the most "diferente" movie Spielberg's ever done. It's quite an achievement form any point of view. He blends the thriller and the political commetary almost without people noticing it. I was on a crowded theatre with a bad sound, and even with that problem the audience was quiet and attentive, something totally unusual.

The aesthetic of ithe whole thing was remarkable. It looks like no other Spielberg/Kaminski movie ever. Looks like a seventies film, a lot of yellows, kind of ugly, lots of zoom ins, which was really cool. Kaminski said in American Cinematographer that he was happy to be shooting an espionage thriller cause finnally he convinced spielberg to use zooms, something he reportedly "hates".

The film is good at making its point in the most straighforward hammering way, but at the same time, the transformation of Bana's character is handled very subtly. He slowly but surely turns into this paranoid nervewrack.

The way this movie has been treated by the press and the attacks about it being "no friend of israel" and "afraid ot take a point of view", are complete bullshit. Really, it's so depressing when an intelligent film is attacked for not being in the same level of stupidity than some opinionated people out there.

MAYBE SPOILERS

About the final shot with the twin towers, I think is great. For New Yorkers it must be no surprise that he ends with that shot when looking where the character is and all, but we the rest of the people that don't live in new york or have never been there don't notice this instantly. And as someone else said, the framing doesn't call atention to the towers, and it actually took me a few seconds to see them. I think is great cause is Spielberg way to say, with Bana all fucked up and the towers behind him: "This is where we're going".

And that's why I think this is a completely new move for Spielberg, cause up till now, he never dared to end any of his movies on a completely depressing note. Munich is certainly a downer. No bittersweet abstract conclusions (AI), no questionable "dark maybe it is all a dream" ending (Minority Report), no bullshit "the son lives at the end" finale (war of the worlds), just some plain and simple sad note to end. People left the theatre either in total silence or in full discussion of the israeli-palestinian conflict. Mission accomplished.

[Redlum]

My favorite moment was like twenty seconds in when the camera tracks past the terrorists changing their clothes in the lawn. 

I have to say that was one of the most captivating shots I've ever seen. There is definately something brilliant about that shot and I've got so see it again to figure out what.

[Gamblour.]

My favorite moment was like twenty seconds in when the camera tracks past the terrorists changing their clothes in the lawn. 

I have to say that was one of the most captivating shots I've ever seen. There is definately something brilliant about that shot and I've got so see it again to figure out what.

I am absolutely clueless as well, but it is astounding.

[Gold Trumpet]

Lately I've been absent from this board, but trust me, I'm still watching movies.

I've had a lot of time to think about Munich. I don't mind giving an opinion and risk the possibility I am merely repeating the complaints already said. (I've barely read this thread) Speilberg is ambitious with this film. He is not looking for just the repeat aesthetics of Schindler's List or Amistad. The film has a new found realism for Speilberg. He takes the action oriented situation of these Jewish assasins and places their story in the context of a larger realism for Speilberg that gives the audience the gained experience the characters have to the learned dillusionment of terrorism and the unexpected identification with their villianous Muslim counterparts. We have to get to a place with Eric Bana to truly understand that identification.

The problem with this film is the flow and story structure up until that point. The movie is well made, no doubt. It just has the usual Speilberg sentiments flavored in for no reason. The over dramatification of the terrorists for refusing to kill the child has less to do with digging at the characters than it does with taking on audience identification. If the film was truly interested in understanding that situation from the larger perspective of the characters it wouldn't given the scene so much focus and sentiment in music and filmmaking. The situation would have been shown but at a distance because the film would know its greater points were yet to be made. The structure of the story would have been a gradual upward climb to those higher emotions and peaks. Speilberg dips in and out of emotional twists less for the greater objectivity of character and instead more for audience identification. Its not confident writing. It is sentimental writing that really has little place in realism.

Another point is the ideological spin. Granted, Speilberg wants the audience to understand both sides of the Terrorist bandwagon, but he also doesn't want the characters to do that. Speeches are thrown in specifically to represent the counter argument. It still remains a bad cliche in politicial films. It is the feeling to be politically correct and aware of the politics of both sides even if the greater points of the film will likely make the same ideas already understood. The fear is those ideas can be misinterpretated and backfire. I almost feel writers and directors back themselves up legally with such speeches. Again it is not necessary and in cases like Munich acts as a major disruption to the flow or realism the film had going for it.

I went in expecting to like Munich. Schindler's List for the most part is a masterpiece. Munich bobbles between sentimentality and greater realism that by the end of the film I was annoyed because it missed being a great film by only simple mistakes. Its just those mistakes have defined nearly all of Speilberg's career. Even in a bad year for movies like 2005, Munich is another misfire by Speilberg that goes right along with Saving Private Ryan. The sentimentality of his films made people early on wonder if he'd ever make serious films. He did so with Schindler's List and Amistad. Will Speilberg's next attempt be according to those two or the sentimental drivel of Saving Private Ryan and Munich?

rating: read my post.

[Sunrise]

Even in a bad year for movies like 2005, Munich is another misfire by Speilberg that goes right along with Saving Private Ryan. The sentimentality of his films made people early on wonder if he'd ever make serious films. He did so with Schindler's List and Amistad. Will Speilberg's next attempt be according to those two or the sentimental drivel of Saving Private Ryan and Munich?

I finally saw Munich this afternoon. It, along with A.I., is more "serious" than Schindler's List or Amistad. The speeches and flag waving in the latter films are grotesque compared to Munich's honesty and present-day relevance. SPR and Amistad are safely set in the past. Munich is omnipresent. I think Munich rightly opines that the Israelis/Arab/Palestinian conflict is NEVER going to be "solved"...at least not without concession from both sides (which is presently unthinkable).

I don't know if showing all of the assassinations was necessary, but it certainly drove home the point (hammered it home as stated above). Bana's dissolution at the end is tragic and true...I was heartbroken. It's a wonderful film.

[Gold Trumpet]

Even in a bad year for movies like 2005, Munich is another misfire by Speilberg that goes right along with Saving Private Ryan. The sentimentality of his films made people early on wonder if he'd ever make serious films. He did so with Schindler's List and Amistad. Will Speilberg's next attempt be according to those two or the sentimental drivel of Saving Private Ryan and Munich?

I finally saw Munich this afternoon. It, along with A.I., is more "serious" than Schindler's List or Amistad. The speeches and flag waving in the latter films are grotesque compared to Munich's honesty and present-day relevance. SPR and Amistad are safely set in the past. Munich is omnipresent. I think Munich rightly opines that the Israelis/Arab/Palestinian conflict is NEVER going to be "solved"...at least not without concession from both sides (which is presently unthinkable).[.quote]

Munich is a personal story. The larger politics it draws from that personal story makes it less serious. The film is a study of realism through the events that happened at Munich and afterward. It is a character portrait. Character portraits can not give us the broad strokes to truly understand the Middle East situation. They can achieve empathy instead. Speilberg is stretching his material and focus thin by trying to be so "understanding" of the Middle East.

As far as the other films go you mentioned, I have little to comment on. I do not understand the similarity between Munich and AI. I don't see how Schindler's List is flag waving. It has negative aspects, sure, but flag waving? I'm going to need explanation.