-
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Film & Television
Welcome Guest
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat Recently Watched Best Documentaries ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ -
Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak
Film: Munich
- Thread starter Banquo
- Start date
^^
I don't know. The one at the end where he comes when the guys get shot...really, wtf?
I am more and more convinced that either Spielberg just doesn't know when to end a film or he just can't help himself. His codas really bring his movies down. Look to AI and Saving Private Ryan for other obvious examples.
I don't know. The one at the end where he comes when the guys get shot...really, wtf?
I am more and more convinced that either Spielberg just doesn't know when to end a film or he just can't help himself. His codas really bring his movies down. Look to AI and Saving Private Ryan for other obvious examples.
miss starry
Bluelighter
^^funny, my husband actually pointed out that it was nice that Spielburg ended this movie well since A.I. should have ended waaaay before it did. 
Regarding the sex scenes, here's why I personally think they were necessary yet meant to be uncomfortable...
To me they portrayed the ways in which Avner changed throughout the movie. The first one, where his wife is pregnant, is very intimate, and you almost feel like you are intruding in on them in a way. It is definitely not the normal Hollywood sex scene. It shows the closeness between him and his wife at that point in time, and why it is so difficult for him to leave. Throughout the film he maintains his loyalty to his wife, but their relationship is never the same as it was that last night before he left. When he is away he goes as far as to flirt with the Dutch hooker at the bar, although he doesn't sleep with her. When he returns he is so fucked up over the people he has killed and what he has been through, that even something like making love to his wife has been tainted by the horrific images he can't get out of his head.
Regarding the sex scenes, here's why I personally think they were necessary yet meant to be uncomfortable...
To me they portrayed the ways in which Avner changed throughout the movie. The first one, where his wife is pregnant, is very intimate, and you almost feel like you are intruding in on them in a way. It is definitely not the normal Hollywood sex scene. It shows the closeness between him and his wife at that point in time, and why it is so difficult for him to leave. Throughout the film he maintains his loyalty to his wife, but their relationship is never the same as it was that last night before he left. When he is away he goes as far as to flirt with the Dutch hooker at the bar, although he doesn't sleep with her. When he returns he is so fucked up over the people he has killed and what he has been through, that even something like making love to his wife has been tainted by the horrific images he can't get out of his head.
I don't disagree that that was the purpose, but it comes off as absolutely ridiculous. And anyway, Spielberg's fostering the change in Bana's character the entire movie. It's as if he knows his audience is stupid, so he wants to pound them with as much symbolism as he can.
The more I think about it the less important I think the movie is...but the food looked great.
The more I think about it the less important I think the movie is...but the food looked great.
miss starry
Bluelighter
posner said:
What more did you expect from Spielburg? Most of his movies are of the same formula; littered with obvious symbolism. However, most mainstream movies don't even give their viewers that much credit. At least Spielburg's films make the masses think a little bit, and hopefully Munich will do the same. For that reason, it's important.
I agree, the food did look awesome.
SA
Bluelight Crew
Banquo said:seeing it soon. will write a full report.
tap tap tap
Tired of waiting. Off to see this tomorrow.
^
you'd be surprised at how difficult it has been to sell this flick to a potential movie-going partner (which is not to say that I have any problem seeing movies by myself). and it is NFL playoff season after all! nevertheless, i look forward to a full and thorough analysis from you, SA.
the positive reviews here so far have been very encouraging.
you'd be surprised at how difficult it has been to sell this flick to a potential movie-going partner (which is not to say that I have any problem seeing movies by myself). and it is NFL playoff season after all! nevertheless, i look forward to a full and thorough analysis from you, SA.
the positive reviews here so far have been very encouraging.
SA
Bluelight Crew
Banquo said:i look forward to a full and thorough analysis from you, SA.
In 1977, while waiting to board our flight to go back home, we witnessed an assassination attempt. They missed the intended target and killed someone else instead. I was a snotty nosed seven something back then. Our flight was cancelled, the attack was afterwards attributed to Black September and the downed person's son later became one of my closest childhood friends. This film, for the first time in many, many years, brought back those memories like it happened yesterday.
The main reason I did not enjoy Syriana was most likely because I sat through most of it with a "tell me something I don't know" feeling and attitude (picked the wrong day to see it, I guess). That is most probably the same reason I did enjoy Munich, in contrast. While I knew of the main terrorist events at the '72 Olympics, I knew little of the rest of the attached history, regardless of how it was told in this film.
While Spielberg's storytelling in Munich is unmistakably biased towards the Israeli agents, I don't think he went over the top with his romanticism of their characters. It was subtle enough that it did not drown out either their own different faces or the other sides' occasional calls for empathy. Even though there are only a couple of instances during the entire film where the arab side is given voice to tell their side, I don't think it possible to come away from this film feeling that any one side is any more right in killing than the other, in any conflict. Maybe it's just me though.
The only thing I gave low marks to is the last 30 or so minutes of the film. After the rest of the almost three-hour long sitting being action packed enough to keep my attention, I very nearly dozed off in that last stretch.
Okay, there is another detail I would have loved to give low marks for, but it had nothing to do with acting or cinematography, but rather with Spielberg's interpretation of the events (i.e. his storytelling skills, which I feel are slowly slipping). WARNING, possible spoiler ahead! The CIA agents were made out to be better and smarter than anyone in this film. Even the abnoxious "American" arrogance diplayed by the CIA agents was a bit too strong in my view.
Overall, I certainly would not rate this as one of Spielberg's best, the best film of the year, or even amazing. It was very good, in my opinion, not much more. The overall acting was well done. I felt Bana's acting could have been better in just a couple of spots. The one thing I did find kind of ridiculous, and I don't know if you could see this as a spoiler, is the way most of the (younger) Palestinians had that "day's worth of beard growth" shadow on their face. I know Spielberg was looking for as much visual theatrics as possible here, but that tactic of visually separating the arabs from the rest was just plain ridiculous, in my opinion. If I had to pick the best acting performance in the entire film, I'd have to give it to Michael Lonsdale, as Papa. What little of his character I did see, I thought was done to perfection.
So there you have it, Banquo. It's not exactly a "full and thorough analysis" as you'd requested, but it's what I came away with. I have a feeling you'll enjoy Munich, even if you'll have to sacrifice one football playoff game to go see it by yourself.
I'll have to watch Munich and Paradise Now in the same sitting when they come out on DVD and see which leaves a more lasting impression (not politics, strictly cinematography). Until then, I'm glad this thread has a five-star poll, because even though it would not have garnered a four from me, I would have felt that I'd cheated it were I to give it a three. Out of five, I'll give it a weak four.
miss starry
Bluelighter
Did anyone else notice that Bana seemed to lose his Israeli accent a couple of times and spoke in a completely American accent? That bugged me
An incredible review, SA! Thanks for sharing.SillyAlien said:So there you have it, Banquo. It's not exactly a "full and thorough analysis" as you'd requested, but it's what I came away with. I have a feeling you'll enjoy Munich, even if you'll have to sacrifice one football playoff game to go see it by yourself.
I am now even more determined to see this movie (but without missing a single second of playoff football).
While I still enjoy watching parts of Saving Private Ryan whenever it plays on television, I still object to some of the preachiness. From what I've read here, though, the approach in Munich seems more balanced.
awesome film.
There is a tonne of cleverly shot scenes re-enacting news reports with intergrated real footage. The brutality of the violence which left nothing to the imagination worked wonders in bringing the beforementioned point across: violence begats more violence.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film all the way through.
*SPOILERS*
As for downsides, i agree with the sex scene at the end and the nude scene. To me it seems like SS may have some sort of sick fetish with images of death.
I also felt that the scene with the child getting in the way of their mission was overdone.
I'm confused about one point though: When the safehouse they organise is double booked with PLO agents (awesome twist), how can they continue to trust their contact?
/spoilers
There is a tonne of cleverly shot scenes re-enacting news reports with intergrated real footage. The brutality of the violence which left nothing to the imagination worked wonders in bringing the beforementioned point across: violence begats more violence.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film all the way through.
*SPOILERS*
As for downsides, i agree with the sex scene at the end and the nude scene. To me it seems like SS may have some sort of sick fetish with images of death.
I also felt that the scene with the child getting in the way of their mission was overdone.
I'm confused about one point though: When the safehouse they organise is double booked with PLO agents (awesome twist), how can they continue to trust their contact?
/spoilers
Last edited:
mariacallas
Bluelight Crew
^^^bah make your spoilers white I nearly dropped my keyboard just to get past your post
Can't wait to see this!!! Good posts from all and the trailer whetted my appetite.
Can't wait to see this!!! Good posts from all and the trailer whetted my appetite.
miss starry
Bluelighter
L2R said:
Because they have no other choice?
Might be a spoiler, so...
I thought of this as their punishment for involving the Israeli army in Lebanon despite promising that they were not affiliated with any nation's military.
Raving Loony
Bluelighter
In Australia, this movie has been heavily canned by the critics in all the newspapers. Subqequently I have been reluctant to see it, I'll wait until it's released on DVD.
Finally saw this yesterday, and I'll probably watch it again this week because there's a lot of stuff that I most likely missed.
The movie was great. Spielberg uses most of the Good Spielberg techniques and abandoned many of his Cheesy Spielberg techniques for this film. The sex scene is a little over-the-top, but maybe forgivable since the rest of the film is done so well.
My only complaints are the overuse of crane shots and face close-ups. War of the Worlds did this x100, so Munich was a marked improvement. Spielberg obviously spent a lot of money on detailed sets and costumes (they're spectacular) -- well, let's friggin see em! There's no need to zoom in so close.
Geoffrey Rush was great. Eric Bana was great. And the supporting cast did well also. I'll have more comments after watching this a second time.
The movie was great. Spielberg uses most of the Good Spielberg techniques and abandoned many of his Cheesy Spielberg techniques for this film. The sex scene is a little over-the-top, but maybe forgivable since the rest of the film is done so well.
My only complaints are the overuse of crane shots and face close-ups. War of the Worlds did this x100, so Munich was a marked improvement. Spielberg obviously spent a lot of money on detailed sets and costumes (they're spectacular) -- well, let's friggin see em! There's no need to zoom in so close.
Geoffrey Rush was great. Eric Bana was great. And the supporting cast did well also. I'll have more comments after watching this a second time.
I watched it again. There is a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle metaphor and symbolism going on. Things like putting the WTC in the closing shot is too much, imo. The mother-son, father-son, and concept of family theme, on the other hand, is very prevelant and interesting. The French intel guy tells Avner he could have been his son. The Prime Minister tells Avner that he takes more after his mother. There is a lot more to these relationships than just dialogue. In terms of smaller stuff, there is signifance (other than plot) to the peculiar scene where he decides to cook all the food...but I can't figure out what it is.