Saw this last night and it was much better than I thought it would be, having not read too much about it beforehand I presumed it was mostly going to show the actual kidnapping and be quite intensely focused on that, so I though it would just be a tense, all action movie, the fact that it was quite a deep film focusing and analysis the psyche of the hunters and even showing the targets as normal everyday people and not just monsters was thought provoking, it makes you think more deeply about terrorism and it's effects ie the removal of leaders to be replaced with people worse than themselves - well worth watching, but get a large Pepsi so you don't run out before the end.
The thrust of the Spielberg movie is simple, fanfare notwithstanding: Israeli killers are conscientious and humane people, while Palestinians are always--no matter what--vicious killers.
Spielberg's movie is based on a "non-fiction" book by journalist George Jonas, Vengeance, which took the Israeli account at face value. But in the book the Israeli killers did not express regret or second-thoughts of any kind. None! In the book -- but not in the movie-- the killers, according to Jonas, had "absolutely no qualms about anything they did." Hmmm...How could Spielberg have missed that?
But why should this movie, a Spielberg movie, bother with facts, especially if they get in the way of a smooth pro-Israeli narrative? This movie is intended for mass audiences who know nothing about the facts of the conflict. That is exactly why it will work, and why it will deliver the propaganda goods.
http://erlenda.blogspot.com/2006/01/munich-spielbergs-lies-and-cover-ups.html
Originally posted by Deano
The thrust of the Spielberg movie is simple, fanfare notwithstanding: Israeli killers are conscientious and humane people, while Palestinians are always--no matter what--vicious killers.Spielberg's movie is based on a "non-fiction" book by journalist George Jonas, Vengeance, which took the Israeli account at face value. But in the book the Israeli killers did not express regret or second-thoughts of any kind. None! In the book -- but not in the movie-- the killers, according to Jonas, had "absolutely no qualms about anything they did." Hmmm...How could Spielberg have missed that?
But why should this movie, a Spielberg movie, bother with facts, especially if they get in the way of a smooth pro-Israeli narrative? This movie is intended for mass audiences who know nothing about the facts of the conflict. That is exactly why it will work, and why it will deliver the propaganda goods.
http://erlenda.blogspot.com/2006/01/munich-spielbergs-lies-and-cover-ups.html
Learn how to make your own opinion.
My opinion, not some dude who claims he knows all the "terrorist" kids, and then mentions it on a blog. (like thats credible), shows no sides in the movie. I will always wstand by it.
Also, for heaven's sake use quotations when you reference something.
Saw it Sunday and I am yet to see a movie made by Speilberg that wasn't good.
I think the man is incapable of making a 'bad' movie.
It was good, better than I had thought and as said earlier, I thought that it might have been about the actual massacre..........lol well until I saw the Poster, then I knew otherwise.
Hmmm I'm really begining to like Eric bana as an actor.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I loved Munich, saw it twice. Because it was a S. Spielberg movie I knew it was gonna be good. And it was.Besides being a great movie, the gunshot wounds and explosives were among the most realistic looking effects I've ever seen in any film.
I never ever flinch in a theatre but this film made me do it a couple of times. Spielberg rawks.
I, too saw Spielberg's film, Munich, when it first came out, and it was a great film.