minority report was great too!
and don't get me started on E.T., Jaws, and Close Encounters
Munich (Steven Spielberg, 2005)
-
Galen Young
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:46 am
The co-screenwriter of Munich Tony Kushner talked about the film yesterday on NPR; he has an interesting perspective on the story and working with Spielberg.
-
Polybius
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:57 am
- Location: Rollin' down Highway 41
Well, I've been critical of him in the past, occasionally bitterly, but a lot of it's because I hate to see him misuse his extraordinary gifts. When Ron Howard, Verhoven or Lucas (or any other hack you want to name) makes shitty movies, I expect it. It pains me when Steve comes up short of what I know he can accomplish.Moniker Jones wrote:the spielberg hate is pretty pathetic, though i suppose it's to be expected in an elitist clubhouse such as this
-
tryavna
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
- Location: North Carolina
I have, however, always respected Verhoeven for being honest enough to admit that he's squandered his talents as a filmmaker since he "went Hollywood." And of course, his superb Soldier of Orange goes a long way towards excusing whatever crap he's produced since then -- in my opinion, that's the best movie that any of these four directors has made.Polybius wrote:When Ron Howard, Verhoven or Lucas (or any other hack you want to name) makes shitty movies, I expect it.
-
Roger_Thornhill
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:35 am
Verhoeven is not a hack.Polybius wrote:Well, I've been critical of him in the past, occasionally bitterly, but a lot of it's because I hate to see him misuse his extraordinary gifts. When Ron Howard, Verhoven or Lucas (or any other hack you want to name) makes shitty movies, I expect it. It pains me when Steve comes up short of what I know he can accomplish.Moniker Jones wrote:the spielberg hate is pretty pathetic, though i suppose it's to be expected in an elitist clubhouse such as this
-
Galen Young
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:46 am
Roger_Thornhill wrote:Verhoeven is not a hack.
Thank you. Verhoeven is most definitely not a hack.
But isn't this thread about Munich? Apparently George Jonas, author of the book Vengeance that Munich is based on rips Spielberg a new one in Macleans magazine, a tidbit of which can be seen here. I'll have to go hunt this one down on the newsstand -- has anyone here read it by chance?
-
dx23
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:52 am
- Location: Puerto Rico
I saw this film last night and can honestly say that it is very good. I was dissapointed with War of the Worlds and had low expectations for Munich, but the film is really good.
The ending in Munich is something that I expected, since it is the hot topic when people talk about terrorism , but it was much appropiate, since it sends the clear message that terrorism is a vicious circle that is not going to stop and will continue for years and years to come. For some funny reason, the endings of most Spielberg films remind me of the educational messages at the end of each He-Man episode.It will be interesting to see how he works a cheesy ending into this one
-
Polybius
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:57 am
- Location: Rollin' down Highway 41
dx23 wrote: For some funny reason, the endings of most Spielberg films remind me of the educational messages at the end of each He-Man episode.
The simple lack of someone to tell him to resist that temptation. Sometimes it's appropriate, but sometimes it isn't and he often shoehorns one in, whether it fits or not.
(Parenthetically, I've always found the ending to the greivously underrated Amistad to be rather melancholy, which is in keeping with the facts of the story.)
-
Andre Jurieu
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:38 pm
- Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)
-
Galen Young
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:46 am
The Spielberg massacre by George Jonas is now available for free on his own website. He paints an interesting peek behind the curtain of Munich.
-
Oedipax
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:48 pm
- Location: Atlanta
-
cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
-
hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:22 am
- Location: NYC
I have not seen this picture, but I thought this article may interest some (published today/yesterday, depending on where you are):
BERLIN (AFP) - Steven Spielberg hit back at critics of his latest film "Munich" about the targeted killing of Palestinians behind the massacre of Israelis during the 1972 Olympics, in an interview to be published Monday ahead of the picture's German and Israeli release.
Spielberg, 59, told German news weekly Der Spiegel that "Munich" aims to reclaim the debate about the moral costs of the struggle against terror from "extremists" and engage moderate forces in the West and the Middle East.
"Should you leave the debate to the great over-simplifiers? The extreme Jews and extreme Palestinians who consider any kind of negotiated settlement to be a kind of treason?" he said in remarks printed in German.
"I wanted to use the medium of film to make the audience have a very intimate confrontation with a subject that they generally only know about in an abstract way, or only see in a one-sided way."
"Munich", which hit US screens last month, depicts an Israeli campaign to hunt down and kill Palestinian radicals behind the hostage-taking of Israeli athletes and coaches during the Munich Olympics.
The drama ended in a massacre: 11 Israelis, five Palestinians and one German police officer were killed.
The film, which will be released in Israel and Germany this week, looks at the psychological and moral toll the assassinations took on the Israeli agents. It is billed as "inspired by real events" to deflect criticism about its historical accuracy.
"Munich" was blasted by some US Jewish commentators who accused Spielberg of equating the Israeli assassins with the Palestinian militants.
Spielberg dismissed the charges as "nonsense".
"These critics are acting as if we were all missing a moral compass. Of course it is a horrible, abominable crime when people are taken hostage and killed like in Munich," he said.
"But it does not excuse the act when you ask what the motives of the perpetrators were and show that they were also individuals with families and a history.... Understanding does not mean forgiving. Understanding does not mean being soft, it is a courageous and strong stance."
BERLIN (AFP) - Steven Spielberg hit back at critics of his latest film "Munich" about the targeted killing of Palestinians behind the massacre of Israelis during the 1972 Olympics, in an interview to be published Monday ahead of the picture's German and Israeli release.
Spielberg, 59, told German news weekly Der Spiegel that "Munich" aims to reclaim the debate about the moral costs of the struggle against terror from "extremists" and engage moderate forces in the West and the Middle East.
"Should you leave the debate to the great over-simplifiers? The extreme Jews and extreme Palestinians who consider any kind of negotiated settlement to be a kind of treason?" he said in remarks printed in German.
"I wanted to use the medium of film to make the audience have a very intimate confrontation with a subject that they generally only know about in an abstract way, or only see in a one-sided way."
"Munich", which hit US screens last month, depicts an Israeli campaign to hunt down and kill Palestinian radicals behind the hostage-taking of Israeli athletes and coaches during the Munich Olympics.
The drama ended in a massacre: 11 Israelis, five Palestinians and one German police officer were killed.
The film, which will be released in Israel and Germany this week, looks at the psychological and moral toll the assassinations took on the Israeli agents. It is billed as "inspired by real events" to deflect criticism about its historical accuracy.
"Munich" was blasted by some US Jewish commentators who accused Spielberg of equating the Israeli assassins with the Palestinian militants.
Spielberg dismissed the charges as "nonsense".
"These critics are acting as if we were all missing a moral compass. Of course it is a horrible, abominable crime when people are taken hostage and killed like in Munich," he said.
"But it does not excuse the act when you ask what the motives of the perpetrators were and show that they were also individuals with families and a history.... Understanding does not mean forgiving. Understanding does not mean being soft, it is a courageous and strong stance."
-
ogtec
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:13 am
Robert Fisk, the Middle-East correspondent for The Independent (London) had an interesting review of this on Saturday. He has some quibbles, the intercutting mentioned earlier is one, but the point of his article is that "[...] Spielberg's movie has crossed a fundamental roadway in Hollywood's treatment of the Middle East conflict. For the first time, we see Israel's top spies and killers not only questioning their role as avengers but actually deciding that an “eye for an eyeâ€
-
Galen Young
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:46 am
ogtec wrote:The piece at the Independent's site is a pay-article, but you can find the full review HERE. Be warned though, the only free link I could find is on al-jazeerah's website, so don't click if you're uncomfortable with that (or work somewhere where they might take a dim view of such a site being accessed, for whatever reason).
Thanks for the link, that's great. (and that website isn't actually the Aljazeera TV network, as mentioned on their contact page.) (if that was what you were referring to!)
Tony Kushner had an article about Munich published yesterday in the LA Times.
-
che-etienne
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:18 pm
Spoilers below:
I have just re-viewed "Munich", and I have to say it got better for me the second time. The first time I saw the film, I was quite tired and disoriented I think, but still the movie felt disjointed and bloated in of itself. Also, the final sex scene was as others have noted a little ridiculous I think. Though I liked the idea of the scene and the scene's end where she covers his eyes and says I love you, the scene as a whole is just cinematically awkward no matter how haunting its imagery.
I believe "Munich" really got dealt a fairly bad hand here. It seems not many people will see it, and that unlike for example "The New World" this film won't exactly have a cult following. To me, it is one of the best films of the year and probably the most underrated. Time will tell. So now to the elements of "Munich":
As to the music, John William's score for this one is wonderfully subdued , and Spielberg to his credit uses it very sparingly. Here Williams was quite uncompromising as well. I think that perhaps it's his first dissonant sounding score in a while. The arabic and hebrew motifs he uses of course add to the film's texture, but they also give the film a harsher, less-fluid, and quite despairing tone.
Technique wise, Spielberg is pretty much at his most virtuosic here. Long tracking shots that economise the narrative giving it a slick fluidity, coupled however with a disturbing color scheme that dwells on eery blues and greens, and includes sharp splashes of color for a surreal disorienting and frighteningly beautiful affect, a great use of reflections (off of mirrors, cars, windows etc.), exaggerated angles, and a camera that moves as swiftly and yet unsteadily as the films protagonists. Its first-class thriller material and the sense of paranoia that it creates as the film plows on is quite acute.
This however is one of the film's problems. It plows on. Even on a second viewing I think it might've done good losing a little snippet here or snippet there. Then again, the second viewing also pretty much confirmed for me how really economical Spielberg is both as a stylist and filmmaker. He shot and edited this film in something like 6 months, and the film though it plods at times doesn't seem to have left much room for cutting. I'm not sure how much you would've been able to lose before the film lost its pull.
Scriptwise, this film is I think one of Spielberg's best. The dialogue is all excellent; Golda Meir, Avner's mother, Louis and Papa stick out especially as wonderfully written and wonderfully characterized. In this film, Spielberg makes humans out of everyone, and really though the film is full of almost overly-poppy period detail, it is I think Spielberg's most human and naturalistic film yet. The narrative structure (though as I said... it plods at points) forges a convincing downward spiral, and as matters for the Mossad team become more and more desperate, the character dynamics fall apart convincingly and efficiently. When Avner returns home and the film goes into its final act, the lingering sense of paranoia and guilt follows with him and permeates the movie's remaining scenes. As Dargis of the Times put it, this is Spielberg's "most tormented" work.
So all in all, I really enjoyed the movie. Technically masterful, and emotionally powerful, it is a thriller, but a literary one. I think perhaps the film's greatest flaw is that the visual style of the film does not reflect the narrative's own ambiguities as consistently as it might, and instead much of the film's ideas are conveyed through dialogue, most of which as I said is excellent. There are of course a few notable exceptions with the dialogue like the scene where Louis says to Avner "you can have a kitchen like that someday" etc. After a while the surmonizing about family gets a little tired and one wishes Spielberg had saved some of it so that when Avner returns (in my opinion the best scene in the movie) and sees his daughter for the first time since her birth we would be left with only that child's face and not all those bothersome words that preceded it.
Still, a film that is literary is not necessarilly a bad thing. The caliber of the writing in this year's Hollywood batch has been surprisingly high "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Munich" sticking out above all. It is really a credit to the filmmakers of these movies that they are seeking to raise the level of debate in this country. So I say, though uneven at times and didactic at others, this is a Spielberg film that seeks to find and for the most part does a common voice crying out against violence that breeds violence, but also it is a film that weighs with considerable depth the conflict within us all between our devotion to our family and our devotion to our country, and our devotion to our country and our devotion to all mankind. And so I close with a quote from the movie: "We can do business, but you're not family" - perhaps its most telling line
Comments please. Whether you agree or disagree, please voice your opinions!
I have just re-viewed "Munich", and I have to say it got better for me the second time. The first time I saw the film, I was quite tired and disoriented I think, but still the movie felt disjointed and bloated in of itself. Also, the final sex scene was as others have noted a little ridiculous I think. Though I liked the idea of the scene and the scene's end where she covers his eyes and says I love you, the scene as a whole is just cinematically awkward no matter how haunting its imagery.
I believe "Munich" really got dealt a fairly bad hand here. It seems not many people will see it, and that unlike for example "The New World" this film won't exactly have a cult following. To me, it is one of the best films of the year and probably the most underrated. Time will tell. So now to the elements of "Munich":
As to the music, John William's score for this one is wonderfully subdued , and Spielberg to his credit uses it very sparingly. Here Williams was quite uncompromising as well. I think that perhaps it's his first dissonant sounding score in a while. The arabic and hebrew motifs he uses of course add to the film's texture, but they also give the film a harsher, less-fluid, and quite despairing tone.
Technique wise, Spielberg is pretty much at his most virtuosic here. Long tracking shots that economise the narrative giving it a slick fluidity, coupled however with a disturbing color scheme that dwells on eery blues and greens, and includes sharp splashes of color for a surreal disorienting and frighteningly beautiful affect, a great use of reflections (off of mirrors, cars, windows etc.), exaggerated angles, and a camera that moves as swiftly and yet unsteadily as the films protagonists. Its first-class thriller material and the sense of paranoia that it creates as the film plows on is quite acute.
This however is one of the film's problems. It plows on. Even on a second viewing I think it might've done good losing a little snippet here or snippet there. Then again, the second viewing also pretty much confirmed for me how really economical Spielberg is both as a stylist and filmmaker. He shot and edited this film in something like 6 months, and the film though it plods at times doesn't seem to have left much room for cutting. I'm not sure how much you would've been able to lose before the film lost its pull.
Scriptwise, this film is I think one of Spielberg's best. The dialogue is all excellent; Golda Meir, Avner's mother, Louis and Papa stick out especially as wonderfully written and wonderfully characterized. In this film, Spielberg makes humans out of everyone, and really though the film is full of almost overly-poppy period detail, it is I think Spielberg's most human and naturalistic film yet. The narrative structure (though as I said... it plods at points) forges a convincing downward spiral, and as matters for the Mossad team become more and more desperate, the character dynamics fall apart convincingly and efficiently. When Avner returns home and the film goes into its final act, the lingering sense of paranoia and guilt follows with him and permeates the movie's remaining scenes. As Dargis of the Times put it, this is Spielberg's "most tormented" work.
So all in all, I really enjoyed the movie. Technically masterful, and emotionally powerful, it is a thriller, but a literary one. I think perhaps the film's greatest flaw is that the visual style of the film does not reflect the narrative's own ambiguities as consistently as it might, and instead much of the film's ideas are conveyed through dialogue, most of which as I said is excellent. There are of course a few notable exceptions with the dialogue like the scene where Louis says to Avner "you can have a kitchen like that someday" etc. After a while the surmonizing about family gets a little tired and one wishes Spielberg had saved some of it so that when Avner returns (in my opinion the best scene in the movie) and sees his daughter for the first time since her birth we would be left with only that child's face and not all those bothersome words that preceded it.
Still, a film that is literary is not necessarilly a bad thing. The caliber of the writing in this year's Hollywood batch has been surprisingly high "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Munich" sticking out above all. It is really a credit to the filmmakers of these movies that they are seeking to raise the level of debate in this country. So I say, though uneven at times and didactic at others, this is a Spielberg film that seeks to find and for the most part does a common voice crying out against violence that breeds violence, but also it is a film that weighs with considerable depth the conflict within us all between our devotion to our family and our devotion to our country, and our devotion to our country and our devotion to all mankind. And so I close with a quote from the movie: "We can do business, but you're not family" - perhaps its most telling line
Comments please. Whether you agree or disagree, please voice your opinions!
-
Len
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:48 pm
- Location: Finland
I thought it was overall kinda bad. It started out with one of Spielberg's greatest scenes ever (that whole Munich massacre montage was almost amazing) and from there on, it seemed to work for quite awhile. But at some point, maybe during the big raid (which, unless I remember totally wrong, was pretty heavily sanitized. The Israelis gunned down a group of normal cops, not Fedayeen fighters), it starts coming apart. The scenes in France with the old man and his family are good, but overall the film starts to lose momentum after too many scenes that underline that Spielberg is making an Important film. There's just way too much reminding that the assasinations are taking their toll on the characters and that no one is innocent in this. And it's just too long, considering how much unnecessary material is included.
I think if someone had sat down with the script prior to shooting and cut out about 1/4th of it, Munich could've been considerably better, and definately amongst Spielberg's greatest works.
Especially if they had left out that final sex scene. I think that one has a shot at going straight into the 'top ten worst sex scenes ever'-list. It was just horrible and way too hilarious. What the hell was Spielberg thinking there? I'm guessing it was supposed to be really dramatic and haunting, but I couldn't keep myself from laughing when Bana's orgasm is intercut with the palestinian terrorist shooting the israeli athletes.
However, having said all that negative stuff, I have to admit I liked alot of the stuff in Munich. Bana and the rest of the actors were great, and like che-etienne said, the dialogue was pretty impressive. Looking back at the film, I'm almost surprised I disliked it as much as I did. It certainly has some excellent writing (the smaller storyline with the dutch assasin was great and suitably brutal) and in many ways, it's an accomplished film. But for me, the end result just suffers too much from Spielberg's tendency to underline all the important issues in the film, and at worst it feels terribly artificial (the aforementioned horrid sex scene and as another example, the scene in rome where Bana almost befriends a terrorist).
I think if someone had sat down with the script prior to shooting and cut out about 1/4th of it, Munich could've been considerably better, and definately amongst Spielberg's greatest works.
Especially if they had left out that final sex scene. I think that one has a shot at going straight into the 'top ten worst sex scenes ever'-list. It was just horrible and way too hilarious. What the hell was Spielberg thinking there? I'm guessing it was supposed to be really dramatic and haunting, but I couldn't keep myself from laughing when Bana's orgasm is intercut with the palestinian terrorist shooting the israeli athletes.
However, having said all that negative stuff, I have to admit I liked alot of the stuff in Munich. Bana and the rest of the actors were great, and like che-etienne said, the dialogue was pretty impressive. Looking back at the film, I'm almost surprised I disliked it as much as I did. It certainly has some excellent writing (the smaller storyline with the dutch assasin was great and suitably brutal) and in many ways, it's an accomplished film. But for me, the end result just suffers too much from Spielberg's tendency to underline all the important issues in the film, and at worst it feels terribly artificial (the aforementioned horrid sex scene and as another example, the scene in rome where Bana almost befriends a terrorist).
-
Dylan
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:28 am
"Munich" has resonated well with me over the past two days. It does strike me in many ways as a more brutal and political take on "The Untouchables" (also quite a good film, though I may like "Munich" more). Did anybody else make this connection?
As far as the advent of the Hollywood blockbuster, I agree that the late 1950s to the late 1970s (I'd go up to 1980, personally) were the peak of cinema, which was in part due to shake-ups in the industry, as well as new freedoms in the culture, and this wasn't just in Hollywood, this was all over the world.
As far as the advent of the Hollywood blockbuster, I agree that the late 1950s to the late 1970s (I'd go up to 1980, personally) were the peak of cinema, which was in part due to shake-ups in the industry, as well as new freedoms in the culture, and this wasn't just in Hollywood, this was all over the world.
Last edited by Dylan on Sat May 20, 2006 5:51 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
jcelwin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:09 pm
Theres nothing wrong with being a 'money-maker', and this doesn't make them less of artists. However, crap films like 'Munich' do.
Spielberg is becoming worse as he gets older. He doesn't even make films anymore, he just shoots scenes and places them together. What a ignorant, exploitative, and horribly made piece of shit this film is. I have no idea how people would want to buy the dvd.
Spielberg is becoming worse as he gets older. He doesn't even make films anymore, he just shoots scenes and places them together. What a ignorant, exploitative, and horribly made piece of shit this film is. I have no idea how people would want to buy the dvd.
-
HerrSchreck
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:46 pm
I haven't seen MUNICH, but Spielberg is suffering from what a lot of late 20th/early-21st Century "legends" like Scorcese, Coppola, actors like DeNiro & Pacino are suffering from. I hesitate to place Spielberg in that particular company, but the man did indeed know how to make an extremely viscerally satisfying piece of Date Entertainment. Anyone who could go thru the head trip of having made JAWS, ET, the I JONES pictures, et al, then come on with SCHINDLER'S LIST (which, despite it's causing Mme Schinder to retch into a bucket via the gross historical warping & oversimplifications, is still a very beautiful film) deserved some credit. That stupid ending still waters me up every time.jcelwin wrote:Theres nothing wrong with being a 'money-maker', and this doesn't make them less of artists. However, crap films like 'Munich' do.
Spielberg is becoming worse as he gets older. He doesn't even make films anymore, he just shoots scenes and places them together. What a ignorant, exploitative, and horribly made piece of shit this film is. I have no idea how people would want to buy the dvd.
This species of director is just sooooo unbelievably wealthy today versus the "legendary" director of yesteryear. These guys are soaking up such a radical extreme of corporate power, adulation, and extreme reaches of weathy living that they are losing all contact with the grinding reality, to which they had at first exhibited some form of unique sensitivity.. which, once gone, is very difficult to reclaim. Maintaining contact with Real Life is turning into an extreme challenge, and I have no idea what is required to be able to digest this kind of unimaginable superwealth combined with superpower & adulation and stay in contact with the full spectrum of human experience and humanity(it really is unbelievable the world these guys live in, you almost need to witness it firsthand to understand it and believe it. It's like the difference between the plains of Mars and the Brazilian rain forest).
Talking straight, yes absolutely this is something all showbiz people have and had to deal with-- they always made more money than most folks. But despite some very glaring blanket industrial-financial changes ramping the income of most 'stars' I'm talking about a very small quantity of Power-Legend. You'll know them immediately because they rarely sit down for an onscreen interview by even the most veteran host without the blushing host crawling over the desk and flopping onto his guest's lap begging to have his hair played with.
Today it's truly amazing. These guys have such coorporate authority, are big big big de facto execs of multiple multi-million dollar operations with each film; there are so many more films & filmmakers today, so many more film companies and film distributors, so many more imitative television stations with movielike shows and made for tv movies, so many more people trying to do what they do and importuning them for help and pouring adulation & worship all over them. They consciously sit at the very top of a heap which is almost unimagineable in it's scope versus the filmmaking human of even thirty years ago. It takes quite a human being not to marvel at himself to such an ongoing degree whereby it slowly but surely sinks it's hooks into the personality so that the classic writer's/directors/painters-block triggering element comes into play in these guy's cases to an astronomical degree where they say to themselves while getting ready to sit down & work "The world is holding it's breath because I Stephen Spielberg am going to sit down to work." Each one of these guy's films kick into effect multiple, previously nonexistent directly-connected corporate operation involving in-house TV-show properties, print material, radio spots, cable "making of" specials, merchandising & licensing of toys which back in the 70's would never have been invested in unless the property turned out to be a total phenomenon with children after the fact ( a la PLANET OF THE APES)... never before the fact. Some of these films make in profit over one year what the vast number of corporate concerns make in a decade. The head trip these guys go on nowadays is just unbelievable.
Part of the problem obviously is that, the self-consciousness (either in paranoia mode or self--worshipping mode) may result in a need for more time which is very difficult to grant as there are so many corporate triggers waiting to be pulled on the film's release. Bingo! automatic bad/ rushed/ something-not-right film from an otherwise sensible director.
The more one sees and digests about the world these to-tier guys inhabit, the more props I give to a dude like Gus Van Sant-- my Last Days criticisms aside-- for hanging on to his mind, his identity, and all the real-world real-deal things the made him who he is in the first place, despite the long Hollywood odds. Gus is at the point where he has enough truly special & rare work under his belt that he could easily slide over into that supercorporate world of money & ego. It's a tribute to his principles that he still is who he is.
-
Roger_Thornhill
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:35 am
I have to say that I was impressed by Munich. In many ways I thought it was a return to form for Spielberg considering his last few pictures. I was bored by The Terminal and War of the Worlds was for the most part unsatisfying - especially that awful denouement. However, Munich reminded me of the old Spielberg, except with a bit of politics thrown into the mix. It moves effortlessly from one location to another and it's set pieces are both terrifying and riveting. As far as the historical accuracy question goes - it doesn't bother me. I know most Hollywood movies are not accurate historically, so I had no illusions about Munich being any more accurate than say Amistad. And, as we all know, Spielberg has said that he knew he had to make up a lot of it for lack of access to the Israeli classified docs.
One problem I had with the film is that oftentimes the politics of it trump the plausibility of the narrative. For example, the sequence where the PLO guys are staying at the same safe house as the Israeli assassins. I mean, come on, there's no way that would happen and it's clearly just lazy writing on the part of Kushner and Spielberg. They wanted to give the Palestinians a chance to explain themselves, which is fine, but in such a contrived and awkward manner?
One problem I had with the film is that oftentimes the politics of it trump the plausibility of the narrative. For example, the sequence where the PLO guys are staying at the same safe house as the Israeli assassins. I mean, come on, there's no way that would happen and it's clearly just lazy writing on the part of Kushner and Spielberg. They wanted to give the Palestinians a chance to explain themselves, which is fine, but in such a contrived and awkward manner?