Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 23, 2005
8.1
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 456 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
365
Mixed:
53
Negative:
38
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
I.P.Jan 2, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
PyeJan 28, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MollyOJan 6, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
[Anonymous]Jan 7, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
TimJan 7, 2006
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
GregS.Jan 8, 2006
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 .
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ElliottJan 8, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JosiahR.Jan 9, 2006
Compelling.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ThomasR.Jan 9, 2006
If you fall asleep in this movie, it is a judgment of your character, not the movie's.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
HamishM.Feb 10, 2006
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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RichardM.Feb 16, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DavidFeb 20, 2006
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. 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! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MartFeb 6, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JamesFeb 8, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ChadS.Mar 10, 2006
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
The_Elusive_PossomApr 27, 2006
A bit heavy-going, but Eric Bana's fit. So this gets a 7. You can check my working if you like.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
[anonymous]May 27, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DaveA.Jul 2, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
PaoloA.Aug 4, 2006
This is like broke back mountain a really really good movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
LanceSep 4, 2006
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AlexDec 16, 2005
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!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
jwhDec 22, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
NealB.Dec 24, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
CesarN.Dec 25, 2005
Best film of 2005, an emotional experience you will never forget.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TonydannieDec 25, 2005
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! 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
BrettR.Dec 26, 2005
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
joshs.Dec 27, 2005
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
VisheshC.Dec 29, 2005
Good movie. Realistic, subtle message. Even more fascinating because it is based of real stories.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TalL.Dec 31, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DJI.Dec 30, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful