Munich Is Incredible

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 8:43pm

Go see it.

It's going to be tough trying to figure out which is the best film of the year: Munich or Syriana.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 11:35pm

Perhaps if you got out some graph paper and plotted out a formula you could "figure it out."

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 11:37pm

You're right, this really was an incredible film. It's going to be a definate contender come Oscar time, with Eric Bana being my choice for Best Actor. His performance was simply stunning.

[insomniak]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 11:37pm

How was Tony Kushner's script?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 11:55pm

I couldn't have been more apprehensive about this film going into it. Part of me was actually hoping it would fail because I was so over the early hype before the movie even started filming, but it really was a great film. I was just blown away by the craftmanship. The art direction and makeup/costuming were particularly superb - the film actually looked like something filmed in 1972.

I know BBM is the favorite on this board, but I honestly think the Oscar race is over. I can't imagine MUNICH not winning.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 12:39am

just got back from seeing it. haven't seen brokeblech™ or syriana yet, so i can't compare them, but munich was quite good.

bana was great, but then i haven't seen him give a bad performance yet (even in the name to remain unspoken brad pitt gladiator flick). i felt as michael did that the film looked and felt like something out of the early 70's. geoffrey rush gave a powerfully restrained performance and ciaran hinds was such fun.

***spoilers ahead****







***i said spoilers, stop reading if you haven't seen it****








***last chance to skip this post and avoid the spoilers****







i'm not so sure about it for oscar time though. despite the many things it has going for it, i worry that it didn't clearly come down hard enough on the killers for oscar voters. it's a cynical view, i know, but the fact that the film stayed very staunchly in the grey areas of the situation neither condemning nor celebrating the violence (which was wonderfully graphic), i think that the oscar voters might be inclined to pass it over. it's a tough question at the crux of this film and even though spielberg was heavy handed enough with the violence begats violence point i worry that he left it open enough that the justification was there for the actions taken (which i definitely agree with, of course). we'll see. it was cerainly a powerful film that picked a lot of scabs and will leave it's viewers talking and debating.

Updated On: 12/26/05 at 12:39 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 12:44am

Now, see even though I thought MUNICH was great - even if I didn't I think it would win Best Picture by default. It's big. It's important. It has superb craft. None of the other nominees can claim all that.

I just can't imagine mainstream public support is going to be strong enough to push the small BBM to an early win - and its incredible early critical support I think has potentially put the the film on too high a pedistal - one that could easily collapse in the face of a two month Oscar race. KING KONG isn't "important" enough - and the other contenders - WALK THE LINE and GOOD NIGHT GOOD LUCK just aren't good enough...
Updated On: 12/26/05 at 12:44 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 12:56am

what about syriana? since i haven't seen it, i ask in all innocence.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 1:03am

I haven't heard/read of any serious Oscar consideration for Syriana (for Best Picture) but I suppose in a year like this, anything can happen.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 1:10am

Syriana was incredible but seems to be a bit too complicated and fast-paced for the older Oscar voters.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 1:53am

I guess I'm alone in feeling underwhelmed by MUNICH. It was an enjoyable enough thriller, but I thought the political discourse in the movie was pedestrian (which surprised me, considering Kushner's involvement). The film seemed set on being controversial, but in the end it shied away from making any daring or interesting statements. Violence begets violence, I get it; but I didn't need to see MUNICH to get that, I see everyday on the news regarding the Middle East. I think better and more thought-provoking films have been made about Israeli-Palestinian relations.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 2:43am

"I guess I'm alone in feeling underwhelmed by MUNICH."

No. Why would you think you're alone? I give it a pass for Bana's performance (the final scene actually didn't amuse me at all) and a few aphorisms that may be worth entertaining - though there was no shortage of those; most of the characters spoke as though Tony Kushner was feeding them lines from behind the rosebush. However, I don't think a single supporting character was well-developed, and I couldn't help but think during the flashbacks to the athletes' killings that a really thrilling film might have had another focus or protagonist. I found myself wishing that I had brought along a historian to fill in the many blanks that Spielberg chose to leave.
Updated On: 12/26/05 at 02:43 AM

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 8:51am

MUNICH is Spielberg's finest work in years. A brilliant film on every level, with a star-making turn by Eric Bana (who should become a serious Oscar contender). Go see it!

As far as SYRIANA is concerned, I hated it. I don't see where all of this positive buzz is coming from. It's sterile, formulaic and drags on forever.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 9:01am

I spent several days in Munich a few years ago. It's a beautiful city with marvelous architecture, great opera, fine cusine and excellent museums. I love that town.

[melissa errico fan]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 9:09am

I spent a semester in Munich studying German. It is, indeed, gorgeous. All of Bayern is.

[DAME]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 9:10am

Bluewizard,
You are not alone. And I don't know what oscar buzz anyone here is talking about. At the DGA screening the reception of the film was mixed. And from previous years.. that to me has been a good indicative on how the film will fare awards season. And the posters comment about eric bana for best actor actually made me laugh. I thought he was just passable. ( but he is handsome isn't he)

Updated On: 12/26/05 at 09:10 AM

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 9:35am

Munich is a very good (not great) film. (I found it too manipulative.) But Spielberg is most definitely NOT an Academy favorite. That, accompanied with its somewhat lopsided political view, makes it an unlikely recipient of a Best Picture Oscar. But it's sure to be nominated. It's one of the year's best.

Updated On: 12/26/05 at 09:35 AM

[DBillyP]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 10:15am

I fall into the underwhelmed side of this discussion. I think the film is well made but ultimately long and drawn out. Make a bomb, experience complications with said bomb, detonate bomb, run, repeat.

I also found it difficult to engage in the experience of this film. Generally, I need someone with whom I can sympathize or empathize in order to take the storytelling journey. I couldn't do that in MUNICH. Violence begets violence was already in my belief system, so I couldn't relate to an order being given to carry out retribution. Perhaps had I seen more conflict in Eric Bana about carrying out the actions, I might have been more able to join his journey.

As for Kushner's script, I did appreciate the humour he injected.

Ultimately, I thought MUNICH was well made but an unsatisfying experience. I don't think it comes anywhere close to SCHINDLER'S LIST or even SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

[jasonf]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 10:22am

The closer theater this is playing in to me is over a half hour away. I was thinking of going today, but I went to that theater for The Producers yesterday -- I don't know if I want to go all the way back now (and the times aren't exactly the most convenient). Anyone know if the movie has plans to open wider - there are a TON of theaters around here (literally - there are 5 within a 35 minute drive equaling nearly 100 screens -- and Munich is playing on ONE of them.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 12:02pm

i dunno, ev. i think with any film that attempts to work on this type of scope that some historical facts have to be sacrificed. i mean it was already pushing three hours, anymore would have made it into a miniseries. granted, one could argue that some facts might be substituted for others. from a lot of the comments already, i think the film's ambiguity (which was something that i loved, the world's not black and white) may be its undoing with a lot of folks.

the issue of the supporting characters on the other hand is a critical one. they were left distressingly vague with the actors tasked to create with their performances the life of each. other than the fleeting moment of the first meeting around bana's dinner where they are introduced, the details (what there are of them) emerge in bits and pieces and are easily lost in such a big pic. if i were loking to defend that i might argue that such a unit of men would be a bit reticent to share too many details about themselves knowing that theirs was a task that could blow up in their faces or that knowing to much about each other could lead to difficulties should one of them be captured. its a stretch, i know.

Updated On: 12/26/05 at 12:02 PM

[friesgirl]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 1:48am

SPOILERS BELOW








There are so many inaccuracies with this movie (mostly because the book it is based on, Vengeance, has been discredited), and the whole french plot was ridiculous. You mean to tell me that the information these men had the Israeli intelligence couldn't find? Please.

Don't get me started on the manipulative nature of the radio scene. The death of the female character also screamed manipulation. Summed up in this review, "The point is that Ms. Croze’s character seems to have been inserted into the film gratuitously to supply a tiny bit of sensationalism into proceedings that are otherwise monotonously full of gloom and self-doubt. None of the reviews I’ve read so far have mentioned this scene, which for some reason sticks out in my mind for its strikingly sadistic self-indulgence in the pathology of hate."

My other main issue is the way they made the team seem incompetent...I know what Spielberg was trying to say, but the whole "inspired by real events" gives him a loophole. There is a reason it has to be INSPIRED and not BASED...so many of this movie is absolute fiction and my fear is that many will take it as fact. Aside from the historical context, the movie was way too long.

I was never in love with Brokeback Mountain as others seem to be, but I could appreciate its message and its performances much more than Munich. And it's a lot less manipulative. Personally, I think the best film I've seen this year (and the most personally moving) was "The Constant Gardener." I know it has no shot at an Oscar, so my choice is "Brokeback Mountain."

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 10:47am

folks, it's not a documentary. that's like taking oliver stone to task for the facts in jfk.

[DBillyP]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 11:01am

That's true papa, but the "inspired by" part should make people question what is fact and what is fiction.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 11:09am

right. it should drive them to do their own research and not depend on a film maker to spoonfeed them facts, unless of course, it's a documentary. but i don't think that attacking the facts as presented in the film is a fair basis for criticism of the film itself.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/27/05 at 11:24am

"unless of course, it's a documentary"

I'm not sure I'd say a documentary is any less fiction than any other narrative.