Spielberg's MUNICH Lambasted in Early Reviews

[AndyDursin]

Following on the disappointment of WAR OF THE WORLDS (at least for myself and some viewers), two of the first reviews on MUNICH have been nothing short of scathing -- a big surprise given this was his "serious" Oscar contender. In fact, one could say this is as bad a review as you'll ever read for a "serious" Spielberg picture -- I remember EMPIRE OF THE SUN (which I loved) being criticized by certain people, but not to this degree...hopefully we'll see more positive comments as we approach its release.

Daily Variety:
"Pic simply does not sustain intellectual interest on a meaningful level... general public will be glancing at their watches...As Steven Spielberg ponders the pointlessness of tit-for-tat retaliation between Israelis and Palestinians, audiences will weigh "Munich" and find it wanting -- wanting involving characters and economical storytelling, for starters....[Pic] takes its own sweet time making obvious points about the Jewish nation compromising its own values, and in the process forgets to be a pulse-quickening suspenser...flabby script by playwright Tony Kushner and Eric Roth...

...It's rare for such a popular entertainer as Spielberg to fail to provide a rooting interest or, in its absence, a point of entry to one of his films. But the very premise of the film, that violence simply spawns more violence, runs contrary to viewer involvement, especially when the central character, the only one about whom any personal details are provided, is simply not very compelling. "
http://www.variety.com/VE1117929081.html

New Republic:
"A few days before I read in Time that Steven Spielberg's new movie is so significant that there had been no advance screenings of it, I went to an advance screening of it. The fakery is everywhere, isn't it, though in this instance it nicely captures the self-importance of this pseudo-controversial film. The makers of Munich seem to think that it is itself an intervention in the historical conflict that it portrays. For this reason, perhaps, they have devised a movie that wishes to be shocking and inoffensive at the same time."
http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=2 ... rist121905

At any rate, between WOTW and MUNICH and the sale of Dreamworks, this could be one year Spielberg may want to forget...

[mkaroly]

So I guess I should ask this....IF (and I stress IF) this movie tanks what does Spielberg do next? Should he take a break? He usually releases one movie every year- including THE TERMINAL he's released 3 films in the past year and a half? (I don't remember the release date for THE TERMINAL). Last time he released two films was in 2002 with CMIYC and MR.....should he take a break?? I think it may be time to slow down. INDY 4 and Abe Lincoln thing in 2007.....nothing for 2006. Good- he needs the time to take his time.

[MarkB]

This is disappointing to hear. I had been a little worried when I'd recently read comments by Spielberg where he said he intended for the movie to somehow advance the peace process in the Middle East. He seemed to be admitting that his priority was to make a "message picture." But any "message" is going to be lost on the audience if the film doesn't hold their interest in the first place.

Just tell the story in the most interesting way possible and let the audience find the message on their own. "If you want to send a message, try Western Union."

Of course, I'll still see it. But my expectations have definitely been lowered.

Mark

[MarkB]

At any rate, between WOTW and MUNICH and the sale of Dreamworks, this could be one year Spielberg may want to forget...

To be fair, WOTW was a critical and commercial success, though I still don't see why. I just finished watching the 2-disc LE DVD. After watching the entertaining behind-the-scenes material, I thought I should give the movie itself another chance. Sadly, I liked it even less the second time around.

I consider myself a Spielberg fan. But of his films from the past couple of years, the only one I found completely satisfying was CMIYC. The others ranged from so-so to "just" good. There's nothing wrong with that for most filmmakers, but I've come to expect more from Spielberg.

I've read recently where he said his interests have changed over the years and that we shouldn't expect another family/fantasy movie like E.T. He compared himself to Woody Allen, who is always getting asked to make purely comedic movies like he did back in the seventies.

Mark

[AndyDursin]

At any rate, between WOTW and MUNICH and the sale of Dreamworks, this could be one year Spielberg may want to forget...

To be fair, WOTW was a critical and commercial success, though I still don't see why. I just finished watching the 2-disc LE DVD. After watching the entertaining behind-the-scenes material, I thought I should give the movie itself another chance. Sadly, I liked it even less the second time around.

I consider myself a Spielberg fan. But of his films from the past couple of years, the only one I found completely satisfying was CMIYC. The others ranged from so-so to "just" good. There's nothing wrong with that for most filmmakers, but I've come to expect more from Spielberg.

I've read recently where he said his interests have changed over the years and that we shouldn't expect another family/fantasy movie like E.T. He compared himself to Woody Allen, who is always getting asked to make purely comedic movies like he did back in the seventies.

Mark

I'm not sure I'd label it an outright "critical" success. There were a fair amount of mixed reviews that came out in its wake (not just from me, lol).

Commercially it certainly did well, but given its budget, it wasn't a huge "blockbuster." Based on recent past genre films, you have to remember it didn't come anywhere near ID4/MEN IN BLACK/JURASSIC PARK/PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN numbers, just for a comparison.

I agree with you, though, Mark: CATCH ME IF YOU CAN was highly entertaining and the best of Spielberg's recent films, though even there, I felt like as a viewer, I was being held at arm's length from the movie's soul...that may not make any sense, but I found it curiously detached and not particularly moving, as if Spielberg held up TOO much on the emotion (perhaps in response to how, usually, most critics say his films are over-done -- not that I'd agree with that personally, however).

THE TERMINAL was watchable but a misfire by his standards, and I admit that I overrated MINORITY REPORT based on one viewing.

Overall, we've had this discussion before, I believe his track record has more or less been derailed in the post-Schindler's List era from the consistency and excellence that marked his earlier films.

[AndyDursin]

Fox News' entertaining Fox411 column has some hopeful comments about MUNICH -- saying it may be part of a Spielberg backlash, and that the movie was more satisfying than most of this Christmas season's offerings.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178337,00.html

'Munich': Spielberg Backlash Begins

"Munich," a movie I still think is exciting, thought provoking and easily the most interesting film of 2005, is taking a beating already.

Variety trashed it on Friday and apparently plans another thrashing on Monday. Leon Wieseltier, writing in The New Republic from a vitriolic point of view, had nothing good to say about it.

Something weird is going on here. "Munich" is a good movie. Its actions scenes are pulse inducing. The historical context for it is a perfect setting for drama. Eric Bana, as Avner, the lead character, could not be better.

So why is "Munich" taking a hit? It could be that it's too much Spielberg in 2005. "War of the Worlds," released in June, became something of a cause celebre because of star Tom Cruise's insane antics on "Oprah" and in other venues. Between his insta romance with Katie Holmes and his denunciation of psychiatry on the "Today" show, Cruise became bigger than the movie.

Perhaps what's happening to "Munich" before it's been seen by most reviewers is just a delayed reaction fatigue to Spielberg from that unpleasant episode. After all, no one likes a smarty pants, and Spielberg's insistence on making two big movies in one year may have alienated a lot of people.

It doesn't help that "Munich" is getting some poor notices just as Spielberg's studio, Dreamworks, has been reportedly sold to Paramount for $1.6 billion. "Munich" is a co-production with Universal, the major studio that opted not to buy Dreamworks after a lengthy negotiation.

But Universal may have guessed the obvious: Spielberg's next movie, "Indiana Jones 4," certain to be a mega blockbuster, is parked at Paramount — something not lost, I am certain, on the Paramount/Viacom execs. By buying Dreamworks, Paramount secures Spielberg and reaps all benefits of working with him. If "Indy 4" is made, and is indeed a $500 million hit, the Dreamworks price tag won't look so bad.

Meanwhile, it would behoove Universal to put a major spin team on "Munich" now—either Freud Communications in New York or Sitrick in Los Angeles. It's obvious that one more unmanned advance screening of "Munich" could be detrimental to the film. When I saw it, there weren't even production notes, and that can be problematic for most reviewers who enter it unprepped. Nevertheless, I found it gripping and compelling, and far more important to the world of ideas this winter than gay cowboys, chatty geishas, or giant sized apes visiting New York.

[mkaroly]

I've read recently where he said his interests have changed over the years and that we shouldn't expect another family/fantasy movie like E.T. He compared himself to Woody Allen, who is always getting asked to make purely comedic movies like he did back in the seventies. Mark

That's interesting- it's interesting that he brings up Woody Allen who is hailed and idolized as one of America's greatest filmmakers. I love Spielberg- I grew up on his movies (I was born in 1969) and have seen all of them several times. I sincerely doubt that he would ever be able to make another ET....and frankly I don't want him to. A film like that (so incredibly honest and sincere) is hard to come by twice in a career, let alone once. I suppose you could say that SCHINDLER'S LIST was just as sincere and honest (but more adult).

The themes in his films haven't changed all that much- family is still centric, growth as a parent and/or as a man is still centric to his films (in general). I feel WOTW stuck to that theme (which is why I gave it a "good review" on another thread here), and I have no idea what to make of MUNICH.

Since he's using Kaminski again, the film will probably have that grainy look- based on the above comments and thoughts that have appeared in previous threads, maybe he does want to be taken as a more serious artist now. His films have addressed more "adult" subject matters as of late, I guess. And as far as Woody Allen goes, I don't think he has the ability to make any film like he did in the seventies or eighties (some gems were made in that decade as well). MELINDA AND MELINDA was a great idea but ultimately his work deserves no more than a C these days- I'm hoping MATCH POINT is good.

[AndyDursin]

I've read recently where he said his interests have changed over the years and that we shouldn't expect another family/fantasy movie like E.T. He compared himself to Woody Allen, who is always getting asked to make purely comedic movies like he did back in the seventies. Mark

That's interesting- it's interesting that he brings up Woody Allen who is hailed and idolized as one of America's greatest filmmakers. I love Spielberg- I grew up on his movies (I was born in 1969) and have seen all of them several times. I sincerely doubt that he would ever be able to make another ET....and frankly I don't want him to. A film like that (so incredibly honest and sincere) is hard to come by twice in a career, let alone once. I suppose you could say that SCHINDLER'S LIST was just as sincere and honest (but more adult).

The themes in his films haven't changed all that much- family is still centric, growth as a parent and/or as a man is still centric to his films (in general). I feel WOTW stuck to that theme (which is why I gave it a "good review" on another thread here), and I have no idea what to make of MUNICH.

Since he's using Kaminski again, the film will probably have that grainy look- based on the above comments and thoughts that have appeared in previous threads, maybe he does want to be taken as a more serious artist now. His films have addressed more "adult" subject matters as of late, I guess. And as far as Woody Allen goes, I don't think he has the ability to make any film like he did in the seventies or eighties (some gems were made in that decade as well). MELINDA AND MELINDA was a great idea but ultimately his work deserves no more than a C these days- I'm hoping MATCH POINT is good.

Spielberg may want to be taken more seriously "as an artist" but many of the SCRIPTS in his films lately have left much to be desired.

Why he continues to work with David Koepp after THE LOST WORLD is a mystery I'd like to be uncovered one day...

[mkaroly]

I saw the movie last weekend and I have to say that I enjoyed it very, very much. I think this is definitely tons better than WOTW (which I did give a good review to)- Spielberg really presents both sides as human beings with feelings and families and presents both ideologies as being cut from the same cloth.

Bana is good- his accent slips in and out throughout the film, and Spielberg tried to show too much of Avner's character depth. But the Spielbergian "family is important" theme is taken up a level as one side fights to keep its "motherland" and the other side fights to have a "motherland". It's also about the choice for war or peace at the end of the day- there's a great scene in a train station and that addresses that and the end of the film is powerful. The supporting cast is solid and I barely recognized Geoffrey Rush until I recognized his voice. Daniel Craig played a "hothead" sort and so I have no idea what to expect of his ability to play Bond.

The film kind of presents the "evidence" and I'm sure if people feel one way or the other about the conflict they won't be changing their minds. But I really like what he did in this film and though it's long (2H 44M) I think it's worth a viewing or two. Williams' score is magnificent and this score is my favorite of his this year. It works really, really well and is a "classic Williams listen" apart from the film. Thumbs up on this one. I disagree with the reviews posted by Variety and New Republic. I think there may be some hostility form the press (and definitely the Academy) for no advance screenings.

The Academy is past it anyway- I care not one iota what they think. They lost credibility with me a long, long time ago and have never done anything to get it back. But, in the end, if you don't like it, you don't like it.

[AndyDursin]

I saw the movie last weekend and I have to say that I enjoyed it very, very much. I think this is definitely tons better than WOTW (which I did give a good review to)- Spielberg really presents both sides as human beings with feelings and families and presents both ideologies as being cut from the same cloth.

Bana is good- his accent slips in and out throughout the film, and Spielberg tried to show too much of Avner's character depth. But the Spielbergian "family is important" theme is taken up a level as one side fights to keep its "motherland" and the other side fights to have a "motherland". It's also about the choice for war or peace at the end of the day- there's a great scene in a train station and that addresses that and the end of the film is powerful. The supporting cast is solid and I barely recognized Geoffrey Rush until I recognized his voice. Daniel Craig played a "hothead" sort and so I have no idea what to expect of his ability to play Bond.

The film kind of presents the "evidence" and I'm sure if people feel one way or the other about the conflict they won't be changing their minds. But I really like what he did in this film and though it's long (2H 44M) I think it's worth a viewing or two. Williams' score is magnificent and this score is my favorite of his this year. It works really, really well and is a "classic Williams listen" apart from the film. Thumbs up on this one. I disagree with the reviews posted by Variety and New Republic. I think there may be some hostility form the press (and definitely the Academy) for no advance screenings.

The Academy is past it anyway- I care not one iota what they think. They lost credibility with me a long, long time ago and have never done anything to get it back. But, in the end, if you don't like it, you don't like it.

I'm looking forward to catching up with this next week

[Eric Paddon]

"Spielberg really presents both sides as human beings with feelings and families and presents both ideologies as being cut from the same cloth"

Without elaborating any further, that is precisely why the film is disliked by many of the people who have decided to dislike it.

[mkaroly]

"Spielberg really presents both sides as human beings with feelings and families and presents both ideologies as being cut from the same cloth"

Without elaborating any further, that is precisely why the film is disliked by many of the people who have decided to dislike it.

I agree Eric. I personally don't expect Spielberg to take hard line stances on any issue he's filming about (especially political hard line stances)- he doesn't in this film either. There's a track on the CD called A Prayer for Peace which he singles out in the liner notes- I think he endorses peace in all conflicts (and shows that in his films) but if he takes a hard line stance one way or another he's still in trouble. I think it's a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. Whether he's right or wrong or if his choices translate well to film is up to the viewer.