I found large chunks of Munich tedious. In fact, the only part that really held my interest was the double-booked safehouse, and that was more chuckle-worthy than riveting.
Fair enough.
I really liked Munich myself, but for strange reasons, like that the guy from Rome was in it, and the villain from Moonraker was in it.
It also contains a scene that I absolutely cannot watch ever again - the scene where the woman assassin knows she’s dying and goes over and gives her kitty a goodbye scratch. Ugh.
This is one of my problems with Spielberg: he’s trained the audience to expect mindless entertainment above all other considerations, even when the subject matter is worthy of more serious treatment.
I’m afraid I may be too mindless to see your point.
I personally loved the movie and didn’t find it boring. The end is definitely a letdown and the sex scene was just not right, but the rest was fantastic as far as I was concerned.
yes, I’d much rather watch Eric Bana be boring than watch The Good Shepherd again.
Yikes, I loved “The Good Shepherd”, too. I must be a really boring person!
I’ll ignore the snark and respond as if you’d seriously asked for clarification.
My point is that to judge a move like *Munich *strictly on its entertainment value is to miss the point, IMO. And no one is more responsible for such skewed audience expectations than Steven “Nazi’s sell tickets” Spielberg; no one is as highly skilled in exploiting “sacred” subjects for no other reason than ticket sales. And while I’m hardly a fan of his, *Munich *pissed me off less than many of his other prestige wankfests, precisely because he seemed to take the subject matter a little more seriously than simply another opportunity for Indiana Jones Goes to Auschwitz travesty like Schindler’s List.
I suspect, though of course I may be wrong, that the OP went to watch *Munich *expecting the usual Spielbergian adrenaline-is-more-important-than-history rollercoaster ride, but instead found a movie that was a little more thoughtful and a little less car-chasey. Spielberg hoist, in other words, by his own petard.
Oh. I didn’t even care that Spielberg was involved. Munich is just one of those over-fictionalized movies that makes me want to a see a good no-nonsense documentary about the real-life event. I’ve seen lots of 'em. I usually don’t try to springboard into some kinda general criticism of the director or the movie-going public, though.
There must be a full two people out of the 6.8 billion on the planet who would agree with this sentiment.
Wow.
Hey, give him a break. Schindler isn’t worthy to lick Showgirl’s sweaty g-string.
I can’t say the word “swashbuckling” immediately springs to mind when I recall Schindler’s List, but I will invest my faith in lissener’s good judgement.
After all, this is not a man given to presenting counterintuitive interpretations of films based on personal biases and outlandish extrapolation.
You’d be surprised; I’m not THAT original a thinker.
–and just because a film is critic proof, like *SL *or To Kill a Mockingbird or Gone with the Wind, doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to form my own opinion of it. No film is agreed about by 100% of its audience, even SL. In artistic opinions, “minority” does not equal “wrong.”
Gone With the Wind is critic-proof? My dislike of it must make me even uniquer than I already am!
Cross over to the dark side, Bryan; we have better snacks.
Yeah, but my dislike isn’t about the betrayed narrative paradigm of a nation still healing the scars of a torturous conflict that rent its very soul and would deny dignity to the Negro for decades yet, but that the actresses just shriek so damn much. It drives me from the room every time.
See, I’m trying to have a civilized, grownup conversation here, but you seem to be pretty firmly invested in your snark. I’ll keep to the high road, again asking you to join me.
Here’s how I come up with posted opinions on movies in this forum:
While I’m watching a movie, I have a simple, unformulated and unexpressed reaction to it: I either like it or I don’t. Then, if it comes up here, or if I end up discussing it with someone, I try to communicate, as clearly as I know how, *why *I liked or didn’t like it. Often, of course, there are gray areas; there are almost no movies that I like that I can’t find something to complain about, and there are just as few movies that I dislike that I can’t find some kernel of value in. Still, I begin with my “gut” reaction, and work from there.
So, I’m sorry if my vocabulary isn’t to your taste, but my opinions–of this or other movies that come up in this forum–are honest ones, no matter how unclearly I explain them.
Well, then, you shouldna started with “trained the audience to expect mindless entertainment”. Exactly which audience members did you have in mind as recipients of ths training? Posters in this thread? If not, clarify. If so, then spare us this innocent act.
In any case, I just thought Munich was at times a leaden film. I don’t need to heavily deconstruct it or make a statement about Spielberg or the audience to bolster that opinion. Why you disagreed eludes me, but it was sufficiently pretentious to earn mockery, especially since you are so mock-able when it comes to film analysis.
Anyway, now you have a “gut” reaction? If you’d started with that, there’d’ve been nothing to discuss.
Perhaps my favorite book ( up there, anyway ). Can’t stand the movie.