I disagree (partially) with raja sen regarding the end of the movie. Though it sounds strange, the end is the way it should be. I don't think of other end than spoiling this (as pure as water) man's life.
I have been following his film reviews from some time and Iam convinced now that he hopelessly tries to be different. First of all, he is just not qualified to review a movie of the calibre of Munich. Neither does he understand the dictum of hollywood scripts nor he has any idea on how metaphors are used brilliantly by wizards such as speilberg. I myself detest gory scenes but , inspite of more than couple of them in Munich, I have to say that there was none which was out of the place. All of them had to be there for the desired effect. Mr Sen, for your kind information, I dont think the first scene was enough to justify the need of the character of Avner. The massacre , in continuation, was shown repeatedly to justify his consistent motivation to do the killings. He was not supposed to be a bigoted jew/israeli , but probably this incident guided his motivation throughout. Also, yes, the idea, eye for an eye does no good, is cliched, but Mr Sen, just to sound different, a director cannot replace age old truths with something abstract. The key is in the execution, and Munich is well executed on each front. Please refrain from reviewing movies which you dont understand!!
