Eric Bana

[Guest Dan]

I just saw Munich and I knew that if I had to write a posting about its star, Eric Bana. Seeing him shirtless and naked actually made watching the movie hotter than BM.

 

Anyone else see the movie yet?

 

Dan Dare

http://www.geocities.com/dandare_laca/DanDare4Hire.html

[jackhammer91406]

Haven't seen Munich yet, nut thought Eric was hot as could be in Troy.

[Guest rohale]

I'll make short and brief. Steven Spielberg often gets criticised for making sugary coated films that are generally targeted to a family friendly audience. His critics often say he never takes chances, he doesn't really want to ruffle up some feathers and generally plays it safe because he knows his audience all too well. Not this time, not since Schindlers List has Spielberg taken a chance with controversial material, but more importantly gambling with his reputation as a director, and also as a story teller.

 

For someone like myself, Munich is one of the very best thrillers to hit the big screen in quite some time. This is a purely raw emtional film that cannot help but touch at the heart strings. If the merits are judged on material, then this is very much Steven Spielberg in one of his finest hours as a film maker. From the story telling, the production, the casting, the picture quality, nothing is over the top, there is a good balance of equilibrium.

 

This film deserves to be considered for an Oscar nomination for best picture and best director. I hope this film finds an audience out there regardless of belief and persuasion.

 

Rohale

[woodlawn]

>For someone like myself, Munich is one of the very best

>thrillers to hit the big screen in quite some time. This is a

>purely raw emtional film that cannot help but touch at the

>heart strings. If the merits are judged on material, then

>this is very much Steven Spielberg in one of his finest hours

>as a film maker. From the story telling, the production, the

>casting, the picture quality, nothing is over the top, there

>is a good balance of equilibrium.

 

I wasn't too happy with the film. In the first place, according to journalists who have actually had contact with the Mossad agents who tracked the Munich terrorists, none of the agents had any real misgivings about what they did. Apparently this is something Spielberg, or the author of the book he used as source material, just made up.

 

In addition, to echo some Israeli critics of the film, one has to wonder why it is that the Israeli characters are constantly shown as having misgivings about the justice of their mission while the Palestinian characters apparently have none. If there is anyone on the Palestinian side who ever thinks, even for a moment, that killing civilians is not the right thing to do, we never get to see him.

 

Speaking of "over the top," the scene in which the young Ehud Barak introduces himself by name to Avner so the audience will know who he is -- that's really too much. Like a commando would really do that moments before charging into action.

 

Spielberg is a very competent director. He is especially good at the sort of "cast of thousands" movie that Hollywood very rarely makes any longer -- 'Empire of the Sun,' 'Schindler's List' and 'War of the Worlds' are all examples of this. Perhaps he should stick to that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>This film deserves to be considered for an Oscar nomination

>for best picture and best director. I hope this film finds an

>audience out there regardless of belief and persuasion.

>

>Rohale

>

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

>I just saw Munich and I knew that if I had to write a posting

>about its star, Eric Bana. Seeing him shirtless and naked

>actually made watching the movie hotter than BM.

 

 

Why was he naked in the film? And how naked was he ... what could you see? Was the nudity germaine to the plot or was he naked because they had Eric Bana there so they figured "what the hell". I was sad with the lack of nudity in the Hulk. How FUCKING convenient the Hulk wore stretch pants.

[+ Cash4Trash]

The movie that brought Eric Bana to the attention of Hollywood

is a small, independent film from Australia - "Chopper".

 

Basically kicked him into the big leagues and deservedly so...

rent the DVD if you can find it. (Can't remember any nudity

but one helluva a great performance, a bit bloody though.)

[Guest rohale]

>>I wasn't too happy with the film. In the first place,

>according to journalists who have actually had contact with

>the Mossad agents who tracked the Munich terrorists, none of

>the agents had any real misgivings about what they did.

>Apparently this is something Spielberg, or the author of the

>book he used as source material, just made up.

 

 

One of the aspects Steven Speilberg was smart to provide was a very careful disclaimer that the film was merely inspired on true events. Obviously " Munich " is partially based on fact and fiction, which means that as a film maker Mr Speilberg can interpret a story the way he deems fit as long as he keeps historical events in perspective.

 

What suprised me the most was to hear that there had been an advance screening conducted ealier this month in Tel-Aviv with Ilana Romano, widow of Israeli weightlifter Yusef Romano, and Ankie Spitzer who was married to fencing coach Andre Spitzer. Both lost their husbands at the hands of terrorists belonging to Black September in Munich, 1972. Their main concern was that people would not be able to separate fact from fiction and basically cast the picture as a film that should never have been made in the first place. Instead both Mrs Romano and Mrs Spitzer were grateful that Spielberg took on such a project, why? Not only is it personal for them, but they want people to remember what happened in Germany, 1972 and in their hearts they hope that something like the situation in Munich from all those years ago will never happen again in this time and age.

 

If this film can create curiousity amongst the younger people, then all Spielberg could do at best was help to a certain degree make young people better informed of those events from Munich.

 

>In addition, to echo some Israeli critics of the film, one has

>to wonder why it is that the Israeli characters are constantly

>shown as having misgivings about the justice of their mission

>while the Palestinian characters apparently have none. If

>there is anyone on the Palestinian side who ever thinks, even

>for a moment, that killing civilians is not the right thing to

>do, we never get to see him.

 

If Steven Spielberg had to focus on the Palestians then he or maybe someone else would probably have to do a 2 1/2 hr prequel to show how events led up to Black September conducting those brutal killlings. The primary focus of " Munich " was to show Israeli revenge. You bring up a good point about Palestinian characters not showing any remorse as pertaining to the film version. A few weeks ago one of Palestinians who was involved in the killings of the Isreali athletes back in 1972 was recently told of Spielberg's version. I cant remember his name off hand, but he stated that the film makers should have asked him for why he as well as the other members of Black September conducted the killings and still to this day has no misgivings of his actions.

 

If there is one film out there today that best represents a Palestinian's point of view on events. The film is called " Paradise Now ". I saw this film not too long ago, I must say it was brilliantly done. The director Hany Abu-Assad, himself is Palestinian> What he mangaged to pull off was incorporating a crew of jewish, palestinian and westerners. " Syrianna is another really good movie, but the characters are of Pakistani youth who seek redemption thru bloodshed.

 

 

 

>Spielberg is a very competent director. He is especially good

>at the sort of "cast of thousands" movie that Hollywood very

>rarely makes any longer -- 'Empire of the Sun,' 'Schindler's

>List' and 'War of the Worlds' are all examples of this.

>Perhaps he should stick to that.

 

I think Spielberg should carry on making films like " Schindlers List " and now " Munich ", but " War Of The Worlds ". Well with this film, take out Dakota Fanning and offcourse special effects, whats left is nothing but an empty husk of a movie, which basically translated for me as a waste of time to watch on the big screen. This is one film Spielberg could have done without on his resume.

 

Ro

[Guest rohale]

>Why was he naked in the film? And how naked was he ... what

>could you see? Was the nudity germaine to the plot or was he

>naked because they had Eric Bana there so they figured "what

>the hell". I was sad with the lack of nudity in the Hulk.

>How FUCKING convenient the Hulk wore stretch pants.

 

 

I suppose the producers could answer that question as to why Bana or maybe a stunt double was nude in the movie. Maybe someone could provide better info. BTW, the nude scene itself, it's not disappointing at all. The bed sheet covered his privates and definitely got me thinking and for a while. I couldn't help but keep my head in the gutter, I just simply let my imagination run a bit, and those thoughts were well worth it.

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

Thanks rohale I appreciate the answer.

 

VDN

[woodlawn]

>One of the aspects Steven Speilberg was smart to provide was a

>very careful disclaimer that the film was merely inspired on

>true events. Obviously " Munich " is partially based on fact

>and fiction, which means that as a film maker Mr Speilberg can

>interpret a story the way he deems fit as long as he keeps

>historical events in perspective.

 

By the same token, one could say that a film about Abraham Lincoln in which Lincoln survives the shooting at Ford's Theater instead of dying would be "inspired by real events." What Spielberg apparently did in this film was to distort history in order to make a political argument. In a world in which millions of people can be persuaded that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks simply because the president keeps mentioning the two things in the same sentence, that is a dangerous thing to do.

 

> in their

>hearts they hope that something like the situation in Munich

>from all those years ago will never happen again in this time

>and age.

 

Things like the situation in Munich are happening every day in Iraq, no?

 

>If Steven Spielberg had to focus on the Palestians then he or

>maybe someone else would probably have to do a 2 1/2 hr

>prequel to show how events led up to Black September

>conducting those brutal killlings.

 

Not at all. In the film there are several scenes in which Palestinians -- including one of the alleged planners of the Munich attack -- talk about their motives. It's just that in talking about their motives, they don't express any misgivings about the use of violence.

 

 

>I think Spielberg should carry on making films like "

>Schindlers List " and now " Munich ", but " War Of The Worlds

>". Well with this film, take out Dakota Fanning and offcourse

>special effects, whats left is nothing but an empty husk of a

>movie, which basically translated for me as a waste of time

>to watch on the big screen. This is one film Spielberg could

>have done without on his resume.

 

Spielberg is one of the few directors working today who is both willing and able to make movies that literally have a "cast of thousands." I mean thousands of people, rather than thousands of cg images of people, of course. He could have shot the huge crowd scenes in 'War' using cgi, but he used real people instead. That is vastly more difficult for a director, but it also produces a vastly more realistic and frightening effect. My hat's off to him for managing it.

[JesusNYC]

Hulk & Woverine / RE: Eric Bana

 

I think that is so funny that you brought that up, because I totally agree. Bana is a hunk. Ironically, there was a story in the New York Post about a time when Eric Bana and Hugh Jackman were sitting around having drinks.

 

Eric turned to Hugh and said something like, "Can you believe it? You and I sitting together are like the Hulk and Wolverine having a drink?" Soon filmmakers say Hugh is going break away and make his own Wolverine movie. That will be kicking...

 

Who saw Brokeback Mountain this week? Is there a review here that I can read?

 

JesusNYC

 

 

}(

[Guest rohale]

>By the same token, one could say that a film about Abraham

>Lincoln in which Lincoln survives the shooting at Ford's

>Theater instead of dying would be "inspired by real events."

>What Spielberg apparently did in this film was to distort

>history in order to make a political argument. In a world in

>which millions of people can be persuaded that Iraq had

>something to do with the 9/11 attacks simply because the

>president keeps mentioning the two things in the same

>sentence, that is a dangerous thing to do.

 

If Steven Spielberg were to create a film about Abraham Lincoln in which he survives the assassination attemept. Then automatically his career as a film maker will sink very fast and he wont be able to redeem himself. Obviously that's not the path he will take. In due time we'll find how his picture will be received by film critics as well as historians. To those who might be unaware, Steven Spielberg's next film project will be based on the life of Abraham Lincoln. I believe the actor who will be playing Mr Lincoln is none other than Liam Neeson. I'll be curious to see how the Irish man looks and sounds in the film version which begins shooting early 2006.

 

As for what Spielberg did in Munich, the idea that he distorted history to make a political argument. Obviously this is an arguement that goes both ways. I'm sure he has his defenders who will speak on his behalf over time. Even though the film's main focus centers on the Isreali agents in pursuit of Palestinian members of Black September. Let's not forget that throughout the film, flashbacks are provided to show how and what happpened to members of the Israeli Olympic team who were being held against their will by Palestinian gunmen. One can argue that he distorted certain Israeli characters and made them feel a lot remorseful than they really might have been.

 

However to Spielberg's credit, what he did best was to try and keep the basic historical timelines in perspective which was the overall time frame of the Israeli olympians being held hostage which evenually led to their ultimate demise. This is where the soul of the film comes into play. If he had changed these particular events, then the film woudn't have a chance. It would be DOA with critics and moviegoers alike.

 

As to when and how the Israeli agents found the Palestinian suspects, this is something that will be hard for a lot of people to answer. Unless someone within a position of power who can flatly say " This is how things really happened ". Until then everything is subject to interpretation as how events relate to Spielberg's version of Munich.

 

Again to put matters in historical perspective, Israeli olympians were held hostage and ultimately killed. The Isreali government responded by sending in agents to hunt down the Palestinian members of Black September. Some of the Palestinians were killed in the process. The nice aspect is no one argues otherwise.

 

 

As for the political commentary on Iraq, I think it's probably more appropriate in the Political section of the website.

 

 

 

>Things like the situation in Munich are happening every day in

>Iraq, no?

 

To answer your question. As far as I know, a situation similar to Munich taking place in Iraq, hasn't happened. I haven't heard of any members of the Iraqi olympic team being held by gunmen against their will. If it does happen, we'll probably hear about it. Unless someone else can shed some light on this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

>>If Steven Spielberg had to focus on the Palestians then he

>or

>>maybe someone else would probably have to do a 2 1/2 hr

>>prequel to show how events led up to Black September

>>conducting those brutal killlings.

>

>Not at all. In the film there are several scenes in which

>Palestinians -- including one of the alleged planners of the

>Munich attack -- talk about their motives. It's just that in

>talking about their motives, they don't express any misgivings

>about the use of violence.

 

 

To this day as I far I understand, none of the Palestinians supposedly involved have ever expressed regret. What Mr Spielberg tried to portray in the film was the reasoning of why some Palestinians wanted to kill Israelis. Now Spielberg didn't really have to do it, afterall he was focusing on showing Israeli revenge. However the film tried to explain a little bit about the Palestinian political situation at that point in time. Spielberg should get some credit for that.

 

Amid all the controversary surrounding the film, which will eventually die down as time passes. By far the positive aspects of the film outweigh the negatives. The film itself is starting to garner some attention within Hollywood. Mainly in the form of positive reviews. There is now talk of Oscar buzz surrounding Eric Bana's role within the movie. Quite possibly an Oscar nomination for Spielberg as director. We'll find out early next year.

 

 

>Spielberg is one of the few directors working today who is

>both willing and able to make movies that literally have a

>"cast of thousands." I mean thousands of people, rather than

>thousands of cg images of people, of course. He could have

>shot the huge crowd scenes in 'War' using cgi, but he used

>real people instead. That is vastly more difficult for a

>director, but it also produces a vastly more realistic and

>frightening effect. My hat's off to him for managing it.

 

 

Absolutely in regards Steven Spielberg likes to use huge casts for some of his films. It worked in " Saving Private Ryan ", but unfortunatley it really didn't work for a film like " War Of The Worlds ". There was never an epic feel to " War Of The Worlds ". Take for expample a film like Ridley Scott's " Kingdom Of Heaven ". Ridley Scott also utilised an enormous cast and logistically it was much more difficult to make those battle scenes work. To Ridley Scott's good fortunate it worked and there was a true epic feel to " Kingdom Of Heaven.

 

For War Of The Worlds to have worked, the storyline needed to be much stronger than the version Spielberg eventually took to the screen. The casting, excluding Dakota Fanning needed to be much more heavyweight. Tom Cruise and Tim Robbins were terribly disappointing. They would probably work better together if there was ever a sequel to their 1986 smash " Top Gun ". There was no frightening effect coming from the film except maybe for the first twenty minutes when I realised the type of performance Cruise was going to provide. Now that was frightening.

 

" War Of the Worlds " was by far a lackluster film. Spielberg should have never undertaken a project of this magnitude. Oh well, I suppose every film maker needs to have a blemish in their careers every once over a blue moon. Thankfully Spielberg should try to avoid sci-fi projects in the future.

 

Ro

[LoneStar]

the movie hotter than BM.

>

>

>Why was he naked in the film? And how naked was he ... what

>could you see?

 

Was he more naked than this ?

 

http://abes-celebrities.com/eric_bana_53.jpg

[woodlawn]

>If Steven Spielberg were to create a film about Abraham

>Lincoln in which he survives the assassination attemept. Then

>automatically his career as a film maker will sink very fast

>and he wont be able to redeem himself.

 

I have no idea what would happen and neither do you. One thing is clear, however: Spielberg would still be able to use the phrase "inspired by real events." I believe my example has demonstrated just how empty that phrase is.

 

 

>As for what Spielberg did in Munich, the idea that he

>distorted history to make a political argument. Obviously

>this is an arguement that goes both ways.

 

I don't know what is meant by "goes both ways." Either his film is historically accurate or it is not. It can't be both.

 

 

>As to when and how the Israeli agents found the Palestinian

>suspects, this is something that will be hard for a lot of

>people to answer. Unless someone within a position of power

>who can flatly say " This is how things really happened ".

>Until then everything is subject to interpretation as how

>events relate to Spielberg's version of Munich.

 

As a matter of fact Aaron Klein, a distinguished journalist who has worked in Israel for many years, recently published a book called "Striking Back" that contains a very detailed account of the Munich attack and its aftermath. In a recent interview on NPR he stated that he personally spoke with a number of Mossad agents involved in seeking out the Munich plotters and that all of them expressed nothing but pride in their actions.

 

> The

>Isreali government responded by sending in agents to hunt down

>the Palestinian members of Black September. Some of the

>Palestinians were killed in the process. The nice aspect is no

>one argues otherwise.

 

I don't think the statement that "no one argues otherwise" is true. According to Klein, the story that a team was formed to seek out and kill the Munich plotters is largely fiction.

 

>>Things like the situation in Munich are happening every day

>in

>>Iraq, no?

 

>To answer your question. As far as I know, a situation

>similar to Munich taking place in Iraq, hasn't happened.

 

On the contrary, people are kidnapped and killed by terrorists in Iraq almost every day. Some are held for ransom for days or weeks, as the Israeli athletes were, and some are just killed.

 

>To this day as I far I understand, none of the Palestinians

>supposedly involved have ever expressed regret.

 

I think that is true. But it is also true that none of the Israelis involved expressed regret, according to Klein. So why does Spielberg put words of regret into the mouths of some characters but not others?

 

>" War Of the Worlds " was by far a lackluster film.

 

I suppose the best reply to your deprecating remarks about 'War' is to point out that a number of the most distinguished film critics in America said exactly the opposite of what you have said. I agree with them.

[Guest rohale]

>

>>If Steven Spielberg were to create a film about Abraham

>>Lincoln in which he survives the assassination attemept.

>Then

>>automatically his career as a film maker will sink very fast

>>and he wont be able to redeem himself.

>

>I have no idea what would happen and neither do you. One

>thing is clear, however: Spielberg would still be able to use

>the phrase "inspired by real events." I believe my example

>has demonstrated just how empty that phrase is.

 

First of all Spielberg is not going to make a film where he will attempt to show Abraham Lincoln surviving the assassanation attempt on his life. It's also common sense that if this is the route he pursues , then how long will it take before he becomes the laughing stock in Hollywood. Secondly Spielberg is not that stupid to change what history has recorded. Let's not forget that Spielberg based his film Munich upon a book that caught his attention. The author just like Aaron Klein is entitled to his own point of view.

 

I think you used a really bad example that most people would find absurd. Now as for the film reviews, most critics so far have given a warm reception to Spielberg's version of Munich. I'm in complete agreement with them so far.

>

>

>>As for what Spielberg did in Munich, the idea that he

>>distorted history to make a political argument. Obviously

>>this is an arguement that goes both ways.

>

>I don't know what is meant by "goes both ways." Either his

>film is historically accurate or it is not. It can't be

>both.

 

As for the historical accuracy, everyone has their own point of view on this. Some think Spielberg didn't do enough research and in turns makes his film the subject of debate. Other people will say he did the best he could with the material at hand. The film Munich is not going to please everybody.

>

>

>>As to when and how the Israeli agents found the Palestinian

>>suspects, this is something that will be hard for a lot of

>>people to answer. Unless someone within a position of power

>>who can flatly say " This is how things really happened ".

>>Until then everything is subject to interpretation as how

>>events relate to Spielberg's version of Munich.

>

>As a matter of fact Aaron Klein, a distinguished journalist

>who has worked in Israel for many years, recently published a

>book called "Striking Back" that contains a very detailed

>account of the Munich attack and its aftermath. In a recent

>interview on NPR he stated that he personally spoke with a

>number of Mossad agents involved in seeking out the Munich

>plotters and that all of them expressed nothing but pride in

>their actions.

>

 

Aaron Klein is one of many authors over the last thirty odd years to give his interpretation of events that took place in 1972. His book will probably be sugject to debate, only time will tell.

 

 

>> The

>>Isreali government responded by sending in agents to hunt

>down

>>the Palestinian members of Black September. Some of the

>>Palestinians were killed in the process. The nice aspect is

>no

>>one argues otherwise.

>

>I don't think the statement that "no one argues otherwise" is

>true. According to Klein, the story that a team was formed to

>seek out and kill the Munich plotters is largely fiction.

 

Again Klein is entitled to his own point of view on this. He like most authors write books to make money.

 

 

 

>>To answer your question. As far as I know, a situation

>>similar to Munich taking place in Iraq, hasn't happened.

>

>On the contrary, people are kidnapped and killed by terrorists

>in Iraq almost every day. Some are held for ransom for days

>or weeks, as the Israeli athletes were, and some are just

>killed.

 

 

You forget one matter concering the film " Munich ". To keep matters in focus, the film is about the Israeli Olympic team being kidnapped and murdered. Now unless Iraqi sport athletes are being kidnapped against their will. Then being placed on a helicopter and shot to death. So far I haven't heard of anything like this thus far taking place in Iraq.

 

 

>>To this day as I far I understand, none of the Palestinians

>>supposedly involved have ever expressed regret.

>

>I think that is true. But it is also true that none of the

>Israelis involved expressed regret, according to Klein. So

>why does Spielberg put words of regret into the mouths of some

>characters but not others?

 

The only person who can answer this question is Spielberg himself, no one else.

>

>>" War Of the Worlds " was by far a lackluster film.

 

The way I see matters, " War Of The Worlds " is certainly not a film that Spielberg will be remembered for in 20 years from now. It's always going to be the usual suspects, Jaws, Close Encounters, Indy Jones, Jurassic Park, Schindlers List, The Color Purple. These are the films most people might remember him for. Somewhere down the line joining Terminal and Catch Me will be " War Of The Worlds "

>

>

>

[Guest rohale]

>

>Was he more naked than this ?

 

 

Absolutely yes, they showed him or his lookalike on the bed resting with the actress playing the wife. The camera literally showed the actor from head to toe, but with the bed sheet covering his privates.

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

>Absolutely yes, they showed him or his lookalike on the bed

>resting with the actress playing the wife. The camera

>literally showed the actor from head to toe, but with the bed

>sheet covering his privates.

 

Thanks Ro for the details.

[woodlawn]

>First of all Spielberg is not going to make a film where he

>will attempt to show Abraham Lincoln surviving the

>assassanation attempt on his life. It's also common sense

>that if this is the route he pursues , then how long will it

>take before he becomes the laughing stock in Hollywood.

 

I find your statement ridiculous. Hollywood has put out quite a number of films that rewrite history in ways just as egregious, and they've been successful and have done no harm to the careers of those involved -- 'The Patriot,' 'Gladiator,' and 'Braveheart' are three of many examples that come to mind.

 

>Secondly Spielberg is not that stupid to change what history

>has recorded. Let's not forget that Spielberg based his film

>Munich upon a book that caught his attention. The author just

>like Aaron Klein is entitled to his own point of view.

 

You seem to confuse matters of opinion with matters of fact. Klein based his book on interviews and other research. The facts he, and the other author Jonas, states as facts either are facts or they are not. Whether those involved in tracking down the Munich plotters are remorseful is not a matter of anyone's point of view. Either they do express those feelings or they don't.

 

 

>I think you used a really bad example that most people would

>find absurd.

 

I don't recall anyone electing you to speak for 'most people.'

 

> Now as for the film reviews, most critics so far

>have given a warm reception to Spielberg's version of Munich.

>I'm in complete agreement with them so far.

 

I agree with Ebert and Roper, who stated that the film is one of considerable cinematic merit, but that they disagree with the spin Spielberg put on the historical events.

 

 

>As for the historical accuracy, everyone has their own point

>of view on this.

 

There you go again. You seem not to understand that certain things either are facts or are not facts. Either Mossad really did set up a team of agents in Europe dedicated to finding the Munich plotters or they didn't -- both can't be true. Klein says they didn't.

 

>Aaron Klein is one of many authors over the last thirty odd

>years to give his interpretation of events that took place in

>1972. His book will probably be sugject to debate, only time

>will tell.

 

Once again, you confuse fact with interpretation. If Klein's research says something didn't happen and some other author says it did, both can't be right.

 

 

>Again Klein is entitled to his own point of view on this. He

>like most authors write books to make money.

 

Klein is an award-winning journalist who has for years been Military and Intelligence Correspondent for Time magazine in Jerusalem. You can't get or keep a job like that unless you have developed extensive knowledge of military and intelligence affairs and good sources within the Israeli government. His past work and reputation make it very difficult to argue with him.

 

 

>You forget one matter concering the film " Munich ". To keep

>matters in focus, the film is about the Israeli Olympic team

 

To me that is a distinction without a difference. Terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere continue to use tactics very similar to the Munich attack thirty years later. Whether the people they kill are Olympic athletes or not hardly matters.

 

>The only person who can answer this question is Spielberg

>himself, no one else.

 

I think the answer is quite obvious. Spielberg used that and several other tactics to present his own political message: violent reprisals do not solve the problem of terrorism. Reasonable people can disagree about whether that message is correct, but not about whether Spielberg bent over backwards to convey it in this film. He unquestionably did.

[woodlawn]

RE: Point of View?

 

>>As for the historical accuracy, everyone has their own point

>>of view on this.

 

People who were actually involved in the events we're discussing have more than a point of view. They have facts. Here is a link to a recent article on MSNBC in which people who worked for Mossad during the 1970s debunk a number of things, some major, some minor, in Spielberg's film:

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10626324/

[Epigonos]

Well I'll be damned. Woodlawn at last we finally agree. I would also like to add that it is high time people come to the realization that motion picture directors like Spielberg and Oliver Stone are making feature films NOT documentaries. They have points of view and axes to grind. That is not necessarily bad but it is a FACT and must be understood when viewing their films

[uwsman2]

Hulk & Woverine / RE: Eric Bana

 

This morning's NY Times Arts Section had a nice feature on Eric with two pictures, one from the film. I saw Munich yesterday, and found it quite a disorienting experience, but I concur totally that Eric Bana is totally hot in this film. What a stud! The nudity was not gratuitous - it was appropriate to the plot at the points it occurred.

Actually, when I saw Troy, I thought that Eric Bana and Peter O'Toole were the main reasons to see the film. Sure, Brad's butt was gloriously on display, and he obviously got pumped for the assignment, but Bana's sensitivity, combined with a very sexy body nicely revealed in Trojan robes, outpaced Pitt in the acting and pulchritude categories. I would say it's worth getting the Troy DVD just to fast-forward through film for Bana's scenes.

[Guest Dan]

Hulk & Woverine / RE: Eric Bana

 

Hey, I posted this to discuss Bana. Those of you who wrote about the movie itself hijacked this thread as far as I'm concerned!!!! LOL

 

 

Dan Dare

http://meetlocalmen.com/mlm/dandarela.html

http://www.geocities.com/dandare_laca/DanDare4Hire.html

[ncc1701d]

Hulk & Woverine / RE: Eric Bana

 

> >Actually, when I saw Troy, I thought that Eric Bana and Peter

>O'Toole were the main reasons to see the film. Sure, Brad's

>butt was gloriously on display, and he obviously got pumped

>for the assignment, but Bana's sensitivity, combined with a

>very sexy body nicely revealed in Trojan robes, outpaced Pitt

>in the acting and pulchritude categories. I would say it's

>worth getting the Troy DVD just to fast-forward through film

>for Bana's scenes.

 

YOu read my mind I remembered watching Troy and kept wishing Brad would leave so I can see more of Eric....Hot Hot Hot.:9

[BigK]

Hulk & Woverine / RE: Eric Bana

 

Cannot believe that no one has posted a photo of Bana. x( x( x(

[jackhammer91406]

AS YOU WISH

 

>

>Cannot believe that no one has posted a photo of Bana. x( x(

>x(

 

By Your Command......

 

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/EricArchives/Photography/Candids/2003/Hollywood-Galla-Awards/Photo-2003-10-03-HollyGallaAwd-013-Sonia.jpg