eric262003 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.

TheLittleSongbird Having grown up with the likes of 'ET', the first three 'Indiana Jones' films (of which 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' is still one of his best) and 'Jurassic Park'(also 'Hook', though it's much less good through adult eyes, don't dislike it though), it's safe to say that Steven Spielberg was part of my childhood.Am still shocked and moved by 'Schindler's List', enthralled by 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', moved by 'Empire of the Sun' and 'The Color Purple' and thrilled but often scared senseless by 'Jaws', and consider all of these plus 'ET', 'Raiders' and 'Jurassic Park' among his best films. For me his weakest are 'The Lost World' and '1941', and also had mixed feelings on 'Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' and 'The BFG'.'Munich' is not quite up there with his very best, but it's from personal opinion one of his best since 'Schindler's List'. There is a sense at times of hasty production about it, not visually or directorially (on both counts the film's top-notch) but more to do with occasional parts in the storytelling that feel a little muddled and not as well developed as they could have been in how some things are resolved.On the other hand 'Munich' does look absolutely great, love the very gritty and somewhat stark look to how everything's shot and lit (the restless camera proves to be atmosphere-enhancing) which felt evocative to the mood and the subject matter. Spielberg's direction is some of his best of his later films, under him pacing is deliberate but tight and he gives plenty of unnerving intensity without resorting to the schmaltz that he can be criticised for.John Williams' score is understated but also haunting, even if not having themes as unforgettable as the likes of those for 'Jaws', 'ET', 'Schindler's List', 'Raiders' and 'Jurassic Park', adding a good deal to the atmosphere while not making the mistake of over-emphasising (like in 'Amistad'). The script is thought-provoking and with the right amount of nuances and avoiding the traps of cheese and schmaltz, while boasting many genuinely powerful and poignant moments. The story is continually compelling, with it being particularly strong when the doubts appear with the urgency and emotional power being maximised. The action scenes are pretty electrifying also.Not ending 'Munich' with a pat and too conveniently wrapped up conclusion was a brave choice, and honestly can't imagine the film ending as effectively if it had done. The characters are interesting, having strengths but also flaws and conflicts and to me the film didn't feel at all one-sided.The acting is terrific, Eric Bana heads the cast in one of his better performances, here he's charismatic but stoic. Even better are the support, with both sides of Bana's Avner's troubled conscience being superbly played by Daniel Craig and Ciaran Hinds. Mathieu Kassivitz, Michael Lonsdale and Geoffrey Rush register strongly also.Overall, a great film and one of Spielberg's better later efforts (since 'Schindler's List'). 9/10 Bethany Cox

Parker Lewis Eric Bana (real name Eric Banadinović) and Geoffrey Rush headline this emotional and gripping feature from Steven "E.T." Spielberg. Eric started his career in Australia as a comedian, and Geoffrey was a dramatic actor before hitting it big with Shine. All credit to the production team for recreating the 70s look in this drama, based on real events it must be said. It seemed no expense was spared in getting the 70s look. I wonder though if Munich was a German production (it would be called München) what tone it would take.Daniel Craig (pre-Bond) is a standout in this compelling movie, and it's as though Munich primed Mr Craig to be 007, who wouldn't be afraid to go to Tripoli to achieve his goals on behalf of the Government.Sure there are a duplicity of complex moral issues in Munich (Germans know it as München). Interestingly, the title of the movie, the name of the city that hosted the 1972 Summer Olympics resonates to the point that the title of the movie is just that, Munich, not something like a verb.The end scene where Avner (Eric Bana) has sex with his wife, intercut with scenes of the gruesome deaths of the Israeli hostages on the Munich air strip at the hands of the terrorists, was I'm afraid ludicrous and tacky in my humble opinion. I'm surprised no- one exercised any veto on this. I mean really, it would be akin to John and Laura being the beast with two backs in Don't Look Now, intercut with whatever gruesome occurs in the movie, or Nick Curran banging Catherine Tramell in Basic Instinct, intercut with scenes of Johnny Boz being ice-picked to death. I can only wonder what the relatives of the Israeli hostages thought when they saw this scene.

Python Hyena Munich (2005): Dir: Steven Spielberg / Cast: Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Geoffrey Rush, Marie-Josee Croze, Ciaran Hinds: Place and time regards the aftermath of the 1972 murders of 11 Israeli athletes and the squad sent to terminate those responsible. Director Steven Spielberg succeeds in realism with a powerful setup then it becomes repetitious as the team tracks and kills its targets with various bomb devices. One flaw is its inability to involve viewers. That is not usually the case with a director such as Spielberg but this is not a high point in his career. Basically, this is no Schindler's List. Eric Bana leads the mission but the role is one note until the second half of the film where he examines the vengeance and the paranoia overlooking his life. In supporting roles are Geoffrey Rush and Daniel Craig as well as Marie-Josee Croze who are at the mercy of characters that never seem to come to life. Their roles are more observed than developed and that is a major drawback. This is unfortunate considering the talent in front and behind the camera involved and how flat the material becomes. Strong theme regarding revenge and whether it is warranted. Spielberg doesn't applaud revenge so much as address its madness and whether or not it actually resolves. The film is technically well made showcasing European photography but for Spielberg it is secondary to his masterpieces. Score: 5 / 10