[Prodigal Son]

Looking forward to seeing this one.

[dennisw]

What a jackass- the film sucks. Jewish media have panned this dopey movie. Steven Spielberg is getting dumber as he gets older. Just look who wrote the screenplay! It's Tony Kushner whose claim to fame is a play about AIDS "victims" and is a self hating Jew, based on his anti Israel propaganda. He edited an anti Israel anthology. A pathetic silly gay Jew.

What was Spielberg smoking when he hired Kushner? It's a laugh

[trek]

Spielberg is a spoiled Hollywood idiot. He is so far gone that he can't distinguish between reality and fantasy. That may make him a fine filmaker but also qualifies him for a starring role as one of Lenin's "useful idiots."

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

There was a movie made back in the early 1980's about this. I can't remember the name though.

[backhoe]

Scroll down a bit to see The Captain's Take ( includes spoilers, so beware ):

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
December 23, 2005
Movie Review: Munich

His "comments" sections are always lively:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006002.php#comments

[forYourChildrenVote4Bush]

'I knew the minefield was there," says Steven Spielberg

What minefield...????

11 Israelis get butchered ..Israelis take revenge...that is history...what history is he trying to rewrite?

sHitler butchered millions...there is no minefield there..

History is History and cannot be rewritten.

[usmcobra]

If you have to defend a movie then it isn't worth seeing.

{Major Spoiler}Most of Black September gets wiped out, world breathes a sign of relief.{/Major Spoiler

[Always Right]

"I knew I was going to be losing friends when I took on the subject," he told me during a phone conversation Thursday afternoon. "I am also making new friends."

I am not sure I would count terrorists as friends....

[jimbo123]

Spielberg, the self-hating Jew, is panicking because his movie is flopping because of its rampant terror apologism.

[Petronski]

"I knew I was going to be losing friends when I took on the subject," he told me during a phone conversation Thursday afternoon, "because it was my intention all along to engage in shameless wholesale moral equivalency."

"I am also making new friends. After all, with all that bootlicking, one of my new masters was bound to accept me."

[Petronski]

"I guess what I'm trying to say is, if this movie bothers you, frightens you, upsets you, maybe it's not a good idea to ignore that. Maybe you need to think about why you're having that reaction. Maybe you should take that opportunity to abandon your long-held moral convictions at the altar of my bloody-good palie propaganda. Oh, and I'm not a guilt-ridden self-hating Jew either. Remember that."

[Soul Seeker]

"This film is no more anti-Israel than a similar film which offered criticism of America is anti-America," he said. "Criticism is a form of love. I love America, and I'm critical of this administration.

If we follow this to conclusion, he loves this administration then?

[montag813]

I saw Munich, and was disgusted by it. Spielberg managed to take an instance of terrorist mass murder, and turn it into a desperate act by Arab freedom fighters who just want a homeland. The moral equivalance is depressing. These weren't troops guarding a border, or in a battle. These were innocent athletes, butchered only for being Jewish. It is a intellectual crime that Spielberg has committed by equivocating like this. Why the hell did he have to choose this subject to do so? It just makes me angry, and undermines Israel and by extension the United States in our resolve in the war on Islamic terror.

There are also numerous plot lines and dialogue that just never happened--totally invented or uncorroborated. Lines which cast the Arabs in a better light and the Israelis as wracked with self-doubt. The actual participants said these lines and actions never existed, but Spielberg doesn't seem to care about this foray into Oliver Stone-style fictionalization. The problem is, like the ignorant youths who gawked at "JFK", most people will just take this movie as fact, which is a deep shame.

[Cinnamon Girl]

Spielberg reasserts his foolishness in this article. And makes very clear that he REALLY DOESN'T GET IT. Starting with the fact that Tony Kushner is his go-to guy for a Jewish perspective.

[eeevil conservative]

They had a segment on Fox and Friends about this movie the other day...

It was actually an interview with a guy that wrote a book about this massacre.

He said his book had the TRUTH about what REALLY happened after the terrorists slaughtered these innocent people. I cannot remember the name of the author or the book.... did anyone else see this piece on FOX?

I really would like to get that book...

[Mr Rogers]

"The movie says I don't have an answer. I don't know anyone else who does. But I do know that the dialogue needs to be louder than the weapons."

Wonder if he would say the same about Nazis.

Sometimes the weapons need to be louder than the dialogue - because there can be no moral compromise with pure evil.

[Paulus Invictus]

It would be interesting for Spielberg to explain how he is "critical of this administration" when it is notably pro-Israel. Clinton gave his all to the Palis (as did his evil wife). How does Spielberg get around that fact? Does he criticize the Clintons for their foreign relations idiocies?

[Hildy]

But what about the issue of "moral equivalence," the charge that he equates the Israeli and Palestinian causes, when the rightness of one (or the other) is seen as not debatable? "Frankly, I think that's a stupid charge. The people who attack the movie based on 'moral equivalence' are some of the same people who say diplomacy itself is an exercise in moral equivalence, and that war is the only answer. That the only way to fight terrorism is to dehumanize the terrorists by asking no questions about who they are and where they come from.

No, you ASSHOLE..it's about not giving more fodder to the majority of people in this world who want to CUT YOUR HEAD OFF....Oh my God.

[spetznaz]

A couple of personal observations.

For one I watched the movie (something that I think marks me as a tad bit different from quite a number who started to criticize the movie even before it came out without having seen an iota of celluloid or an opening credit). What I saw was a movie that was honestly quite balanced, and let me explain.

Point 1:

If an Israeli (or pro-Israeli person like me) watches the film, and LOOKS FOR SOMETHING TO GET ANGRY OVER, they will definitely find it. For example there is a scene where one of the characters (played by Banner) is having a tete-a-tete with a Palestinian 'freedon fighter' (read: terrorist), and the Palestinian guy starts 'explaining' why they fight and all that. That seems to be one of the several parts that the people claiming that the movie spouts moral equivalency between the Jews and the terrorists. There are some other parts similar to that one where the terrorists claim that the reason they kill is because of what the Israelis did/do to them, and one part actually has a little diatribe where this person states that people need to ask what must have been done to them (the Palestinians) to make them act like 'animals.'

Hence there are sections that some may oscillate towards and criticize.

Personally I have no problem with that! Why? Well, because even today the pointers that the various Palestinian/Arab characters were making are the SAME ONES being made by the Palestinian/Arab terrorists/apologists today. Go to any 'Arab street' anywhere in the ME and ask them why it is 'ok' for homicide bombers to kill innocents in a cafe or bus (or crash planes into buildings or bom embassies), and the average guy in the Islamic nation will say it is because of 'grievances and dehumanization' and all sorts of stupid jazz! Those are the stupid excuses used in the Arab street, even to this day, to justify the murder of innocents. Hence I am not offended if a movie includes the same statements from the people who make them.

If I watched a movie and saw a horse neigh I wouldn't complain that the sound shouldn't have been a neigh but instead a bleat or a moo or a miaow. In the same way if in the real world terrorists say stupid things, I will not go bananas if a movie has the terrorist characters saying the same inanity on celluloid.

Point 2:

If a terrorist (or terrorist sympathizer), or for that matter anyone who doesn't like Israel much (eg your average DUmmie) watches the film they will ALSO find many things that offend them. For example from the very beginning to the very end Spielberg shows what happened to the Jews. The horrors they have faced. And the bravery they show. The speeches by Golda Mier show her as a very brave woman with a lot of weight on her shoulders who is basically forced to defend her country (even though she is seen saying that she didn't want to take this route but now has no other recourse since the world seems willing to merely watch Jews get killed). The Israeli team is seen as always striving their best not to have any innocents killed (even going out of their way to ensure this). And the Israelis are shown as having amazing bravery ....goodness, even the Israeli athletes are shown as brave (for example when one could have escaped, and had made it to an open window, but then stopped, picked up a knife, and ran back to a building rife with armed terrorists to save his friends ....and in the end got killed). Anyone who doesn't like Israel will not like its portrayal in this film. Definitely. Moreover this film will not be getting any awards or recommendations from the PLO, Fatah movement, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qassa, Al Queda, or whatever Islamic kook-group one wants to name. For every 'anti-Israel' facet there are probably 10 'anti Islamic terrorism' aspects in the movie.

Conclusion:

This is one of those movies where someone will see what they are looking for. Look for 'Hollyweird chastizing Israel and trying to spew forth globs of liberal propaganda' and that is EXACTLY what you will find. Look for 'Steven Spielberg, a Mossad-paid Zionist financed by the Zionist conspiracy to make a propaganda film that depicts the lions of Palestine as terrorists and murderers and shows the illegal zionist nation of Israel as legitimate' and THAT is exactly what you will see.

However, watch the movie with an objective mind, and knowing the history of what happened that day in September of 1972, and a far clearer picture will develop. One that doesn't have 'anti-Israel' nor 'Zionist conspiracies' (I always giggle at the whole 'zionist/mossad conspiracy' rants that DUmmies and pro-terrorists use ....it sounds like something from a cheap 1980s cartoon). And for a movie to make both sides claim it is supporting/apologziging for the other side then one has to wonder ....is it doing either? If I make something that has Paul going nuts saying that I am making a propaganda piece for Peter, and at the same time Pete is going bananas asserting that I am being an apologist for Paul, the question has to be asked if I am doing either.

The movie is slow at parts, and at others quite visceral. Overall though I did not see anything that would have me tearing out my hair. In fact I'd bet that a pro-terrorist/terrorist/DUmmie kook would probably hate the movie far more than anyone else.

Just my 0.02 based on my personal observations after watching the movie.

[VOA]

bump