criterionforum.org

It will be interesting to see how he works a cheesy ending into this one.

In the tragic aftermath of the 1972 Munich Olympics, a Mossad agent (Bana) tracks Palestinian terrorists who assassinated Israeli athletes.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408306/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_(film)

Jem wrote:It will be interesting to see how he works a cheesy ending into this one.

Easy. It'll be all about the central character's 'personal growth' (with some hostages in the background). No doubt the bloodbath will bring him closer to his kids / estranged father / poodle.

Is it just me or when you think of the 1970s PLA movement, isn't the first thing that comes to your head Steven Spielberg?

Let me guess, the Palestinians are the Martians right?

sounds like a stinker, Id rather he did a movie about the two figure skaters what's there names, the one that hired the man to hit the other in the legs with a baseball bat. That would be a sweet spielberg movie.

the trailer is up

http://www.munichmovie.com/munich_trlr1_300k.mov

I am SHOCKED Spielberg is tackling this. I mean, in this day and age, isn't he afraid of some fatwa being issued against him? It's insane that he, of all people, would take this on. I'm VERY interested in how this will all play out.

Spielberg may seem to be a sell out, but frankly he's always done things his way. He may have defined what Hollywood was to become twenty, thirty years ago, but now he's nothing like what Hollywood is in its current state, at least not from my perspective. Sure, his films have hopeful and often sappy endings, but as A.O. Scott put it in his review of "War of the Worlds" the guy is at least incapable of making a bad film, and a lot of his films in recent years have actually been quite good, especially "AI", "Minority Report", "The Terminal" and "Catch Me if You Can". Frankly, I think "The Terminal" may even be his best movie ever. It is certainly his most interesting. He's not stupid Spielberg, and I think that though he is pragmatic he does not shy away from taking risks. He just most of the time doesn't have to. "Munich" might be quite interesting.

By the looks of it, Spielberg should be more worried about Israel's response. He doesn't appear to be championing the wholesale assassination of its enemies, probably not a popular view in the government.

Okay, so all our reservations about Spielberg set aside, how do people feel about Kushner having written the screenplay. This fact if anything has me more excited for this Spielberg film than any in a longtime. I hear as well that Eric Roth contributed some too. I respect both a great deal, and perhaps even a little more in their respective field than Spielberg.

che-etienne wrote:Okay, so all our reservations about Spielberg set aside, how do people feel about Kushner having written the screenplay. This fact if anything has me more excited for this Spielberg film than any in a longtime. I hear as well that Eric Roth contributed some too. I respect both a great deal, and perhaps even a little more in their respective field than Spielberg.

I also admire the fact that Spielberg is quietly releasing the movie (as quietly as you can for a major release), refusing to do the media blitz of talks shows, etc. The studio must be pissed 'cos I'm sure they want to hype it up for the Oscars.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:

che-etienne wrote:Okay, so all our reservations about Spielberg set aside, how do people feel about Kushner having written the screenplay. This fact if anything has me more excited for this Spielberg film than any in a longtime. I hear as well that Eric Roth contributed some too. I respect both a great deal, and perhaps even a little more in their respective field than Spielberg.

I also admire the fact that Spielberg is quietly releasing the movie (as quietly as you can for a major release), refusing to do the media blitz of talks shows, etc. The studio must be pissed 'cos I'm sure they want to hype it up for the Oscars.

I'm sure this film will get plenty of Oscar hype. I feel like talk shows really only help ticket sales.

At this point in his career, Spielberg pretty much knows the ins and outs of marketing better than most people in the business, but I believe the core reason why his films are successful is that very few of them have been absolutely unwatchable, and most have been good. Of course, it depends on how you define good, and even though I usually set my standards a little higher, I'll put it this way: they are good in that they are entertaining and display meticulous production value. As A.O. Scott put it, "Wars of the Worlds" showed that even though Spielberg often doesn't make great or even good movies, he's almost "constitutionally incapable of bad moviemaking." I think Spielberg has always wanted to just make 'good' movies, meaning entertaining popcorn fare, and he continues to do so. What I am interested in here is that he has changed his tactics a little. As I said, yes, Spielberg knows the marketing aspect of Hollywood well, and he's aiming for a big hit, but I also think that as this is contrary to his usual behavior before a film release, and since he's clearly rushing it out for the oscars, that there's something different about this one. Perhaps he thinks it could be one of his best, or perhaps this time he actually wants his film to come out and make a statement or start a conversation. Though I doubt that much will actually happen, I'm still hopeful. The air has been thick with political films from Syrianna, to Jarhead, to Fahrenheit 9/11, and this one may be no different in its effectiveness. Still, it's an interesting story, and Geoffrey Rush, Eric Bana, and Tony Kushner aren't exactly just typical Hollywood names. They're all a little more qualified than that. Well... we'll see.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:

che-etienne wrote:Okay, so all our reservations about Spielberg set aside, how do people feel about Kushner having written the screenplay. This fact if anything has me more excited for this Spielberg film than any in a longtime. I hear as well that Eric Roth contributed some too. I respect both a great deal, and perhaps even a little more in their respective field than Spielberg.

I also admire the fact that Spielberg is quietly releasing the movie (as quietly as you can for a major release), refusing to do the media blitz of talks shows, etc. The studio must be pissed 'cos I'm sure they want to hype it up for the Oscars.

They can, and will. Played at Tribeca Cinemas on Sunday, so it's cleared for Oscar campaigning.

Fears of a Fatwa are as nothing compared to what Spielberg's had to put up with in recent years by way of a stalker who proclaimed he was going to kidnap, rape and torture the filmmaker.

When we honored him a few years back at the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, the hotel where the ceremony took place was covered stem to stern in Spielberg's "security." They HAD to be there, because the nutcase in question (and I'm not entirely sure he was ever caught) was dead serious about his plans -- the details of which are utterly terrifying.

I'm seeing "Munich" tonight and will report back.

Well I saw it. And I'm not at all pleased. Munich is one long, hard cynically horrific slog. It's repellent, with nothing for a "mainstream" audience to "root for" and little to think about re political insight -- which it has literally none, despite pretenses to the contrary. Shot in ugly desaturated color (this device has surely hit the wall here) and with a script credited to two people, one of whom is Tony Kushner, it plays out like an inflated remake of Hitchcock's worst movie, Topaz. It even has one of the stars of that ill-fated thriller -- Michel Lonsdale -- on board.

Eric Banna (who bear a distracting resemblance to Maxwell Caulfield) stars a s young, upstanding Israeli picked to head mission to kill those responsible for the Olympic Village massacre of Israeli atheletes in Munich in 1972. He is given a group (including the new James Bond, Danile Craig) a Swiss bank account and told to get cracking. A French nihilist (Mathieu Almeric of Kings and Queens) keeps giving him information on where the bad guys are and our hero and his group go about shooting and bombing them. No real suspense here, but lots of disgusting stuff, particularly a scene in which a very beautiful, stark naked female assassin is killed, and a climax in which a flashback (from no one's POV) to the climax of the massacre that started it all is intercut with our hero having sex with his wife (a hail of gunfire as he comes) has to qualify as the most needlessly distasteful scene I've seen in years.

Spielberg's going to have a ton of 'splainin to do to his rabbi.

Frankly, I can't reccomend this film to anyone for any reason. It's truly depressing to see Spielberg unravel like this.

There's always gunfire during straight sex.

It all leads back to his parent's divorce. It lead him into being an assassin.

Finally got to see it last night. This is by far Spielberg's best, most adult and unsentimental film to date. It zips by with a cool mechanical precision like one of those old Frankenheimer procedural/policier/terrorist flicks, injected with a heavy of dose of ethical angst. (maybe the appearance of Michael Lonsdale makes me think that) A scene where Avner tears apart his room nicely recalls the ending of The Conversation.

Just fact that Spielberg would make a film that portrays Palestinians as human rather than monsters, and then let one speak their point of view about Israel makes this his most politically radical film to date. Tony Kushner co-edited a book of essays called Wrestling with Zion that makes an interesting reading companion to the film. Even though I like the rough-edged Syriana better, I'll still see Munich again -- and recommend it to all my friends and family who enjoy being challenged enough by a film to talk about it afterwards...

Some guy made up a list of film ideas for Spielberg that is quite entertaining: Beyond "Munich": The Ten Movies Steven Spielberg Has Yet To Make.

(maybe the appearance of Michael Lonsdale makes me think that)

Lonsdale's appearance made me think of India Song

Even though I like the rough-edged Syriana better, I'll still see Munich again

Munich isn't HALF the film that Syrianna is .

As for that link, if Spielberg wants to make a film about the Sabra/Chantilla massacre (which I doubt) he would do well to consult Jean Genet's eyewitness account of its aftermath.

Did you just change your opinion of Munich... or is your opinion of Syriana just even lower? Because, I guess either way I agree with you.

Anyway, I have at the moment mixed feelings about Munich. Not really because of the film I think, but more because I think I was too tired at the time I saw it to take it in completely. That film went by for me at an incredible pace, and only really slacked off at the end. I can say for now that it is Spielberg's bravest film for sure, but whether or not it is for the most part a success... well I have to see the film again to consider that one. Most of all, I thought the ending scene was written and acted quite well in retrospect, but it was latched on to the rest of the movie I felt in an awkward way. Still, I will consider this again, and hopefully after I see it a second time I will be able to put out a more sure opinion.

Regardless, it's tentatively holding a place at the top of my list of films for the year.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Lonsdale's appearance made me think of India Song

Sadly I have not had the chance to see this yet, nor any the films Duras directed herself. Sucks. (have read the script published by Grove though)

David Ehrenstein wrote:... if Spielberg wants to make a film about the Sabra/Chantilla massacre (which I doubt) he would do well to consult Jean Genet's eyewitness account of its aftermath.

Laughed out loud trying to imagine Spielberg reading Genet's last book Prisoner of Love. (in case people are wondering what David is referring to) Who knows -- maybe he would, or has? Oddly enough, Un captif amoureux has been adapted for the stage in Paris, playing again next month.

Saw this the past weekend. Cannot help but compare it to "Geisha". Although "Geisha" is just a piece of trash, "Munich" is very enjoyable during the first and last 30 min. My wife and I were expecting that Steven would make such a point at the end of the show, but we still felt that this is a powerful motion picture. Definitely on my list for top 10 movies of the year.

My major problem with the movie is that in the middle when the killing gets repetitive and boring, Spielberg has to resort to flashbacks to motivate Bana's character and justify his actions. He could have done better and it looks a little bit "cheap" to me.

Stuart Klawans, reminding me of the days in the late 80's-early 90's when I hung on his every word, wrote a solid review of it in this week's issue of The Nation. Apparently, Steve decided to bring his gifts to bear totally on this.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060109/klawans

(Incidentally, as much as he often pisses me off with his work, I always find it at least worthy. I regret his relying on treacle when he could obviously do so much more. This sets him apart from, say, Ron Howard who apparently can't do anything else and certainly shows no signs of ever wanting to.)

the spielberg hate is pretty pathetic, though i suppose it's to be expected in an elitist clubhouse such as this

despite a few missteps (the intercutting of the sex scene with the hostage killings), this is a marvelous movie

schindler's list, despite one or two cheesy moments (with this ring...one more person), is also a great film (though in rather different ways)

and you know what? catch me if you can was a fun, energetic flick that was one of 2002's best