Munich

Brilliant craftsmanship without a drop of emotion. The combination of such a serious subject with this director promised an emotionally charged spectacle, and yet I witnessed a disproportionately drawn-out revenge spectacle. And while it was supposed to be cold-blooded, not a single scene managed to appeal to me. Spielberg wanted to make a "political espionage" thriller that would cut through the drama with interpersonal relationships, from which the lesson was supposed to be that "violence only breeds more violence." The film contains both, but neither component works as it should. Spielberg did not restrain himself and through the excessive runtime, he tries to create a moral agitprop not only for the Jews but for all people. And yet the skeleton of the story falls apart and the viewer only gets the impression of wholeness in the purges of the Palestinian terrorists, which are just pure craft, nothing more. That actually brings me back to the beginning of my commentary. (24/03/2006)

Steven Spielberg, as a Jew, decided not to film the events that led to the killing of Israeli athletes, but rather the events that followed. Essentially, it is a Jewish revenge on people who had something to do with the terrorist action. And maybe even on people who could have been terrorists. It's a bit strange how the abduction of athletes is portrayed here because at first it seems very vivid, very interesting, but Spielberg cuts it off and presents only mechanical television news that can be viewed in archives or on the internet. Nothing revolutionary, he immediately moves on to what followed. I was a bit disappointed that he dedicated so little space to the assassination because he could have filmed it brilliantly, at least the opening scene hinted at it. But Spielberg chose the path of recording revenge, which is not a bad approach, an effort to express the motivations of the other side, their methods of work, etc. Overall, it was successful, but I still feel like the film is not as raw as it could be, but rather completely stylized, trying to play on emotions, which is due to the event itself, not Spielberg's skill. He tries to push it to the limit, giving the lives of Jews and their suffering. It's not bad, the film is well directed, but the main surprise of the whole film is the fact that Eric Bana can also act. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/10/prach-uspesna-pokracovani-animaku.html (01/03/2013)

I'm beginning to get the impression that in the last two years Spielberg has finally fully matured. The sweet happy endings have disappeared together with the sentimentality, and the family atmosphere perfumed with popcorn is definitively gone as well. However, Munich did not resonate with me as much despite all its seriousness and undeniable power. Technically, it is absolutely polished, but it is as cold as ice, and that is something I am not willing to tolerate. Eric Bana is excellent, and the screenplay is flawless, but the story is presented in such an uninteresting form that it is difficult to empathize with the characters and immerse yourself in their world of terrorists and espionage. The action is brutal, cold, and in certain aspects reminiscent of, for example, Schindler's List. Technically, it is traditionally perfect with brilliant lighting and overall arrangement of the mise-en-scène. My only criticisms relate to occasional confusion and lack of emotions, two flaws in its beauty, two stars down. (06/07/2006)

Munich definitely isn’t controversial (if you’re not a fanatical supporter of either side), it doesn’t say anything new, nor does it dive into the depths of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It just scratches the surface and the characters talk about home. But that doesn’t mean that it is a bad movie. Quite the contrary, and because Spielberg chose (for him) an unusual method of expression (it actually seems that the movie is “controlled" Kaminski’s camera), it’s pretty fascinating. The authors also expect at least some basic knowledge about the topic from the viewer, therefore they don’t explain a lot of the names or acronyms, which is good, since the movie doesn’t treat you like a toddler. (05/02/2006)

"Israel has lost her son" some Israeli leaders bitterly declared about Spielberg. What got them so riled up? Although Munich is first and foremost a suspenseful spy thriller, Spielberg is no longer just someone who has E.T. saying "Go home" and Indy wielding his whip for the audience's pleasure, now he also wants to comment on the world's ills, both historical (Schindler's List) and current ones, such as the pressing Israeli-Palestinian issue. When he says through the character of Robert: “All of this blood comes back to us,” or when Avner, in Eric Bana's convincing performance, says “Did we accomplish anything at all? Every man we killed has been replaced by worse. There's no peace at the end of this no matter what you believe.", perhaps this is Spielberg voicing his own opinion, and I believe this was hard for Israeli leaders to listen to (but to be clear, I'm on their side). Politics aside, what's left? Above all, a masterfully directed thriller that captivates with perfect filmmaking (I would highlight the precise set design with a perfect 70s atmosphere), is free of pathos, which has always been a sore point of Spielberg's serious films, and in several scenes proves that this overgrown child can shock properly (I don’t think I’ll forget the harsh naturalistic scene of the killing the Dutch murderess). Munich may not have as deep an emotional impact as Schindler's List or Amistad, but it is a piece of attractive, honest filmmaking that wants to say something, and it says that something in a highly attractive way. To miss it would be a mistake. (02/04/2006)