• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Munich

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
I liked it. Bana was very good, and I thought Spielberg did the best he could to give the Palestinians their side of the story-as much as could be done-and not simply turn it into a revenge/action movie-which he definitely did not. Daniel Craig-the blonde on the team from South Africa-will be the next James Bond,btw.
 
Upvote 0
Not a bad movie, not great, but worth seeing in the theatre. I love how Bill O'Reilly came out and said that Munich and Syriana 'glorified terrorism'. That dipshit comment alone made me want to go see them both.
 
Upvote 0
... Yes, because Spielberg wrote War of the Worlds, it wasn't a rehash of a story written 50 years before.

Munich was awesome. It really drew me into the plot. I wanted the terrorists to die when Bana wanted them to die, and I felt terrible when Bana felt terrible.

The scenes were graphic but necessary.
 
Upvote 0
I absolutely loved Munich. Morons like O'Wrongly and others have blasted it for being sympathetic to terrorists, but if they had taken the time to actually see the movie before criticizing it they would know they were way out of line. It's not as good as Schindler's List (eh, few movies are), but I'd rank it above Saving Private Ryan.
 
Upvote 0
tibor75 said:
I agree. People are stupid. Pearl Harbor and Armageddon made money as well.
Click to expand...

Armageddon was hilarious.

Anyway... I think I'll wait for Munich on DVD... I'm sure its very good... but I don't want to waste a night out to watch a ready made emotion teaser... I already know the story quite well.. and I'll get pissed off before the movie even starts.

Anyway... Saving Private Ryan was, IMO an interesting sort of generic WWII/NOrmandy character study especially considering that it was fictionalized... and the Spielberg/Ambrose factore means that, yes... its going to get sentimental in the end... so what, I think it is reflective to some degree of how that generation looks back on events like those depicted in the film.

War of the Worlds was, on the other hand, pretty bad. While the ending does suck... the ending has been the same since Wells wrote the book in 1890-whatever year it was.(Or 1900 whatever). The point though, isn't the ending.... (but it is certainly more realistic-- if more boring-- than Independence Day, which was also based on the same story). The Point of War of the Worlds was to "wow" a Victorian audience into thinking about the possibility of an extraterrestrial invasion... and the real compelling part of the original was the first person narrative of the main character as he recalls the events that surrounded him (And the various reactions of others). The ending was merely the most plausible explanation for a necessary (good) outcome. The events from the book are adapted pretty well.. but Cruise fails, I think, to translate his personal dilemma to the suffering of humanity outside the interactions he has in the film... either it was a failure on Spielberg/Cruise's part... or they missed the point of the original.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top