Munich

noel · Post by **noel** » January 3, 2006, 1:37 am

Perfectly done, fantastic movie. I have new respect for Steven Speilberg.

I was really afraid that the movie would draw conclusions that would further inflame the Israeli/Palestinian situation, but that's not the case. The conclusions were depressing, but I believe fair to both sides.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » January 8, 2006, 3:29 am

I saw this movie tonight. I will have to concur with Noel. The movie is very well done.

[Show]: The scene were Avner is talking to the PLO member in the hallway of the safehouse sums up the crux of the entire Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Both sides fighting for a piece of barren land they consider holy. Both sides killing for a place they want to call home...neither side every willing to coexist.

A definite must see.

redeemed · Post by **redeemed** » January 8, 2006, 6:31 am

"By injecting such huge doses of sexualized violence in the obscene manner in which he does, Spielberg serves titillation, not enlightenment. Obscenity, not observation. And shock, not entertainment."

just for another perspective on other aspects of the film ;p

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 8, 2006, 12:17 pm

My conclusion is that terrorists are animals.

noel · Post by **noel** » January 8, 2006, 4:16 pm

Redeemed/Kylere, did either of you actually see the movie?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 8, 2006, 4:54 pm

Since it was in quotes I'd imagine it was a cut and paste from http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/m ... 002472.cfm and that Redeemed hadn't actually seen the movie. Just a guess!

redeemed · Post by **redeemed** » January 8, 2006, 5:07 pm

I read that and other less biased reviews but have no desire to see the movie

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 8, 2006, 7:45 pm

Yeah I saw it, but irregardless of the movie, in the real world intentionally targing civilians puts you on my shit list.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » January 8, 2006, 8:10 pm

Irregardless!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 8, 2006, 9:08 pm

Kylere wrote:Yeah I saw it, but irregardless of the movie, in the real world intentionally targing civilians puts you on my shit list.

Do we need to go through the whole Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing, again?

Everyone "intentionally targets civilians" you need to come up with a better standard for irrational hatred of your opposition.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » January 8, 2006, 11:12 pm

Kylere wrote:irregardless

This is how new words get created! We're seeing it in action! When people make up a new word and then everyone starts using it, it becomes a real word in no time.

Dictionary.com wrote:Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

Just give it another 50 years.

Withefel · Post by **Withefel** » January 9, 2006, 3:16 am

Snoozer. I cant remember the last movie i saw that was this slow paced.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 9, 2006, 9:35 am

LOL here come the nutcases from the far ends of the political spectrum and the grammar nazis.

I do not have an irrational hatred, and the bombing of Hiroshima while wrong was during a declared war (one that was not started by a declaration but by an act with no honor and tons of cowardice) it was balanced against the costs in terms of miltary and civilian deaths that would have come from a main land invasion. Japan had practiced unrestricted warfare for 5 years, slaughtering millions of people around the globe.

This is compared to some religious and political fruitcakes going after a bunch of people playing sports. The fact that you draw a parallel shows that you are deeply disturbed.

The sad thing is that you think I am conservative and that is why you rail against me, I am anti-extremist.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 9, 2006, 9:40 am

Hoarmurath wrote:
Kylere wrote:irregardless
This is how new words get created! We're seeing it in action! When people make up a new word and then everyone starts using it, it becomes a real word in no time.

Dictionary.com wrote:Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Just give it another 50 years.

Don't blame me, I did not create it, ye gods I see it everywhere.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 9, 2006, 10:48 am

However you justify your hypocrisy to yourself isn't really relevant; everyone targets civilians if it's expedient to do so (Hiroshima) or if the other side does (Dresden).

As for "declaration of war", the various terrorist organisations have issued their own declarations, you just choose not to recognise their right to do so because it doesn't suit your world view. Bin Laden alone has repeatedly declared "holy war" against the US; http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp (read from bottom up).

If you really want to be the centrist you claim to be, you have to look at the issue from both sides.

Demags · Post by **Demags** » January 9, 2006, 1:10 pm

Osama and the other terrorists are not recognized countries, their declarations of war arent any different than me declaring war and heading down to dearborn for some civilian killing.

Demags

noel · Post by **noel** » January 9, 2006, 1:26 pm

Demags wrote:Osama and the other terrorists are not recognized countries, their declarations of war arent any different than me declaring war and heading down to dearborn for some civilian killing.

Demags

Let me help you here:

...you just choose not to recognise their right to do so because it doesn't suit your world view...

Terrorism is bad/wrong/despicable, but not understanding why and how it comes about is the reason why our 'war on terror' has been and will continue to be an utter failure.

Before you consider arguing that point, here's a simple question:
Since the US began it's war on terror have we increased or decreased the number of terrorists and factors contributing to the creation of terrorism in the world?

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » January 9, 2006, 3:07 pm

Demags wrote:Osama and the other terrorists are not recognized countries, their declarations of war arent any different than me declaring war and heading down to dearborn for some civilian killing.

Demags

But dont the US recognise their war and accept it when they decided to start a War on Terror?
If a country can start a war on a non-defined enemy, the enemy must have the same rights to declare war on the country.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » January 9, 2006, 6:04 pm

Way to hijack a thread...

The movie was very well done. Aside from a single scene with a naked woman...I am not sure where they get sexualized violence from in that critique.

If you didn't see the movie then you have no basis to comment.

Also, I did not think the movie dragged on at a slow pace. This is not an action/adventure/shoot 'em up movie. This isn't James Bond/The Transporter. This was an interesting, well acted, thought provoking movie.

noel · Post by **noel** » January 9, 2006, 9:07 pm

Moonwynd wrote:Way to hijack a thread...

The movie was very well done. Aside from a single scene with a naked woman...I am not sure where they get sexualized violence from in that critique.

If you didn't see the movie then you have no basis to comment.

Also, I did not think the movie dragged on at a slow pace. This is not an action/adventure/shoot 'em up movie. This isn't James Bond/The Transporter. This was an interesting, well acted, thought provoking movie.

I agree with everything you said though I'd add:

[Show]: There is the scene at the end where he's having sex with his wife that might have drawn the commentary that redeemed post. To me, that scene spoke to the kind of primal violence that the males of the species are capable since he certainly wasn't making love to his wife during that scene. As far as any other sexualization with the violence, I didn't see it.

Having an attractive female attempt to seduce an opposing spy was standard operating procedure for the KGB back in the day, so I felt that was completely realistic within the setting of the story.