Universal Pictures | Release Date: December 23, 2005
8.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 518 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
407
Mixed:
66
Negative:
45
Watch Now
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
ColmBJun 14, 2009
Too long, shot in constant darkness and not something I'd recommend.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
beingryanjudeSep 3, 2014
The events surrounding the 1972 Olympics in Munich, Germany are terrifying real-life acts of terrorism--prime for a cinematic take. Unfortunately, Spielberg loses focus somewhere along the way.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
G.SaundersMay 30, 2006
Pedantic. A modest 90 minute tale crammed in to 160 minutes.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ClintM.Jan 9, 2006
Maybe I need to see this filme again to fully grasp all that it's trying to say? I'm not sure? It's not that I didn't enjoy the movie ... the story was fairly compelling ... and Eric Bana is wonderful to watch ... I guess Maybe I need to see this filme again to fully grasp all that it's trying to say? I'm not sure? It's not that I didn't enjoy the movie ... the story was fairly compelling ... and Eric Bana is wonderful to watch ... I guess I just went into it with different expectations. I don't see it to be the award worthy film many have made it out to be, but that's not to say it's not a good movie overall and worth a watch. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
NirmalK.Feb 2, 2006
I think my expectations were too high from Steven Spielberg and all the reviews. It was a good but film could have been less repetitious in number of executions and dealt more with main theme
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RadioLadyDec 20, 2005
[***SPOILERS***] Disappointing story which "re-imagines" 1972 history. The movie is long and poorly plotted. It was hard to follow due to jumping around from one country to another. They had to concoct odd ways of killing these people, not[***SPOILERS***] Disappointing story which "re-imagines" 1972 history. The movie is long and poorly plotted. It was hard to follow due to jumping around from one country to another. They had to concoct odd ways of killing these people, not simply SHOOTING THEM. And then we find out some were NOT EVEN THE TRUE PLO MURDERERS themselves, but other people the Israel group deemed were also bad people. (Really? Why show us eleven pictures and then move to others seemingly not directly involved?) Motivations were blunted and there was so much that was make-believe that it ended up seeming like farce. (People pointing guns at the enemy, while all holed up at a "safe house," one Israeli bombmaker doing things with toys.) I dunno. I'm a big Spielberg fan, but this was not his finest work, and I surely don't see the film as the best of 2005. Postscript: This film opens on 12/23/05 here in Portland, Oregon. All I could think of was it's a kind of a weird pre-Chanukah gift. It does not make me, an American Jew, feel better about the state of Israel and the way it may have acted either now or in the past. 4/10 Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
ElliottJan 8, 2006
Okay... I left the theater certainly feeling deeply affected, though I was definitely skeptical of this emotional feeling, and also felt that I had been manipulated in some way... Furthermore, the last act of the film or so was a little Okay... I left the theater certainly feeling deeply affected, though I was definitely skeptical of this emotional feeling, and also felt that I had been manipulated in some way... Furthermore, the last act of the film or so was a little disorienting and I thought that the film set itself up just fine, and then gradually lost its way more and more as the film went on. Also, the Dallas Observer review is absolutely DEAD-ON. It's impeccably written and encpasulates all of my qualms with the film. Thus, I am giving the film a 4, much like metacritic awarded the film a 4 (40) based on Mr. Wilonsky's review. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RichardM.Feb 16, 2006
Spielberg attempts to convey the futility of tit-for-tat killing by sujecting his audience to a mind-numbing and unemotional two and a half hours of graphic and gory tit-for-tat killing. Superbly filmed (as always with Spielberg) but offers Spielberg attempts to convey the futility of tit-for-tat killing by sujecting his audience to a mind-numbing and unemotional two and a half hours of graphic and gory tit-for-tat killing. Superbly filmed (as always with Spielberg) but offers no helpful ideas on the film's topic. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
DaveA.Jul 2, 2006
Goddard once said that "cinema is truth 24 frames a second." If that is true, then speilberg's cinema is the antithesis of that quote. Spilberg's films are lies 24 frmaes a second, every cut is the truth.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
LanceSep 4, 2006
This is not a film about Munich, its a film about Sept 11 and how should a civalised society response to terrorist attacks. Unforunently it spends too much time on school boy moralising over the rights or wrongs of assinations and yet misses This is not a film about Munich, its a film about Sept 11 and how should a civalised society response to terrorist attacks. Unforunently it spends too much time on school boy moralising over the rights or wrongs of assinations and yet misses a key moral point of the whole Munich story. The Isreali assasins killed an innocent man after mistaking him for a terrorist. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
Richardb.Jan 11, 2006
"Munich" is essentially "mission impossible" with angst; the fingerpointing problem with arabs & jews is small change compared to the paranoid core plot conceit, which makes the big pharma conspiracy theories of constant gardener look "Munich" is essentially "mission impossible" with angst; the fingerpointing problem with arabs & jews is small change compared to the paranoid core plot conceit, which makes the big pharma conspiracy theories of constant gardener look reasonable. the acting is good, the lead guy is more than good, but its way too long and theres a montage near the end that will forever be cited in film-making classes as something not to do when parallel editing. to the gods of cinema i pray, no more films way too loosely "based on a true story"! pretty please. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JohnP.Jan 17, 2006
I must say this movie has sparked lots of comment and Controversey, I personally felt the move needed help, It was way long, and Assassins with a conscious doesn't fly with me. I am greatful that this forum allows many points of view. I must say this movie has sparked lots of comment and Controversey, I personally felt the move needed help, It was way long, and Assassins with a conscious doesn't fly with me. I am greatful that this forum allows many points of view. Agree or Disagree each person here are giving there opinion. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ArtFeb 14, 2006
Amazingly tense - definately one of the most exciting films I've ever seen. But a realistic portrayal of the events, I think not! All the "true" events seem too perfectly choreographed, every single murder has a twist that ramps the Amazingly tense - definately one of the most exciting films I've ever seen. But a realistic portrayal of the events, I think not! All the "true" events seem too perfectly choreographed, every single murder has a twist that ramps the tension higher and higher until you jump out of your seat. I'm not saying this is a bad thing; judged against almost any other thriller this would win, hands down. However it's unfair to call it a great piece of political drama. I found myself wishing I wasn't enjoying myself so much, knowing that someone really did kill these people, and overall I found it slightly disrespectful to use a truly horrific set of events just to tease an audience. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
LindaL.Feb 4, 2006
Spielberg knows how to make a movie; the performances held my attention despite the film's length. But I'm really disturbed by the way he twists the truth, here. There are major efforts to humanize the Palestinian terrorists, while Spielberg knows how to make a movie; the performances held my attention despite the film's length. But I'm really disturbed by the way he twists the truth, here. There are major efforts to humanize the Palestinian terrorists, while we don't get more than a glimpse of the Israeli athletes who were slaughtered. Yeah, we know this is a conflict in which lots of people suffer and die. No news flash there. But the clear implication that this is what led to 9/11 is ridiculous. All violence is not morally equivalent! Why not conjure your own (fictional) film rather than fabricate one around real events you claim "inspired" your movie? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
AntonR.May 29, 2006
Good but not great. Had this been cut down to a taut two hours, it really could've worked. But as it stands now, it feels slow and badly paced, like a rough assemblage waiting for a skilled editor's hands. The ending is a Good but not great. Had this been cut down to a taut two hours, it really could've worked. But as it stands now, it feels slow and badly paced, like a rough assemblage waiting for a skilled editor's hands. The ending is a disappointment; it reaches no sense of closure. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
PatC.Jun 30, 2006
Lackluster portrayal of Israeli espionage in action. Documentary one moment, editorializing the next, it never finds its flow.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
T.M.Mar 16, 2007
I recall that this film was nominated for best picture in the 2006 Oscar season. It was only nominated only because Spielberg can do no wrong in Hollywood, because this film is NOT best picture material at all. Repetitive, manipulative, I recall that this film was nominated for best picture in the 2006 Oscar season. It was only nominated only because Spielberg can do no wrong in Hollywood, because this film is NOT best picture material at all. Repetitive, manipulative, overlong, hard to follow, muddled, unpleasant, sickening, and just not good at all. BTW, Lance (the person who loved the death scene of the female assassin), you are a real sicko. That was probably the most tasteless scene in a movie full of tasteless scenes. Did you revel in the image of her descrated body after the older guy pulled off the cover Eric Bana's character had draped over her? You have truly become desensitized by movies like this, if that's the case. Spielberg has lost it with this one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
JonathanF.Dec 23, 2005
"No doubt what happened at Munich was a black eye for humanity..but so was the way Spielberg "dialed in" this one. And I'm a big fan..trust me on that. What a poor script and weak presentation. The scenes were ridiculous, the acting was "No doubt what happened at Munich was a black eye for humanity..but so was the way Spielberg "dialed in" this one. And I'm a big fan..trust me on that. What a poor script and weak presentation. The scenes were ridiculous, the acting was not at all believable and the storyline seems like it was thrown together just to get the thing finished. I couldn't wait for it to be over. And just my luck, it was close to 3hrs long. I can't believe Spielberg signed off on this one. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the studio screened this one..He's lucky that for one, he is Spielberg and secondly, most reviewers/reviews get lost in the emotional aspects of what happened at the Munich Olympics. No doubt a sad and mournful tale. However, that aside, this movie is just terribly done..bottom line!" Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
billys.Dec 30, 2005
Oh, now I get it... Palestinians are evil doers who kill Jews and feel nothing. Jews are good people who can kill Palestinians for revenge, but they're still good because they will suffer terrible guilt for doing it. Speilberg says the Oh, now I get it... Palestinians are evil doers who kill Jews and feel nothing. Jews are good people who can kill Palestinians for revenge, but they're still good because they will suffer terrible guilt for doing it. Speilberg says the film shows both sides fairly but the closing shot sure tells you which way He's leaning! The fall from my anticipation high for this film might be critical! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ConnieM.Feb 19, 2006
Warning: Spielberg's 'Munich' was filled with graphic violence, sex and gore. This is not a film to teach a class 'history'. I am glad that the movie was made because as with Schindler's List people need to be Warning: Spielberg's 'Munich' was filled with graphic violence, sex and gore. This is not a film to teach a class 'history'. I am glad that the movie was made because as with Schindler's List people need to be reminded of the inhumanity Anti-Semitism breeds; but, 'Munich' lacked detail and background in an effort to be what too many see as a 'balanced' point of view. The cineamatography was wonderfuly European and slick. The 'jewish injokes' were fabulous (I fear I was the only one who 'got it' here in Kansas) and I could not get over how much detail was given to locations and sets. Yet I fear it was too long. After all the emotional abuse I didn't have much left for the end. They should do a tighter, more spartan 'directors cut' for the DVD. PS If anybody wants more background they should pick up "One Day in September' a documentary about what happened in 'Munich'. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MikeB.Mar 19, 2006
Impeccable looking movie, sags a bit in the second half as we examine and reexamine the angst of violence. Most important, the director's striving for "balance" between Israel and Palestine is emotional camouflage. His true bias is Impeccable looking movie, sags a bit in the second half as we examine and reexamine the angst of violence. Most important, the director's striving for "balance" between Israel and Palestine is emotional camouflage. His true bias is distinctly American. Spielberg preaches "peace" in this film. No doubt he's sincere. As it happens, though, Israel can only be maintained by struggle. Realistically, how else can a few million people expect to hold out among more than a billion Muslims? Spielberg is not a Jew in any absolute sense. In the end his lead character in the movie abandons the land given by God to his ancestors and the director clearly approves. Why be a fanatic, he suggests, when you can retreat to Manhattan and live comfortably. The Jews are at bottom a religion, that's why they've endured as a distinct entity. By comparison, Zionism is very young but the two impulses tend to bond strongly in their commitment to Israel. Religious Jews believe that they are a covenant people with a unique relationship to the Creator. If that's true, Islam will erode and crumble before Jewry, whatever the odds look like now. In the Jewish view (and Christian), there is no God but God and Mohammed is not His prophet. His religion is built on sand, it will fall sooner or later, as the Lord decrees That statement would earn me a death sentence in many Islamic countries. I wonder if this website's editor will permit it to pass. Religious and Zionist Jews do not expect the defense of Israel to be easy. Any more than defending freedom will be easy. Quitters are easy to understand but not so easy to admire. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DamianP.May 12, 2006
Well made, but fairly boring.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DanB.Dec 24, 2005
It's pretty silly, as any sort of commentary. It's like what Syriana would have been if it wasn't smart and didn't do its research. The acting is great (but Bana seems to always be good no matter what he's in?), and It's pretty silly, as any sort of commentary. It's like what Syriana would have been if it wasn't smart and didn't do its research. The acting is great (but Bana seems to always be good no matter what he's in?), and as a film it's not bad. But it's just a bunch of make believe. Which would be ok except that its purporting to be *real*, but all it's got is a bunch of Hollywood pathos. I mean come on--the scene near the end with the main character doing his wife, intercut with memories of the murder in Munich? Gag me. I don't think it portrays either the Israelis or the Arabs particularly well. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MattS.Dec 27, 2005
Dull. beautiful to look at. but poorly acted and scripted. unlike movies like 'goodnight and goodluck' and 'brokeback mountain', the script for 'munich' has to spell out everything. the ending shot of the twin Dull. beautiful to look at. but poorly acted and scripted. unlike movies like 'goodnight and goodluck' and 'brokeback mountain', the script for 'munich' has to spell out everything. the ending shot of the twin towers in nyc at the end of the 70s is manipulitative and offensive. like many Spielberg 'serious' films, it looks good, it's marketed well.....and its thuddingly dull and moderately offensive to those w/a working brain. its also technically a marvel to look at. the academy will somehow overlook many, many superior films and include this in the 5 best picture academy award nominees. it will not win. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MarcK.Dec 29, 2005
[***Possible Spoilers] I had a real problem with the politics of this movie. Additionally, Spielberg uses a lot of typical Hollywood film cliches...the worst one being at the end when he's cross-cutting between the shooting of the [***Possible Spoilers] I had a real problem with the politics of this movie. Additionally, Spielberg uses a lot of typical Hollywood film cliches...the worst one being at the end when he's cross-cutting between the shooting of the Isreali athletes in Munich and the lead character making love to his wife. Oh yeah...this film was very, very long. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
TyranianOct 21, 2019
Has some great scenes and is well-acted but parts of the story don't really come together.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
amheretojudgeApr 24, 2018
who can say when it falls..

Munich Another one of Speilberg's factual feature where the audience feels like encountering series of news and information delivered to them for more than 160 minutes with few high pitched dramatic and action
who can say when it falls..

Munich

Another one of Speilberg's factual feature where the audience feels like encountering series of news and information delivered to them for more than 160 minutes with few high pitched dramatic and action sequences installed to hold the audience in this overlong journey. Steven Speilberg delivers without a doubt some good drama and dinner table conversations that speaks a lot about the character's bonding than the journey itself does. Eric Bana is convincingly good (especially the first time when he talks to his daughter on phone) and is supported with a great cast like Daniel Craig and Ciaran Hinds. Munich is an essential one but certainly isn't an entertaining one for the timeline and the subjective part of it overpowers the drama and the characters involved in it.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
akshatmahajanOct 18, 2020
Munich was a wasted opportunity. The plot was great but the way of execution was not great. The pacing was a big problem, there were so many unnecessary scenes. Acting was good, loved them all. The script was good, adaptation was also good.Munich was a wasted opportunity. The plot was great but the way of execution was not great. The pacing was a big problem, there were so many unnecessary scenes. Acting was good, loved them all. The script was good, adaptation was also good. The only problem I think was with movie was it's running time and the pace. Overall, it's different experience and you should give it a try. But I shall tell you that you may not want to watch it more than once. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews