archileach Reviews

Munich (2005)

Well-made, dishonest, and morally confused film

[2/10 · 7 January 2006]

The movie, Munich, is Spielberg's attempt to preach his liberal philosophy. Sure he uses a disclaimer at the beginning of the film that it's "inspired by real events", what does that mean? Does that mean that it represents an accurate picture of what really happened? Not on your life.

In the first place, the title Munich is misleading. The film isn't about the murder of the Israeli Olympic team members who were held hostage and then brutally executed by terrorists. It doesn't hardly attempt to portray these victims as being innocent of any wrong-doing, let alone tell their story in a proper light or setting. Rather, it focuses on a theme of vengeance, and turns things around to make Israel the offender and the terrorists the victims.

In the second place, there are extreme liberties taken with the account of Israel's retribution. The movie is taken from the somewhat dubious 1984 book Vengeance by George Jonas. Jonas "based" his book on the tale of an Israeli who claimed to have been part of a clandestine hit squad who worked for the Mossad. However, Jonas wasn't the first choice as author of this tale. According to Time Magazine, the Israeli in question first offered this story to a writer named Rinker Buck. But when Buck checked up on the informant's story, it didn't hold up. Buck withdrew saying he couldn't write the book in good conscience because the informant was "changing his story daily".

Spielberg's level of truth for believing the merits of this story are obviously much lower that Buck's. Perhaps his disclaimer should've read "inspired by a sensationalized re-telling of embellished events". He goes on to corrupt the story further by having Golda Meir utter a slanderous and totally dishonest statement for her that "every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values". We're supposed to believe that she would've felt that eliminating murderous terrorists was somehow a betrayal of her values? What a load of crap. This statement is a fabrication of the film's liberal screenwriter and gay activist, Tony Kushner, who has previously given his view that establishing a state means "f*** people over".

Third, Spielberg's reasons for producing a less-than-accurate picture of these events isn't meant to merely provide moralizing comments on past events, but rather to give him a platform to comment on the current actions of our country. Spielberg's methods are far too shallow to hide his motives in this film. The film ends with his protagonist having left Israel, now standing juxtaposed with the World Trade Center behind him. The message here is the over-obvious liberal cry that "we brought this violence upon ourselves". How did we do this pre 911, you ask? By siding with Israel then, and by fighting back against terrorism today.

Spielberg has certainly become confused since making Schindler's List, hasn't he? He's been interviewed several times about the message of this film, and has routinely pontificated that, "a response to a response doesn't really solve anything. It just creates a perpetual motion machine". Yes, his opinion is that killing terrorists makes us as bad as the terrorists. Well, didn't killing Nazis make us as bad as Nazis then? This is the liberal war cry of pacifists, but it's never held up "under fire", so to speak.

If there's one thing that really bothers me, it's having to listen to overt moralizing by the morally conflicted. One the prime criticisms of the Jews of WWII is that as a group they didn't fight back. Now Spielberg criticizes them, and us, for fighting back. Well, which is it? He can't have it both ways. What he doesn't seem to realize is that diplomacy only works when you have the means to use force if it fails. It failed with Hitler, it failed with the PLO terrorists in Munich, and it failed miserably with Saddam.

Steven needs to get off his soapbox and wise up. He's only sleeping safely in this country tonight because our military is strong, and is able to confront and deter terrorists who would like to cut his precious Jewish head off given half a chance. Pacifistic sentiments are no deterrent, and don't reflect the reality of the world we live in. Perhaps Steven thinks Osama Bin Laden deserves a good talking to, but thankfully a majority of us would still rather see him join Hitler in receiving his just reward.

Spielberg is an example of how being a great filmmaker doesn't necessarily make your films great. This is a well-made, dishonest, and morally confused piece of garbage. Munich sucks.

This Divided State (2005)

Wannabe documentary with delusions of grandeur

[1/10 · 19 December 2005]

Not only does the film's author, Steven Greenstreet, obviously idolize Michael Moore, but he also follows in his footsteps by using several of Moore's Propaganda film-making tactics. Moore has expertise in distracting the viewer from this focus though, while Greenstreet is obviously less skilled here.

Having been privy to all of the issues surrounding Moore's speech at UVSC, I was disappointed to see that the major complaints of the community -- that Moore was being paid $40,000 of the State of Utah 's educational funds to basically promote John Kerry's campaign and to advertise his own liberal movie -- were pushed to the background by Greenstreet while lesser issues were sensationalized.

The marketing methods for this video have been equally biased and objectionable... promoting the film by claiming that "Mormon's tried to kill Moore". Not only is this preposterous, but it defames a major religion that Greenstreet obviously has some personal issues with. I followed Moore's visit very closely, and all of the major news agencies noted that Moore's visit came and went without any credible security problems or incidents in Utah.

Greenstreet has banked on this film to jump-start his film-making career to the point that he has even dropped out of film school to help accelerate this. This seems to have been a severe miscalculation though, since Moore's visits to roughly 60 other colleges and Universities across the country in 2004 diluted interest for this rather common event. Greenstreet's assumption that American audiences would be interested in this film due to the promoted religious and conservative angles doesn't seem to be well founded.

Even the name of the film, This Divided State, is somewhat of a misnomer since Utah voted overwhelmingly for Bush's re-election and thus appears to be more politically unified than any other State. The division in the movie title seems more indicative of the gulf that exists in Greenstreet's ideological differences with his religion and State. If anything, I find a humorous correlation between the religious angle of this supposed documentary and Woody Allen's hilarious contention in Sleeper (1973) that, "I was beaten up by Quakers".

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948)

Some of the greatest comedic dialog and memorable quotes ever!

[10/10 · 11 September 2004]

This film has some of the greatest comedic dialog and memorable quotes ever assembled in one film! The plot is somewhat lacking, but the delightful quips are enough to make up the difference. This is a timeless movie for all ages that is sure to please. As a cinematic art form it is highly entertaining; and with major stars like Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, and Melvyn Douglas... how could you go wrong?

Comedic dialog and timeing such as this has long been undervalued, and is very difficult to imitate. A good example of this is seen in the 1986 knockoff of this film: The Money Pit, with Tom Hanks and Shelley Long. Despite the talent and physical comedy of these stars, the film dragged and received poor reviews and viewer comments. Achieving true comedic dialog is an art.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Why is Michael Moore trying to be the next Leni Riefenstahl?

[20 July 2004]

Arguably, there may not have been such a prefabricated propaganda flick since Leni Riefenstahl produced 'Triumph of the Will' (1934) for the Nazi party. Michael Moore's obvious fetish to duplicate Ms. Riefenstahl's work is once again reflected in his "documentary", Fahrenheit 9/11. In both cinematography and objectivity, Michael Moore falls short though, and his efforts appear canned and forced.

This is a must-see for Kerry/Edwards campaign workers, but all others should probably wait for the sequel. It's definitely not up to par with Michaels past films, ie., 'Roger & Me' and 'Bowling for Columbine". With a film like this, Michael Moore is purposefully positioning himself not only to be on the fringes of political thinking, but also on the fringes of movie making. The question is, will this reward him with the kind of accolades he desires?

Only time will tell.

In the meantime, Michael walks the fine line of supporting liberal candidates without being shunned by them. He also risks alienating his youthful followers. Though he is now 50, Michael might do well to note that even living to be 100 didn't allow Leni Riefenstahl to regain the stature that she enjoyed before her fall from grace in the public eye. Given Michael's physical appearance in the film, this option may not be available to him.

When Time Ran Out... (1980)

Dry attempt to replicate "The Poseidon Adventure"

[8 July 2002]

I'm often amazed that an all-star cast such as this can be coaxed into making a film that is so pitifully bad. Anyone over the age of nine who watches this is going to feel that they've just wasted two hours. The cast put their all into this, but there was no investment in plot, script, or special effects from the producers. Perhaps the producer really wanted to break in to the day-time soaps -- even so, this movie did not have the believability.