Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critics What's this?

User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 269 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: Steven Spielberg directs an international cast in Munich, a gripping suspense thriller set in the aftermath of the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munch Olympics. This dramatic exploration inspired by true events follows a secret Israeli squad assigned to track down and kill the 11 Palestinians suspected to have planned the Munich attack -- and the personal toll this mission of revenge takes on the team and the man who led it. (Universal Pictures) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 30 out of 39
  2. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. 100
    As a thriller, Munich is efficient, absorbing, effective. As an ethical argument, it is haunting.
  2. Reviewed by: Ian Nathan
    This is Spielberg operating at his peak - an exceptionally made, provocative and vital film for our times.
  3. Some will find the surprise pleasant, others unpleasant. Whatever it is, it's the least commercial, most somberly heartfelt movie ever made by the cinema's most commercially successful filmmaker.
  4. An unlovable movie. It's morally ambiguous, which means there's no real rooting interest. It's episodic, with the same kinds of episodes repeated over and over, so there's little sense of forward motion. It feels philosophically and politically confused, so there's no message to take from it.
  5. 70
    Even if it wasn't exactly historically accurate (the film is only "inspired by true events," after all), innocents are killed in the crossfire all the time when these kinds of missions are undertaken, and it's a cop-out for Spielberg to pretend otherwise.
  6. It's when Spielberg stops trying to think so hard that Munich works best. Though some of the assassination scenes feel a little too choreographed, more "West Side Story" than "Bourne Identity."
  7. It's too turgid and redundant to have any real impact. As a thriller, it barely thrills; as a lecture, it has nothing new to say.

See all 39 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 89 out of 124
  2. Negative: 20 out of 124
  1. abhim.
    Dec 22, 2005
    Best movie of the year.
  2. GilbertoR.
    Jan 6, 2006
    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. Collapse
  3. SeanP.
    Mar 7, 2007
    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
  4. 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 . Expand
  5. KenB
    Jan 3, 2006
    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
  6. 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 no helpful ideas on the film's topic. Expand
  7. Squall
    Dec 15, 2005
    Steven Speilberg has finally lost his mind. He now equates the sons and daughters of Isreal equal to, if not less, than the Muslim terrorists who commit all sorts of attrocities on civilization. Just wonder if Spielberg would turn the other cheek if someone he loved was brutally murdered? Somehow I just don't think so. It's sad to see a once great director become a shill for Hollywood's left wing political movement. Barbara Streisand now has a partner in turning the keys of America over to our enemies. Great job Steve as you should feel very proud of yourself? Let's see? War of The Worlds was a total joke and now this? This is typical Michael Moore trailer trash. Not worthy of your time or money. Expand

See all 124 User Reviews