Anyone else seen this?

I normally don't start movie discussions on here, not sure why... But I had just seen this a few days ago and the things I've read online (imdb discussion forums, etc) are absolutely inane.

Holy cow, it was a good movie just on a thriller level and just the whole "eye for an eye" mentality that seems to escalate from modern violence.

That all said, I want to discuss spoilers with people who have seen it!

I heard that at the end the boat sinks and, like, 1,500 passengers don't make it... then some old lady tells her story about this big-ass, but dumb looking, gem that she got from a peasant who used to be mentally challenged.

oops... sorry about the spoilers.

Munich is on my list... probably won't have a chance to see it for a while...

~fff - np: mogwai - ten rapid

Captain: "All aboard"

Max: "Britney, before you go, there's something I want you to have"

Britney: "Oh, it's beautiful, but wait a minute, isn't this...?"

Max: "Yeah, yes it is"

Britney: "But I thought the old lady dropped it into the ocean in the end"

Max: "Well baby, I went down and got it for you"

Britney: "Oh, you shouldn't have"

isn't it britney & kevin?

~fff

back then it wasn't.

I really, REALLY want to see this one, however, it probably won't come to our theaters until after the Oscars and then ONLY if it wins something. So, I'll end up driving an hour to an hour and a half away in order to catch it.

Cher

I saw "Munich" this weekend and enjoyed it very much, excepting the commentary/questions from the old dude behind me. Rudeness in movie theaters seems to transcend age these days. But that's a topic for another time.

I liked the feel/look of the movie as a whole. They did a great job of making the characters look like they were in the 70's, with the haircuts, clothes, music, and language. I'd bet the cigarettes were even 70's brands, though I didnt' smoke then(or now) so I have no idea. The old style news commentaries/film clips also made it seem very 70's during the hostage situation in Munich.

The cinematography was pretty impressive for the most part as well. The European cities each had a different feel from the way they were filmed. New York was distinct from the European cities. Probably the only place that got slighted was Israel, but since most of the action took place outside, that can be excused.
Places looked gritty like Greece, or posh like parts of London. I really felt like I was there with the characters at times.

I was impressed by the actors in this movies. I especially enjoyed Geoffrey Rush' character and the two older support people in the Israeli team. Daniel Craig had a great part and did well with it. I can see why he's going to be the next James Bond. The actors all conveyed very well the stress of living undercover and trying to do their jobs without inflicting loss of life. The scene where the actors were going to trigger the phone bomb in Paris was so intense it really had me gripped to the edge of my seat. You could see and hear the characters in the Israeli team all physically and mentally deteriorate as their job went on.

It was interesting to compare what I saw with what I had read in reviews. For me, it appeared that the movie was more pro-Israel at times. However, the movie did have several instances when characters and events discussed the reasoning behind the Palestinians move towards violence as a means to an end. Not to mention that the initial assassinations of Black September members caused a response and reprisal killings by the Palestinians. And the Israeli team itself was divided as to whether this violence would really solve anything. Another interesting scene that showed the mentality of the Palestinians resolve was when the Israeli hit team shared an apt with a Palestinian hit team in Greece(interesting intersection, not sure how real it was) through a fluke in booking by their third party agent from France. The leader of the Israeli team(posing as a Baader Meinhof/Red Army faction member) discussed Israel and the Palestinians desire for a homeland. You could clearly see and hear the resolve in the Palestinian as he described how it didn't matter how long it took to get a homeland, a hundred years, or more.

One of the most interesting ironies was that the leader of the Israeli hit team's mother and Golda Meir both supported his role as an assassin. The idea that someone who could bring life into this world would support taking another mothers child's life struck me as somewhat at odds with the traditional view of mothers and women and violence. The statement from Golda Meir in the movie at the beginning "We must appear to be strong, otherwise our enemies will attack us" or words to those effects convey the siege mentality that existed at the time in Israel, and perhaps today.

I was able to see this when I was stateside for the holidays. An amazing film--v. brave of Spielberg. Just before viewing it, I watched an interview on a news program with a film critic who (as a Jewish woman) was extremely disappointed in him for it--is he getting a lot of flak from the Jewish community?

Maybe I'll never be able to understand the depth of the issue. But I think the filmmakers did a superb job of portraying the idea that Gandhi was getting at when he said, "If we operate on the philosophy of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' we will end up in an eyeless and toothless world."

It was the first serious film I'd seen in a long time. Haunting.

Spielberg has gotten a little flack from the Jewish community over this film. Most of the controversy is over the supposed "message" of the movie. I think those concerns might be overstated. I saw the film. Loved it. But I don't think there was that strong of a message. There were some strongly pro-Israel moments. There was a poingnant "let's understand the Palestinians" moment. And there were a lot of moments that seemed to say no one was justified in doing anything. I think additional controversy has arisen over some historical inaccuracies, or creating historical moments that didnt' happen, such as some the the very strong statements made by Golda Meir.

From what I've gathered, this lack of a "strong message" is part of the issue: that by presenting all sides he isn't really saying anything--the typical, politically-correct, status quo, Hollywood stance. (Although the criticism you mentioned re. the Meir portrayal is completely understandable.) However, I thought the "message" was very strong: violence perpetuates violence. I should probably read more reviews--it's fascinating to read of reactions to this particular film.

Right now I'm listening to an engrossing interview on NPR with Tony Kushner, who co-wrote Munich and is the playwright who wrote Angels in America. There are other links to more conversations on the page as well.