|Munich (Widescreen Edition)
|List Price: $5.98
Our Price: $1.96
You Save: $4.02 (67%)
During the 1972 olympic games in munich 11 israeli athletes are taken hostage & murdered by a palestinian terrorist group known as black september. In retaliation the israeli government recruits a group of mossad agents to track down & execute those responsible for the attack. Studio: Uni Dist Corp. (mca) Release Date: 02/05/2008 Starring: Eric Bana Ciaran Hinds Run time: 164 minutes Rating: R
At its core, Munich is a straightforward thriller. Based on the book Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team by George Jonas, it's built on a relatively stock movie premise, the revenge plot: innocent people are killed, the bad guys got away with it, and someone has to make them pay. But director Steven Spielberg uses that as a starting point to delve into complex ethical questions about the cyclic nature of revenge and the moral price of violence. The movie starts with a rush. The opening portrays the kidnapping and murder of Israeli athletes by PLO terrorists at the 1972 Olympics with scenes as heart-stopping and terrifying as the best of any horror movie. After the tragic incident is over and several of the terrorists have gone free, the Israeli government of Golda Meir recruits Avner (Eric Bana) to lead a team of paid-off-the-book agents to hunt down those responsible throughout Europe, and eliminate them one-by-one (in reality, there were several teams). It's physically and emotionally messy work, and conflicts between Avner and his team's handler, Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush), over information Avner doesn't want to provide only make things harder. Soon the work starts to take its toll on Avner, and the deeper moral questions of right and wrong come into play, especially as it becomes clear that Avner is being hunted in return, and that his family's safety may be in jeopardy.
By all rights, Munich should be an unqualified success--it has gripping subject matter relevant to current events; it was co-written by one of America's greatest living playwrights (Tony Kushner, Angels in America) and an accomplished screenwriter (Eric Roth); it stars an appealing and likeable actor in Eric Bana; and it was helmed by Steven Spielberg, of all people. While it certainly is a great movie, it falls just short of the immense heights such talent should propel it to. This is due more to some questionable plot devices than anything else (such as the contrived use of a family of French informants to locate the terrorists). But while certain aspects ring hollow, the movie as a whole is a profound accomplishment, despite being only "inspired by true events," and not factually based on them. From the ferocious beginning to the unforgettable closing shot, Munich works on a visceral level while making a poignant plea for peace, and issuing an unmistakable warning about the destructive cycle of terror and revenge. As one of the characters intones, "There is no peace at the end of this." --Daniel Vancini
- VERY WELL MADE MOVIE
THIS MOVIE SHOWS WHAT MAN KIND CAN DO TO EACH OTHER...more info
- not that interesting
i thought it was going to be like a book page turner, however, Iwas disapointed.
Ido not recomend this video...more info
This is the greatest movie I have ever seen(good will hunting close 2nd). I knew about the events that transpired in munich 1972, my mother would occassionally bring it up as I was growing up. Nothing in this world has made and brought me closer to Israel and being proud to be a jew than this movie. The love for there country and to take a mission like this, basically to give up their lives or the only lives they knew for the protection and future of there country. Others may not grasp the concept that Israel is the only Jewish Country in the World, There are numerous Christian and Islamic countries. Theconflict alone of this movie made it great, it was much more complex in the character development and plot, and the rest of the story made it incredible. Should have clearly been the academy award winner for best picture over Crash at the 2006 academy awards. I don't really like to write movie reviews, but every so often a movie comes around like this that it's too great not to be mentioned. This review will be listed under my mothers name, I am her son, Michaol Lucka writing this review...more info
- Land Dispute
When Tony Kushner sticks to actual events, he's got a fast, thrilling script for Spielberg to work. The trouble is, a fine action movie is saddled with philosophical meanderings. The obviously contrived debate between the Mossad assassin and the PLO guy, the same old hackneyed arguments about what is essentially a land dispute, well, come on, why didn't the PLO guy realize Eric Bana really was a Jew? All the PLO fighters tell you how much they love their Palestine and Allah is their leader. Of course, the barbarity that meets their aims, all praised in heaven. Jews prefer a settled life on Earth be as it may, but there's little peace in the Middle East.
I must tell you, The Soprano's or Godfather movies were suggested by the Munich revenge assassinations. The Mossad is so careful not to knock off civilians, too careful perhaps as their foes could care less. Good versus evil, makes for a better story, but not if you're political liberal.
- Glues You to the Screen
I thought this was a good film when I saw it in the theatre & was pleased to find a used DVD copy in the budget bin. The DVD doesn't offer much extra in the one disc version other than brief comments by Steven Spielberg about the film's relation to the history. To me, the film was a psychological thriller more than an action picture.
Australian actor Eric Bana who started out in comedy & became known for pictures like "Black Hawk Down" & "Troy" does a good job as Avner, the Mossad agent who is given the task of eliminating those who planned the Munich Olympic games massacre. His breakdown into near madness and paranoia as the film progresses is well done, but seems to occur suddenly without really seeing him unravel. I guess the discovery of Carl's nude corpse in the hotel room was supposed to send him over the edge. It'll be interesting to see him as a gambler in "Lucky You" with Drew Barrymore & Robert Duval.
Australian actor Geoffrey Rush won his Oscar for "Shine" in 1996 and was twice more nominated for "Shakespeare in Love" & "Quills." As Ephraim, he's the counter-intelligence mastermind who coordinates all these activities.
Daniel Craig, after numerous films like "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider," "The Jacket," & "Layer Cake," finally became known as Double-O-7 James Bond in "Casino Royale," for which he received a Best Actor nomination from the British Academy Awards. As Steve, he does a good job of making it all the way through the movie, flying into action mode when required. His blue eyes exude an intensity and focus that lifts the film.
Mathieu Kossovitz plays Robert the bomb maker who can never quite get the charges right. First they're not strong enough; next too strong. He won a Best Supporting Actor award for "Munich" from the National Association of Film Critics. He is also known as a director. He directed "Gothika" with Halle Berry and won the Cannes Best Director Award for "La haine" (Hate). As an actor, he's played in films like "Amelie" and "Birthday Girl" with Nicole Kidman. He does a nice job as the klutzy often-berated toy maker who has been tapped to be the bomber.
Irish Actor Ciran Hinds has a diverse number of films under his belt from "The Weight of Water" (which I reviewed as "The Weight of Editing") to "Oscar & Lucinda" & "Miami Vice." He also played in "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider" with Daniel Craig. As Carl, he wears glasses and voices skepticism about the project and the authenticity of the intelligence on which they are acting. His demise is a turning point in the film as we learn that the hunters are now also the hunted.
Other roles are also nicely done. Hanns Ziscler appears as Hans in his 69th film. Ayelet Zurer as Avner's wife Daphna does a nice job of being the brave mother & spouse. Lynn Cohen, whose first film was Woody Allen's "Manhattan Murder Mystery," does a convincing and controlled portrayal of Golda Meir. Israeli actress Gila Almazor who won the Silver Bear Best Actress Award from the Berlin International Film Festival for "The Summer of Avia" in 1989 & does a good job as Avner's mother who urges him to avenge the villains for all of their ancestors. French actors Michael Lonsdale who was in the first "Day of the Jackal" (1973) & another film I like very much, "Ronin," does a good job as the wise Papa who trades information to feed his family. Mathieu Amalric plays his son Louis who acts as the go-between with Avner.
"Munich" won the Best Picture Award from the American Film Institute. It was nominated for 5 Oscars for Best Picture, Best Original Score, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director & Best Editing. While it is a long film, it is one that pulls me in and keeps me glued to the screen. It was a moving cinematic adventure. Enjoy!
- Spielberg's take on the Munich Olympic tragedy
If Munich was just a Hollywood movie about a group of guys out to kill every member of a group of terrorists responsible for killing their friends, then this movie of revenge would had had so much more potential. As it is, it is based on the true story of Islamic terrorists from a group Black September that take the Israeli Olympic team hostage at the 1972 Olympic games and kill 9 of them in a resulting rescue attempt. The Israeli Mossad creates a covert team to kill in secrecy every single person responsible from Black September responsible for that attack.
When Stephen Spielberg decided to make a movie based on the events of Munich, that instantly created a lot of expectations. I expect that a majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, see that what the Mossad did as justified. To make a movie about the Munich events and turn it into a celebration of what the Mossad did, a revenge flick, might have been the popular thing to do. I personally believe Israel had every right to retalliate the way it did, and believe the Palestinians deserved the fate they got in this movie. But I'm not naive to believe the Palestinians don't have a complaint about how they've been treated at times.
So, I went into this movie knowing it had received bad reviews and some cited it as revisionist history or basically saying what the Mossad did was just as bad as what Black September did. First of all, the movie is long but extremely well made. The story moves swifly and the violence is brutal. Eric Bana plays Avner, the Mossad agent assigned the task of killing the Black September members one by one. Avner accepts the task and begins working with his team, which includes future Bond Daniel Craig. They buy information and carry out the executions. There are problems at times and the group must deal with faulty equipment and collateral damage. But the ultimate villian they must face is the fact that just as they are hunting, they are now being hunted. Soon, they realize they must be on the lookout for attacks against them. At the same time, the weight of what they are doing begins to eat away at Avner's core. The killings are changing him, and they are keeping him away from his wife and newborn child.
I don't know enough about the true events of the Munich retalliation to comment on whether or not this movie got the historical facts correct. I do know many commented that the movie was a statement on the USA's current war on terror. Maybe that is correct, but Israel's been fighting the war on terror for years. I think Munich made points not for the benefit of today's Iraq war, but to show that what people assume is true now, was also true then. For one example, the point is made that when a member of Black September is killed, he is just replaced by someone else. So, what good does it do to kill one if a new one will take its place. This is a point to consider, but the movie never really takes a side. This is a movie really about a man, Avner, played excellently by Eric Bana. He eagerly fulfills his duty to his country, but the weight of his actions ultimately are too much for him to handle.
In conclusion, you won't be able to watch this movie without giving at least some thought the the history behind it as well as the current situation in Iraq. That being said, I think you'll be able to enjoy this movie regardless of your political beliefs....more info
- A thorny piece of recent history...
It is not so frequent to find a film that is intriguing Spielberg's "Munich" is beyond intrigue to the point to do ruinous damage... It's a dramatic thriller that disarms you and leaves you shocked... It really makes you question the nature of national retaliation, and gives you something to think about and discuss...
Spielberg tries to remain in equilibrium on a very sensitive issue... He draws our attention to the consciousness of the Israeli assassins by showing their attempts to prevent injury to an innocent girl but, oddly enough, refuses to demonstrate the deplorable suffering of the Palestinians or their inalienable right of self-determination to return to their homeland...
Everyone who knows the story seems to have a different opinion about how it should be told... "Munich" is about Israel's response to the murder, at the 1972 Olympics, of 11 Israeli athletes by Palestinian militants... Spielberg's disputable film follows Israel's retaliation by presenting an Israeli commando led by a Mossad agent who is about to become a father, and he is asked to lead an assassination squad to track down and eliminate, by any means possible, the masterminds who had organized the Munich attack...
Spielberg shows a former Israeli prime minister--dressed as a woman--sneaking into Lebanon and assassinating targets...
The killings are carried out in Rome, Paris, Cyprus, Beirut and Athens... ...more info
- A must see
Do not believe hype nor hate and find out for yourself. I find it funny that certain uh..people of a certain religious background are piping in saying this is false or wrong or that the Mossad should not have continued the cycle of violence. Well golly gee easy to say after the fact that the moz-lem extremists wasted a bunch of innocent athletes. This story is about Justice, not revenge. It is too bad that they stopped at seven and just kept going...and going......more info
- Speilberg made the movie he set out to make when he chose 'Vengeance'
Steven Spielberg took a lot of flack for "Munich," which he admits is neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Palestinian. From Spielberg, I suppose many expected - or wanted - something more ardently Zionist. But Spielberg cast the die when he decided on George Jonas' Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team as his source material. Vengeance's point of view - and its tortuous history - is predicated on the moral ambivalence of 'Avner,' the pseudonym of the team leader, as played on-screen here by an excellent Eric Bana. I read "Vengeance" a couple of months prior to seeing the film, and my feeling is that Spielberg accurately captured Avner's feelings as well as his metamorphosis. The one thing that got left out was Avner's complex relationship with his Dad, who - in the book - essentially foretells Avner's denouement at the outset.
Jonas' book is controversial. There are ongoing disputes over its inherent accuracy to the point where people doubt the essence of the story or whether an 'Avner' actually existed. In the most recent release - coinciding with the film - Richard Ben Cramer writes a nice new introduction with a pithy comment that the debate has evolved to the point where the essence of the argument is people now saying "Hey, my part in the movie wasn't big enough."
There are some nice surprises in the film including a pre-Bond breakout appearance by Daniel Craig as part of Avner's team, as well as appearances by first-rate Israeli Arab actors Makram Khoury and Hiam Abbass. It goes without saying that their roles here are all too brief (it belabors the point to mention why). I suggest you see The Syrian Bride to see these two talented professionals in top form. There's also the inclusion of a way-inside joke of encountering future Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak - dressed in very unconvincing drag - prior to a raid in Lebanon. ...more info
- Steven Spielberg's MUNICH, awesome
I just bought the DVD of Munich . I had heard that "Munich" was going to be long and dull and pointless, and boy was I glad I saw it anyway. Eric Bana and Daniel Craig are great in this.!
The film is almost a slasher movie in a screwed up way. It chronicles the journey of a hit man (played great by a very intense Eric Bana) who is hired in secret by the Israeli government , to kill off the terrorists responsible for the munich hostage taking and murders. His job is totally secret, like he doesn't exist at all. Then he travels Europe and hunts down these guys one by one and almost gets them all. Then he starts having doubts about the whole adventure when he starts to see the whole human aspect of it.
I found it very exciting.
As a cool perk, there's also Daniel Craig in his pre-Bond days. I'd almost say he's better here than as 007 , but Bana shines in this all the way through.
Munich was very well made and exciting and a strong filmmaker's vision. I think this is one of Spielberg's strongest movies to date. An extra perk is a short commentary by Spielberg before the movie starts, that shows us his intentions of making the movie.
- Two-disc Edition Bonus features provides rare insight
For my money, it's always worth it to buy a "collector's edition" of any Spielberg movie (especially his "darker" stuff). Although it could have been loaded even a little bit more with additional materials, I still found it insightful and informative to see "the process". Even though I usually stay current on special edition DVD releases, this one sneaked by me. Now I understand it's becoming somewhat rare. Outside of a re-release, I'd jump on this one before the price skyrockets. ...more info
I caught part of this movie on HBO. I was spellbound by the part I saw and wanted to see the whole film. I have, several times. This is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. In my opinion, there are many, many mediocre to poor quality films out there. This film is not one of them. This film is intelligent, well-crafted, riveting film-making at its best.
This film starts out at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany, where USA athletes returning to their Olympic village apartments after a late night of it, unwittingly/innocently help terrorists climb over the fence surrounding the village, thinking they are Olympic athletes who need help getting back to their rooms. So begins the hostage taking and murder of 11 Israeli athletes that made world-wide news.
Golda Mier, Prime Minister of Israel, Israeli military and government leaders meet and it is decided to hunt down and kill, one by one, the men responsible for the Munich massacre. Enter Eric Bana and crew, including Daniel Craig, who are assigned the task. I agree with another reviewer who said this is a psychological thriller. There is plenty of action though.
As they hunt down and assassinate the Munich masterminds, eventually they become hunted themselves. I guess one message of this film is that violence begets violence. I don't really think Steven Spielberg is making a political statement with this film. The closing film credits show that this movie is based on the book, "Vengeance" by George Jonas. I think it shows us the never-ending back and forth between two peoples who think they are both righteous. Also, Eric Bana's character presents himself as an American representing American businessmen wanting the information on the Munich masterminds. That was just a front. He was an Israeli representing Israeli interests.
The closing shot of Avner (Eric Bana) and Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush) walking away from each other - what we see in the background speaks volumes without saying a word. You'll see what I mean.
This is also just my opinion, but I'd like to add that the French actor portraying Louie, I think his name is Mathieu Amalric, if they ever make a movie about the life of Roman Polanski, he could play the part. Something about him reminded me of Polanski, even though Amalric is better looking by far.
- Story fabricated on an actual act of terrorism
This movie is inspired by real events, but is a work of fiction. From the book Vengeance and history we only know that terrorists killed the Israel Olympians in Munich and the people who were claimed to be associated with Black September were later killed.
In this movie Spielberg weaves a story around those two basic facts that give us an intense story line of the secret Israeli squad assigned to track down and assassinate all eleven Palestinians to have planned the 1972 Munich massacre of eleven Israeli athletes. The director seems to focus on the personal toll this mission of revenge takes on the team and the man who led it.
My brother had worked as a volunteer at those Olympics so we were close to the tragedy. And it was a horrible tragedy. But knowing of the Mossad, I doubt this is realistic. Also I doubt their chosen agents would be this incompetent. And the sex scenes in the movie serve no purpose as is stated elsewhere. Other then that it is an OK action film. The topic of terrorism and retaliation is as relevant today as it was in 1972.
- Spielberg's bravest film
Spielberg is an unashamed pandering crowd pleaser. Yeah he knows how to make technically good films but he really doesn't know what art is.
Schindler's List you say? Amistad? I don't know who your friends are but I don't know of anyone who isn't against slavery or horrified by the holocaust. Easy. What did you expect him to show the other side of those stories? Actually he could have, Africans sold slaves. Germany was in a gigantic depression.
But this film surprised me. Spielberg knew he was going to take criticism for treating this problem even handedly. He's Jewish after all. He raises questions that are uncomfortable for the good guy/bad guy crowd. So it's no surprise there are a bunch of 1 star reviews. Of course they hate him for questioning right wing dogma. I'm gonna give him a 5 star for being brave. Good for you Steven.
As for the film. I liked it. It's not something I'd want to watch repeatedly, it could use a little editing. It's not a fun film to watch. But it's certainly a good film worth watching at least once and maybe a couple of times. Due to the subject matter I doubt it'll be on TV very often....more info
- Blood feuds are heart breaking and powerful.
The only cure for a blood feud is for present generations, finally, after generations of blood and hate, to freeze their revenge for the sake of the grandchildren. I have heard the Hatfields and McCoys have done this, but it will take a long time for the Middle East to learn this horrible wisdom.
This is a fascinating film in what it has to say about the concerns of blood feuds, justice, revenge, etc. I do also agree with some people that the film is a boring experience.
I despair for our species's future when I think of this film, but somewhere beyond justice, truth, revenge, love of country, love of tribe, there is a bright shining light forming in the distant future which will overcome all human pain and heartbreak and cure our peoples....more info
- "How do you think we got the land, by being nice?"
First let me say that I enjoyed this film. The subject is of great interest to me and despite a few flaws I think the film is overall, much better than many have given it credit for. I watched 'Munich' for the first time quite awhile ago but felt compelled to ofer my analysis after reading the wide-ranging reviews on here. I think it is significant that Spielberg has been accused of being both too pro-Israeli, and too pro-Palestinian/terrorist. I would argue that the majority of these critics on either side are extremists themselves, and are therefore unable to appreciate the film's complexity and OBJECTIVITY. If you see the situation in black and white, then you are not going to be satisfied with the portrayal of events in 'Munich.' With that said, Spielberg himself said that the film is in no way intended to question the morality of Israel's retaliation, but to explore the "unintended consequences" of these actions. Whatever. Personally I thought the film was quite ambiguous, and thus it is not surprising that there are so many contradictory reviews. I will say one subtle but interesting theme that I picked up on; 'Munich' seems to be asking if the Israelis have gotten so caught up in being Israeli, that they have forgotten how to be Jewish.
I thought the acting was good all-around, especially Eric Bana as Avner, Geoffrey Rush as Ephraim, and the underrated Ciaran Hinds as Carl. As with all of Spielberg's films, the cinematography, dialogue, and character development are all excellent. Say what you will about him, Spielberg knows how to make good films. He has the talent for putting nice touches on his films, like the recurring soundtrack of a beating heart in scenes of impending danger here in Munich. All in all, a very suspenseful and action-packed film.
As for the flaws, I agree that it began to drag a bit at the end and probably could have had twenty minutes or so edited out. As for the factual accuracy, I agree that some of the elements (like the French family of information brokers) were a bit of a reach, but as I always say, this is movie, not a documentary, and this did nothing to damage the film's "watchability" in my opinion.
In conclusion, I would rate this film 4 out of 5 stars. Whether it is ambiguity or objectivity, I'm not quite sure, but there is something in 'Munich' for either side of the conflict to take issue with. Personally I think that is a good thing. ...more info
- We have 11 Palestinian names, each one of them had a hand in planning Munich. We want them all dead.
The opening sequence of "Munich" relies heavily on ABC news footage about the murders of Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972. They are the most frightening and harrowing things about this movie, if only because we know that this particular nightmare really did happen. What came after, as documented in the book "Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team," was that the Israeli government decided to covertly kill the men they had identified as having a hand in the Black September assassinations.
From there, "Munich" plods and meanders, striking a poor balance between the dreadful acts of Black September with the emotional/psychological state of Avner (Eric Bana, excellent here) and his cohorts. The dramatizations of the revenge killing do overstate what really happened - according to the book - and a very important endpoint is omitted. Avner is unceremoniously dumped by his employers once he backs away from this assignment; no money, no identity and no proof about what he did. It makes the final blathering about "The Cycle of Violence" ring a little false as Steven Spielberg pulls away from Avner and Ephrain (Geoffrey Rush, also well done in a creepy way) to expose the World Trade Center. "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values," intones Golda Mier as she issues the order to send assassins after the murders. Yet the questions begin to creep in over and over as the Black September organizers fall and are replaced...and Avner discovers that he and maybe his family have become the hunted...where does it end? Avner begins to pull away, bemoaning "Every man we've killed has been replaced by worse!"
Other than the politics of the movie and the personal conflicts - there is a lot of talk about what it means to be a Jew and losing/keeping your soul - "Munich" is supposed to come off as a suspenseful spy flick. The passages between events are too long, the transitions too uncertain, however to maintain that suspense. The drawn out ending adds nothing to the movie, either. Reportedly edited on the fly with shots finalized within two days of shooting in some cases, one wonders what a little more time spent on a judicious edit might have accomplished. Tony Kushner's script is a stilted mess of pretensions and really could have been trimmed back.
It leaves "Munich" as a movie with such potential to tell a story and offer a moral lesson trapped in a moribund film. Speilberg's breif explaining his motivations for "Munich" and wanting not to make a statement about Israel's morality but about the "unintended consequences" of violence at the begining of the DVD actually say more about the movie than the movie does! The horrors of Munich 1972 should not be forgotten, but this isn't the movie that captures why.
- Revenge In All of Its "Glory"
Munich, directed by Stephen Spielberg, is a tale of revenge--its appeal and its final lunacy. It tells the story of the tragic kidnapping/murder of eleven Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympic games in Munich, Germany, and then focuses on the team of Mossad (Israeli secret police) agents who are selected to assassinate Black Septemberist functionaries (the group responsible for Munich) in retribution.
The movie is searing, brutal and difficult to watch. Among Spielberg's work, it has the same sense of uncompromising reality as Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. Technically, this film is well put-together. The acting is strong throughout. The film itself reminds one of a 70's movie, with gritty footage and muted colors. It is appropriate to the subject. Thematically, this movie shows the horrible reality of dreamed-about revenge; how politicians, from on high, make decisions over tea about how we have to "show people we're strong," but how those decisions eventually translate into the ruin of people's lives, some of whom are innocent and some guilty, but always complex. Munich begins by showing us the Munich tragedy, and the audience immediately wants the terrorists responsible to pay. But, by showing us the actual mechanisims of the Israeli revenge (and suggesting that their revenge will simply lead to more Palestinian retribution, which we now know it did), we start to repent of our desire for that revenge. Also, awful though the thought may be, we gain some possible insight into the original Munich terrorists, and even, perhaps, a little sympathy.
This is not Spielberg's finest film, but it is great. Great and heavy and not something I think I will want to watch a second time, because it is just that hard. It is essential viewing once, however, because the historical content and themes are important, present and not likely to leave us any time soon.
- Brilliant link between Munich and 9/11
The final scene brilliantly links the spiral of violence between Munich and 9/11. What is notable is that Palestinian leaders killed were more or less secular while current one are more and more religious. While race and ethnicity are fairly weak identifiers (in one scene a Palestinian leader thought of his assassin to be a Swiss), religion is a definitive one (i.e. either your are a Jew/Muslim or you're against me). What more is that while no 1970's secular Arab terrorist would conceive to use nuclear weapons due to high riks of the mutual assure destruction of his own people, religious terrorist zealots would not hesitate using them since their absolute belief in a Muslim Paradise makes nuclear holocaust irrelevant to the well-being of true Muslims. ...more info
- No es venganza, es castigo
Mas all¨¢ de la pol¨¦mica de que tan real es lo que se muestra en la pel¨ªcula, lo m¨¢s importante es lo que esta transmite, el sentimiento y la determinaci¨®n de un pueblo que pelea por subsistir y el mensaje que le da al mundo de que nunca mas se va a dejar exterminar....more info
- Exceeded Expectations
This is a fine movie, one of the Steven Spielberg's best efforts. Yes, he gets a little preachy in the end but overall, this is enjoyable and top-notch film-making.
Even though this had some violent moments, what impressed me was the restraint not to overdo the violence. I thought there was just the right amount. Being a long movie at two hours, 45 minutes, too much action would have worn out the viewer and too little would bore he/she.
It also was fascinating to me as almost a travelogue, seeing a lot of different cities around the world, following this team of Israelis as they track down and kill many of the men responsible for murdering hostages in the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich.
That's the story of this film: not what happened at the Olympics, but how the Israelis tracked down the killers/terrorists afterward.
Some of the violence is room-shaking if you have good speakers as a few of the explosions felt like it made my room shake when they went off! However much of the film deals not with that but with the men involved and how this mission affected them. In the end, Spielberg gives us a chance to reflect on a big question: how do you respond to terrorist attacks? Basically, it is his view vs. how Israel responds. (Israel wasn't real pleased with this film, and I understand that. I think they are right, but I still love the film.)
The movie is well-acted and has a story that will keep most people very involved while watching it. We plunk our dollars down to get entertained....and this movie delivers. Highly recommended. ...more info
- Over produced. Bad acting. Questionable direction. Poor camera work.
I almost gave up on watching this movie. After three tries I finally watched the whole movie. The story line and historicity are fairly accurate. However the acting is very poor. My guess is in trying to incorporate an aura of mystery and secrecy into the scenes the producer went way overboard. The viewer is often left with shadowy scenes, mumbling dialogue and disjointed melodrama. I was surprised that this was put out by Speilberg whose direction and movies I thoroughly enjoy - except this one. ...more info