The reason MUNICH, a new political thriller from director Steven Spielberg (WAR OF THE WORLDS), is a triumph is because Spielberg, a masterful director of both popcorn epics and emotional dramas, realizes this film, depicting a team of Israeli secret service agents assassinating the Palestinians suspected of planning a massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, is best served by a blend of his two styles. It is a film examining the violent, neverending conflict between Israel's Jews and Palestine's Arabs, but it's designed not as an Important Social Film, but as an action thriller. Spielberg, with two scripters (one famous for writing the social-themes drama "Angels In America," which was adapted into an HBO film with Al Pacino and Meryl Streep, the other for such expensive films as FORREST GUMP, THE INSIDER, and ALI), creates important themes, but presents them to us through a lense of Europe-set espionage.

The team members selected by the Israeli government to operate in secret, find the Palestinian terrorists, and murder them are not the expected action heroes. There isn't one stupid muscle-bound butcher in their numbers. Rather, each of the five Jewish hitmen are smart men who begin their assingment furious over the events of Munich and excited to find retribution for their nation. But as the amount of dead bodies rises, the rules become unfocused and the game of finding-and-murdering more dangerous. Stoic, determined leader Avner (Eric Bana, TROY), hotheaded car driver Steve (Daniel Craig, ROAD TO PERDITION), nervous explosives expert Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz, AMELIE), dedicated documents forger Hans (Hanns Zischler, RIPLEY'S GAME), and smart crime scene cleaner Carl (Ciarán Hinds, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA) must decide if their mission is a rightful search for justice or a futile exercise in eye-for-an-eye carnage.

MUNICH begins in the titular West German metropolis as American athletes help the Palestinian murderers, believing them to be Olympians coming home post-curfew from a night of debaucherous fun, climb the fence into the Olympic apartment complex. Within the next few hours, Israeli citizens would become hostages and then be shot down at an airport as the world watched the entire debacle blow-by-blow through televised reports from Munich. A serene, exciting celebration of international sport talent had become a worldwide stage for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, an old war over faith and land which still burns decades after the events of this film. A Jewish director who confronted the Holocaust in one of the best films of our time, SCHINDLER'S LIST, Spielberg once again examines beliefs and events men and women of his faith must confront with MUNICH. A secretive, fast production, this film became a controversial concept the second it was conceived. The media ran rampant, publishing pieces overflowing with rumors, implications, and flat-out lies - Would Spielberg show Palestine as a monster and Israel as a pure nation of saints? wondered certain journalists, while others, without reading a script or viewing a cut of the film, chastised Spielberg for disgracing Jews worldwide with a film depicting Jewish men being sent by Jewish leaders to murder and cause destruction.

The truth is: Spielberg has not sided with Israel or Palestine. MUNICH doesn't condemn Israel for condoning targeted murder, but it also doesn't condone Palestine's cruel treatment of Israeli Olympians. It doesn't even dare to put forth a solution regarding an end to the entire conflict. No, it's action is much braver and more interesting - it shows how one man, Avner, is decimated by the Israeli/Palestinian fight and compels Jews and Arabs (and Christians and Atheists and whoever else watches it) to stand for peace instead of favoring the easier solution of violence. It's an optimistic film, but one which restrains it's optimism with the facts of life. This is the reason it's superior to other 2005 films regarding politics - THE INTERPRETER, THE CONSTANT GARDENER, LORD OF WAR, JARHEAD, SYRIANA (though these were fine films, besides the courage-free genocide-themed misfire THE INTERPRETER) - it faces the conflict without sugarcoating it or shrouding it in satiric humor and dreams of peace without shoving over-the-top solutions down the audience's throats.

Of course, it's also a fantastic action film made with care, respect, and style by the superlative genius Spielberg. With his usual photographer Janusz Kaminski (THE TERMINAL), Spielberg infiltrates decades-ago Europe and creates a film with a style similar to both BOURNE films - a cold, mysterious European style. The assassination scenes are staged with tension and fierce excitement, with a memorable moment being when a target's unknowing daughter answers a bomb-filled telephone. Spielberg-regular composer John Williams (MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA) is also in fine form, creating a subtle, haunted score which gives the film extra atmosphere and nausea-inducing tension. Williams uses a female vocalist's sad, distressed song to perfection in the Munich-set scenes.

MUNICH also has a record large cast for Spielberg, with more parts than previous record holder CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, a fun con artist thriller. Leading the cast in spirit and screentime is Eric Bana, a fantastic Australian actor who for the first time in America delivers an incredible performance to show why film critics Down Under were raving. Bana's reaction to his newborn daughter (who he hasn't met due to the demands of the service) calling him "papa" on the telephone is devastating. The rest of the cast is also excellent, including a raging mad Daniel Craig and an interesting, mysterious turn from veteran character actor Geoffrey Rush (PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN) as Avner's Israeli handler.

This is one of Spielberg's best films and one of 2005's most important and rewarding experiences. I urge each person who reads this to view MUNICH with an open mind. I guarantee you'll want to engage in a political discussion and change the world for the better when it's over. It's a ravishing, compelling experience and one of 2005's five best films! Shalom.

A+

Absolutely brilllant film, my only complaint is a tiny one.

The best film I have seen this year.

Was it the sex scene at the end? Admittedly, that was a bit melodramatic.

Was that a sex scene? I thought it was some kind of overblown symbolic montage...

Munich is unlike anything Spielberg has done before, a taut, intense political thriller about the vengeance following the Munich attacks of the 1972 Olympics. Eric Bana is wonderful as Avner, showing a slow bubbling intensity beneath a relatively calm demeanor. Particular scenes are striking and hard to forget. My main complaint with the film is only that it could have used more editing because it drags somewhat near the end. Either way, Munich has the stuff to stand alongside Spielberg's best films and is in my top ten for the year. A-

Does the film end with hot Palestinians and Israelis making up and making out??? Shake that Kosher ass! W00t! Nassim, move that thang *snaps fingers* Outrageous!

Other then that sequence everything else was great movie making.
A

i was very shocked at the dutch assination. quentin must have directed that scene.

Munich was a strong film with great performances, but unfortunately, slow in parts of the film. I wasn't all that interested near the end, to be honest. But it was strong.

B+

I actually thought the assassination scenes had Scorsese written all over them.

One thing though..that assasination scene was NOT spielberg..I was like..is this a spielberg movie? Still a GREAT scene..I love how spielberg re-invents himself.

Munich is the last film of 2005 I saw before the ball dropped. And it is the best. The film, to me, is absolute perfection. It puts this conflict into an emotional context which I've never been able to break through to before now, and funnily enough, it is because I think I understand the Palistinian side a lot more now (that discussion between the Palistinian and Bana on the stairs... wow). The Dutch assassin... ugh. I was shaking through at least half of the film.

Spielberg has given us two dark, dark films about terrorists and the victims of terror this year. Munich is unlike anything he's ever produced before, but we've said that more than a few times with Mr. 'Berg. It is probably his most adult, most desperate, and darkest film he's ever done. Unlike almost all of his films, there is no resolution, which is in stark contrast to the deus ex machina ending of War of the Worlds (which I loved too).

Everything about Munich is top notch, and in my opinion, perfect.

I had read a lot beforehand about a potentially cheesy ending. I guess everybody is referring to the sex scene. I thought it was appropriate. In that moment the character emotionally came full circle, the event that triggered the events in the film came together with his ability to reconnect with his wife emotionally.

As much as I hate to utter the words "Return of the King", I've read a lot today about Munich's multiple endings. And like Return of the King, I think it depends on what the movie is trying to say to you. If you think it is a thriller then I could see people think that the film should have ended when he meets his daughter on the New York staircase for the first time. But that wouldn't have been the proper beat to end the film on.

Avner would be hunted, and his uncertainty about his survival would go emotionally unresolved. He may have remained emotionally detached from his wife, etc. The film was dark and ambiguous. The conflict came from the ambiguity. So I am happy that was carried through to the end.

Oh Loyal... the Dutch assination. I agree. This was one of the most challenging things that Spielberg has ever done. It's SO important in the film, and I was happy that it was so powerfully referenced in the following sequence when Hans regretted his final action of "uncovering". That small bit of human compassion that the character acknowledged that he lost. I also love the fact that it is the only assination that the Isreali government has a problem with, and drives home the idea that Avner's passion had been taken advantage of and while the Isreali government will use his passion to get vengence on those that "planned Munich", the Isreali government would not support operations of vengence that became even more personal to Avner.

Spielberg, Kurshner and Roth also dodge the "historical accuracy" bullet by making the team's killings increasingly more hollow and ultimately unimportant as part of Avner's on going self-realization. It is fantastic screen writing. I think we all know that "film history" fudges to create stories and use events in a way which drives home points and messages. Saving Private Ryan is one of those films that perhaps fudges history too much and suffers a bit for that.

I think I like Munich more than Schindler's List. I wouldn't hesitate putting Munich up on par with ET and Raiders.

MUNICH 10/10

ONE WORD- PERFECT!!!!

I didn't mind most of hte sex scense, in fact I thought it was an appropiate ending, I just thought the uber sweaty Avner was a bit over top, but its a really tiny complaint.

This was easily for me the best film of the year.

I saw this movie and was in ahh by the feelings of it. It was very well done it drew you in and made you abe to get to know each role. Its not very often that you find a movie like that. I loved the whole story iit was very moving. Well worth the 2hrs.

Excellent film. Almost up to par with Saving Private Ryan, and definently his best film since then.

I will be haunted by that scene for many years to come.

I dunno.

I don't wanna be too harsh, cuz better men (and women) than myself have loved it (see every other post in this thread.)

But wow....I thought it ranged from brilliant to down right...less than mediocre...in almost...every...single...way.

The only consistent aspect was Bana's performance (one of the year's best.)

I dunno what to say...I can't say I'm that disappointed, cuz it wasn't ever all that highly anticipated...and it's not "bad," I guess...

Probably B-, C+.

I dunno, (i feel like i'm saying that a lot?)...
I guess I felt that....like I said...some of it was amazing...but some...pretty much every 5 or 6 minutes I found myself saying "how did that scene...how did that line...how did that cut...make it in just 5 minutes after [insert something amazing]".

Yknow? Just incredibly inconsistent.

And I kinda felt like it made a little too light of the aftermath of the Munich thing (which took far too back a seat in the overall picture). Very subtle like, dont get me wrong; some/most of the "serious" stuff was really well done, very intense...but then he throws in this little edit move, like, that made me feel "wow, ok, so this is all just some joke."

Yknow? I dunno.

And I think, I didn't even understand it...was the black painted face guy at the end supposed to be Bana? If so, what exactly was that about...how did I miss something so...huge.

If not, why/how exactly is Bana privy to such knowledge that he can, yknow, flash back to all that stuff...(handled very well, other than not understanding WHY it was happening.)

Ugh.




So yeah, just very average, very inconsistent, very "meh" and it makes me sad/cry that I saw Spielberg's 10 or 11th best film, and not his 2nd or 3rd. :-/

you're dead to me.

I figured as much.

I shoulda just kept my mouth shut. :O

Oh well, I'll catch it again on netflix...maybe by then I'll, I dunno, have stopped sucking...

But I just couldn't help but feel like I was gypped...

Also, I think I didn't mention the fact that I got in the theater at like 1215 and didn't get out until THREEFIFTEEN. Insanity. Far too long. (of course there were like 23 previews, but it musta been sitting at 160 or ~ mins.)

I really liked the score, though. : )


I think, perhaps, it comes down to this...
I think it's safe to say that this movie relied a whole lot on connection...you HAVE to connect to these characters and the situations in which they're placed and the events which led to said situations...and I felt it was trying, but I just wasn't feeling. Yknow? I just didn't...connect.

Which is probably why I was getting restless by 2:30ish, and why I ended up so critical towards the technicals and stuff...(or maybe it's the opposite...the filmmaking turned me off from the characters. I dunno. I never know.)

what did you think about my favourite scene of 2005, the Dutch Assassination (maybe 2nd if I'm counting Timothy chasing a Fox in Grizzly Man)?

I had no problems with the scene...it was well acted, well shot, and one of the most powerful in the film. Good choice.


But I dunno...I'm not so sure about the fact that it was even included at all.

Why even introduce her character? To show that Bana is loyal? Ooh, good one, you really sold me. (When in all honesty, his performance was plenty enough to show me that.)

To show that the hunters have become the hunted? Meh, ok, I think you couldve gotten that point across easily through Bana's actions (with the daughter or whatever) and some well written dialog in the phonebooth (with the father/son-informant guy).

I dunno what to say. The scene was well executed, but was it necessary? Or did someone just wanna show three men assassinate a naked woman at point blank?


Also, what exactly were they even using? Were those things guns? Or like, blow darts? Either way, I want one. :O (didn't they just kinda smack the butt-end to make em go off?)



PS, my question about "black-faced-terrorist" guy was sincere...was he supposed to be Bana? If so, what and how did I miss that? If not, how did Bana's character know the ins and outs of the Munich deal (to the point where he could flashback to them as no one else (including the audience) possibly could have?)

I studied the OSS/CIA and those guns are the real deal. Though it wasn't explained, I'm guessing they were used because they're easy to conceal (on a bike even).

And Spielberg definitely wanted to show three men assassinate a naked woman at point blank range? That's too good to pass up.

Ill be seeing this today!