Munich - reviews - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mantus · 12-28-2005, 06:50 PM

I truly enjoyed this film. The cast was superb. Eric Bana and Ciaran Hinds offered great performances. My favorite aspect of the film was the characters. Each being rich and vivid. Spielberg has a gift at getting the most out of his actors.

The editing was pretty good; there are certain parts where the film lags. The cinematography, as expected, was wonderful. Though there were a few scenes that seemed really amateurish and un-inspired. But overal, it was visual candy.

The subject of greatest debate will be the plot of this film. The message of the film is that violence begets violence. I think that idea is captured rather well. There is always this uneasy feeling that something is missing in the plot. One is never satisfied with closure. It all becomes senseless at the end, but thats the reality of the situation.

Anyhoo, I am tired and you guys can always read a detailed reviews in the papers.

This film is worth the price of admission.

Cheers.

Willravel · 12-28-2005, 06:52 PM

I wonder how much of it was true. Fantastic movie, if depressing. 24 out of 25 pieces of popcorn.

djflish · 01-02-2006, 09:39 AM

I read a review that said most of the story was true, but they had to use some 'artistic licence' in places.

Xazy · 01-03-2006, 03:38 AM

They took out a lot of the politics and removed a lot of stuff that happened in response in Israel. The people they used reminded me a lot of Peter Malkin (well until the guilt came, Peter was one of the top israeli agents, he was the one who captured Eichman and he retired in 76). I liked the movie them singing Nissana Tokef (a jewish prayer said on yom kipper talking about who will live and who will die etc..) really moved me.

For me this is a movie that hits close to home, and I think it was done very well.. Also note that the movie got the approval of the families of the athletes who were killed.

Daoust · 01-12-2006, 07:32 AM

There is a really great article in Macleans Magazine ( a Canadian staple, and very good weekly) about how the author of the book Vengeance, on which the movie was based discusses how Spielberg and Hollywood changed the truths in his book.

A quote from author George Jonas:

"...I tried to formulate the differences between the book and the movie...Spielbergs Munich flollows the letter of my book closely enough. The spirit is almost the opposite. Vengeance holds there is a difference between terrorism and counterterrorism; Munich suggests there isn't. The book has no trouble telling an act of war from a war crime; the film finds it difficult. Spielbergs movie worries about the moral trap of resisting terror; my book worries about the moral trap of not resisting it."

Just a tidbit. The article is good. Sorry I don't have the link.

Charlatan · 01-12-2006, 07:55 AM

I haven't read that article but it is telling... Apparently Spielberg struggled with the morals of the story. In my opinion the film is relatively complex in its politics. It is because it plays with the concept of counter-terrorism as good and bad that it rises above being a piece of propaganda for Israel or a condemnation of the same.

I don't think the film goes out of its way to suggest that the whole mess is way more complicated than the author of Vengeance seems to suggest.

The two key scenes that brought the whole film together for me were the scene where Eric Bana's character is speaking with the leader of the Palistinian faction in Greece (the Palisinian says that they will keep fighting until they have their land) and the scene where Eric Bana's character's Mother says that she doesn't want to know what he did, what is important is that they have their land.

Two cultures/nations fighting for the same piece of dirt with the same level of committment. Nothing good can come of this.

serlindsipity · 01-19-2006, 01:27 PM

It was a perplexing but enjoyable movie. There areso many aspects to each characters that it makes it thougthful. What i think it succeeds in doing is playing up each aspect in regards to such acts - the need for vengence, the wish for alternative actions, the memoies and what they inspire within - they are all what i feel sometimes in regards to present day actions.

I liked it!

Frosstbyte · 01-19-2006, 02:50 PM

The aspect of the movie that pulls me in both directions is the fact that I've become convinced that this movie is *about* the current War on Terror and uses the events of Munich and its aftermath as nothing more than a vehicle to talk about our current situations. I believe this explains why there is a disconnect between the spirit of the book and the spirit of the movie. The book looks at that event and the justice of the response to that event. I think the real thrust of the movie is examining the questionable US response to our most recent encounters with terrorism. My reasoning for this contains spoilers as follows.

Spoiler: I justify this reading of the movie largely through the ending scene which ends with an image of the World Trade Center in New York. The fact that the movie doesn't end in Israel or on some note more directly related to the Munich events but instead ties back to an image which has become so heavily charged since 9-11 irrevocably places the movie in the modern War on Terror as opposed to being more of a dramatized "documentary" about the events in and related to Munich.

12-28-2005, 06:50 PM	#1 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	Munich - reviews I truly enjoyed this film. The cast was superb. Eric Bana and Ciaran Hinds offered great performances. My favorite aspect of the film was the characters. Each being rich and vivid. Spielberg has a gift at getting the most out of his actors. The editing was pretty good; there are certain parts where the film lags. The cinematography, as expected, was wonderful. Though there were a few scenes that seemed really amateurish and un-inspired. But overal, it was visual candy. The subject of greatest debate will be the plot of this film. The message of the film is that violence begets violence. I think that idea is captured rather well. There is always this uneasy feeling that something is missing in the plot. One is never satisfied with closure. It all becomes senseless at the end, but thats the reality of the situation. Anyhoo, I am tired and you guys can always read a detailed reviews in the papers. This film is worth the price of admission. Cheers.

01-02-2006, 09:39 AM	#3 (permalink)
djflish The Mighty Boosh Location: I mostly come out at night, mostly...	I read a review that said most of the story was true, but they had to use some 'artistic licence' in places. __________________ Europes two great narcotics, Alcohol and Christianity. I know which one I prefer.

01-12-2006, 07:32 AM	#5 (permalink)
Daoust "I'm sorry. What was the question?" Location: Paradise Regained	There is a really great article in Macleans Magazine ( a Canadian staple, and very good weekly) about how the author of the book Vengeance, on which the movie was based discusses how Spielberg and Hollywood changed the truths in his book. A quote from author George Jonas: "...I tried to formulate the differences between the book and the movie...Spielbergs Munich flollows the letter of my book closely enough. The spirit is almost the opposite. Vengeance holds there is a difference between terrorism and counterterrorism; Munich suggests there isn't. The book has no trouble telling an act of war from a war crime; the film finds it difficult. Spielbergs movie worries about the moral trap of resisting terror; my book worries about the moral trap of not resisting it." Just a tidbit. The article is good. Sorry I don't have the link. __________________ I have faith in a few things - divinity and grace But even when I'm on my knees I know the devil preys

01-12-2006, 07:55 AM	#6 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I haven't read that article but it is telling... Apparently Spielberg struggled with the morals of the story. In my opinion the film is relatively complex in its politics. It is because it plays with the concept of counter-terrorism as good and bad that it rises above being a piece of propaganda for Israel or a condemnation of the same. I don't think the film goes out of its way to suggest that the whole mess is way more complicated than the author of Vengeance seems to suggest. The two key scenes that brought the whole film together for me were the scene where Eric Bana's character is speaking with the leader of the Palistinian faction in Greece (the Palisinian says that they will keep fighting until they have their land) and the scene where Eric Bana's character's Mother says that she doesn't want to know what he did, what is important is that they have their land. Two cultures/nations fighting for the same piece of dirt with the same level of committment. Nothing good can come of this. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-19-2006, 01:27 PM	#7 (permalink)
serlindsipity Psycho Location: Boulder Baby!	It was a perplexing but enjoyable movie. There areso many aspects to each characters that it makes it thougthful. What i think it succeeds in doing is playing up each aspect in regards to such acts - the need for vengence, the wish for alternative actions, the memoies and what they inspire within - they are all what i feel sometimes in regards to present day actions. I liked it! __________________ My third eye is my camera's lens.

12-28-2005, 06:52 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I wonder how much of it was true. Fantastic movie, if depressing. 24 out of 25 pieces of popcorn.

01-03-2006, 03:38 AM	#4 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	They took out a lot of the politics and removed a lot of stuff that happened in response in Israel. The people they used reminded me a lot of Peter Malkin (well until the guilt came, Peter was one of the top israeli agents, he was the one who captured Eichman and he retired in 76). I liked the movie them singing Nissana Tokef (a jewish prayer said on yom kipper talking about who will live and who will die etc..) really moved me. For me this is a movie that hits close to home, and I think it was done very well.. Also note that the movie got the approval of the families of the athletes who were killed.

01-19-2006, 02:50 PM	#8 (permalink)
Frosstbyte Winter is Coming Location: The North	The aspect of the movie that pulls me in both directions is the fact that I've become convinced that this movie is about the current War on Terror and uses the events of Munich and its aftermath as nothing more than a vehicle to talk about our current situations. I believe this explains why there is a disconnect between the spirit of the book and the spirit of the movie. The book looks at that event and the justice of the response to that event. I think the real thrust of the movie is examining the questionable US response to our most recent encounters with terrorism. My reasoning for this contains spoilers as follows. Spoiler: I justify this reading of the movie largely through the ending scene which ends with an image of the World Trade Center in New York. The fact that the movie doesn't end in Israel or on some note more directly related to the Munich events but instead ties back to an image which has become so heavily charged since 9-11 irrevocably places the movie in the modern War on Terror as opposed to being more of a dramatized "documentary" about the events in and related to Munich.