Munich
 

Crappy movie......only movie I walked out on.

It was quite good, IMO. Dunno what you were expecting.

It was entertaining, without being that awesome. It was a good film for that genre.

Thank you for the fantastic constructive review.

It was slow, but I expected it to be. It's the kind of movie that I enjoyed once, but probably will not watch again.

Oh, and even though it was slow, all the pieces were relevant. I never found myself thinking "they could've cut this whole section out."

I cut out when they were on the boardwalk then snuck in to Harry potter.

I also saw a Preview for an Americans Idol type movie that was so racist; An Arab-american teen trys out for Idol half way through the previews we find out he's a terrorist and will blow up the president when he goes to shake his hand (The president shakes the winners hand).

Yeah it's a satire.

Looks pretty damn good too. A lot like Saved. Written and Directed by the same guy who wrote and directed In Good Company which was also a rather fantastic movie.

I thought About A Boy was pretty good too. It's got a good cast as well. I don't care what anyone says about Hugh Grant, I enjoy his work.

Apparently Munich is based on a totally fabricated account of the events. Which is strange, when other, real accounts are apparently available.

They are probably boring though

Well since they all involve hunting down and killing terrorists (and one man killed wrongly in a case of mistaken identity which apparently is missing from the film) it's doubtful.

They used the account of a man who invented a life as a Mossad agent. The problem is that the film is portrayed as factual, featuring historical figures.

Wait. What?

It's not factual?

LOL.. WTF.

'Based on a True Story' takes another blow.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/...686617,00.html

There's another article somewhere I read about the "Avner" character also. Still looking.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/stor...687971,00.html

Found.

I told my friends I didn't feel like seeing this movie because I know what happened already and I didn't really feel like seeing a retelling of the event. Knowing that it isn't factually based only backs my opinion. What the fuck is the point of making a movie about a true story, but not sticking to the truth? Do they think people won't catch on?

Most people won't, and will walk away from this film thinking this is historical fact.

Indeed. In fact one of the sales guys from work saw it and was speaking about it in terms of historical merit.

The last issue of Maclean's had a cover story from the author of the book tearing apart the movie

Munich?

Yeah, I know. If the producers of Munich aren't careful, they could wind up with another bomb on the scale of Titanic!

Saw it today. An amazing film, I've really stopped buying the whole based on a true story bit anyway (because technically it somewhat was, in that Munich did happen, merely the story of the aftermath presented here is fiction, they should have chosen the word Inspired rather than Based I suppose) so I never really thought that Munich was trying to be historically accurate. On a technical level this film is amazing, perfectly directed and fantastically acted. One of the best films of the year.

American Dreamz the trailer you saw.

When it uses a historical event that actually occurred and then uses real historical figures like Golda Meir, it implies a historical accuracy.

Like "Shakespeare In Love?"

Keep in mind, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

What's your point? I haven't seen it so you'll have to elaborate. Does it claim to be based on truth or does it present itself as accurate in any way?

Not that I recall, but "it uses a historical event that actually occurred and then uses real historical figures." But, there isn't necessarily the implication of historical accuracy when those factors are present.

Again, I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying that just because a movie is set during a historical event and uses historical figures, it doesn't always mean that it should be taken as fact.

You got to see some chicks boobs.

Or Pear Harbour (not that I'd ever try to compare Munich to such a black mark on cinema)

Wow Savior, your posts in this thread gradually got more and more fucking stupid.

I'm not saying it does, I'm saying that people will inevitably take it as historical fact.

Shakespeare is a different case, since Shakespeare is a rather murky historical figure anyway. He was also apparently gay, or bisexual, or perhaps even a number of different people.

Munich deals with modern events. Events that do, in fact, have a bearing on today's reality and how people see the world, in some part how we've reached where we are as of now. Things like Shakespeare having a comedic romantic romp, not so much.

The omission of the killing of an innocent man by mistaken identity is particularly bizarre.

Thanks Triple A, I kinda figured He wasn't talking about munich.

That is something that really gets to me about historical movies. For me, I would prefer if they made them accurate rather than making them a little more exciting. Like the movie Elizabeth, according to people on IMDB, is really off historically. When I watched it I was under the impression that it was accurate, so that was disappointing. And like in Braveheart, there are random things off all over. Are there any historical movies that don't ruin the real story?

"Blow" maybe......but blow sucked.