who will see it.
I might because I remember the event completely.

Quoted: who will see it. I might because I remember the event completely.

I will becuaue I dont know much about it

I'm going to see it ont he 25th after work, can't wait.

Ditto........though I was still too young to remember that.

I just wonder why Israel didn't take out Yasser Arafat too, didn't he have a part in the murders too?

Anyhow....looking forward to it, even if I have to see it by myself!!

I wasn't around to remember the event but, will be going to the movie, by myself if necessary.

Sword of Gideon was an interesting movie in its day and this looks like Munich has the makings of being excellent. Eric Bana as Avner seemed to work better in the trailer that I would have thought.

Quoted: Quoted: who will see it. I might because I remember the event completely. I will becuaue I dont know much about it

The movie doesn't deal with the actual event as it does the hunting down and killing of the fucks who commited the acts. So you still may not learn to much about it.

When I get home people 'll ask me, "Hey Hoot, why do ya do it man? Why? Just some war junkie?" Ya know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the men next to you, and that's it. That's all it is.

I intend on seeing it.

Aside from the obvious revenge flick, I am interested in middle eastern politics.
I am not sure about Spielberg directing, but it may be okay from what I have heard.

Sure I'd like to go see it

Looks like it could be really good.

I'd strongly recommend checking out One Day in September (1999)

Netflix and Blockbuster both should have it. Probably the best documentary of the event available and you will not fucking believe what you will see.

FWIW the book the movie is based on is considered by those involved to be full of errors.

Quoted: Looks like it could be really good. I'd strongly recommend checking out One Day in September (1999) Netflix and Blockbuster both should have it. Probably the best documentary of the event available and you will not fucking believe what you will see.

+1 excellent doc

Quoted: FWIW the book the movie is based on is considered by those involved to be full of errors.

That's sad to hear.  Maybe the author "movie-fied" it, hoping it would get picked up and converted to script eventually?

Hopefully, Spielberg will "rectify" it, but I'm not optimistic.  Will still probably see it, however..... more as a "movie" than a "documentary".

Not doubting your word, but do you have a link?  Just interested in reading about the errors.

Thanks.

I wondering if they will cover the incident where Mossad killed the wrong guy or the ones where they killed a few bystanders as well as the target.

If it's anything like the stuff I've read about the movie thus far, my knee-jerk answer would be "yes".  Spielberg doesn't make a lot of movies that glorify war/conflict.

Also, as an armchair commando director, I would think something like that would be necessary to move the plot along to it's desired* conclusion.


* from Spielberg's POV

As a kid, I remember seeing Mark Spitz on the news running accross a roof top carring an UZI.
That's when I knew I was a gun nut.

Spielberg directing..Bana starring, I'll see it.

Chopper & BHD were good, but Hulk sucked.

Quoted: Spielberg directing..Bana starring, I'll see it. Chopper & BHD were good, but Hulk sucked.

I blame Ang Lee. Jennifer Connelly is so friggen hot

Will see it hopefully.

It's been in every set of previews in the last 5 or so movies I've seen

and that old woman talking about compromising with that accent is fucking annoying.  I hope the movie isn't as annoying as the preview.

Quoted: Will see it hopefully. It's been in every set of previews in the last 5 or so movies I've seen and that old woman talking about compromising with that accent is fucking annoying.  I hope the movie isn't as annoying as the preview.

I think the old woman is Golda Meir

Quoted: Quoted: I wondering if they will cover the incident where Mossad killed the wrong guy or the ones where they killed a few bystanders as well as the target. I'm sure. Sword of Gideon covered it pretty well. The PLO set the Mossad up pretty well on that. That wasn't a mistake.  The PLO wanted the Mossad to shoot the guy. I am convinced it was a set up.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

I'm talking about the guy in Norway that Mossad misID'd. It wasn't a setup, it was poor intelligence gathering, probably as a result of overzealousness.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I wondering if they will cover the incident where Mossad killed the wrong guy or the ones where they killed a few bystanders as well as the target. I'm sure. Sword of Gideon covered it pretty well. The PLO set the Mossad up pretty well on that. That wasn't a mistake.  The PLO wanted the Mossad to shoot the guy. I am convinced it was a set up. I don't think we are talking about the same thing. I'm talking about the guy in Norway that Mossad misID'd. It wasn't a setup, it was poor intelligence gathering, probably as a result of overzealousness. I'm talking about the guy in Norway.  How do you think they found a guy with a different name, all the way in Norway? They found most of the guys by their intercepts of PLO traffic.  PLO let slip that the guy they were looking for is calling himself so and so and he is in Norway.  So the Mossad wacked him.  Amazingly effective for the PLO.  Everyone remembers how the murdering zionist oppressors killed an innocent man and the Israelis effectively halted the operation for quite some time. What did the PLO lose?  Another arab.  No sweat off their balls. Or do you really think the Israelis took pictures of every arab in the world and matched them with photos?

Like I said, it was poor intelligence gathering.

Quoted: I wondering if they will cover the incident where Mossad killed the wrong guy or the ones where they killed a few bystanders as well as the target.

[rant]Cover it ! I fully expect it to be the main focus of the movie. Terrorists are bad but fighting then via any means other than open law enforcement techniques make us more evil than them.  I think the whole point of the movie is to sow doubt about the war on terrorism. The Hollywood left is basically the propaganda arm of Al Qaeda. [/rant]

Yeah, I was gonna actually post a story the other day 'bout how the "VW people" were releasing that TWA 800 fucker who'd also killed/murdered the U.S. Navy diver.

Gee, you don't think there may have been any "Fuck you very much for all our lost contracts with 'Saddamite' Iraq" in there or anything, do ya?

It looks like Spielberg is completely misrepresenting the attitude of the Israelis in just about every way imaginable and strikes an asinine, moral equivilence between the Israelis and the Arab terrorists.  The message of the movie seems to be fighting terrorism is as bad as terrorism itself, and futile to boot.

Spielberg's Munich Pact
By Debbie Schlussel
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 22, 2005

When Steven Spielberg began filming Munich in June 2004, he set the tone for his fictional movie about Israeli agents who hunted down the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the slaughter of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

Spielberg abruptly stopped filming and closed up shop. Why? Because the 2004 Summer Games were happening in August, and Steven Spielberg didn’t want to upset the terrorists.



That’s what Munich is about: not upsetting the terrorists. And rolling over while they attack and kill us. In Steven Spielberg’s world, not going after terrorists brings peace. In the real world, not going after terrorists brings more bloodshed.



When Spielberg began filming in 2004, it was well known that his film was based on George Jonas’ Vengeance – a book discredited as bunk by both Israeli Mossad agents and Palestinians with actual knowledge of the events depicted. So Spielberg claimed the movie was not based on Vengeance. If it’s not based on the book, then why do the credits of this film say it is?



Spielberg lied.



But not as much as he and admittedly anti-Israel scriptwriter Tony Kushner lied in this two-and-a-half-hour-plus celluloid fairy tale. Like the book on which it’s based, Munich is long, boring, and filled with fakery.



Spielberg’s Golda Meir is unsure about going after the Munich terrorists. She wavers and constantly seeks reassurance that this is the right thing. But the real-life Golda Meir could not have been more certain and intent on killing these terrorists.



Spielberg’s “Black September” terrorist group is named after the Munich terrorists, who murdered the Israeli athletes in September. The real-life “Black September” is so named after Jordan’s massacre of 10,000 Palestinians in September 1970 – causing many Jordanian Palestinians to flee for safety in the West Bank and Israel.



Spielberg’s Palestinian terrorists have deals with CIA officials in which they are paid not to harm American diplomats. Real-life Palestinians in 1973 beat to death U.S. diplomats, like Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore in the Sudan, with Yasser Arafat personally giving the orders. (They were tortured to death and beaten so badly, authorities could not tell which of the two was black and which was white.)



Spielberg’s Palestinian terrorists have cute, young, innocent, piano-playing daughters who will be fatherless. But he never shows the cute, young daughters of the Israeli athletes who were made fatherless – and whose fathers, unlike the Palestinian terrorists, were innocent victims with no choice in the matter.



Spielberg’s Mossad agents say bigoted things like, “The only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood,” and go around killing innocent people at whim. The real-life Mossad agents who hunted the Munich terrorists went to great pains to avoid killing innocents (whether or not they were Jewish), a reason it took so many years and financial resources to get all but one of them. (Jamil Al-Gashey lives safely under the protection of the terror-state Syria.) In real-life, they killed only one innocent man whom they mistakenly believed to be a terrorist – a Moroccan waiter in Norway – for which those Mossad agents responsible were tried, convicted, and imprisoned, something that does not happen in the Spielberg version of events. Spielberg’s Mossad agents complain that Israel has no death penalty, so killing the terrorists violates Israeli law. Real-life Israel does have a death penalty for Nazi war criminals, like Eichmann, and recognized that the Munich terrorists were equally worthy.



Spielberg’s Mossad agents cry and brood a lot, unsure of themselves and why they are pursuing terrorists. Been there, seen that before – in the left-wing Israeli film Walk on Water. But it bears little resemblance to the real Mossad agents who hunted the terrorists. They were not metrosexual, sensitive guys – as badly as Spielberg and Kushner would like them to be. Like Golda Meir, they could not have been more certain of the just purpose of their mission.



Spielberg’s Mossad agents question why they should kill terrorists who murdered innocent people, when they will be replaced by other terrorists. Using that fallacious logic, why have a justice system at all? Bank robbers who go to jail will be replaced by more bank robbers. Ditto for child molesters, rapists, al-Qaeda terrorists, etc.



Then, there is something I haven’t read in other critics’ accounts of Munich – something that made me sick to my stomach. Are the lives of the innocent Israeli athletes so worthless that the scenes in which they are murdered by Palestinian terrorists are interspersed with the self-doubting Mossad agent having sex? How would Steven Spielberg like it if a loved one was shown being bludgeoned in between scenes of a law enforcement official bouncing up and down on top of the agent’s naked wife? This happens twice, the first time with a pregnant woman and a sexual position I thought was reserved for NC-17 and X-rated movies. Thanks for cheapening these murdered athletes’ lives, Spielberg.



From the beginning of this movie, the memories of these innocent victims of terrorism are desecrated, their lives morally equated with Palestinian terrorists’ lives. The work Kushner and Spielberg expended to create this undue symmetry of the asymmetrical is the hardest work they did in the entire film.



What can you expect from the man who said his meeting with Fidel Castro “was the eight most important hours of my life”?



Using voiceovers from TV and radio news accounts of the Olympic massacre, Spielberg presents the media confusion over whether the Israeli athletes and their Palestinian captors survived. Spielberg shows scenes of families of both Israeli athletes and Palestinian terrorists sobbing – as if their relatives are on equal moral footing. After it is confirmed the Israeli athletes were murdered, Spielberg uses news footage showing pictures and names of the Israeli dead. Interspersed with that, he shows Golda Meir and Israeli generals looking though photos and announcing the names of the Palestinian terrorists. They’re equal in this movie – Get it?



That’s the message of this movie: An eye for an eye doesn’t work. Instead we should just allow our enemies to take out both our eyes, with no end in sight. Israel tried Spielberg’s route, and the country’s experience was just the opposite of Spielberg’s message.



When Israel won the Yom Kippur War, when it hunted down the Olympic terrorists, when it invaded Lebanon and had Yasser Arafat in its sites in Beirut, the world respected Israel – and so did its Islamic enemies. And terrorist attacks stopped or slowed. When Israel showed weakness – signing empty peace treaties, like Oslo; pulling out of Southern Lebanon in an hour; and giving away Gaza – the world disdained Israel, and so did the Palestinian terrorists. That's when the terrorist attacks acceleterated. Many more Israelis have been murdered and maimed in the twelve years after the Oslo accords than in the twelve years before.



In Munich, repeated scenes of the Israeli athletes being taken hostage by the Palestinian terrorists show a poster of Masada in the background at their Olympic quarters. Masada was a famous mountain fortress in Israel, where ancients Jews made their last heroic stand against the Romans. Masada became a symbol of Jewish heroism that inspired the imagination and spirit of the founders of Israel.



But the symbolism of the Masada poster is lost on Spielberg. In his Munich vision of the world, he doesn’t want a heroic last stand against terrorists. He just wants us to roll over and die without a fight.



Steven Spielberg built tremendous political capital with the making of Schindler’s List. But he blew it all on Munich. And he just wrote his epitaph with it.

There are a lot of people named Abu in this film – Abu Youssef, Abu Salameh, etc. But the biggest Abu is the one in the credits, Abu Spielberg – Minister of Disinformation.

Alas, Raven, I fear you are correct.

My one ray of hope was an excerpt I saw from a Spielberg interview earlier today.  They prefaced it with mention of how he's received criticism for appearing "soft on terrorists" in the movie (which I felt was one of the understatements of the year).  He countered with something to the effect of: "Even if a decision is 100% the correct course of action, doesn't mean that there aren't consequences in the lives of the people who have to deal with it........ and *that's* the story I'm telling."

I thought: "Well.... maybe."  And then thought: "Hmmn. That sounds a lot like a bug that a PR person might have put in his ear."  Unfortunately, I'm beginning to be more and more convinced the latter is actually the case.

Quoted: It looks like Spielberg is completely misrepresenting the attitude of the Israelis in just about every way imaginable and strikes an asinine, moral equivilence between the Israelis and the Arab terrorists.  The message of the movie seems to be fighting terrorism is as bad as terrorism itself, and futile to boot. Spielberg's Munich Pact By Debbie Schlussel FrontPageMagazine.com | December 22, 2005 When Steven Spielberg began filming Munich in June 2004, he set the tone for his fictional movie about Israeli agents who hunted down the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the slaughter of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Spielberg abruptly stopped filming and closed up shop. Why? Because the 2004 Summer Games were happening in August, and Steven Spielberg didn’t want to upset the terrorists. That’s what Munich is about: not upsetting the terrorists. And rolling over while they attack and kill us. In Steven Spielberg’s world, not going after terrorists brings peace. In the real world, not going after terrorists brings more bloodshed. When Spielberg began filming in 2004, it was well known that his film was based on George Jonas’ Vengeance – a book discredited as bunk by both Israeli Mossad agents and Palestinians with actual knowledge of the events depicted. So Spielberg claimed the movie was not based on Vengeance. If it’s not based on the book, then why do the credits of this film say it is? Spielberg lied. But not as much as he and admittedly anti-Israel scriptwriter Tony Kushner lied in this two-and-a-half-hour-plus celluloid fairy tale. Like the book on which it’s based, Munich is long, boring, and filled with fakery. Spielberg’s Golda Meir is unsure about going after the Munich terrorists. She wavers and constantly seeks reassurance that this is the right thing. But the real-life Golda Meir could not have been more certain and intent on killing these terrorists. Spielberg’s “Black September” terrorist group is named after the Munich terrorists, who murdered the Israeli athletes in September. The real-life “Black September” is so named after Jordan’s massacre of 10,000 Palestinians in September 1970 – causing many Jordanian Palestinians to flee for safety in the West Bank and Israel. Spielberg’s Palestinian terrorists have deals with CIA officials in which they are paid not to harm American diplomats. Real-life Palestinians in 1973 beat to death U.S. diplomats, like Cleo Noel and George Curtis Moore in the Sudan, with Yasser Arafat personally giving the orders. (They were tortured to death and beaten so badly, authorities could not tell which of the two was black and which was white.) Spielberg’s Palestinian terrorists have cute, young, innocent, piano-playing daughters who will be fatherless. But he never shows the cute, young daughters of the Israeli athletes who were made fatherless – and whose fathers, unlike the Palestinian terrorists, were innocent victims with no choice in the matter. Spielberg’s Mossad agents say bigoted things like, “The only blood that matters to me is Jewish blood,” and go around killing innocent people at whim. The real-life Mossad agents who hunted the Munich terrorists went to great pains to avoid killing innocents (whether or not they were Jewish), a reason it took so many years and financial resources to get all but one of them. (Jamil Al-Gashey lives safely under the protection of the terror-state Syria.) In real-life, they killed only one innocent man whom they mistakenly believed to be a terrorist – a Moroccan waiter in Norway – for which those Mossad agents responsible were tried, convicted, and imprisoned, something that does not happen in the Spielberg version of events. Spielberg’s Mossad agents complain that Israel has no death penalty, so killing the terrorists violates Israeli law. Real-life Israel does have a death penalty for Nazi war criminals, like Eichmann, and recognized that the Munich terrorists were equally worthy. Spielberg’s Mossad agents cry and brood a lot, unsure of themselves and why they are pursuing terrorists. Been there, seen that before – in the left-wing Israeli film Walk on Water. But it bears little resemblance to the real Mossad agents who hunted the terrorists. They were not metrosexual, sensitive guys – as badly as Spielberg and Kushner would like them to be. Like Golda Meir, they could not have been more certain of the just purpose of their mission. Spielberg’s Mossad agents question why they should kill terrorists who murdered innocent people, when they will be replaced by other terrorists. Using that fallacious logic, why have a justice system at all? Bank robbers who go to jail will be replaced by more bank robbers. Ditto for child molesters, rapists, al-Qaeda terrorists, etc. Then, there is something I haven’t read in other critics’ accounts of Munich – something that made me sick to my stomach. Are the lives of the innocent Israeli athletes so worthless that the scenes in which they are murdered by Palestinian terrorists are interspersed with the self-doubting Mossad agent having sex? How would Steven Spielberg like it if a loved one was shown being bludgeoned in between scenes of a law enforcement official bouncing up and down on top of the agent’s naked wife? This happens twice, the first time with a pregnant woman and a sexual position I thought was reserved for NC-17 and X-rated movies. Thanks for cheapening these murdered athletes’ lives, Spielberg. From the beginning of this movie, the memories of these innocent victims of terrorism are desecrated, their lives morally equated with Palestinian terrorists’ lives. The work Kushner and Spielberg expended to create this undue symmetry of the asymmetrical is the hardest work they did in the entire film. What can you expect from the man who said his meeting with Fidel Castro “was the eight most important hours of my life”? Using voiceovers from TV and radio news accounts of the Olympic massacre, Spielberg presents the media confusion over whether the Israeli athletes and their Palestinian captors survived. Spielberg shows scenes of families of both Israeli athletes and Palestinian terrorists sobbing – as if their relatives are on equal moral footing. After it is confirmed the Israeli athletes were murdered, Spielberg uses news footage showing pictures and names of the Israeli dead. Interspersed with that, he shows Golda Meir and Israeli generals looking though photos and announcing the names of the Palestinian terrorists. They’re equal in this movie – Get it? That’s the message of this movie: An eye for an eye doesn’t work. Instead we should just allow our enemies to take out both our eyes, with no end in sight. Israel tried Spielberg’s route, and the country’s experience was just the opposite of Spielberg’s message. When Israel won the Yom Kippur War, when it hunted down the Olympic terrorists, when it invaded Lebanon and had Yasser Arafat in its sites in Beirut, the world respected Israel – and so did its Islamic enemies. And terrorist attacks stopped or slowed. When Israel showed weakness – signing empty peace treaties, like Oslo; pulling out of Southern Lebanon in an hour; and giving away Gaza – the world disdained Israel, and so did the Palestinian terrorists. That's when the terrorist attacks acceleterated. Many more Israelis have been murdered and maimed in the twelve years after the Oslo accords than in the twelve years before. In Munich, repeated scenes of the Israeli athletes being taken hostage by the Palestinian terrorists show a poster of Masada in the background at their Olympic quarters. Masada was a famous mountain fortress in Israel, where ancients Jews made their last heroic stand against the Romans. Masada became a symbol of Jewish heroism that inspired the imagination and spirit of the founders of Israel. But the symbolism of the Masada poster is lost on Spielberg. In his Munich vision of the world, he doesn’t want a heroic last stand against terrorists. He just wants us to roll over and die without a fight. Steven Spielberg built tremendous political capital with the making of Schindler’s List. But he blew it all on Munich. And he just wrote his epitaph with it. There are a lot of people named Abu in this film – Abu Youssef, Abu Salameh, etc. But the biggest Abu is the one in the credits, Abu Spielberg – Minister of Disinformation.

That's a pretty accurate summary.

However, she left out the fact that there is a tremendously disturbing scene in this movie where the Isreali agents go completely off mission for a personal vendetta.

I really wish that I had not seen this movie.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I wondering if they will cover the incident where Mossad killed the wrong guy or the ones where they killed a few bystanders as well as the target. I'm sure. Sword of Gideon covered it pretty well. The PLO set the Mossad up pretty well on that. That wasn't a mistake.  The PLO wanted the Mossad to shoot the guy. I am convinced it was a set up. I don't think we are talking about the same thing. I'm talking about the guy in Norway that Mossad misID'd. It wasn't a setup, it was poor intelligence gathering, probably as a result of overzealousness. I'm talking about the guy in Norway.  How do you think they found a guy with a different name, all the way in Norway? They found most of the guys by their intercepts of PLO traffic.  PLO let slip that the guy they were looking for is calling himself so and so and he is in Norway.  So the Mossad wacked him.  Amazingly effective for the PLO.  Everyone remembers how the murdering zionist oppressors killed an innocent man and the Israelis effectively halted the operation for quite some time. What did the PLO lose?  Another arab.  No sweat off their balls. Or do you really think the Israelis took pictures of every arab in the world and matched them with photos? Like I said, it was poor intelligence gathering.

The intelligence gathering in this movie was completely laughable at best. In reality they probably would not have lasted 15 minutes.