unich,
directed by Steven Spielberg, fictionalizes the real life terrorist
situation that occurred during the 1972 Munich Olympics, when a number
of Palestinians infiltrated the Olympic Village and took a bunch of
Israeli athletes hostage. Since it was the 1970s, before police had
their shit together, the hostage-takers were able to secure bus
transport to the airport, to a waiting jet liner. There were no pilots
on board though, and in the ensuing and incredibly-inept ambush by the
German authorities, most of the terrorists were killed and three were
taken prisoner, but not before they machine gunned down all of the
hostages.
These events are
related very early in the film, the meat of which is about a hit squad
formed by the Israeli government and sent to kill the 11 men who
allegedly planned the terrorist strike. They're not at all what you
expect a super-trained killing team to be, and they're in fact pretty
damn incompetent. The movie takes place over a couple of years, as the
team slowly hunts down the terrorists, while growing increasingly-weary
and losing confidence in the use of what they're doing.
To the scores:
Munich
(2005)
Script/Story: 6
Acting/Casting: 7
Action: 7
Combat Realism: 8
Humor: 4
Horror: 5
Eye Candy: 6
Fun Factor: 3
Must See on the Big Screen: 1
Replayability: 5
Overall: 7
Munich
is a quality film, but it's not a very fun one. It's well-written,
well-acted, well-directed, and I wasn't bored, but I was never really
excited or thrilled or involved in the plot, which made it a somewhat
cold viewing experience. Spielberg claims to have worked hard to make
the story balanced; and while it's not (it's very pro-Israel, or at
least anti-Palestinian), it's not a complete screed or rant either. It
might have been better if it had been; since then I'd have rooted for
one side or the other, and been emotionally involved, instead of just
watching well-photographed events unfold on the screen without much
caring how they turn out.
The film has been criticized by many on the right wing for not being
sufficiently pro-Israeli. Having seen the film, I can safely say that
they are nuts, since Munich was relentlessly anti-Arab. It was
not completely pro-Israel, and one young Palestinian gets to speak about
the suffering of his people at the hands of Israel, but he's soon
revealed to be a scheming terrorist who deserves death, just like every
other Arab male in the film. For the most part though, the Arabs
in the film are continually depicted as cold-blooded murderers at best,
and wild-eyed murderous savages the rest of the time.
In comparison, we see
lots of Israelis, and while some aren't perfect pepole, they're
infinitely better than their enemies, as shown in Munich. The
Israelis are more interesting than the Arabs since they have some detail
to them. Some are gung-ho for murder and revenge, some are just regular
people living their lives, others are conflicted, and so on. On the
whole though, the Israelis are presented as a balanced, realistic group.
The Arabs, on the other
hand, are always happy that Jews are dying, and we see numerous scenes
of mobs outright cheering the TV news of the massacre in Munich, or
working to bring about more massacres, or carrying machine guns and
looking swarthy. The rich, largely-European Arab men have some depth to
their characters; they don't spit hatred when they're cornered, and
they're civil to everyone they meet, but they never defend their
actions, or talk about what motivated them to plan terrorist attacks.
In the whole film, the only thing even remotely pro-Arab is the scene
where a young Palestinian talks about how Israel has trampled on his
people and forced them into concentration camps. I didn't think much of
it, since it's inarguably true, to the best of my knowledge. Apparently
it's enough to make some viewers to say the movie is anti-Israel,
though.
I've also seen complaints that the hit squad was shown to be weak and
inept and that that's an insult towards Jews. Come on. I thought that
was actually very pro-Israel too; "Look, see, even though they're
killing these horrible terrorists, they feel bad about it! And they go
out of their way to avoid killing the children or wives of the
terrorists, even if it means jeopardizing their entire mission!"
Unlike the murderous savages they were killing, of course.
To the more specific scores, with comments by category:
Script/Story: 6
All of the dialogue and characters are pretty good, but the overall plot
is less so. The film lacks narrative pull; it's not building towards a
climax, and there's no central conflict. It's very episodic, as we see
the Israeli assassins work to find and eliminate their targets, and each
of the individual scenes is pretty entertaining. But they all tend to
blend together; there's one bomb in a hotel room after another, numerous
scenes of the hit squad talking over huge meals, lots of scenes of
anguish over what their lives have become, and so on. Spielberg could
have chopped an hour out of the middle of the film without making any
difference in the overall feel.
It's more or less accurate to the real history of events, and he wanted
to be faithful to real life terrorism, with dozens of individual cells
doing their own thing and no central puppet master. But that's why James
Bond films have a Dr. Evil type guy to target against. It gives the
story a beginning and an end and an overall purpose and goal. All things
that were missing from this film.
I also disliked the fact that so little background info was given.
Nothing is put into context, and if you entered this film ignorant of
the history of the Middle East since WWII, you would have been confused
quite a bit of the time. There are mentions of the formation of Israel,
how the Jews had to fight to claim it, how Egypt and Jordan were going
to attack again and win this time, and so on. All things unexplained by
any of the characters in the film, and probably confusing to a lot of
viewers, given the level of historical illiteracy in the US these days.
Acting/Casting: 7
All the performances were very good. Malaya was debating whether Eric
Bana could actually act, or if he's just cast in another roll where he
can do his silent, brooding, sulking thing and fit the part perfectly.
Personally, I think there are about 3 actual actors in Hollywood;
everyone else just plays a version of themselves and it works in movies
where the script supports that, and it fails in movies where the script
doesn't.
The only complaint I had was the casting, which was too perfect, in
retrospect. All of the characters are complete stereotypes; the hot
headed murderous guy is all blonde and angry and Aryan, the nerdy
bomb-maker is nerdy and small and bespectacled, the calm voice of reason
is 60 and impeccably-groomed and buttoned down, the leader is strong and
silent and brooding and brave, and so on. Everyone looks exactly like
their character type, and while this gets you into the movie easily
enough, it seems a bit ridiculous in retrospect. Why couldn't the hot
head have been short and ugly? Or the bomb maker reckless and a drunk?
Or the terrorists bookish and calm and clean-shaven? Just so that
someone wouldn't look exactly like we expected them to look...
Action: 7
Lots of action, and it's all well done and believable. See the next
score. Lots of bombs go off, there are shoot outs galore, chases, some
fight scenes, and so on. None are overtly action scene-y either; it's
not that type of film. It's not War of the Worlds. I thought it
was overdone a few times; hardly anyone seems to consider ducking down
or taking cover during the shootouts, and if the actual German rescue
attempt of the hostages at the Munich airport really went down the way
it's portrayed in the film, it had to be the single least-competent
military action since the troop rushes at machine gun positions in WWI.
Combat Realism: 8
This was an interesting aspect of the film, and not one I had expected.
Spielberg intentionally made the action, the shooting, the
assassinations, etc very sloppy and amateurish. The Israeli hit squad is
an odd bunch, they've never killed before, their bomb-maker isn't very
good, and since the story takes place in the 70s, they don't have very
much technology, and since they aren't working with the resources of the
Israeli government (just money), they've got to do things on their own.
So they end up in seedy hotels and ugly cars, they get faulty
explosives, their hits are spur of the moment and poorly-planned, and so
on. It could not be farther from the suave, secret agent world of James
Bond, and that adds some excitement. I'm sure real life assassinations
and criminal stuff is usually like this, with people running around
madly, totally lacking in discipline or planning. Shootouts are full of
more misses than hits, people struggle to get their guns out, grenade
pins are difficult to pull, people are full of fear and terror, etc.
Life lacks surgical precision, and this movie is often true to life.
The blood and gore was very well done too. There's not constant violence
or action, but when it happens it's very hard-hitting. The blood is
incredibly red, almost black it's so dark, and it's chunky and gruesome.
When people get shot it looks like it hurts horribly; and the blood
splashed around by explosives is really disgusting. People wounded by
bombs are in agony, screaming how they can't see, running around naked
and horrified, etc. It's definitely not a film for the squeamish, or for
those who like their killings to be clean and neat.
Humor: 4
The film isn't trying to be a comedy, but the few scenes that try get a
good laugh.
Horror: 5
This is a debatable score. I could easily have given it an N/A, since
it's not really meant to be scary. There aren't any "nervous person
creeping along while we wait for someone to leap out behind them"
scenes, and no real "Gotcha!" moments either. The scary stuff
is man's inhumanity and callousness, and the horrible things people will
do for their beliefs. It does a pretty good job getting into the heads
of people on both sides of the intractable Israel vs. Palestine
conflict, and makes clear why it's been going on since the creation of
Israel, and why it will probably continue on forever.
Eye Candy: 6
The movie isn't really meant to be pretty, and a great many of the sets
are grungy, dirty, bloody, etc. It's just so cleanly-photographed that
it looks nice anyway. The use of color is very stylized, sometimes to
the point of distraction. Some scenes everything is harshly desaturated,
Fun Factor: 3
Not so much. Lots of death and gore and miserable people doing things
they do not like doing.
Replayability: 5
I don't see why, but then again, I don't see why not. I've complained
that there wasn't any overall suspense or story, so it's not like that
aspect is ruined by having seen it already. I didn't especially enjoy it
the first time, and I've got no desire to see it again at this point,
but it's not one of those films that's going to be radically
different/worse the second time around.
Must See on the Big
Screen: 1
This doesn't mean you should wait for the DVD, but it means you won't
miss out on anything if you do. There aren't any gorgeous special
effects, or huge action sequences, or anything that will suffer for
eventual home viewing.
Overall: 7
This one is far more on quality than enjoy-ability. Neither Malaya or I
disliked it, and we weren't bored, but we didn't leave the theater
debating anything we'd seen, or rerunning great scenes through our
heads. We just gave each other an, "It wasn't bad." shrug and
walked down the street to Barnes & Noble.
|