Today’s Prayer Focus


MPA Rating: R-Rating (MPA) for strong graphic violence, some sexual content, nudity and language.

Reviewed by: Kenneth R. Morefield, Ph.D.

Moral Rating: Offensive
Moviemaking Quality:
Primary Audience: Adults
Genre: Historical Drama
Length: 2 hr. 44 min.
Year of Release: 2005
USA Release: December 23, 2005 (limited)
January 6, 2006 (wide)
DVD release: May 9, 2006
Copyright, Universal Pictures Copyright, Universal Pictures Copyright, Universal Pictures Copyright, Universal Pictures Copyright, Universal Pictures Copyright, Universal Pictures Copyright, Universal Pictures
Relevant Issues

LOVE REPLACES HATRED——former Israeli soldier and an ex-PLO fighter prove peace is possible, but only with Jesus

About Islam

Featuring Eric Bana
Geoffrey Rush
Daniel Craig
Mathieu Kassovitz
Ciarán Hinds
Hanns Zischler
Hiam Abbass
Director Steven Spielberg
Producer Kathleen Kennedy, Barry Mendel, Colin Wilson
Distributor Distributor: Universal Pictures. Trademark logo.Universal Pictures

“The world was watching in 1972 as 11 Israeli athletes were murdered at the Munich Olympics. This is the story of what happened next.”

Plot: Avner (Eric Bana), an Israeli field agent, leads a team of operatives assigned to assassinate Palestinians they have been told masterminded the kidnapping and murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games. Rated R for consistent violence, mutilation, sexual content, and nudity.

Copyrighted, Universal Pictures

No war is ever entirely cold, is it?

“Munich” is a skillfully made, emotionally earnest examination of an important subject. Because of that, and because of its pedigree, people will think it is both better and worse than it actually is. I want to be up front about its strengths, since my concerns about its limitations don’t mean that I think this is anything less than a high caliber film.

If there is one knock against Steven Spielberg that I accept, it is that he has never presented moral ambiguity or complexity very realistically. His villains are Nazis or slave owners or mindless animals—sharks, dinosaurs, martians—misogynist men (“The Color Purple”), Thugee cult members, or faceless truck drivers. Much has been made prior to the release of “Munich” about how Tony Kushner’s script gives the Palestinians their say (before it kills them), and it does, but this is a film that thinks it is marinated in ambivalence when it is really only braised. To decide whether you will think the film is subtly nuanced or typically heavy-handed, you need only ask whether you are the sort of film watcher who found the final shot—of the New York skyline in 1979 with two towers just off center—pregnantly symbolic or whether you are the sort who was already fishing for your car keys and didn’t even see it.

If you are in the latter of these two categories, then you probably won’t mind that the conversation between Avner and the Arab about home is given an exclamation point later in the film as Louis (Avner’s information broker) looks in a store window at a home furnishing store and tells Avner that kitchens are expensive. You probably won’t mind a second scene between Avner and his mother where she exonerates him for sins unconfessed, just in case you were using the restroom during the first one. You may even think that Golda Meier’s prominently featured admonition that ‘every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values’ is anything more than a slightly eloquent book-end for Avner’s own conclusion that ‘I believe anyone is capable of anything.’

Even the most docile viewer, though, must feel led by the nose when Spielberg intercuts scenes of the terrorist attacks into Avner’s dreams. Much like the end of “Dead Man Walking”, these images can be effective at getting the audience to see the intimate relationship between remote causes and immediate effects, but here they seem oddly out of place. For one, Avner is dreaming of events he could not possibly have seen, so their inclusion in Avner’s dreams is a bit of a cheat—used more to increase the audience’s moral oscillations than represent his own. For another, shouldn’t Avner be more haunted by his own violence? Structurally these scenes needed to be at the beginning of the film. Yes, they would have less dramatic effect there, but the whole thrust of the film’s moral trajectory is a movement from righteous certainty towards wilderness doubt as the events that prompt vengeance recede from memory, gradually replaced by our growing awareness of our own flawed humanity.

For all the depictions of self-doubt, the film can’t quite escape the fact that narrative structures always tend to create more sympathy for the protagonist than the antagonist. In the same way that “The War Within” creates some sympathy for Hassan merely by presenting him as a human being and telling his story, “Munich” creates slightly more sympathy for the Israeli side of the conflict simply by foregrounding Avner’s story.

In spite of these complaints, there are things that “Munich” does quite well. The one time that Avner sobs—while talking on the phone—is both unexpected and authentic. The final speech between Avner and Ephraim (Geoffrey Rush in a great performance) effectively depicts the inevitable break between those who have no problem accepting the moral compromises that Meir mentions and those who can live with them—but only just.

The suggestion that the CIA might have funded the PLO in exchange for an agreement to not target American diplomats, while quickly glossed over and deliberately left unconfirmed, was a brave inclusion for an American studio film. Strangely, one of the most effective scenes was the opening one. When a group of English-speaking athletes returning to the Olympic Village run across another band of men at the security fence, they give them a boost over it without a second thought. Suspicions that are second nature to us now are portrayed as literally unthinkable. This scene alone reminds us of how quickly and poignantly the world has changed in just one generation.

In 1599, William Shakespeare had King Henry V ask a cleric whether he could, in good conscience, invade France. The priest replies “the sin on my own head.” Meir, in ordering the assassinations says that she has made a decision and the responsibility is hers and hers alone. “Henry V” ends up declaring that no man can take moral responsibility for another: every man’s duty is the king’s, but every man’s conscience is his own. “Munich”? It proposes that mortgaging your conscience to make and preserve a home may not morally bankrupt you, but it is still a heavy price to pay.

My Grade: B+

P.S.—The film’s depictions of human sexuality are a bit more graphic than some Christian viewers might expect or be comfortable with, so do take its “R” rating seriously.

Violence: Heavy / Profanity: Minor / Sex/Nudity: Moderate

See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.

Viewer CommentsSend your comments
Positive—“Munich” is a must-see-twice film; the first time to take it all in, and the second time to try and grasp the many nuances. The reviewer is spot-on; this is a film that stands side by side with “Battle for Algiers” as a political movie, and it stands among the best spy action films ever. When I read Tony Kushner was a screenwriter for this film, I expected it to take a morally-ambiguous turn. It doesn’t, and the scene that reveals that it is not going this way comes early in the film, when the main character has a discussion with a pair of Marxists, who explain there is no right or wrong when it comes to politics or revolution. This film should challenge older teenagers to learn the history of modern Israel as well as a basic understanding of political philosophy. My 17-year-old daughter, for example, required occasional whispered definitions: Black September, ETA, Baader Meinhof Gang, Golda Meir, etc. The film is pretty graphic and seems, in a couple of brief scenes, to be making some kind of statement about sex and, I don’t know, war? politics? family and love juxtaposed with violence? You’ll have to figure that part out yourself. In any case the film didn’t use sex or violence gratuitously. Munich is a masterpiece.
My Ratings: Average / 4½
Richard Schmitz, age 49
Positive—“Munich” is a great film. …I was amazed at how well everything was done. I enjoyed this film from beginning to end and don’t recall any sexual themes, and only a few violent sequences. Definitely go see this movie.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 4½
Richard, age 21
Positive—I loved this film. …it is a mature film with a lot of modern history and great acting included. I say it is good morally because I feel that it stuck to the facts. I know that they show a topless woman, but that is the world we live in—where a woman offers herself for pleasure to get herself out of trouble. Going back to the story, it is is real—very real. Eric Bana (HULK) is an underrated actor.
My Ratings: Good / 5
Darius, age 24
Positive—MUNICH is Spielberg’s complete and utter masterpiece that has gone somewhat unrecognized as of late. It is a brutal, unflinching portrayal of the darkness of revenge and its ultimately self-destructive nature. The film itself is “inspired by true events” and there is much heated debate as to the actual historical truth of the story. It seems as if most of the film was fabricated and is purely speculation. That is fine, for the film is not about history as much as it is about the thematic material, which holds true and thought-provoking as is.

The film is incredibly well-cast (in fact, this is one of the best ensemble casts I’ve ever seen). Eric Bana is outstanding as Avner, the leader of the Israeli hit team sent to take down the terrorist outfit called Black September. His portrayal is the anchor of the film, and it’s a depressing look to watch him spiral downwards from pursuit of justice to pure desire for self gratification and revenge. Besides Bana, other actors like veteran Geoffery Rush and Ciarin Hinds give outstanding performances.

Each character displays an interesting view on the film’s events. This movie is about many competing views, many competing claims, and it asks many questions about each. The film itself is about starting discussion and not necessarily bringing everything to an absolute conclusion. Some have brought up that this film is incredibly violent and has some sexual content. I found neither offensive in the context they are presented, and truthfully, I think every bit of content’s acceptability depends on the context. Spielberg is seeking to portray the absolute darkness of revenge and death, and thus he’s not about to cease showing the brutal murder that goes along here. Is it violent? Yes. But it’s not gratuitous, and the movie seeks to confront the viewer with that harshness.

With the nudity, it doesn’t occur in a sexual context. They both occur in the context of assassination attempts and are both played for horror rather than any sensual stimulation of the audience. One incident of nudity in particular is crucial for the overall tapestry of the film. The assassins leave a body grotesquely naked on display after murder purely to disgrace the body. It’s an important moment in the film that shows how far they’ve gone, and it needs to be as shocking as it is (there is a scene expressing the team’s regret afterwards).

The sex scenes (which are without nudity) also prove to be very important to the overall context of the film. The first occurs early in the film and the second occurs near the very end, and they are put in comparison to one another. The first scene is intimate, loving, and a beautiful moment between husband and wife.The second scene, which is juxtaposed to the earlier sequence of intimacy, turns to a moment of brutal despair as Eric Bana’s character flashbacks to the events of the terrorist attack on Munich, and the moment loses all intimacy. It shows how even the most precious, beautiful things are tainted, and how the single most intimate thing between a husband and wife has been lost.

MUNICH is a brutal and dark film, but that in and of itself is not a reason to at all dismiss the film. The world is brutal and dark, and to explore the depths of depravity, sometimes the film has to go there as well. It’s not for everyone. But the questions it asks are important, and very relevant to the current situation between Israel and Palestine (there is a scene between an Israeli and a Palestinian who discuss things in a stairwell that features some of the most brilliant dialogue you’ll ever find in a film).
My Ratings: Better than Average / 5
Ryan Holt, age 19
Positive—When I saw the movie previews for this film I wasn’t interested in seeing it. It was only after I read positive reviews here on this site and elsewhere that I was willing to see it. My husband and I both enjoyed it. It’s not an entertaining movie, but rather a historical and thought-provoking movie. We enjoy these types of movies. Plus, it’s very suspenseful. You’re not sure what’s going to happen next. What we really liked, however, was the way Spielberg developed the theme of conscience and revenge. From the world’s perspective, revenge always seems to be the best way to go, but as the movie progresses you see that it’s not so. Revenge really is the Lord’s, because as humans we are too weak and frail to handle the consequences. So if you are looking to be entertained, then you shouldn’t go see it. And aside from the two sex scenes and a few expletives, the morality of this film is pretty good.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 5
Maria Gottuso, age 37
Positive—This movie had its good side and it’s drawbacks. This movie was disturbing in a good way. It made you think about the big picture when it comes to what terrorism does in the long run. The eye-for-an-eye attitude by the warring factions and constantly extracting revenge back and forth does take a toll and should make people ask what exactly has it accomplished over the years? Very thought provoking. I didn’t have a problem with the violence or sexual situations with Avner and his wife. It’s not like it was an adulterous situation. Besides that, it was good to see Avner as a man with morals and commitment to his wife and child and say no in the face of temptation to wander off. This was a movie that takes the harsh realism of terrorist attacks and throws it unapologetically in our face. Sure, it’s only one man’s (Spielberg’s) view of the Munich tragedy, but I think it accomplished it’s purpose. When people go to movies like this and complain about “filth, violence, and vulgarity” in these movies, they need to know they are rated R for a reason. Terrorists don’t play nice, and “Munich” reminds us of that. And the toll it takes on those involved.
My Ratings: Average / 4
Rob, age 52
Positive—I saw this movie with my dad and my little brother. We all enjoyed it. I highly recommend this movie to fans of Spielberg films such as “Saving Private Ryan”, “Schindler’s List”, and even “War of the Worlds”. It is not a good movie, however, if you are easily disturbed by violence (which is not celebrated, but violent nonetheless). I wouldn’t see any point in bringing younger kids to the movie, due to the fact the violence may make them uncomfortable, and they may not understand the positive themes of the movie. But if you have a kid who is at least 13 and mature enough, I would definitely bring them along to this movie.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 5
Bryan Ford, age 18
Positive—…a true masterpiece of a film. The film deserved several Academy Awards in my opinion. This is one of my favorite films, and I don’t recall ever seeing anything quite like it. First, getting the offensive material out of the way:
  • There is both male and female nudity, but none of the nudity is meant to sexually entice in any way. Viewing a naked dead body is different than scenes of a strip club.
  • There are two sex scenes, both between the main character and his wife, and both show no nudity. They are still a bit graphic, though. As other commenters have said, they are actually in the film for a reason, unlike a trashy romance drama etc., as they show the degress of the main character.
  • The violence is heavy and graphic. This film has violence on the scale of Saving Private Ryan, but not as much of it. In other words, it can be very graphic, but just the intro to Private Ryan contains much more graphic violence than Munich.
  • I don’t remember being offended by the language, but it is certainly rated R for language, also. There are numerous F-words and other things, so do take the mature rating seriously.

I need not discuss the plot any further, but I will say that this movie has a more pro-Israel feel than pro-Palestinian. This is not a happy-go-lucky film, mind you, so treat it more of a realistic fiction of some horrific events. In closing, if you are a more closed-minded or legalistic Christian, you will probably not enjoy “Munich” much. It is certainly a mature film, but I felt that every single aspect of “offensive” material that was put into the film was genuinely done for the purpose of realism and plot development, which also added to the Oscar feel. You will not see any trashy nudity or comic relief in this film.
My Ratings: Average / 5

Brett L., age 20

Neutral—This film is certainly one that can wait for the DVD. Not having ever been involved in intelligence and convert activities, I don’t know if this is a fair representation of this community, but one thing is for sure: the overt sex scenes, albeit between a married couple, were TOTALLY unnecessary. There’s much philosophizing among the hit men about why they’re doing what they’re doing. I think overall, however, aside from the story “value” of the film, we are amiss if we think that the solutions to the conflicts in the Middle East are this simplistic. Of course, believers know that only Jesus Christ will solve the problems there. Spielberg certainly has done better!
My Ratings: Offensive / 3
Bob C, age 42
Neutral—Whenever I view a film of this kind, I look for the underlying theme or themes. In the case of “Munich” there are several themes that should make an impression on the viewer. First, the whole business of retaliation that has dominated the Israeli Arab conflict raises the obvious question, can there ever be an end to the brutality and bloodshed? Second, the ethics and morality of retribution? Thirdly, can there be absolute certainty that those marked for retribution are guilty? Fourthly, if not guilty then their execution is not justice or even acts of war but plain murder? Fifthly, does a civilized people fight terror with terror? Sixthly, and if that becomes official policy then are those who are threatened by terror any different than those who terrorize. (Remember the idea behind assignation is to deter terror with terror, or at least those who order and organize it). The reality is those who devote themselves to such a mission must learn to think and act with the same mind and use the same methods as their enemies. This is unavoidable as an assassin! Seventh, in the act of systematic execution what if you “kill innocent people”! This is brought out vividly in the film! Eighth, in the pursuit of vengeance, how far can one go before he loses his humanity and his sense of conscience? Ninth, the corrupt world of international politics? Tenth, the sort of people you need to deal with in order to accomplish such a retaliation? Eleventh, how far will a Nation go to sacrifice its people for political survival? Twelfthly, is one’s obligation to his country worth sacrificing family and perhaps your very soul? Finally, killing no matter whether in war or in police action or in whatever circumstance regardless of how just and necessary it may be is a grievous and fearful business. There is no glory in death and bloodshed, ever! No reasonable conscience can ever walk away unscathed. I think Speilberg does a masterful job in bringing out the real human element… My Ratings: Offensive / 5
Michael Falsia, age 46
Neutral—The main problem that I had with this movie is that there was really no evidence that what the story was about was true. Spielberg seemed to throw out there a lot of speculation, for example that the CIA was corrupt and partly responsible for supporting some of the terrorists. I think as soon as he labels this a based on a true story, he exposes himself as somewhat of a liar, because the only thing true about the story, was the actually video clips of the Munich Olympic disaster. Aside from that, if he had just not referred to it being based on a true story, it would of been a excellent piece of fiction. One side note, he seemed to go to the extreme when it came to nudity and sexual situations in the film, which I didn’t see the need for, that was offensive in my opinion.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 4
Dana, age 33
Neutral—If the movie had been historically accurate I would have rated it better. But they played with the history and made a poor quality movie at the same time. Not worth seeing. Years ago I saw “Schindler’s List”. While horrifying, it was historically accurate, and I thought it had a great impact. This movie is not of that quality.
My Ratings: Offensive / 1
Joe, age 57
Neutral—This is a disturbing movie. It is not a “feel good” film. Graphic violence, nudity, cursing, this movie has it all. But what is disturbing is that our world is like the days of Noah “when the Earth was filled with violence.” In my opinion this is an adults-only film.
My Ratings: Offensive / 5
Maggie, age 58
Negative—…I don’t know why this movie is receiving positive ratings. I’m definitely not a conservative movie watcher: Saving Private Ryan, Fight Club, and The Boondock Saints being among my favorites, but this movie was just bad. The violence was grotesque, and the plot was very weak for a movie that lasts 2 hours and 44 minutes. The poor qualities of this movie greatly overshadow the positive—unnecessary nudity, and explicit violence. All audiences strongly cautioned.
My Ratings: Offensive / 2
Josh Eldridge, age 18
Negative—My wife and I had high hopes for this film and both came away disappointed for several reasons. First, we knew there would be violence simply because that is a main focus of the storyline. However, the writers attempted to offset the violence and heavy mood with inappropriate lighter moments. The main characters are seen bungling up assassination attempts in a comical way at times. This led some of the audience to laugh at a time when someone was being killed. In a movie that is written for entertainment this might pass as acceptable, but this movie clearly does not fall into that category. Much like Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List, Munich is based on true events and should portray them accurately and respectfully. This was not achieved by this film. Another problem is the lack of character development. Avner is the only character that really fills out throughout the movie. All the other members of his team are given surface treatments. You are left wondering why some of them were even selected for the team after leaving the theater. This is pretty poor when you consider the movie is nearly 3 hours long. The end of the movie drags a bit and then ends unexpectedly. Neither of us felt like the storyline wrapped up at the end. Overall, there are suspenseful moments and the violence is not overdone. My wife did feel that a sex scene between Avner and his wife in the beginning of the film was unnecessarily revealing. His wife is 8 months pregnant and the scene shows the two of them entangled in bed without any sheets. The fact that she was clearly pregnant was the part that made the scene seem too personal and unnecessary.
My Ratings: Average / 1½
Ken, age 34
Negative—…I thought this movie was horrid, and I won’t be seeing it again, that’s for sure.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 4½
Chad, age 21
Negative—I’ve never seen Munich but I read all the reviews about Munich before it came out. The reason I would not care to see it is that the Palestinians are portrayed as freedom fighters while the Mossad is being considered the main source of evil. I’ve read several books about Islam as well as about the beginning of Israel and the time era when it was still known as the Palestine Mandate. With all that knowledge you cannot take a movie like Munich seriously. What’s even more surprising is that Spielberg a Jew himself is catering to political correctness rather than historical authenticity. The sad fact is that most people do not take a real interest to learn about history and not just what’s written nowadays but what has been written well before the 1960’s. No wonder that a professor said that this generation is the dumbest generation in American history. Not by intellect or IQ but because we live in a world where everything has to happen in sound bites and 2 second clips rather than taking the time to research and debate.

One famous communist said “you change history, you change the culture.” That’s exactly what’s happening in America and the West today.
My Ratings: Average / 3
Andy Bendzin, age 45
Negative—Having seen the trailer on TV for this film I was quite looking forward to seeing it. I had (foolishly) assumed that the rating was due to the violent nature of the movie. However, it seemed like the filmmakers felt “well, we’ve got the rating for the violence, might a well stick in some full nudity, and a couple of sex scenes for good measure.” I am ashamed that I didn’t think to walk out of the movie, seeing as I was with younger Christians who look to me for an example. I would seriously caution any Christian from seeing this film. Even without the nudity and sex, the film has a weak plot. It had potential to be a good film, but alas, it’s not.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 2½
Joe Bennett, age 23
Negative—I went to see this movie based on others’ positive reviews. I was not only disappointed, but also disgusted and now have images in my head that will haunt me. Not only is the story very sad and dark, but the violence is sickening and the sex/nudity explicit and “in your face.” …there is little value to the story and too much offensive material.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 3½
jamie, age 26
Neutral—I think there are some interesting themes in this movie, but, overall, I am writing because I think the moral content is very offensive. The way the movie is portrayed by the film critic, I don’t feel like I saw the same movie. I would like to caution those thinking about going, so that you really know what kind of movie you are going to.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 4
Carrie, age 29
Negative—I was sorely disappointed in this movie. I found the language and nudity to be highly offensive. Having read the book upon which the movie is based (“Vengeance” by George Jonas), I was surprised by the amount of “artistic license” Steven Spielberg took. There are 2 scenes involving full frontal nudity (both male and female); the book clearly states that this did not occur in either instance. I was also alarmed by the mix of sex with violent images near the end of the movie, even though the couple engaged in the activity were husband and wife. Ultimately, I recommend that folks read the book and pass on viewing the movie.
My Ratings: Offensive / 4
E, age 42
Negative—…This was the most violent, graphic, depressing movie that I have ever seen in my life. “Munich” made the “Godfather”, “Braveheart”, and “Gladiator” look like child’s play. I wish I didn’t have these images forever in my memory bank. Phil 4:6 tells us to think on what is good, lovely and good report. At least some of the movies I mentioned above had some redeeming qualities, this one does not. This movie offers only death, violence, hate, and hopelessness beyond measure.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 4
Debbie, age 44
Negative—Artistic and political issues aside, DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE. It doesn’t matter that the acting (in the hour that I watched) was compelling, or that Mr. Spielberg directed it. There is nothing you can gain from watching a team of athletes brutally murdered, followed by the methodical execution of the dozen men responsible for that massacre. I deeply regret watching even a portion of “Munich”. Don’t make the same mistake.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 3
Jon, age 23
Negative—My husband and I waited until this movie came out on DVD, as we’d heard mixed reviews by other believers. We turned the movie off after about an hour. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY EVEN ON RENTING it. We thought it would be fact-based and knew it would be “R” because of that. However, we found the movie to be filled with revenge and sexual situations and nudity. It is not a movie Christians or non-Christians, for that matter, should see.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 3
Laurie, age 50

Comments from young people

Positive—…it was definitely a great movie. It was wonderfully done, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. …It does have mature scenes, but that’s what happened and you have to stick to the facts. I think.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 3
Matt, age 17
Negative—Munich is the worst thing I have ever seen. …I went thinking I was going to see a drama that discussed a controversial issue; I was shocked when I found there was no issue at hand except depravity. It was filthy, disgusting, sickening, inappropriate and full of hatred. I left the theater hating all the characters and hating myself a little to for going to see Munich. The sexually inappropriate scenes covered the movie almost as many times as the good guys said the f-word. I’m not speaking in exaggeration when I say the “f-word” was said every couple of seconds in one scene in particular. I was prepared to see violence, but it was more graphic than I could have imagined. In the end of the movie it was all pointless. I have sat and racked my mind for any justification or redemption in this movie, but have come up empty handed. Don’t go see Munich.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 1
Allden Jones, age 17
Negative—…disagree with the rating of the movie “Munich” as a B+. I have seen many of Stephen Speilberg’s movies and have thoroughly enjoyed all of them, with the exception of two “AI” and “Munich” being the other one. On a strictly movie-quality standpoint, I was a little disappointed with “Munich”, having been a huge fan of “Schindlers List” and “Saving Private Ryan,” I was eager to walk into “Munich” and see an epic. I think that was my first mistake, because when I left, I didn’t feel like Steven quite pulled off what he was desiring to in this movie. I think he was a little carried away in a few parts, and (in true Stephen form) goes a little to the extreme. This desire to shock the audience can be seen in both “Saving Private Ryan” as well as in “Schindler’s List”, so I walked into “Munich” ready to take a little of the intensity, to see an amazing movie. Which wasn’t pulled off.

Now from a Christian standpoint, being a teenage male (I would like to think of myself as a mature teen) I walked in, like I said earlier, expecting the violence which tends to be in most of his movies. Violence, never being a thing which has bothered me too much, if the quality of the movie can make the violence worth enduring (movies like “Braveheart”, “Saving Private Ryan”, and “Gladiator” are at the top of my list). But being a teenage male, its hard enough to get by in a non-Christian world without every advertising company trying to grab our eye with “sexy” women in low cut tops. And being a person who has struggled with that in the past, I have only one view point about sexual content. There should be none. With the exception of “Braveheart” (which is my favorite movie), basically any movie which decides to throw in sexual content quickly gets scratched off of my “to get” list.

So I am writing this to any of you people just like me who were ready to watch an epic. This has one of the most disturbing scenes I have witnessed (and a terrible choice by Stephen Speilberg). Two men walk into the house of a female assassin with the objective to kill her. As the assassin realizes what’s happening, she tries to buy herself some time. How? By taking off her robe (of course! What else should she do?). The two men proceed to shoot her in the chest (which is both bare, and at the center of the camera for the next little while during the movie). So as blood oozes out, between her breasts, the assassin stumbles around in her apartment, and tries to pick up her cat, while she is showing off her naked chest covered in blood. She finally collapses onto a chair, sprawled out when one of the men shoots her in the head. One of the men goes to “cover her up again” but is stopped by one of his fellow shooters. Later on in the movie, the shooter says “I wished I would have let you cover her up, I keep seeing her in my mind, sprawled out like that.” So I guess this movie just stirred up my anger, because for about three minutes of the movie, I was having a lovely time looking at the floor of the movie theater, and I can’t say that the movie was worth the time. …
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 3½
Jason, age 17
Positive—I looked forward to seeing this film for a long time. However, I missed it in theaters, but I finally managed to see it on DVD some time ago. I can happily say that I was not disappointed. I’ve heard many negative reviews from Christians offended at the violence, sex, and language. The truth of the matter is, though, that violence in real life is brutal, grisly, and unpleasant, and that people use strong language in the real world. If such things offend you so much, then you should avoid the movie.

I did feel that one sexual scene was gratuitous, but other than that, I believe that every scene in here served a purpose. I was especially pleased to see that there is no anti-Israeli bias here, like I feared. It is true, the Mossad’s vengeance is portrayed in a negative light. But so are the Palestinian terrorists, who are portrayed as evil and hateful.

Skillfully made, fantastic acting (especially by Eric Bana, who thoroughly redeems himself from “The Hulk” in my eyes), a compelling story, great cinematography—if you can handle the above mentioned content, this is a movie for you.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 5
Torrey Janzen, age 17
Positive—…This movie is amazingly well done with superb acting to boot. The storyline was very enthralling, considering it was based on real events—and very thought provoking as well. The different issues also discussed were very interesting and kept me into it the whole time. The only problem I have with it is its graphic, or very graphic violence and unneeded nudity and sexuality. All of these could have been toned down a lot or taken out especially the nudity/sexuality. These seemed to be unnecessary and were disappointing. This should not be seen by any person under 17. Heed the R rating! Remember what goes in your head stays there forever.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 4
Craig, age 15
Positive—This is one of Spielberg’s best yet! I really enjoyed watching this movie, however, I would not recommend showing this to children. Aside from two love scenes (no nudity) and a brief nude scene, I thought the movie had pretty good moral values. The photography is simply amazing along with the special effects! Eric Bana does a very nice job in this movie, unlike in “HULK”. If you are looking for a good action movie with a historical background, this is it. …
My Ratings: Better than Average / 5
Branden, age 17