― latebloomer: Let's just say I do for bullshit what Stonehenge did for Rocks (lat, Friday, 6 January 2006 07:40 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Friday, 6 January 2006 18:40 (eighteen years ago) link
I liked the movie, but like others are saying, only the first 60% is darkly fascinating...
― paulhw (paulhw), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 6 January 2006 21:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Friday, 6 January 2006 21:10 (eighteen years ago) link
That said, I liked this film.
― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 9 January 2006 08:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― howell huser (chaki), Monday, 9 January 2006 09:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Monday, 9 January 2006 16:39 (eighteen years ago) link
Also: nobody told me that the dude from Kings and Queen was in this (as Louis)!
― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 9 January 2006 16:42 (eighteen years ago) link
bana is flashing on munich in this intimate moment (nevermind that he's seeing it as it happened; it'd be too difficult to show us his imagined version without incurring confusion) because spielberg wants to show us two things:
1) for the individual embroiled in it, revenge by terrorism has no logical beginning and no end. although bana has no direct connection to the events at munich, it nonetheless puts a machine in motion that will consume him, just as future terrorists will be consumed in the act of retaliating against his actions. the fact that bana wasn't even at munich is a critical component to him being haunted by it.
2) 'home' is as much about piece of mind and security as physical location (part of a larger statement about the counterintuitiveness of endangering family to fight for land)
― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 9 January 2006 17:15 (eighteen years ago) link
on another note, did anybody notice that the middle of the film is a homage to Ronin, right down to Michael Lonsdale playing essentially the same character?!?
― yuengling participle (rotten03), Monday, 9 January 2006 20:06 (eighteen years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 9 January 2006 20:24 (eighteen years ago) link
"Normally I would agree, but in this situation I think it is important. The Israel-Palestine conflict is one about which most Americans have very little knowledge and a great deal of misunderstandings. In terms of historical accuracy, this film comes off like something straight from Israeli propaganda, whatever Spielberg's intentions. Because of this, as much as I found the film enjoyable to watch, I think its garbage and will have many negative affects on the Palestinian struggle."
I have not yet seen the film but does anyone agree with this?
― Lovelace (Lovelace), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 20:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 20:14 (eighteen years ago) link
― cancer prone fat guy (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 20:16 (eighteen years ago) link
― adamrl (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 20:17 (eighteen years ago) link
He's an anarchist *giggles*
― Lovelace (Lovelace), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 20:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― alma, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 03:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― cancer prone fat guy (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 03:43 (eighteen years ago) link
The story isn't of the 'real' assassins (about whom almost nothing is known, the book could be a load of BS), so how they felt doesn't much matter.
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 04:56 (eighteen years ago) link
― alma, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 05:02 (eighteen years ago) link
you don't think the movie isn't aware of that?
― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 05:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 06:27 (eighteen years ago) link
Tony Kushner, who wrote the scenario to Steven Spielberg's film "Munich", defends himself in an interview with Peter von Becker against accusations that he was sloppy in his research. "The problem is that there are no accessible documents on the background to the events in Munich in 1972 and their aftermath. Each informant only tells his own side of the story. We know Abu Daoud's version because he wrote a book about it. Now he's gone into hiding, all the while complaining that we didn't talk with him. In truth he's insulted that until now there's been no English translation of his book! (laughs) Even among the Israelis there are differing accounts. And some would like to cover up the fact that the trail of the bloody retaliation for Munich leads to Israel's prime minister at the time, Golda Meir. I have a lot of respect for Meir, and the film doesn't put her down. But without her, Palestinian terror suspects across Europe wouldn't have been hunted down and liquidated, and a lot of innocent lives would have been saved."
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 22:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 22:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― alma, Wednesday, 18 January 2006 22:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 18 January 2006 22:36 (eighteen years ago) link
hes questioning israel's use of terror, and the response to the munich killings is the specific narrative he's using.
― cheshire05, Thursday, 19 January 2006 00:58 (eighteen years ago) link
Yes, well, Steven showed us nice well-mannered Palestinians smoking and sharing jokes with cutie Eric Bana, after realizing they'd been given the wrong room. Not even John Ritter had such luck.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 19 January 2006 01:48 (eighteen years ago) link
-- alma (maltease...), January 18th, 2006.
The fact that atrocities were committed in the founding of Israel does not mean that all Israelis lack "core values" or that none of them have moral dilemas about anything. I could just as easily argue that there's no point in showing the "side of the story" of a group that kidnaps and massacres innocent olympic athletes to make their political point.
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 03:02 (eighteen years ago) link
We're talking about trained killers who, in real life, had no regrets or moral dilemmas about the entire thing. The adding in of those emotions only serves propaganda purposes. None of the other violent killers in the movie are shown as human beings. Hell, the people who had nothing to do with it but were killed by the Israelis anyway are barely shown as human beings.
"i think speilberg is trying to question the morality/usefulness of political violence.hes questioning israel's use of terror, and the response to the munich killings is the specific narrative he's using."
Hardly. The film more or less glorifies the killers.
"you don't think the movie isn't aware of that?"
"Yeah, I thought it took pains to emphasize that point."
Not really. The main killer questions it briefly at the end, but he is assured that they do and very little else is said about. The movie also ends by nothing that Salameh was killed, implying he was somewhat guilty.
― alma, Thursday, 19 January 2006 03:43 (eighteen years ago) link
Hahahaha. Most complaints I've heard try to make EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE point. "Oh, we only ever see the Arabs interacting with their daughters, or reading poetry and befriending shopkeepers, and never see them doing anything terrible!"
The main killer questions it briefly at the end, but he is assured that they do and very little else is said about.
Er, no. The Geoffrey Rush character basically tells him, "Who cares if they were involved in Munich? They did plenty of other bad things." And Avner is none too happy about it. It's not as if he strolls back to his Brooklyn walkup whistling.
― phil d. (Phil D.), Thursday, 19 January 2006 11:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― phil d. (Phil D.), Thursday, 19 January 2006 11:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:22 (eighteen years ago) link
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:25 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:34 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:23 (eighteen years ago) link
I didn't think this while I was watching it. The criticisms listed above aren't convincing enough to me, and I suspect they're at least somewhat rooted in anti-Israeli and/or anti-Spielberg stances.
I thought that this film presented its point quite vividly.
― peepee (peepee), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:37 (eighteen years ago) link