I've wondered why Spielberg decided to do a picture on 'Munich' at this point in time. The actual movie as pointed out by the writer was designed as a testosterone appeaser but factually was a little more like Mission Impossible or James Bond than anything the mossad might put together.

The Entebbe raid for example would have made a far better movie- aside from the fact that the IDF sayeret involved pulled off one of the greatest special forces operations ever, it was also a raid in which Yonni Netanyahu, Benjamin's brother was killed and former prime minister Ehud Barak was involved. In addition it was in Uganda! Surely all these factors would have made for an action packed political statement of far more varacity than 'Munich'.

I think Spielberg has deliberately tried to market a film as a documentary-he's intersted in making money with the 'based on true events line' more than making a political statement. With all due respects to the author of the article-lighten up.

I have watched the fil, and i thought it was brilliant.

"""There was ... never a single hit team designed to handle them."""

Had the author of the article CONCENTRATED on the film, he would have noticed that in the last scenes the Head Israeli states that there were INDEED other teams in the field!!

"""The dominant theme that pervades is that all forms of violence are morally equivalent. It preaches that those who fight against armed terrorists are the same as those who murder defenceless civilians."""

The film DOES NOT do this!! The film has 'flashbacks' to the terrorists murdering the Israelis - and the assasinations ARE NOT expressed as "morally equivalent" - it is Eric's character who is traumatised by what he knows happened at munich and he also is stressed about his family's safety - he losses it pretty mush and wonders whatitrs all about and IF THE ASSASINATIONS WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM AS MORE RADICAL EXTREMISTS ARE COMING UP THE RANKS TO FILL THE POSITIONS IN THE TERRORIST ORGANISATION - the film DOES NOT critisize Isreal, but attacks the Us CIA for funding the terrorists in exchange for them not targeting US officials.

As a "non-jew" and a christian, i did not feel the film was attcking Isreal and saying that the assasinations of terrorists are as bad as the terrorist murders of Isralis.

I think you as a Jew are OVER-SENSITIVE to the possibility that some leftise is attcking Isreal and saying that it is "morally equivilent". - the film was pro-Isreal, and i think it was brilliant.

I would completely agree with the article, but I don't know why the writer is bothering to complain. From "Mutiny on the Bounty" in 1935, and "Braveheart" in 1995, the movie industry in thousands of cases has never let the facts get in the way of a good movie. This applies to the industry all around the world, not just Hollywood. My personal opinion is that movies are primarily made to make money, and secondarily to make some political point desired by the director. With the current catastrophic level of general history education, the level of knowledge by the general public of the history of the last few hundred years must be quite bizarre.

Its a film. It tells a story. Some people might not like the story, or think some things were ommitted or think some things were incorrect. So what, if you don't like the story do your own film.

Mr Lapkin has a tendency to go into attack mode if anyone critizes Israel in any way,your being anti-semitic

Yes Mr. Lapkin, as you quite rightly point out,

"By aggressively attacking the Palestinian terrorist command and control structure and through the construction of its defensive barrier along the West Bank, the Israelis have cut armed incursions to a mere trickle. While Israel suffered 37 suicide attacks in 2002, this past year only three bombers successfully made it to their civilian targets".

Unfortunately what you fail to mention is that because of that same wall and those same agressive policies, you now have 87 bombers who just got elected and control the government!

I haven't seen the film.... so perhaps I can analyse things from a distance.

So a retired Mossad agent said something "anonomously" and so it must be true? Mossad agents never fib ... that is one of the tests when you are a secret agent... you must never tell a fib to anyone, especially newspaper interviewers when you retire... Secret Agents never deal in propoganda, they never mislead ... I have all this from a retired anonomous source close to the family...lol

Give us a break...

Whether Spielberg has it 0% correct or 100% correct (which I doubt) it is the role of the secret services of any country to put their country in the best light. Sheesh!

As someone said earlier... It's a film.... told in a documentary style... for the bucks.... but like many films there are probably a few bits that might be true... Some of it occurs in the Middle East I believe ... so that's a start.. that's true.

Did the Mossad agents sneek a look at the script before it came out, mini cameras clicking, or did they get a freebie showing as well to allow them to criticise it before it came out? They must have been the ones in the hoods & black clothes in the cutting room that day...lol

Can a Mossad agent please tell us which bits are true and which bits aren't... You can sign in under a code name anonomously if you want.... Ha!

And it looks like Ted will believe everything you say...

The movie Munich was ridiculous. I had always been under the impression that Mossad was an extremely efficient organisation. In this movie the bomb maker could dismantle bombs but not build them properly. The team of assassins supposedly in deep cover trotted around Europe together in full sight of KGB agents, shared a safe house with Palestinians and out sourced the job of tracking down Black September members to a dodgy French company. The scene in Amsterdam when they rode up on bicycles to a houseboat, went on board and proceeded to assemble their bicycle pump guns was laughable.
Rather than be offended by the movie I would have thought Mossad would see it as a comedy.

I can only partially argree with Ted Lapkin's point of view.

If moviemakers wish to produce storylines based upon real events,(especially where they include actual newsreel footages as part of the plot) they must be either historically accurate, or add a disclaimer at the start of the movie that the storyline is entirely fiction. (Like they used to do)

Audiences unfamiliar with historical events may regard the fiction as historical fact, because people tend to believe what they see. The power of the media to promote causes, propagate lies, endorse products, generate approval, champion causes, endorse opinions, promote ideas, cause contoversies and arouse emotions is well understood.

I can wholly agree that Mossad would be as disgusted at the totally inaccurate portrayal of that particular incident, as I was about the propaganda movie "Rabbit Proof Fence", which had the effrontery to proclaim at the movies beginning. "This is a true story."

On the other hand, movies can be more than just entertainment. Movies which make us look at moral issues from different points of view do have a serious social role. It is by constantly re appraising our moral values, as different times alter the fundamental attitudes upon which our current culture is based, that our society has evolved. If such movies are entertaining at the same time, then so much the better. They are the ones that are considered great movies.

I think that "Munich" deserves that laural.

To Opinionated2 (I have no comment on the film itself but...)

Re: did they have a special screening for Mossad?

Answer: yes

I read in a national Australian newspaper that Spielberg organised a pre-release screening for Mossad where several hundred reps got to see the film. Apparently it didnt go down too well and Spielberg didnt get the reception he had been anticipating

A case of gap in perception?

I do agree, but when I prompted my self with the thought: If “Michael Moore” had compiled and directed the movie: then it would have been said by Arabs to be a CIA and a George Bush plot. Come to think of it, our ABC would have come up with the same story line. I did say it was a horrifying thought. So which would be the worst presentation: “Moore or Spielberg? Yep, History and reality have sunk that low.