That's what I thought.

Saw this last night and I have to say that for me, the ending was cheap and manipulative and made me roll my eyes and give an audible "Oi Vey!" Completely unecessary and capped an already longwinded final 40 minutes perfectly imho. This is not a great film....not with the final 40 minutes included. It's a good political thriller, and then it just spirals into Spielbergland...like he couldn't help himself. In all honesty, I don't think he ultimately knows what he was trying to say. Especially with the final shot. bleh.

With the final shot, he was simply trying to say (or so I think) that terrorism can happen at anytime and at any place.

EDIT: I just found an interview where Spielberg explains his meaning behind the last shot.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...218385,00.html

"What I meant to say in the last frame is that now, unfortunately, it is time for America to face the hard choices Israel has been dealing with for years."

I read the whole thread hoping someone would refute this, and no-one did!

Depending on definitions, it's either an outright lie or deliberately misleading; Tony Kushner did write the teleplay for Angels in America.

I approached this with neutral expectations while also having avoided (in order to remain spoiler free) virtually everything about the film (reviews, trailers, etc.). It wasn't quite what I was expecting....for no apparent reason, I had it pegged to be more of a drama/docu-drama and perhaps more high-brow.....what I got was a thrilling spy film.....it was very, very good.

It might have vaulted to my top spot for English-language films of 2005 if it weren't for a couple of bothersome missteps towards the end. They are the same as have been commented on by others:

As for the performances I thought they were quite excellent (barring some inconsistencies in sunstaining the accents). Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Ciaran Hinds, and the rest of the team were great (can't wait to see Craig as Bond). A number of the supporting players deserve praise as well. In particular Michael Lonsdale who played Papa......a great character who nearly stole the show... to that character alone.

I hadn't expected the action in the film to be so plentiful......and it was riveting, suspenseful, edge of your seat stuff...that even startled me a couple of times. While not a traditional action film, "Munich" still blew the doors off the recent "Mission Impossible III". If you are looking for thrills, "Munich" is the clear winner.

"Crash", "King Kong", "Jarhead", "Match Point", "Corpse Bride", "The War Within", "Lord of War", "The New World", "The Constant Gardener", "Walk the Line", "Cinderella Man", and "Batman Begins" were some of my favorite English-language films of 2005. "Munich" missed not by much vaulting ahead of all of them, as it stands right now I'd probably rank it somewhere high-middle in the group above.

Saw this last night, and as stated many times before, the first 2 hours were a cinematic experience, the last 40 min was rhetoric. Overall, I liked this movie, but had my hopes too high and was checking the remaining running time towards the end.

This might be a nit-pick, but wasn't the time period of the revenge in September 1972 prior to when the WTC was built (1977)? Avner's daughter appeared to be much younger than 4-5 years old. I watched the movie on DVD (1st time) last night and was very loved it. I didn't feel like it dragged at all or would want any of it edited. Well done Spielberg!

You have your dates wrong--construction on the WTC was completed in 1972.

Had not seen this in a long time and just watched it today. I still stand by what I initially said when I first viewed it in that it is one of Spielberg's top 3 best films and could quite possibly be #1.

I agree that its one of his best movies. I think because it is not a typical big summer movie from Spielberg that many people were not interested.

What I really like about it is that it has a different tone than the average Spielberg film and it also avoids the cliches. There are no good guys or bad guys or happy endings just an overall feeling of dread for the main characters because we know that even if they survive their mission they will never be the same.

This movie should have been the Oscar winner for Best Picture that year. It was better than everything nominated, and I liked Brokeback Mountain and Good Night, and Good Luck quite a bit. That piece of shit Crash beating it makes it even worse how much this film has been ignored.

It doesn't even have a Blu-ray release anywhere in the world. It's almost like someone wants this film to fade away.

Bump of an 8 year old thread, and no duff beer in sight. Mind blown.

Still waiting on the BD.

It isn't available on any streaming services either. Gimme something dammit!

And of course back when HBO was showing it in HD it was cropped to 1.78.

For now the DVD will do, the quality is very good.

I just bought the DVD off ebay so now they can announce the blu-ray.

Definitely an underrated masterpiece from Spielberg.

If it were not for Capote (my favorite of 2005) this would have definitely been my pick.

A very underappreciated film. Very well made. Ciarán Hinds deserved some awards traction as well. The arc revolving around his character was the best part of this excellent film.

Isn't Spielberg the hold up for the blu release? Doesn't he sign off on that kind of stuff? Or am I thinking of something else?

I don't think so. Every other studio with Spielberg films has released them on Blu. Universal has all the unreleased ones and they're all undeniably second- or third-stringers in his filmography popularity wise regardless of what you think of their quality.

I don't see Spielberg sitting on Munich after releasing The Terminal and Amistad but I can definitely see Universal simply seeing it (plus Duel, Sugarland, 1941 and Always) as low priority.

I assume he does approve whatever Blu they release but Universal has to want to release them first.