Avner was not that violent though. Yes he was killing them, but it was his job, just as it was for the rest of them. In real life and in movies, the most violent do not necesarily get killed first. Also why would someone kill off the brains of the group (Avner) first? The movie would fall apart from that point on.Faustine wrote:For what Steve and Avner do they survive? I do not understand. If they were hunting them why not to kill them first? They were the most violent. Steve with this teen enthusiasm for killing and Avner was the braindodo007 wrote:What do you mean by "There is no plot explanation of why both youngest and violent men of the group survive" ?Faustine wrote: Spielberg seems to me to be unnecessarily pretentious when he tells storys like Munich
To my eyes only Munich has an interesting thing: gives voice to the Palestinians ... the rest is not supported in the script. There is no plot explanation of why both youngest and violent men of the group survive.
Eric Bana is an additional suffering
Quantum of solace photo call
Moderator: Germangirl
"We are teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery" Quantum Of Solace
Avner is the brain, enough reason for kill him first, In the same way that they were killing ideologists.dodo007 wrote:Avner was not that violent though. Yes he was killing them, but it was his job, just as it was for the rest of them. In real life and in movies, the most violent do not necesarily get killed first. Also why would someone kill off the brains of the group (Avner) first? The movie would fall apart from that point on.Faustine wrote:For what Steve and Avner do they survive? I do not understand. If they were hunting them why not to kill them first? They were the most violent. Steve with this teen enthusiasm for killing and Avner was the braindodo007 wrote: What do you mean by "There is no plot explanation of why both youngest and violent men of the group survive" ?
It is true: that if they kill Avner there are no movies ... to it I call a serious mistake of script.
Do I continue without understandr why they do not kill Steve? No sense for me.
We convince ourselves that we know the other person well, but do we really know anything important about anyone.
6. Say what I’m thinking
6. Say what I’m thinking
Steve wasn't really ever in a real position to get killed. Until the end, he wasn't assacinating anyone, instead he spent most of his time giving signals in cars. So he never really was in a real postion to get killed. It wasn't like he was setting up bombs or something.Faustine wrote:Avner is the brain, enough reason for kill him first, In the same way that they were killing ideologists.dodo007 wrote:Avner was not that violent though. Yes he was killing them, but it was his job, just as it was for the rest of them. In real life and in movies, the most violent do not necesarily get killed first. Also why would someone kill off the brains of the group (Avner) first? The movie would fall apart from that point on.Faustine wrote: For what Steve and Avner do they survive? I do not understand. If they were hunting them why not to kill them first? They were the most violent. Steve with this teen enthusiasm for killing and Avner was the brain
It is true: that if they kill Avner there are no movies ... to it I call a serious mistake of script.
Do I continue without understandr why they do not kill Steve? No sense for me.
"We are teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery" Quantum Of Solace
Good point about Steve´s survive... wierd but probable.... seems to me is too many fine but it is a good reason for this moviedodo007 wrote:Steve wasn't really ever in a real position to get killed. Until the end, he wasn't assacinating anyone, instead he spent most of his time giving signals in cars. So he never really was in a real postion to get killed. It wasn't like he was setting up bombs or something.Faustine wrote:Avner is the brain, enough reason for kill him first, In the same way that they were killing ideologists.dodo007 wrote: Avner was not that violent though. Yes he was killing them, but it was his job, just as it was for the rest of them. In real life and in movies, the most violent do not necesarily get killed first. Also why would someone kill off the brains of the group (Avner) first? The movie would fall apart from that point on.
It is true: that if they kill Avner there are no movies ... to it I call a serious mistake of script.
Do I continue without understandr why they do not kill Steve? No sense for me.
We convince ourselves that we know the other person well, but do we really know anything important about anyone.
6. Say what I’m thinking
6. Say what I’m thinking
Faustine wrote:Spielberg seems to me to be unnecessarily pretentious when he tells storys like Munichdodo007 wrote:Really? I thought it was a good movie. Yes it was dark and not exactly cheerfull but it's not exactly a subject you can sugarcoat.Faustine wrote: Seeing only the Daniel'scenes you have seen the better of the whole movie ... it is not a good movie at all
To my eyes only Munich has an interesting thing: gives voice to the Palestinians ... the rest is not supported in the script. There is no plot explanation of why both youngest and violent men of the group survive.
Eric Bana is an additional suffering
STOP IT !!!!!!!
I like Bana and Munich is a masterpiece for me !!!!!
don't be so bad with Eric, he doesn't deserve such a treatment
Spielberg rules !
********
I couldn't agree anymore Zonzi!zonzi wrote:Faustine wrote:Spielberg seems to me to be unnecessarily pretentious when he tells storys like Munichdodo007 wrote: Really? I thought it was a good movie. Yes it was dark and not exactly cheerfull but it's not exactly a subject you can sugarcoat.
To my eyes only Munich has an interesting thing: gives voice to the Palestinians ... the rest is not supported in the script. There is no plot explanation of why both youngest and violent men of the group survive.
Eric Bana is an additional suffering
STOP IT !!!!!!!
I like Bana and Munich is a masterpiece for me !!!!!
don't be so bad with Eric, he doesn't deserve such a treatment
Spielberg rules !
Munich IS a masterpiece "We are teachers on sabbatical and we've just won the lottery" Quantum Of Solace
yep, it isdodo007 wrote:I couldn't agree anymore Zonzi!zonzi wrote:Faustine wrote: Spielberg seems to me to be unnecessarily pretentious when he tells storys like Munich
To my eyes only Munich has an interesting thing: gives voice to the Palestinians ... the rest is not supported in the script. There is no plot explanation of why both youngest and violent men of the group survive.
Eric Bana is an additional suffering
STOP IT !!!!!!!
I like Bana and Munich is a masterpiece for me !!!!!
don't be so bad with Eric, he doesn't deserve such a treatment
Spielberg rules !
********
zonzi wrote:yep, it isdodo007 wrote:I couldn't agree anymore Zonzi!zonzi wrote:
STOP IT !!!!!!!
I like Bana and Munich is a masterpiece for me !!!!!
don't be so bad with Eric, he doesn't deserve such a treatment
Spielberg rules !
Didn't you watch Munich many times, zonzi? I somewhat agree with Faustine about Spielberg. Spielberg's movies are mostly very pretentious to me so I can't stand them but I actually think Munich is one of his least pretentious ones. The presence of DC also made it more watchable for me. If not because of DC, I normally stay away from Spielberg movies because I had enough bad experiences with them that I rather not watch his movies. I like Eric Bana's performance in Munich though. yep, magch, I've seen Munich sooo many times, I've lost counts, don't know what it is, but I find it a great piece of cinematographic art. Bana is superbe too. I do love Spielberg movies, last night I watched Schindler's List again ( tons of times so farmagch wrote:zonzi wrote:yep, it isdodo007 wrote: I couldn't agree anymore Zonzi!
) ... another masterpiece ... and Ralph .... just amazing ... la crème de la crème ********
It´s a wonderful movie. James Ballard is a magnificent writer. Christian Bale at his 13 was a great actorlaredo wrote:My favorie Spielburg film is Empire Of the Sun , it was so lyrical and seemless to me and Christain Bale was superb , should have been nominated for an oscar.
I could not see Munich in the cinema for a simple reason: that had committed an outrage against the cinemas that were giving it and did not dare to go, I suppose that because of it I saw her with expectations .... widely frustrated. I saw Munich two times: I can support the violence, which they give me "lessons of life " not.
Explanation for Bana: I accepted : he´s is handsome, point. Good actor???? Without this eternal piss off face is not at all, not me trasmite anything. In Munich irritates me soo much.
Munich is a crooked movie and opportunist too. It is possible that I look at the movies of a way different from you... professional deformation, I guess (I studie History and Literary Criticism in University). I can´t avoid think why anybody inverts so many million dollars in telling this history in a political and historical moment so complex as that we have to live.
Daniel in Munich: I like Steve, is the only personage credible and alive... the others look like to me stereotypes and for moments absolutely incredibles.
We convince ourselves that we know the other person well, but do we really know anything important about anyone.
6. Say what I’m thinking
6. Say what I’m thinking