http://www.munichmovie.com/

The trailer is finally up!
Looks very promising!

(this comes from a Spielberg fan, so know that I'm very subjective towards him ;-))

BTW: does anybody know if the music is from the movie itself?
Beautiful music too.

Good subject. It was done once before as a TV movie called "Vengeance" with Steven Bauer and Michael York. I believe that Spielberg acquired the rights to the original George Jonas book to clear the rights.

Dunno about the music but I read earlier this week that Spielberg was rushing to finish a rough edit so he could hand it off to John Williams for scoring.

If I may say more.

What I like about this trailer is how it tells a story very well (without the ending, of course).

First act: The Black September attack. The setting is portrayed. We are introduced to the problem. We are introduced to the protagonists.

Second act: The protagonists begin their mission. They face small challenges. Operational challenges. The main challenge is hinted at. Their feelings of loyalty versus their personal morality and their families.

The trailer ends with the major complication. How much is too much? Are they fighting the good fight? Will it ever end? How will they get out?

It absolutely begs me to see the movie so that these questions are answered. A lesson here for those of us who are making trailers for our projects.

i thought it was an OK trailer. not kingdom of heaven good, but just ok enough. i dunno anything about the munich situation, so for me, i had no idea what the trailer was talking about. just a bunch of people talking about hostage situation.

This movie is intense. See it. You may not enjoy it, you may be frustrated by it, and it has tons of problems (ideological, political, narrative, and stylistic) but you will get your money's worth. Much better than Kong for sure.

the movie comes out mid jan. in my area. selected theaters only, east bay, ca

greetings

Why isn't this opening with saturation booking? Weird.

What is saturated booking?

it's out in limited release.

Yes, I believe the movie only opened in 500 screens?

In january it will be worldwide released.
Only the end of january in Belgium :-(

well i'll try not to give anything away for those who haven't seen it but i do have a potential spoiler at the end.

I liked the movie. It was, as usual from any Spielberg movie, very well directed. The characters were very interesting. Overall, the movie was very good.

The only real thing i didn't like was the story's lack of complexity. Spielberg is approaching a very complex issue and should have focused on one or two specific issues IMO so that he could more carefully examine the issues at hand and still leave room for some emotion. Maybe this feeling was influenced from the fact that the night before, i went to see Syriana, which had a monstrously complicated storyline, so by comparison, Munich felt dumbed down for mass audiences. It didn't dig in as deep into the political and human issues that exist between arabs and israelis as it could have. Also by comparison, Munich had whad Syriana didn't: an emotionally rich story. Finally, and maybe this is because i'm arab myself, i really knew where the story's "moral" was going.

*****POSSIBLE SPOILER*****
*****POSSIBLE SPOILER*****

What i mean by that is that all you have to do is look at the middle-east and how after years and years of mindless fighting, killing and a constant need for both sides to retaliate, it's fairly obvious what Spielberg is trying to say about the two sides. Nobody ever wins in the middle-east unless both sides agree to a permanent truce (it's usually only temporary) and that's just not going to happen.

Tomorrow it'll get released in Belgium, I hope to see it as soon as possible.

As I suspected the movie gets much better reviews in Europe then in America, I already read 4 Dutch Reviews, they all gave Munich their maximum number of stars!

I'm going to copy the notes I posted on the CeltX forum because what I would have to say here is the same.

Up until the pivotal character scene with Eric Bana character reuniting with his wife, "Munich" was a gripping, very enjoyable espionage thriller with betrayals, mysteries, operations, very much like a good 'realistic' 70s spy thriller. Indeed, it is filmed like one with grainy film and the world-trotting locales. The actual spy operation narrative is superb.

However, the writers and Spielberg himself have tried to weave the two themes: the need of everyone for a home, and the vengeance-Munich parallels together. This is unsuccessful. I found myself scratching my head at the decision to intercut the love-making scene with the final windup of the Munich flashback. I found it thematically confusing. Perhaps it's because of that that I tend to dismiss the political criticism of the movie. I don't think Spielberg or the editor or the writer's execution was clear enough to even invite being taken to task on the political level.

Other stuff like the machinations of the Bana character's peripheral contacts like the French information merchants and his own handler (the Geoffrey Rush character) again are not as well defined. I can see the reason for their placement but the French characters, while interesting characters in their own right, could still have been pruned while Rush's character's importance to the "needing a home" theme could have been expanded upon.

I'm mystified actually by the political rhetoric about the movie. It seems like much of the criticisms is the inclusion of the Palestinian viewpoint. As if it is a shock that the PLO or Black September actually have a motivation for what they do. Of course they do. One can disagree with that viewpoint or in the methods or in their reasoning but just merely putting in that viewpoint is not an intellectual or political crime. The one scene that at all applies to this is when Bana's character has an extended motivation dump with his PLO counterpart in the safehouse they both share. One thing viewers must keep in mind is that the PLO character is on the same level of understanding as Bana's character. Both are meant to represent the foot soldier motivation, not any high level leadership. So it is not right to equate the PLO character's motivation with say Yasser Arafat or the leadership of Black September at the time. Both Bana's character and his counterpart only know the simple motivations and don't know the tip of the iceberg.

Seen in this light the actual politics of Munich are not at all complex or controversial. The fact that warring on a stateless organization or terrorists just ebbs and flows without 'victory' is something any police organization can attest to. Have the police ever won the 'war on drugs', for example? No, they just put pressure on certain purveyors and others pop up. It becomes a matter of control. In the war on terrorism that the western world is engaged in there always seems to be another #3 in al Qaeda or yet another group popping up. In "Munich" the one successful theme, that of a soldier becoming tired and disillusioned because his posting keeps on getting extended and the goals no longer clear, is nothing new. We see it in lots of movies: war movies, police movies. The simplicity of this theme doesn't harm the movie and if Spielberg had stuck to it, then it would have remained a solid espionage thriller without encumbrances.

As for Janusz Kaminski I don't know what he said outside of the film, only that his cinematography is simply wonderful in the film. I don't know why anyone would attack the film Munich because of something he might have said outside of it.

In my last paragraph I was responding to another poster who started the thread in CeltX who was attacking Janusz Kaminski. If you're interested, the thread is here (http://forums.celtx.com/viewtopic.php?p=4970#4970).

By the way, if anyone wants to see a better film on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict currently in release, please make an effort to see "Paradise Now". In every way a better movie and with a more sound conclusion ('sound', as in dramatically satisfying).

All through Munich, I kept thinking (regarding Spielberg), "6 months ago this guy had Tom Cruise sucked into an alien anus..."

I agree to some extent with the criticism above, but not even "Schindler" pointed to this film. A remarkable step for Spielberg IMHO. But yes, the intercutting of the "climax" of the kidnapping with the sex scene felt off. Spielberg is a master of the set-piece -- the appearance of the tripods in WOTW was beyond stunning, for instance -- and moments in Munich (like the Phosphorus grenades in the hotel) were equally gripping. But where WOTW felt like a bunch of coolness stuck together with duct tape, Munich for me was a very cohesive whole.

I had recently seen the Documentary on the Olympic kidnapping (can't recall the title, that damn early onset alzheimer's I seem to have), but it was a disturbing, tragic story and a remarkble piece (the opening day of competition with Led Zep's "Immigrant Song" just gave me a big rush). Funny, I'm halfway through Robert Fisk's massive "The Great War for Civilisation", and saw Syriana while in the midst of Fisk's Iran/Iraq section, and then saw Munich while reading the Israel/Palestine section. Amazed at how little I know about the region that's shaping our world & future; shocked as usual by the politicians on all sides who seem so unaffected by the massive human loss & suffering, and how little Britain and the US have learned from a century of mistakes & failures over there.

Saw it this afternoon.

Well, what to think?
It's really a hard, heavy movie, that leaves you stunned. The first minutes after seeing it I thought: well, good movie...
But a half hour afterwards, the themes and moral questions that the movie calles for really begin to get in your head, and you are feeling very down, well I did at least.

I think this is one of Spielberg's first movies where I really don't want to talk a lot about the technical side of the movie, just because the script and thematics were soo good.

I think the movie was alright. Not SO special but very well-done as usual.. One thing threw me though..

The elevator scene. The guy is shot.. falls forward and lands on his belly with milk and blood mixed. A very(morbid) but beautiful scene. Next scene.. he's on his back?? Please tell me I'm wrong here..

I think the movie was alright. Not SO special but very well-done as usual.. One thing threw me though..

The elevator scene. The guy is shot.. falls forward and lands on his belly with milk and blood mixed. A very(morbid) but beautiful scene. Next scene.. he's on his back?? Please tell me I'm wrong here..

You're right. It didn't botter me, and I really had the feeling he could have turned around, but it IS a mistake, but I didn't notice, only read it on IMDB on the goofs page...

BTW, the blood and milk mixed can be seen in a classic film way before "Munich". Can anyone name the movie?

I considered "Munich" to be, possibly Spielberg's "new first film." We are studying a filmmaker that has been criticised, to no end, about his manipulative filmmaking tactics (tactics I personally enjoy and emmulate) His use of closed composition, camera motivation, blocking etc... forces the audience to become "observers" in his world. Personally, I consider this the most powerfully effective method of filmmaking out there.

Even "Schindler's List" ,which most claim as his most pure work (little Spielberg tricks) ,is actually quite a manipulative film... again I have nothing against that and do not understand the criticsm he receives for it.

I consider myself a Spielbergian filmmaker (i.e. treasure of the templars) and when I saw Munich I almost swore that Spielberg did not direct this film, of course there were "cool Spielberg moments" but for the most part it was so objective that it seemed impossible that Steven Spielberg had directed it.

and, because of its extremely objective approach, I believe we cannot categorize this as his 26th film... but rather his 1st "new" film. A very subjective filmmaker making his first objective film... and unfortunately I believe he failed.

I believe the writing was cliched, the characters lacked the strength that was needed for the film, the part James Bond part Schindler's List three hour flick was nothing short of frustrating and downright boring... that's not to say a boring film still can't be a great film... this was a boring film that lacked any strength, it relied on the strength of a script that was too weak to hold it up, and in that case I'd rather have a brainless Michael Bay action piece (who I consider the worst kind of filmmaker) than something as lifeless as "Munich."

*SPOILERS*

The script was very predictable as well, all the way to the sex scene! The moment I saw the first sex scene between Avner and his pregnant wife I knew they would revisit that situation post-mission.

I am fine with the film being objective in it's views politically but I still need something to hold on to. I still need to care. Throughout the film I could care less what happened to Eric Bana or his conscious. The message was great, the execution was poor.

The genius of the very last shot in the film definitely raised its level of importance in my mind, I was also very impressed how the "prostitute assassin" when faced with the knowledge that she was dying (after she was shot) did not grab her gun to "take the bastards down with her" but simply grabbed her cat and sat in her lawn chair, like an innocent girl, despite her exposure or her crimes, she simply knew that shedding blood was worthless and she'd rather hold her cat as she takes her last breath.

She was the only one in the film who had any... true moral arc... she was the only one that got it! Even Avner was still prepared to pay blood for blood with his own people if they touched his family... not even Avner got the message... just the whore assassin.

Ok that went off into a random tangent and I apologize...

I will end with Eric Roth's, the writer of "Munich" words that he penned into cinematic history with Forrest Gump.

"That's all I have to say... about that."

Daniel, very nice post.
I enjoyed Munich very much, and I consider it to be one of his best films he made, although I too like the old 'spielbergian' way of filmmaking.
I too love his tactics, because that's the freedom a filmmaker has, and Spielberg controls them like no other.
But I loved Munich very much too, but still.
Nice post.

Yes, very thoughtful post, Daniel.

However, I have to disagree on your interpretation of the prostitute scene. I believe she simply didn't have time to reach her pistol. To me the meaning of that scene was more literal. It was such a grey 'business' that even those who appear beautiful on the outside could bring themselves to be heartless killers and not expect to have their crimes visited back upon themselves in their own homes. I really did like that scene, especially when Craig reaches out almost gently to stop her from walking further after she is initially shot as if almost to steady her.

I thought Munich was an excellent film. However, one thing puzzles me which has not been written about anywhere I've seen (that I know of) and that is the fact that Munich is a direct remake of a film from the 1980s called 'Sword of Gideon' - it is almost identical in many ways.

It seems very odd that a) nobody has really mentioned it and b) that Spielberg would have bothered to do it - unless he did the whole thing to give him the opportnity for that final shot...

Both "The Sword of Gideon" and "Munich" were based - at least in part - on the book "Vengeance" by George Jonas. "Sword of Gideon" was a TV movie, was it not? I remember it as a TV movie. (IMDB confirms my memory). I don't think it is correct to say that no one has mentioned "Sword of Gideon". I've read at least one review that mentions that the story was made into a TV movie before.

And since it is a true story (as much as is necessary to be true), anyone can cover the same ground without it being a remake of previous adaptations. "Titanic" is not a remake of "A Night to Remember". Nor is "Capote" a remake of "In Cold Blood".

I also recall reading something to the effect that "Munich" being an adaptation of the Jonas book is more to do with clearing the rights rather than a straight adaptation. I've never read the book.

I'm sorry to say that my memories of "Sword of Gideon" are pretty thin so I can't compare it with "Munich". I just remember enjoying it and thinking: why is Michael York in a supporting role?

I see no problem with remaking something already covered by a TV movie. How many times has TV land rushed out and made a cheap movie as soon as they learned that a major Hollywood production was approaching the same topic? It used to happen quite regularly.

Anyway, it has been 20 years since the TV movie. I wouldn't expect that many people to remember it. How may film critics or TV critics have lasted that long in their careers?

I know that they are both based on the same book - I was just amazed at how very similar these two film versions are - the same story told by two different film-makers usually results in quite different things.

I think Spielberg's version is much better than Gideon and in Spielberg's defence I would say that the subject matter of the film and the motives behind Black Septemebr's actions are something that needs to be repeated and repeated - to increase understanding of the problem - Munich actually does this better than Gideon. This alone is enough to justify the making of it and I think Spielberg should be highly praised for doing it.

I don't want to get too heavily into politics here as this is a film forum not a political one so, politics aside, all I was intending to say was that while I think Munich is an excellent and very important film - it and Gideon (purely as 'films') are very very similar.

well, i also saw both, and have to say, that i liked the The Sword of Gideon version better over munich. spielberg is spielberg, but in gideon the story was easier to follow.

greetings