MUNICH -- first reviews of Speilberg's new Oscarbait... — Page 3

You know. Hand of God moving the story... deus ex machina... plot contrivance... people have been throwing such terms around longer than I have, Plum. I was under the impression they were all pretty much describing the same thing, but hey.

LLW, you'll probably do better not to throw such generalizations around about North Americans as you just might offend someone. I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, I'm just saying that North Americans are not the only ones capable of ignorance or ignorant points of view.

Oh I want to add... it's hard to make judgements on a movie you haven't seen, even with what critics say about it. So I guess we'll have to wait until it is released.

I think the funniest thing the Fox critic says is something about the silliness of movies this year (about gay cowboys and such) and then goes on to claim Close Encounters as one of Spielberg's best films (not saying it isn't, but it would probably count as silly too).

I do think Brokeback sounds kind of like a glorified porn (Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal wear chaps and make out) but apparently the performances are just so good... I'll have to see.

---

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 10:18 PM

Mostly in Canada or in the US? And (since you look old enough) if you are in college, where? Maybe I hang out with the right people, but quite a few of my friends are not only very interested in politics but they are very involved in politics. Personally I try to stay a little less than well informed, but that's because the system bothers me.

And yes, growing up in a country where suicide bombings are routine, where every person is required to serve army time, and living in such a politically turbulent place (which isn't to say that America is not a politically turbulent place, but I think Americans have frivolous concerns that they give too much weight. Then again, I say the same thing about certain aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it's far too complex to call it frivolous as you can, say, call concern over the sanctity of marriage a fairly frivolous concern).

But really, this is why I'm so excited for Spielberg's movie. I feel like I don't REALLY understand what's going on over there, and while Spielberg's movie certainly isn't going to shed the light on everything, I'm really into history.

I think we've opened the proverbial can of worms, which is cool I guess, maybe it'll fizzle out after this. I'd mostly avoid going into my fatalistic political views :P

---

Updated On: 12/6/05 at 11:09 PM

Bluewizard, Kubrick gave AI to Spielberg for a reason. As he said, Spielberg's sentimentality was more in keeping with the story, and adaptation or no, it is Spielberg's story and he felt it needed the last 20 minutes. I'll take his word over yours ;P

By your reasoning, Spielberg must be the best critic of his own work, simply because "it is Spielberg's story." Why bother with film critics, then? Let's just get directors to rate their own work!

Whatever: the inconsistent and laughable change in tone from haunting parable to Hallmark TV movie is enough to justify my calling the ending indulgent crap. The word "sentimental" doesn't even begin to describe how overwrought, contrived and downright banal Spielberg's tacked-on ending was. The film had a lot going for it and Spielberg's storytelling had a strong foundation: had AI concluded with little David at the bottom of the ocean, forever yearning for his mother, it would have been a heartbreaking, poetic film. Unfortunately, Spielberg's epilogue rejected the story's potent themes and the film turned into sludge. I don't think even Kubrick meant for that to happen.

---

I understand where you're coming from, DG, but I have problems with Spielberg's execution. The super-evolved androids (which many have mistaken for aliens)....where did they come from? Why the strange, "you get one wish only" ultimatum? What exactly was his point about existence, exactly? I interpreted the film as, a) Man's horrific irresponsibility, and how Man's inhumanity will be conveniently redirected towards machine, and b) the perpetual quest for home.

If Spielberg wanted to reconcile this latter theme, it was still clumsily-conceived: fuzzy as the final scene's tone was, it was nonetheless a false dream manufactured by the super-androids. David's long, protracted "perfect" day seemed to belong in a completely different movie, separate from the two hours that proceded it.

---

Updated On: 12/7/05 at 02:04 AM

Hah,

Well I'm another 20 year-old punk (literally...I have a facial peircing and a mohawk now!)...and there are others...if enough 20-year-old punks get out there and starting raising their voices...they are bound to be heard...

Akiva

Lou Lumenick of the NY Post calls Munich (and King Kong) a masterpiece and lists it as his pick for Best Picture (other nominess: Brokeback Mountain, King Kong, Walk the Line and Memoirs of a Geisha):

"LOOKS like "King Kong" will be crashing Steven Spielberg's Oscar party. Earlier this week, I spent nearly six hours in the dark riveted by back-to-back screenings of Spielberg's gripping, morally complex thriller "Munich" and Peter Jackson's gloriously triumphant re-imagining of "Kong" - the last major contenders shown to the press.

To this bleary-eyed veteran Oscar watcher, it was clear these two masterpieces from the world's greatest directors - which couldn't be more different - are both going to be up for Best Picture when Oscars are handed out on March 5.

Awards season kicks off in earnest tomorrow with a list from the National Board of Review, followed next week by Golden Globe nominations and kudos from three key critics' groups - and this looks like the most interesting race in years.

"Munich," depicting the 1972 massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes by Palestinian terrorists - and a team of Israeli assassins dispatched to Europe to exact retribution - has been topping Oscar touts' lists, sight unseen, for months, if for no other reason than Spielberg's track record with serious themes.

Indeed, "Munich" turns out to be a very worthy successor to Spielberg's 1993 Best Picture winner, "Schindler's List," and his 1998 "Saving Private Ryan," which should have won the Oscar.

But unlike both of those World War II movies, there are no clear-cut heroes.

The leader of the hit squad (a terrific Eric Bana) and his men (including Daniel Craig, the new James Bond) come to question their mission - covertly sanctioned by Prime Minister Golda Meir and indirectly supervised by a shadowy government spookmaster (Geoffrey Rush).

What are the motives of the people who provide them information? Were their targets actually involved in the Munich massacre? What about the collateral damage from their unreliable bombs? And is the hit squad itself being targeted by the Palestinians, the CIA, the Israeli army, or all three?

The movie offers no easy answers, only nail-biting suspense - such as a chilling sequence when a Palestinian target's daughter in Paris picks up a telephone rigged with explosives.

Spielberg's controversial conclusion that any all-out war on terrorism is only going to beget worse terrorism is bound to resonate with the left-leaning Academy."



http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/58453.htm

---

Updated On: 12/7/05 at 10:58 AM

"What? In what way? Kubrick certainly didn't see a need for them"

Everything I've read, including bonus materials included with the DVD I believe, indicate that the ending of AI was Kubrick's.

Amen, pop.

We're saying that Kubrik...the man who gave us EYES WIDE SHUT...can't have made a bad choice???

---

yes indeed. Bad idea, poorly executed. Shame.

---

I don't think AI needed that ending. As BlueWizard said, it felt like a Hallmark Movie of the Week in tone. I thought, for one second, that the wrong reel had been loaded into the projector. The alien creatures looked ridiculous. And furthermore, after his mother has been declared dead by the horribly clumsy voiceover, you can clearly still see she's breathing. So, like I said, I think it's a bad idea and it's executed quite poorly.

---

So, NOW, oscarwatch.com has Munich atop the Best Picture list. Clearly it's gonna be a fabulous fight to the finish!

---

He may have felt that AI's sentimental ending was necessary, but a vast majority of moviegoers and professional critics didn't; and if he couldn't convince us of its necessity, then he failed as a storyteller.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. As someone else stated before, people hated 2001 when it came out. In fact, I'm sure that many classics were, upon their release, met with disdain. Hell, even "Our Town" received mostly lukewarm reviews.

I think the ending was absolutely necessary, for many reasons. The movie is about what makes us human: Is it our skin and our bodies? Or, is it our desire for something? Our dreams, if you will. By David pursuing his quest for the Blue Fairy, and his mother's love, he is displaying primary instincts (survival beign another one). When he gets stuck under water, he still tries. Many, many years later, after he has given up hope, he is given one last chance to see his mother and, without coercion, hear the words he's been waiting for. Investing your emotions into a figure that, for all intents and purposes, isn't real is the point of this movie. And, I think it's extremely fascinating.

Admittedly, the first time I saw it, I didn't like it. But, multiple viewings later, I have realized its significance and its power. The issues of humanity and such have certainly resonated with mostly everyone who's seen the film (positively or negatively). Therefore, I don't think Spielberg has failed. I'm sure you guys have your reasons for hating it, but I would strongly suggest seeing it again. If you found it boring, then that's another story.

And for the record, A.I. got mostly positive reviews when it was released.

Updated On: 12/7/05 at 02:53 PM

But 2001 was still heralded as a groundbreaking accomplishment.

Most critics reacted with anger. After some time, many of them came around. I don't know if I'd consider A.I. a breakthrough, but I do consider it a great achievement in modern filmmaking. The fact that it gets under the skin proves that the movie has done it's job. It has done exactly what the cinematic art was meant to do: provoke.

Just because he's an "auteur" doesn't mean no one can point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

It's all personal taste, I guess. I think that there are many wonderful ideas here. In fact, I strongly urge you to watch it again. You obviously don't have to. As I said before, I did not like it in 2001. I didn't want anything to do with it. Now, four years later, it has become one of my favorite movies.

Updated On: 12/7/05 at 03:10 PM