Múnich

This movie relates more than just a story of "Vengeance". Besides proving that killing begets killing - it consists of numerous fine details that reveal the hard work done at getting to the depth of things:

For instance, only characters that get shot in the head slump to the ground. The rest take time to die - they walk a few steps, spurt blood and express a look of helplessness and inevitability before going out. Yes its horrifying to look at, which is the point, but it is also real.

Every character is different, and though common in their desire for vengeance, their temperaments are clearly distinguishable in the way the hit men approach their task. Even the terrorists are not stereotyped into hysterical, screaming lunatics. They range from the visibly nervous to the cool Abu Salameh with the movie star style. They are poets, intellectuals and guerrillas each with his story of the conflict. They speak passionately about home - a recurring theme, along with "family". Moreover, Spielberg does not attempt to mitigate the grotesque manner of their deaths, for the blood of the targeted men flows as freely as that of their victims - and when they are blown up, their body parts dangle from ceiling fans. You are not here to feel satisfaction over anyone's death, Spielberg says to the audience. Or as Caine would say in Kung Fu: "The taking of a life does no one honour."

There are no easy "shoot-em-dead" eliminations. There are neighbors, bystanders and obstacles that must be avoided and protected - with variable success. Innocent people may be harmed - and one has to live with that.

There are no mathematical certainties about the potential damage a bomb will cause.

Perspectives and convictions can change, sometimes regrettably. "Don't think about it - just do it" says Avner at one stage when a member of the team expresses doubts about a target's guilt. But at the end he wants evidence that the men he despatched were justifiably killed. Implausible? No; it is only when he has been reunited with his family and experiences the affection of wife and child that he allows himself to reflect from a different perspective - their targets had families too - what if he had killed the wrong men?

The paranoia that permeates the world of spies and assassins is built up gradually - to the point where every survivor mistrusts everybody else. One is doomed all one's life to walk with ears strained for following footsteps. The length of the movie creates the right atmosphere for this idea.

The end dissatisfies many because they would like a reassurance, a note of optimistic finality - but Spielberg rightly offers none. It would be dishonest of him to offer a false but comforting illusion.

It is interesting to contrast this movie with "Paradise Now" that has no violence, a modest budget, and views the conflict from the Palestinian camp. Both narrate completely different stories - yet, in their respective ways, both humanize their subjects, defuse myths about glory, and arrive at the same conclusion: "There's no peace at the end of this."

Just because this film has been attacked by pols and shills, here's my 2 cents. Spielberg manages to set the agenda, and sets it correctly. It is indeed about the antecedents to 9/11, and bravo to Spielberg for taking it on, but not somewhere in Afghanistan, but at its genesis, the squalor of Palestine.

Spielberg's film is an essay on revenge and how hopeless and self-defeating that ancient temptation is. It's brave of Spielberg to say it to us now; brave, too, to paint the avenging Israelis as somewhere below the Angels. Let's be candid: There are harsh sentiments expressed here, by some Israeli characters, that the Evangelical Lobby simply doesn't want aired.

Spielberg's handling of the Bana character is masterful. Noteworthy is how uncompromising it is: this is a man whose identity has collapsed. It's entirely right that his Israeli handler should refuse the Sabbath-meal invitation at the end, realizing that the bonds of the older religion (and pre-Zionist identity) are shattered and meaningless.

Spielberg might have improved this product (some of the dialogues are horribly wooden). But that's not important. That a mainstream US film should go where this film goes is significant. This is a major-minor event in Spielberg's long and luminous career.

Another dip in the Spielberg pool and I come away drenched in emotion. I was a freshman in high school in Texas during the Munich games. I was stunned by the events and understood little.

Today, I am still stunned by Munich and every terrorist act that followed, but I understand so much more and grieve. Spielberg gives us a powerful glimpse into the meaning of home, family, honor, history, ethics, and faith. The movie is not about the Jews and Arabs. It's about human beings. It's about us.

The narrative is driven by our connection to Avner. We watch as Eric Bana opens himself up in a way that the likes of a George Clooney in Syriana only dreams of.

This is a must see.

Munich is a well crafted film by the biggest director on the planet. Great pacing, suspense and cinematography. The biggest problem I had with the film is that I've seen it before. A little known film called THE SWORD OF GIDEON. Munich is almost a direct copy from the original. What a shame that Spielberg has to produce a remake of a much better film. Enough already with the remakes. People want to see original stories with fresh new ideas and writers. Why are independent films so successful, because the ones that are well made and tell a good story are box office darlings. It's amazing some Hollywood films have budgets north of 100 million. Just incredible how much money and time is wasted. If you want to understand what happened in the aftermath of Munich, rent THE SWORD OF GIDDEON.

Ever since he has journeyed into serious films (starting with "Empire of the Sun" and then "Schindler's List"), Steven Spielberg has been searching for a method of making violence unattractive to moviegoers. "Schindler's List" was, of course, shocking, but this first attempt at strong violence did not quite have the intended effect. I know that a lot of people (including me) feel saddened by the film, but SL's violence could seem distant at times, like the audience was merely an observer. "Saving Private Ryan" was the second great attempt at making moviegoers detest violence, but this seemed easily dismissed as a war film, showing events that would probably never happen again, like showing violence in a distant universe. Munich is his latest effort, and it shows Spielberg's feeling that his previous films, although progressive, had not quite 'hit the mark'.

The violence shown in Munich is, perhaps, the most brutal realistically intentioned violence ever shown on film. I say 'realistically intentioned' because, like the average moviegoer, I have not witnessed people getting shot or blown up, so I don't know what those events would actually look like. There are many signs in the film that Spieberg is trying to improve on his earlier efforts. The guns in the film are REALLY loud when fired. This has the effect of putting you in the fight, making it more intimate when someone IS shot. The bullet wounds and remains after explosions are quite gruesome. When someone dies in this film, no matter what side they are on, you feel no happiness, no relief or awe. You feel a sense of death, nothing dramatic, just blank and empty. For this reason, Munich is one of the most important films to have come out, and perhaps it is Spielberg's best ('Raiders' is too superhuman to be included on that list). Spielberg deserves the best director for this one.