User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 328 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 37 out of 328
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 10, 2012
    1
    "Inspired by true events..." No kidding. Even if you know nothing about the historical facts in the movie, the slant is painfully obvious. The "good guys" are jovial, articulate and thoughtful - everyone "on the other side" talks heatedly and is armed. The tragedy of Munich and the subsequent events, did not need Steven Spielberg to turn it into this painfully biased tripe. If you"Inspired by true events..." No kidding. Even if you know nothing about the historical facts in the movie, the slant is painfully obvious. The "good guys" are jovial, articulate and thoughtful - everyone "on the other side" talks heatedly and is armed. The tragedy of Munich and the subsequent events, did not need Steven Spielberg to turn it into this painfully biased tripe. If you didn't feel him "playing" you while watching (sappy clues throughout the movie), well that's where he earned the 1 that I give this movie. Expand
  2. ColmB
    Jun 14, 2009
    4
    Too long, shot in constant darkness and not something I'd recommend.
  3. Squall
    Dec 15, 2005
    0
    Steven Speilberg has finally lost his mind. He now equates the sons and daughters of Isreal equal to, if not less, than the Muslim terrorists who commit all sorts of attrocities on civilization. Just wonder if Spielberg would turn the other cheek if someone he loved was brutally murdered? Somehow I just don't think so. It's sad to see a once great director become a shill for Steven Speilberg has finally lost his mind. He now equates the sons and daughters of Isreal equal to, if not less, than the Muslim terrorists who commit all sorts of attrocities on civilization. Just wonder if Spielberg would turn the other cheek if someone he loved was brutally murdered? Somehow I just don't think so. It's sad to see a once great director become a shill for Hollywood's left wing political movement. Barbara Streisand now has a partner in turning the keys of America over to our enemies. Great job Steve as you should feel very proud of yourself? Let's see? War of The Worlds was a total joke and now this? This is typical Michael Moore trailer trash. Not worthy of your time or money. Expand
  4. Howard
    Jan 6, 2006
    1
    It's time for Mr. Spielberg after WOW and this effort to retire and go into politics. His ideaology is expressed and not the view of the real world. For example, terrorists do not value human life, ours or theirs and thus they are terrorists. An eye for an eye is written in the Bible. If someone who does not value life at all does a heinour crime to my family I am getting revenge. It's time for Mr. Spielberg after WOW and this effort to retire and go into politics. His ideaology is expressed and not the view of the real world. For example, terrorists do not value human life, ours or theirs and thus they are terrorists. An eye for an eye is written in the Bible. If someone who does not value life at all does a heinour crime to my family I am getting revenge. Not breaking bread with the terrorist. Spielberg belives in turning the other cheek and resolving issues through peaceful negotiation. Message to Speilberg. You can't negotiate with terrorists. When will all of you liberals understand this? Expand
  5. RadioLady
    Dec 20, 2005
    4
    [***SPOILERS***] Disappointing story which "re-imagines" 1972 history. The movie is long and poorly plotted. It was hard to follow due to jumping around from one country to another. They had to concoct odd ways of killing these people, not simply SHOOTING THEM. And then we find out some were NOT EVEN THE TRUE PLO MURDERERS themselves, but other people the Israel group deemed were also bad[***SPOILERS***] Disappointing story which "re-imagines" 1972 history. The movie is long and poorly plotted. It was hard to follow due to jumping around from one country to another. They had to concoct odd ways of killing these people, not simply SHOOTING THEM. And then we find out some were NOT EVEN THE TRUE PLO MURDERERS themselves, but other people the Israel group deemed were also bad people. (Really? Why show us eleven pictures and then move to others seemingly not directly involved?) Motivations were blunted and there was so much that was make-believe that it ended up seeming like farce. (People pointing guns at the enemy, while all holed up at a "safe house," one Israeli bombmaker doing things with toys.) I dunno. I'm a big Spielberg fan, but this was not his finest work, and I surely don't see the film as the best of 2005. Postscript: This film opens on 12/23/05 here in Portland, Oregon. All I could think of was it's a kind of a weird pre-Chanukah gift. It does not make me, an American Jew, feel better about the state of Israel and the way it may have acted either now or in the past. 4/10 Expand
  6. tinah.
    Dec 22, 2005
    2
    It was like a really expensive James Bond movie or a Middle_eastern 10 Little INdians. I did not feel involved with the characters. If the writer had involved me more in the event at Munich initially, I might have felt more involved with the hunting down of the kilers. As it was I didn't even know who they were. It was just one uninteresting killing after another.
  7. JonathanF.
    Dec 23, 2005
    4
    "No doubt what happened at Munich was a black eye for humanity..but so was the way Spielberg "dialed in" this one. And I'm a big fan..trust me on that. What a poor script and weak presentation. The scenes were ridiculous, the acting was not at all believable and the storyline seems like it was thrown together just to get the thing finished. I couldn't wait for it to be over. And "No doubt what happened at Munich was a black eye for humanity..but so was the way Spielberg "dialed in" this one. And I'm a big fan..trust me on that. What a poor script and weak presentation. The scenes were ridiculous, the acting was not at all believable and the storyline seems like it was thrown together just to get the thing finished. I couldn't wait for it to be over. And just my luck, it was close to 3hrs long. I can't believe Spielberg signed off on this one. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the studio screened this one..He's lucky that for one, he is Spielberg and secondly, most reviewers/reviews get lost in the emotional aspects of what happened at the Munich Olympics. No doubt a sad and mournful tale. However, that aside, this movie is just terribly done..bottom line!" Expand
  8. Lame
    Dec 27, 2005
    0
    Spielberg has lost his mind if he equates the Assasins to the Terrorists. Obviously he doesn't realize that you can't negotiate with savages who have no respect for human life - ours or their own. An eye for an eye is the only thing they understand.
  9. MarcK.
    Dec 29, 2005
    4
    [***Possible Spoilers] I had a real problem with the politics of this movie. Additionally, Spielberg uses a lot of typical Hollywood film cliches...the worst one being at the end when he's cross-cutting between the shooting of the Isreali athletes in Munich and the lead character making love to his wife. Oh yeah...this film was very, very long.
  10. DullDuller
    Dec 29, 2005
    3
    1 point for the art direction and costumes. 1 point for the cinematography. 1 point for all the exotic locales. The rest is dull, pointless, uninteresting and totally unmoving. I didn't identify nor care about any of the characters especially the main lead played by Bana. What I found particularly offensive is how Spielberg kept trying to emotionally connect the main character to the 1 point for the art direction and costumes. 1 point for the cinematography. 1 point for all the exotic locales. The rest is dull, pointless, uninteresting and totally unmoving. I didn't identify nor care about any of the characters especially the main lead played by Bana. What I found particularly offensive is how Spielberg kept trying to emotionally connect the main character to the events in Munich - all of which felt extremely forced as it was constantly crammed down the audience's throat. I nearly laughed when I saw a sweat-covered Bana making love to his wife whilst having "nightmares" about the hostages. There was absolutely no emotional connection whatsoever between the story and any of the players. I have a feeling that this work would've been better served by being two films - one for bonding all the characters to the event and the other for the ten little indians routine. Expand
  11. OrsonO.
    Dec 29, 2005
    1
    First, some real history: this Spielberg film claims to have been "inspired" by history - but in fact is neither. There is not enough life in the story telling for us to actually believe people so dumb actually set out to do tasks requiring actual intelligence. For instance, could any such team get to gether and not discuss their justifications? Speilberg actually believes that First, some real history: this Spielberg film claims to have been "inspired" by history - but in fact is neither. There is not enough life in the story telling for us to actually believe people so dumb actually set out to do tasks requiring actual intelligence. For instance, could any such team get to gether and not discuss their justifications? Speilberg actually believes that eye-for-an-eye vengeance is enough. It ain't La-la land anymore, it's Lamewood! If you, like I do, actually enjoy the theme of how killing challenges poeple to remain on fthe side of the good, see HBS's "Sword of Gideon" (1986). At least several sequences were directly lifted from this superior film. But Speilberg turns the film into agit-prop for anti-nationalistic pacifism and to obscenely equate killing murderers with murder itself: the concluding scenes (fornicating to murder, and the twin towers) were truly offensive to any thinking person. Taking "Schindler's List" together with "Munich" and we have: killing Fascists in uniforms is good - but those wearing hoods and weilding AK-47s is bad; saving Jews from death by industrial means is good, but saving industrious Jews and free Arabs (1-2 milion in Israel) from further terror and Islamic slavery - that's bad! Now if that ain't offensive to you, then you're offensive to me! Anti-Israel and anti-American and self-proclaimed marxist screenwriter Tony Kushner can be thanked - or better yet, blamed - for the recurrent opulent scenes of food - to the point of complusion by our 'hero,' played by the dull Bana. The implication is that the poor dispossessed Palestinians are kept that way by evil Jews! This will comes a surprise the rising middle classes - hundresds of millions of people - in India and China each. Or pehaps Kushner's ideology blinds him to absorbing the news of globalization and direct foreign invewstment's success. At any rate, bor-ing - dated - false "Munich." In fact, contrary to "Munich's" marxist fairy tale - killing PLO assassins saved lives and dimminished terrorism. Terror attacks declined through the mid-late 70s. Not 11 (a contrivance hitting you over the head in case you don't get the "eye-for-an-eye" makes the world blind idiocy that even Ghandi rejected - because he knew Pale Jihadi's weren't the moral equals of British imperialists) were hit, but 18, and the only surviving one lives escaping justice thanks to totalitarian Baathist Syria. There were numerous Mossad teams, ot one, and in fact they didn't have to be miserly "receipt" obsessed Jews to do it. In reality, Israel did the world a favor that Germany ignominiously refused to do. Back then, the PLO found that terrorism didn't pay ans drew down its activities in Eruope because of it. (See Aaron Klein's "Striking Back" for historical details; or see "One Day in September," the Oscar winning documentary from 1999.) 9/11 put the US in Israel's position to prevent expanding evil: needing to strike out agsainst gathering threats before (now nuclear) terrorism reaches us. Now, sensible people will differ as to the best means to reach these just ends - but they cannot disagree with the goal, unless you live in Hollywierd and pray at the church of Speilberg's sophomoric IR! Pray on, loonies. To judge by the tribe of professional reviewers, Speilberg's got loads of brain-dead company. Expand
  12. billys.
    Dec 30, 2005
    4
    Oh, now I get it... Palestinians are evil doers who kill Jews and feel nothing. Jews are good people who can kill Palestinians for revenge, but they're still good because they will suffer terrible guilt for doing it. Speilberg says the film shows both sides fairly but the closing shot sure tells you which way He's leaning! The fall from my anticipation high for this film might Oh, now I get it... Palestinians are evil doers who kill Jews and feel nothing. Jews are good people who can kill Palestinians for revenge, but they're still good because they will suffer terrible guilt for doing it. Speilberg says the film shows both sides fairly but the closing shot sure tells you which way He's leaning! The fall from my anticipation high for this film might be critical! Expand
  13. GavinM.
    Dec 30, 2005
    1
    This is a very reckless piece of film making. In many ways it is morally corrupt, and is the more distasteful because of its "based on true events", post 9/11, moviemaker of his generation, mainstream movie credentials. It attempts to make an emotional connection between the "good" killers and the viewer, but it ends up being just an ugly manipulative, and sometimes pornographic work. The This is a very reckless piece of film making. In many ways it is morally corrupt, and is the more distasteful because of its "based on true events", post 9/11, moviemaker of his generation, mainstream movie credentials. It attempts to make an emotional connection between the "good" killers and the viewer, but it ends up being just an ugly manipulative, and sometimes pornographic work. The twin towers analogy, with its Shindlers List - lite soundtrack is insulting in content and predictability, and the sex/violence montage near the end is pathetic. The worst scene morally includes the murder and disrobing on a woman, and is equal in its "lust" to portray the killers depravity as any of the Nazi killings in Spielbergs Schindlers List. If this was the film makers point then he hit it, but the joy displayed in this "kill" as opposed to the horror in the previous film, is disturbing. Beyond that, Spielberg continues to make shiny, but emotionless movies - excepting SL and perhaps Saving Private Ryan. Eric Bana does a creditable job, as does Cairan Hinds, but characters are painted in such broad stripes that it is obvious that Spielberg hasn't lived in the real world for many many years Collapse
  14. TalL.
    Dec 31, 2005
    0
    Along with "Eraserhead", this movie is the worst I've ever seen. It's just bad kitch, very superficial, badly acted, and not only historically inaccurate (understatement) but also very far from convincing. Everything about this movie is bad, bad, bad, except that perhaps it makes your local community college original TV productions look really good. I've got a lot of Along with "Eraserhead", this movie is the worst I've ever seen. It's just bad kitch, very superficial, badly acted, and not only historically inaccurate (understatement) but also very far from convincing. Everything about this movie is bad, bad, bad, except that perhaps it makes your local community college original TV productions look really good. I've got a lot of respect for Spielberg for some of his previous movies, but here it seems like some aliens have abducted the acclaimed director as retaliation for E.T. and have replaced him with a childish, superficial and intellectually-challenged monster. The resullt is not even funny - it's just sad. Expand
  15. I.P.
    Jan 2, 2006
    2
    Pretty disapointing movie. I understand Spielberg feeling some Middle Eastern version of "white man's burden" and trying to make good but it just doesn't work. The movie is not about a historical event, it is not about the historical events dyring the 1970's that took place following the Munich massacre. It is about how the group of agents sent out to kill those responsible Pretty disapointing movie. I understand Spielberg feeling some Middle Eastern version of "white man's burden" and trying to make good but it just doesn't work. The movie is not about a historical event, it is not about the historical events dyring the 1970's that took place following the Munich massacre. It is about how the group of agents sent out to kill those responsible makes contacts, finds the targets, and builds faulty bombs. They go along, one by one, killing targets and along the way develop a dislike for what they're doing. They wonder whether it's worth it. Wow, as though no one has ever thought that before. If it was meant to be a historical movie, it should have included the actual story as opposed to a made-up story about contacts and ineptitude. If it was meant to be a introspective look and an attempt to get people thinking peace in the Middle East, there are a million better stories to do that with. Expand
  16. MollyO
    Jan 6, 2006
    2
    Long and Boring!!! I have a knowledge and interest in the subject, but geez, it was like watching paint dry. I"m convinced critics who gave it a 10, did so because it was expected with a Spielberg movie. Three people near us in the theater fell asleep. Worst way I've spent 3 hours in a long time.
  17. Elliott
    Jan 8, 2006
    4
    Okay... I left the theater certainly feeling deeply affected, though I was definitely skeptical of this emotional feeling, and also felt that I had been manipulated in some way... Furthermore, the last act of the film or so was a little disorienting and I thought that the film set itself up just fine, and then gradually lost its way more and more as the film went on. Also, the Dallas Okay... I left the theater certainly feeling deeply affected, though I was definitely skeptical of this emotional feeling, and also felt that I had been manipulated in some way... Furthermore, the last act of the film or so was a little disorienting and I thought that the film set itself up just fine, and then gradually lost its way more and more as the film went on. Also, the Dallas Observer review is absolutely DEAD-ON. It's impeccably written and encpasulates all of my qualms with the film. Thus, I am giving the film a 4, much like metacritic awarded the film a 4 (40) based on Mr. Wilonsky's review. Expand
  18. HappyHap
    Jan 8, 2006
    1
    I saw it and think that if Spielberg wants to make political statements he should go into politics - not use movies as a propaganda to enforce his leftist liberal ideaology. The attack by the terrorists on the Isreali athelets really happened. What follows is Spielberg's fantasy that the retaliation was as bad as the terrorists. He is a fool.
  19. Lefty
    Jan 9, 2006
    1
    Speilberg is a fool if he thinks you can negotiate peaceful resolutions with animals.
  20. DavidA.
    Jan 14, 2006
    3
    I liked "Sword of Gideon" much better!
  21. DeanM.
    Jan 15, 2006
    1
    The Movie STUNK... Hired assassins don't second guess themselves, They would never have been chosen in the first place if they did... Do you think a Navy Seal would break down in agony doing his duty... Do you think that Killing a Terroist Of Innocence would cause them any reflection of note... Do you think that an organization that chooses to Kill Innocent athletes would EVER stop. The Movie STUNK... Hired assassins don't second guess themselves, They would never have been chosen in the first place if they did... Do you think a Navy Seal would break down in agony doing his duty... Do you think that Killing a Terroist Of Innocence would cause them any reflection of note... Do you think that an organization that chooses to Kill Innocent athletes would EVER stop. Tit for Tat, Let's open the prison doors, surely all those people if we as a society just said Sorry, would instantly become model citizens... more murders on the streets, we just need to be more UNDERSTANDING... In our society if someone breaks the posted speed limit he pays a penatly, yet Speilburg wants me to believe if you kill 11 innocent athletes you should turn the other cheel and Understand them, Maybe he'll pay my next traffic ticket too. Expand
  22. Pye
    Jan 28, 2006
    1
    Very dull. I did not feel emotionally connected at all to the characters. This movie was lifeless. I thought about walking out halfway through. Not recommended.
  23. JonathanH.
    Feb 3, 2006
    0
    Just left this movie half an hour before it ended. When it's not just plain dull its indulging in little orgies of pornographic violence. I left at the moment two Israeli agents decided it would be a good moment to kill a half-naked Dutch assasinette using guns disguised as bicycle pumps. Well, they were in bicycle saturated Holland after all. I didn't wait to see anyone be Just left this movie half an hour before it ended. When it's not just plain dull its indulging in little orgies of pornographic violence. I left at the moment two Israeli agents decided it would be a good moment to kill a half-naked Dutch assasinette using guns disguised as bicycle pumps. Well, they were in bicycle saturated Holland after all. I didn't wait to see anyone be bludgeoned to death with a baguette in France, stabbed through the heart with a brolly in London or smothered with a pizza in Italy Spielberg reveals the same clumsy touch as Woody Allen in Matchpoint when it comes to European characters and places. How does he announce a move to Paris for all the dummies in his audience? Huge pan across the skyline with the Eiffel tower playing the lead naturally. Pathetic. And the French godfather character! Please! Invites his Israeli guest to help him cook. Wow, what an amazing juxtaposition of hardman/softman, he who does all the nasty, viscious things in order to protect and provide for his family, because of course no family could survive without millions of dollars blood money being drip-fed into their bank accounts, could they? Well that crap didn't wash in The Godfather (you don't get involved in violent crime in the first place - that's the best way to safeguard your family, and maybe you get a job... bozo!) Inbetween tedious meetings with Day of the Jackal refugees we get a lot of emotional stuff too. Wrestling with consciences and the rest, but when the story has done nothing to generate sympathy or interest in the paper thin characters its all utterly meaningless. I wouldn't dignify the politics of this film with any serious political analysis. Don't know the end but I hear 9/11 makes an appearance...oh dear, Mr Subtlety strikes again. Expand
  24. LindaL.
    Feb 4, 2006
    4
    Spielberg knows how to make a movie; the performances held my attention despite the film's length. But I'm really disturbed by the way he twists the truth, here. There are major efforts to humanize the Palestinian terrorists, while we don't get more than a glimpse of the Israeli athletes who were slaughtered. Yeah, we know this is a conflict in which lots of people suffer Spielberg knows how to make a movie; the performances held my attention despite the film's length. But I'm really disturbed by the way he twists the truth, here. There are major efforts to humanize the Palestinian terrorists, while we don't get more than a glimpse of the Israeli athletes who were slaughtered. Yeah, we know this is a conflict in which lots of people suffer and die. No news flash there. But the clear implication that this is what led to 9/11 is ridiculous. All violence is not morally equivalent! Why not conjure your own (fictional) film rather than fabricate one around real events you claim "inspired" your movie? Expand
  25. James
    Feb 8, 2006
    2
    Spielbergs films have a strange mixture of sentimentality and viciousness. Sentimentality: Avners relationship with his wife, the 'cute' toymaker/bombmaker, the distinguished old antique shop owner. Vicious - the killing of the Dutch woman. As with 'Catch me if you can' Spielberg imposes his sentimental pattern of the world onto a far more interesting reality. The most Spielbergs films have a strange mixture of sentimentality and viciousness. Sentimentality: Avners relationship with his wife, the 'cute' toymaker/bombmaker, the distinguished old antique shop owner. Vicious - the killing of the Dutch woman. As with 'Catch me if you can' Spielberg imposes his sentimental pattern of the world onto a far more interesting reality. The most intersting aspects were the set dressing for the 1970's European capitals... the cars, the shirts, the dresses, the hairstyles and the smoking. Two marks that. Expand
  26. Erik
    Feb 13, 2006
    3
    pretentious, way too long, pointless like the killing in the movie - in short: a typical spielberg.
  27. DaveA.
    Jul 2, 2006
    4
    Goddard once said that "cinema is truth 24 frames a second." If that is true, then speilberg's cinema is the antithesis of that quote. Spilberg's films are lies 24 frmaes a second, every cut is the truth.
  28. Lance
    Sep 4, 2006
    4
    This is not a film about Munich, its a film about Sept 11 and how should a civalised society response to terrorist attacks. Unforunently it spends too much time on school boy moralising over the rights or wrongs of assinations and yet misses a key moral point of the whole Munich story. The Isreali assasins killed an innocent man after mistaking him for a terrorist.
  29. T.M.
    Mar 16, 2007
    4
    I recall that this film was nominated for best picture in the 2006 Oscar season. It was only nominated only because Spielberg can do no wrong in Hollywood, because this film is NOT best picture material at all. Repetitive, manipulative, overlong, hard to follow, muddled, unpleasant, sickening, and just not good at all. BTW, Lance (the person who loved the death scene of the female I recall that this film was nominated for best picture in the 2006 Oscar season. It was only nominated only because Spielberg can do no wrong in Hollywood, because this film is NOT best picture material at all. Repetitive, manipulative, overlong, hard to follow, muddled, unpleasant, sickening, and just not good at all. BTW, Lance (the person who loved the death scene of the female assassin), you are a real sicko. That was probably the most tasteless scene in a movie full of tasteless scenes. Did you revel in the image of her descrated body after the older guy pulled off the cover Eric Bana's character had draped over her? You have truly become desensitized by movies like this, if that's the case. Spielberg has lost it with this one. Expand
  30. MSwitt
    Jan 28, 2006
    2
    Best movie I've seen in years.
Metascore
74

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 30 out of 39
  2. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    100
    A superbly taut and well-made thriller that jumps from Geneva to Rome, from Paris to Beirut, from Athens to Brooklyn, each lethal assignment staged with a mastery Hitchcock might envy.
  2. 88
    Bana is magnificent in the role.
  3. A mesmerizing, richly nuanced inquiry into Israel's revenge of the Munich massacre of its athletes.