B+

It's good, but it's not that good. I guess I felt it was a little slow, and quite repetitive at parts. Most of the assasinations felt like the same scenes to me for some reason, they had the same general line about them. Also, it didn't grab me as emotionally as I would've thought. And even though it's 3 hours long, I felt like I wanted a bit more at the end. But the biggest problem I think is that it wasn't...suspensful. Through the entire movie, there wasn't any question to what would happen next. I mean, it explained the entire storyline in Avner's "brief" at the beginning. At some points, I just started to not care kind've.

As for the positive, all the aspects like the direction, screenplay, acting, and cinematography were excellent. The death sceness were done very well, and quite a few moments were haunting and very sticking.

So yeah, good movie, but not anything close to a masterpiece IMO. I personally feel that it was the 4th best BP nominee behind Brokeback Mountain, GNAGL, and Capote. I feel the loss of momentum it's felt in the race is quite deserved, the critics recieved it correctly.

I understand why so many here loved it, but I just couldn't get into the story at all. The revenge theme was interesting for a bit, but watching them go from one kill to the next got kind of monotonous. I think my biggest problem with the film lies with the main character, whom I didn't find to be interesting or compelling on any level whatsoever. I understand that he is meant to be a regular guy thrown into extraordinary circumstances that test his whole concept of morality, but does he have to be as dull as dishwater? And honestly, I don't think Eric Bana was the best choice for the role. There also are some questionable transitions and tonal shifts which make the movie feel more like a rough cut than a final product. I'd still recommend it as it does bring up interesting themes and presents them as unbiasedly as possible with some great camerawork and sequences, but it's uneven & not really my cup of tea. And while its lack of bias is a strength, I find it also to be a weakness in some respect as I left the movie thinking "so what?" It literally left no impression on me whatsoever, which is peculiar as I usually come out of a film feeling something. But not with Munich, unless you characterize indifference as a feeling. grade - B-

Eh... sad to say that I'll join that "didn't love it" camp as well.

Its by no means a mediocre film, I'd even say its a great film, but I had a few problems with it. (pacing, Bana's character and a few other things) I have to admit its pretty well made though.

I'd really like to see it again.

B+

I agree with basically eveyone else...

8/10 (B+)

Man, these tail-enders are a real drag .

I hope the female actress was amply compensated for suffering through the stench.

Have you seen Munich yet?

A


The movie about the aftermath of the massacre of 11 Israeli athlets at the 1976 Olympics in Germany is the long-awaited return of Spielberg to his fullest form as the best filmmaker alive. The movie stunned me in more ways than I could descirbe. I have never experienced an audience as silent and quiet as during this movie.

The first 10-15 minutes of the movie that reconstruct what happened in Munich, while combining that with old news footage are the best minutes I have seen in any 2005 film. They simply left me breathless and I believe that when it was all over with "They're all gone", I sighed and whispered "wow" and I seriously don't remember the last time I did that at a theatre. Everything in those scenes was so perfect: the editing, the music, the cinematography... The most stunning thing about the movie, however, is that it manages to stay on the same level for the rest of the film. Spielberg is truly a masterful director and Munich is easily the best directed movie of 2005. Despite a running time of over 160 minutes, the pacing is great and the film almost never drags. Half of its running time, the movie is incredibly suspenseful. Even the Munich scenes are very tense, even though you already know how it will all play out. It is a top-notch thriller among other things.

The cast ensemble is also one of last year's best. Despite many impressive supporting performances, Eric Bana still stands out as the most incredible performance in the movie. It is his career-defining turn that was shamefully overlooked during the award season. His portrayal of the loyal (ex-)Mossad agent who becomes a killer, despite never having been ready for it. His transformation into a paranoid, desensitized person plagued by his doubts is perfect, even though it happens a tad too fast.

Out of the rest of the cast, especially Ciarán Hinds (Carl), Mathieu Amalric (Louis) and Lynn Cohen (Golda Meir) stand out, but overall, the cast has great dynamics and the interplay between the five armateur assassins is great.

From a technical perspective, the movie is amazing, just as all Spielberg films are. The editing is some of the best I have seen in years. It is amazing how Spielberg manages to make a 160+ minutes movie seem not really long. The cinematography is sublte, but effective. Same goes for John Williams' haunting score.The technical aspects are never used as gimmicks, though, and they never overshadow the story. They just blend in perfectly.

As far as the story goes, I come to the movie's strongest aspect. There have been many worries about how Spielberg will portray the touchy Middle-East subject and he handled it better than I could have ever imagined. The movie is incredibly balanced and takes no sides and at the same time it takes both sides. Contradictory? See the film and you'll know. But even moreso is the movie about the five assassins and their gradual change during their mission. Their very first assassination is a really well-crafted scene. The fact that their assassinations didn't even really help the cause by the end makes it all even moreso tragic. All the terror acts from both sides didn't do any of the side any good at all and the main character remained the real victim of the whole thing.

There is really not much to be named on the negative side, but I will still mention a couple of things. First of all, I did not have much of a problem to see the Munich showdown being combined with the sex scene, but why did Bana need to sweat so much? Moreover, the movie suffered a little under the ROTK syndrom towards the end when it seemed to have several almost-endings. In hindsight, however, I think that they were needed. The last point would be that contrary to my expectations, Geoffrey Rush didn't convince me in several scenes. Something was a bit off about his character.

That aside, Munich is a marvel of filmmaking and currently stands as my 3rd favorite film of 2005 (behind King Kong and Downfall). Spielberg is at his best again and delivered his best movie since Schindler's List. It is his bleakest, meanest and most serious movie to date that portrays the Middle East conflict in a way that has never been done before while showing the collateral damage that results from this conflict. But even those who don't care about that aspect, can still enjoy the great thriller that is Munich. Munich is definitely one of those "important" movies that are needed to be seen by as many people as possible.

Incredible movie. The only negatives I have are one or two slow points, and the ridiculous image of sweating flying off Bana's head. That was a little much. Otherwise, I didn't mind the sex scene.

Grade: A

Right now, I'm throwing all my support behind Munich for Best Picture, unless Capote blows me away.

Finally saw Munich last night and WOW what can I say.

Very good performances and brilliant directing from Speilberg. The pacing was tight (it didnt drag as much as Kong for example despite the run time), the tension was high and the thriller aspect really engaged me. Stylistically - its one of Speilbergs best. He captures 1970's Europe so well I actually felt like I was there and removed from daily life as it is now.
I cant find much wrong with it other than the final sex scene which every one mentions - it isnt that bad - i guess it doesnt work as well as Speil expected.

Grade: A very strong "A"

I finally brought myself to go see this today.

Here are my thoughts:
It was a very intriguing movie and the pacing was excellent. The first 2/3 of the film for me... was a B+ movie... but that last 1/3 of the film was simply a masterpiece!

It was a VERY brutal movie and I loved every single underlying message... lol.

The ONLY thing I would've changed is... they should've killed the little girl... I know how brutal that sounds... but it would have given the film that little something extra.

9.5/10
A

BJs Grade:

B-

It wasnt bad.

I may have to see it again soon to let it sink in. As it is, it's one of the most powerful films I've seen. The horror of Munich and its aftermath are perfectly captured, as is the ethical ambiguity prevalent in the Middle East conflict. The message is not clear in either direction, and that makes it very strong. Avner's descent from proud Israeli into a paranoid murderer is very well done and incredibly realistic. The back-and-forth nature of terrorism is also captured well, reflecting the near-absence of morality that takes place. That being said, this isn't a perfect movie.

Technically, it has its faults. It's a bit long, and it does drag at the end. It also switches dramatically from an action thriller into a thoughtful drama near the end. The script is also flawed, as there are too many holes and loose ends. I suppose that could represent the cloak-and-dagger nature of the era, but perhaps a bit more could have been explained. The directing was near-flawless, but the editing could have been a bit better. The production design is perfect. The performances are solid and there isn't a weak link. Bana stands out, as he should. The music is terrific; one of Williams' best scores, I think. Whenever that haunting theme came up, you knew that something was about to happen. It's amazing that this was shot so quickly, it's so well-done.

All in all, this is a very good film about terrorism and human morality. The assassination scenes were both action-packed and dramatically striking. The plot unfolds quite well during the meat of the story, but becomes lost near the end. I know that the ending was there to present a message, but it could have been done in less time, perhaps. The dialogue is a bit hard to understand at time, but the story is never that hard to follow. Overall, a near-great film that may become great after I watch it again.

Its not that it sounds brutal, it that is goes against the internal struggle the team has.

Not killing the little girl is all the Avner and the team have to seperate from the terrorists they chase, its how they rationalze killing people and functioning very much like a terrorist cell.

Also not killing the girl shows the chang ein them when they hunt down the dutch women, yes she is not a total innocent, but they are starting to blur the lines of what they are doing.

Ding Ding we have a winner.

Loved it! I thought it was well portrayed and acted very well. It presented both sides very well. I wish the ending would have been a little different though. A-

B

This is not the review I wanted to write. A little more than halfway through I expected to say this was this decade's L.A. Confidential, a great period drama with suspense galore and good writing and acting. The movie has elements of greatness but never pulls it together. It needed to be shortened by at least 30 minutes, and the last 1/3 of the movie needs a total reworking, I pretty much couldn't stand the ending with the montage and sex, and wasn't very interested in the 20 minutes leading up to that either. Avner is a very boring character played by a boring leading man. Not that Bana is a bad actor, he does a credible job, but he is not riveting and I didn't identify with his doubts and concerns to the extent that he expressed them. Anyone would have some doubts, that is normal, but at some point he has to understand he was hired to do a job and that's pretty much it.

Spielberg could have made a classic here if he had focused on making it a movie instead of a political statement, and if he had understood that you can instill doubt in your audience without making your characters go all mushy. For example if Avner had become more hardened and remorseless, it might have made an even bigger impact of thoughtfulness in the viewer since we'd have seen what it did to him. It doesn't have to be the character having doubts for us to have doubts. To that extent, Craig's gung-ho gunman gave me more doubts about it all than anything Avner said. After what seemed like the 20th expression of remorse and questioning of the overall situation by one of the leads I was rolling my eyes. Okay we got the idea, in fact Golda Meir said it in the first half hour about negotiating compromises with values. We understand the issue, no need to go on about it. It might have been best to move that line about compromises with values to near the end, because the way it is put in the beginning as it is, it feels like the theme was already summed up at the start.

The killing of team members, from the old man killed in the obvious "honey trap" to the man stabbed in the park to the bomb maker blown up in his building by accident or on purpose it's not clear, these felt obligatory and run of the mill. Whether or not it really happened this way, as a movie it just seemed so predictable and ordinary for all but the hero and one other guy to get killed. That's a cliche of modern storytelling, the hero must get to the end alone or nearly alone, and it gets tiresome.

But there are some parts that are so good, basically the middle hour of the movie, the procedural of the killings are well staged and the actors playing the Israeli team form a great ensemble, playing off each other well, good casting there and great settings. While Avner is boring stock good guy, he works well as part of the ensemble in the middle of the film, with Avner, Louis, Craig, and Mathieu Kassovitz. Craig gave me renewed hope for Casino Royale, he was very good in his role. For me the highlight of the movie was Louis, I liked the actor playing him, and to a slightly lesser degree his "Papa". All their scenes were great, if it were up to me Mathieu Amalric might have gotten an Oscar supporting nomination, even though that usually goes to people who cry or scream and he does neither. It was probably a bad idea to put supporting characters in the film that make some audience members feel that we would rather be seeing a movie about them instead.

This ensemble comes together well in one scene where they bomb a target and kill an arab man who Avner had only just recently been talking to in a civilized argument. The look of shock on the man's face when he was dying and the irony that they had been talking decently to each other only earlier when identities were not as clear, did more to express the point of the film than all the speeches and obvious dialogue later did.

The only bad acting in the film comes from the miscast Ayelet Zurer as Avner's wife. She's got an annoying personality to me and is not convincing as being much in love with Avner. She seems almost indifferent in some key scenes and generally has little screen presence. Also Geoffrey Rush, as much as I admire this actor, his character worked best in small doses and some of his scenes should have been reduced in length. The longer he's front and center the more it starts just looking like ole Geoffrey Rush with funny glasses on.

I also was very impressed with the period detail. As someone who was a kid during that era I can say it rang true to me. It really felt like that period and especially how people wore clothes and haircuts in a way that you could see how at the time it didn't seem so strange, it looks natural in the era even if it's ugly by today's standards. The best period detail I've seen in years, they really put you in the era, especially during the European section which is basically the only part of the film that worked for me.

In the last section of the European part of the film, they are about to snipe Salameh with rifles. At what point did they become sharpshooters where they could hope to do that with any confidence from such a distance? And when things go wrong and they kill the boy instead, we are next back in Israel, no mention has been made of what happened or whether they ended up getting all 11 or not. It wasn't till Ephraim or someone near the very end said that they didn't get a few of them that I knew that for sure. It was just a stark unexplained jump first to Salameh's house with no preparation of that scene, then back to Israel, that was not handled or explained well. It felt like some important scenes before that last assassination attempt were missing or cut short.

One other thing, that doesn't impact on the review much, I found it very strange that they didn't go through the Dutch woman's belongings to find information on who hired her and why, or at least they should have later said that they did so and didn't find anything since it was an obvious chance to find out who was after them. In fact it's surprising they didn't ask her before they killed her or even spare her life if she gave them credible information. Not that I was bothered by her killing, she had it coming.

I think some of you miss the point about them not killing the little girl. They were told as part of their mission to kill as few innocent civilians as possible, because it would bring bad publicity. They didn't kill the little girl for the same reason they asked for receipts early on, they were going by the book of what they were told to do. Of course as human beings they probably didn't want to kill the girl for humantirian reasons but primarily it was them doing their job.

On a different subject, I got tired of them repeating the clever at first but later overused line about how they worked not for Mossad but for a box in Geneva. It was a good line but by the third or fourth time sheesh enough already, write some fresh lines.

Steven Spielberg proved in 2005 why he is such a versatile filmmaker. Frist, he made the summer blockbuster War of the Worlds, but then, in December, he brought a smaller, more devastating movie to the table with Munich, which details the events after the massacre at the Olympic Games in Munich. The movie has uncommon depth, and is devastating throughout. It doesn't let up in its portrayl of the characters who go from people doing a job to murderers who ignore what they had been taught in their faith and lose all sense of righteoussness. Everything about the movie is incredible, starting with the starlting opening sequence and ending with the somber conversation between Avner and his handler, as he realizes that he has done all of this and received nothing more than pain, as violence has become his life. The acting is tremendous, highlighted by an Oscar-worthy performance from Eric Bana. Spielberg's direction is also masterful, as he never backs away from any violence or acts that may come across as shocking to the audiences. The cinematography is also great, and even though it clocks in just 16 minutes under the three-hour mark, it moves swiftly and is never boring.

It may not have quite the emotional punch that Schindler's List did, but Munich is a tremendous film that carries power in its devastation, asking all of us to think about what is really right and wrong, and under what circumstances.

The best movie of 2005.

A

I might have come off as a little too harsh in my review. I did have some problems with it but a lot of it was excellent filmmaking. So don't read too much into the mild B grade, it was one of the best films of last year and better than the best picture winner that's for sure.

And with that, a bump for those just seeing it, hopefully more reviews to come.

In the book Avner undergoes pretty intense training and he's a good shooter. I believe Craig's character did as well. So they would have been trained enogh to engage in the big fight in the end, even if it seemed to me to be a dangerous idea.

A scene of them being trained would have helped a lot, as it was it came off like 5 amateurs thrown together with only basic knowledge of what to do.

It would have also helped to learn more about Avner's father, maybe see him in a flashback, since they kept talking about him so much.

But also there was the theme. One of the things about the theme of this film is that I kept thinking, if the US had created teams like this after 9/11 instead of invading Iraq, a lot of people on both sides would be alive today. They may have doubts about what they did in Munich but it wasn't like they went and invaded, say, Albania in response, at least they went after the perpetrators. Although as Avner says near the end, arresting them like was done with Eichman is the better way to handle it.

A thrilling, emotional, and often brutal film concerning the nature of terrorism and morality. The performances were wonderful all around (Eric Bana, Geoffery Rush, Daniel Craig, Ciarán Hinds, Mathieu Kassovitz), the assassination scenes were intense and often quite disturbing, and the film was often visually spectacular. A great film that is one of the best movies of 2005 and is easily among Spielberg's best.

A

Saw it again on HBO in HD last night, still an awsome film. Deserved soooo much more recognition.

Yeah, this one really should have won BP/BD last year. Excellent flick and the only of the five nominees that I'd call a masterpiece (or at least near one).