# Munich- No thread for the new GOOD Spielberg movie? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 27, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368 "2005-12-27T22:47:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/21 "2005-12-28T19:17:00Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > And yet he never got called to the carpet for it. Maybe being a French guy named “Louis” was punishment enough. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/22 "2005-12-29T06:28:23Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The whole movie was just shallow. “Shallow” is exactly the word I used after I saw it, but I had (and still have) a really hard time articulating why I thought it was shallow. Overall, I thought it was a much better movie than many Spielberg has made, and not overtly preachy, but pretty predictable. (Not just predictable in the sense that it’s based on – excuse me, _inspired by_ – real events, but predictable in the sense that there were stock characters and stock situations. For example, when Avner has that touching heart to heart with the Palestinian guy in the safe house, you know that Avner’s going to end up seeing him again, and maybe having to kill him.I also agree that there were several logic problems with the movie. But overall, I enjoyed it. It’s never going to be in my top ten movies of all time, but it wasn’t a wasted afternoon. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/23 "2005-12-29T06:50:14Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > I thought the movie was great. > > It was odd that we didn’t see any repercussions – or even a conversation – regarding Louis putting the team up in the same safe house as the Palestinians. Coming immediately after Louis was humiliated by his father, it seemed like an obviously intentional and vindictive act. And yet he never got called to the carpet for it. Nor did we ever see any repercussions from: The raid in Beruit obviously linking Avner to Israel. This is after Louis told Avner many times they don’t work with governments and that if Avner was working for a government Louis would become very hard to find and very angry. I guess he or his father just changed his mind. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/24 "2005-12-29T07:05:52Z")
> [@Push You Down](#): > > …You mean like hiring an intelligence gathering organization to find out where these guys were? That’s what they did. And since they established that Louis would essentially give them a general location there was a clearly implied off camera series of gathering information and “spying” to find out how best to get to their target. How about a failure? How about using different sources or any sort of rudimentary spying? > [@Push You Down](#): > > What honestly would you like to have had them do to make it more indepth? I think that roughly the last hour of the movie being an examination of the repercussions of their actions and the the effects on the world is about a fine amount of depth. The concept for the film was simply a mistake. By trying to focus on the actual killing of 4-5 terrorists and the development of the assassination team as people they bite off way more then they could chew. I would have picked one thing to focus on. Perhaps having the team go after one target and make the movie into more of an action/spy thriller movie. Focus on the team as people and their development through many of the killings. Go the spy/counterspy route and involve the KGB and CIA more. Focus on the eye for an eye thing between Israel and Black September. The movie tried to do all of those and there simply wasn’t enough time to pull it off. > [@Push You Down](#): > > Its called a character arc. We’ve watched the character change. He’s no longer the same person he was at the begining. This is exemplified by the closet scene. And like I said thats an extremely shallow arc. A spy leaves his family, kills a few terrorists and loses some team members. He misses his family and becomes paranoid about being killed himself. Color me unimpressed. If you want to focus on Avner’s transformation then show me Avner before the mission. Becuase frankly I couldn’t have cared less about him becuase there was no charecter development before he got his mission. What was done was simply cliched and again, shallow. > [@Push You Down](#): > > There is a lot of nuance and subtleties in the movie, in dialogue, in shots and even in what isn’t seen. > I’m sorry it seems you missed out. Oh by all means enlighten me of what I missed out on oh wise one. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/25 "2005-12-29T09:48:31Z")
> [@treis](#): > > All of the terrrorists and their body guards suffer from Bond henchmen syndrome. Line up 30 of them 10 feet from a barn and they will all miss. Although I have to say the Mossad guys aren’t very much better. I think me and my 4 closest friends could have done just a good of job as they did. Information was simply given to them and their operations went off with only slight dramatic hitches. Um, in the real world, unlike movies about Special Operations teams staring Steven Seagal, things get fucked up. Hitting a real moving target in the dark, under fear and confusion is difficult at best; ditto for setting up booby traps and the like. And you have to bear in mind that these guys weren’t professionals; they were selected because they had the minimal skills to do the job and were not high profile enough to be missed within the Mossad; they were essentially amateurs. > [@treis](#): > > The Mossad agents did simply no spying. All they did was pay this one dude for information and then simply killed the terrorist. There was some counterspying that took place but again, this just wasn’t developed. They talked about the KGB and CIA possibly being involved but did nothing to develop that. First of all, the Mossad team (they were techincally freelancers, all having been officially disavowed by Mossad) were for the most part a strike force. This is what real counterterrorism and counterinsurgency work is like; you use local resources to identify targets and “wet assets” to execute an operation. Although the members of the team portrayed in the movie are largely fictional composites, the bulk of the actual operations followed the historical record, as far as public knowledge goes. > [@treis](#): > > All that happened was: > > One dude turned up stabbed, one was killed by a female spy and the bomb guy just accidentally blew himself up Methinks you didn’t pay close enough attention: The munitions expert was deliberately blown up; Hanns was stabbed, and the other older member was killed by the freelance woman assassin. While the authority behind those attacks wasn’t named, it was implied to be the KGB or one of their satellite agencies (likely the Bulgarians who were typically employed to do wet work in Europe) as retribution for the attack that killed the Russians. The drunk men who accosted the team in London were clearly CIA. It is strongly implied that Louis and his father sold out Avner and the team to both agencies, each of which had an agenda to stop them from assassinating other Palestinian planners. It certainly isn’t a Point A to Point C via Point B plotting, owing in no small part to its relatively strong adherence to actual events, and it certainly isn’t either a fantastical Bond movie nor a jingoistic Tom Clancy adaptation. That may be a thematical weakness in terms of conventional plotting (though as **Campion** notes, the film does pull some very predictable plot twists out of the hat) but it speaks to some willingness of Spielberg to diverge from the sort of simplistic, one-sided, linear storytelling which has marred many of his other dramatic efforts. I’m a little split on the film; I was suprised at not only how dark, but how ambiguous the themes were. It’s definitely a departure for Spielberg in that regard. The scene where the woman assassin is shot was startlingly brutal for a Spielberg film, more on the order of Scorsese (in his prime) than Spielberg. On the other hand, his actual treatment of how the conflict (both internal to Avner and the external political issues) is pretty heavy-handed and overly dependent on simplistic symbolism. Yes, Stevie, we see the Twin Towers and how they portend future escallation. Yes, we see the mother figure as an analog to Israel. Some of the analogies work pretty well, though; the comparison between Avner’s group and the PLO group which share the safehouse–that they’re both “safe” there because they’re both “the same”, i.e. outlaws/fanatics/terrorists, nicely indicates not only their legal but moral status.It did seem to run a little long to me; although I’m not sure what I’d have cut out, it did have a bit of the _Return of the King_ false ending syndrome, and while I resisted checking my watch I was drawn away from the story several times; I’m not sure the material justified the 152 minute run time. I did love the inclusion of Michel Lonsdale (Louis’ father, also seen as the retired operative in _Ronin_, and a former Bond villian); the way he invited Avner to the house to have dinner with his family, and then when leaving indicated to Avner that “you could have been my son, but you aren’t”, i.e. he has no loyalty to Avner’s group beyond business, is a very poignent reminder that Avner’s group, and indeed, the Mossad, is lowering itself to deal with the same people and in the same way as the terrorists. Good movie, but not great. I have never found Eric Bana to be a particularly accessible actor and the same is true here; he’s too much of an enigma to make the change of heart he displays really play true. But the film itself was much different than I expected from the likes of Spielberg, so I tend to give it more benefit than I might otherwise. It’s certainly a better film than _War of the Worlds_, and vastly better than the _MI:3_ trailer in the teaser reel would indicate. (Is there going to be anything in that film other than big, loud explosions? I had to sigh at that trailer; who keeps greenlighting these things?) One cool point of note about the teaser reel; there was another trailer–I think the film was called _American Dreamz_ or somesuch, with Dennis Quaid as the President–in which the exterior of the very theater we were watching the movie at was featured. It’s not the first time that has happened–the same thing was true with _Kiss Kiss Bang Bang_ (you can see the Arclight briefly off to the side as Val Kilmer is driving down Sunset)–but it always kind of freaks me out in a Kaufmanesque way when that happens, like reality is intruding into the film. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/26 "2005-12-29T13:30:37Z")
Did the bomb guy blow himself up? It seems like he would notice one of his machines used as the timer to a bomb. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/27 "2005-12-29T15:51:52Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Did the bomb guy blow himself up? It seems like he would notice one of his machines used as the timer to a bomb. It’s ambiguous, butI believe he was killed. Given that he was a bomb dismantler rather than a bomb builder, I think he is very unlikely to have blown himself up. One of the toys was running, a ferris wheel, and when the little toy person on it reached a certain spot in the wheel, there was a click, then the building blew up. So I think the reasonable assumption is that he was killed. He had so many toys in that room, I don’t know that he’d notice if one of them had been tampered with. > [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > One cool point of note about the teaser reel; there was another trailer–I think the film was called _American Dreamz_ or somesuch, with Dennis Quaid as the President–in which the exterior of the very theater we were watching the movie at was featured. Please, _please_ tell me that was the only part of that preview you liked. I know I’m rather free with saying I’ll lose all respect for you, but seriously, this time I mean it. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/28 "2005-12-29T16:14:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Please, please tell me that was the only part of that preview you liked. I know I’m rather free with saying I’ll lose all respect for you, but seriously, this time I mean it. American Dreamz is by the guy who did About a Boy, which may be my all-time favorite movie (it’s that or O Brother). I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I can’t wait to see it. It does certainly have the potential to be absolutely awful, though. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/29 "2005-12-29T17:35:48Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > Please, _please_ tell me that was the only part of that preview you liked. I know I’m rather free with saying I’ll lose all respect for you, but seriously, this time I mean it. Well, I did get a modest chuckle out of the President, played by Dennis Quaid, having to read the newspaper to figure out that there were three different major factions in Iraq, but on the whole I’d rather shove red-hot aluminum knitting needles through my ears than go see that film. Looking it up on [IMDb.com](http://IMDb.com), I note that it is written and directed by Paul Weitz, the same bloke who wrote and directed _In Good Company_, which I believe tells you all you need to know about the originality, humor, and wit of the film. I think I’ll avoid that one the way Tom Cruise dodges shrapnel in a _Mission Impossible_ movie. Come to think of it, were there _any_ good trailers in that reel? Someone please tell me 2006 isn’t going to suck for decent movies the way this year did. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/30 "2005-12-29T17:42:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Looking it up on [IMDb.com](http://IMDb.com), I note that it is written and directed by Paul Weitz, the same bloke who wrote and directed In Good Company, which I believe tells you all you need to know about the originality, humor, and wit of the film. _cough_About A Boy_cough_ Originality, humor, and wit in spades. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/31 "2005-12-29T17:52:39Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > Come to think of it, were there _any_ good trailers in that reel? Someone please tell me 2006 isn’t going to suck for decent movies the way this year did. Well, there was … no, that was Tom Cruise. But then they showed … but that looked awful. Sorry, **Stranger** , I think you’re SOL in 2006. (I did notice an audience-wide snicker when the _Mission Impossible 3_ trailer showed. Good taste, that crowd.) > [@Gadarene](#): > > _cough_About A Boy_cough_ Originality, humor, and wit in spades. Haven’t seen it (I know! the horror!), but I’ll take your word for it. It’s a shame, though, that he apparently has used all his originality, humor and wit on that one flick. Nothing left for _American Dreamz_. Oh, even the name makes me cringe. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/32 "2005-12-29T18:52:31Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > _cough_About A Boy_cough_ Originality, humor, and wit in spades. Dunno, I never saw it. Hugh Grant irritates me with his smarmy on-screen persona, though I think he’d be a cool cat to hang out with in real life. He sure knows which escort services to patronize. What? Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/33 "2005-12-29T18:54:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Hugh Grant irritates me with his smarmy on-screen persona, though I think he’d be a cool cat to hang out with in real life. His performance in that movie – and I say this knowing the ridicule it will rain down upon my head – was Oscar-worthy. Really. …And I’ll stop pimping that movie now. No pun intended. ---
**Author:** ![Push\_You\_Down](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/push_you_down/32/9095_2.png) [@Push\_You\_Down](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Push_You_Down)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/34 "2005-12-29T20:21:33Z")
To Treis- I think Stranger really hit it on the head… You seem to have wanted either a Seagal flick or some sort of 2 hour treatise on mid east relations (which you seem pretty murky about what that would have been in the first place) One moment you are calling for it to be more strictly a spy/action thriller and then calling the level of analysis of the issues it brings up to be “high school level”. Can’t have it both ways. And your point about there being no fall out to the team’s involvment in Lebannon and Louis… you apparently missed the scene where this is directly discussed. Louis raises the rates even after Avener swears they had nothing to do with it. And since Louis and his father’s sole interest appears to be financial, that is the fall out. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/35 "2005-12-29T23:58:20Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > _cough_About A Boy_cough_ Originality, humor, and wit in spades. **About a Boy** was adapted from a novel by Nick Hornsby. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/36 "2005-12-30T05:32:52Z")
> [@](#): > > About a Boy was adapted from a novel by Nick Hornby. Thanks, I realize that. 🙂 So was Fever Pitch. Paul Weitz did a superlative job adapting the film, down to changing the ending to make it leeeeeeagues better. And hitting all the right notes, cinematically. It’s overall wonderful. ---
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/37 "2005-12-31T02:27:11Z")
Saw it today. I liked it but I didn’t love it. There were a lot of places that could have used the editing scissors. I really liked Louis and his father. I could have watched a movie about them! Bana was solid as usual. I enjoy his work. A good flick, but if it wins Best Picture, I would consider it a weak year. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/38 "2005-12-31T02:42:51Z")
> [@middleman](#): > > I really liked Louis and his father. I could have watched a movie about them! I couldn’t see them as anything save opportunistic mercenaries. How can you begin fighting Nazis and end up serving anyone who pays you to help kill folks? Interesting they were, but likeable I found them not. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![middleman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9a140/32.png) [@middleman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/middleman)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/39 "2005-12-31T03:44:57Z")
Is “intrigued” a better word for it? I also was impressed by the future James Bond. They are definitely going back to the connery mold with him. He sure isn’t a pretty boy. I hope they pull a Batman Returns and make the film edgier. I don’t want to see another 2 hour cookie cutter, formulaic thriller cum BMW commerical. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368/40 "2005-12-31T04:05:41Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I couldn’t see them as anything save opportunistic mercenaries. How can you begin fighting Nazis and end up serving anyone who pays you to help kill folks? > Interesting they were, but likeable I found them not. 🙂 I likened them to the Corleones in _The Godfather_. Amoral to be certain, but living and doing business by their own code. And Michael Lonsdale is, IMHO, every bit the equal of Marlon Brando in that type of role. (His spare minutes of interaction with DeNiro in _Ronin_ when he explains about the 47 Samurai elevated that film immensely.) Stranger [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/munich-no-thread-for-the-new-good-spielberg-movie/337368.md?page=3)