What went wrong with MUNICH?
I thought I would love this movie--a great story, Spielberg, and a bunch of great actors--but unfortunately, I think it was a bit of a mess.
Why? Wasn't it up for Best Picture? some of you might ask.
Yup--and undeservedly so. Here's the reason:
It had a ridiculously unrealistic screenplay which, despite the 'based on fact' notice at the start of the film which one would think would guide the film-makers, was rather a mess. But then again, maybe that's what you get when you have a playwright (Tony Kushner) write a spy-assassin story.
Rather than a long diatribe against the film, I'll just list the problems as I saw them:
1. The main character (Eric Bana) was unqualified for the position. He was a bodyguard for Golda Meir, but not an assassin. He was married--with a pregnant wife! I'm sorry, but this is NOT the type of guy the Mossad or Ms. Meir would have picked to head an 'elite' covert assassination team.
2. The other members of the team were basically incompetent. A bomb-maker who's not trained to make bombs? An elderly antique dealer who's also a forger--and who actually goes on the missions? Daniel Craig as a moral-less killer without any sort of true spy trade-craft? Again, it defies logic that the Iraelis would use such people.
3. The missions themselves were horribly contrived and unrealistic, usually involving all five (!) team members in exposed positions. And nearly each time, somehow the victim was able to confront his or her killer face to face and have a little chat! Horribly, horribly contrived. It really takes the drama out of it when one feels compelled to turn to one's wife and say "C'mon! This is getting ridiculous!"
4. The mission where the five covert guys accompany hordes of rampaging Keystone-coppish Mossad agents to Lebanon was absurd. I absolutely cannot believe that this occurred in real life this way. No way, no how.
5. The double-booked safe-house episode with the Palestinians was really, really dumb. When they read the screenplay, didn't anyone tell Spielberg, "Umm, say, maybe this isn't such a good idea?" And gee, what a surprise when Avner and Co. have to shoot them! Ugh.
6. The mysterious Frenchmen being in charge of basically ALL of the team's intelligence was really wacky and 'out there.' And there's NO WAY an assassin like Avner would go off in a car with his French contact without alerting the other members of his team. Again, it stretched credibility far beyond what I thought was acceptable.
7. The female assassin bit felt forced--especially since her assassination seemed like the easiest thing in the world. Just mosey on into her houseboat, pull your guns, have a little conversation, and shoot away. Oh--and don't forget to leave her naked and exposed to clumsily get your message across (which was then regretted ad nauseum later, as were all their decisions).
8. They're bunglers; the whole damn team. Did they ever really assassinate any of their targets in a covert, effective manner? Aside from nearly blowing up a little girl--and running all around a public Paris street like maniacs--and having the bomb malfunction, or having the bomb explode too much, or shooting the kid by the pool, or running half-cocked with the Mossad in Lebanon, etc., did they ever do a decent job at it? No--which seems a little much for me. The Mossad and the Israelis don't mess around, son! They don't waste time, energy, or resources! They don't screw these sorts of things up.
9. Will there ever be a movie again that doesn't over-use hand-held? That doesn't over-use digital-grading by the DP in post-production to achieve some desired, grainy, washed-out or over-saturated look? Because the look of Munich was a distraction. More of a technical complaint, but when I've had ever since that first scene of Private Ryan where the same techniques were, again, over-used to a film's detriment.
On the positive side, I loved the musical score, and the Munich Olympic scenes were powerful and memorable. On the other hand, that left me wondering this: How come Spielberg simply didn't film THAT story? I wish he had, for Munich proved to be, for me, the biggest film disappointment of this past year.
I thought I would love this movie--a great story, Spielberg, and a bunch of great actors--but unfortunately, I think it was a bit of a mess.
Why? Wasn't it up for Best Picture? some of you might ask.
Yup--and undeservedly so. Here's the reason:
It had a ridiculously unrealistic screenplay which, despite the 'based on fact' notice at the start of the film which one would think would guide the film-makers, was rather a mess. But then again, maybe that's what you get when you have a playwright (Tony Kushner) write a spy-assassin story.
Rather than a long diatribe against the film, I'll just list the problems as I saw them:
1. The main character (Eric Bana) was unqualified for the position. He was a bodyguard for Golda Meir, but not an assassin. He was married--with a pregnant wife! I'm sorry, but this is NOT the type of guy the Mossad or Ms. Meir would have picked to head an 'elite' covert assassination team.
2. The other members of the team were basically incompetent. A bomb-maker who's not trained to make bombs? An elderly antique dealer who's also a forger--and who actually goes on the missions? Daniel Craig as a moral-less killer without any sort of true spy trade-craft? Again, it defies logic that the Iraelis would use such people.
3. The missions themselves were horribly contrived and unrealistic, usually involving all five (!) team members in exposed positions. And nearly each time, somehow the victim was able to confront his or her killer face to face and have a little chat! Horribly, horribly contrived. It really takes the drama out of it when one feels compelled to turn to one's wife and say "C'mon! This is getting ridiculous!"
4. The mission where the five covert guys accompany hordes of rampaging Keystone-coppish Mossad agents to Lebanon was absurd. I absolutely cannot believe that this occurred in real life this way. No way, no how.
5. The double-booked safe-house episode with the Palestinians was really, really dumb. When they read the screenplay, didn't anyone tell Spielberg, "Umm, say, maybe this isn't such a good idea?" And gee, what a surprise when Avner and Co. have to shoot them! Ugh.
6. The mysterious Frenchmen being in charge of basically ALL of the team's intelligence was really wacky and 'out there.' And there's NO WAY an assassin like Avner would go off in a car with his French contact without alerting the other members of his team. Again, it stretched credibility far beyond what I thought was acceptable.
7. The female assassin bit felt forced--especially since her assassination seemed like the easiest thing in the world. Just mosey on into her houseboat, pull your guns, have a little conversation, and shoot away. Oh--and don't forget to leave her naked and exposed to clumsily get your message across (which was then regretted ad nauseum later, as were all their decisions).
8. They're bunglers; the whole damn team. Did they ever really assassinate any of their targets in a covert, effective manner? Aside from nearly blowing up a little girl--and running all around a public Paris street like maniacs--and having the bomb malfunction, or having the bomb explode too much, or shooting the kid by the pool, or running half-cocked with the Mossad in Lebanon, etc., did they ever do a decent job at it? No--which seems a little much for me. The Mossad and the Israelis don't mess around, son! They don't waste time, energy, or resources! They don't screw these sorts of things up.
9. Will there ever be a movie again that doesn't over-use hand-held? That doesn't over-use digital-grading by the DP in post-production to achieve some desired, grainy, washed-out or over-saturated look? Because the look of Munich was a distraction. More of a technical complaint, but when I've had ever since that first scene of Private Ryan where the same techniques were, again, over-used to a film's detriment.
On the positive side, I loved the musical score, and the Munich Olympic scenes were powerful and memorable. On the other hand, that left me wondering this: How come Spielberg simply didn't film THAT story? I wish he had, for Munich proved to be, for me, the biggest film disappointment of this past year.
posted by I. Michael Koontz | 5:25 PM
1 Comments:
What? Tom Cruise's character doesn't die in a film?
Gee, I bet that would ruin all the suspense of MI:3!
Actually, I had no interest in seeing it, since the "slam-bang-explosion" genre has about been exhausted for me. The Bourne films are terrific, though--except for the excess of hand-held in Supremacy--and their lack of giant explosions are refreshing. And as I've said before, I bet the next Bond film is tremendous--I've just got this good feeling about it.
As far as my book goes, since it's basically in the same genre, I always tried to keep John Apparite grounded in some sort of reality, and setting it back in the 50's limits the explosions and technology, which I believe is a good thing. With any luck, there WON'T be an MI:3, but someday there WILL be a John Apparite:1.
Post a Comment
<< Home