WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by Null Protocol on 2005-12-22 15:14:24 +0000

very jealous. Looking way forward to seeing this. I read an article in Time by Richard Corliss a couple of weeks ago - looks like it will be a good one (as well as a departure from "the Terminal" , "Catch Me If You Can", "War of the Worlds") something more along the lines of "Amistad", "Private Ryan" or "Schindler's List"... How was Eric Bana? the only other thing I've ever seen him in is Ang Lee's "The Hulk"

Posted by Null Protocol on 2005-12-22 16:26:25 +0000

I dont think the security guard was a political thing. My guess/ hypothesis is anti piracy enforcement. "Munich" is in ultra limited release as of December 2005 to essentially gain word of mouth buzz and a nomination for the Oscars (tm). for like 99.9% of people, I think Munich, from an accesibility standpoint, is a 2006 film for the mainstream. Probably a little extra muscle / authority to make sure people dont bring in digital video cameras to pirate it. I knew people who had Revenge of the Sith DVDs before its Memorial Day 2005 release. The only equitable solution I see to this problem is to simultaneously release a film in the theaters and DVD. That would put the pirates offering subpar, not to mention illegal, material right out of business.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2005-12-23 16:34:26 +0000

glob seems to dig...

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-20 14:50:59 +0000

Very impressed w/ this film. Saw it a week ago. Eric Bana (aka the Incredible Hulk) was a very believable and intense Mossad agent who gets a front row seat to experience the highs and lows of revenge. I think the blond hitman that works w/ Bana's character is who they chose for the new James Bond, BTW. Im sure some will argue that some of the Twin Tower imagery is as subtle as a big bag of dropped hammers, but it still sent a chill up my spine. I like it when Spielberg does more "personal" films like Amistad, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, A.I. as opposed to fare like the Terminal or Jurassic Park. It must be an interesting tightrope an artist has to tiptoe between commerce and creativity. Sans J Park, E.T., Jaws, et. al, final cut on films like Munich would be a tad bit out of reach. Is it a safe assumption to think that this is why someone like Francis Ford Coppola resorted to a film like his adaptation of John Grisham's Rainmaker or dreck likeJack? After the trifecta of the Godfather films, The Conversation,and Apocalypse Now? If either of these above mentioned films from the mid to late 1990's were knocked out of the park and grossed huge $$$, maybe "personal" filmmaking would be a more reachable goal for FFC.

Posted by tgl on 2007-02-04 19:10:13 +0000

Watched it on the small screen last night. What a thriller! Credit Spielberg for making a thought provoking film about a sensitive subject and for doing so without condemning any parties. Well, the ending scene where Bana's character is rebuffed by the handler in front of the World Trade Center spoke volumes about where Spileberg's sentiments lie. (Although, I'm trying to come around to MF DÜ's and Susan Sonntag's view that film is an artform that should be appreciated for it's art and not for any "message"... anyone up for a Leni Riefenstahl festival?) One thing that was either intentional or was a product of my sympathies: The Israeli actions always seemed fraught with moral ambiguity, the Palestinian's elicited no such empathy. The actor who played the bomb-maker reminds me of a character from a Zero Mostel(?) film where the character must perform the part of Shylock for the Fuhrer in order to escape Nazi Germany. Anyone?

Posted by Miriam on 2007-02-05 16:10:37 +0000

The "bomb maker" was the guy from "Amelie."

Posted by tgl on 2007-02-05 16:30:52 +0000

I knew he looked familiar... Does "bomb maker" need quotes? He continues to remind me of a Zero Mostel-era actor. Daniel Craig's character was interesting, also in light of his (at that time upcoming) performance in "James Bond". Rather the character wasn't interesting, but the juxtaposition with the Bond character is.

Posted by Miriam on 2007-02-05 18:57:52 +0000

Since the "bomb maker" revealed that he was really a "bomb dismantler" I think it deserved quotes. Besides, sometimes quotes are fun.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-02-05 19:39:21 +0000

"no"

Posted by tgl on 2007-02-05 19:44:34 +0000

Agreed.

Posted by G lib on 2007-02-05 21:31:03 +0000

Me too-- not a fan of the extraneous quotes. As in: "10% more free" My other pet peeve-- the extraneous apostrophe. As in: Srambled eggs, toast, and Home Frie's

Posted by MF DU on 2007-02-05 21:34:42 +0000

no's

Posted by Riotous Nutjob on 2007-02-06 03:06:21 +0000

Is this a huge spoiler? I'm due to get this movie soon from Netflix...probably should have steered clear from this thread. 20/20 hindsight.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2007-02-06 09:38:06 +0000

Did you know that in Dutch, when they pluralise certain words they use apostrophes? "If a noun ends in an unstressed vowel, its plural gets -s at the end. To keep the long vowel long, we use an apostrophe. Remember that if a single vowel sits in a syllable that ends in one or more consonants, it is a short vowel." collega's (colleagues) alibi's (alibis) baby's (babies) As opposed to the "normal" Dutch construction which adds -en to pluralise a noun (plus a few adjustments to maintain the vowel & consonant sounds): bieren (beers, plural of bier) bomen (trees, plural of boom) billen (buttocks, plural of bil)

Posted by virtue on 2007-02-06 11:54:04 +0000

Can you have a spoiler in a film based on real events?

Posted by tgl on 2007-02-07 19:55:06 +0000

EVERYONE DIES!

Posted by tgl on 2007-02-07 19:56:41 +0000

Knowing that the bomb maker on the assasination squad was only trained to diffuse bombs is not much of a spoiler.