Munich

[Aikmaniac]

Hey movie buffs...I wanted to see what you all thought about the movie.

Just saw it last night and am kinda on the fence about it. Great movie, just seemed a little strung out, especially towards the ending however the acting was top-notch and the special effects (read: sound effects) were second to none. The film is pretty graphic at times but I feel the need is there to necessarily depict the possibilities of what happened within the Israeli dorms at Munich in 1972.

The massacre happened before my time, and I had little to no knowledge about what happened during the whole event. I had seen snippets of footage in different movies/documentaries but not much to know exactly what had happened. I know the film was "inspired by true events" so I am guessing that the "fictional" aspect was the characters that were hired to avenge the deaths of the Israelis. Is this true?

 

[jem88]

Hey movie buffs...I wanted to see what you all thought about the movie.

Just saw it last night and am kinda on the fence about it. Great movie, just seemed a little strung out, especially towards the ending however the acting was top-notch and the special effects (read: sound effects) were second to none. The film is pretty graphic at times but I feel the need is there to necessarily depict the possibilities of what happened within the Israeli dorms at Munich in 1972.

The massacre happened before my time, and I had little to no knowledge about what happened during the whole event. I had seen snippets of footage in different movies/documentaries but not much to know exactly what had happened. I know the film was "inspired by true events" so I am guessing that the "fictional" aspect was the characters that were hired to avenge the deaths of the Israelis. Is this true?

Extremely over-rated. Typical Spielbergian sitting on the fence, not wanting to offend anyone. I have no idea why this guy has taken it upon himself to be Hollywood's historical curator. "Inspired by true events" is the ultimate cop-out: offend someone and you can always play the ficton card while at the same time giving the picture some kind of history-imbued credibility.

 

[blindzebra]

Extremely over-rated. Typical Spielbergian sitting on the fence, not wanting to offend anyone. I have no idea why this guy has taken it upon himself to be Hollywood's historical curator. "Inspired by true events" is the ultimate cop-out: offend someone and you can always play the ficton card while at the same time giving the picture some kind of history-imbued credibility.

He is Jewish.

WWII, the Holocaust and what happened in Munich have something in common, get it know?

 

[jem88]

He is Jewish.

WWII, the Holocaust and what happened in Munich have something in common, get it know?

As for Amistad? Next time you go for the sarcastic eye-roll, you might want to run a quick spell-check first.

Does the fact that my heritage is English-Protestant qualify me to direct a film on the creation of the Anglican church?

 

[Rack]

I refuse to watch any movie that has the sound "Unich" in it. I don't care how it's spelled.

 

[blindzebra]

As for Amistad? Next time you go for the sarcastic eye-roll, you might want to run a quick spell-check first.

Does the fact that my heritage is English-Protestant qualify me to direct a film on the creation of the Anglican church?

Ah the ultimate cop-out is pulling the typo card, when your argument goes poof.

So artists are not supposed to create based on their interests and history?

Oliver Stone ring a bell?

Riddley Scott?

Mel Gibson?

Yeah it's all Spielberg.

 

[jem88]

Ah the ultimate cop-out is pulling the typo card, when your argument goes poof.

So artists are not supposed to create based on their interests and history?

Oliver Stone ring a bell?

Riddley Scott?

Mel Gibson?

Yeah it's all Spielberg.

The ultimate cop-out is the eye-roll. Saying he is Jewish does nothing to validate his making mediocre films about true events (Schindler's list was pretty good, Saving Private Ryan and Munich were garbage, Amistad I have yet to see.) Spielberg should stick to what he does (or did) best: effects-laden blockbusters. Artists can make art about what interests them but that doesn't mean it will be worthwhile.

By the way using Stone, Scott and Gibson to strengthen your argument is a bit dodgy given that none of those three will ever be mistaken for Polanski, Scorsese or Coppola.

 

[blindzebra]

The ultimate cop-out is the eye-roll. Saying he is Jewish does nothing to validate his making mediocre films about true events (Schindler's list was pretty good, Saving Private Ryan and Munich were garbage, Amistad I have yet to see.) Spielberg should stick to what he does (or did) best: effects-laden blockbusters. Artists can make art about what interests them but that doesn't mean it will be worthwhile.

By the way using Stone, Scott and Gibson to strengthen your argument is a bit dodgy given that none of those three will ever be mistaken for Polanski, Scorsese or Coppola.

The first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan was the most incredible thing ever put on film, and saying Schindler's List was pretty good just destroyed any credibility you may have had...and it wasn't very high to begin with.

 

[jem88]

The first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan was the most incredible thing ever put on film, and saying Schindler's List was pretty good just destroyed any credibility you may have had...and it wasn't very high to begin with.

Yes the first 30 minutes were a remarkable technical achievement, nothing new for Spielberg, the special effects maestro. As for Schindler's List, the inherent power of the story means that it can't help but be compelling viewing. However, there was little interpretative genius on the part of Spielberg. It was basically a glorified documentary and the few flourishes that Spielberg couldn't resist adding (the girl in colour, Schindler's self-flagellation) only served to cheapen the movie, to inject Hollywood where it was not needed. Like I said, a pretty good movie (albeit about a gripping subject), but nowhere near the genius of The Killing Fields or even The Pianist.

Match point Jem88.

P.S. Further to the original post, see Munich if you must, but you'd be better off seeing The Squid & The Whale, Capote, Brokeback Mountain and A History of Violence. Those were the best movies of 2005.

 

[blindzebra]

Yes the first 30 minutes were a remarkable technical achievement, nothing new for Spielberg, the special effects maestro. As for Schindler's List, the inherent power of the story means that it can't help but be compelling viewing. However, there was little interpretative genius on the part of Spielberg. It was basically a glorified documentary and the few flourishes that Spielberg couldn't resist adding (the girl in colour, Schindler's self-flagellation) only served to cheapen the movie, to inject Hollywood where it was not needed. Like I said, a pretty good movie (albeit about a gripping subject), but nowhere near the genius of The Killing Fields or even The Pianist.

Match point Jem88.

P.S. Further to the original post, see Munich if you must, but you'd be better off seeing The Squid & The Whale, Capote, Brokeback Mountain and A History of Violence. Those were the best movies of 2005.

Crash was the best movie of 2005.

 

[jem88]

Crash was the best movie of 2005.

I thought it was over-rated.

 

[blindzebra]

I thought it was over-rated.

And Brokeback Mountain wasn't?

WOW!

 

[jem88]

And Brokeback Mountain wasn't?

WOW!

That's correct. It wasn't the best movie of 2005; The Squid & The Whale was. However, it was still very good. Crash ranks up there with Forrest Gump and Titanic for worst Best Picture winner.

 

[Yeagermeister]

That's correct. It wasn't the best movie of 2005; The Squid & The Whale was. However, it was still very good. Crash ranks up there with Forrest Gump and Titanic for worst Best Picture winner.

How can anyone hate on Forrest Gump? Was it the best movie ever made? No but I'll take 100 Gumps over those artie fartsie movies the critics love so much. I though Crash was very good and had a terrific story.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I loved Gump, although the books were more interesting cause Forrest was a little less of a saint.

Crash, ok movie but far from great IMO.

I think Quinton Tarrintino (sp?) has really changed how many people write and make movies now.

Pulp Fiction was not the first ever to do it, but it seemed to bring it back more.

The style of mini sections of a movie that tie up in the end even if they were out of sequence at times.

I think the problem today is the like of original ideas in an industry that has seen fit to make remakes of old movies and TV shows into new movies.

 

[Yeagermeister]

I loved Gump, although the books were more interesting cause Forrest was a little less of a saint.

Crash, ok movie but far from great IMO.

I think Quinton Tarrintino (sp?) has really changed how many people write and make movies now.

Pulp Fiction was not the first ever to do it, but it seemed to bring it back more.

The style of mini sections of a movie that tie up in the end even if they were out of sequence at times.

I think the problem today is the like of original ideas in an industry that has seen fit to make remakes of old movies and TV shows into new movies.

Have you ever seen the Guy Ritchie movie Snatch? He's good at setting up the different stories and then bringing them together at the end plus it funny as hell.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Have you ever seen the Guy Ritchie movie Snatch? He's good at setting up the different stories and then bringing them together at the end plus it funny as hell.

Caught a few minutes of it a few years back but never got to see it all.

 

[blindzebra]

I loved Gump, although the books were more interesting cause Forrest was a little less of a saint.

Crash, ok movie but far from great IMO.

I think Quinton Tarrintino (sp?) has really changed how many people write and make movies now.

Pulp Fiction was not the first ever to do it, but it seemed to bring it back more.

The style of mini sections of a movie that tie up in the end even if they were out of sequence at times.

I think the problem today is the like of original ideas in an industry that has seen fit to make remakes of old movies and TV shows into new movies.

The real trouble is twofold:

1. Teenagers spend more money than they ever have before, so movies are all watered down into crappy PG-13 sewage.

2. It is far easier to remake something that was already popular than create something new...sequels, remakes of classic movies, or old TV shows or cartoons.

The most interesting movie in recent years has been Memento...did QT better than QT and threw in a little Groundhog Day for good measure...it was brilliant.

 

[Yeagermeister]

The real trouble is twofold:

1. Teenagers spend more money than they ever have before, so movies are all watered down into crappy PG-13 sewage.

2. It is far easier to remake something that was already popular than create something new...sequels, remakes of classic movies, or old TV shows or cartoons.

The most interesting movie in recent years has been Memento...did QT better than QT and threw in a little Groundhog Day for good measure...it was brilliant.

I agree about Hollywood throwing a lot of crap out there.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

The real trouble is twofold:

1. Teenagers spend more money than they ever have before, so movies are all watered down into crappy PG-13 sewage.

2. It is far easier to remake something that was already popular than create something new...sequels, remakes of classic movies, or old TV shows or cartoons.

The most interesting movie in recent years has been Memento...did QT better than QT and threw in a little Groundhog Day for good measure...it was brilliant.

I have yet to see that movie, I will have to check it out.
Everyone says it is good, a tad goofy in some ways but overall good.