Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Munich

  1. #1
    Kam is offline
    filet - o - fish Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    New York, NY


    Highly reccommended. Saw this over the weekend along with A New World and Memoirs of a Geisha (will have seperate posts for those). Spielberg at the top of his game. The short changed plot holes and poor characters and logic that plagued War of the Worlds is non-existent in this tight, incredible thriller. Spielberg received tons of criticism from both sides of the palestine conflict before the movie came out, and personally, i don't see why (or i guess i understand why.) Because he doesnt take a side. He is just as highly critical of israel and its tactics as he is of the palestinians and the terrorists. i thought he examined both sides and what was both good/bad with them and how similar they are, how this cycle of violence will always keep on turning until someone is strong enough to break it with love instead of hate.

    the characters (some of them) begin to question their own morals, their own right to do this, and they argue with themselves and each other to find a way to continue this mission. he shows the humanity of both sides of this conflict and if there is a true, clear cut "badguy" portrayed in the movie, its the cia. am curious to read the book now to see how accurate everything is, however, given our current state of terrorism (the bin laden-cia connection), to find out that the cia once trained, or was even at that time in contact with, and continued to protect those responsible for munich would not come as a surprise.

    the emotion grabs you from the opening sequence as he begins with the actual palestinian kidnapping and murder of the 11 israeli athletes in munich. it opens with the bare bones of the situation and then throughout the movie he returns to that horrible event and shows more and more of what happenned (or what might have happenned seeing as everyone actually there died). eric bana gives a rock solid performance and daniel craig (once again) proves he can be the best bond ever if given a chance, he is great in the role of the hardest supporter of israeli vengeance (incidentally, Vengeance was the title of the book this is based on and original title of the movie before changed to munich). and spielberg even manages to fill the movie with his common themes of family, absentee parents, and missing fathers. very powerfull well made movie imo. defn check it out if you can, highly reccomended!!!

    peace (hopefully)

    Side Rant:
    This movie cost 70mill to make. That's with the future mr. bond, one of the hottest actors around eric bana, an emmy award winning writer from a best selling novel, an academy award winning director, cinematographer, editor, producer, composer, and actor, several international locations, explosions, chase scenes, helicopters, etc. Still... just 70mill the same price of Saving Private Ryan.
    Fun with Dick and Jane cost 100mill. Sahara cost 150mill. Is there something i'm missing here? Sahara cost as much as SPR AND Munich combined... seem a little odd, doesn't it? One person manages to amalgamate some of the greatest talent in the world in their respective disciplines at half the cost of Sahara. Although i guess that's what being Eisner's son can do for you, get you a nice fat 150mill budget.

  2. #2
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    You think that's bad consider that Schindler's List only cost $22 million -- that is extremely impressive considering the scope and crowd control management and locations of that film.

    As usual advertising is costly -- Schindler's List diod not advertise much at all -- I saw no previews here at all. The film despite being black and white and having no names (Liam Neeson was a fringe actor at the time, Ben Kingsly was really only known as Gandhi from ten year old movie(at that time) and it was Ralph Fiennes first film for the big screen.

    Dick and Jane has 20 million is going to Carey (almost the entire Schindler's List budget) and bazillions of advertisements because it can't sell itself on merrit. See Roeper and Ebert.

    Usually it works - hire star power and it's an easy sell to studios - I know that Schindler's List was stopped a number of times because studio Execs wanted Mel Gibson and other big name billing over no names - and they wanted it in colour (and probably wanted a happier ending too). Spielberg is big enough to be able to do what he wants on his terms which is often, but not always, why his films are better than most others. He can say that if you like his film that you are seeing his vision not 12 studio accountants' visions.

    I was just watching billy Bob Thornton on Inside the Actors Studio and he mentioned that Monster's Ball (that year's best film IMO) and he said the film was stopped from going ahead for years and years. Billy Bob got it going by taking a huge paycut.

    I know Ralph Fiennes and director David Cronenberg had all sorts of financial problems getting the film Spider made so Ralph did Maid in Manhatten to help pay for the film he really wanted to get finished with cronenberg - same for the English patientwhere they took deferred money (which would only get deferred if it was profitable).

    For some dumb reason though people would rather see lousy remakes of better movies of the past - Dick and jane and the Producers are two such films.

  3. #3
    BooBs are elitist jerks shokhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    I noticed some flicks look like they may be pretty good,MI3 and a few others and they all seem to be coming in May. I might have to take that month off for movies.
    Look & Listen

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts