Avis des utilisateurs

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."

'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.

Steven Spielberg has absolutely everything at his disposal, he can make an epic in no time at all. But, even he must know that films, most films have a soul and that can't be rushed. Why the need to rush this film into screens? For Oscar consideration? If there was a film that needed nurturing and thought was this one. The length is a flaw in itself. It makes it appear self indulgent and, quite frankly,annoying. If one could, and one should, put that aside, "Munich" is a remarkable experience. Tony Kushner and Eric Roth deal with people in all its complexity - a welcome new detail in a Spielberg film - and that gives "Munich" its most powerful aspect. Eric Bana is extraordinary and the humanity of his gaze is confusing and recognizable at the same time. His crying at hearing his child's voice over the phone is as real as his hardness when he massacres his targets. The controversy raising after the first public screenings seems pre-fabricated by a marketing machine. The questioning of Bana's character and the appalling nature of revenge can't be controversial it's at the base of human nature. To call Spielberg "no friend of Israel" is as absurd as it is suspicious. No, this movie is a thriller, based on actual events, directed by the greatest craftsman of the last 30 years in a record amount of time. Go see it.

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.

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.

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

Just because this film has been attacked by pols and shills, here's my 2 cents. Spielberg manages to set the agenda, and sets it correctly. It is indeed about the antecedents to 9/11, and bravo to Spielberg for taking it on, but not somewhere in Afghanistan, but at its genesis, the squalor of Palestine.

Spielberg's film is an essay on revenge and how hopeless and self-defeating that ancient temptation is. It's brave of Spielberg to say it to us now; brave, too, to paint the avenging Israelis as somewhere below the Angels. Let's be candid: There are harsh sentiments expressed here, by some Israeli characters, that the Evangelical Lobby simply doesn't want aired.

Spielberg's handling of the Bana character is masterful. Noteworthy is how uncompromising it is: this is a man whose identity has collapsed. It's entirely right that his Israeli handler should refuse the Sabbath-meal invitation at the end, realizing that the bonds of the older religion (and pre-Zionist identity) are shattered and meaningless.

Spielberg might have improved this product (some of the dialogues are horribly wooden). But that's not important. That a mainstream US film should go where this film goes is significant. This is a major-minor event in Spielberg's long and luminous career.

This is a movie that looks and feels unlike any other Steven Spielberg film. Its a well made and mostly well acted story about the Israeli hit squad sent out to kill the plotters of the terrorist attack at the 1972 Olympics. The problem for me was that I was never emotionally engaged except when we see the recreation of the attack. I never really felt any connection to any of the Israeli agents taking revenge. A large part of the problem is that Eric Bana seems completely out of place in the film. He's much taller and much too good looking not to stand out in a crowd, which struck me as odd since he was chosen to lead the team in part because he didn't look Jewish. Bana also seemed to have only one expression through most of the movie and I wondered whether he was actually Buster Keaton in disguise. This isn't to say the film is a bad movie, its not, Its just not a particularly engaging one. For my money I would rather see the 1986 version of the same story The Sword of Gideon, or better yet the excellent documentary One Day in September again since at least I would actually feel some connection to the events rather than just an admiration for the film making skill.

Another dip in the Spielberg pool and I come away drenched in emotion. I was a freshman in high school in Texas during the Munich games. I was stunned by the events and understood little.

Today, I am still stunned by Munich and every terrorist act that followed, but I understand so much more and grieve. Spielberg gives us a powerful glimpse into the meaning of home, family, honor, history, ethics, and faith. The movie is not about the Jews and Arabs. It's about human beings. It's about us.

The narrative is driven by our connection to Avner. We watch as Eric Bana opens himself up in a way that the likes of a George Clooney in Syriana only dreams of.

This is a must see.

Munich is a well crafted film by the biggest director on the planet. Great pacing, suspense and cinematography. The biggest problem I had with the film is that I've seen it before. A little known film called THE SWORD OF GIDEON. Munich is almost a direct copy from the original. What a shame that Spielberg has to produce a remake of a much better film. Enough already with the remakes. People want to see original stories with fresh new ideas and writers. Why are independent films so successful, because the ones that are well made and tell a good story are box office darlings. It's amazing some Hollywood films have budgets north of 100 million. Just incredible how much money and time is wasted. If you want to understand what happened in the aftermath of Munich, rent THE SWORD OF GIDDEON.

An all time great but hard work because it covers so many conflicting areas and portrays the contrast in such a way that, by the end, you see the "protagonists" as paranoid anti hero's.

I do understand the political and socio-political side of things but the story just doesn't make for a great film making experience for the viewer (reminds me very much of watching black hawk down and the exhausting experience it was when leaving the cinema at the end).

It almost seems like Spielberg is himself conflicted in what he is trying to portray and maybe that was his goal for us, as the viewer, but it doesn't transpose well on the screen from story to film.

With all those negatives it still remains a great film with great acting, great action and even more interesting intrigue. It just cant help feeling that it left me feeling a little deflated and confused (about the film rather than the history) once the end came. A solid 7 for me.

I don't think the "perfect" movie has been made yet. I don't know that a masterpiece is necessarily perfect, so, viewers will undoubtedly find faults in this movie, some of which have already been expressed in the comment section. But masterpiece or not, I really liked this movie. It told a particular side of the story and told it well. And if you witnessed any of the tragedy of Munich in the summer of 1972, you feel a connection to the events portrayed in this movie. We, the audience, become a member of the hit squad able to empathize with the angst in becoming assassins with consciences, as collateral damage does matter. But the trouble with trying to maintain a conscience is that each notch on the belt is another slash of your humanity ripped from your soul. You squirm from living in the uncertainty of trusting people you are suspicious of in order to fulfill your mission. You nervously plan the pathway to the next target. You seethe with the frenzy of the kill. You perpetually twitch in the paranoia of becoming the hunted, "sleeping" with one eye open and a finger on the trigger. In the beginning you are swept away by your sense of duty to God and country above all else. In the end you are cynical, angry and afraid about what you have done and what you have become.

There are many other sides of this story. It is left to other movies or media to tell those versions. I won't take this one as a definitive history lesson on the subject. Instead I'll take it as a captivating tale of a struggle of life and death played on a complex stage of geopolitics.

Munich sounds like a catchy name, doesn't it? And the topic of this movie is, to say the least, a hot one. When you enter a movie with such a hot topic like Munich, a topic on which you've already formed a somewhat strong opinion, you hunger to criticize the flick. That was the case with me. But after seeing this movie, my head was full of unanswered question on which I had to find new answers.

Obviously this movie is after Schindler's List Spielberg's second movie that touches the subject of Jews. But in this movie he takes no sides. He sympathizes with both the Jews and the Palestinians. Maybe "sympathize" is too strong a word. I'd rather say he let's us see both sides of the coin. The movie has no real good or bad guy. I would define the main character of the movie as an antihero who slowly gets into trouble with his moral guidelines.

Spielberg chose to give this movie a dark tone and an unsettling (brilliant) score that puts us viewers in a constantly alarmed mood. Each time the assassins take down one of their targets the heartbeat like score forces us to ask: Are they doing the right thing? And the general style of the movie seemed to me similar to the, in my opinion great style of The French Connection.

Like all the Spielberg movies, this movie is relies more on it's story than on the performances of the cast. But nevertheless the cast delivers a solid performance. Eric Bana doesn't fail to carry the movie with some strong assistance from actors like Geoffrey Rush. He was very believable as the lone Israeli assassin who at first gets hunted by moral questions and finally becomes the prey himself.

Sadly, this is a real stinker.

The characters are laughably wooden and the dialogue is excruciatingly hackneyed. In short this is the Yiddish A-Team does Europe, without the humour.

But this is much worse than simply poor entertainment. I believe that when making a film about an historical event the director has an obligation to either portray that event as faithfully as possible or to clearly state that it does not. The film begins with the words "Inspired by real events" which is merely a disingenuous muddling of the fact that this film is a complete fiction. It is not only dishonest but damaging to Hollywoodize history in this way, for both the real people touched by these events and the people who will come away from this film believing it to be the truth.

There were two documentaries about the post-Munich events shown recently on British TV. They were not only far more moving and gripping but told the facts. It was a great story; unfortunately Spielberg wasted the opportunity to tell it.