Get the Picture!

 Join Ebay Today!

Movie Showtimes
Enter your U.S. zip code to get today's movie showtimes from imdb.com.

Search provided by The Internet Movie Database.

 
Munich (2005)
(out of four)
Rated: R

Director: Steven Spielberg
Writing credits:
George Jonas (book)
Tony Kushner (screenplay)
Starring: Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Ciarán Hinds, Mathieu Kassovitz, Hanns Zischler, Ayelet Zorer, Geoffrey Rush,
Lynn Cohen.
Review by: Dan Geer
© MovieLegacy.com
Trivia from imdb.com

Movie Trailers from Quicktime.com

By Vengence, the book Munich is based on, at Amazon.com

Buy the Munich soundtrack at Amazon.com

      Munich, based on the book Vengence by George Jonas, is a new kind of film for Steven Spielberg - one much more graphic and ambitious than anything he has ever done before. While we are used to getting straightforward stories from him with a clear perspective of who is good and who is evil, this film seems to blur the two together and lets the audience decide which side to take, if any.

      This film starts out with a very violent depiction of the Palestinian terrorists kidnapping and murdering the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. But the majority of the film focuses on the five Israeli assassins who were assigned to hunt down and kill the members of "Black September," the group responsible for the murders. The people assigned to this mission are picked by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen) and her cabinet members. All of them must be paid under the table, and any record of their existence has to be erased. Avner (Eric Bana), who was Meir's former bodyguard, is assigned leadership of this group.

      What is odd is that while everyone in the group has skills that are helpful for the mission (one of them can forge documents, another can build bombs, another is talented at removing evidence, and the last knows a lot about cars), ultimately none of them really fit the normal assassin profile. Avner, for example, is a family man at the time of this assignment, who wants to be with his pregnant wife more than anything else. Sure, he was a bodyguard, but not a murderer. The rest of the group consists of either old farts, or individuals with somewhat timid personalities that assassins cannot afford to have. The purpose for selecting this peculiar group of men is because they are not recognizable as assassins, and yet possess skills that are vital for getting the job done. Seeing how this strange group of people goes about this mission is one of the most interesting elements the film has to offer. It is not your usual action film with action stars. It is average people taking on a task that normally would be beyond what they could handle.

      The other interesting element is what was briefly addressed in the first paragraph. Being Jewish himself, Spielberg is obviously not on the side of Black September (nor would any other decent person be). But he directs the film in such a way where the Israeli assassins assigned to kill them are depicted as being just as violent and brutal as the terrorists, which is not what one would expect from a Jewish director. What is more is that Palestinians in the film offer various reasons for the terrorism that almost seem valid. Who is in the right? That is just one of the questions Spielberg raises in this film, which is an interesting one, but one that makes it difficult to pick someone to root for.

      But the biggest question comes out in the open at the end of the movie. After shooting Black September members in cold blood, or blowing them up, Avner points out to his mission handler, Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush), that even though they assassinated most of the terrorists, they got replaced by other terrorists. Why even bother, when the violence just continues without end on both sides, appearing as though nothing gets accomplished? But, as Ephraim points out, "Why cut my fingernails? They'll just grow back." Both sides have excellent points, and Spielberg leaves it up to the viewer to make up one’s own mind about what one thinks about the whole thing. But not before he ends the film with a shot of New York City in the distance with the World Trade Center twin towers in view. The film reminds us that while it may be right to hunt down the terrorists, ultimately terrorism will always exist and persist, and the violence will continue no matter what.

      Keep in mind that this film falls under the "shock and awe" category. The film is very graphic, both in violence and sexuality. One scene consists of a woman who gets murdered in the nude, with blood gushing out of her body and running all over. Another shows someone putting a bullet through someone's face, and it does not hold back in showing us everything. This type of violence happens throughout the entire film. Sure, it is not as violent as Saving Private Ryan, or as violating as Schindler's List. But the audience may be more disturbed by this film, not just because of the violence, but also because much of the violence is committed by the "good guys."

     It is a hard film to watch, and in some places it may have gone too far. For me, I do not think this is the type of movie that I could watch again. I do not regret seeing this film, as it realistically emphasizes the price paid for doing what many consider to be the right thing, and delivers in the area of great film-making. But while realism may have been its intent, I felt quite depressed and disturbed after watching it, and it is a kind of feeling that makes a repeat viewing of this film seem unbearable. In the end, while I think the film is well-made, I cannot say that I actually "enjoyed" it.


© 2005 MovieLegacy.com