Munich

mico saudad · Post by **mico saudad** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:05 pm

I'm not sure what he was going for, but I didn't really get this movie. Perhaps the best moment to articulate my disaffection is the final one where Avner has killed many many people as retribution for the Munich Olympic massacre and he is having sex with his wife.

While he is having sex it flashes back and forth between shots of the final moments of the hostage situtation at the Munich airport. Back to him getting increasingly rough in bed. Okay now back to the airport where the lights come on and the authorities start shooting terrorists. Terrorists start shooting hostages. Back to him sweating and straining on top of his wife. Now the final scene of the massacre, all of the hostages and terrorists die, and finally back to a shot of Avner's roaring lion face as he orgasms.

What is that supposed to mean? Poignant or pointless? I lean towards the latter. And there are several similar scenes throughout this movie where it was obvious he was angling to pull some heartstrings and he just came up empty.

That said it was well done and entertaining (mostly) and it was interesting to see the history in more detail than I knew, but don't go expecting to be affected or to come out with a passion for peace in the middle east.

raisedbywolves · Post by **raisedbywolves** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:15 pm

I liked the movie quite a bit. I was happy that it was not a civics lesson to be sat through, but was actually engaging.

That said, though, I'm with you 100% on the weird sex scene, abc. I know what he was going for, I think, but it's a crazy-bad miscalculation. I think the whole movie could do with a bit of trimming. Not the orgy of editing that Kong needed, but just a little tightening up, and that scene should have been the first to go. But still, B+

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:09 am

Gah! Holy spoiler warning, Batman. I clicked on this thread to see who had watched it, and full sentences about the ending jumped out at me. I'll never make that mistake again.

WeaselSlayer · Post by **WeaselSlayer** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:36 am

I thought it was pretty good, but also totally insultingly heavy-handed. The last shot pissed me off, because I had already well-understood the tie-in with the present day.

Denyer · Post by **Denyer** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:48 pm

Puce wrote:Gah! Holy spoiler warning, Batman. I clicked on this thread to see who had watched it, and full sentences about the ending jumped out at me. I'll never make that mistake again.

mico saudad · Post by **mico saudad** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:02 pm

Puce wrote:Gah! Holy spoiler warning, Batman. I clicked on this thread to see who had watched it, and full sentences about the ending jumped out at me. I'll never make that mistake again.

Sorry about that, but in my defense think about the term spoiler and ask yourself if this is really something that could be spoiled.

1. Is it possible to spoil an ending that was already rotten?
2. You can't claim spoiler if the movie is about history, it's like people getting grumpy about people talking about the ending of Schindler's List. You could claim that the cinematographic moment was spoiled, but see #1.
3. This detail could've come at the beginning of the movie as well as at the end. There is nothing that detracts from the movie knowing this scene a priori. It tells you nothing about anything other than this remote island unto itself.
4. I clearly indicated in my opening paragraph that I was going to talk about the end of the movie.

5. Bite me

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:56 pm

abecedarian wrote:
Puce wrote:Gah! Holy spoiler warning, Batman. I clicked on this thread to see who had watched it, and full sentences about the ending jumped out at me. I'll never make that mistake again.
Sorry about that, but in my defense think about the term spoiler and ask yourself if this is really something that could be spoiled.

1. Is it possible to spoil an ending that was already rotten?
2. You can't claim spoiler if the movie is about history, it's like... [FULL STOP]

No criticism of your reviewing practices intended. I only meant to say that I should have known better than to think I could skim without spoiling things.

I actually have no idea if you spoiled anything or not, because as soon as my brain realized it was ingesting info about the ending I backed the hell out of the thread. Still haven't read it, nor have I read any more of your reply than what I quoted here.

Also, for retards like me who don't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin', movies about history remain very spoilable.

mico saudad · Post by **mico saudad** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:47 am

Puce wrote: for retards like me ....

Oh please, I know better.

mico saudad · Post by **mico saudad** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:47 am

Puce wrote: for retards like me ....

Oh please. I know better.

Denyer · Post by **Denyer** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:14 am

i didn't know king kong died until everyone decided it would be funny to pretend to spoil that.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:07 am

Saw it, liked it mostly. B kinda like. Very entertaining, but yeah, needed some trimming. Plus I was distracted because I spent the whole movie waiting for Eric Bana to get mad and hulk out. I thought for sure it was going to happen during that sex scene, but alas, no. It's kind of a funny scene when you have that in mind, though. Also, how hilarious would someone having a war-flashback during sex be?

Lots.

jute gyte · Post by **jute gyte** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:15 am

I thought it was very very good, especially considering the director's other material.