My extended review of the film

Rating: Null/10 (30 January 2006)

The word limit unfortunately limits how much I can say here, and I'm sure that there is more to say. These are however some thoughts of mine after seeing 'Munich' for the second time in a cinema after a friend invited me to see it again with him.
'Munich' has been criticised by some for its ambiguity, but if anything, I think Spielberg's refusal to take sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflicts is the best aspect of the film. It is not condoning the actions of Palestinian terrorists, but neither is it supportive of the way in which Israel reacts. There is hardly any bias in the film, which should satisfy those who thought that 'Schindler's List' was not ambiguous enough. According to some reviewers, Spielberg's film is too ambiguous this time round though. Personally, I do not agree to either of those charges. Sometimes the pettiest of reasons are used to badmouth a film. Then again, I'm sure some will regard my supportive comments as petty. So, I will not call 'Munich' the second best film that I have seen this decade, even though it feels that way to me. I'll just take this opportunity to provide some thoughts on why I believe it to be very good. The plot of the film is best discussed when one knows everything that happens in the film. Therefore, I would advise to not read ahead if you have not already seen 'Munich'. My discussion from this point forth, contains spoilers that may ruin a fresh experience.
It is hard to condense what the film is about to just one issue, but ultimately it is about the futility of the violence between Palestinians and Israelis. Spielberg does not try to argue who is right or who is wrong, as the reason why the conflicts have started is not important, and this idea is mirrored in the five men unofficially hired by the Israeli government. The assassins do not have any proof of the guilt of those who they are going after, which leads them to at times question whether they are doing right. The one thing that they seem to all fall back on is that even if their targets were not responsible for Munich, they are responsible for other acts of terrorism against the Jews, a point emphasised at the end by Ephraim. But is that good enough reason?
Something I find interesting is that none of the killings go as planned, except for one. With the first killing, they are nervous, with the next couple the explosions are too big, and the list goes on. Also, they meet innocent bystanders or other people who may indirectly suffer at every killing scene except the first. The only assassination that they get right, and do not meet any possible indirect sufferers at, is the Dutch woman who was hired to kill Carl. The whole temptress subplot involving her is significant. The reason why they are able to do such a good job killing her is because there is no doubt to her guilt, and they were directly affected by her actions. Avner experiences twice the effects of the others though, because not only did the temptress make him think about cheating on his wife, he was also the one who recommended her to Carl.
The film is also about how involvement in conflicts can have everlasting effects. Each of the five assassins experiences suffering as a result of their work. The characters are all very human - not at all like the typical image one has as a hired assassin. They come close to mucking up their very first job, and they dash frantically out afterwards. They are insecure and doubtful about how much of the truth they are being told. As for the actual effects that they suffer, the details are unimportant. It does not matter whether Robert and Hans decided to kill themselves or whether they were assassinated (Spielberg leaves this question hanging). Their involvement in the conflict killed them. Carl died too, and Avner emerges paranoid. We do not see the detrimental effect on Steve, but we still understand it to exist. Steve is strong on the outside, but who knows what he is like inside.
The technical aspects of the film are excellent. The camera-work is stunning, with plenty of movement, both following the characters around, and dollying to get close up to television screen and important details. The editing is brilliant, with scene changes including papers being shuffled on a desk turning into papers flying in the street, and the editing in of actual footage flows perfectly. The film actually balances two plot lines that are weaved in thanks to clever editing. At certain times, the actual hostage happenings at Munich are shown, almost like flashbacks - they fade in and out, with matching colour designs. The colour and lighting work is general is great too.
There is no doubt something to admire in the art direction also. The backgrounds are mood setting, and it is really interesting to look at the contrast between set up between children in swimwear, running around when Ephraim and Avner first go for a walk, compared to the stillness of the New York backdrop at the end. John Williams' music score includes some drum work this time round, and it is most effective in keeping up the suspense and intensity of certain scenes. It goes without saying that Spielberg does a good job in the director's chair, so the last thing to mention is the acting. Eric Bana is probably the best of the cast, as a man who loses any innocence that he might have once had forever, but all of the supporting cast do fine. Overall, it is a very impressive piece of cinema with plenty that can be looked into in finer details. I would consider say some more here, but IMDb's word limit plays a limiting factor there.