imported_bre_bre
New member
To anybody out there who has watched this movie, was there any particular reason/symbolism that almost every street scene was shot in the wet?
Munich
- Thread starter imported_bre_bre
- Start date
Charlotte =]
New member
I've just noticed there weren't any threaRAB about Munich.
The first two assassinations were in daylight and it wasn't raining, and also the nighttime one which they did with Mossad assistance was dry, as was the one where they went to Holland. Come to think of it, it wasn't raining in the original hostage situation in Munich in 1972. So no, I'm not sure there was any significance other than rain at night time makes things look a bit cooler. Maybe it rained more as the film went on to signify things closing in on the group?
Great film, anyway.
The first two assassinations were in daylight and it wasn't raining, and also the nighttime one which they did with Mossad assistance was dry, as was the one where they went to Holland. Come to think of it, it wasn't raining in the original hostage situation in Munich in 1972. So no, I'm not sure there was any significance other than rain at night time makes things look a bit cooler. Maybe it rained more as the film went on to signify things closing in on the group?
Great film, anyway.
Literary Heroin
New member
Agree movie is fantastic. Perhaps it just seemed it was always wet or perhaps it was me having to hold on for the last hour after drinking a large coke in the first 30 minutes. Movie was so good did not want to miss 2 minutes but fear may have done some lasting and permanent damage to my kidneys!!!
I suppose that's a good gauge as to how good the movie was, I was willing to sacrfice my health so as not to miss any.
I suppose that's a good gauge as to how good the movie was, I was willing to sacrfice my health so as not to miss any.
LebronJames
New member
The planned assasination with the girl was in London wasn't it? That was the only one I remember it really raining and I guess that was fitting, since it was in England.
It was a great film though. Gripping, funny and very emotional - and it really made me think.
Thought Eric Bana was fantastic in it. Only thing I wasn't sure about was Daniel Craig - can't see him as James Bond.
It was a great film though. Gripping, funny and very emotional - and it really made me think.
Thought Eric Bana was fantastic in it. Only thing I wasn't sure about was Daniel Craig - can't see him as James Bond.
mitchellg103
New member
I agree can't see him as Bond either, blond or ginger bond just doesn't seem right.
Bring back Brosnan.
Bring back Brosnan.
I really didn't like Munich at all. It's an overlong, mostly fictional, middle-of-the-fence, flat film that looses it's way half way through (not that it ever establishes what film it's meant to be in the first place), with characters that make no sense. I had expected this film to do what it said on the tin, i.e. 'This is the story of what happened next'. Happened to whom, or what? It certainly wasn't anywhere near the story of what happened in the aftermath of the Olympic killings anymore than, say, Jack & Rose's story is a true accounting of what happened to the Titanic. At least Spielberg has the decency not to use the phrase 'based on true events', choosing to use the worRAB 'inspired by', so immediately you know it's mostly bullshit.
This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the film itself was a masterpiece. But it isn't. Spielberg has based this film around a disparate bunch of ficticious characters who were presumably brought together because they're the best in their fielRAB. Best in what though? These are very two dimensional people. There's only one character who seems to have any particular skill. We see glimpses of what the other characters are there for, but not nearly enough to make them believeable or care for them. We see them struggle with their consciences, but again, not enough to make their supposed internal struggles mean anything to the viewer. At least in one particular scene, we get a sense of what it really means to really believe, but not from any of the characters we're meant to care about.
I think a lot of critics are suffering from a touch of Emperor's New Clothes syndrome. Many of them are praising Spielberg for things that other directors would be criticised for. He doesn't moralise about the rights and wrongs of what Mossad did or come down and on either side (which I tend to think is more for commercial and self-preservation - in the career sense - reasons than anything else; for example, many Israelites 'back home' including the athletes families, didn't approve of what Mossad was doing, there was no sense of this), when just a couple of weeks ago, Sam Mendes was criticised for not taking sides with Jarhead. Spielberg also doesn't know what genre of film he's making. Too inaccurate to be a historical epic, not exciting enough to be a thriller and not intriguing enough to be an espionage caper. The last scene was also a cheap shot IMO, possibly intended to bring us back into the real world and ponder on the nature of terrorism, and trick us into thinking that what we've just seen wasn't merely a commercially slick, routine thriller, but is actually relevant to today.
On the plus side, Spielberg recognises that most people who watch this will have a pretty good understanding of what it's about, so doesn't feel the need for an over-simplified version of the whole Israel/ Palastine conflict. It's also well shot, in a grainy 70's style, presumably to give it a documentary feel, atlhough after using similar tricks with List and Ryan, this is becoming old hat now.
This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the film itself was a masterpiece. But it isn't. Spielberg has based this film around a disparate bunch of ficticious characters who were presumably brought together because they're the best in their fielRAB. Best in what though? These are very two dimensional people. There's only one character who seems to have any particular skill. We see glimpses of what the other characters are there for, but not nearly enough to make them believeable or care for them. We see them struggle with their consciences, but again, not enough to make their supposed internal struggles mean anything to the viewer. At least in one particular scene, we get a sense of what it really means to really believe, but not from any of the characters we're meant to care about.
I think a lot of critics are suffering from a touch of Emperor's New Clothes syndrome. Many of them are praising Spielberg for things that other directors would be criticised for. He doesn't moralise about the rights and wrongs of what Mossad did or come down and on either side (which I tend to think is more for commercial and self-preservation - in the career sense - reasons than anything else; for example, many Israelites 'back home' including the athletes families, didn't approve of what Mossad was doing, there was no sense of this), when just a couple of weeks ago, Sam Mendes was criticised for not taking sides with Jarhead. Spielberg also doesn't know what genre of film he's making. Too inaccurate to be a historical epic, not exciting enough to be a thriller and not intriguing enough to be an espionage caper. The last scene was also a cheap shot IMO, possibly intended to bring us back into the real world and ponder on the nature of terrorism, and trick us into thinking that what we've just seen wasn't merely a commercially slick, routine thriller, but is actually relevant to today.
On the plus side, Spielberg recognises that most people who watch this will have a pretty good understanding of what it's about, so doesn't feel the need for an over-simplified version of the whole Israel/ Palastine conflict. It's also well shot, in a grainy 70's style, presumably to give it a documentary feel, atlhough after using similar tricks with List and Ryan, this is becoming old hat now.