While not without indulgent faults, "Munich" is a well-made thriller and one of Spielberg's best

Rating: 7/10 (25 January 2006)

Spielberg's "Munich" is similar in motive and execution to "A History of Violence." Both films explore the need for and result of vengeful violence. In "Munich," however, this is not Spielberg's primary purpose. "Munich" is first a thriller and second a social commentary. Spielberg first created a top notch thriller and then draped meaning over it. The result is a highly entertaining and well-written dramatization of the 1972 Munich massacre and subsequent retaliation by Israel topped by poorly construed notions of violence.
As the story is about the retaliation against Black September, the film concisely lays out the events leading up to Israel's decision to assassinate the members of Black September. We then follow Avner, possibly the least likely secret agent in all of Hollywood, and his team as they hunt down their targets. I understand Spielberg's need for historical fidelity, but in the interest of making an entertaining film, he should have embellished Avner and his team's talents. They are the worst assassins ever depicted on the screen. The assassinations are well directed, almost Hitchcockian in suspense, but for almost no purpose since the targets have little to no security. After each job the viewer is left wondering, "Why did they make that so difficult?" Despite these minor idiosyncrasies, the film does build suspense quite well, culminating as Avner's team itself is targeted for further retaliation. Eric Bana does well in depicting a father-to-be trying to reconcile his fear and guilt for committing heinous acts.
The kidnapping and murder of the Olympic team is shown repeatedly through flashbacks, with the murders itself shown with extreme gore. As viewers, we are supposed to feel the same need for revenge after the Israel team is murdered. Avner's character is constructed as our surrogate for this vengeance upon Black September, which is possibly why he is depicted as such a family man. Each assassination, however, is shown with the same violence and graphic gore as the murder of the Israeli team itself. This ties the revenge to the original murders, questioning the morality of the acts and serving as visual punishment for the viewer's desire for revenge.
Unfortunately, Spielberg does not use these concepts as well as Cronenberg does in "A History of Violence." Cronenberg uses embarrassment in conjunction with excessive gore, while Spielberg's gore stands alone. And while Spielberg cannot help the time period, "Munich" takes place in 1970s Europe, which is visually different enough to make identification with Avner as a surrogate slightly more difficult. Avner's eventual punishment is another of Spielberg's hackneyed ploys; he is slowly driven mad with fear and he remains unhinged even when he returns to his wife and child. Finally, we are left with a shot of the Twin Towers. This is clearly meant to associate Israel's actions with our own vengeance in the wake of 9/11. The association is too late in the film, however. It seems as if it were thrown in as an afterthought to drive his point home.
In his oeuvre, Spielberg instills a sense of optimism in his films, consistently almost to a fault. It, of course, works in some films, such as "Schindler's List," but is awkward in others, like "War of the Worlds." In "Munich," a film that could do without optimism, he almost overcomes this need before Avner's apparent sexual catharsis spliced with the final moments of the Israeli team's murder. After this almost perverse scene, Avner seems calm and without his paranoia. Is this really a catharsis and is Avner forgiven for his crimes? Even with this scene and with its misconceived moralization of revenge, "Munich" remains as a taut, well-made historical thriller ranking among Spielberg's best.