|
Movie Review - Munich (2005)
|
|
|
|
|
(What this rating means)
|
|
| |
|
| Director: |
Steven Spielberg |
| Starring: |
Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, and Geoffrey Rush |
| Rated: |
R (for strong graphic violence, some sexual content, nudity and language) |
| Length: |
160 minutes |
| Genre: |
Drama/History |
| Tagline: |
The world was watching in 1972 as 11 Israeli athletes were murdered at the Munich Olympics. This
is the story of what happened next. |
| Studio: |
Universal |
| Website: |
Munich |
| Release: |
January 6, 2006 (wide) |
|
PLOT
|
In 1972, A Palestinian terrorist group (Black September) kidnapped and murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich
Olympics. Based on George Jonas' 1984 book Vengeance, Munich is Steven Spielberg's fictionalized
interpretation of the Israeli Mossad's consequent pursuit of the terrorist leaders. Controversy ensues.
|
|
JOHNNY'S TAKE
|
Steven Spielberg calls Munich a "prayer for peace." Those of you with short attention spans will think of
it more as an answered prayer for sleep. It plods along quite slowly at times, especially for a movie that runs
over two and a half hours. Granted, this is by design. Spielberg was clearly more interested in taking a
dramatic approach to the subject matter.
We witness the Mossad team eating together, discussing their fear, their doubts, their paranoia. Spielberg
intentionally avoids turning this into Death Wish VI. It's not meant to be an action/revenge flick.
It's not really meant to be a political thriller either. It's meant to be Spielberg's and screenwriter Tony
Kushner's interpretations regarding what happened after the Israeli athletes were killed and the Israeli
government decided to hunt down those in charge.
Ultimately, that is my biggest problem with the movie. I did a lot of research on the subject beforehand, so
it was easy for me to recognize the difference between fact and Spielberg's fiction (some of which is mentioned
in my Odds & Ends). So much so that it became hard to watch the movie as anything other than Spielberg's bias
alive on screen.
For example, Spielberg questions the motives of going after the terrorists. Well, I'm curious, what exactly is
his motive? He draws a moral equivalence between the Palestinian terrorists and the Israeli Mossad group
that goes after them. He recently told Time Magazine that he didn't want to demonize the Palestinians. He wanted
to show them as people with families, as people who fought for something that in their mind they believe in.
Why? This was an evil act carried out by evil people with evil intentions. Why not demonize them? In
Schindler's List he made no such moral equivalence between the Nazis and the Jews. He didn't show the
Nazis with a family face, as he shouldn't have. You don't paint the Nazis as regular people with
"slightly different" opinions than the rest of us. Show them for the evil they were. But why not do the same to
the Palestinian terrorists? What is the motivation? Why now? Why this movie? Why this subject matter?
Why did he hire Tony Kushner to write the screenplay? Kushner, an anti-Israel Jew, said in the same Time Magazine
article that, "I wish the modern Israel had never been born." He called the establishment of Israel
"for the Jewish people a historical, moral, political calamity." I'm not Jewish, but I can certainly understand
why Israel is upset that a Jew with that attitude was asked to draft the screenplay for a movie of this nature.
Imagine a movie about the 9/11 attack with a screenplay written by an American citizen who says he
wishes the American Revolution never happened.
I would have preferred to see more screen time dedicated to the actual kidnappings of the Olympic athletes and
the tension surrounding the Olympics afterwards. An exploration of Germany's botched rescue could have also
been interesting. The movie was at its strongest from the start when we see the interspersing of real news
footage within the context of the movie. It offered an authentic feel. Sadly, too little time is devoted to
this aspect. But it's Spielberg's movie and he does exactly what he intended. He gets his point across
whether you agree with it or not. And he certainly gives audiences something to talk about.
Is ongoing conflict as futile as Kushner implies? Do countries not have a right to pursue justice? What would
have been accomplished had Israel turned a blind eye to the murder of its athletes? Do you appease evil? Ignore
it?
I have no problem with praying for peace. But sometimes there's an enemy to defeat before you can hope that prayer
will be answered. You don't have to take my word for it; history speaks for itself.
|
|
ODDS & ENDS
|
- At one time Ben Kingsley was attached to the project, but apparently he couldn't participate because he was
too busy with cinematic turds such as A Sound of Thunder and BloodRayne.
- Johnny Betts actually had to pay to see this movie. He normally wouldn't have done it, but when given the
opportunity to do a radio interview regarding the movie he had no choice.
- Just the facts, part 1: No list of targets was ever given to an assassination team.
- Just the facts, part 2: There was no "one team" charged with carrying out any sort of ongoing revenge
operation. In fact, specific targets were identified and then approved for assassination by top Mossad officials
and the prime minister as evidence grew that these individuals would likely plan further attacks.
- Just the facts, part 3: Using the mysterious "Le Group" organization in the movie that traded names and
locations for money is not how the Mossad relied on information. They relied on their own intelligence which came
from Palestinian informants living in Europe and the Middle East.
- Eric Bana was in Hulk with Josh Lucas who was in Coastlines with Josh Brolin who was in
Hollow Man with Kevin Bacon.
|
|
MAMA'S APPROVAL
|
Nope, this would not come close to meeting mama's approval. There are a handful of f-bombs and gd-bombs dropped
on us, as well as some gratuitous nudity. We see full frontal from a woman who has just been killed, and we also
see a naked dead guy lying on his back. The room is dark enough to keep it from being extremely graphic, but it's
still nothing you want your kids to see.
The movie isn't saturated with violence, but what we do see if fairly bloody and graphic. There's simply no reason
to consider taking your kids to this one.
|
|
TRAILER COMPARISON
|
Judging by the trailer I expected the movie to be a little more tense and a little more thrilling than it was.
|
|
THE GIST
|
With Munich it's clear that Spielberg has a point to make. If you're prone to restlessness then after
two and a half hours you'll probably wish it didn't take him so long to make it. Plus, there's a good chance
you won't agree with his point anyway. Throw this in the "love it or hate it" category. At the very least
Spielberg makes you think. Some of you will think Munich is a masterpiece while others will just think
it's a master piece of, well, I'll let you fill in the blank.
|
|
