Munich

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS!!!!!!!

Though I respect his work and love many of his films, I do not worship at the alter of Spielberg. Like many, I hated the last hour of War of the Worlds and feel that he has significant trouble ending his films properly. I agree with those who say that he can be too sentimental at times.

That said, I was excited to see Munich. The cast is superb, the premise is incendiary and fascinating, and finally, the trailer is quite enticing.

It was not anything like I expected, and it fucking blew me away. I can say with certainty that right now (I haven’t seen Brokeback Mountain or The New World) I think Munich is the best movie of 2005. Thinking about it a day after seeing it gives me the chills, and I can’t wait to see it again.

Munich is an extraordinarily powerful, complex and moving examination of vengeance and patriotism. It asks tough, pertinent questions and doesn’t provide answers. It lives in a gray area and is all the better for it. I know it’s a little dramatic, but truthfully I was a little shaken when the end credits began to roll. This movie hits you hard.

The story begins at the Munich Olympics in 1972. Four athletes are sneaking out of the dorms to have a few beers. They stumble upon a larger group of guys they assume are also athletes. Realizing that these guys don’t speak English, they help them climb a fence before heading to their destination.

But these guys aren’t athletes. They are a Palestinian terrorist group known as Black September, and they take 11 Israelis hostage. The world was watching, and after an escape attempt at an airport goes horribly wrong, all 11 are dead.

Israel is enraged, and they don’t waste time planning a retaliation. Avner (Eric Bana), an ex-Mossad agent, is summoned to lead a small group of men on a mission. The mission: track down and kill those responsible for planning the Munich massacre.

They will travel all over Europe to do this and it may take years. However, they will not kill anyone in an Arab country. The men will be paid handsomely but Israel will deny knowing them if anything should go wrong.

The group consists of Carl (Ciaran Hinds), Steve (Daniel Craig), Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz) and Hans (Hanns Zischler). Each man has a specific area of expertise. Robert is a toymaker who also constructs bombs. Hans is an antiques dealer and document forger. Steve is the driver, and Carl cleans up any mess they leave behind.

Initially, the men are extremely proud of their mission. They ask few questions and believe that vengeance is justified. Though some are more pensive than others (Steve is especially enthusiastic), each man believes in what they are doing. Strong, decisive action is necessary to show that Israel is not weak or cowardly.

Their mission is an expensive, difficult one. Finding these men comes at a price, and killing them isn’t exactly easy. Avner discovers a reliable source in Paris named Louis (Mathieu Amalric).

Louis won’t say whom he works for or how he gets his information. He does reveal that he does not work for or support any governments and will not help anyone who works for a country’s government.

Using Louis’s information, the men carry out successful assassinations all over Europe. Robert and Avner shoot their first target, but Robert’s bombs are used after that. The bombs don’t always do what they’re supposed to, which becomes understandable when Robert reveals that his experience was with dismantling bombs, not making them.

These scenes are astoundingly suspenseful, and Spielberg is at his best. One scene in Paris involves a young girl (they must not kill civilians) going back into an apartment to grab something she has left behind. The phone has a bomb in it and her father is supposed to answer it when Carl calls him from across the street. The men do not see the girl go back in.

Another scene involves Avner renting a hotel room next to their target. The bomb has been hidden under the man’s bed. When he goes to sleep, Avner is supposed to turn off the lamp in his room as a signal. If the bomb is too powerful, he could be killed, along with the young newlyweds in the other room next to the target.

There is tension in the group. Steve becomes angry with Robert over the trouble with the bombs. Robert becomes stressed out and agitated. Carl begins to express doubt about their mission and its objectives. And Avner tries desperately to keep the group focused and on task while also worrying about his pregnant wife back home.

As time goes on, things become infinitely more complicated. The group’s liaison back in Israel, Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush), wants to know who Avner’s source is. Avner will not divulge that information. Plus, the group desperately wants to assassinate one of their primary targets, but he’s in an Arabian country and they will need assistance to pull it off. This is strictly against Louis’s policy. If they do it, there could be serious trouble with Ephraim and Louis.

And those aren’t the only problems. As the body count rises, it appears that the group members themselves might be targets. Ephraim says that Avner can’t trust Louis. He could be CIA. Louis says that Avner can’t trust Ephraim. What if he’s just using the group to eliminate enemies of Israel who have nothing to do with Black September?

Avner begins to question Ephraim. How does he know that their targets were involved with Black September? If someone is ready to immediately replace the person they kill, are they really accomplishing anything? Does it ever end?

Spielberg uses violence to profound effect in Munich. Following the terrorists taking the hostages in the beginning, the tragedy at the Olympics is told via flashback throughout the movie, usually when Bana is sleeping.

These scenes are even more potent than the assassinations. One in particular, in which an Israeli athlete has a chance to escape but instead grabs a butcher knife and goes back to fight, is phenomenally chilling. In a matter of seconds, the athlete rushes back to where the terrorists are holding the hostages, stabs one of them in the head and is quickly obliterated by machine guns. Spielberg centers the camera on the wall to demonstrate what automatic gunfire does to the man’s body. It is an unsettling, haunting scene, and it will linger with people long after they leave the theater.

The acting in Munich is exceptional. Bana is remarkable as the lead, trying to balance his desperate longing for his family and the duty he feels to Israel. Hinds, Kassovitz, Craig, Rush and Amalric are just as good. There isn’t a weak link.

I did have a few small problems. There are one or two scenes that felt too sentimental and a little out of place in this movie, including a scene in which Avner talks to his newborn daughter and tells her not to forget his voice. It’s a tad hokey. Also, Craig completely disappears during the last 15-20 minutes and we never learn what becomes of his character. Finally, the ending is abrupt and feels a little rushed, even in a movie nearly 160 minutes long (it is never boring). It leaves one wanting more.

However, those are all minor complaints that are easily overlooked. What you’ll really remember is everything Munich does right, which is a hell of a lot. The issues it raises are complex and weighty. Is vengeance justified, and if so, under what circumstances? What do you achieve by answering killing with more killing? Does killing for one’s country make you a terrorist? Is it all just an endless cycle with no solution?

Spielberg has directed a truly spectacular film here, and I really can’t say enough about it. I was mesmerized from start to finish. I was entertained and challenged simultaneously. When it was over, I felt like discussing it for hours. Munich is an instant classic. See it as soon as you can.

9/10

[Katsumoto]

Thanks for the review Madsen. Your not the only one who thinks this is the best of 05', james berardinelli posted his munich review today and gave it his first 4 star review of the year. Here it is (http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/m/munich.html)

[ChemicalRomance]

I usually read the last paragraph of your reviews Madsen, because they usually contain spoilers which I am weary of. But god damn if your final paragraph of your review doesn't get me VERY excited for this film. I was kind of on the fence before this but with the more TV commercials I see and reviews like this one, this a movie I will be definitly trying to check out in theaters, more than likely with my Poppa Dukes.

[Lazy Boy]

I liked the working title of the film, Vengeance, better than Munich. It seems to sum up the big theme of the film, the moral quandary over violent retribution.

I'm looking forward to it. Spielberg already has a film topping my ten best list this year, so it would be great if this achieves the same feat.

[MadsenOMC]

I know my reviews contain many spoilers. I try to avoid major ones. My brief review of Munich: It is the year's best movie. See it now.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
I liked the working title of the film, Vengeance, better than Munich. It seems to sum up the big theme of the film, the moral quandary over violent retribution.


I agree.

[Cronos]

im getting rather ineterested in this although i have absolutely no clue as to when its getting released in the uk

[Sigur509]

This is the first review I've read for the film. Needless to say, I am interested in it. I might see it when it comes around here.

[silentasylum]

I Definetely plan on seeing this.....

[chinton]

Im glad you like d it Madsen and I hope it makes a lot of money but I was generally dissapointed by it. I thought it was generally dull which was caused by a structure that repeated itself over and over and over. Towards the end they finally decided to throw in a morality paly but it was heavy handed as expected. Bana was terrible as usual. What do people see in the guy. I was also really disturbed by the murder of the hitwoman very tacky the way in whcih it was done. Also the sex scene at the end were its cutting between sex and Isrealis getting killed was just disgusting.

On the other hand it looks beautiful, I liked the beggining and the supporitng cast was great esp Geoffery Rush.

I was just dissapointed since it was written by a man who gave us a milestone in literature Angles In America.

Still everybody seems to love this so Ill be in the minority and I thought Syriana was dissapointing and everybody loves that.

This was just dissapointing.

6/10

[SITH]

I am pretty excited about this movie. It is a story long over due for the telling.

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS!

Originally posted by chinton
Im glad you like d it Madsen and I hope it makes a lot of money but I was generally dissapointed by it. I thought it was generally dull which was caused by a structure that repeated itself over and over and over. Towards the end they finally decided to throw in a morality paly but it was heavy handed as expected. Bana was terrible as usual. What do people see in the guy. I was also really disturbed by the murder of the hitwoman very tacky the way in whcih it was done. Also the sex scene at the end were its cutting between sex and Isrealis getting killed was just disgusting.



Wow. We strongly disagree chinton. I didn't find the structure dull or repetitive at all. How else should it have been done? These men had to hunt down and assassinate people. The filmmakers had to show the evolution of their beliefs and feelings about their mission. Adequate time was used to do so. I found it to be perfectly done.

How was the morality play heavy handed? I didn't think it was merely thrown in at the end. That is not an accurate description. Did you pay attention to the dialogue? It becomes a part of the movie long before the end, initially through Carl, who has seen it all.

I think Bana is a terrific actor. Have you seen Chopper? Obviously he was good enough for Spielberg. That has to mean something, especially when he makes a movie so personal.

The murder of the hitwoman was tacky? Um, OK. How should they have killed her? What would have been more appropriate? That is just silly man. She murdered their friend. And I think you should have been disturbed. It is very disturbing.

I too was a little perplexed by the decision to cut between a sex scene and the murder of the athletes, but as it went on, it seemed to demonstrate how affected Avner has been by all he has done and seen. How he has changed and how it's going to alter his life forever.

You're not alone chinton. Other reviews have said it is too long and too dull. I could not disagree more.

[chinton]

It would have been better during the sex scene had he actually had flashback of things he did if this wa s supposed to represent him being bothered or something. Instead it cuts to things he ahd never seen.

I thought the murder of the hitwoman was quite tacky as it was obvious that Speilberg was putting it in there to be dark and edgy. Its full frontal nudity and violent so it just felt really forced and distinctly felt like Speilberg trying too hard to be serious or whatnot.

The whole last scene was so heavyhanded with the obvious moral of how everybody has to stop killing each other cause it will never stop. Cap that off with the Twin Towers. Yikes.

I need to see Chopper. Ive never seen that maybe hes more than a blank face for me there.

The biggest problem for me was the structure I know it was real life but it was still dull for me but I am glad you liked it and hopefully other people do

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS!!

Originally posted by chinton
It would have been better during the sex scene had he actually had flashback of things he did if this wa s supposed to represent him being bothered or something. Instead it cuts to things he ahd never seen.

I thought the murder of the hitwoman was quite tacky as it was obvious that Speilberg was putting it in there to be dark and edgy. Its full frontal nudity and violent so it just felt really forced and distinctly felt like Speilberg trying too hard to be serious or whatnot.

The whole last scene was so heavyhanded with the obvious moral of how everybody has to stop killing each other cause it will never stop. Cap that off with the Twin Towers. Yikes.

I need to see Chopper. Ive never seen that maybe hes more than a blank face for me there.

The biggest problem for me was the structure I know it was real life but it was still dull for me but I am glad you liked it and hopefully other people do

Chinton, I think you are completely mistaken. How do you know Spielberg's intentions regarding the murder of the hitwoman? Did he reveal them in an interview? Why would he include that to be "dark and edgy?" That is ridiculous and makes no sense. The movie is already plenty dark. Also, if you're Avner and Steven, she had to be killed. She murdered Carl. I think you are way, way off base here. The movie is already serious, so Spielberg would not feel it necessary to simply throw in this scene to make the movie serious. Not buying it man.

The structure is perfect. It You need time to show the beliefs of these men and how those beliefs change over time, after all of the killing they do. How else could you do that?

I didn't find the last scene heavy handed at all. It is a vital scene. Avner begins to really question what he and the others did. Are the questions he asks not important? I think they are. They're extremely important.

[chinton]

They are important I guess I just wish they were handled ina more interesting way. As far as the murder of the hitwoman the scene still leaves a bad taste in my mouth but oh well. Trust lots of people agree with you so Im in the minority

[daddiefatsacks]

thanks for the review madsen, even tho i didnt read it (i saw yur 9/10) and thats pretty exciting...

ill be checking it out on x-mas most likely

[Danger^Cart]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
SPOILERS!!



Chinton, I think you are completely mistaken. How do you know Spielberg's intentions regarding the murder of the hitwoman? Did he reveal them in an interview? Why would he include that to be "dark and edgy?" That is ridiculous and makes no sense. The movie is already plenty dark. Also, if you're Avner and Steven, she had to be killed. She murdered Carl. I think you are way, way off base here. The movie is already serious, so Spielberg would not feel it necessary to simply throw in this scene to make the movie serious. Not buying it man.

The structure is perfect. It You need time to show the beliefs of these men and how those beliefs change over time, after all of the killing they do. How else could you do that?

I didn't find the last scene heavy handed at all. It is a vital scene. Avner begins to really question what he and the others did. Are the questions he asks not important? I think they are. They're extremely important.

If anything was necessary, it was obviously the killing of the hitwoman. Although seeing Carl go out like that kinda sucked...but oh well.

Excellent film.

[TrippingBalls]

It better be good. I remember when people stated Catch Me if You Can was the best Spielberg movie of the decade, and I nearly fell asleep watching it.

So Madsen, how would you rank this against A.I., Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can, The Terminal, and War of the Worlds.

[chinton]

I seem to be one of the few people who like Catch Me If You Can. Great fun movie definitely the bes t movie hes done in so many years.

I understand why t hey kill the hitwoman I just didnt like how the scene wa s played. In the end though thats just one little problem as I had much bigger ones so its not a big deal. Glad to see two people like it now

[jolanar]

Is this the official Munich thread?

If so can we put better spoilers in here? I just read some spoilers from posts that didn't have spoiler warnings. :(

[Edie0027]

i think we'll be doing this as our holiday movie-- not necessarily the most uplifting for the holiday spirit, but i am definitely looking forward to checking it out....

[moviegroupie]

Cool I really want to see this. I hope it's better and more thoughtful than War of the Worlds, which was no better than an entertaining pop corn flick.

[chinton]

sorry about that jolanar

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by TrippingBalls

So Madsen, how would you rank this against A.I., Minority Report, Catch Me if You Can, The Terminal, and War of the Worlds.

In my opinion, it is easily better than all of those movies.

[Danger^Cart]

Originally posted by jolanar
Is this the official Munich thread?

If so can we put better spoilers in here? I just read some spoilers from posts that didn't have spoiler warnings. :(

My apologies jolanar.

[BorderEevilIII]

Originally posted by Cronos
im getting rather ineterested in this although i have absolutely no clue as to when its getting released in the uk



*looks up on IMDB*


UK - >>>>>27 January 2006<<<<




I am doin the DVD route for this. I pretty much know what is gonna happen cause I have seen a TV movie done on this. Anyone know the title?!? :( I recall seeing it on a ABC affilaite in the early 80's...
The only movie info that I was able to pull up was "Sword Of Gideon" but I am doubting it was that movie that I saw cause it has a 1986 release attached to it....

[Mr-Blonde]

CNN Review: 'Munich' a masterpiece

Spielberg film brilliantly acted, directed, written
By Paul Clinton

For CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/23/review.munich/index.html)

The film, directed by Steven Spielberg, is a visceral, emotionally exhausting work that dares to ask questions -- and gives no easy answers -- regarding the horrifying events that occurred at the 1972 Munich Olympics and their aftermath.

That fall, the entire world watched as an extremist Palestinian group, Black September, kidnapped and massacred Israel's 1972 Olympic team. This was at an Olympics labeled "The Olympics of Peace and Joy."

The deaths were played out in real time on television, with the hostage drama culminating in a botched rescue mission at a nearby airport. Many historians point to Olympic tragedy as the beginning of the kind of worldwide terrorism we know today.

First-time screenwriter (and Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright) Tony Kushner -- along with Eric Roth ("The Insider") -- helped Spielberg fashion journalist George Jonas' book, "Vengeance," into a thriller that examines the power and psychological toll of violence and retribution.

Publicly, Israel responded to the Munich massacre by bombing Palestine Liberation Organization bases in Syria and Lebanon, but privately the government, under Prime Minister Golda Meir, launched a highly top-secret group of special force teams to spread out across the world and assassinate all the Palestinians involved in the attack. The mission was called "Operation Wrath of God."

"Munich" is about one of those covert groups. Israel, to this day, has never confirmed the existence of these hit squads.

Building tension
Much of the action is seen through the eyes of one group leader, Avner, played by Eric Bana ("The Hulk," "Troy"). Geoffrey Rush plays Ephraim, Avner's contact, who intercedes when the shell-shocked Avner begins to have questions -- questions that become more philosophical and demanding about the ethics of the mission.

British actor Daniel Craig, who has just been named the new James Bond, plays Steve, a South African who is the most unwavering of the group.

Other members of the small group include Hans (Hanns Zischler), a German Jew who has a gift for forging documents; Carl (Ciaran Hinds), who is in charge of cleaning up the actions of his team; and Robert (Mathieu Kassovitz), a toymaker turned explosives expert.

(One interesting bit of casting is Guri Weinberg, now 33, who has a deep connection to the story -- he plays his own father. He is the son of Moshe Weinberg, the Israeli wrestling referrer and former champion who died in the massacre when Guri was just 1 month old.)

The hit team finds that the more they stay on the hunt, the more likely they too will become the hunted. Indeed, Avner's main contact, Louis (Mathieu Amalric), has no loyalties at all -- except to the money Avner pays him for his information. The idea can only make the men paranoid, Avner -- with a wife and child and another life waiting for him -- most of all.

"Munich" veers between scenes of incredible tension -- one sequence, in which the group accidentally finds the daughter of a target in their cross hairs, is almost unbearably hard to watch -- and relaxed, if meaningful, conversation. At one point, Avner, blindfolded, is taken to see Louis' father, a man who understands everybody's quandary -- but remains outside the fray, the better to exploit it.

Spielberg does not demonize the Palestinians, nor make the Israelis into saints. He's already taking heat from numerous groups on both sides of this fiery issue.

Indeed, "Munich" deliberately walks a tightrope. It's full of clashes of tone and reason and offers no pat answers. All it does is humanize the story of some decent men who -- in the end -- must come face to face with their own souls. That's plenty.

Spielberg's directing is brilliant, from Hitchcockian set pieces to jittery '70s-style movement. Kushner and Roth's script is thoughtful and provocative. The acting is uniformly excellent.

Near the end of the film, Ephraim asks a weary Avner, "What have you learned?" Ephraim wants to know about the mission, but the same unwittingly loaded question could be asked of everybody.

"Munich" is a great film -- and an important one. It's a brave work from a top-notch filmmaker, and one of the best films of the year.
-------------------

My anticipation of this film just got switched into high gear! :cool:

[dman476]

Originally posted by chinton
It would have been better during the sex scene had he actually had flashback of things he did if this wa s supposed to represent him being bothered or something. Instead it cuts to things he ahd never seen.
I thought the murder of the hitwoman was quite tacky as it was obvious that Speilberg was putting it in there to be dark and edgy. Its full frontal nudity and violent so it just felt really forced and distinctly felt like Speilberg trying too hard to be serious or whatnot.
The whole last scene was so heavyhanded with the obvious moral of how everybody has to stop killing each other cause it will never stop. Cap that off with the Twin Towers. Yikes.
I need to see Chopper. Ive never seen that maybe hes more than a blank face for me there.
The biggest problem for me was the structure I know it was real life but it was still dull for me but I am glad you liked it and hopefully other people do
Dude, I could not agree more. Except I gave the film a slightly higher grade - 7/10.

* SPOILERS AHEAD *


Well, my problem with the film is pretty much the same is yours. The filmis very very sloppy. It's structure is pointless and ridiculous. What, is this a Die Hard film? Why the need to show the execution of most of the organizers? Why was that hit-woman scene needed? The sex/flashback scene could have been powerful if there was any reason for it. We know the athletes were killed and why is he thinking about that during sex?
It's ridiculous, is Avner realizing something because in the end, it's obvious he doesn't and he doesn't want to kill of the rest of the "bad men." Also, WTF is up with the film's views - I couldn't tell a damn thing. Is Spielberg saying the Palestinians are bad or that the Mossads are for killing the Palestinians?
The film isn't particularly excruciating but the killings got boring and the middle of the film dragged on and on, the film could have been cut by a good half hour. But I fault Spielberg for the story method when it isn't really his fault entirely, it's Kushner's and Jones'.
The film is tense in some scenes, the way the film is done is beautiful, but some of it is done in poor taste (and not on ethical grounds). What happened to the Israeli's POVs? And on a sidenote, WIlliams' score was pretty unimpressive.
Overall, the film has no tactic and really has no devoted message like why Avner really changed his mind at the end and came to the conclusion the organizers (it's just what I call them) needed fair trials. This film is not great and doesn't live up to anything I've heard - I tried to like it and because of it's skillfull technique/directing and somewhat capricious yet good acting the film ranks a bit higher than I would have usually given, but the film is too superficial to me to like it on a level that I liked something like Schindler's List.

[chinton]

While you gave it a higher grade its nice to see we agree once again.


Frankly I think this will be another Syriana or Lost In Translation. I went to both films expecting to love them becuase it just felt like thats what I was supposed to do and I just came away not getting it. Oh well. I say see King Kong again over this either way it benfits me.

[dman476]

Originally posted by chinton

Frankly I think this will be another Syriana or Lost In Translation. I went to both films expecting to love them becuase it just felt like thats what I was supposed to do and I just came away not getting it. Oh well. I say see King Kong again over this either way it benfits me.
Hey, um, how does it benefit you? Is it because you work (do you?) at Universal?

Oh well, I have yet to see Syriana but Syriana's soundtrack is totally awesome (listened to it at a nearby store).

[Lazy Boy]

8/10

*SPOILERS*


I didn't expect to like Munich this much -- Spielberg is really having a good year, between this and WOTW. So much to absorb; I don't really see the difficulty in Spielberg assigning responsibility to both sides of the firing line. More so than Cronenberg's overpraised (but still good) History of Violence, Munich shows a real power and hold an act of vengeful retribution will have on a person's soul. I'm thinking about the assassination of the female assassin -- how utterly naked and revealed she was to the team, and how it sinks underneath the skin of Hans. The beauty of the natural body, corrupted by streams of red and bullet holes. This is a real call for clarity in the Middle East, and a view of nationalistic pride and the compromising of one's values for such an ideology. In the end, Avner's torment puts him on the outs with his own nationality, creating a haunting portrait of double-consciousness regarding world politics. The final shot is of a sprawled New York cityline, with the World Trade Center in the background, bringing all things past into the present perspective.

The only scene I thought was overdone was the sex scene, as it screamed of awkwardness surrounding sexual impotence more than a call of primal rage, but that was just me.

[Digifruitella]

I thought this was a very well made film. Steven Spielberg proves once again that he's a great director. I noticed so many innovative shots in this. It's amazing, I'm always amazed with every Spielberg film. He's so innovative.

8/10 for me as well. Not bad at all. Definitely going to be at the Oscars this year.

Best directing
Sound?
Cinematography

that's about all I can think of.

I knew that WTC shot was coming, I just knew it. I like that message.

[chinton]

to answer your question dman yes I do

[Poeman]

My review:

Boy i am telling you, for the past two months this was my most anticapated movie, and i told everyone this would win the oscar. But Steven Spielberg dissapointed me big time. This film had such a promise of becoming Spielbergs best film.
I thought the first half of the film were done brilliantly, the actors do a great job and the first couple hunts of the arabs were executed well for us. the second half of the film and i mean the second half dragged so much. It was unbelievable how long this movie felt. I thought the movie was feeling less and less on the story of munich but more about preaching the jews.
Spielberg made a movie that antagonizes the whole palestinian world, and tries to glorify the israel regime.
He should have said that both countries were at fault with the crisis that was going on. I expected a movie where i would get to feel these characters, but i only got to know Bana's character which is fine but as soon as the movie reached the point where the **** team members start dieing*** the film goes all over the place, trying to make the audience feel remorseful for one side.
Also i know this was inspired by real events, but spielberg again dissapoints me with the ending. Two times near the end i picked up my coat thinking the film was going to end. I am just dissapoined in this film. i wanted to have a great impact, like how Schindlers List did... this movie needed to show more how bana and his fellow team members go through the ordeal, it basically rushed itself the second half. I just felt this movie was trying to influence us to believing that the jews have suffered so damn much so its okay to kill these people. Someone mentioned this was a thriller and a human drama, that is what i expected.. i wanted a film that focused on human emotion and thrill us with how risky the mission was, but it rarely occured. I believe the film could have been better done on someone elses hand. For the past few years i have been very down on Spielberg

6/10

[Poeman]

i must admit one thing i liked with what spielberg did is show the aspect of how israel could be like terrorists to other countries. he explained that well..

and i have to say i hated that line bana's mother said in the end, such cliche and more sympathy towards "her" people

SPOILER
"at last we have a nation... at last"

END spoiler ( something like that)

[lunatic]

Originally posted by Poeman
My review:

Boy i am telling you, for the past two months this was my most anticapated movie, and i told everyone this would win the oscar. But Steven Spielberg dissapointed me big time. This film had such a promise of becoming Spielbergs best film.
I thought the first half of the film were done brilliantly, the actors do a great job and the first couple hunts of the arabs were executed well for us. the second half of the film and i mean the second half dragged so much. It was unbelievable how long this movie felt. I thought the movie was feeling less and less on the story of munich but more about preaching the jews.
Spielberg made a movie that antagonizes the whole palestinian world, and tries to glorify the israel regime.
He should have said that both countries were at fault with the crisis that was going on. I expected a movie where i would get to feel these characters, but i only got to know Bana's character which is fine but as soon as the movie reached the point where the **** team members start dieing*** the film goes all over the place, trying to make the audience feel remorseful for one side.
Also i know this was inspired by real events, but spielberg again dissapoints me with the ending. Two times near the end i picked up my coat thinking the film was going to end. I am just dissapoined in this film. i wanted to have a great impact, like how Schindlers List did... this movie needed to show more how bana and his fellow team members go through the ordeal, it basically rushed itself the second half. I just felt this movie was trying to influence us to believing that the jews have suffered so damn much so its okay to kill these people. Someone mentioned this was a thriller and a human drama, that is what i expected.. i wanted a film that focused on human emotion and thrill us with how risky the mission was, but it rarely occured. I believe the film could have been better done on someone elses hand. For the past few years i have been very down on Spielberg

6/10

Israeli regime?
Non-sense. What the hell is the whole Palestinian world?
Non-sense.
Another friend of practioners of religion of peace...
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[BakeTheMooCow]

Bana is a terrific actor, but I fault the screenplay for not giving an appropriate transition for his character. There was oppurtunity for showing his guilt and paranoia, but the effect is sudden and blunt. One moment, he is comforting Robert at the train station, the next he's tearing his room apart and sleeping in his closet. Is he the voice of reason or the voice of despair?

The sex scene intercut with the killing of Israeli hostages was disgusting. Possibly the most despicable thing Spielberg has ever filmed. For such an expereinced filmmaker to juxtapose two wildly different events is really bizarre. At first I was angered, but then I just felt sorry for Spielberg, because he actually believed the scene would be powerful.

The three best scenes were when the three Palestinians were killed, one holding a grocery bag, the second answering his phone and the third in the Olympic Hotel. All three sequences were extremely well-shot, taut, expertly paced and fascinating to watch. But that's about all that worked. Soon, I grew weary of seeing the murders. It went on and on and on and there was no end in sight. A lot of the film reel that is wasted on taking out the umpteenth target or boring conversations with 'Papa', should have been better used in character development or just cut entirely. At 2 hours and 45 minutes, this film is 45 minutes too long.

Spielberg is stuck in a rut. When he wants to make blockbusters like Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds, the action sequences are spectacular but the characters are weak, one-dimensional stick figures. When he makes character-centric thinkpieces, he gets lost in self-indulgence and hokey monologues. And either way, he couldn't end a film properly if his life depended on it.

Edit-- I just finished watching the documentary One Day In September because I was really interested in the subject matter and it certainly made me have a deeper appreciation for Munich. Both films compliment each other. While I stand by my comments that the film is too long and the sex scene is unnecessary, I'm really impressed by what Spielberg has accomplished, especially dealing with the moral conflicts of the Musaad task force. I can't imagine how hard it must've been for him to take on the project. Anybody who enjoyed or was even interested by this film needs to rent the documentary asap.

Upgrade: 7/10

[ilovemovies]

Not the year's best but definately among the top 5. Unlike most movies, the violence in this movie is shocking and disturbing. This is a really gripping movie. Very suspenseful. There were atleast half a dozen scenes where I was on the edge of my seat. Eric Bana is terrific here. I did buy his transformation. I think it started with the death of Ciaran Hind's character. It's a movie that really haunts you and stays with you.

[Rick-James]

Wow. This is such a hard movie to watch. Spielberg really made it clear that he is the best filmmaker working today.

I really liked this film a lot, but I don't think I wanna watch again anytime soon.

I loved King Kong and would love for it to get best picture at the Oscars, but this film will win and it really should.

9/10

[bigred760]

My review of Munich:

To me, Spielberg can do no wrong. He just knows how to make a compelling, suspenseful drama that not only keeps the viewer interested throughout, but adds a lot of character, emotion, and backbone to a movie based on real events. But instead of focusing on one of the biggest tragedies in human and Olympic history, he instead focuses on what the backlash that occurred after the event and the moral issues of that backlash.

While the movie isn't the fastest movie ever produced, you're never disinterested because of the events that occur - the killings, the bombings, and the preparations for each that precede the actions. But what makes this movie even better is the underlying theme of the futility of the Israelis' actions. Their actions, which were in response to terrorist acts, would only prompt more action by their enemies and so forth. And this issue speaks truth even to this day.

The moral issues are brought to light by the five characters that carry out the Israelis' revenge. Whether they're conflicted or feel that the revenge is justified, they continue to do what they're job requires through means of secrecy, terrorism, and more illegal means. The group is lead by Eric Bana's character, who is the symbol of morality in the picture - his character is torn between the ethics of it all while he is haunted by the tragedy.

Spielberg is a master of these dramas. The violence is not glorified, instead it is subdued, quieted, and quick. He adds flashbacks that contribute to character development and I freakin' love the way he places his characters in relation to the camera - that's just me. This is a great movie with interesting characters, moral dilemmas, and a story and pace that will keep you interested throughout. Any fan of Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan should enjoy this movie as well because Spielberg continues the storytelling style and his filmmaking expertise that made the other two future classics.

8/10

[MadsenOMC]

SPOILERS!!!

Originally posted by Poeman
My review:

Spielberg made a movie that antagonizes the whole palestinian world, and tries to glorify the israel regime.
He should have said that both countries were at fault with the crisis that was going on.
... this movie needed to show more how bana and his fellow team members go through the ordeal, it basically rushed itself the second half. I just felt this movie was trying to influence us to believing that the jews have suffered so damn much so its okay to kill these people. Someone mentioned this was a thriller and a human drama, that is what i expected.. i wanted a film that focused on human emotion and thrill us with how risky the mission was, but it rarely occured.


Did we see the same movie? Have you read all of the reviews that state Spielberg is way too harsh on the Israelis? It hardly glorifies the Israeli regime. He does say that both countries are at fault. Think about Bana's dialogue, especially towards the end (as well as some of Hinds' dialogue throughout the film). Do you remember questions that Bana asks Rush? What did we accomplish? How do we truly know that these men were responsible for Munich? If the result of our killing is more killing from terrorist groups, are we really achieving anything? If someone is ready to take the place of those we kill, is it really worth it? The movie is balanced.

The movie never says that it is OK to take revenge. It doesn't condone or glorify it. It asks tough, legitimate questions about it (see above).

And you didn't think their mission was risky? Three out of five of them died, and the other two barely survived. I'd say that is pretty damn risky. Wouldn't you?

I am still perplexed by the complaints concerning the structure. Again, IMO the stucture is perfect and I do not see what would have been more effective or appropriate. You have to show how the mission transpires. They find a contact, they carry out the assassinations, it becomes increasingly dangerous, they begin to ask questions. The structure perfectly compliments what Spielberg set out to accomplish with the film.

[Tyler_Durden_208]

Jan. 6 can't come soon enough. I wasn't too impressed with War of the Worlds (good popcorn movie, but far from his best), and I've been eagerly awaiting Spielberg to return to something more meaningful and dramatic. Plus, I've loved Eric Bana in everything I've seen him in so far (which, truthfully is only Hulk and Troy, but I liked those movies, especially his performances.)

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by Tyler_Durden_208
Plus, I've loved Eric Bana in everything I've seen him in so far (which, truthfully is only Hulk and Troy, but I liked those movies, especially his performances.)

I thought his Hulk performance was a misstep, but he's awesome and award worthy in Munich. He really gets at the wounded heart of his character and his reactions to each level of violence is soul-crushing.

To whomever thought this movie glorified violence or made it seem like a positive thing for Israel, watch the movie again. Spielberg's been getting a lot of flack (wrongly, I believe, and too much of it) for balancing his portrayal of his nation and the Palestinians.

[42ndStreetFreak]

What did we accomplish? How do we truly know that these men were responsible for Munich? If the result of our killing is more killing from terrorist groups, are we really achieving anything? If someone is ready to take the place of those we kill, is it really worth it? The movie is balanced.

The movie never says that it is OK to take revenge. It doesn't condone or glorify it. It asks tough, legitimate questions about it (see above).


Well getting the murderers responsible is an accomplishment. What a stupid question. What does catching a rapist do? Does not stop the rape or other rapes to come...punishes the person to blame fro the rape THEy did though doesn't it!?

So they should have done nothing then?
Screw the murdered athletes, lets do nothing about those that cold bloodedly targetted them. Because that's the loooovely way to act. Peace man! Groovy.

Perhaps Britain should have shrugged it's shoulders over the mass murder, opression, invasion and genocide and made an alliance with Nazi Germany to keep the peace.
After all....violence solves nothing.

You bring people who commit crimes to justice...you fight them. The blame is on the Muslim terrorists who decided to carry out the crime in the first place. Simple as that.

And with the leader of Iran calling Israel a 'tumor' and that it should be 'wiped off the face of the earth' (Hitler would agree...it seems National Socialism is alive and well in a different guise) it seems a strange time to say...'Hey my fellow Jews, sit back and take it".


Well people will always be replaced. On all sides no matter what.
catching murderers does not stop murder or stop other murderers existing.
Does that mean you should not get those specifically guilty?

And as for the retaliation...well unless I missed something the key word there is 'retaliation'.
Jewish athletes were targetted AND THEN the Black September mob were hunted down.
So the arguement that the action taken CAUSED more trouble does not wash, because the action came AFTER.
So what excuse was there for the initial murder of the Athletes?
Israel was already under attack (an I am not on any side here...both Jews and Arabs are basically as bad as each other imho) so how can their actions be blamed for Israel being under attack?

In a perfect world no one would HAVE to retaliate. But guess what?

Should we have never bothered trying and executing death camp commanders?
Or are we saying the easy, scared way should be taken because the murderers are part of a system (unlike Nazi Germany) that is still in operation?
The fact that others can still carry on should not mean we should do nothing against those specifically responsible for something.

Heads of crime organizations and drug rings can be replaced as well and retaliation can be dealt out by those still operating...should we stop arresting and taking down members of criminal organizations and drug dealers because of that though?

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
Well getting the murderers responsible is an accomplishment. What a stupid question.

Lay off the insults. They are not allowed around here. I never said that nothing should have been done. Please read carefully. I merely pointed out the questions that Spielberg is posing to viewers. Valid, tough questions. Got it?

[42ndStreetFreak]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
Lay off the insults. They are not allowed around here. I never said that nothing should have been done. Please read carefully. I merely pointed out the questions that Spielberg is posing to viewers. Valid, tough questions. Got it?

Don't strong arm me pal!

I was not on about YOU asking the question, I was on about Spielberg asking the question about what it accomplished.
Have YOU got it?

[BakeTheMooCow]

"The Lillehammer affair refers to the murder by Mossad agents of a Moroccan waiter, Ahmed Bouchiki, in Lillehammer, Norway on July 21, 1973. The agents had been sent by Israel to assassinate Ali Hassan Salameh, the leader of the Black September Organization, a Palestinian group that carried out the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre. They mistook Bouchiki for their target and shot him repeatedly as he walked back from a cinema to his flat (apartment) with his pregnant wife. Two members of the assassination team were arrested the next day as they re-used a getaway car to go to the airport. After their interrogation the whole cell was arrested, incriminating documents and the keys to a network of safe houses were discovered."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair

MUNICH completely ignored that.

[42ndStreetFreak]

The cock up was just that though. A mistake. Not planned and executed that way. Not done on purpose. UNLIKE the initial attack on the athletes.
yes it was wrong...yes it was tragic and yes once it happened someone had to be held responsible.
But that does not mean the actions of Israel in going after the Arab terrorsits was wrong.

To go back to the 2nd World War again...civilians were accidently killed there too, but should it have never happened?

Should Cops not go after criminals because an innocent MAY get in the way or be mistaken for someone else?

We could go one and on....


And (like the mistaken shooting of the Brazilian in London recently) the ones ultimately to blame for this guys death were the terrorists who carried out the Olympic atrocity that set the Mosad agents out on the path in the first place...as the guy would still be alive IF the Olympic attack (or the suicide attacks on London) had never taken place. Sinmple as that.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
Don't strong arm me pal!

I was not on about YOU asking the question, I was on about Spielberg asking the question about what it accomplished.
Have YOU got it?

My mistake. I still say it's a valid question, one that needs asking. If revenge only leads to more violence and more killing, is it really worth it? If it's nothing but an endless cycle of violence, what is accomplished?

[chinton]

I do see why he had to use that structure and why it was necessary to the film bun I didnt find it any less dull. I just guess there wasnt a strong enough through line as far as the assinsinations to keep me occupied aside from oh now there going to kill another person. I can seed how it worked for other people though.

Also I really think the sex scene intercut with Isrealis getting slaughtered was a massive mistake. Horrible idea.

[dman476]

Originally posted by chinton
Also I really think the sex scene intercut with Isrealis getting slaughtered was a massive mistake. Horrible idea.
Not only horrible but utterly pointless.
What was Spielberg trying to show? How Avner suffered through life because of those killings and this suffering was expressed in frequent human actions such as sex?
How ridiculous...did we need the sex?
Did we need to see how the athletes were killed?
No on both counts. We knew how the athletes were killed early on, and most importantly, we knew that they did die.
It's just a time waster. The ending had no breathtaking meaning...at all.
Ok, so there was the World Trade Center - big deal. It's no way to end a film - especially one with such important thematic.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by dman476
Not only horrible but utterly pointless.


I don't think it was pointless. How is it pointless? The movie is called Munich for crying out loud. He keeps having these images and nightmares about the events. He's conflicted about the atrociities HE'S committed and it's all because of the atrocities committed by the terrorists at Munich. Remember, it's not the only time he's thought about them; there were these flashbacks before - I believe it's the scene right before he calls his wife as a matter of fact. You just don't see the images repeat themselves.

So it happens while he makes love to his wife; obviously it's not the first time it's happened since they have a kid.

The man is obviously haunted by what happened and what could happen to him and his family. Pointless? Hardly.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by bigred760
I don't think it was pointless. How is it pointless? The movie is called Munich for crying out loud. He keeps having these images and nightmares about the events. He's conflicted about the atrociities HE'S committed and it's all because of the atrocities committed by the terrorists at Munich. Remember, it's not the only time he's thought about them; there were these flashbacks before - I believe it's the scene right before he calls his wife as a matter of fact. You just don't see the images repeat themselves.

So it happens while he makes love to his wife; obviously it's not the first time it's happened since they have a kid.

The man is obviously haunted by what happened and what could happen to him and his family. Pointless? Hardly.

Right on. You hit the nail on the head.

[Poeman]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
SPOILERS!!!



Did we see the same movie? Have you read all of the reviews that state Spielberg is way too harsh on the Israelis? It hardly glorifies the Israeli regime. He does say that both countries are at fault. Think about Bana's dialogue, especially towards the end (as well as some of Hinds' dialogue throughout the film). Do you remember questions that Bana asks Rush? What did we accomplish? How do we truly know that these men were responsible for Munich? If the result of our killing is more killing from terrorist groups, are we really achieving anything? If someone is ready to take the place of those we kill, is it really worth it? The movie is balanced.

The movie never says that it is OK to take revenge. It doesn't condone or glorify it. It asks tough, legitimate questions about it (see above).

And you didn't think their mission was risky? Three out of five of them died, and the other two barely survived. I'd say that is pretty damn risky. Wouldn't you?

I am still perplexed by the complaints concerning the structure. Again, IMO the stucture is perfect and I do not see what would have been more effective or appropriate. You have to show how the mission transpires. They find a contact, they carry out the assassinations, it becomes increasingly dangerous, they begin to ask questions. The structure perfectly compliments what Spielberg set out to accomplish with the film.

sorry but you dont understand my arguement at all.. i said it was risky, but i wanted to see more human drama. For instance we saw Bana go through emotions that changed his mentality about seeing the mission. then the movie goes off into preaching about which country is right
I did not say he wasnt harsh on the israelies, but he show sympathetic attitude and had scenes that were irrelevant to the plot. Those that believe he was too harsh on them are people who know little of history, for i know as well both countries were responsible for their actions that brought what happened at munich. i felt he distinguished one side more then the other.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by Poeman
sorry but you dont understand my arguement at all.. i said it was risky, but i wanted to see more human drama. For instance we saw Bana go through emotions that changed his mentality about seeing the mission. then the movie goes off into preaching about which country is right
I did not say he wasnt harsh on the israelies, but he show sympathetic attitude and had scenes that were irrelevant to the plot. Those that believe he was too harsh on them are people who know little of history, for i know as well both countries were responsible for their actions that brought what happened at munich. i felt he distinguished one side more then the other.

I think you have to go read some information before claiming that both countries were reponsible. First of all, there was no second country. The land that supposed to be an Arab country since 1948 was divided between Jordan and Egypt and the same countries along with Syria were ready to attack Israel in 1968 (with huge help from the Evil Empire, the USSR). The territories occupied by Israel in Sx Days War were never so-called "palestinian". By the way, the Jews who lived in Palestan since , well, forever were called Palestinians by British. When Arabs failed to destroy Israel with regular warfare (and finish what their dear friend Adolf started) they changed their tactics. Then we got "Palestinians" (same Arabs if you ask me), Arafat, trained by Romanian KGB, and terrorist acts to destabilize Israel and Israelis. Munich was their lowest - only subhumans could commit such a crime during the Olympic games. Unarmed sportsmen and cold blooded armed killers who were targeted by Israel aren't the same.
And don't forget one simple thing. I lived in Central Asia and I know that in East well done perfidy and archness could bring you "respect" - it's unfortunate but true. When you consider "equality" in the Middle East conflict, please remember: there is none. One side needs peace to survive and spend most of its budget on economy, science, new technologies, etc., and less on the weapons. Another side wants to eliminate the neighbors from the face of the planet.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Poeman
sorry but you dont understand my arguement at all.. i said it was risky, but i wanted to see more human drama. For instance we saw Bana go through emotions that changed his mentality about seeing the mission. then the movie goes off into preaching about which country is right
I did not say he wasnt harsh on the israelies, but he show sympathetic attitude and had scenes that were irrelevant to the plot. Those that believe he was too harsh on them are people who know little of history, for i know as well both countries were responsible for their actions that brought what happened at munich. i felt he distinguished one side more then the other.

So anyone who disagrees with you doesn't know their history? Bullshit. Are you an expert on the history of the conflict between both countries? I seriously doubt it. I'm also fairly certain that Spielberg is far more knowledgeable than you on the subject. Sorry for being a jerk about this, but I hate that method of arguing. "I know more so I am right." Nonsense. Go to Roger Ebert's Web site for some excellent commentary from Spielberg and his intentions with this film. It will be very enlightening.

[the humble narrator]

I went into this with the highest expectations that I had for any film, and Spielberg did not dissapoint. I made a deal with a friend of mine, which was that if I saw Wolf Creek he'll see Brokeback Mountain with me. So there I was watching that piece of shit Outback horror flick, one of the worst film of the year along with The Exocism of Emily Rose. But after that I saw what I consider to be the best film since the Kill Bill Saga. I kept watching and wondering where Spielberg is gonna make a mistake, and he never does. Not once. [that means that I did like sex scene intercut with Munich hostages.] it didn't feel forced. Not to me at least.

The film moved me, made me care about these characters. The film made me think. The film thrilled me. All this and the great subtle performecnes from everyone but especially Bena and that French guy who played Papa. The film looked great, and it was one of the best edited films of the year [great and transitions], and had a score that was not trying to manipulate my emotions.

A PERFECT 10. Yes, a 10. There is not a thing I didn't like about it. Not one. SO GO SEE IT NOW! And this coming from a person who could care less about that perticular conflict.

[42ndStreetFreak]

Another side wants to eliminate the neighbors from the face of the planet.

Indeed...and recently proved on a worldwide stage via the comments that creature in Iran made.
God help Israel (and the the free countries of the world full stop) l if these scumbags get a nuke.

Mosad obviously chose the wrong wimps to get the job done...personally it would have been a pleasure to execute those involved in Munich if I was Jewish.

[dman476]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
Indeed...and recently proved on a worldwide stage via the comments that creature in Iran made.
God help Israel (and the the free countries of the world full stop) l if these scumbags get a nuke.

Mosad obviously chose the wrong wimps to get the job done...personally it would have been a pleasure to execute those involved in Munich if I was Jewish.
Truly well said. I think you're aiming at the right points. I don't think the actual people chosen were wimps, were they? Because the Mossad, such a powerful organization, hiring these mentally unstable people to kill someone would be ridiculous and an embarassment. The people would probably feel honored, that's not to say that I would actually be able to do it but it's not like regular civilians were chosen to execute this mission. The people who planned the 72 Olympiad deserved to be assasinated. I'm not biased and I don't think I ever will be. You don't see Israel planning these sorts of attacks out of spite.
What happened was a pity, and I'm saying this not from my Jewish half. I'd feel pity on anyone, especially civilians, that were blatantly executed. Sure there is a major issue going on at hand and both parties need to resolve this in a conventional way but the actions of Black September were unrelenting and don't deserve any approving.

[chinton]

I understand your point about the sex scene sadly it doesnt really work since he never saw anything he was thinking about so it doesnt make any sense. And if its supposed to be saying hes still conflicted he didnt have to intercut during a sex scene thats ridiculous.


Im curious to see Chopper now. Ive hated Bana in everything Ive seen but maybe I would like him in that,


And speaking of performances what you guys should be really talking about is the fine supporting work especially by everyone on the team and Geoffery Rush, oh and that old woman who played Isrealis Prime minister or something

[bigred760]

Originally posted by chinton
I understand your point about the sex scene sadly it doesnt really work since he never saw anything he was thinking about so it doesnt make any sense. And if its supposed to be saying hes still conflicted he didnt have to intercut during a sex scene thats ridiculous.


I was thinking about that and to me that's what makes it so powerful. He doesn't know what ACTUALLY happened, but he's imagining the events, seeing the murders, the dead bodies, the explosions - how it probably went down from what he'd heard or read in news reports - and probably comparing that to his own actions. I don't see the intercutting with the sex scene any more ridiculous than it would be if it were during any other scene that involved a lot of passion and/or emotional struggle. I think it adds to the effectiveness of his struggle with his situation.


And speaking of performances what you guys should be really talking about is the fine supporting work especially by everyone on the team and Geoffery Rush, oh and that old woman who played Isrealis Prime minister or something

Very good point. While I liked Eric Bana's performance - his supporting cast played their roles excellently, with Rush and Daniel Craig standing out in my mind.

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by chinton
And speaking of performances what you guys should be really talking about is the fine supporting work especially by everyone on the team and Geoffery Rush, oh and that old woman who played Isrealis Prime minister or something

Lynn Cohen was superb in her five minutes as Golda Meir -- it's one of the best "cameo" performances in films, akin to Beatrice Straight's Oscar-winning role in Network.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by chinton
I understand your point about the sex scene sadly it doesnt really work since he never saw anything he was thinking about so it doesnt make any sense. And if its supposed to be saying hes still conflicted he didnt have to intercut during a sex scene thats ridiculous.


bigred760 already did a fine job of addressing this. Does everything have to be literal? Does it really matter that he didn't witness the events himself? That is beside the point. Munich had a profound effect on him. It changed him drastically. I think that is what matters, and that is why the scene worked for me.

[chinton]

I guess it just potato or patato. The fact that he didnt see what was intercut during the sec scene was powerful for you guys but disgusting for me. Oh well.


Lazy Boy


You were so right about Lynn Cohen as Golda Meir for the very short amount of time she had I was more impressed with her than anyone in the cast. She was so compelling

[NightStalkerGtx]

http://www.moviesonline.ca/movie-gallery/albums/userpics/MunichPoster2.jpg

Munich 10/10

Loved this film to death it killed Sin City on all levels its #3 on my all time list god!!! What a fucking great movie!!! While I liked A History of Violence this film does a better job of explaining the nature of violence and how it rips people apart. Truely a masterpiece.

[scottish-movie-freak]

For anyone who has seen Munich:

According to imdb, the actress Valeria Bruni Tedeschi (5x2) is in this and plays a character called Sylvie. Is this a big role? What exactly does she do in this film?

Thanks.

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by scottish-movie-freak
For anyone who has seen Munich:

According to imdb, the actress Valeria Bruni Tedeschi (5x2) is in this and plays a character called Sylvie. Is this a big role? What exactly does she do in this film?

Thanks.

It's a very small role, she's at a hidden location that Bana is taken to by the Mathieu Almaric character Louis -- I believe she is Louis' sister, but I missed the connection.

[moviegroupie]

9/10

[scottish-movie-freak]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
It's a very small role, she's at a hidden location that Bana is taken to by the Mathieu Almaric character Louis -- I believe she is Louis' sister, but I missed the connection.

Damn, was hoping she might be the female lead (I'm assuming that's Marie-Jose Croze?). I'll still see Munich, looks to be excellent.

[BigRedNeck]

I thought it was a really good movie.

[Katsumoto]

Still haven't had a chance to catch Munich, but surely will in the upcoming week. The movie took a big blow award wise, with no nominations for either the producers guild or writers guild, it badly needs some love at the Screen Actor's or Director's Guild if it wants to get some Oscar Love.

[moviegroupie]

Sorry for the very brief review, and it's sloppy, but it has to be. i'm preoccupied with lots of school work, this is the month of major projects and exams.

anyways, eric bana is phenomenal in this. superb acting, wonderful stealth film, and shot brilliantly. i cant think of enough good adjectives to describe this movie.

go see it is all i can say. speilberg has outdone himself and it's vastly superior to any flicks he's done in recent years.

i only wish a fight didn't break out during some of the most dramatic and intense scenes:

two old geezers got up and started cursing at each other in the front aisle while the movie was going on. apparently one kicked the others chair or threw a soda at him or something. it was completley ridiculous though. and i thought it was neccessary to tell you all.

couples even left because they were being so boisterous.

i'm beginning to hate going to the movies. people are idiots, or they smell or they annoy you, or most likely , all of the above.

[BigRedNeck]

Originally posted by moviegroupie

i'm beginning to hate going to the movies. people are idiots, or they smell or they annoy you, or most likely , all of the above. [/B]

I agree with you.

When I went to see It I had two idiots behind me yapping and a guy beside me eating popcorn that sounded like a horse eating out of a troft.

But nothing beats when I went to see Constantine and the big Black lady behind me (remember the part when the guy walked through the field and the cows fall over dead.) She says as loud as she could “Oh HELL NO HE DID NOT JUST DO THAT” Then people shush her and she says you did not not just shush me.

[Atlas1982]

I think we all have at least a dozen movie tales about the viewers. I have to drive to the theatres that cater to the rich suburbanites because otherwise I am listening to the audience half the time. But the burbanites won't stop looking at their damn cell phones. Is anything more distracting?

Since I'm on a Munich forum I think I might say a few words. And I say "a few" because there is not much not too like here. Everything is done to perfection including the flashbacks. Some of us were curious about the firefight and were wondering what it was like when we just saw the news footage of the explosion in the beginning of the movie. Incorporating the murders with Bana's character's psyche was also moving and compelling. No doubt everybody in Israel and the rest of the Western world were terrorized by that event.

Somebody mentioned earlier that the character other than Bana's dissapeared for the last 30 or so min and I agree. I wanted to know what happened to him.

Lastly, the scene with Bana and the palestinian tlaking over smokes on the stairwell was one of the best dialogues of the movie and juxtaposed the two sides magnificently.

[veddhead83]

Just saw it, it was interesting, but the ending didn't come soon enough.

*SPOILER*

I was upset that they just killed terrorist leaders, not the terrorists. And how did Bana figure this out while fucking his wife????

[NightStalkerGtx]

SPOILERS!!!

Ok many people on this board are complaining that Bana couldnt have known what exactly happened that night step by step okay please people with all that news coverage about the situation anyone can figure out what happened without being there. Common sense i mean how fucking hard could it be there mustve been a 100 articles on it when it happen it was all over the news and ok maybe he still cant guess it 100% but there you go he is guessing what happened when he pictures it maybe everything didnt go exactly as he pictured it! the film never said what he imagined happened exactly the same. We are just getting his thoughts of what happened in the building that day.

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by NightStalkerGtx
SPOILERS!!!

Ok many people on this board are complaining that Bana couldnt have known what exactly happened that night step by step okay please people with all that news coverage about the situation anyone can figure out what happened without being there. Common sense i mean how fucking hard could it be there mustve been a 100 articles on it when it happen it was all over the news and ok maybe he still cant guess it 100% but there you go he is guessing what happened when he pictures it maybe everything didnt go exactly as he pictured it! the film never said what he imagined happened exactly the same. We are just getting his thoughts of what happened in the building that day.

*SPOILERS*

Why did it take him 164 mins into the film to figure it out though - why didn't the rest of the team know? I just don't like the fact that he was used as a pawn if he knew it the whole time. It kind of defeats the purpose of the film - the revenge aspect(which is what the book is entitled).

[NightStalkerGtx]

he knew what happened since the beginning the rest of the film was showing how he was impacted by those events.

[Mr. Durp]

i was already dissapointed by speilberg once this year. i was hoping the same wouldn't happen with a premise as promising as this one. luckily, i was not only satisfied, but completely surprised by "munich". it seems that this year i've been going to the theater only to be dissapointed time and time again - not to say all the movies i've seen this year have been terrible - but the only film that's blown me away has been "sin city". figure it would take all year for me to see a movie that completely satisfies, plus exceeds, my expectations.

let me first start by saying that although i was familiar with the overall outline of the '72 olympic terrorist attack in munich, that was the height of my knowledge concerning the event. i never even knew much about what went on afterward other than complete chaos between the israelis and the palestinians, dealing with problems that still go on today. the plot of this film was as informative as it was both intriguing and unpredictable. unlike a film like "syriana", where if you go in with no background of the subject, you're screwed, this film provided you with an understanding of the matters taking place. and not only was i watching these characters' journey, but i was going along with them and discovering everything as they did. not to say i favor one approach more than another (i was thoroughly captivated by "syriana"), but this way of storytelling sure makes things a hell of a lot easier.

everything else about the flick was superb, from the scenery and the 1970's feel, to the directing and the acting. i've never been a fan of eric bana - hated "the hulk" and "troy" - but he did an unbelievable job here. nothing that stood out, deserving of awards, but he performed, and in some ways surpassed, what was needed of him as the protagonist of the story. all the other acting was great as well. and as far as the directing is concerned, speilberg is at some of his best here. i've always felt he should do more films like this, especially when he's already achieved so much with his summer blockbusters. i'd like to see more artistic films like this and "schindler's list". it proves he's one of the best ever.

not often enough do i go to a movie and get my money's worth, but with "munich", i feel more than satisfied. it's only behind "sin city" for my favorite of 2005. go see this movie, you won't be dissapointed.

9/10

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by NightStalkerGtx
he knew what happened since the beginning the rest of the film was showing how he was impacted by those events.

*SPOILER*

No, he realized it while he was fucking his wife and then he confronted Geofrey Rush about it. I saw the movie. He knew there were the attacks (duh) but he thought he was going after the terrorists - not the leaders of the terrorists. Other wise he wouldnt have taken on the mission. He thought he was taking revenge for his fallen athletes. Watch it again. Also, I just thought the ending went on way too long, Spielberg needed to wrap it up quick and better than he did.

[Atlas1982]

Wrap up a 2.5 hour movie quickly? That doesn't seem to flow too well for me. and say the end took .5 hrs., a two hour movie with this kind of content is still pretty long, so I have to disagree. The ending flowed well from the story and pace of the film.

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by Atlas1982
Wrap up a 2.5 hour movie quickly? That doesn't seem to flow too well for me. and say the end took .5 hrs., a two hour movie with this kind of content is still pretty long, so I have to disagree. The ending flowed well from the story and pace of the film.
No way, once the attcks finished, which was abrupt, his normal life and everything that went with it took too long.

[Atlas1982]

I hope we don't forget that his "normal life" spanded a number of years.

[veddhead83]

I wont forget, but that wasnt the point of the movie.

[The Other]

Munich

Best film of the year. I need some time to process my thoughts but... best fucking film of the year!

[leafboy]

Terrific film. You know a movie is good when you don't feel the long running time.

[AngelDust06]

Munich
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/munich/munich_bigearlyposter.jpg
Genres: Drama, Thriller and Sports
Release Date: December 23rd, 2005
MPAA Rating: R for strong graphic violence, some sexual content, nudity and language.
Distributors: DreamWorks SKG, Universal Pictures
The Review: **SPOILERS**

The film is set in the aftermath of a devastating terroist attack on the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olypics in Munich, Germany. The film follows 5 Israeli secret operatives as they take on the task of tracking down 11 Palestinians who are concidered, help or one who help plan the attack in Munich. As they go deeper and deeper into their list they begin to ask questions about the loyalty of the Israelis in their quests. Also hearing news that there are people who take leadership after the demise of the ones they kill, are far more dangerous than the ones they killed, it begins to raise the question, "Why"? What good was it doing them and their country?
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/munich/_group_photos/daniel_craig2.jpg
The film flows at such a steady pace that you are unaware of the runtime by the time its finished. Eric Bana had one of his best roles in my opinion and played his character out as good as any other actor could. The direction of this film was brillian. Steven Spielberg did a fantastic job in putting us as an audience, in the front seat of one of the most horrifing moments in Sports and Political history. This film has the potential to be one of the Stevens greats....Oh hell with it, it is one of Stevens greats. This film shows the truth of foreign politics and how some think and maybe feel, even today. The film was crafted beautifuly and should be, without question, nominated for Best film, Best Director, and even Best Cinematography. Classic film to end 2005, even though I did see it this year (2006) I would put it in the top 5 of 2005 without question.

9.5/10

[Ender]

First, let me adress the sex scene, since it seems to be such a huge point of contention around here. Honestly, I have trouble thinking of it even as a sex scene at all, because if you were paying attention to the actual sex going on then I have to wonder a little about the way your head works (no offense to anyone here). When I was watching that scene, I wasn't thinking about the fact that Eric Bana was having sex with his wife, I was thinking about the fact that he's clearly having a mental and emotional breakdown. Let me ask you, when you're having sex, are you thinking about violent shooting deaths? I know I'm not. What kind of a guy does? The point here is that Avner has become an extremely disturbed person, all of the things he's seen and done have violently affected him. One of the big themes of this movie is the power that violence has over people who perpetrate it, the idea that this poor bastard is now so screwed up in the head that he can't even make love to his wife without thinking about people dying communicates that very strongly to me. So that was my interpretation of what was going on and honestly it didn't bother me at all, that scene wasn't about fucking and it honestly wasn't even really about the Munich massace, it was about Avner and the price he's paying for the things he's done. That's how I saw it.

As for the rest of the film, well, I've always been spotty when it comes to Spielberg. Big fan of JURASSIC PARK, SCHINDLER'S LIST, AI, HOOK, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, and of course any of the INDIANA JONES flicks. But on the other hand, I found ET sappy and maudlin, I thought SAVING PRIVATE RYAN tried way too hard, both JAWS and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS bored me to tears, MINORITY REPORT was just abominable, and dont' even get me started on TERMINAL or THE LOST WORLD. So yeah, I'm wary when it comes to old Steve-O.

But let it never be said that Spielberg isn't a director who has his set of cajones firmly in place. In my opinion, MUNICH is a daring film in this day and age. The fact that it's been heavily criticized both for being anti-Israel and anti-Palestine, to me, says that something has been done right here. The fact that there was an editorial in the paper the other week ripping on Spielberg for being "soft on terrorists" says that something even better has been accomplished. A lot of directors, producers, and studios would shy away from a movie about the futility of violence and the inadequacy of retaliative attacks as a detterent to terrorism. (A note on a latter point adressed in the thread: The difference between killing terrorists in relatiation for terror attacks and arresting a rapist in retaliation for a rape is that when you arrest a rapist, his friends don't all go out and commit more rapes in his name). It's nice that there are still people in America who are willing to take a stand on an issue even if it means stepping on a few toes and pissing off a few of the right people.

But the hell with all that, how is the actual movie? In my view, pretty good, not a masterpiece, but no slouch either. It's true that it's too long and it doesn't seem to know when it wants to end, and it gets sloppy here and there, but I credit the power of the subject matter and the skill and professionalism of the actors for keeping the movie on the tracks even after the conductor has bailed out. I've been a big fan of Eric Bana for years and I hope that his brooding and emotional performance here will fix him more firmly in the eyes of the general public. His accent threw me off though.

I guess more than anything I admire MUNICH. It's the MO of Hollywood (and especially of Spielberg) to play it safe whenever possible. MUNICH is not a safe movie, it's long, convoluted, dark, violent, and it asks a lot of questions that most people probably aren't comfortable with the answers too. We need more movies like that, especially in this day and age, and especially with the looming spectres of FLIGHT 93 and WORLD TRADE CENTER on the horizon.

[42ndStreetFreak]

JAWS bored me

You almost lost me right there! Shocking!

Rapists don't go and commit rape in your name!!!???

So IF they did we should ignore rapists also, as well as murdering terrorists?
is THAT your logic? :rolleyes:

And since when did justice stop because of threats of retaliation anyway!?? AHH...Of course. When it involves non-whites and that GREAT shield...RELIGION! :mad:

Dear me.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
Rapists don't go and commit rape in your name!!!???

So IF they did we should ignore rapists also, as well as murdering terrorists?
is THAT your logic? :rolleyes:

For some reason you (intentionally?) managed to twist his comment to exact opposite of what he meant.

[42ndStreetFreak]

Originally posted by Tuukka
For some reason you (intentionally?) managed to twist his comment to exact opposite of what he meant.

No i did not!

He said the difference is that...
The difference between killing terrorists in relatiation for terror attacks and arresting a rapist in retaliation for a rape is that when you arrest a rapist, his friends don't all go out and commit more rapes in his name

Exactly what did I twist??? NOTHING!
So once again in answer to that EXACT quote...
The difference between killing terrorists in relatiation for terror attacks and arresting a rapist in retaliation for a rape is that when you arrest a rapist, his friends don't all go out and commit more rapes in his name

So IF they did we should ignore rapists also, as well as murdering terrorists?
is THAT your logic?

[Tuukka]

Ah, my mistake - I misinterpreted your message. Now I understand what you are getting at.

[Ender]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak


So IF they did we should ignore rapists also, as well as murdering terrorists?
is THAT your logic?

No, I don't think the message of MUNICH is that crimes should go unpunished. But the fact is that a violent response to terror does inspire more and worse terror in return. Violence is a temporary solution, not a longterm one, it treats only the symptoms, not the disease. If everytime we arrested a rapist it led to even more rapes being committed, after a while we'd figure out that maybe there's something else that needs to be done. At a time like this, with peace between Israel and Palestine looking like a possibility for the first time since...well, ever I think, it's more important than ever for people to stop and think about all the violence that's been done in the past and consider what, if anything, it's really accomplished. If war was all it took to stop terrorism, don't you think that the job would be done by now?

[Sh8dy Milkman]

I officially forgive Steven Spielberg for the craptacular ending for War of the Worlds. Munich was amazing, and almost made me forget that Bana was in the Hulk. This may seem random but in concerns to...

i'm beginning to hate going to the movies. people are idiots, or they smell or they annoy you, or most likely , all of the above

I cant help you get rid of the smelly ones, however, the other idiots that seem to make it their duties' to ruin the viewing experiences of the rest of the audience are easy to get rid of. To the idiot parents that bring children but not muzzles, to the tards that think it acceptable to hold their conversations in the middle of a theater, and especially to the rejects that still haven't been able to locate the off button on their cell phones...tell them to stfu. I had to do that when I saw King Kong. This family had been ignoring the fact that their child was disturbing the rest of the theater for the whole movie. But when the kid started to laugh during the Ice pond sequence I had to tell the family off. It was only then that other people started to speak up. This shit has to end.

[Rated R]

Okay, I was very disappointed when I immediately left the theatre. I felt drained and was wondering if what I just saw was possibly one of the dullest least thought provoking films I had seen in a long time. Then it kept coming back to my mind, the weighing of ones soul after an undertaking of such grand proportions. The guilt, or the questions that must have been asked regarding the ethical implications. I soon realized that it was neither dull, nor thought provoking, except that I was overwhelmed when watching that I could not decide what to focus on.

Regardless, I still felt the pacing was slightly off and the flashbacks shown every once in a while to the night of the massacre really did not accomplish anything in my opinion. But that is the end of my complaint list.

The performances were spot on from Bana, Ciaran Hinds and Geoffrey Rush with Daniel Craig being somewhat one dimensional but still showing a side of blind loyalty to a cause needed for the balance of the film. Tremendous, one of the best of last year...it grows on me.

9/10

[42ndStreetFreak]

Violence is a temporary solution, not a longterm one

Worked just fine in WW2. Lsat time I looked there were no Nazi'srunning Germany or Jews being shovelled into ovens (though if Iran gets its way........)

[Ender]

Yes, violence can end a war, but it can't end all wars. It can topple a tyrant but it can't end tyranny. It can prevent a terror attack but it can't end terrorism. Temporary solutions, you knock down one bad guy, another one comes along, you lock up a criminal, there's a new one on the street the next day. Does that mean you stop solving the immediate problem? No. But after a while you've got to start looking at bigger picture solutions, diplomatic and social measures that will pull out the roots of the problem instead of just pruning the leaves. That's what I felt the message of MUNICH was, that we can blow each other up over and over again but it's not going to do much except give the next generation an excuse to do it again. That kind of black and white A-to-B thinking is the reason why terrorism is an even broader threat today than it was during the period of the film.

[Badbird]

Originally posted by Ender
First, let me adress the sex scene, since it seems to be such a huge point of contention around here. Honestly, I have trouble thinking of it even as a sex scene at all, because if you were paying attention to the actual sex going on then I have to wonder a little about the way your head works (no offense to anyone here). When I was watching that scene, I wasn't thinking about the fact that Eric Bana was having sex with his wife, I was thinking about the fact that he's clearly having a mental and emotional breakdown. Let me ask you, when you're having sex, are you thinking about violent shooting deaths? I know I'm not. What kind of a guy does? The point here is that Avner has become an extremely disturbed person, all of the things he's seen and done have violently affected him. One of the big themes of this movie is the power that violence has over people who perpetrate it, the idea that this poor bastard is now so screwed up in the head that he can't even make love to his wife without thinking about people dying communicates that very strongly to me. So that was my interpretation of what was going on and honestly it didn't bother me at all, that scene wasn't about fucking and it honestly wasn't even really about the Munich massace, it was about Avner and the price he's paying for the things he's done. That's how I saw it.

***Spoilers***

That is EXACTLY how I saw it. It seems of everything I've read about this movie, it all comes down to this scene and has often been described as "horrific" or some such. So I was waiting for the most horrible thing in the world, but when it happened I was like: "Okay, did EVERYONE totally miss what that scene was about?"

It's not like it was a real passionate, loving sex scene. By then, Bana has almost lost his mind. He's completely dissconected before it even begins. And he is haunted by these images even while doing something that should be an act of pure love, but because he's been traumatized by the violence he's done, as well as driven paranoid, he can't escape the images that started it all.

As far as the rest of the movie, I think the underlying message is that violence only creates more violence. Yada, yada, yada. You know the story. Yes, the men who did this should be brought to justice, but what kind of justice? And once it got to the point where they knew for every terrorist they killed, the terrorists woudl retaliate, shouldn't they have taken the moral high ground?

You killed me, so I kill you, forever and ever. Who knows who fired the first shot, and who retaliated? These events didn't start at Munich - but hundreds of yeards ago. And no one knows who is right or wrong - it has only been an escalation of revenge seeking violence ever since. It's like Romeo & Juliet - no one knows why the families are fighting - it's just what they do.

The movie was very intense, and I thought it moved quite well for it's running time. I was never bored. But I think it did drag a little torwards the end, simply because I think the movie started to be about something else.

[BuffZBrown]

This film for me was definitely the best American film of 2005. It was perfectly crafted on all levels. Spielberg's direction was amazing as was the cinematography which put you in the time frame of the 1970's. The acting was great... Bana really delivered a solid performance and never once missed a beat. My favorite moment with him was when he talks to his baby on the phone and he just breaks down as soon as he hears her cry. That moment really moved me. Also the story was just so captivating... it was the first espionage type of film I can remember that didn't glorify the job one bit (Spy Game did this, but the movie doesn't even match the impact of Munich). The message was also really important. If anything, it should be shown to those people who kept saying we should "Bomb Afghanistan" after 9/11 happened.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by BuffZBrown
This film for me was definitely the best American film of 2005. It was perfectly crafted on all levels. Spielberg's direction was amazing as was the cinematography which put you in the time frame of the 1970's. The acting was great... Bana really delivered a solid performance and never once missed a beat. My favorite moment with him was when he talks to his baby on the phone and he just breaks down as soon as he hears her cry. That moment really moved me. Also the story was just so captivating... it was the first espionage type of film I can remember that didn't glorify the job one bit (Spy Game did this, but the movie doesn't even match the impact of Munich). The message was also really important. If anything, it should be shown to those people who kept saying we should "Bomb Afghanistan" after 9/11 happened.

Message of what? That retaliation is as bad as killing sportsmen by the band of subhumans? That Jews have to allow to be killed with no response until assholes will learn the peace is in their fucking interests? You know what, they will not. The hate is the only force and pleasure in their lives, eliminating Jews is a joy, and they give no shit about anything that resembles "normal civil existence". When you guys stop automatically transfer your values and achievements on others and then, when it's resisted, blame yourselves for the others being scoundrels and scum (who highly disrespect the weak enemies?) You better fight back. Who knows how many more sportsmen after Munich 72 would be killed if nobody got vengeful? Did you even consider that outcome?
P.S. I know that screenplay was written by the "person" who likes gays dying of AIDS (Angels in America) but dislike Israelis... I wonder why...

[The Heart Collector]

What the fuck was that post.

[brodeurnumber1]

Originally posted by lunatic
Message of what? That retaliation is as bad as killing sportsmen by the band of subhumans? That Jews have to allow to be killed with no response until assholes will learn the peace is in their fucking interests? You know what, they will not. The hate is the only force and pleasure in their lives, eliminating Jews is a joy, and they give no shit about anything that resembles "normal civil existence". When you guys stop automatically transfer your values and achievements on others and then, when it's resisted, blame yourselves for the others being scoundrels and scum (who highly disrespect the weak enemies?) You better fight back. Who knows how many more sportsmen after Munich 72 would be killed if nobody got vengeful? Did you even consider that outcome?
P.S. I know that screenplay was written by the "person" who likes gays dying of AIDS (Angels in America) but dislike Israelis... I wonder why...

What the hell are you talking about?

[jackson13]

Originally posted by lunatic
Message of what? That retaliation is as bad as killing sportsmen by the band of subhumans? That Jews have to allow to be killed with no response until assholes will learn the peace is in their fucking interests? You know what, they will not. The hate is the only force and pleasure in their lives, eliminating Jews is a joy, and they give no shit about anything that resembles "normal civil existence". When you guys stop automatically transfer your values and achievements on others and then, when it's resisted, blame yourselves for the others being scoundrels and scum (who highly disrespect the weak enemies?) You better fight back. Who knows how many more sportsmen after Munich 72 would be killed if nobody got vengeful? Did you even consider that outcome?
P.S. I know that screenplay was written by the "person" who likes gays dying of AIDS (Angels in America) but dislike Israelis... I wonder why...

Might wanna change your user name from 'lunatic' to 'PSYCHO'.

[42ndStreetFreak]

, it should be shown to those people who kept saying we should "Bomb Afghanistan" after 9/11 happened.

What GARBAGE!

Afghanistan was not only a terrorist base, a direct terrorist base for the organisation that carried out 9/11, but it was also under the rule of one of the worst, most oppressive regimes in the World.

Just...Shut up! Christ...you people.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by brodeurnumber1
What the hell are you talking about?

You did not understand? Really? What exactly? That I am so pro retaliation and against the assholes who killed the sportsmen to be equaled with their victims and SOB who wrote the screenplay.
.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by jackson13
Might wanna change your user name from 'lunatic' to 'PSYCHO'.

And you have to change your name to IDIOT.

[brodeurnumber1]

Originally posted by lunatic
You did not understand? Really? What exactly? That I am so pro retaliation and against the assholes who killed the sportsmen to be equaled with their victims and SOB who wrote the screenplay.
.

I got it, but do you hate Jews or something? That post made you sound like a nazi sympathizer.

[42ndStreetFreak]

Originally posted by brodeurnumber1
I got it, but do you hate Jews or something? That post made you sound like a nazi sympathizer.

HARDLY! He was actually saying the exact opposite.
Read the post again and actually concentrate this time.

Man, we sure have some bottom feeders on this thread.

[jackson13]

Originally posted by brodeurnumber1
I got it, but do you hate Jews or something? That post made you sound like a nazi sympathizer.

Exactly what I said.

Which I why I suggested you change your name to psycho. The idiot line to me was uncalled for. I'm not the one going around basically saying Jews are evil and should die.

[42ndStreetFreak]

Originally posted by jackson13
Exactly what I said.

Which I why I suggested you change your name to psycho. The idiot line to me was uncalled for. I'm not the one going around basically saying Jews are evil and should die.

How STUPID can you people get!???
Is it catching?

He said exactly the opposite! He said The Jews had every right to retaliate, and that the murder of unarmed Athletes was not the same as the killing of terrorists and should not be compared as such.


Message of what? That retaliation is as bad as killing sportsmen by the band of subhumans?
That Jews have to allow (themselves) to be killed with no response until assholes learn that peace is in their fucking interests?
You know what, they will not. The hate is the only force and pleasure in their lives, eliminating Jews is a joy, and they give no shit about anything that resembles "normal civil existence".

Who knows how many more sportsmen after Munich 72 would be killed if nobody got vengeful? Did you even consider that outcome?

True, some of the grammar was off, but it's very obvious what he was saying!!
God! Learn to read. Learn to read and understand before flaming on some guy and accusing him of saying something he never, ever, said.

Is this is the level of intelligence by fans of "Munich"?

[lunatic]

Originally posted by brodeurnumber1
I got it, but do you hate Jews or something? That post made you sound like a nazi sympathizer.

I suspect I was trying too hard..
I can not hate Jews. That would mean I hate myself. I am Jewish but different. I spent 28 years in the USSR. Family members killed in Holocaust, all kind of anti-Semitism from Russian born Russians (just irony), and huge knowledge of Muslims due to simple fact that I spent those years in Uzbekistan and had some illegal business with Afghanis (no, not drugs).
What I was trying to say is: I think that to be strong and tough and vengeful when it's necessary is the only chance for Israeli Jews to survive. The retaliation after Munich 72 could have probably saved more lives and fact that another Palestinians replaced the killed ones and nothing changed is not true - those people were already THERE, maybe on lower levels.
The screenplay writer had not liked Israel - taken from the press. He's peace loving liberal American Jew who probably dislikes Israeli Jews for being rather strong. Oh boy, he would hate us, The "Soviet" Jews who emigrated since 1970s, even more.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by jackson13
Exactly what I said.

Which I why I suggested you change your name to psycho. The idiot line to me was uncalled for. I'm not the one going around basically saying Jews are evil and should die.

Read what I wrote above.
Please find the original meaning (Greek one) of the word "idiot".

Jewish Lunatic.

[jackson13]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
How STUPID can you people get!???
Is it catching?

He said exactly the opposite! He said The Jews had every right to retaliate, and that the murder of unarmed Athletes was not the same as the killing of terrorists and should not be compared as such.


True, some of the grammar was off, but it's very obvious what he was saying!!
God! Learn to read. Learn to read and understand before flaming on some guy and accusing him of saying something he never, ever, said.

Is this is the level of intelligence by fans of "Munich"?


I'm sorry I didnt understand your friends post. But I swear to Christ, if you fucking insult me, or the other people that didnt understand it either, one more time, I'm gonna report your ass. Learn some respect buddy.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
How STUPID can you people get!???
Is it catching?

He said exactly the opposite! He said The Jews had every right to retaliate, and that the murder of unarmed Athletes was not the same as the killing of terrorists and should not be compared as such.




True, some of the grammar was off, but it's very obvious what he was saying!!
God! Learn to read. Learn to read and understand before flaming on some guy and accusing him of saying something he never, ever, said.

Is this is the level of intelligence by fans of "Munich"?

Thank you. The English is my second language.
I will change my name to Jewish Lunatic that nobody will call me Jews hater in the future.

[42ndStreetFreak]

Originally posted by jackson13
I'm sorry I didnt understand your friends post. But I swear to Christ, if you fucking insult me, or the other people that didnt understand it either, one more time, I'm gonna report your ass. Learn some respect buddy.

I call 'em like I see 'em!

And he's not my friend, I have no idea who he is.
But if you are going to accuse someone of being a Nazi you'd better make sure you're bloody well right!!

[lunatic]

I apologize - this article is long. Pay attention on Kushner part because I mentioned his name a few times.



The validation of Jewish anti-Zionism
By Isi Leibler January 12, 2006


Otto Preminger's Exodus, a dramatized presentation of Israel's case, during its early years generated enormous global goodwill for the Jewish state. In contrast, if the critics are to be believed, Steven Spielberg's Munich effectively undermines Israel's moral justification for taking tough measures to defend its people from killers. Like Preminger, Spielberg is a Jew. In fact, his magnificent production of Schindler's List and other good deeds, such as creating the Shoah Visual History Foundation, earned him widespread admiration among Jews.

Yet this proud Jew produced a film on the Munich Olympics terrorist outrage based on a book by a discredited author who had falsely maligned the Mossad. Moreover he selected Tony Kushner, a bitter Jewish castigator of Israel, to write the script.

Kushner never bothered to conceal his enmity. He repeatedly stated that Israel was born in sin, and even went so far as to claim that its creation was "a mistake" and a "historical and moral calamity." Moreover, he also openly endorsed groups seeking to divest from Israel.

What did Spielberg expect when he handed over this sensitive role to a man so bitterly hostile to the Jewish state? How was it possible for a good Jew to promote a film which undermines Israel's right to defend itself by implying moral equivalence between Mossad operatives and terrorist murderers?

In a sense, Spielberg is not to be blamed. His attitude is merely a byproduct of the general drift which began with Oslo when Israeli governments began to soft pedal the justice of Israel's case, and concentrated on persuading Israelis and Jews that Yasser Arafat was a genuine peace partner. There were Israeli leaders who even instructed Diaspora activists to stop defending Israel's actions because the "irreversible peace process" made such activity counter-productive. As a consequence, the passion previously invested in promoting our case in the war of ideas evaporated. The flow of lies and calumnies from those seeking to destroy us went unanswered. Revisionist historians promoted the lie that Israel was indeed born in sin, and distorted the origins of the repeated wars of aggression Israel had to face. Invariably, the lies impacted on global public opinion and the image of Israel was transformed from that of an underdog to an aggressor and occupier.

To make matters worse, elements on the Israeli Left initiated a drumbeat of unprecedented self-hatred in the media and universities. Outlandish views that had hitherto been restricted to inconsequential fringe groups filled the op-ed columns of Haaretz, the media flagship of the Israeli intelligentsia, and whose English-language edition began publication in recent years.

Within the Israeli polity, such post-Zionist propaganda only had marginal impact because being in the front lines of terror, Israelis were not unduly influenced. However when the English-language versions of these masochistic articles were globally disseminated on the Internet, they impacted negatively - especially on Jews living in societies where application of double standards and demonization of Israel by the local media had already become daily fare.

In this new era, Jews like Kushner, formerly regarded by the community as marginal, were provided with an imprimatur to promote their outlandish attacks on Israel as respectable alternative approaches. Even Israel's right to exist became a subject for debate. In effect, Jewish anti-Zionism became validated in mainstream institutions and most Jewish leaders opted to bury their heads rather than face unpleasant confrontations.

Take for example Limmud of England, a highly successful adult Jewish educational program in which over 2,000 people of all ages participate annually. At the recent conference in Nottingham, virtually the entire range of Jewish civilization was covered. Aside from the Orthodox rabbinate which foolishly instituted a boycott because of the participation of non-Orthodox rabbis, the full spectrum of Jewish viewpoints was aired, including blatant anti-Israel libels.

Limmud had no qualms in providing a platform to Queen Mary College Professor Jacqueline Rose whose The Question of Zion is an abominable book that conveys the message that Israel was a colonial implant and effectively a criminal state. On a previous occasion, Robert Fisk, the venomous anti-Israel demonizer, who was sacked from The Times for his unabashed anti-Israeli outbursts, had participated.

There was a panel at Limmud on "Just Wars" comprised of Jews and British imams in which Muslim clerics discussed whether the intifada was an "obligatory war." And no less than Gideon Levy, the prolific pro-Palestinian journalist from Haaretz, also participated.

Needless to say, those exposed to anti-Israeli diatribes are not in danger of being transformed into enemies of Israel. But a basic question of principle is involved. Surely, even a pluralistic Jewish educational conference whose declared objective is the enhancement of Jewish identity must have its red lines.

Are there no limits? Does anything go? Is it a requirement of freedom of expression for a Jewish organization to provide a platform for those who delegitimize Israel? Are views which question the right of a Jewish state to exist to be accepted as a legitimate "alternative" Jewish viewpoint?

Would anti-Semites be tolerated? Would Kahanists qualify? And why, in a society which is already saturated with hostility against the Jewish state, should a respectable Jewish platform be provided for Jewish defamers of Israel? I contacted the Limmud organization to pose such questions to them but failed to obtain a response.

Limmud's toleration of anti-Zionist hate mongers is merely the latest example of a trend which is proliferating in Jewish communities throughout the world. Such a climate of permissiveness would have been inconceivable only a few years ago. Is it therefore any wonder that in this atmosphere, Spielberg, a liberal, did not feel inhibited from turning to a person like Kushner to write his script on Munich?

We live in complex times. Israel remains the principal anchor for Jewish identity for most Jews. If, distinct from legitimate criticism of Israel, reputable Jewish organizations are willing to tolerate debates in which the verities of the Jewish state are undermined, we are paving the way for our own moral self-defeat. Diaspora Jews will simply not survive if they lack the backbone to purge the enemy from within. As Jews, we must not become absorbed into the moral turpitude associated with post-modernism which blurs distinctions between good and evil.



I know lotsa people here will hate me for saying LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER but that's what I believe in and have proofs of.

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by lunatic
I know lotsa people here will hate me for saying LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER but that's what I believe in and have proofs of.

What the fuck are you blabbing about??? Opinions aren't mental disorders. What proofs are you talking about??

[42ndStreetFreak]

heh!..."Proofs"!

[The Heart Collector]

This guy lost it.

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
This guy lost it.

Did he even have it to begin with?

[lunatic]

Instead of concentrating on Lunatic and my grammar concentrate on the article. You got nothing to say?

[lunatic]

Originally posted by veddhead83
What the fuck are you blabbing about??? Opinions aren't mental disorders. What proofs are you talking about??

Liberalism is a way of thinking and acting not just opinions.

[42ndStreetFreak]

'm only liberal when it comes to sex and entertainment...the rest of the time i have no time for such whining, weak-willed apologists.

[brodeurnumber1]

I'm about 99 percent sure Lunatic and 42ndStreetFreak are the same person. And please, just focus on the movie, this thread is getting way too political.

[42ndStreetFreak]

Well...you'd be wrong. And if you want the Mods to check up on IP's feel free.

Just because I was not dumb enough to mis-read what the guy was obviously saying and did not join in the sad wolf pack attack on him does not mean we are the same person...grow up.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
heh!..."Proofs"!

I hope you aren't being sarcastic. I have the proofs for myself. That is definitely a problem with the majority of people on these forums - anyone different is called names and attacked (that's where the anonymity pays off). Wow, shouldn't liberally thinking people be more tolerant and less extreme? Evidently NO.

Your Jewish Anti-Liberal Lunatic.

[42ndStreetFreak]

*sheesh* Hold on pal. Unless you have a short memory I've been the only fool on here backing you up!

I just found the use of the word 'proofs' amusing. call me fucking shallow.

Oh yeah..."Munich". Anyone seen it yet?

[lunatic]

Originally posted by 42ndStreetFreak
*sheesh* Hold on pal. Unless you have a short memory I've been the only fool on here backing you up!

I just found the use of the word 'proofs' amusing. call me fucking shallow.

Oh yeah..."Munich". Anyone seen it yet?

Yes, I know. I thanked you. I thought the word "proofs" sounded too pathetic or even haughty to you... I do believe that unlike you, who gives benefit of the doubt and definitely has enough knowledge to be commonsensical and reasonable, the majority here just uses the anonymity... (the rest I already mentioned). I thank you again.

P.S. Because I was writing on my personal disagreement with Munich message and posting that article got something to do with that I consider my posts being on topic.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by brodeurnumber1
I'm about 99 percent sure Lunatic and 42ndStreetFreak are the same person. And please, just focus on the movie, this thread is getting way too political.

I can't believe I even have to deal with that "revelation". We are TWO persons who happened to have similar points of view.
Let me ask you a question: Do you think Munich got something to do with politics (Middle East or broader) or not? Getting opinions on the movie screenwriter was too political? Oh, wait, I did not get any opinions, everybody concentrated on me instead. My harsh words on liberalism was a normal (for me) reaction on the article I posted.
So tell me, do you think Munich has any chances to win the Oscar (or Spielberg?) It looks like two same sex partners are beyond any competitions.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

[lunatic]

From Israeli born actress.


Portman Doesn't Agree with 'Munich'


Israeli-born actress Natalie Portman admires Steven Spielberg for making Oscar-nominated movie Munich, but admits she doesn't "agree with half" of the film. The beauty was intrigued to watch Spielberg's depiction of Israel's secret service Mossad exerting revenge following the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Germany. Portman tells US magazine Entertainment Weekly, "(I don't) agree with half of what's in Munich, but political filmmaking is about putting something out there that people aren't going to like." The Star Wars actress is preparing to cause similar controversy with her forthcoming movie V For Vendetta, which focuses on a terrorist plot to blow up London's Houses Of Parliament. Portman explains, "Some people (will be) like, 'This is an anti-fascism movie!' and some like, 'This is Iraq!'"

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by lunatic
From Israeli born actress.


Portman Doesn't Agree with 'Munich'


Israeli-born actress Natalie Portman admires Steven Spielberg for making Oscar-nominated movie Munich, but admits she doesn't "agree with half" of the film. The beauty was intrigued to watch Spielberg's depiction of Israel's secret service Mossad exerting revenge following the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Germany. Portman tells US magazine Entertainment Weekly, "(I don't) agree with half of what's in Munich, but political filmmaking is about putting something out there that people aren't going to like." The Star Wars actress is preparing to cause similar controversy with her forthcoming movie V For Vendetta, which focuses on a terrorist plot to blow up London's Houses Of Parliament. Portman explains, "Some people (will be) like, 'This is an anti-fascism movie!' and some like, 'This is Iraq!'"

And your point is? To quote Pacino in Heat, I am overfuckingwhelmed. I bet you're the kind of person who hates it when celebrities talk about their political beliefs and wishes that they would keep their mouths shut. I'm sure you think Clooney, Penn, Robbins, etc. are just a bunch of bleeding hearts who need to stick to acting. Yet we're supposed to be impressed by Natalie Portman's opinion of Munich? Seriously? And can't a person not agree 100% with a film and still admire it? Or is that not black and white enough for you?

[lunatic]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
And your point is? To quote Pacino in Heat, I am overfuckingwhelmed. I bet you're the kind of person who hates it when celebrities talk about their political beliefs and wishes that they would keep their mouths shut. I'm sure you think Clooney, Penn, Robbins, etc. are just a bunch of bleeding hearts who need to stick to acting. Yet we're supposed to be impressed by Natalie Portman's opinion of Munich? Seriously? And can't a person not agree 100% with a film and still admire it? Or is that not black and white enough for you?

First of all, I am not your mother-in-low - why that tone? Save it.
Second of all, Portman, unlike Clooney, was growing up with "poor oppressed Palestinians" bullshit and confrontations around her and that's why her opinion on the movie (as a professional and a person with the personal roots to the problem) may count. IMO.
And honestly, based on what they actually did and said, I do believe that Robbins and Pean (I hope you meant him not Penn) are mush better actors than political activists. I am glad they exercised they rights and were heard because now it's much easier to evaluate the hypocrisy and double standard of showbiz heroes.

[veddhead83]

Just to back up Madsen - everyone is entitled to an opinion. Agreed. But, when someone(Lunatic) goes out and calls liberalism a mental disorder - he has got another thing coming. Of course you will be attcked for your posts - you are acting like a child with the name-calling, we at least stick to the rules of the forum, we were talking about the movie until we were all verbally raped by someone with a narrowmind. I think Lunatic needs to watch what he says or he will be banned from posting. Stick to the film and related items and quit being so obtuse.

[MadsenOMC]

lunatic, you brought that tone on yourself. Don't act surprised considering the way you have been acting around here. You didn't answer one of my questions, which is something I'm not surprised about. I repeat, can't a person not agree 100% with a film and still admire it? Or is that not black and white enough for you? Portman clearly has no problem with Spielberg making the movie. Read the rest of her quote: "political filmmaking is about putting something out there that people aren't going to like." And as the little clip mentions, she is in her own controversial movie that revolves around politics. I don't think you and Portman would agree on much politically lunatic.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
lunatic, you brought that tone on yourself. Don't act surprised considering the way you have been acting around here. You didn't answer one of my questions, which is something I'm not surprised about. I repeat, can't a person not agree 100% with a film and still admire it? Or is that not black and white enough for you? Portman clearly has no problem with Spielberg making the movie. Read the rest of her quote: "political filmmaking is about putting something out there that people aren't going to like." And as the little clip mentions, she is in her own controversial movie that revolves around politics. I don't think you and Portman would agree on much politically lunatic.

No, darling, you think you can use that tone (reason: you despise everything I write or part of it).
Answer: in Spielberg's case you have no choice - the guy is a genius. That's exactly why I posted the Portman's opinion. She admired him and the movie professionally and disagreed on some messages and conclusions. I am not sure V for Vendetta is anything more than a commercial movie. I have no problem with so-called "political filmmaking" ; hell, I was working on some tough documentaries saturated by important historical events, real life dramas and pure propaganda (The Soviet Army leaving Afghanistan in 1989, Uzbeks massacred a Muslim minority in Uzbekistan, international help to Armenia after huge earthquake in 1988, ecological disasters in Central Asia /Aral Sea/, anti-alcohol campaign started by Gorbachev in 1986, and many , many more) In some cases the final product's messages and obvious (for the crew member) lies made me so angry that I tried to forget my participation in the project. Still ashamed of myself.
And speaking of Natasha Portman and our differences... That's a very good thing; otherwise all conversations would be too short and kinda boring. But I do not think we are so polarized: she knows something about dangers of living in Israel and I had more than I ever wished bloody experiences of living in the Evil Empire. Well, as my uncle used to say, if you want to know more than she told you, asked her rabbi. Anyone knows his name?
:cool:

[lunatic]

Originally posted by veddhead83
Just to back up Madsen - everyone is entitled to an opinion. Agreed. But, when someone(Lunatic) goes out and calls liberalism a mental disorder - he has got another thing coming. Of course you will be attcked for your posts - you are acting like a child with the name-calling, we at least stick to the rules of the forum, we were talking about the movie until we were all verbally raped by someone with a narrowmind. I think Lunatic needs to watch what he says or he will be banned from posting. Stick to the film and related items and quit being so obtuse.

Wow, you just killed me. Saying some unpleasant stuff about modern day liberalism in you head means calling people names. Common sense and logic? No? O.k.
I repeated my opinion about the disorder after reading and posting the article regarding the nice fellow who wrote Munich. I hope there is a special place for the guy in Jewish Hell. You are welcome to disagree but stop accusing me of something I never did. And saying the anonymity allows some folks on these forums to spit, bark and insult triggered another acts of barking. My posts were about Munich's messages and only narrow minds can not see that.
Well, now it's your choice, guys. If you want to continue the banning threats go ahead, make me smile. If you want more mature and satisfying discussions let's go back to Munich and anti-Israeli messages.


.

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by lunatic
Wow, you just killed me. Saying some unpleasant stuff about modern day liberalism in you head means calling people names. Common sense and logic? No? O.k.
I repeated my opinion about the disorder after reading and posting the article regarding the nice fellow who wrote Munich. I hope there is a special place for the guy in Jewish Hell. You are welcome to disagree but stop accusing me of something I never did. And saying the anonymity allows some folks on these forums to spit, bark and insult triggered another acts of barking. My posts were about Munich's messages and only narrow minds can not see that.
Well, now it's your choice, guys. If you want to continue the banning threats go ahead, make me smile. If you want more mature and satisfying discussions let's go back to Munich and anti-Israeli messages.


.
Whatever dude????? Have fun not making any sense.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by veddhead83
Whatever dude????? Have fun not making any sense.

That's what I thought. Typical product. Have a nice life.

[lunatic]

Seriously, besides offended by my verbal rape guys who hopefully left, anyone wants to comment on Isi Leibler' article I posted?

[The Heart Collector]

No, because this is a goddamn thread about Munich, not about the state of Israel and how fucking bitchy it can get.

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
No, because this is a goddamn thread about Munich, not about the state of Israel and how fucking bitchy it can get.
Thank you.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
No, because this is a goddamn thread about Munich, not about the state of Israel and how fucking bitchy it can get.

You are bitch too, you know?

[lunatic]

Originally posted by veddhead83
Thank you.

Up to you...

[jackson13]

Honestly, this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

Everyone has pretty much just stopped talking about the movie and basically saying what they want about whatever they want. And somehow lunatic is getting away with flat out calling people 'bitches'.

Hilarious.

[veddhead83]

Originally posted by jackson13
Honestly, this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

Everyone has pretty much just stopped talking about the movie and basically saying what they want about whatever they want. And somehow lunatic is getting away with flat out calling people 'bitches'.

Hilarious.
Dont worry, it has been reported. He will soon be out of here.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by veddhead83
Dont worry, it has been reported. He will soon be out of here.

Don't worry, your friend The Heart Collector was reported too and probably blacklisted as well. But I do not want him to be banned. It's soooo politically incorrect, you know.
I am surprised how %$^&% some fellow posters can be. I posted the article about the only controversial thing in Munich which was the summary of the plot, messages and extreme leftist point of view (the rest is obvious: brilliant directing, cinematography, editing, acting - it's a given, it's a Steven Spielberg IMPORTANT movie). Nobody cared to comment on Kushner's persona at all, and based on The Ass Collector comment I understand why.
The thing that bothers me a lot: if you act like my enemies rather than opponents why you're so pissed off when I treat you like enemies? The world is dangerous again and our forums are not an exemption.
Have a nice day.

P.S. Don't worry. I will report this post myself. :confused: :confused: :confused:

[lunatic]

Originally posted by jackson13
Honestly, this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

Everyone has pretty much just stopped talking about the movie and basically saying what they want about whatever they want. And somehow lunatic is getting away with flat out calling people 'bitches'.

Hilarious.

You are getting away with calling me Jews hater and Phycho. So be a man, stop crying.
P.S. I know when and to whom to apologize if I feel I went over the top.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by lunatic
The world is dangerous again and our forums are not an exemption.
Have a nice day.

The world has always been a dangerous place with a lot of hatred, violence and bigotry. And it'll probably stay that way. However, these forums ARE supposed to be an exception - Hence the rules of the board, which you have broken repeatedly.

As for the movie - It just came to Finland and I intend to see it soon. I think it looks great. And judging by the comments that some feel it's anti-Israelian and some feel it's anti-palestine, it seems that it has found a good balance, by finding flaws in both sides. That seems to be the general concensus, anyway. I'll watch it and form my own opinion.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by Tuukka
The world has always been a dangerous place with a lot of hatred, violence and bigotry. And it'll probably stay that way. However, these forums ARE supposed to be an exception - Hence the rules of the board, which you have broken repeatedly.

As for the movie - It just came to Finland and I intend to see it soon. I think it looks great. And judging by the comments that some feel it's anti-Israelian and some feel it's anti-palestine, it seems that it has found a good balance, by finding flaws in both sides. That seems to be the general concensus, anyway. I'll watch it and form my own opinion.


Only Arabs in Palestine complained about Munich being anti-palestinian. Same guys who voted for HAMAS.
Munich is a thriller with strong political overtones; so what did you expect?
The world seemed less dangerous when the USSR collapsed; however...
And you broke some rules himself, remember?
;)

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by lunatic
Don't worry, your friend The Heart Collector was reported too and probably blacklisted as well. But I do not want him to be banned. It's soooo politically incorrect, you know.
I am surprised how %$^&% some fellow posters can be. I posted the article about the only controversial thing in Munich which was the summary of the plot, messages and extreme leftist point of view (the rest is obvious: brilliant directing, cinematography, editing, acting - it's a given, it's a Steven Spielberg IMPORTANT movie). Nobody cared to comment on Kushner's persona at all, and based on The Ass Collector comment I understand why.
The thing that bothers me a lot: if you act like my enemies rather than opponents why you're so pissed off when I treat you like enemies? The world is dangerous again and our forums are not an exemption.
Have a nice day.

P.S. Don't worry. I will report this post myself. :confused: :confused: :confused:

What the hell are you talking about? You can't just REPORT people and magically have them banned. I didn't post anything wrong or ban-worthy here AT ALL. I posted the truth, which is that this isn't a thread about the state of Israel and how bitchy it can get about any goddamn thing that even slightly questions its thuggery. You, on the other hand, are calling me names, saying that liberals are mentally impaired (WTF), and completely derailing a thread about a movie. Bye bye.

And what kind of insult is 'Ass Collector', anyway? I collect asses? How is that an insult?!?

[lunatic]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
What the hell are you talking about? You can't just REPORT people and magically have them banned. I didn't post anything wrong or ban-worthy here AT ALL. I posted the truth, which is that this isn't a thread about the state of Israel and how bitchy it can get about any goddamn thing that even slightly questions its thuggery. You, on the other hand, are calling me names, saying that liberals are mentally impaired (WTF), and completely derailing a thread about a movie. Bye bye.

And what kind of insult is 'Ass Collector', anyway? I collect asses? How is that an insult?!?

That only proves that anyone wants to see what he wants to see.
I wrote a word LIBERALISM not names of individuals who happened to call themselves LIBERALS. My understanding of modern day liberalism definitely different than yours, we lived different lives and studied different disciplines, I guess. That was my reaction on the ARTICLE that directly connected with MUNICH and says some stuff you probably despise or admire. I stayed on topic with the exception of my comment I mentioned above.
Israel is bitchy? Really? Not Arabs? Don't Arabs bitch about anything including Munich and ready to kill for cartoons? They do not protest their fellows beheading people but cartoons made them so angry. One day they are powerless victims of god-awful Israel and USA, next day they are full of negative energy and ready to screw the whole planet. Off topic? Sure. No apology for that.
So, to sum up, bye bye. I am going back to gang bang forums. People there are somehow much more pleasant.

:confused: :cool: :(

[Digifruitella]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector


And what kind of insult is 'Ass Collector', anyway? I collect asses? How is that an insult?!?

Lol, well it does say you live in JoBlo's ..erm, cavity :D ;)

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by lunatic
Israel is bitchy? Really? Not Arabs? Don't Arabs bitch about anything including Munich and ready to kill for cartoons? They do not protest their fellows beheading people but cartoons made them so angry.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT MUNICH, and YOU brought ISRAELIS up. I don't have to mention every group that has ever been bitchy in order to say the guy in the article is being a li' biotch. WTF.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT MUNICH, and YOU brought ISRAELIS up. I don't have to mention every group that has ever been bitchy in order to say the guy in the article is being a li' biotch. WTF.

What planet are you from?
Munich is about Israel/Arabs/Olympic Games/Vengeance/Consequences/Other crap written by #$@%.
You brought Israel and insulted it. I brought American Jewish Gay with a huge agenda who wrote the screenplay.
For those who complained I was off topic:
Since when talking about a screenplay has become no part of movie discussions?
And since when movie messages or intentions are separated from filmmakers?

[floydtheater07]

It really seems as though the people who disliked "Munich" disliked it because the film asked questions which they do not have any answers for. I have yet to hear a coherent argment against the politics of the film (and that article that lunatic posted was all rhetoric).


If violence solved anything in the long run, the world would not be in such a sad state. Honestly, I can't believe people are so idiotic as to really believe that wars are long-term solutions.

As Albert Einstein once said, "one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result."


Oh, and someone said World War II helped because there aren't any Nazis running around. Well, first of all, the violence of World War I directly led to the Holocaust. Second of all, like terrorism, the Nazi concepts are ideas, which you cannot kill. Neo-nazis stil exist and still commit terrible crimes, even if it is under a less organized system. What people can do is address the issues that lead to such actions.

Honestly. Give me a rational argument against the message in "Munich" and I will listen. And saying "LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER" is not a ratioanl argument. People lose credibility when they make such statements.

[Jedi]

MILD SPOILERS INCLUDED

Rating: 10/10


Simply put: this is my favorite movie of 2005. Whether one agrees on all the points of views presented or not, I had to respect the film enormously mainly because it bothered presenting BOTH sides of the story, and some of the conversations (especially between Bana and the Jordanian in the "Safe House") are so deep and IMPORTANT. I am Syrian (that is: Israel and my country are at war) but I still had big respect for the film and its message. Aside from political/patriotical issues, this is also a first-rate thriller. Some scenes took my breath away (the nude assassin's death was one of the most disturbing scenes I've EVER seen). Before seeing it I bashed the film a lot because I thought it would be yet another "Arabs-are-borne-terrorists" film but man was I wrong.
Shame that Eric Bana didn't get a nomination for his role. But history will mark this film as one of the most important movies of the decade.

Anyone interested in REAL discussion about this film and its subject matter please IM me. I tried to stay way from political/historical notes because this is a MOVIE forum. So, let's talk anyways

[42ndStreetFreak]

Floyd: HOT AIR! If you did know your history you would know that not doing anything, trying to negotiate and hoping for the best is what we did wrong concerning WW2!
It gave Hitker the time to gain power, land and resources.
Well known historical fact is that we could have stopped him at Munich (HA HA) but instead we played the softly, softly game.

get back to those books.

[floydtheater07]

Freak-because we played hard during World War I, Hitler was able to rise to power....


And killing the "bad guy" should not be the ultimate goal. You are missing the entire point. The goal is to address problems before people like Hitler or the terrorists can gain influence. We should want to discover why such things happen. people are not bron evil, and assuming so is ignorant and prejudiced.


I never said we could not have stopped Hitler earlier. Stop making arguments against statements that people have not made.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Jedi
Anyone interested in REAL discussion about this film and its subject matter please IM me. I tried to stay way from political/historical notes because this is a MOVIE forum.

Yeah, enough of the politics not having to do with the movie (WWI??)

The movie not only works because it shows both points of view (although both don't get equal time), it presents the struggle that the main character - played by Eric Bana - goes through while trying to exact the "eye for an eye" justice. That just shows that "maybe" what they're going isn't right or just. That's my favorite part of the movie.

[floydtheater07]

Originally posted by bigred760
Yeah, enough of the politics not having to do with the movie (WWI??)



Someone else brought up World War II. It was a reponse to their statements.

As well, history is a continuum, not a bunch of separate events. WW I iis very much related to the events depicted in the film.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by Jedi
MILD SPOILERS INCLUDED

Rating: 10/10


Simply put: this is my favorite movie of 2005. Whether one agrees on all the points of views presented or not, I had to respect the film enormously mainly because it bothered presenting BOTH sides of the story, and some of the conversations (especially between Bana and the Jordanian in the "Safe House") are so deep and IMPORTANT. I am Syrian (that is: Israel and my country are at war) but I still had big respect for the film and its message. Aside from political/patriotical issues, this is also a first-rate thriller. Some scenes took my breath away (the nude assassin's death was one of the most disturbing scenes I've EVER seen). Before seeing it I bashed the film a lot because I thought it would be yet another "Arabs-are-borne-terrorists" film but man was I wrong.
Shame that Eric Bana didn't get a nomination for his role. But history will mark this film as one of the most important movies of the decade.

Anyone interested in REAL discussion about this film and its subject matter please IM me. I tried to stay way from political/historical notes because this is a MOVIE forum. So, let's talk anyways


MANY VIEWERS CLAIMED THE MESSAGE OF MUNICH WAS IMPORTANT, INCLUDING THE POLITICAL ONE. IT IS NOT JUST A WILL FERREL COMEDY - WHY YOU ARE SO IRRITATED WITH HISTORY AND POLITICS IN MUNICH DISCUSSIONS ?

[lunatic]

Originally posted by bigred760
Yeah, enough of the politics not having to do with the movie (WWI??)

The movie not only works because it shows both points of view (although both don't get equal time), it presents the struggle that the main character - played by Eric Bana - goes through while trying to exact the "eye for an eye" justice. That just shows that "maybe" what they're going isn't right or just. That's my favorite part of the movie.

What is Arab's point of view? To kill Jews on Olympic Games and then play "we've been victimized by Zionists" bullshit? Equal time? You want 50/50? You want political correctness everywhere?

[bigred760]

Originally posted by lunatic
What is Arab's point of view? To kill Jews on Olympic Games and then play "we've been victimized by Zionists" bullshit? Equal time? You want 50/50? You want political correctness everywhere?

I was just thinking of the right vs. wrong aspect of it. Is what I meant by that. You got Daniel Craig's and Geoffrey Rush's take on it, then you've got Eric Bana's struggling and growing paranoia of the ethics behind it all. Is all I meant by it.

[lunatic]

From boxofficemojo.com: Munich review

Spielberg Rationalizes the Munich Massacre
by Scott Holleran

Once again, Steven Spielberg transforms a serious subject—an historic act of Arab terrorism—into a skillfully arranged horror show, trivializing another example of 20th century barbarism. Recalling the terrorist attack at the 1972 Munich, West Germany, Olympic Games, in which 11 Israeli athletes were seized and murdered, Munich tracks besieged Israel's response. It makes for a slow motion wreck.

Mr. Spielberg sets the stage with the Olympics massacre, which is offered in neatly compiled flashes, showing enough for those born after 1972 to figure that Arab terrorists—Palestinians, whose role and motive is as muddled as the movie—murdered several high-profile Israelis. Though limited in scope, it recreates the heinous event.


Having depicted the Palestinians' initiation of force, Mr. Spielberg introduces Eric Bana (Troy) as Avner, the field commander of the assassination squad that Israel dispatches to retaliate against the Arabs. Though Avner's wife mutters something about the state of Israel being like his mother, Munich promptly ignores an important question: why Avner chooses to accept the assignment, which is offered under the murkiest circumstances.

Instead, Mr. Spielberg, using father-to-be Avner as the focal point, runs out the clock on nearly three hours of equivocation over a seminal act of war. Like the overpraised Schindler's List, Munich ultimately evades mass murder and promotes Jewish tribalism.

How else to explain the moral equivalency he grants to Palestinian terrorists who, we are asked to believe, are double-booked into the same safe house as the Israeli hit squad, sharing space and debating politics like cafe society chums while facing off over warring tribes' music—settling on American pop? Or that we are asked to pity the terrorists at every turn—and feel sympathy for a fallen KGB scum, agent of the bloodiest regime in history? Or that we are left feeling dejected, hopeless, gazing at the Twin Towers, to be demolished by a more diabolical act of Arab terrorism?

Munich is monstrous, more so because it is done with Mr. Spielberg's well crafted approach. With a terror-themed score to signal tension like he used 30 years ago in Jaws, he shoots, explodes and spurts blood at a steady clip. One by one, they all fall down, Israelis and Arabs alike, and for a while the message is pacifism, then pragmatism, then patriarchy—with a fat French thug spewing moral relativism as nameless children scamper about in the sun—but Munich is finally minus a motive. Vengeance is wrong, Mr. Spielberg and writers Tony Kushner and Eric Roth propose. So just what is the proper response to a terrorist attack?

This is where Munich goes off the monorail, suggesting that anything goes—except striking back at one's enemy, which is strictly off limits—serving up one giant heap of malarkey. As Avner and his band of assassins make their rounds, to Athens, Rome, Paris, and elsewhere, they either wind up practically deserving to die, or, like Daniel Craig's character, they are morally ambiguous, gung-ho types. When, inexplicably, Avner starts flashing back to the Munich massacre—including parts he could not have seen—while having sex with his wife, it goes completely absurd.

But apparently Mr. Spielberg is serious, using the sexuality/violence pathology elsewhere in Munich. Squandering the opportunity to examine the massacre at Munich—including the futility of war by pinpricking campaigns like Israel's covert operation—it's hard to tell what if anything Mr. Spielberg's picture stands for, other than loud explosions, grotesque close-ups and throwing every excuse for terrorism up on the screen. Certainly not justice.

[floydtheater07]

That review was one of the most pathetic pieces I have read...

Did he watch the movie? Something tells me it went over his hdead, because he is making accusations which are completely false.

[floydtheater07]

Originally posted by lunatic
MANY VIEWERS CLAIMED THE MESSAGE OF MUNICH WAS IMPORTANT, INCLUDING THE POLITICAL ONE. IT IS NOT JUST A WILL FERREL COMEDY - WHY YOU ARE SO IRRITATED WITH HISTORY AND POLITICS IN MUNICH DISCUSSIONS ?

I have to agree wth you here. The politics are a major aspect of the film. I don't think there could be a complete dicussion of the film itself without discussing its politics.

[Jedi]

Originally posted by floydtheater07
I have to agree wth you here. The politics are a major aspect of the film. I don't think there could be a complete dicussion of the film itself without discussing its politics.

My point was: politics can be discussed privately or in politics forum not here. I wanted my comment to be about the film as a work of art without, of course, ignoring its political and historical background.

[Jedi]

Originally posted by lunatic
I think you have to go read some information before claiming that both countries were reponsible. First of all, there was no second country. The land that supposed to be an Arab country since 1948 was divided between Jordan and Egypt and the same countries along with Syria were ready to attack Israel in 1968 (with huge help from the Evil Empire, the USSR). The territories occupied by Israel in Sx Days War were never so-called "palestinian". By the way, the Jews who lived in Palestan since , well, forever were called Palestinians by British. When Arabs failed to destroy Israel with regular warfare (and finish what their dear friend Adolf started) they changed their tactics. Then we got "Palestinians" (same Arabs if you ask me), Arafat, trained by Romanian KGB, and terrorist acts to destabilize Israel and Israelis. Munich was their lowest - only subhumans could commit such a crime during the Olympic games. Unarmed sportsmen and cold blooded armed killers who were targeted by Israel aren't the same.
And don't forget one simple thing. I lived in Central Asia and I know that in East well done perfidy and archness could bring you "respect" - it's unfortunate but true. When you consider "equality" in the Middle East conflict, please remember: there is none. One side needs peace to survive and spend most of its budget on economy, science, new technologies, etc., and less on the weapons. Another side wants to eliminate the neighbors from the face of the planet.

I've just read this post and, dude, you need some history lesson.
Nothing called "Palestine"? It's the Zionist propaganda that want's to say everyone who lived there was named "palestinian". In 1948 Jews from all over the world starting immegrating there and slaughtering the natives (read: SLAUGHTERING) and building their state with mud and bllod. It was indicated in the movie when one character says 'we didnt take their land nicely' or something in the same meaning. It is a known fact! IF Plerstine never existed what do you call the 1000.000 refugees splattered in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan (and a bit in Libya)??? I visited a refugee camp and there are old men and women WHO STILL HAVE THE KEYS TO THEIR HOUSES FROM WHICH THEY WERE KICKED OUT so new settlers can arrive. It's sad how ignorance can blind some people. Palestine has been part of Great Syria before the European (French/Italian/English) occupation of the region. They divided it to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine and gave the latter to the Jews according to a PLAN to end all the trouble in Europe and throw it in the Arab World, create a power centre (aka: Israel) there to keep an eye on them and call the region the Middle East to erase any trace "Arabic".

It was infuriating to read this post. This is sad, sad sad... to be ignorant is one thing, to pretend to be a professional historian is laughable. Remember: there are two sides of every story and one day or another the "other" side of the Palestine/Israel story will be heard. I know my post won't make a difference (and it will attract attacks and people who like to make jokes about others who try to speak logically just because they have no logic of their own) but at least I cleared my consciousness.

PEACE & OUT

[lunatic]

Originally posted by Jedi
I've just read this post and, dude, you need some history lesson.
Nothing called "Palestine"? It's the Zionist propaganda that want's to say everyone who lived there was named "palestinian". In 1948 Jews from all over the world starting immegrating there and slaughtering the natives (read: SLAUGHTERING) and building their state with mud and bllod. It was indicated in the movie when one character says 'we didnt take their land nicely' or something in the same meaning. It is a known fact! IF Plerstine never existed what do you call the 1000.000 refugees splattered in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan (and a bit in Libya)??? I visited a refugee camp and there are old men and women WHO STILL HAVE THE KEYS TO THEIR HOUSES FROM WHICH THEY WERE KICKED OUT so new settlers can arrive. It's sad how ignorance can blind some people. Palestine has been part of Great Syria before the European (French/Italian/English) occupation of the region. They divided it to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine and gave the latter to the Jews according to a PLAN to end all the trouble in Europe and throw it in the Arab World, create a power centre (aka: Israel) there to keep an eye on them and call the region the Middle East to erase any trace "Arabic".

It was infuriating to read this post. This is sad, sad sad... to be ignorant is one thing, to pretend to be a professional historian is laughable. Remember: there are two sides of every story and one day or another the "other" side of the Palestine/Israel story will be heard. I know my post won't make a difference (and it will attract attacks and people who like to make jokes about others who try to speak logically just because they have no logic of their own) but at least I cleared my consciousness.

PEACE & OUT

In what madras you studied that crap? Was Osama your history teacher? You hate Jews, I got that. You don't have to fuck the history to make the anti-Jewish point.
You are my enemy, I pity and despise you.
But for the sake of other fellow schmoes I will post the history the normal people know.
I apologize for the length. Just skip what you already know.

Take a close look at this PRESENT DAY MAP of the Middle East in which you can see that 22 Arab and/or Muslim [Iran is not considered Arab] nations completely engulf Israel. If someone can explain to me how "expansionist Israel" has "taken over" the Middle East, please email me! The Arab countries occupy 640 times the land mass as does Israel and outnumber the Jews of Israel by nearly fifty to one. So much for Arab propaganda!

Now notice the TOTAL area of Israel and Jordan. This was referred to as "Palestine" and mandated under British administration following World War I (see next map below). How convenient that today's Arab propagandists forget that land east of the Jordan River was also part of "Palestine" and is, in fact, the Arab-Palestinian State!
From 1517-1917 Turkey's Ottoman Empire controlled a vast Arab empire, a portion of which is today Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. During World War I (1914-1918), Turkey supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. In 1916 control of the southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was "mandated" to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned (mandated) to France... and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank") was mandated to Great Britain.
Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few Arabs there or those Arab masses that immigrated into this area along with the Jews!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan (meaning "across the Jordan River"). This territory east of the Jordan River was given to Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia) who was not even an Arab-"Palestinian!" This portion of Palestine was renamed Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now.
Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory west of the Jordan River launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron massacres of 1929 and later during the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt." The British at first tried to maintain order but soon (due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East) turned a blind eye. It became painfully clear to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs AND drive out the British.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Palestinian Jews were forced to form an organized defense against the Arabs Palestinians.... thus was formed the Hagana, the beginnings of the Israeli Defense Forces [IDF]. There was also a Jewish underground called the Irgun led by Menachem Begin (who later became Prime Minister of Israel). Besides fighting the Arabs, the Irgun was instrumental in driving out the pro-Arab British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations.
The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River.

Our Palestinian Cousins started the '48 war, and

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 �ã perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them �ã never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!

The remaining 30% either (1) saw for themselves that these Jews would fight and die for their new nation and decided to pack up and leave or (2) were driven off the land as a normal consequence of war.

When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of its entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."

The Arab propagandists and apologists almost never mentioned that in 1948, Arab armies launched a war against a one-day-old Israel. Instead he focused on the main consequence of that war: the creation of Arab refugees, stating that Israel "short of genocide" expelled 800,000 of them. This not only disagrees with UN estimates of a bit over 400,000 refugees but also ignores the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by (1) Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by (2) Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those "Palestinian" Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was then no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "Jordan." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine... called Jordan but in reality their ARAB "Palestinian state! But that was still not 100% and thus the conflict between Arab and Jew for "Palestine" would continue through four more wars and continuous Arab terrorist attacks upon the Israeli citizenry. It continues to this very day.
From 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza ... were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Surely you do not expect Israel to now provide these same Arabs with their own country when their fellow Arabs failed to do so! And isn't it curious how Arafat and his PLO (formed in 1964) discovered their "ancient" identity and a need for "self-determination" and "human dignity" on this very same West Bank ONLY AFTER Israel regained this territory (three years later in 1967) following Jordan's attempt attempt to destroy Israel! Why was no request ever made upon King Hussein of Jordan by the Arabs living on the West Bank when he occupied it? Is it logical that the PLO was formed in 1964 to regain the lands they would lose three years later in 1967? This sort of logic makes sense only to those who who have not learned that the PLO was formed to DESTROY Israel. And that is STILL their goal! A cosmetic name change from PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to PA (Palestinian Authority) does not change the stripes on THIS tiger!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Throughout much of May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel's narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion to eliminate the State of Israel. The battle cry heard throughout the Arab world was then, as it continues to be... "Slaughter the Jews" and "Throw the Jews into the Sea!" But the Jews of Israel, remembering 2,000 years of being butchered, gassed, burned and skinned (eg. The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, the Arab rampages of early Palestine and particularly the Holocaust), planned and executed a perfect pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Within two hours the Egyptian Air Force did not exist... most of its planes destroyed while still on the runways! Unaware that the Egyptians had no more air force, King Hussein of Jordan, launched his attack from the his West Bank into Israel's belly while Syrian troops prepared to descend down the Golan Heights high ground into northern Israel.

Now for some facts about "occupation." Firstly, the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians lost Gaza, the West Bank and Golan Heights (respectively) by participating in a failed attempt at genocide against the Children of Israel. Had Israel lost this 1967 defensive war, the Arab-Palestinians and their Arab allies would have raped, butchered or driven out every Israeli they could get their hands on and gobbled up all of Israel. Now, 35+ years later and despite the fact that Israel won a war BROUGHT UPON THEM, the Israelis are still willing to allow the Arab-Palestinians to have a state on much of the West Bank and Gaza if only they will stop sending their suicide/homicide bombers into the heart of Israel! (Talk about misplaced compassion!)

From 1948 to 1967, Egypt ruled Gaza, Syria ruled the Golan Heights, while Jordan ruled the West Bank. They could have set up independent Arab-Palestinian states in any or all of those territories, but they didn't even consider it. Instead, in 1967 they used the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West bank to launch a war that was unambiguously aimed at destroying Israel, which is how Israel came into possession of those territories in the first place.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After ONLY six days of air, sea and hand-to-hand ground warfare, Israel defeated all three Arab armies along three separate fronts, taking control of the entire Sinai Desert from Egypt, the 37mile x 12mile Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem and its Old City) from Jordan. The God of Israel was surely watching over His children! Most importantly was the return to Israel of its holy 3,000 year old capital city of Jerusalem along the western edge of the West Bank... the same Jerusalem from which all Jews had been denied access for the 19 years (1948-1967) following Jordan's seizure and control over it following the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9.
Unfortunately, the world saw things differently and considered Israel an "occupier" of this disputed "West Bank" and the Gaza Strip along with the 850,000 Palestinian Arabs living there. These Arabs would refer to themselves as "refugees" and joined the masses of refugees from the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-9. Once again Israel was forced to fight a battle for survival and, sadly, once again Palestinian [in reality, Jordanian and Egyptian] Arabs becoming refugees by their own actions, the actions of their leaders and from the actions of fellow Arabs from neighboring states!


Note: When people say Jordan (first called Trans-Jordan) is an Arab-"Palestinian" State, they are correct! Jordan accounts for 3/4 of Palestine's original land mass. Though they may call themselves "Jordanians," they are culturally, ethnically, historically and religiously no different than the Arab-"Palestinians" on the "West Bank." Even the flag of Jordan and the flag of the proposed 2nd Arab-Palestinian state on the West Bank / Gaza look almost identical. So, if the Arab-Palestinians and Jordanians think of themselves as one and the same, why should WE fall for the lie that the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River are any different from the Jordanian Arabs on its eastern shore?

[lunatic]

I repeat again. Palestinian does not mean Arab only. And Palestine as an established state that we are talking about right now never happened. You still blame Jews? Fine, if it makes you happy.

Conclusion:


More on "Palestinian Nationalism
and the
Real War Against Israel...

The Middle East war is not now and never was a conflict between Israelis/Jews on the one hand and Palestinians on the other. In fact, the Arab-"Palestinians", while currently the perpetrators of most of the anti-Jewish atrocities, were never a very important part of the conflict. In fact, before about 1970, virtually no one in the world considered the Middle East conflict to be one between Israelis and Palestinians.
The term "Palestinian" itself had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940s, and had been slowly deconstructed and redefined to refer to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. The Middle East Conflict was always a war by Arabs against Jews, not a conflict between Israelis and "Palestinians." The war was repackaged as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians as a public relations gimmick by the Arab fascist regimes. These regimes had never had any interest in "Palestinians," in creating a "Palestinian" state, or in "Palestinian nationalism" before 1967. That is because Palestinian nationalism did not and DOES NOT exist. The Palestinians were a regional group of Arabs having virtually no cultural nor national distinctive traits separating them from Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians. They are all basically Arabs!.

The bulk of what are called "Palestinian Arabs" are members of families who migrated into the Land of Israel beginning in the late 19th century. Palestinian nationalism is a mislabeling of Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism exists, although it is closely bound up with Islamic nationalism and even Islamism. Palestinian nationalism, however, is a phantom. It is nothing more than genocidal hatred of Jews!

The Arab assaults and aggressions against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968, and 1973 had nothing to do with Palestinians. The Palestinian terror campaign would itself be easy to suppress today and eradicate if the Middle East conflict were really a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel would simply obliterate the terrorists and expel their supporters to Syria and Lebanon. The Middle East war continues because it is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also in large part a war between barbarism and civilization. In many ways an Islamic religious jihad against the Jews.

For your consideration: Stalin, who was anti-Semite o.k. the creation of Jewish state at the same time he was building the base for Holocaust 2 in the USSR. He was probably hoping Israel would become a socialist state and would become ally against the imperialistic influence in the Middle East (I am vomiting). Hah-hah-hah.

Now back to Munich. Please forgive me for off topic posts.

[ChemicalRomance]

9/10, frickin' excellent.

I have a few questions:

***SPOILERS***


1) What happened at the hotel with the TV bomb? Why did Eric Bana and the man he was sleeping with at the safe house fight? Was Eric Bana pretending he was German?

2) Did the dutch women in the movie that they kill work for the CIA?

3) Who killed Eric Bana's partner who rested on the bench?

4) Did the bomb maker in fact blow himself up on accident?

5) In the end was Eric Bana being hunted, if so, by who?

[floydtheater07]

Originally posted by ChemicalRomance
9/10, frickin' excellent.

I have a few questions:

***SPOILERS***


1) What happened at the hotel with the TV bomb? Why did Eric Bana and the man he was sleeping with at the safe house fight? Was Eric Bana pretending he was German?

2) Did the dutch women in the movie that they kill work for the CIA?

3) Who killed Eric Bana's partner who rested on the bench?

4) Did the bomb maker in fact blow himself up on accident?

5) In the end was Eric Bana being hunted, if so, by who?

With the exception of number 1 (yes, he was pretending to be German), all of these questions are open to intepretation. I think the point was not to know, because it adds to the paranoia.

[lunatic]

DAMASCUS, Syria - Mohammed Oudeh is old and stooped, his hair and mustache gray. It is difficult to imagine him as Abu Daoud, the key planner of the assault on the 1972 Munich Olympics that left 11 Israeli athletes dead.

But the 69-year-old former guerrilla leader is as militant as ever: In an interview with The Associated Press, he recounts how PLO leaders — angry that the Palestinians were denied an Olympic slot — dreamed up the attack while sitting at a sidewalk cafe in Rome.

And he shows no regret.

Discussing the Palestinians' struggle for a homeland and rejecting the use of the word "terrorist" to describe its fighters, he said of the Munich days: "There was nothing we weren't prepared to do to keep the Palestinian cause in the public eye."

"Before Munich, we were simply terrorists. After Munich, at least people started asking who are these terrorists? What do they want? Before Munich, nobody had the slightest idea about Palestine," he said.

He insists Israel must make concessions if it ever wants peace.

"Today, I cannot fight you anymore, but my grandson will and his grandsons, too," Abu Daoud said, addressing Israelis.

Director Steven Spielberg's movie "Munich" has revived discussions of the Sept. 5, 1972, hostage-taking that shocked the world. Abu Daoud, who did not participate in the attack itself, has not seen the film, but has read about it and hopes someday to see it on DVD.

The movie focuses on the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency's actions to hunt down and kill those it believed responsible for the assault on the Munich Olympic village by members of Abu Daoud's "Black September" group. The group was a violent offshoot of the mainstream Palestinian Fatah faction, and staged attacks on Israelis in Europe in the 1970s.

Two Israeli athletes were killed in the assault, and nine others died in a botched rescue attempt by the German police. A German policeman and five Palestinian gunmen also were killed.

Abu Daoud first acknowledged having a role in the Munich operation in a 1999 book, "Palestine: From Jerusalem to Munich," that caused an uproar when it came out.

After the 1972 attack, he lived in eastern Europe and then in Lebanon until civil war broke out in 1975. He went to Jordan, and from there to Ramallah in the West Bank in 1993 after the Palestinians' Oslo peace accords with Israel.

But when Abu Daoud's book came out in 1999, he was banned from returning to Ramallah after a trip to Jordan, and finally settled in Syria — the only country that would take him.

He agreed to be interviewed by the AP at a Damascus hospital where he said he was having a checkup.

Talking about the 1972 attack, Abu Daoud recalled sitting at a cafe in Rome with fellow PLO guerrilla leader Abu Iyad and his assistant, Mohammed al-Omari, when they read in a newspaper that the International Olympics Committee had refused the PLO's request to send a Palestinian delegation to the Munich Olympics.

Morale was already sagging after the PLO's humiliating retreat from Jordan, where the late King Hussein had crushed Palestinian guerrillas.

"I remember Abu Iyad looked at me and said: 'Let's participate in the Olympics in our own way. Let's kidnap (Israeli) hostages and swap them for prisoners in Israel,'" Abu Daoud said.

Abu Daoud said he immediately took to the idea, and was given the task of doing the operation's groundwork. After several reconnaissance missions to Munich, it was agreed that eight masked gunmen would storm the Israeli athletes' dormitory and take them hostage.

He said that 10 days before the attack, he went to Munich again and took from Abu Iyad weapons, mainly Kalashnikov assault rifles, that had been smuggled in.

On the night of the attack, Abu Daoud said he took the eight attackers to dinner in a restaurant at the Munich train station, then the group got taxis for the Olympic Village. They carried their weapons in sports bags.

The plan was to cut through the fence and break in. But when the group arrived, the eight attackers were able to mingle with drunken American athletes who were climbing over a fence, Abu Daoud said. Inside the dormitory, the gunmen put on masks and began their assault. Abu Daoud, who had stayed at the fence, slipped away.

He said he had no qualms about the operation because he considered the Israeli athletes, as military reservists, legitimate targets. But he said the intent was not to kill the Israelis but to use them as bargaining chips to free more than 200 Palestinians jailed in Israel.

"We had strict orders not to kill anyone except in self defense," he said.

Things did not go as planned. Two athletes resisted the gunmen and were fatally shot, and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir refused to negotiate. By the time the standoff ended 21 hours later in the German rescue attempt, 17 people were dead.

Still, the Palestinians considered it a victory.

"Through Munich, we were able to force our cause into the homes of 500 million people," Abu Daoud said.

Abu Daoud himself almost died in what he believes was a Mossad attack. In 1981, as he sat in a hotel cafe in Warsaw, Poland, a gunman fired on him, hitting Abu Daoud in his left wrist, chest, stomach and jaw.

"It was a Palestinian double agent, recruited by the Mossad. ... He was arrested 10 years later, put on trial (by the PLO) and executed," Abu Daoud said. It was not possible to verify his account.

Abu Daoud watches Palestinian events closely, including the election victory by the militant group Hamas.

He said he is opposed "in principle" to suicide bombings.

"But then I remind myself that the Palestinians have nothing else to fight with. We have absolutely nothing while our enemy is armed to the teeth. How can you face such an enemy with all its might, if you don't use unconventional and illogical means?" he said.

"In Fatah, we were a bit lenient and ready to give a little. The Israelis didn't want to give anything in return. Now they have Hamas. If they (Israelis) don't give them something, someone even harsher than Hamas will emerge," Abu Daoud said.

"This is the logic of history."



LYING DISCUSTING SUBHUMAN.
AND FUCK KUSHNER FOR THE SCREENPLAY.

[beastieben21]

/

[ChemicalRomance]

Agreed.

[lunatic]

Originally posted by beastieben21
What is taking so long???? Can someone please S him TFU? I'd like to actually discuss the film.

Then discuss. We will shoot each other later.


:) ;) :confused:

[beastieben21]

/

[anakinsrise]

I saw Munich over the weekend,and found it to be stunning,intriguing and informative.I was on the edge of my seat several times.Even though i found the last scene of the film quite odd.Why Eric Bana wasnt nominated for an Oscar is beyond me.Scale of 1-10 a 9

[JCPhoenix]

I never read boxofficemojo reviews - I learned long ago that they seem to have inexplicably fucked up taste in films - and bad logic. They're good for the one thing they're known for - box office stats. Nothing else. Besides which, that review really didn't sound like a review of the film at all but rather the author deciding to rant against what he feels are bad politics on Spielberg's part.

That said, loved Munich. One of the best ten movies I've seen from 2005 though curiously, my friends are divided (1 other friend loves it, the other two were underwhelmed).

Not gonna go into detail since I think most people have covered it enough already but it was nice to see Munich still squeeze into the five best pic nominees.

9/10

[jaw2929]

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

I just saw this one today, and whatta movie... Basically it follows Eric Bana's Israeli character, as he and a group of amateur assassinator's follow up on killing the Arab men responsible for putting together the attack at the Munich Olympics in the 70's....

Movie's beautifully shot, with some great European and Middle European locations... Bana does a helluva job in this one, a man with a wife and child on the way, contemplating whether there's a purpose in his mission of "killing the killers" so to speak....

The action/violence scenes are pretty gaddamned realistic, which makes for more of a tense atmosphere when you know something's gonna go down... The movie is nearly 3 hours long though, and I thought a little in the beginning it dragged just a bit (after the initial Munich/Terrorist opening)

Other than that though, Spielberg does a helluva job in directing this one... Much better than War of the Worlds I thought, and one of the best movies to come out in 2005.... Check this one out if you can!

[AlexZello]

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?
uh, here's the site in question: Middle East conflict (http://samsonblinded.org/blog)

[DaMovieMan]

?


You bring this 2005 movie to the top of the Current Film Thread for that? PM whoever you're talking to or start a new thread in the General Movie Section.

While I'm at it, this movie was a little overrated but it's still great, 8/10.

[therealjohng]

Best film of 2005. Spielberg's second best.


9, maybe 10/10.

[CyclicNightmare]

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?
uh, here's the site in question: Middle East conflict (http://samsonblinded.org/blog)
SPAM.

BAN.

[xseanymacx]

On topic, easy 8/10.

[otter]

Not much to add that hasn't been said but 10/10.