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. Sep 3, 2014
    5
    The events surrounding the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany are terrifying real-life acts of terrorism--prime for a cinematic take. Unfortunately, Spielberg loses focus somewhere along the way.
  2. Jun 20, 2014
    9
    Far more than just a "decent" movie, Steven Spielberg's examination of Israel's plot to avenge the death of 11 of their athletes caused by Palestinian terrorists in "Munich" is a truly fantastic thriller stuffed with relentless plans and explosions that would surely leave you breathless after full-time watch while, at the same time, successfully managing to leave space for humanity as theFar more than just a "decent" movie, Steven Spielberg's examination of Israel's plot to avenge the death of 11 of their athletes caused by Palestinian terrorists in "Munich" is a truly fantastic thriller stuffed with relentless plans and explosions that would surely leave you breathless after full-time watch while, at the same time, successfully managing to leave space for humanity as the undercover agents begin to question the righteousness of what they are doing. Expand
  3. Sep 28, 2013
    7
    Munich is an arresting drama thriller about terrorism and the people who do it. The performances on offer here are excellent and the action suitably macabre. The film is a little too long but overall, Munich is excellent stuff.
  4. Jun 7, 2013
    7
    Following the murder of eleven Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics of 1972 a small task force is assigned by Israel's secret service to locate and eliminate all those responsible.

    Being inspired by real events Munich was always going to be a controversial movie but, while it contains tense scenes throughout, it thankfully avoids choosing sides or sensationalizing events. This is
    Following the murder of eleven Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics of 1972 a small task force is assigned by Israel's secret service to locate and eliminate all those responsible.

    Being inspired by real events Munich was always going to be a controversial movie but, while it contains tense scenes throughout, it thankfully avoids choosing sides or sensationalizing events. This is more than just a simple case of good guys vs. bad guys and everyones actions can be called into question at some point.

    Every member of the cast really excels at depicting the conflicting emotions and pressures that these sorts of events inflict upon people ensuring that the characters come across as wholly believable meaning that, despite some pacing problems Munich makes for a fairly intriguing watch throughout.
    Expand
  5. Jan 2, 2013
    7
    It's a solid movie. Good acting, Action is fine, and it is a bit suspensful at times. However, It never really breaks into that next level of greatest. It's a good movie but not that good.
  6. 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
  7. Jan 9, 2012
    7
    Far too long imo. Really dragged on the film as long as they could and it would have been a little bit better if it were shorter. The acting was ok at first but it gets better when you get further into it. The action is good as well. idk though, The film just didnt sit well with me for some reason. It was a decent film that never really clicked with me. However the ending was excellent.
  8. Dec 10, 2010
    7
    A decent watch, tracking the descent into madness an undercover agent goes through as he works for the benefit of his state. Bana's performance is excellent, as is the rest of the cast. It certainly went on for too long, which is strange considering there are explosions and murder. Compare it to the Insider which goes on just as long but remains very gripping solely through characterA decent watch, tracking the descent into madness an undercover agent goes through as he works for the benefit of his state. Bana's performance is excellent, as is the rest of the cast. It certainly went on for too long, which is strange considering there are explosions and murder. Compare it to the Insider which goes on just as long but remains very gripping solely through character interactions. Expand
  9. ColmB
    Jun 14, 2009
    4
    Too long, shot in constant darkness and not something I'd recommend.
  10. SatsS.
    Mar 27, 2008
    8
    I really liked the movie, now i have a projects to do on the film techniques used in this movie, can anybody help me out?
  11. 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
  12. SeanP.
    Mar 7, 2007
    10
    I'm very surprised this film didn't even make it to the 80s, especially with all the 100s it got from critics. But just consider this: it's very rare for Beraldinelli, Ebert, EW, and Empire to ALL give the same film a perfect score (it's hard for Beraldinelli and Empire to give a 100, period). Just this fact alone managed to make me ignore the rest of the critics who I'm very surprised this film didn't even make it to the 80s, especially with all the 100s it got from critics. But just consider this: it's very rare for Beraldinelli, Ebert, EW, and Empire to ALL give the same film a perfect score (it's hard for Beraldinelli and Empire to give a 100, period). Just this fact alone managed to make me ignore the rest of the critics who brought the film down to 74, and I watched it in the theaters anyway (something i usually only reserve for 75+ films). And yes, I agreed with all those 100s. It's one of Spielberg's best films, and that's saying a lot. You just need to be patient with it, not like, say, Jurassic Park. Expand
  13. BrabaraM.
    Jan 17, 2007
    9
    Thought provoking. Attempts to show that there is more than one side to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For every Israeli explanation for the current violence there is an equally convincing Palestiniian explanation. What's fascinating is that the explanations are the same.
  14. 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.
  15. PaoloA.
    Aug 4, 2006
    10
    This is like broke back mountain a really really good movie.
  16. JS
    Jul 24, 2006
    9
    Some of the reviews here are rather ridiculous. I guess many were expecting a Schwartznegger or Stallone style action flick. This is a TRUE STORY; thats why its not always action-packed, and the ending might not have the standard closure that most moviegoers are used to. Yes, Spielberg could have embellished the action and changed the story to better please the teenage crowd, as well as Some of the reviews here are rather ridiculous. I guess many were expecting a Schwartznegger or Stallone style action flick. This is a TRUE STORY; thats why its not always action-packed, and the ending might not have the standard closure that most moviegoers are used to. Yes, Spielberg could have embellished the action and changed the story to better please the teenage crowd, as well as hire big name actors like Tom Cruise to play the lead. But he didn't do any of these things, which makes the story seem much more authentic. And speaking of authentic, the detail is incredible; hairstyles, shirts, even furniture look genuine 1972 without going overboard. The film also doesn't patronize, sympathize too much with terrorists, or insult our intelligence. It simply tells the story, and lets us make up our own minds on what is justice here. The only quibble I have is that the movie seems slightly darkly lit, even when the actors are walking out in the broad daylight. Expand
  17. 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.
  18. PatC.
    Jun 30, 2006
    6
    Lackluster portrayal of Israeli espionage in action. Documentary one moment, editorializing the next, it never finds its flow.
  19. G.Saunders
    May 30, 2006
    5
    Pedantic. A modest 90 minute tale crammed in to 160 minutes.
  20. AntonR.
    May 29, 2006
    6
    Good but not great. Had this been cut down to a taut two hours, it really could've worked. But as it stands now, it feels slow and badly paced, like a rough assemblage waiting for a skilled editor's hands. The ending is a disappointment; it reaches no sense of closure.
  21. [anonymous]
    May 27, 2006
    8
    What starts out as a revenge epic becomes a thrilling exploration of the psyche of assasins/terrorists and what it does to everybody. A bold departure from typical fast-paced action flicks.
  22. WillieG.
    May 22, 2006
    8
    This film was executed rather well. This is precisely the sort of serious subject matter Spielberg should stick with at this point in his career. In other words, he needs to direct more flicks like Munich, not schlock like The Terminal. I'll also say that in this day and age, it's encouraging to see islamic terrorists get what they deserve.
  23. DamianP.
    May 12, 2006
    5
    Well made, but fairly boring.
  24. The_Elusive_Possom
    Apr 27, 2006
    7
    A bit heavy-going, but Eric Bana's fit. So this gets a 7. You can check my working if you like.
  25. MikeB.
    Mar 19, 2006
    6
    Impeccable looking movie, sags a bit in the second half as we examine and reexamine the angst of violence. Most important, the director's striving for "balance" between Israel and Palestine is emotional camouflage. His true bias is distinctly American. Spielberg preaches "peace" in this film. No doubt he's sincere. As it happens, though, Israel can only be maintained by Impeccable looking movie, sags a bit in the second half as we examine and reexamine the angst of violence. Most important, the director's striving for "balance" between Israel and Palestine is emotional camouflage. His true bias is distinctly American. Spielberg preaches "peace" in this film. No doubt he's sincere. As it happens, though, Israel can only be maintained by struggle. Realistically, how else can a few million people expect to hold out among more than a billion Muslims? Spielberg is not a Jew in any absolute sense. In the end his lead character in the movie abandons the land given by God to his ancestors and the director clearly approves. Why be a fanatic, he suggests, when you can retreat to Manhattan and live comfortably. The Jews are at bottom a religion, that's why they've endured as a distinct entity. By comparison, Zionism is very young but the two impulses tend to bond strongly in their commitment to Israel. Religious Jews believe that they are a covenant people with a unique relationship to the Creator. If that's true, Islam will erode and crumble before Jewry, whatever the odds look like now. In the Jewish view (and Christian), there is no God but God and Mohammed is not His prophet. His religion is built on sand, it will fall sooner or later, as the Lord decrees That statement would earn me a death sentence in many Islamic countries. I wonder if this website's editor will permit it to pass. Religious and Zionist Jews do not expect the defense of Israel to be easy. Any more than defending freedom will be easy. Quitters are easy to understand but not so easy to admire. Expand
  26. ChadS.
    Mar 10, 2006
    9
    When "Munich" finally shows us how the remaining hostages were killed at the airport, the filmmaker crosscuts this tragedy with Avner having relations with his wife. He doesn't seem to be making love to her. There's no eye-to-eye contact. His mind is elsewhere; presumably, on the violent end those Israeli athletes met at the airport. The filmmaker teases us with increments of When "Munich" finally shows us how the remaining hostages were killed at the airport, the filmmaker crosscuts this tragedy with Avner having relations with his wife. He doesn't seem to be making love to her. There's no eye-to-eye contact. His mind is elsewhere; presumably, on the violent end those Israeli athletes met at the airport. The filmmaker teases us with increments of the whole story throughout its two hour-plus running time, and the last installment is the payoff. In my estimation, however, Avner's mind would be on his comrades, who under his command, die in retaliation against the Palestinian terrorists, and not what we are shown. But this is a minor quibble. "Munich" is astonishing the way it gives us nourishing popcorn. The violence, at times, plays like a homage to Martin Scorsese's love of bloodshedding. Expand
  27. YoussefI.
    Mar 8, 2006
    9
    Excellent. Spielberg handles very comples issues deftly with moral clarity and considerable fairness to both sides, israelis and arabs. Essentially his message is violence only engenders more violence, no matter what reasons cause it to be. There is no ultimate justice or ultimate victim.
  28. Ayat
    Mar 6, 2006
    10
    Amazing movie. One of the best thrillers I have seen, and the characters are real and relatable.
  29. KristinneG.
    Mar 5, 2006
    10
    No words 4 such a Good Movie.
  30. moviegeek
    Feb 24, 2006
    7
    This might be the best "directed" film of the year, altough not the best picture. All de carework, lighting and art direction in Munich is superb. Perhaps, what's faltering are some loose ends in the movie. I mean, Eric Bana's character is like a "dream-character" for a tough Mossad agent, and I don't really think IN THE REAL WORLD the "players" involved here discuss so This might be the best "directed" film of the year, altough not the best picture. All de carework, lighting and art direction in Munich is superb. Perhaps, what's faltering are some loose ends in the movie. I mean, Eric Bana's character is like a "dream-character" for a tough Mossad agent, and I don't really think IN THE REAL WORLD the "players" involved here discuss so much about the righteous of his assignement. Also, moral ambivalences aside (which are great me) I'm kind of tired of Spielberg's inmature and schmaltzy resolutions of conflicted scenes like terrorists "tuning" Al Green on the radio instead of their native songs to "get even" and the exploitation of children (the palestinian girl who's about to answer the call picking a "phone-bomb") who ARE usually on the director's pocket of cheap tricks to make us cringe. Although the latter scene is expertly played out in cinematic tension, why don't use a houskeeping? We were to feel ANY sorrier had a WOMAN intead of a CHILD being attacked? Expand
  31. JoelW.
    Feb 22, 2006
    8
    I thought it was a really great film. Tense all the way through. Eric Bana as Avner contributed a very subtle, honest and admiring performance. Emotionally impacting as a whole - daring, bold and compulsive. Spielberg masterfully directs this film of Epic political and religious conundrums in an exciting and intelligent way. Highly reccomend this film. Place all prejudices aside.
  32. David
    Feb 20, 2006
    9
    I'm only giving my personal point of view, but it had been more than a year that I had'nt been through a movie without checking my watch...The political stance is very ambiguous and gives an interesting outlook at the situation. PS=Frenchman Matthieu Kassovitz rocks!
  33. ConnieM.
    Feb 19, 2006
    6
    Warning: Spielberg's 'Munich' was filled with graphic violence, sex and gore. This is not a film to teach a class 'history'. I am glad that the movie was made because as with Schindler's List people need to be reminded of the inhumanity Anti-Semitism breeds; but, 'Munich' lacked detail and background in an effort to be what too many see as a Warning: Spielberg's 'Munich' was filled with graphic violence, sex and gore. This is not a film to teach a class 'history'. I am glad that the movie was made because as with Schindler's List people need to be reminded of the inhumanity Anti-Semitism breeds; but, 'Munich' lacked detail and background in an effort to be what too many see as a 'balanced' point of view. The cineamatography was wonderfuly European and slick. The 'jewish injokes' were fabulous (I fear I was the only one who 'got it' here in Kansas) and I could not get over how much detail was given to locations and sets. Yet I fear it was too long. After all the emotional abuse I didn't have much left for the end. They should do a tighter, more spartan 'directors cut' for the DVD. PS If anybody wants more background they should pick up "One Day in September' a documentary about what happened in 'Munich'. Expand
  34. RichardM.
    Feb 16, 2006
    5
    Spielberg attempts to convey the futility of tit-for-tat killing by sujecting his audience to a mind-numbing and unemotional two and a half hours of graphic and gory tit-for-tat killing. Superbly filmed (as always with Spielberg) but offers no helpful ideas on the film's topic.
  35. Art
    Feb 14, 2006
    6
    Amazingly tense - definately one of the most exciting films I've ever seen. But a realistic portrayal of the events, I think not! All the "true" events seem too perfectly choreographed, every single murder has a twist that ramps the tension higher and higher until you jump out of your seat. I'm not saying this is a bad thing; judged against almost any other thriller this would Amazingly tense - definately one of the most exciting films I've ever seen. But a realistic portrayal of the events, I think not! All the "true" events seem too perfectly choreographed, every single murder has a twist that ramps the tension higher and higher until you jump out of your seat. I'm not saying this is a bad thing; judged against almost any other thriller this would win, hands down. However it's unfair to call it a great piece of political drama. I found myself wishing I wasn't enjoying myself so much, knowing that someone really did kill these people, and overall I found it slightly disrespectful to use a truly horrific set of events just to tease an audience. Expand
  36. KittyP.
    Feb 13, 2006
    8
    blanced pointed of view, I like it.
  37. Erik
    Feb 13, 2006
    3
    pretentious, way too long, pointless like the killing in the movie - in short: a typical spielberg.
  38. HamishM.
    Feb 10, 2006
    7
    I was uncertain how I felt leaving the cinema. It's a hell of a subject to pick notwithstanding that it's only inspired by events. However, I think that overall its a very good depiction of what could have followed the massacre. Acting was generally strong and period scenes very good. I think to appreciate the film you need to remove yourself from all the current debate about I was uncertain how I felt leaving the cinema. It's a hell of a subject to pick notwithstanding that it's only inspired by events. However, I think that overall its a very good depiction of what could have followed the massacre. Acting was generally strong and period scenes very good. I think to appreciate the film you need to remove yourself from all the current debate about who's right and wrong and look at it for what it is - a story. The fact is that understanding the background helps the understand the story - that's it. I don't believe that comment is being passed one way or the other on Israelis or Palestinians/Arabs. So with all that said, it's a powerful depiction of the fictional aftermath of a terrible event. Not Bambi that's for sure, but without being gratuitously violent - and all the better for that. Expand
  39. CraigA.
    Feb 8, 2006
    10
    I was surprised at how balanced it was. Speilberg isn't messing around or being lenient on either side. He attacks both Israel and the Palestinians equally and at times really goes to town. I imagine that both sides will be furious with him for some time to come. Some of the conversations in Munich are pretty high-IQ analyses of the situtation and definitely the most un-Hollywood I was surprised at how balanced it was. Speilberg isn't messing around or being lenient on either side. He attacks both Israel and the Palestinians equally and at times really goes to town. I imagine that both sides will be furious with him for some time to come. Some of the conversations in Munich are pretty high-IQ analyses of the situtation and definitely the most un-Hollywood thing i've seen for a while. I think it humanises (and dehumanises) both sides in equal measure. There's a great scene where Eric Bana has a conversation on the balcony with the 'target' he's about to blow up. It gives a personality to somebody who will next be seen as a selection of body parts. Oh yeah, its very violent. Regarding 'crucial facts', the 'truth' doesn't really come into it since this is a *film* of a *novel* which is an *account* of how things *might* have happened. And its not an account of Munich itself (see/read One Day in September). For example, I only felt moved to object to one crashingly obvious bias: one of the final flashbacks to Munich painted the events at the airport in a very black and white "and then the Palestinians shot all the hostages" way. By all accounts the stand off at the airport was very confused and we'll never really know how the hostages died (they could have been simply in the crossfire). Otherwise, the portrayal of both sides is pretty fair. The film basically says that vengence is just another form of terrorism and reprisal killings just breed more terror. It doesn't shy away from heavily suggesting that Israel killed people just to make itself feel better rather than because they had anything to do with Munich (cf: US invasion of Afghanistan in response to Sept 11th). In the same way that Black September's response to exile and oppression was to turn to terror, Israel's response to that very terror was to turn to terrorism, ad infinatum... no end ever. Expand
  40. 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
  41. Mart
    Feb 6, 2006
    8
    Not perfect but very good.It's very well acted,especially by Eric Bana.Spielberg tried to humanise both sides but there's no pleasing some people.He took true events and used poetic license to make a story out of it.Everyone should remember it's a film,not a documemtary.
  42. Joe
    Feb 5, 2006
    10
    Did the fate rest in the hands of these five men? No, although they thought it at the time.....for those of you that listen closely, in the end Kaufmann's boss (forget his name) asks him "you think you were the only team?" Come on, if you are going to complain about a movie, make sure it's not because you failed to pay attention to subtlties. As for complaints about violence, Did the fate rest in the hands of these five men? No, although they thought it at the time.....for those of you that listen closely, in the end Kaufmann's boss (forget his name) asks him "you think you were the only team?" Come on, if you are going to complain about a movie, make sure it's not because you failed to pay attention to subtlties. As for complaints about violence, why the hell did you go and see a rated-r film about assassins? Good Lord people! And for those of you that interpreted seeing the twin towers in the background as "implication" that these events led to 9/11, it seems that is your own interpretation, and again, your complaint is again derived from you seeing what you wanted to see in this picture. If you're going to critisize, find something that doesn't stem from bias and assumption. Expand
  43. LarnerM.
    Feb 5, 2006
    9
    Good drama film i enjoyed watching every sec but this is a hard film to understand not everyone would understand who why what is going on if you miss any part of the film you would have 2 see it again.
  44. 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? Collapse
  45. 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
  46. Jake
    Feb 2, 2006
    10
    Although Munich doesn't give any answers, it does raise a lot of questions about violence and its use against enemies, whether justified or not. The years best. Deserves the oscar, hands down, but I don't know if it has a chance against Brokeback.
  47. ArielG.
    Feb 2, 2006
    7
    One thing I feared before seeing the movie, is that they would turn the Palestinians into cliche terrorists. But this didn't happen, thankfully. It was quite even-handed in its approach. It frowned on terror and violence, from both sides, and it also explores their root causes. Eric Bana was cast well as the Mossad agent. The movie would've received a higher rating if it One thing I feared before seeing the movie, is that they would turn the Palestinians into cliche terrorists. But this didn't happen, thankfully. It was quite even-handed in its approach. It frowned on terror and violence, from both sides, and it also explores their root causes. Eric Bana was cast well as the Mossad agent. The movie would've received a higher rating if it wasn't so long. At close to 3 hours, the movie was overdrawn and was filled with scenes that were unessential to the story. This resulted in a severe loss of momentum in many places. They should've cut these scenes from the main movie and added them in later for the Director's Cut. But do see this movie if you are into history and current events and/or want to see a well-directed and well-acted movie. Expand
  48. NirmalK.
    Feb 2, 2006
    6
    I think my expectations were too high from Steven Spielberg and all the reviews. It was a good but film could have been less repetitious in number of executions and dealt more with main theme
  49. RR
    Feb 1, 2006
    9
    Munich is not a movie to enjoy. It is harsh, unflinching and raises uncomfortable questions on a very personal level. It is a film about the roots of violence, the act of denial that it takes to perform acts of violence against your own kind, and the vicious circle of crime and retaliation. The message is: sometimes we do what we feel we have to, even if it means sacrificing that which Munich is not a movie to enjoy. It is harsh, unflinching and raises uncomfortable questions on a very personal level. It is a film about the roots of violence, the act of denial that it takes to perform acts of violence against your own kind, and the vicious circle of crime and retaliation. The message is: sometimes we do what we feel we have to, even if it means sacrificing that which makes us human. The message is: there is no easy answer. And, as with all great works of art, the film doesn't tell us what to think. It simply tells a story, which could be set in Texas, New Zealand, or the moon. It just happens to use a historic tragedy that has modern implications. Naturally, people are (and will continue to be) upset by this. People want black and white, good and evil. Watching likeable characters perform inhuman acts of violence is not easy to stomach. Neither is having to face the fact that "the bad guys" are just like us - they feel they are right, they have families and friends that care for them, and they are scared and horrified and, yes, violent, just like we can be. All of this is centered on a fantastic performance by Eric Bana, who, under Spielberg's masterful direction, manages to squeeze so much life into his confllicted character that I couldn't help but be drawn in. Well worth seeing, but keep an open mind and be aware that this movie is quite violent; it shows what it's really like to shoot another human being: it's ugly and horrifying. And there are no heroes here, just normal people in abnormal circumstances. Thank you, Stephen Spielberg, for showing me that even one of the most famous mainstream director's in the woirld can create art that does what all art should: make the right people feel uncomfortable as hell. Expand
  50. JustinK.
    Jan 29, 2006
    10
    One of Spielberg's finest works, a sheer masterpiece. Flawless acting, directing, and writing, the absolute BEST Film of 2005.
  51. DavidR.
    Jan 29, 2006
    10
    I think this movie very very powerful to me its very Groundbreaking, and more telling it that i want to see it again, Spielberg is at his very best again, Definitley to win Best Picture and Best Director of the year awards from OSCARS.
  52. MSwitt
    Jan 28, 2006
    2
    Best movie I've seen in years.
  53. 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.
  54. MarkB.
    Jan 24, 2006
    8
    Four years ago, not long after it all happened, who would've guessed that the American filmmaker most obsessed--haunted, maybe--by the implications and aftermath of September 11, 2001 would be, not Oliver Stone or even Michael Moore, but...the Indiana Jones guy?!!? Four out of five of Steven Spielberg's post-9/11 films (the candy-coated, nostalgic Kennedy-era fluffball Catch Me Four years ago, not long after it all happened, who would've guessed that the American filmmaker most obsessed--haunted, maybe--by the implications and aftermath of September 11, 2001 would be, not Oliver Stone or even Michael Moore, but...the Indiana Jones guy?!!? Four out of five of Steven Spielberg's post-9/11 films (the candy-coated, nostalgic Kennedy-era fluffball Catch Me If You Can being the lone exception) have dealt, implicitly or fairly obviously, with many of America's questions, debates, doubts and fears resulting from that date and continuing through today: the instant SF classic Minority Report examines the most ominous implications of the USA Patriot Act; the sweet, Capraesque fable The terminal, significantly set in an airport, shows people of all nationalities putting aside their fears and misgivings in order to help one another...and this year's earlier War of the Worlds is The Terminal's dark twin, a sour, cynical nightmare in which we trample one another, steal each other's cars, etc., in order to escape the terror from without. Now comes Munich, Spielberg's meticulous, metaphorical examination of the ethics of a nation responding to what any sane person regardless of national origin would identify as an inhuman terrorist attack: where does self-defense end and revenge begin, are they sometimes one and the same, and, most significantly, what permanent effects does meeting-fire-with-fire have on those wielding the flamethrowers? Even though Spielberg and his writers, Tony Kushner and Eric Roth, are depicting a horrific real-life event and its aftermath, I believe that they're asking universal questions that apply to thousands of other historic confrontations. That's why the intense criticism Spielberg has received from certain parts of the Jewish community--some of whom may just as soon have him give back all the awards he won for Schindler's List--are irrelevant. I can certainly understand the feelings of anger and betrayal on many of their parts regarding the movie's humanizing of the Palestinian killers and their accomplices (expressed here at its peak by the tremendously touching final act performed by an otherwise particularly despicable individual when the protagonists retaliate)...but making you movie's villains three-dimensional and even giving them some positive and sympathetic qualities is as old as drama itself; if Munich's enemies were to apply the proper emotional and esthetic distance, they'd see that to excoriate Munich on these grounds is to condemn Alfred Hitchcock for giving us Norman Bates. And in a pivotal scene, in which Israelis and Palestinians discuss the homeland that each side sees as a sacred birthright, we not only see two sides irrevocably separated from one another by an issue that should at least philosophically be common ground, but also Spielberg's pet theme of "going home" in its most poignant expression. Munich isn't perfect; it's a bit overlong, with more false endings than Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and while Eric Bana as the team leader communicates his character's psychological turmoil superbly, Daniel Craig (Layer Cake) isn't exactly bolstering my confidence in him as 007 Number 6. (And the much-debated sequence near the end in which violence and marital sex bleed into one another had the misfortune to come out just a couple months afer A History of Violence, which used a similar juxtaposition to much more devastating effect.) But Spielberg deserves an enormous amount of credit for asking a number of extremely tough questions and freely admitting he has no answers save maybe the Biblical admonition that there will always be wars and rumors of wars. Whatever your political and religious affiliations and personal sympathies lie, it's hard to deny the power with which Spielberg conveys the very apolitical truism that "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves everybody blind and toothless". And no, I don't believe the right wing press's short-sighted nonconclusion that Spielberg would just have the victims of terrorism just lie down, take it and die. Spielberg (who also gave us Saving Private Ryan, remember?) recognizes the necessity of taking decisive action, but is after an even more basic and fundamental human truth: that no matter how justified or even necessary the taking of vengeance is, inevitably it takes its toll on both the person performing the act and the nation ordering it. That's the powerful message Spielberg delivers in Munich, and I think it's about time that those who are taking the film so personally quit heaping abuse on the messenger. Expand
  55. RichG.
    Jan 18, 2006
    10
    Gripping well acted and thrilling. Great use of the handheld camera. A most see for movie makers and movie goers. with a fantastic serious story.
  56. JohnP.
    Jan 17, 2006
    6
    I must say this movie has sparked lots of comment and Controversey, I personally felt the move needed help, It was way long, and Assassins with a conscious doesn't fly with me. I am greatful that this forum allows many points of view. Agree or Disagree each person here are giving there opinion.
  57. RonL.
    Jan 16, 2006
    9
    I just got back from seeing this film. It was excellent. I have read a number of reviews here on Metacritic and I think it's funny that the people giving it the lowest scores treated Munich like a Tom Cruise action film. Munich was a real event and there was retaliation for it. I'm not suggesting, even for a moment that Munich was not a fictionalized account of events. But I just got back from seeing this film. It was excellent. I have read a number of reviews here on Metacritic and I think it's funny that the people giving it the lowest scores treated Munich like a Tom Cruise action film. Munich was a real event and there was retaliation for it. I'm not suggesting, even for a moment that Munich was not a fictionalized account of events. But people should keep in mind killing people is a horrible affair, and when you kill people it affects you. You need look no further than some of our own Vietnam vets and some of the guys coming home from the Gulf. We need to look at this film's real message. Hate breeds hate and that breeds death. I would never suggest that anyone should ever negotiate with terrorists, but perhaps its time to put under the microscope how they become that way? Stop looking to Tom Cruise action heroes for the answers. Munich doesn't have them either, but it does raise some interesting questions about where peace begins. Avoid this film if you don Expand
  58. SM.
    Jan 16, 2006
    9
    Did all the people who gave a low score see the same movie as I? Get over the "not historically accurate to the letter' bit - some people are so anal about that!! The movie labels itself as "inspired by true events', maybe people don't understand that this doesn't mean it's a biography. It's a great story with fantastic acting and a good message about the Did all the people who gave a low score see the same movie as I? Get over the "not historically accurate to the letter' bit - some people are so anal about that!! The movie labels itself as "inspired by true events', maybe people don't understand that this doesn't mean it's a biography. It's a great story with fantastic acting and a good message about the fact that terrorists come from all kinds of places and represent all kinds of causes. I reccommend it to anyone with some worldy interest and a love of great film! Expand
  59. MisterThomYorke
    Jan 15, 2006
    7
    Wow. When did turning the other cheek become leftist? Pretty sure that's a Jesus thing. What a load of socialist hippie crap, right? You people really need to understand - sometimes movies have a message. Sometimes you may disagree with the message - but don't call it propaganda just because you don't agree. Try closing your mouth for a second and opening your mind to new Wow. When did turning the other cheek become leftist? Pretty sure that's a Jesus thing. What a load of socialist hippie crap, right? You people really need to understand - sometimes movies have a message. Sometimes you may disagree with the message - but don't call it propaganda just because you don't agree. Try closing your mouth for a second and opening your mind to new opinions. Understand that not everyone thinks like you nor are they wrong if they don't. Anywho, as the movie pointed out, the terrorists from Palestine didn't just start killing Jews for no reason. Both sides are equally guilty. It's depressing and hopeless and a neverending cycle (as the film also pointed out) but just blaming Palestinians without acknowledging similar atrocities commited by the other side is ignorant. The movie clearly said that violence leads to more violence - that's nothing political, that's common sense. On the negative side, the movie was way too long, but it was interesting and pretty freakin balanced - especially coming from a Jewish director. A lesser director (and perhaps many of the users commenting here) would have painted the Jewish assasins as heroes and shown no consideration for the Palestinian side of the equation. No one is innocent and no one is a hero for taking another's life. Pretty sure that's a Jesus thing too. Expand
  60. 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
  61. RicardoCorona
    Jan 14, 2006
    8
    Suspense, drama, Shocking!
  62. MarkT.
    Jan 14, 2006
    9
    Another Spielberg masterpiece, but not always clear on character motivation. Many loose ends not always explained. Special efects are superb.
  63. DavidA.
    Jan 14, 2006
    3
    I liked "Sword of Gideon" much better!
  64. PeterG.
    Jan 11, 2006
    10
    One of the most incredible thought provoking movies in years. I was skeptical to view such a long movie at first but this movie kept me on the edge of my seat until the credits began to roll. This may very well be the best movie I have ever seen. Every element from cinematography, music, acting, and plotline were amazingly well executed with exciting action and mind stimulating dialogue. It
  65. Richardb.
    Jan 11, 2006
    6
    "Munich" is essentially "mission impossible" with angst; the fingerpointing problem with arabs & jews is small change compared to the paranoid core plot conceit, which makes the big pharma conspiracy theories of constant gardener look reasonable. the acting is good, the lead guy is more than good, but its way too long and theres a montage near the end that will forever be cited in "Munich" is essentially "mission impossible" with angst; the fingerpointing problem with arabs & jews is small change compared to the paranoid core plot conceit, which makes the big pharma conspiracy theories of constant gardener look reasonable. the acting is good, the lead guy is more than good, but its way too long and theres a montage near the end that will forever be cited in film-making classes as something not to do when parallel editing. to the gods of cinema i pray, no more films way too loosely "based on a true story"! pretty please. Expand
  66. TrinimanTrin
    Jan 10, 2006
    9
    Just shy of three hours, Munich is an excellent film that is causing a lot of controversy among Jewish groups in the US and Israel, and among Palestinians. By upsetting both groups, director Steven Spielberg has found elusive middle ground that saves the film from being Oliver Stone-preachy while weaving tension and moral ambiguity, from beginning to end. This is the second film based on Just shy of three hours, Munich is an excellent film that is causing a lot of controversy among Jewish groups in the US and Israel, and among Palestinians. By upsetting both groups, director Steven Spielberg has found elusive middle ground that saves the film from being Oliver Stone-preachy while weaving tension and moral ambiguity, from beginning to end. This is the second film based on the 1984 book Vengeance:The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team by Canadian journalist George Jonas, the first being the 1985 HBO made-for-television movie, Sword of Gideon. Mossad agent and ex-bodyguard for Prime Minister Golda Meier, Avner Kauffman (Eric Bana), is asked to head a secret unofficial team on a very dangerous mission that would take him away from his pregnant wife for many months, if not years. He is assigned four other men, most of whom are seemingly unlikely members of an elite hit squad. The only other athletic person is Steve, aggressive and feisty, played by a crackling, magnetic Daniel Craig, the new James Bond. Craig, blonde with deep blue eyes, as revealed in a sniper scene, looks ironically like a perfect example of an Aryan. Ciarán Hinds, who played the Russian President Nemerov in 2002's The Sum of All Fears, is the clean-up guy who removes evidence. Mathieu Kassovitz plays Robert, the toy-maker turned bomb disposal expert turned bomb-maker. Hanns Zischler is Hans, the document forger. Showing up occasionally as the official liaison between Mossad and Avner's team is Geoffrey Rush as Ephraim. Prime Minister Meier endorses the mission by saying "...every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." Other dialogue in the film that resonates with the Israeli perspective includes Avner's mother saying that the Jews had to create their own homeland since no one was going to give it to them. These are examples of why Palestinians groups see this film as biased towards Israel, but to dismiss it as such is to sell it short, as it offers dialogue that neither side supports, and that those without a stake in the middle-east - most viewers - will chew on it, right to the film's end. Early on, Avner finds a mysterious source of intelligence who is willing to find the locations of persons of interest who have gone underground, but only on the condition that Avner is working for no government. While he doesn't give up that he is unofficially tied to the Israelis, it's obvious that he is probably Mossad since all his desired targets are Palestinians. As the team assassinate the bad guys throughout Europe, they also learn that the Palestinians retaliate, killing off magnitudes more people. Not mentioned in the film are the Palestinian refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon bombed by Israeli jets in retaliation, four days after the massacre, which was in turn condemned by the UN Security Council. They begin to wonder if their mission is worthwhile and even moral, with arguments about why they aren't just arresting people for trial. Also, some of the Palestinians they kill are shown as being regular humans with families, or cultured and intelligent, rather than as one-dimensional bad guys. They feel guilty about some of their killings and one of the characters becomes very heavily burdened. It's this moral conflict that brings the film its best tension. In one of the most electric scenes, Avner, mistaken for a German, has a conversation with a PLO team leader who explains and justifies the Palestinians struggle with Israel for a homeland. This is one of the scenes that is generating criticism among Jewish groups, even though the director is a prominent Jew and supporter of Israel. Meir Jolobitz, executive director of the New York-based Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), told Aljazeera.net: "First, the film which claims to be inspired by true events does not reflect true events. Spielberg is inventive. "Secondly, he tries to humanize Arab terrorists by legitimizing their murder of Jews as their only way to establish a Palestinian state." The ZOA has called for a public boycott of the film. At one point in the film, one of the team members talks about how the Israelis could end up becoming killers like the people they are hunting. Team member Carl replied that they have long been like that, since they had to be killers in order to establish the state of Israel. Now, this sort of statement would be seen to be anti-Israeli since it equates the blood shed by creators of modern day Israel to the Palestinian terrorist - a moral equivalence that some will find outrageous. The film didn't seem like almost three hours long to me. I was totally drawn in as the film unfolded within the murky confines of international betrayal with its lack of assurance. Is the family that sources valuable information playing all sides? Do they betray friends for money? Are they really Mossad operatives carefully feeding the unofficial team the finest information? Or, are they helping the Palestinian leadership do a little house cleaning? The flashbacks to the massacre itself are also riveting. There's a lot of juicy, factual story not included, such as the Israeli offer to send in one of their experienced commando teams, which was rejected. The German offer to trade money for the hostages and then have high-ranking German officials switch places with the hostages, also wasn't mentioned. By not pleasing either the Palestinian or the Jewish communities, and yet ironically supporting both by presenting two sides of the dispute in the film, Munich offers a timely opportunity for discourse about sacrificing values in the face of conflict for survival, the increasingly popular moral equivalency debate and on a more basic level, the future of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship, especially in the post-Sharon era. Here's some interesting information from the Wikipedia entry about the Munich Massacre. In the book Striking Back : The 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and Israel's Deadly Response, published December 20, 2005, by Aaron J. Klein, the author contends that the Mossad only killed one man directly tied to the Munich Massacre, and that was in 1992. He mentions that the real planners had gone into hiding in Eastern Bloc countries and that the ones who were killed off were lesser Palestinian activists. The Mossad made them out to be some of the planners and the PLO trumpeted their importance so the legend of the power of the Mossad grew. The website also contends that in the 1999 book by the only surviving planner of the attack, Abu Daoud, Memoirs of a Palestinian Terrorist, funds for the attack were supplied by Mahmoud Abbas, who is currently the President of the Palestinian Authority. Expand
  67. RichK
    Jan 9, 2006
    8
    Although the first two thirds of this movie were rivetting, the last hour takes so much away. Any sort of message is lost in the dragging conclusion to the film.
  68. ThomasR.
    Jan 9, 2006
    10
    If you fall asleep in this movie, it is a judgment of your character, not the movie's.
  69. JosiahR.
    Jan 9, 2006
    10
    Compelling.
  70. ClintM.
    Jan 9, 2006
    6
    Maybe I need to see this filme again to fully grasp all that it's trying to say? I'm not sure? It's not that I didn't enjoy the movie ... the story was fairly compelling ... and Eric Bana is wonderful to watch ... I guess I just went into it with different expectations. I don't see it to be the award worthy film many have made it out to be, but that's not to Maybe I need to see this filme again to fully grasp all that it's trying to say? I'm not sure? It's not that I didn't enjoy the movie ... the story was fairly compelling ... and Eric Bana is wonderful to watch ... I guess I just went into it with different expectations. I don't see it to be the award worthy film many have made it out to be, but that's not to say it's not a good movie overall and worth a watch. Expand
  71. Lefty
    Jan 9, 2006
    1
    Speilberg is a fool if he thinks you can negotiate peaceful resolutions with animals.
  72. MegA.
    Jan 8, 2006
    10
    The best movie of the year....... Spielberg's finest!
  73. GregS.
    Jan 8, 2006
    8
    Incredible proof that an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, is madness. Good for Spielberg to brave both the Israeli and Arab opinions, let alone America's .
  74. 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.
  75. 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
  76. [Anonymous]
    Jan 7, 2006
    10
    I'm pretty sure this guy, Tal L. has not seen the movie and is just trashing it because he can. Obviously, it's a matter of opinion what he thinks of the film in it's point of view and the stand it takes against vengeance. But to say the movie is not technically proficient is just a stupid, nonsense, invalid remark. I feel sorry for people like him...but well, is his loss.
  77. GaborA.
    Jan 7, 2006
    9
    Though it can't be it is obvious that this movie strives for unbiasedness. It seems most viewers dont see it that way but that is attributed to their own biases. Ontop of that. Out of the million or so scenes encompassing all those settings around the world almost all of them worked. With that accomplishment this film gets my vote for best of the year.
  78. Tim
    Jan 7, 2006
    7
    The first hour and a half or so was absolutely terrific, it was really intense, but i got lost towards the end, it got sort of confusing, but i still liked it a lot
  79. 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.
  80. GilbertoR.
    Jan 6, 2006
    10
    I was crestfallen by the end of this film, for it powerfully showed me how useless protests against any government are when only a portion of the population proves it is paying attention to the ways of the world by involving themselves in street-marching. Unfortunately, according to some of the reviews I've read, this film flies over the heads of many who are too biased or not I was crestfallen by the end of this film, for it powerfully showed me how useless protests against any government are when only a portion of the population proves it is paying attention to the ways of the world by involving themselves in street-marching. Unfortunately, according to some of the reviews I've read, this film flies over the heads of many who are too biased or not intellectually rigorous enough to see that this is more than a Lennon-esque "give peace a chance" tome. What this film does is provide a disturbingly strong argument for an anarchic world that is free from the politically minded. To me, this film argues something quite simple, that we should enjoy each moment on this earth; and something profound, that the world would be better off if governments and nation-states disappeared. The alternative to the present would be a communal planet in which people are people, regardless of creed, color, gender, etc. are equal. Those who argue this film is something other than a thoughtful and profound statement on the regrettable fact that people can be deceived into enthonocentrism all too easily by colorful flags and Toby Keith songs are simply not thinking about this movie soberly. Expand
  81. 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
  82. billC
    Jan 4, 2006
    8
    I don't know, the whole Arab/Jew mess is a mess with 2 thousand years of in bred hatred. This film is well done and even handed,it's almost feels like a indie documentary. I viewed it as a real-life Mission Impossible and thought it was well done and easy to follow. It's 3 hours long, so be prepared to sit awhile.
  83. KenB
    Jan 3, 2006
    7
    Good but not great movie. Captures the humanity of both the bad guys and the good guys fairly well. A little too much angst in Bana's character for the situation (in my opinion). Excellent job of capturing the feel of the 70s (and I lived through them). The juxtaposition of the sex with his wife and the killing of the Israeli athletes was bit odd otherwise well told story that needs Good but not great movie. Captures the humanity of both the bad guys and the good guys fairly well. A little too much angst in Bana's character for the situation (in my opinion). Excellent job of capturing the feel of the 70s (and I lived through them). The juxtaposition of the sex with his wife and the killing of the Israeli athletes was bit odd otherwise well told story that needs to be told. Very plausible acting throughout the movie. Expand
  84. 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
  85. TonyB.
    Jan 2, 2006
    10
    I haven't seen all of 2005's biggies yet, but I think they will have to go some to beat Munich. It is the year's finest so far. The film is best appreciated by approaching it on two levels; it's a bloody, sexy political thriller and a study of a moral/ethical dilemma. Extremely well-acted, directed, photographed, edited, designed and scored, it is a superb piece of I haven't seen all of 2005's biggies yet, but I think they will have to go some to beat Munich. It is the year's finest so far. The film is best appreciated by approaching it on two levels; it's a bloody, sexy political thriller and a study of a moral/ethical dilemma. Extremely well-acted, directed, photographed, edited, designed and scored, it is a superb piece of filmmaking that, and this has become an increasingly rare thing in American films, treats its audience with the respect that some of us think we deserve. Expand
  86. MorganaT.
    Jan 1, 2006
    10
    I have been no fan of Speilberg's but this film is incredible. By far the best thing he's done. Multi-layered, using every actor to his best, and no cop out ending, this film makes you think about issues that are controversial in a very personal way. Best film of the year!
  87. FrancescoS
    Dec 31, 2005
    10
    Out and out the best Movie of the year!! Bravo! Mature, Complex, Involving, Brilliant, Challenging & Beautifully made. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Spielberg's Best. He's a Genious. A "Must See".
  88. 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
  89. GrahamM.
    Dec 31, 2005
    10
    This is the best film of 2005, definately. very intelligent.
  90. 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 Expand
  91. 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
  92. DJI.
    Dec 30, 2005
    10
    Best movie of the year. The people who hate the movie, and complain about the "moral parallels" or "moral equivalency" that the film draws between terrorists and assassins are being irrational and stupid. The movie simply portrays acts as they could have occurred, in a way that forces you to see how the act of killing for an abstract cause, using the devil's tools, has consequences. Best movie of the year. The people who hate the movie, and complain about the "moral parallels" or "moral equivalency" that the film draws between terrorists and assassins are being irrational and stupid. The movie simply portrays acts as they could have occurred, in a way that forces you to see how the act of killing for an abstract cause, using the devil's tools, has consequences. It's not like Bana's voice or any character in the movie's voice is the filmmaker's!! Even the scene with the terrorist and Bana debating on the staircase... Spielberg is not telling us that their arguments are equally valid. They're just expressing their characters' views. You'd have to be dimwitted to think that Spielberg is telling you what to think. Film techniques, changing of the color timing and film stock is understated, and brilliant, really making some scenes feel hyper-real, others pulling us into the 70s... and showing us the passage of time. Spielberg is masterful with that. You just jump time and place in the world in this movie and you never feel disoriented. Cast is brilliant. Best movie of the year. For me, what I took out of the movie was less political, and more along the lines of personal ethics and the fact that there are costs to bending the rules... not that this should STOP us from pragmatic acts at times for self preservation... just that we should not rationalize the evil we do when our hand is forced. Which was something I've believed always anyway. Expand
  93. MarcD.
    Dec 30, 2005
    9
    Powerful film. The conversation between Avner and the Palestinian at the "safe" house was provocative -- reminicent of the conversation between M. Whalberg & the Republican Guard torture-inflictor in "Three Kings." Excellent cast, and if Bana isn't up for best lead actor in March, I'll be disappointed.
  94. 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
  95. 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
  96. ErikN.
    Dec 29, 2005
    8
    Solid movie from Steven Spielberg. A bit too much of a left wing slant, and a tad too long and sluggish in spots, it is nonetheless extremely powerful and violent. A tough movie to watch, but brilliant in spots and great overall.
  97. 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.
  98. VisheshC.
    Dec 29, 2005
    9
    Good movie. Realistic, subtle message. Even more fascinating because it is based of real stories.
  99. LarryS.
    Dec 29, 2005
    10
    Excellent film! Cast, writing and direction were all extremely well done. Nice to have a film where you have to think! Quite frankly those who rated the film poorly would have been better off seeing Cheaper by the Dozen 2 or King Kong.
  100. MattS.
    Dec 27, 2005
    6
    Dull. beautiful to look at. but poorly acted and scripted. unlike movies like 'goodnight and goodluck' and 'brokeback mountain', the script for 'munich' has to spell out everything. the ending shot of the twin towers in nyc at the end of the 70s is manipulitative and offensive. like many Spielberg 'serious' films, it looks good, it's marketed Dull. beautiful to look at. but poorly acted and scripted. unlike movies like 'goodnight and goodluck' and 'brokeback mountain', the script for 'munich' has to spell out everything. the ending shot of the twin towers in nyc at the end of the 70s is manipulitative and offensive. like many Spielberg 'serious' films, it looks good, it's marketed well.....and its thuddingly dull and moderately offensive to those w/a working brain. its also technically a marvel to look at. the academy will somehow overlook many, many superior films and include this in the 5 best picture academy award nominees. it will not win. Expand
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.