OK, I've seen Munich. I guess this is the film, if it wasn't already clear, which verifies that I always give Spielberg extra credit or some such thing.

Even though I read somewhere that this film is sentimental, once again, I have to say NO WAY! This is a somber film. There's no uplift, no easy way out, no escaping from a NO-WIN situation. Of course, there is SOME humor, some SEX, LOTS of looking at both sides of a difficult question, at least EIGHT classic Hitchcockian suspense sequences, plenty of food for thought spread throughout.

The two major FLAWS with the film actually turn out to be assets. The film is NOT spectacular. Spielberg keeps everything as "dry" and "low-key" as possible. The fact that the accumulation of these details makes the film SO DAMNED POWERFUL is a very good detail, but it kinda creeps up on you, even LONG after you've watched the whole thing. The other flaw is that, at first, it seems like the characters DON'T grow. They seem to be puppets whom we have nothing to learn from. WRONG!!! Their hearts and souls ARE revealed by how they react to every single circumstance. By the end of the film, you understand these men much more than many of your own family members.

One other thing to mention. The father-and-son team of information peddlers gives the film an awesome subtext, not only on the way the world works, but on the way families work.

The bottom line, at least for a Spielberg-Ass Kisser like me: this is just about the most spectacular NON-SPECTACULAR flick I've ever seen. Rating: A-.

Further ramblings deleted.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

Munich was a magnificent movie. For one thing, it was my favorite movie of 2005! The point that Speilberg gets across to you in this epic movie, is really moving...I would really recommend to see this great movie!

Finally, Mark F and I agree on something, however out of context I may need to take his comment that, "[Munich] is NOT spectacular."

After reading everyone's comments, it definitely looks like I'm in the minority of people who refuse to defend this film's shortcomings -- especially since Spielberg's attachment to the project only seems to bias many of it's viewers.

Granted, I'm not the biggest Spielberg fan and recognize that the bias can work both ways, but my problems deal more with the film's writing, politics, and performances. I supoose that each could be traced back to Spielberg, but I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was a larger problem that grew out of the way the film seemed to be hurried through post-production in order to be released for the consideration of Oscar voters.

On this note, the short-list of my criticisms are as follows:

1. The entire film spiraled out of control in the last 20 minutes, beginning with Tony Kushner's trademark of juxtaposing sex with violence. Cross-cutting between Eric Bana spraying sweat across the screen while jackhammering away with the climax of the hostage situation was completely unnecessary and borderline ridiculous to the point that I audibly laughed in the theater. Moreover, the final scene when Geoffrey Rush's character refuses to break bread with Avner reads like it was written on a napkin in a coffee house, and overly simplifies Jewish tradtion, while single-handedly employing one of the most cliche symbols of friendship imaginable. The only ending I can think of that would have been worse is if Rush had tried to shake hands with Avner, pulled his hand back at the last second, and said "psych!"

2. The actors never really seemed to internalize the morality play at the heart of the story. Instead, the focus is on revenge. I attribute this perception to a) the script; and b) a rushed editing job. Every time the characters had an opportunity to discuss the morality of their actions, an answer was readily handy and a cut was made, sending us into the next operation. This led me to feel as though I were watching the remake of the Italian Job instead of an intimate morality play -- which this film should have been, instead of a market-oriented action/thriller. I can't wait to rewatch the film, hopefully with extended and deleted scenes, to see the type of nuance and drama that I expect was left on the cutting room floor.

3. The politics of the film were a mess. Although, I can see where this is an instance where art may well be reflecting life. It's just that I'd prefer someone take a position, instead of comprimising both stories for the sake of creating a muddled depiction of each. Plus, I particularly hated the scene at the beginning of the film that goes out of it's way to show Americans helping Palestinians symbolically over the fence to commit terrorist actions.

quote:

This movie was so good that it hurt.

Spielberg weaves his genius…Munich is haunting…it’s realism, cruelly surreal…it’s truth disturbing…each character…all of them…souls that resonate profoundly…Eric Bana...a ‘guilty pleasure’ to watch in a fine portrayal of a man driven by duty and frayed by the immorality of ‘justice‘…one of the best films I’ve ever seen and, likely, one of the best films ever made.

I can't agree more with what has been said about this film. I forgot about the few humorous scenes towards the beginning of the film, they were gems. The humanity of this movie and the characterization and the pacing of this movie was absolutely great. This is one of the best movies of 2005. This movie was so good that it hurt.

I caught up with MUNICH yesterday and pretty much agree with everything you say. Spielberg is hit or miss with me and MUNICH as far as I am concerned was a hit. I don't know if it needed to be a 167-minute film, but all in all it was very good. I really liked the acting and wonder if MUNICH will make ERIC BANA a star the way THE HULK didn't. And MUNICH gives us a chance to see James Craig before he hopefully becomes a full blown movie star now that he has been tapped to replace Pierce Brosnan as James Bond.

I also liked the French actors cast in small roles in a big Hollywood Blockbuster, including the veteran Michael Lonsdale, Mathieu Amalrac and Valeria Bruno Tedeschi, in a tiny role as Amalrac's wife.

One spoiler for me is that in the past year or so I caught up with SWORD OF GIDEON, an HBO film that uses the same source material as Spielberg did so I felt like I was watching the film again. MUNICH is much better (and more expensive) than SOG, but SOG doesn't suffer as much in comparison.