Munich (2005) Reviews

• Depth and detail - with no sides taken

  hafeez-22006-01-26

  This movie relates more than just a story of "Vengeance". Besides proving that killing begets killing - it consists of numerous fine details that reveal the hard work done at getting to the depth of things: For instance, only characters that get shot in the head slump to the ground. The rest take time to die - they walk a few steps, spurt blood and express a look of helplessness and inevitability before going out. Yes its horrifying to look at, which is the point, but it is also real. Every character is different, and though common in their desire for vengeance, their temperaments are clearly distinguishable in the way the hit men approach their task. Even the terrorists are not stereotyped into hysterical, screaming lunatics. They range from the visibly nervous to the cool Abu Salameh with the movie star style. They are poets, intellectuals and guerrillas each with his story of the conflict. They speak passionately about home - a recurring theme, along with "family". Moreover, Spielberg does not attempt to mitigate the grotesque manner of their deaths, for the blood of the targeted men flows as freely as that of their victims - and when they are blown up, their body parts dangle from ceiling fans. You are not here to feel satisfaction over anyone's death, Spielberg says to the audience. Or as Caine would say in Kung Fu: "The taking of a life does no one honour." There are no easy "shoot-em-dead" eliminations. There are neighbors, bystanders and obstacles that must be avoided and protected - with variable success. Innocent people may be harmed - and one has to live with that. There are no mathematical certainties about the potential damage a bomb will cause. Perspectives and convictions can change, sometimes regrettably. "Don't think about it - just do it" says Avner at one stage when a member of the team expresses doubts about a target's guilt. But at the end he wants evidence that the men he despatched were justifiably killed. Implausible? No; it is only when he has been reunited with his family and experiences the affection of wife and child that he allows himself to reflect from a different perspective - their targets had families too - what if he had killed the wrong men? The paranoia that permeates the world of spies and assassins is built up gradually - to the point where every survivor mistrusts everybody else. One is doomed all one's life to walk with ears strained for following footsteps. The length of the movie creates the right atmosphere for this idea. The end dissatisfies many because they would like a reassurance, a note of optimistic finality - but Spielberg rightly offers none. It would be dishonest of him to offer a false but comforting illusion. It is interesting to contrast this movie with "Paradise Now" that has no violence, a modest budget, and views the conflict from the Palestinian camp. Both narrate completely different stories - yet, in their respective ways, both humanize their subjects, defuse myths about glory, and arrive at the same conclusion: "There's no peace at the end of this."

  More

• Justice or Vengeance?

  jon.h.ochiai2006-01-07

  Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind." What distinguishes justice from vengeance? This echoes throughout Steven Spielberg's "Munich". "Munich" is powerful and perhaps Spielberg's most compelling and thought provoking work. He weaves a tapestry of political and social threads focusing on terrorism and the cost of violence. "Munich" is truly amazing in balancing linear storytelling and horrific acts of violence, demonstrating the impact of the aftermath. Spielberg's "Munich" seen through the eyes of Eric Bana's Avner is a powerful allegory that even in the most just and noble fights against terror we eventually become that which we despise. "Munich" really serves as a reminder. Mossad team leader Avner played by Eric Bana is absolutely riveting as the man who begins this righteous cause only to find that the cost is his soul. Anver asks, "When does it ever end?" At the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, Palestinian terrorists brutally murdered the Israeli wrestling team. This political statement was seen around the world and depicted in gory detail by Director Spielberg. Based on the book "Vengeance" by George Jones, the screenplay by Tony Kushner and Eric Roth tells the story of the aftermath of this tragedy. A great Lynn Cohen who plays Prime Minister Golda Meir says, "Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." Poetic words for what follows are a search and destroy mission. The Mossad assembles a team lead by Avner (Bana) to track down and kill with extreme prejudice all those involved in the terrorist action in Munich. 11 names are identified for execution. These executions are also intended to serve as statements. Anver though an inexperienced operative and not an assassin is selected for the covert mission by Ephriam (the great Geoffrey Rush) for being a strong and effective leader of men. The assassin team is composed of Steve (Daniel Craig—the next James Bond), Carl (Ciaran Hinds), Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz), and Hans (Hanns Zischler). They are dissociated from the Mossad, i.e. they technically don't exist. In accepting the lead, Avner must leave his beautiful and pregnant wife Daphna (a very strong Ayelet Zorer) for what could be a number of years. Carl has his doubts about Avner, telling him that he was chosen because he is a "good soldier". Soon Carl respects Avner for his quiet force and conscience. Attack of conscience and paranoia soon engulf the team as they become entrenched in the world of underground intelligence for hire. Avner pays large sums of money for information on the whereabouts of his targets from Louis (wonderfully shady Mathiew Amalric) and his wealthy Papa (weary and noble Michael Lonsdale). Avner soon finds that whomever he kills is eventually replaced, and that he and potentially his family is now a target for the terrorists he was assigned to hunt down and kill. The realization is that it truly never ends. Bana is amazing as a trapped animal in the scene in his thrashed apartment—searching for weapons of his demise. Paranoia sets in, and the path of justice and vengeance become blurred. In a poignant scene Robert pleads to Avner, "When I lose my righteousness, I lose everything…" Nothing about "Munich" is easy, though it is simple. I believe that is Steven Spielberg's intention. "Munich" could be tighter in spots, though this does not diminish the movie's power and impact. Eric Bana emerges as the noble hero battling to salvage his own humanity and his very soul. "When does it ever end?" Perhaps even in the current context there is no real answer—maybe what Spielberg is getting at. It is a reminder of our humanity, that even the most righteous cause may cost our souls. "Munich" is truly a powerful movie worth seeing.

  More

• An extraordinary film—riveting, involving, challenging

  mlg-22006-01-23

  I am not a big Spielberg fan, and find he often goes for cheap emotional manipulation in his films, especially his endings. I was there fore amazed at the unflinching control he exercised in Munich, his utter unwillingness to flinch at complexities, his ability to dissect the ideological and moral sureties of all sides within the natural rhythms of the thriller genre. There is so much to praise in this film, because it is utterly seamless film-making with a keen eye for every little detail that never reveals the intense precision behind its construction. While some have found the film "disengaged," I found that it pulled at the viewer's conscience through the central characters, not only Bana's Israeli agent Avner and his cohorts, most of who slowly find themselves gnawed by doubts of their mission's morality and effectiveness, but also smaller characters as well, drawn with indelible deftness—the weary ex-French Resistance fighter now a trader in deadly information to stateless agents because of his cynicism about recurrent corrupt regimes replacing each other, or the PLO operative who debates Palestinian strategy and justification with Avner, who he wrongly believes to be a German left-wing terrorist who is "soft" on Jews because of the Holocaust. The economy of Spielberg's film-making is breathtaking in hindsight, so that what at first seems a relatively flat and emotionless exercise in historical recreation slowly seeps into one's subconscious and then moves upward, in quick bursts of sudden bursts of emotional and intellectual recognition by the viewer. These are real human beings, these are fighters in a war they believe in desperately and whose people have suffered terribly yet can find no real peace. For this Kushner and Roth's screenplay must get much credit, the crisp narrative development intertwined with intellectually rigorous set pieces and flat-out armrest-clutching actions sequences. John Williams, who has managed to be understated in the past, is equally adept at building (or feinting) tension and subtly commenting on character development. Check out the slightly dissonant piano in the last scene to see what I mean. Longtime Spielberg collaborator Janusz Kaminski creates some amazing framing devices, especially as the action sequences are about to unfold and during moments of intimate conversations imbued with tension. Michael Kahn's editing is crisp and occasionally startling, as in the way the conclusion of the horrifically bungled Munich "rescue" is related. The retelling of the entire event from break-in to conclusion is doled out in bits and pieces in what seems at first an attempt to soften its impact but in the end, entwined as it is with all of the complicated issues, is finally revealed as a masterful means of achieving the fully deserved emotional impact within a complexly rendered ideological, moral and strategic matrix. There is not a false note in any of the acting, and the casting is uniformly spot-on. About the politics. The radicals on either side will reject the film out of hand because it dares to render both sides as human and worthy of understanding. But attempting to understand choices of violence and vengeance as strategies does not in any way mean condoning them. Certainly, anyone who feels that the film somehow allows a viewer to walk away thinking that Black September was justified in its attack is probably projecting his or her fears about how some imagined uninformed viewer might react. Instead, the film demonstrates that whether one feels either or both sides justified it doesn't manner—neither side can win through violence at this point. This was Yitzhak Rabin's great insight—you don't make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies. His Israeli Jewish murderers wanted violence to continue, believing that only a continued state of war would keep Israel from giving back land they saw as bound up with their faith but which international law, historical study and the basic "facts on the ground" reveal to be bound to be returned to the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon, of all people, came to understand this, though without the larger vision and magnanimity of spirit that his fellow warrior Rabin discovered. Spielberg's message is clear—the extremists will choose war over peace, but must so many of us side with the extremists because of our fear of appearing weak or "giving in"? A last note on politics—there is clear relevance to the United States' current predicament post-9/11. One can almost here Cheney or Bush making the speech made by Israeli premier Golda Meir in the film (an extraordinary piece of recreation that transcends mere imitation), only probably with more moral surety and less sense of resignation. Anyone paying attention to world reaction to Guantanimo, Abu Gharib, the bombing of Afghan and Iraqi villages and the spiriting away of suspected terrorists through "rendition" for torture in "friendly" nations must be aware that whether one leans hard or soft on such matters, there is going to be a price to be paid. The hardliners believe we will just keep punching and slugging and eventually the bad guys will go down; that they will not reproduce themselves like the many-headed Hydra or germinate and reproduce by the thousands in the fetid waters of our perceived hypocrisy—whether you think it justified or not it doesn't matter. As Spielberg makes clear in this film, all that matters in the end is peace or violence, and whoever ultimately desires the former had better be damn sure that their use of the latter is measured by the awareness that it use will create debts that will need to be repaid in the end, and the debtors will most likely be the generations to come on all sides.

  More

• Spielberg may be out-of-touch with the masses in terms of entertainment today (WOTW) – but when he sticks to serious topics, he carves out sensational fares like this one

  Flagrant-Baronessa2006-07-14

  Munich may just be Spielberg's greatest accomplishment ever and it isn't a sweeping epic like you'd expect, but a patient psychological thriller that sneaks up on you and takes you and shakes you. It not shy away from blood, politics or nudity in its portrayal of events and this makes it extremely intense, absorbing and occasionally very violent. The first half of Münich is not altogether different from a heist drama; a group of diverse men with different skills team up to accomplish a mission. They get to travel across Europe, make deals, infiltrate suspect facilities and manufacture explosive devices. Unlike heist films, however, their mission is not for personal gain, but for the government. They are to assassinate eleven Arabs who were alleged to be behind terrorist attacks like Münich 1972. So the more accessible part of the film sees Bana and his men botch their way through a hit-list as inexperienced hit-men, fumbling and trembling with the weight of this somber new task. This part is so extraordinarily well-handled and engaging with a tone so tense and shadowed by politics and ethical dilemmas that every slight pause is mistaken for humour. It is also an excellent portrayal of an era - the 1970s - with great eye for detail, all carefully sewn together by a master tailor (Spielberg). It is a fantastic piece of film-making. While Munich keeps you interested throughout, it gradually loses its fresh thriller edge by opting for more typical scenarios. Eric Bana's character goes through emotional struggles because he finds it too hard to kill people. He thinks about his family--his wife has just had a baby girl. He wonders if he is doing the right thing. He starts sympathizing with the Arabs. He wonders if they killings will stop once he has completed his mission. Everything is classic and you saw it coming. It needs to be present in the film for a balanced portrayal but the hackneyed formula with which it is expressed is disappointing. It started so promising, after all. Sadly, the culmination of this slightly hackneyed recipe manifests itself in the final scene of the film and it is absolutely dreadful and drags the whole film down by at least one star - but overall this is superb quality that is carried by a strong ensemble cast (Geoffrey Rush, Daniel Craig) although it is ultimately Bana's show. He captures the inner turmoil and hesitation of his character in the most believable way, making Munich into a worthwhile adventure for its performances alone. But most importantly, it dares to asks questions. 8/10

  More

• An Outstanding Thriller

  Rathko2006-01-10

  'Munich' is, on the whole, a straight forward hit-man movie. The assignments are handed out; the team is assembled, each with their own specialty; and they travel about Europe plotting and carrying out their hits. We have the inevitable paranoia, the double agents and suspicious loyalties. So far, so familiar. Only 'Munich' is wrapped in the thin veneer of 'history' and 'fact', and mob bosses and corporate espionage is replaced with Middle Eastern politics and Israeli-Arab relations. I mention this because the politics of 'Munich' are really nothing more than a topical plot devise, used the same way as cold-war relations and soviet villainy was used thirty years ago. What prevents 'Munich' becoming just a generic updated-cold-war thriller, is the sheer quality of the production. From the flawless recreation of European capitals in the early seventies to the impeccable costume design to the beautiful cinematography – 'Munich' is a visually fascinating movie. The performances are universally outstanding, with Bana in particular bringing a sense of tough nobility that seems to be his forte. The script is intelligent and thought-provoking, and it is Kushner's focus on the emotional and psychological landscape of his characters rather than the details of political contract killing, that ultimately lifts the movie above the generic. The kind of self-consciously poetic prose for which he is known, so often seeming unrealistically erudite, is kept to a minimum, and when it does appear, is so beautifully written and performed that all reservations are forgotten. Ultimately, the greatest praise must be reserved for Spielberg, who has, with 'Munich', created perhaps the first truly adult movie of his career. We see no signs of his trademark sentimentality, his descents into fantasy, his childish simplification of motivation. With 'Munich', he embraces ambiguity and complexity, and as a result, has invited criticism from those who prefer their drama simplistically black and white. Above all, one can't help but wonder what the Spielberg oeuvre would look had he not dedicated his career to kid's movies, fantasies and feel-good sci-fi. 'Munich' is an intelligent and gripping thriller that is a major contender for award recognition, and deservedly so. An outstanding achievement.

  More