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.

This is like broke back mountain a really really good movie.

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

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

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.

Amazing movie. One of the best thrillers I have seen, and the characters are real and relatable.

No words 4 such a Good Movie.

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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

One of Spielberg's finest works, a sheer masterpiece. Flawless acting, directing, and writing, the absolute BEST Film of 2005.

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.

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.

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

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

Another Spielberg masterpiece, but not always clear on character motivation. Many loose ends not always explained. Special efects are superb.

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

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

If you fall asleep in this movie, it is a judgment of your character, not the movie's.

Compelling.

The best movie of the year....... Spielberg's finest!

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.

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.

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

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