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.

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!

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.

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

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

A bit heavy-going, but Eric Bana's fit. So this gets a 7. You can check my working if you like.

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.

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.

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

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.

Too long, shot in constant darkness and not something I'd recommend.

Family Entertainment at its finest! The show won me over when Bana's character and his band of assassins took off into the air on their bikes! Pure movie magic at its finest!

In response to RadioLady, and especially Squall, it would help if you actually *knew* your history instead of just echoing your "feelings" (which MUST be what's moral and true... right?!?!?) . Israel DID target people who had no direct connection to the attacks b/c they had a hard time locating the terrorists. Does this mean thinkiing people (thinking, Squall, thinking) condemn Israel or think they were as "low" as Black September - no way. Spielberg does the (gasp) unthinkable and actually adds some moral complexity instead of the good/evil extremes that people want to believe (I mean, c'mon America would only torture bad guys, and the bad guys, well, they really *torture*) who follow the Bush-Cheney crowd like lemmings off the moral relativism cliff while claiming moral superiority. Far from being a Hollywood Shill, Spielberg treats a historic event with complexity, care and shades of grey.… Expand

Leaves you thinking. What is the benefit of these revenge kilings? Did it prevent - or perpetuate - future violence? In the context of 9/11, how does this fit? Is right and wrong, good and evil always a matter of perspective, or is there such a thing as moral / ethical clarity? A movie absolutely worth seeing.

Best film of 2005, an emotional experience you will never forget.

Usually, I have alot to say about a movie That I really Liked. And believe me. I liked this movie alot. But I honestly cannot express how much. After seeing this film, it took me a while to shake it off. It stayed with me for a long time! And it has been over 24 hours now. Go see this film! Another Cinematic achievment By the Master. Steven Spielberg.

The best movie of the year. It assumes the audience is intelligent, which is rare in Hollywood, and there is a fantastic showing by Eric Bana. I was very impressed with the entire picture.

Not only Speilburgs tightest film in ages, but like all great films about human history it offers no answers and takes no sides. Instead it just tells the story of what did or might have happened to people caught up in something beyond their understandings. No director has ever had so much fun with windshields and mirrors.

Good movie. Realistic, subtle message. Even more fascinating because it is based of real stories.

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

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

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.

"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

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.

Best movie I've seen in years.

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.

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