Munich (2005)

The Worst Film Ever

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

This movie is based on an incident which happened in the Munich Olympics where Israeli-an athletes were killed by the Black September organization. For taking revenge against the terrorist organization Israel organizes a group of 5 people and then takes a revenge on them.There are some dialogues which support the Palestinians not making them as strong villains. In the group of 5 people each one are from different profession and how will they take revenge on them is the rest of the story.This movie story is simple but lots of complications will be going through it because the person who gives details of the terrorists will be susceptible in nature. The movie has really some strong dialogues and the scenes were real. As the movie is based on true events we will be astonished to know that these are the kind of things which are happening in the real world. No need to tell about Steven Spielberg, the master of film making. This movie is a good movie but a bit lengthy because of the running time.

Set at the 1972 Olympics emanating from Munich, Germany, Palestinian terrorists close in on the Olympic village targeting at the Israeli athletes making them hostages, while a massive shoot-out at the airport leaves several terrorists dead and all the athletes who only wanted to compete against others thriving to capture some medals, only to be left out with lives lost and hearts broken. Stunned by such tragic events, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen) sends Mossad agent Avner Kaufman (Eric Bana loosely based off of real character Yuval Aviv), under the supervision of Case Officer Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush) to take down the 11 Palestinians who were involved in the chaos. Avner is accompanied by South African driver named Steve (Daniel Craig), a Belgian toy-maker turned bomb expert named Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz), an Israeli soldier and cleaner named Carl (Ciaran Hinds) and a Danish forger named Hans (Hanns Zischler). Together, they are met with a secretive French informant named Louis (Mathieu Amalric). Avner puts his mission in question as he abandons his pregnant wife wondering if he'll survive or perish.No question about it, "Munich" will have you pondering, but the focus at times falls off kilter with a ridiculous continuity error with poor soul falling dead on his chest by being annihilated by a large bag of shopping in the lift lobby of his apartment domain. It was such a wonderful scene, it needed to be shown again. And then I ask myself, why? It was kind of distracting me for a while until some scenes later when publicly orchestrated discussions from various alliances are situated in cafes, bookstores, the streets you name it, they're omnipresent. What's odd is that although they're supposed to be secretive, they're out in the public spectrum where passersby can see and hear what they're talking about.This is what I mean by off kilter direction and editing. It really questions the focus of the people behind the camera. Although we're heard ahead of time that that the film was based on actual events, but it's complex to determine which events are real and which stuff are for dramatization. Unless you lived the moment, we don't know the whole story. And I should not be sitting here chomping away at continuity errors or awkward shots, I should put emphasis on the more logical measures the Israeli's should have done to the Palestinians besides the eye-for-an-eye revenge. The logical measures could have had the Israeli's capture the terrorists and exploit them on live television in front of millions of people for the scumbags they really are.The whole concept of espionage is met with welcomed interest, especially the scenes by members of the clan led by the well cultivated Louis (played by the talented Amalric), the only person who hold the key to the whereabouts of the Palestinians behind the carnage. Michael Lonsdale was superb in his performance as Louis' Papa further elucidates the divergences that penetrate in this environment where their lives are always by the numbers.The main star of this film is Mossad agent Anver (Eric Bana) and I have a bit of curiosity when it comes to casting. As good as they are why did Steven Spielberg cast Australian performers like Eric Bana as Avner and Geoffrey Rush as his Case officer Ephraim? With the cultural intensity as heavy as this it's mandatory for specific cultural casting. My assumption lead me to believe that Aussies are easy to cast and speak fluent English and can adapt to any accent thrown at them. For better casting I would have cast Israeli actor Lior Ashkenazi to play a Mossad agent just like he did in Eytan Fox's brilliant film "Walk on Water".It's enigmatic to pinpoint which parts of this movie are factual and which parts are fantasy. The editing is highly questionable. I don't think vengeful killings will resolve any peace within Palestine and Israel. And even though this movie will keep you intrigued it still went on for too long. A lot of that lengthy time's energy sparks a ton of awkward moments.If you want to see a great film based on this interesting event. I would suggest the wonderful Kevin McDonald Oscar winning documentary from 2000, "One Day in September". The stories there are accurate and the interview with the lone surviving Palestinian was provocative.

Avner (Eric Bana) is a former bodyguard assigned to lead the killings of eleven men for their involvement in the Munich attacks. There's no contract because the mission doesn't "exist" which means that it will be taken care of, with Israel's 100% efficiency. And while it will profoundly affect the executioner, this is not a character study, unless you consider the psychological mindset of a whole country as a 'character'. First, I had mixed feelings regarding "Munich", but they all converged toward a positive appreciation. If there is one thing "Munich" ever proves is that Spielberg, while flawed as any human being, is a man of peace, and while it became trendy to support war and attacks in the name of patriotism, it is even more admirable to question it in the same spirit. "Munich" would be attacked on both sides, but as Spielberg pointed out, being attacked doesn't mean "being contradicted". The title refers to the hi-jacking of Israeli athletes by PLO members during the Olympic Games of 1972… and what a sneaky irony that it had to be in Germany, as if history wanted to repeat itself. The operation ended in tragedy, as eleven athletes died, to the world's shock. It was a time where Palestinians had already lost the 'communication battle'. Things would change in 1987 with the first Intifada, when kids throwing stones at Israeli tanks replaced hooded terrorists holding machine-guns, thus contributing to the first 'change of heart' in favor of the Palestinians.But in 1972, Israel was the offended country. The film is based on George Jonas' book "Vengeance" chronicling the targeted assassinations against Palestinian dignitaries accused of having pulled some of the strings that lead to 'Black September': eleven men, for eleven athletes, an "eye for an eye" move Golda Meir took all responsibility for. She personally believed that there was no time for peace. Why wouldn't they put these men on trial like Eichmann, who did far worse? Eichmann was arrested at a time where Nazism was terminated, and the new evil from the Israeli perspective was the Arabs, as long as these influential people lived, Israeli would die. What I admired in the film is that it doesn't only discuss the victims' actual responsibility in the Munich attacks but even the sheer value of their deaths, because each one brings more ruthless successors, perpetuating a never-ending cycle of violence. I expected the movie to open with the blood bath that triggered the whole chain of events, but this was ignoring what a master storyteller Spielberg is. He punctuates the film with elements of that fateful night as violent interludes reminding the viewers why Meir took that decision, the climax coinciding with the killings. But this is not manipulation, as one could accuse Spielberg of. The point is that violence is ugly and blind.Spielberg depicts each assassination with a Hitchcockian attention for details, one of them involves a bomb trapped in a phone and the biggest suspense comes when a little girl is about to answer the phone instead of her father. But for all the thrills the film provides, what struck me is the way the targets, or at least the first ones, are depicted as 'harmless' people, even sympathetic: one is an Italian-speaking poet and had just finished to translate the Arabian Nights in Italian, he's an intellectual and his involvement in Munich events has been denied, another one is a doctor and a family man, when he's interviewed, he insists that many camps were bombarded by Israel (which means that there are already people who paid the price for Munich). It seems crucial for Spielberg to shows shades of innocence in the victims or at least be indirectly vocal about the Palestinian pleas, and never without really discrediting them, and it actually pays off. When a Palestinian says that they use violence like Israel does, it also means killing innocents, it indirectly provides alibis for the target assassinations as the men killed are still less innocent than civilians. And when a PLO member discusses with Avner about the Nazi guilt, I felt this was the director of "Schindler's List" reminding the audience that no matter what they think about Jews and Arabs, it is a war for a land, not some extermination project.Now, to say that Spielberg sided with Palestinians would be too much of a stretch, but the point the screenplay (the book was adapted by Eric Roth an Tony Kuschner) is that violence can't be the solution to the problems it causes. And even at the end, when most of the men are eliminated, there's no real satisfaction or overwhelming effect, it is just about a job that had to be "done", it could have been unfair, but there's a key scene where Avner's mother says that "Israel had to be 'taken' because no one would have given it anyway'. At least, both sides would agree on that. Served by a great cast: Eric Bana, Geoffrey Rush, Daniel Craig and Mathieu Kassovitz "Munich" explores the dark corners one country could be driven into, in order to "make a point", and it is very fitting that there's a part played by Michael Lionsdale because he starred in my favorite political thriller "The Day of the Jackal", and "Munich" is perhaps the closest that come to that level of documentary-like gritty realism. I didn't need to wish De Gaulle's death to somewhat 'root' for the Jackal, so I guess even an Arab could be fascinated by the level of organization put to avenge eleven athletes. Maybe admitting that there's a lot to learn from the 'other side' can be a first step toward a reconciliation, but one of the tragedies Arab people must deal with, is that there's no Spielberg's counterpart in the Arab world, to the point that it took a Spielberg film so people could hear their voices.

Hard hitting, from all points of view...A difficult story wrought with the troubled past of two nations.. Spielberg has successfully brought about a film which explores a seemingly endless conflict where there are no winners.It provides us with a political and personal overview of the darker elements of the men, women, families and children that directly endure the brutality and hostility of a fruitless heritage of unexplainable and impossible hatred...Although the film uses the events of the Munich Olympic killings as it's theme I believe that it explores a much larger panoply of social,political and worldly behaviours... It is a reminder that we as a species are not quite ready to evolve...