Munich is the best film of the year,maybe the decade.It is a hard and bleak look at the fight against terrorism,nobody wins is the message i got out of it and it wont stop anytime soon.I didnt feel the film dragged at all,this film is very violent,the part that really got me was the explosion at the hotel scene,you see skin plastered on walls,an arm hanging from a ceiling and god knows what else.I thought the characters in the movie were great and i felt for the mossad squad,and it spielberg also shows the terrorists as human people,it was hard to believe some of them were terrorists,they lookede like nice people but i think that was spielberg's point.And yes,that assasination scene with the dutch assasin whore was chilling,i didnt know there were silencers weapons like that.Ill come back later and give a more detailed thought on the films,im letting it sink in.

The Berg had a hell of a year, didn't he .

Indeed,just like in 1993.

it made me feel uneasy showing sex scene with what happen in munich at same time. back and forth and back and forth.

Its supposed to make you uneasy,but i didnt think the sex scene was as graphic as some said it was,it was just mostly face expressions.

I saw it again tonight. It hit me harder emotionally and the only reservation I had after my first viewing, the odd flashback/sex scene, sat perfectly well with me this time. The film as a whole just resonated with me to a greater degree, so much so that I'm going to move it up to an A+ and also above King Kong as my number one of 2005. And I must say that if there is any justice in this world, Munich will win for best cinematography at the oscars. Spielberg's deft camera movements and composition combined with Kaminski's brilliant lighting results in one of the most impressive films, visually, I've seen in a long time.

Damn that was good.

I didn't walk into the theatre expecting a near masterpiece, but I think I got one... wow.

I loved the way how the film was edited back and foward with real news clips,that was very well done and kahn should get the oscar for the beggining editing alone,that was masterful.

Could someone please, at least, tell me if Bana's character was the black-face-painted dude from the end?

The guy that killed the Israelis? It seemed like it, though one would think Spielberg would have made it more obvious considering he isn't always a master of subtleties.

Wait a few days and see if anything pops up on Munich's trivia page at imdb.

Eric bana and daniel craig were in black face in the night when they were set up to kill the munich head terrorist.

nununuh, the guy with the helecopter or whatever, during the flashbacks.

Eric bana wasnt there.

K. The end, with the helecopter, (how do you spell helecopter?) there are two guys and a bunch of hostages or whatever. Correct? The guy with the black face is NOT Bana?

I just saw it for the second time and made it a special point to look out for this. No, that guy is not Bana and Bana is not present at all in that last flashback. There is one cut that goes from Bana's face to the face of that guy (White hat, black face paint), but it's clearly not him.

Thanks.

I must conclude that either this editing sucks madly, or I missed something...

How could Bana possibly flashback to stuff that no one else could have known? I mean, from what I got, the news didn't report that in depth...and most of the people ended up dead.

Or, I guess, those cuts were not supposed to be flashbacks, but rather just letting the audience know what exactly happened...in which case, well, that's just not how I read cinema...there's no way I could have taken that as anything but what Bana was thinking during the sex scene.

So...did I miss something?

I think it depends on your interpretation. Either Avner was just imagining what it would be like and Spielberg actually chose to show what "happened" for real during Avner's thoughts, or what was presented was how Avner imagined it went down.

All the hostages died..unless you are thinking that bana was one of the terrorists?

Yes you did. This is not bana's flashbacks of what actually happened (because he wasnt 'there'). It was more of a symbolic way to end the movie..death/rebirth etc.

Exactly. To me Bana at the moment is is coming (!!!) full circle and becoming "himself" again as he opens up to his wife after being such a shadow. This moment is juxtaposed with the completion of the flashback scene of the single event that brought Avner into this world of assination.

The flashback is not Avner imagining the events, like the two previous flashbacks (which are not from Avner's perspective) it's just a visual which helps the audience understand his emotional state.

Having the flashback so late in the picture also reinforces the idea that regardless of the spy games played, regardless of the politics in the film, that the act of killing those atheletes was heinous.

I really think Vengence was a better title.

I've read an interpretation of the sex/flashback scene stating that Avner is having trouble "performing" with his wife because of his emotional state. This kind of makes sense since he can be perceived as being visibly frustrated/anguished during the sequence and she very lovingly tries to comfort him after the fact, through body language and with a tender "I love you".

Anybody else think of it this way?

I don't see it that way. I thought it cut to her for a brief moment writhing a bit.

This sex scene in a ways kind of echos the other controversial sex scene of the year, the one in A History of Violence.

In thinking back on the scene, I think it has confused a lot of people... I think I would have filmed edited it a slightly different way, I would have had the rough sex scene then have Bana lay back in his bed and then the flashback go, or flashback first then sex scene. As long as those events are close.

I dunno. I was really into it so I have really only thought about it because this seems to be something people are talking about it.

Yeah, I can see that comparison. Though perhaps in A History of Violence it is more a two-way exchange of power, whereas in Munich it's basically Bana taking his finger off the pressure valve in that moment.

Edit: I bring this alternate reading of the scene up because apparently in the book Vengeance, a character has difficulty pleasuring his wife after his experiences. This is second hand info though, so it may or may not be the case.

Yeah. It's the second example in 2005 of a director choosing to use sex as a steam venter rather than Bana like hitting something.

Hmmm. It is interesting to consider though. I mean, it could be.

I would think if he was impotent it would have been filmed slightly differently, maybe with more cuddling and like an "I'm sorry baby" afterwards.