Munich

[Deleted]

All I'm saying is that, for me (and for a lot of people, judging by BO and reviews), the movie didn't work at the most basic level, let alone in the context of his larger POV.

It just seems to me that too many people wanted Spielberg to reinforce their own p.o.v. -- and were surprised or angry that he didn't.

And so what if they are? He chose to make a movie about a sensitive subject about which many people have strong feelings. If someone chooses to reject the manner in which he told the story or decides they do not like the way he posited his POV, then they are entitled to do so. It is all about personal opinion. I don't look to filmmakers for influence when forming my political opinions and I am not going to blindly accept what they offer as proof of anything or endorse it as "right" simply because it's on a 40 foot screen.

[speciousreasoning]

Regardless of how Spielberg presenting this event in history, the movie is totally crashing and burning at the box office. And not winning as many awards as he hoped it would. For someone who was actually looking forward to the movie until I found out what the reference material was used for the script, there is a massive amount of schadenfraude watching Spielberg getting trounced at the box office by a CGI lion and some lame ass horror movie.
Ha, ha ha ha haha.
BTW, I don't understand why anyone cares if the Israeli athletes were presented with a fairness and respect. This isn't a movie about the Israeli athletes (if only it were). It's a movie about the operation following the brutal murder of these athletes. Nobody in the press seems to be listening to the Mossad leaders who are dismissing the book and movie as pure crap.
I find it funny and ironic that Spielberg actually called this movie "Munich" considering what happened at Munich not too long before the movie's events (and the actual events). It was probably not the best way to name the movie since those historical events have more to do with appeasement of psychotic leaders than taking a stand against those that use terror to advance their own agendas. Hint: It involved this dude named Neville Chamberlain who used to be the PM of England and this other guy. His name was Adolf Hitler.

[Deleted]

BTW, I don't understand why anyone cares if the Israeli athletes were presented with a fairness and respect. This isn't a movie about the Israeli athletes (if only it were). It's a movie about the operation following the brutal murder of these athletes.

True enough. But Spielberg consistently shows grisly reenactments of their deaths throughout the whole movie and makes their tragedy part of the story.

[camera21]

Speciousreasoning - have you seen Munich yet?

I don't think Spielberg expected a major box office hit with Munich. I'm sure he's disappointed in the numbers he's achieved, but was not anticipating anything like War of the Worlds.

If you go to Rottentomatoes -- you'll see many very good reviews.

I think Munich is a movie Spielberg made because the subject matter was important to him...and he wanted to share his vision. That doesn't mean he is demanding everyone agree with his point of view....probably just hoping people will open their minds, begin debates, examine what terrorism and the reactions to it have wreaked.

I'm very sorry that so many ranted and raved in the media about the film -- without ever seeing it, apparently. Luckily, I find more people are now willing to go to see it to judge for themselves. I hope that small trend continues.

[lpatrice]

I find it funny and ironic that Spielberg actually called this movie "Munich" considering what happened at Munich not too long before the movie's events (and the actual events). It was probably not the best way to name the movie since those historical events have more to do with appeasement of psychotic leaders than taking a stand against those that use terror to advance their own agendas. Hint: It involved this dude named Neville Chamberlain who used to be the PM of England and this other guy. His name was Adolf Hitler.

Must we bring Hitler into everything.

I have not seen the movie yet, I plan on seeing it this weekend. But I do think it is sad that so many people are attacking the movie, especially when they have not seen it yet. It kind of reminds me of another little movie out right now.

there is a massive amount of schadenfraude watching Spielberg getting trounced at the box office by a CGI lion and some lame ass horror movie.

He still has his billions, and at least this film encourages people to think. Question. Debate. Which is more than I can say for CGI lions and horror movies.

Family members of the Israeli athletes and trainers who were murdered in Munich were interviewed, and felt the film honored their husbands, brothers, etc

That is precisely why I am not going to blindly attack the film before I even see it. I'll reserve judgment until I have actually seen it. As I stated above, at the very least the movie has gotten people talking.

[memememe76]

Does this movie really make people talk? I think the subject matter inherently makes people talk? I mean, most of the people engaging in the discussion haven't even seen it!

I have seen it and my problems are lot simpler: It's so boring. It doesn't know whether it wants to be a serious political drama or an action flick (too many action movie cliches are used, like the little girl in the red dress). Spielberg totally rips off the movie structure of Kill Bill.

The only thing that may come about as a result of this movie is more men will start wearing really tight jeans and pants.

[Deleted]

I have seen it and my problems are lot simpler: It's so boring. It doesn't know whether it wants to be a serious political drama or an action flick (too many action movie cliches are used, like the little girl in the red dress).

Total word. Had it not been for The Bana, I would have been completely disengaged after the first hour.

The only thing that may come about as a result of this movie is more men will start wearing really tight jeans and pants.

Hah! The movie really did nail '70's fashions, not to mention that the set designs were really good as well.

[camera21]

I mean, most of the people engaging in the discussion haven't even seen it!

[Deleted]

Well, I was pretty fired up a few pages back and didn't plan on seeing it, but my husband really wanted to so we did.

I liked it. I wasn't bored. I was into the story and it didn't feel like just a thriller or action film to me. I can see the argument for moral equivalence but after seeing it I don't think Spielberg was trying to convey that message. The message I got is that they aren't any good choices. Doing nothing doesn't stop terrorism and retaliating doesn't guarantee anything either.

The fact that Avner was conflicted and questioning made him human and normal. My only quibble would be that I don't think the film went deep enough into Avner's eventual distrust of the Israeli authorities and the Mossad. I mean, if you live as someone else, trust almost no one, are not even officially recognized by your own country, that shit is bound to make you paranoid.

Overall, I think it was a good film, though I'm not surprised that it might not be in contention for an Oscar this year.