I agree, despite my nitpicky review. I wasn't thrilled about the ending, especially the gawdawful sex scene but when 95% of a movie is brilliance you have to cut some slack.

The sex scene was weird, but I could live with it (why did Eric Bana sweat like a water hose, though...?). It is a tad long in some places, but overall it was the best directed/edited/written movie last year and my third-favorite overall (behind King Kong and Downfall).

It was a good movie, drags in some places but it wasnt a big problem.

What an odd thing to have in your head when you're having sex with your wife. One can wonder how he managed to keep it up during the scene.

***

Still the best film of 2005.

I give a 9/10
Very Excellent movie until the sex scene. That was completely bullshit! I dont know but Spielberg develops a way to stop his movies being completely brilliant (like the unessecary ending in Minority Report). A shame. Though still very well done!

Its predictable to a surprising degree and when you cut away the upper vineer it really doesn't have anything to profound to say, but it does dish out its bag of tricks in a high accomplised manner.

Its the old tale.
Enemy attacks.
The victims seek retribution
The men of revenge begin to feel their souls slipping away.
We learn the enemy isn't a monster but just as human as the other side.
The story ends uncomplete, the only way it really could.

Its textbook stuff bar perhaps the interlude in the French countryside which provides the movies only truly beautiful piece of serenity, and that canalboat sequence which is quite possible the best scene Spielburg has ever directed since Jaws.

It doesn't say much about the Isreali/Palestinian conflict that we didn't know already either but it does state the obvious very well.

In the end its the best movie on the subject one could have hoped for coming out of the Hollywood system.

B+

Finally caught this this evening. I actually haven't seen Spielberg's other two dark, R-Rated works (I know, I know, I'm awful), but this was definitely an adequately brutal film. I unfortunately don't have much to add the the already extensive discussion, I will add that I think I was probably a little more shaken by the first kill than by the Dutch assassination. Both are pretty intense and brutal scenes, but the brief hesitance and reluctance felt in that first kill as the man pleas for mercy (And the oddly graphic-feeling falling on his grocery bag), really gives a feel of almost innocence lost, no turning back. An underrated scene, IMO.

Overall, definitely an excellent film. It needs to sit with me more before truly figuring out where it sits among 2005 films and Spielberg's filmography (Sometime soon I really need to Schindler and Ryan), but it's definitely high.

****

Great that you liked it, Jon. I'd say it is the best Spielberg flick since Saving Private Ryan, maybe even since Schindler's List (need to rewatch Ryan), but my grade for Ryan is pretty much the same, another straight A. You definitely need to see it. Though not the best war film ever made, it is high up there.

One of the best films I've ever seen. Maybe its timing coincided with my maturing film taste [when "Lord of the Rings," "The Matrix," and "E.T." no longer made up my Top Five], but oh my goodness this film hit me so hard and, upon repeat viewings, came across as more and more brilliant to me. Whether or not you like the story/characters/etc... the one thing that can't be denied is how brilliant Spielberg is as a filmmaker. Every shot, the use of the music, the use of action, the color, etc... it's all perfection. The only things that bring Spielberg films down are often the stories or acting, and in this one's case, neither faltered on any scale. Craig was fantastic in capturing the range of his character, the rest of his crew was great, Geoffrey Rush had a phenomenal short performance, and the other characters were played as well as could be. The story on its own was a fantastic one, a movie about people whose lives grow worse and worse as they encounter more and more violence. It's not just a good message about violence in a time of terrorism, but it's a very emotional message, too. And then John Williams' score tops things off with perfection. It's one of his all-time best scores [and I arranged the "End Credits" for my school orchestra to play in 2006] and adds whatever it can to this already-phenomenal film. I think this is probably the best film of the decade, although I'm starting to wonder if "There Will Be Blood" could dethrone it [not to mention films released in the next two years].

A+

What's so strange about how this film performed is how, to me, it seems like a film that would start off an outside contender, then slowly work its way into the race and maybe win Best Picture. But Munich was the opposite. It was the early favorite to win, then after it came out, things all went down hill, and apparently it wasn't far away from missing out on a BP nom. Which, considering it was in the race with Crash, is rather ridiculous.

I still don't think this is very good.

The script is Kushner giving in to all of his worst instincts (the Michael Lonsdale character epitomizing this) and Spielberg once again makes a movie that feels as if it were directed by a computer that does not believe in judicious editing, rather than a person.

Eh. Munich was a technically brilliant film with content that couldn't quite match its technical greatness. The editing was the biggest downfall here: everything was shot quite well, and the actors were all pretty stunning. While the cinematography gave the film plenty of momentum throughout the entire movie, some of the choices in the editing room completely killed it most of the time.

My grade might be deflated since I watched this when I was quite sick and a bit tired. But I doubt it, since that type of stuff usually has never affected my grades before.

B

I think the movie's editing was the best of its year (I think it actually won the KJ Movie award for that too, heh).

Gee! Avner is such a boring character. 7/10.