If I might interject an off-topic question, have there been any objections from anyone, left or right, about how Paul Haggis humanizes the racist cop in Crash?
Bullshit. Only if you’re also accusing the athletes themselves of being violent toward the Palestinians. That only makes sense if you’re a believer in collective guilt based on ethnicity and/or citizenship, and I really don’t think you are.
You’re really not helping your *own * rep by looking for ways to bail **Bricker ** out every time he says something illogical and/or hateful here, ya know. But lately you’ve been doing just that. Think before you hit that Enter key, pal.
Michael Medved is a fucking moron.
I’m not, but I’m sure that Coulter thinks that is a comon belief of “the left”.
I’ll give that advice all the consideration it merits.
*Crash *(Racist cop deserves to have his father die)
Now, why didn’t AC think of that? 
That’s a pretty good point.
To some extent, yes. Ebert’s website follows some discussions/opinions of other critics who hated the film and even thought its message was dangerous. The following deals with Sandra Bullock’s character rather than the racist cop, but the issue of sympathetic portrayal rears its head.
Ebert writes: Having selected Crash as the best film of 2005, I was startled to learn from Scott Foundas, a critic for LA Weekly, that it is the worst film of the year…[Foundas] wrote:
“Not since ‘Spanglish’ --which, alas, wasn’t that long ago – has a movie been so chock-a-block with risible minority caricatures or done such a handy job of sanctioning the very stereotypes it ostensibly debunks. Welcome to the best movie of the year for people who like to say, ‘A lot of my best friends are black.’”
Ebert again: Foundas is too cool for the room. He is so wise, knowing and cynical that he can see through **Crash ** and indulge in self-congratulatory superiority because he didn’t fall for it. Referring to the wife who distrusts the locksmith, he writes: “when Sandra Bullock’s pampered Brentwood housewife accuses a Mexican-American locksmith of copying her keys for illicit purposes, Haggis doesn’t condemn her reprehensible behavior so much as he sympathizes with it.”
So, here is a film critic who faults a film because it doesn’t condem the “bad person” enough and indeed presents her in a sympathetic light. He’s not the only one who felt that way. I’m not sure how this pertains to the subject of the Palestinians in **Munich ** and AC’s glib comment, but there ya’ go.
For what it’s worth, I thought **Crash ** was an excellent movie and that Foundas is all wet in his disparagement.
I see pretty much what a lot of people here did: Munich in no way stated or implied that the athletes had it coming. Spielberg’s portrayal of their kidnapping and murder was brutal, and there was nothing to suggest any feelings on his part other than total sympathy. Ann Coulter spit out a strawman. First time for everything, I suppose. :rolleyes:
That said, I sympathize a bit for the people who got confused over the message. As far as morals and messages go, this movie was all over the place. We go from the terrorist infiltration to news reports of the massacre and grieving widows to impassioned speeches by Golda Meir to impassioned speeches by PLO agents to gunning down Palestinians in the street to gunning down counter-terrorism agents in hotel rooms to cross and double cross and self-righteous second-guessing of moral superiority to the end credits superimposed on the twin towers superimposed on the modern NYC skyline. All of this accompanied by ham-handed acting, confusing photography, an over-melodramatic soundtrack, along with every cliche in the book.
All this, plus the movie was based on a work of fiction, which many–including, perhaps, Spielberg–took to be fact. All in all, I’d say Munich is Spielberg’s biggest screwup since 1941. He totally hosed the message. Whatever lessons there are to be found from the Munich massacre, this movie is the wrong place to look for them.