219 replies to this topic

[luciusgore]

While Clive Owen stars in bombs like DERAILED, Daniel Craig is the second-name star in Spielberg's MUNICH. He's second in the credits. Most importantly, the buzz around this film is that it is Spielberg's BEST film EVER:

http://www.laweekly....dline-finke.php

It wouldn't surprise me if Craig's star rises like a rocket to mars as we go into production of "Casino Royale."

[Tarl_Cabot]

They said Minority Report was also great;Ebert called it the great American masterpiece... I thought it sucked! But I hope Munich is the real deal. I really wanna see Syrianna. I read part of the book which it is loosely based('See No Evil' by Robert Baer).

[dinovelvet]

While Clive Owen stars in bombs like DERAILED, Daniel Craig is the second-name star in Spielberg's MUNICH. He's second in the credits. Most importantly, the buzz around this film is that it is Spielberg's BEST film EVER:

http://www.laweekly....dline-finke.php

It wouldn't surprise me if Craig's star rises like a rocket to mars as we go into production of "Casino Royale."

Ehh just more hype. So one of the producers of Munich says that its, like, really good. Quelle surprise! I seem to remember EON saying that Legend of Zorro was great

Fact is, nobody who isn't associated with the production has seen it yet. Still. Let's get the film in theatres, gauge the reaction from the public and critics, then we can start talking Oscar. Remember AMISTAD!!!

Edited by dinovelvet, 24 November 2005 - 12:42 AM.

[Ouroboros]

First off, exactly why is there so much hostility toward Clive Owen? He's a good actor, he's not Bond, he's not in the running, thus I don't see the point in trashing him. Further, DERAILED has earned back its budget and thus cannot be defined as a bomb.

But moving on, glad to see that MUNICH is getting good reviews. It looks like a good movie, but I'm not sure it's going to be quite the breakout for Craig that everyone's expecting. He is in the trailer, but unless he plays the Wrath of God member who got killed by the femme fatale, I doubt he gets a lot of screentime. Granted, the fact that he is now James Bond will color everyone's perception of his role, but I think the movie to wait for as far as boosting him in the public image is THE VISITING. Starring roles are what the public is really going to notice. I hope he does get exposure in MUNICH, but I don't think he's going to be the character people remember.

My two cents.

[dinovelvet]

First off, exactly why is there so much hostility toward Clive Owen? He's a good actor, he's not Bond, he's not in the running, thus I don't see the point in trashing him. Further, DERAILED has earned back its budget and thus cannot be defined as a bomb.

Derailed hasn't earned back anywhere near its budget...the studio takes about half of theatre revenues, it dropped nearly 50% in its second weekend, it'll be lucky to make $35 million. Anyhoo, some of the hostility towards Owen is (IMHO) because of this "too big for Bond" business. Nearly everything he's in flops, yet there's some kind of bizarre perception that he's up there with Toms Cruise and Hanks in the blockbuster stakes. If Derailed and Shoot 'em up are the kind of garbage he picked over doing Bond, then good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Ouroboros]

I believe (but I could be wrong) that DERAILED's budget was $22 million. Having made that back (at $23 mil right now), there're only the marketing costs etc to recoup. Although the theater does take around 50%, most discussions I have seen of box office receipts (which, granted, could be ignorant rubbish) tend to consider the whole take.

And I can understand disliking a "too big for Bond" attitude, but he also wasn't offered the role, (or at least the studio says they didn't offer it to him), and thus it's not like he turned it down. I'm glad Craig took it, though I wish there was a little more enthusiasm apparent when he talked about it, but maybe that's coming. I would also point out that he also had quite a bit of hesitation about taking the role earlier in the year in his interviews.

So back on topic, as a follow up to the post, do we know who exactly Craig DOES play? Aside from "the car guy." My knowledge of the actual retribution for the Munich terrorism is shaky, having only read a little about it.

Edited by Ouroboros, 24 November 2005 - 01:12 AM.

[hrabb04]

So, in other words, Munich is better than 1941? I dunno....

[jaguar007]

I believe (but I could be wrong) that DERAILED's budget was $22 million.

$22 million bidget? I thought that was just for Jennifer Aniston's fee.

[Moore Not Less]

Spielberg film 'calls for peace'

For the full article
http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/4498686.stm

Director Steven Spielberg has called his new film Munich, about the kidnapping of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics, "a prayer for peace".

The Oscar-winning director revealed his views in a rare interview about the potentially controversial film.

"I don't think any movie or any book or any work of art can solve the stalemate in the Middle East. But it's worth a try," he told Time Magazine.

The film is due to be released across the US on 23 Decemer.

Leaders of Jewish and Muslim groups, as well as diplomats and foreign policy experts, will preview the film ahead of its US opening.

"Somewhere inside all the this intransigence there has to be a prayer for peace," said Spielberg, whose award-winning films include Saving Private Ryan and holocaust drama Schindler's List.

"The biggest enemy is not the Palestinians or the Israelis. The biggest enemy in the region is intransigence."

[Byron]

How on earth can Spielberg "call for peace" when this film will simply glorify violence and counter-violence, blood for blood?

Is there a message for peace anywhere in this film? I don't see it.

Spielberg is way past his due by date and should gracefully retire before making more turkeys like WOTW.

Spielberg film 'calls for peace'

For the full article
http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/4498686.stm

Director Steven Spielberg has called his new film Munich, about the kidnapping of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics, "a prayer for peace".

The Oscar-winning director revealed his views in a rare interview about the potentially controversial film.

"I don't think any movie or any book or any work of art can solve the stalemate in the Middle East. But it's worth a try," he told Time Magazine.

The film is due to be released across the US on 23 Decemer.

Leaders of Jewish and Muslim groups, as well as diplomats and foreign policy experts, will preview the film ahead of its US opening.

"Somewhere inside all the this intransigence there has to be a prayer for peace," said Spielberg, whose award-winning films include Saving Private Ryan and holocaust drama Schindler's List.

"The biggest enemy is not the Palestinians or the Israelis. The biggest enemy in the region is intransigence."

Edited by Byron, 06 December 2005 - 03:59 AM.

[triviachamp]

How on earth can Spielberg "call for peace" when this film will simply glorify violence and counter-violence, blood for blood?

Is there a message for peace anywhere in this film? I don't see it.

Spielberg is way past his due by date and should gracefully retire before making more turkeys like WOTW.

Have you seen the movie? How do you know that it "glorif[ies] violence and counter-violence, blood for blood?" I was under the impression that it doesn't.

I don't get the hate for WOTW, I guess people have ridiculous high standards for his films.

[triviachamp]

A review of Munich:


[quote name='David Poland']Munich is the hot buzz title of this year. And the truth is, the film deserves a second viewing before I really settle in on my opinion. More so, it needs more than the couple of hours it's been since I saw the movie. But here goes a first impression

[Emma]

While Clive Owen stars in bombs like DERAILED, Daniel Craig is the second-name star in Spielberg's MUNICH. He's second in the credits. Most importantly, the buzz around this film is that it is Spielberg's BEST film EVER:

http://www.laweekly....dline-finke.php

It wouldn't surprise me if Craig's star rises like a rocket to mars as we go into production of "Casino Royale."

Ehh just more hype. So one of the producers of Munich says that its, like, really good. Quelle surprise! I seem to remember EON saying that Legend of Zorro was great

Fact is, nobody who isn't associated with the production has seen it yet. Still. Let's get the film in theatres, gauge the reaction from the public and critics, then we can start talking Oscar. Remember AMISTAD!!!

I agree. It also appears as one of those films that are politically incorect to bash. That being said I like Mr. Spielberg and find that I enjoy his movies more than I dislike them.

[Harmsway]

It's great to here that Spielberg has forfeited Spielbergian-ness. It's what I hoped for. I wanted to see him do a gritty, serious drama with MUNICH, and that review seems to confirm that.

[Qwerty]

Sounding very good to me. Am looking forward to this film much more than Spielberg's last one.

[Harmsway]

Sounding very good to me. Am looking forward to this film much more than Spielberg's last one.

I'm looking forward to MUNICH much more than I have with any Spielberg film since SCHINDLER'S LIST.

[Loomis]

Anyone know anything about Craig's character in this? I'm assuming he plays an Israeli intelligence agent, but I may be wrong.

He's one of the team of four that accompany Bana in his killing spree. He's the driver. They play assassins.

Update: today's Daily Telegraph describes Craig's character as something like "a trigger-happy South African hitman".

And MUNICH is a 160-minute affair, apparently.

[doublenoughtspy]

According to the National Review, Steven Spielberg's new movie is hollow, tedious, and desperate not to be charged with a point of view...

http://www.tnr.com/u...s=diarist121905

[Loomis]

According to the National Review, Steven Spielberg's new movie is hollow, tedious, and desperate not to be charged with a point of view...

http://www.tnr.com/u...s=diarist121905

Why should I admire somebody for his ability to manipulate me? In other realms of life, this talent is known as demagoguery. There are better reasons to turn to art, better reasons to go to the movies, than to be blown away....

*Sigh* I suspect that this reviewer had made up his mind on what to write about MUNICH before he'd even seen it. I mean, all the great directors are great manipulators, are they not? That's the name of the flippin' game. I wonder what this critic thinks of, say, Eisenstein.

[Harmsway]

*Sigh* I suspect that this reviewer had made up his mind on what to write about MUNICH before he'd even seen it. I mean, all the great directors are great manipulators, are they not? That's the name of the flippin' game. I wonder what this critic thinks of, say, Eisenstein.

That's one of the stupidest comments I've read in a film criticism. All film is manipulation. Film is a statement created to evoke a certain feeling regarding the film's subject. Jeez.

[triviachamp]

According to the National Review, Steven Spielberg's new movie is hollow, tedious, and desperate not to be charged with a point of view...

http://www.tnr.com/u...s=diarist121905

It's the New Republic, I doubt Hollywood cares about them.

Edited by triviachamp, 09 December 2005 - 10:59 PM.

[Turn]

I did some checking on this Leon Wieseltier and he isn't even a film critic, but a literary editor with a degree in Jewish history from Harvard. He says Spielberg's films are "powerful in a hollow way." By that way of thinking, he must also lump Schindler's List, one of the top films of the 1990s, in that way also.

[doublenoughtspy]

Glad to hear no one cares about the New Republic, thanks for that update.

How about Variety?

VARIETY REVIEW: Pic simply does not sustain intellectual interest on a meaningful level... general public will be glancing at their watches...

http://www.variety.c...1117929081.html

[triviachamp]

Glad to hear no one cares about the New Republic, thanks for that update.

I said "Hollywood" not "no one." These guys are a bit too neocon for Hollywood.

[Loomis]

Glad to hear no one cares about the New Republic, thanks for that update.

How about Variety?

VARIETY REVIEW: Pic simply does not sustain intellectual interest on a meaningful level... general public will be glancing at their watches...

http://www.variety.c...1117929081.html

Well, the Variety review hardly makes MUNICH out to be a total turkey. (Technically, the picture is superb, with all hands delivering no-nonsense work at a high level.) The impression it gives is of a flawed but interesting work that scores highly in terms of the brilliance of individual scenes (and is a visual treat), but is let down by a flabby script - this is par for the course with Spielberg, IMO.

[doublenoughtspy]

I'm trying to bring a voice of reason to the discussion.

People were screaming "Oscar! Oscar!" before the film lense cap was even off the camera to begin shooting the thing.

I think there was too much attempt to get it in the slot for the Oscar race.

Middle East conflict for Christmas? No thanks.

[dinovelvet]

I'm trying to bring a voice of reason to the discussion.

People were screaming "Oscar! Oscar!" before the film lense cap was even off the camera to begin shooting the thing.

I think there was too much attempt to get it in the slot for the Oscar race.

Middle East conflict for Christmas?  No thanks.

I've been saying the same thing all along. Now we're getting the reviews, the consensus seems to be its good, but hardly the God's gift to cinema it was hyped up to be. Plus you have to wonder what Spielberg's true motivation is here; the film was rushed into production with an ultra-tight shooting schedule. If this film is so 'important' then awards shouldn't matter to the big S, he has them already. Why not take the time to fine-tune everything and make it the best film it can possibly be, and release it in, say, March? Obviously because that isn't Oscar season. Bit of a shallow move there, Stevie.

[Turn]

[quote name='dinovelvet' date='11 December 2005 - 00:39'][quote name='doublenoughtspy' date='10 December 2005 - 09:51']I'm trying to bring a voice of reason to the discussion.

People were screaming "Oscar! Oscar!" before the film lense cap was even off the camera to begin shooting the thing.

I think there was too much attempt to get it in the slot for the Oscar race.

Middle East conflict for Christmas?

[K1Bond007]

I'm trying to bring a voice of reason to the discussion.

People were screaming "Oscar! Oscar!" before the film lense cap was even off the camera to begin shooting the thing.

I think there was too much attempt to get it in the slot for the Oscar race.

Middle East conflict for Christmas?  No thanks.

I've been saying the same thing all along. Now we're getting the reviews, the consensus seems to be its good, but hardly the God's gift to cinema it was hyped up to be. Plus you have to wonder what Spielberg's true motivation is here; the film was rushed into production with an ultra-tight shooting schedule. If this film is so 'important' then awards shouldn't matter to the big S, he has them already. Why not take the time to fine-tune everything and make it the best film it can possibly be, and release it in, say, March? Obviously because that isn't Oscar season. Bit of a shallow move there, Stevie.

No. This is Oscar season. November and December usually are. It's all about getting your film out before the end of the year (at least somewhere) so it can be considered for an Oscar. If Spielberg delayed to March, then it be included in 2007's Oscar award ceremony, however, in most cases it would be overlooked. If you're going for an Oscar, January through probably August are pretty bad times. Most of those movies are overlooked or forgotten by the time Oscar rolls around. That's usually why the big ones are rereleased later in the year. Such was the case for Saving Private Ryan and Gladiator.

Munich, IMHO, looks to be a great film, but I think most of the critical response of the film (at least those that are negative) will be for political reasons, which may, ultimately, exclude the film from being awarded the golden statue. From the looks of things anyway, King Kong looks to be the spectacle of 2005. If I had to guess at this point, I'd say the King will reign. That's just going from the critical response thus far of the films I know to have (assumed) a shot.

[Loomis]

[quote name='dinovelvet' date='11 December 2005 - 00:39'][quote name='doublenoughtspy' date='10 December 2005 - 09:51']I'm trying to bring a voice of reason to the discussion.

People were screaming "Oscar! Oscar!" before the film lense cap was even off the camera to begin shooting the thing.

I think there was too much attempt to get it in the slot for the Oscar race.

Middle East conflict for Christmas?