Stick to making crap movies like "Indiana Jones." Leave serious topics alone, because you simply don't have enough talent to handle them.

I have not seen "Munich", so this is not in the nature of a review. However, Spielberg had to know he was going to be controversial when he hired Tony Kushner as screenwriter. Kushner has long been anti-Israel, and it shows in his works. Also, it is false to say that America has lost its moral standing in the War against Terror. Most Americans know full well whom they are fighting against and what they are fighting for. The writer is pandering to Spielberg when he doesn't question him as to why Kushner, of all people, was his choice.

Since Stevie boy loves the Pals so much and hates his own people so much, he should move to Hamastan to make his propoganda films. Maybe he could do one about Muhammed (oops I mean the "Prophet Muhammed") wearing a bomb as a turban. I know a Danish illustrator you can call for a sketch. He has more courage to tell the truth than you'll ever have, you freaking collaborator!

So the poor boy is offended. How sad. Let me tell this self-righteous and narcissistic jerk that I am not a "right-wing" fundamentalist. I am a political moderate, a Conservative Jew, and a staunch supporter of Israel. I was also offended by his "Munich" monstrosity. Most of my friends are also politically moderate to liberal and most of them would jump off a bridge before they voted Republican. They are also bright and were appalled at "Munich's" moral equivalence. Some of my friends have actually refused to see the movie. For starters, why did he select an anti-zionist Jew, Tony Kushner, to write the screenplay? Second, why didn't he attempt to portray the human side of the slain athletes instead of extolling the apparent humanity of the terrorists who murdered the Israelis? Nowhere in the movie does he make the case for the Jewish attachment to Israel. the prayers for "next year in Jerusalem", and the centrality of Israel for most Jews. Instead, Spielberg makes it appear as if Israel was an afterthought after the Holocaust--the same hateful lies propagated by Iran and the other rejectionists. Having a hater of Israel write the screenplay is one reason. However, it is puzzling to understand why he didn't have scholarly supporters of Israel read the script and make suggestions on how to make the case for a Jewish Israel exclusive of the Holocaust. I realize that Spielbeg is a brilliant film make but that doesn't translate into being brilliant and his "Munich shows that Spielberg is abysmally ignorant about his religion and Jewish history. So, because of his ignorance, he based the story on a work of fiction called Vengeance by a discredited author? Why does he continue to refer to the decision to go after the perpetrators as an act of vengeance when it was also meant to send a signal to these terrorist creatures that taking Jewish life won't be cheap anymore. Finally, I'd like him to justify his decision to have the lead Israel Mossad agent abandon Israel for Brooklyn. How does this tell Israel's story?

understanding the motives and passion of those that decimated the World Trade Center. Let us see if Spielberg has the guts to go against the American public, or does he pick on Israel because he knows that no harm may come from hitting Israel?

Mr Spielberg does deserve a lot of credit, and most of the criticism aimed at him does come from rightwing so-called pro-Israelis ( or rather anti-Arabs ) like Ezra from LA, whose 'Zionism' is expressed only by embracing extremist views and using hateful language. That does not mean that I think Munich is a masterpiece. I watched the movie and think that Steven Spielberg failed to convey any message of peace which he wanted to convey. One of the better comments - from Israel - on the movie I read on a weblog: http://yonathanbert.blogspot.com/2006/02/last-week-i-saw-steven-spielbergs.html Mr Spielberg's intentions were good, I have no doubt about that. About those of his scriptwriter, Tony Kushner, I am not so sure, though. Anyway, with a record such as his, Steven Spielberg ought to be forgiven for this faux pas. Attacking him is simply unfair.

I don't know the first thing about movie making and probably would not be able to figure out which end of the camera to hold. But I do know how to tell a story and it is absolutely essential that if you want to tell a well known and well documented historical story you must be historically accurate. To tell such a story and to embelish it with your own personal agenda as was done in "Munich" leaves one open to precisely this kind of criticism. Mr. Spielberg, you should have stuck to that facts. Since you didn't -- don't whine to me.

Phil, I started to write a long talkback but you stated my views so well that I would only add the following. I don't consider Munich a "Monstrosity" but just a not a very good movie from a director who made many movies that I liked. I really wanted to like this one but left the theater unmoved and agreeing with some of the critics. Having a center/left political view and knowing that many others of my political persuation also did not like the movie, puts to rest Spielberg's claim that criticism comes from the conservative or political right. Spielberg simply has no clue how Israelis think, talk and relate to each other. A while back I read somewhere that for Spielberg to make Munich was like an Israeli director making a movie about the American Civil War. And I would add, perhaps someone who wanted to also show the Southern excuses for slavery. It most llikely would not work (at least in the United States) and neither did this movie despite some good scenes. A man of Spielberg's intellect should deal with criticism with greater introspection and less self pitty.

I am an American Jew and I did not embrace it. I saw Sword of Gideon and it was not the same as Munich from what I understand. Avner went back to Israel and fought in the Yom Kippur war in that movie. There was no safe house sceane. Making a character have feelings and putting hidden messages are two different things. Hireing a Anti israel writer is also another issue and also not even filming in Israel that was a insult. If Steven Speilberg wanted to do a movie he should have done one on the Yom Kippur War one which I was there and treated it like Tora Tora Tora which helped bridge the gaps with the japanese dealing with the war.

MrSpielberg is perhaps a smart filmmaker and an honest jew, but he is a schmock in political, strategical and historical thinking. if not, he wouldnt have based his movie on the junk book "vengance" from Paul Jonas. His smart brain would, after studiying a while have discovered that the goal of the massad actions were not vengeance, but protecting actual lives.. His plea is miserable: nobody condemn Spielberg for being an enemy of Israel. He made an horrible movie, that'sall.

It is ridiculous to ask for some leeway because of who he is. The movie is its own entity and should be judged on its merits and not on its author. No ignoramus viewing the movie and taking it as fact will consider the fact that Spielberg wrote it as relevant. Rather than continually calling those who see his and the movie's obvious flaws and shortcomings as "fundamentalists", Spielberg should take a hard look in the mirror and maybe take a see why their hearts are aching due to his movie, realize his mistake and obliviousness and then cry with them at his possibly unintentional swipe at the moral fabric of Israel.

Well, he did marry a shiksa-twice

Those of us who love and defend Israel against attacks in whatever medium are not fundamentalists, any more than Spielberg is a fundamentalist in his left-wing approach to terrorism. He has no more right to his view than we have to ours. To throw the term fundamentalist around in defense of his particular agenda is one of the ways in which he has exacerbated the negative impact on more Jews than he cares to admit. He refuses to understand or is incapable of understanding that he is, in fact, aiding an abetting our enemies. It is obvious that his grasp of the situation with which Israel was forced to deal - and with which it continues to have to deal - is negligible. We are not talking about a few unsavory types who are unpleasant. We are talking about murderers and psychopaths who have no compunction whatsoever about obliterating a people and denying them their right to life and land. Evidence the election of Hamas. I wonder what Mr. Spielberg has to say about that.

Speilberg couldn't see clearly the actions of mossad because he is unable to see any higher than the spiritual level he, himself, is currently on. Unfortunately, his self-image as a good and intelligent person, is tied in with his belief in certain political views (and his ego). The truth isn't like that, it's not what he thinks it is although he believes he knows it or is at least on the right track. Speilberg relies on his own understanding to create a vision of reality that he would like to be true. the movie depicts that vision. I am reminded of something I read in prophesy about traitors to their people...something about flattery from the enemy....also, relying on thier own understanding...will work to create a vision...but it will fail.

Basically, I do not buy all this crap criticizm of the movie. The last one expressed by Zamir, ex- Mosad chief. An artist can not tell the story exactly as the Civil Servant sees it. I can't see Spielberg heading the Mosad or MI5, but then I can't see Zamir producing a movie, one must have skills for it. People say that the movie equates Golda with the PLO leaders- rubbish. Some say the agents are portrayed as a bunch of cowboys- rubbish. Others say that the movie doesn't explain the shock of Munich- rubbish, it is seen in the airport masacre scene. I have one and only complain- for the non-israeli and non-jewish audience the movie is somewhat borring- little action, no spectacular tricks, no high tech executions- big deal- a telephone bomb.. Here in Bilbao the public was somewhat bored.

I saw the movie yesterday and it simply a good movie. I think it was largely misunderstood as asking a question and not answering it. This is true but in fact the question it raises is not : " Are we as bad as them when we retaliate" ; but rather : "Maybe we should rethink how we deal with terrorists". Speilberg does NOT portray the two sides as morally equal. This is evident in the movie when he shows how the mosad agents abort in order to save a girl, and how Avners boss instructs him not to kill civilians. The terrorists are the bad guys, no doubt, but the question is obviously not who's bad and who's good but rather IS it worth it? Poor Avner is anonymous nowadays probably...Hopefully in Israel with his family. The west has this thing against negotiating with terrorists...They say it gives them legitamacy or something..Maybe if Golda would have given in and freed the hostages by negotiation they could have hunted them down afterwards... Just a thought ...I think the movie is excellent...A little misunderstood for some reason I don't quite get, but excellent..

You dare call them crap?! They are among the best adventure popcorn movies ever made! Raiders of the Lost Ark got nominated for no less than 8 academy awards. And who can resist the Harrison Ford / Sean Connery father-son duo in the last film? If you want to hate the Temple of Doom, then ok. But do us all a favor and leave Indiana Jones out of this debate.

Once I heard him say he did not take great pains to portray these historic events with 100% fidelity to the facts, or as much so as possible, I simply was (and am) not interested in seeing this film. I would prefer accurate portrayals on PBS or the History Channel on this subject. Save the artistic license for another subject -- it simply does not, in my mind, belong here.

Spielberg is quick to blame the "right wing" Jews in America for speaking out against "Munich". The true be known it is the extreme left wing in the USA and those self-hating Jews who are the only Jews that support his rendition of Munich. Maybe he should plead his case to Abbas.

Skip Munich, watch this interview with 3 reformed terrorists http://tinyurl.com/dl2dm Guys, don't be angry at Spielberg, he did not make the film for israeli audience, but for western left wing liberals. I have seen it, I didn't find it anything special, but it is far from being biased against israel, even though it did whitewash terrorists. Everything should be understood in context. Munich is a product of left wing americans aimed at left wing westerners. I expected much worse. If Spielberg had made the movie too close to reality, it would be dismissed as "zionist propaganda". This way, at least, there is a film dealing with terrorism that is not "Paradise now". I doubt that it crossed his mind, but he is a left wing liberal elite, and it wasn't that bad, considering. I was expecting something that Edward Said and Noam Chomsky would be proud of. Even though it was nothing special. It's just another hollywood left wing lemonade. What I really mind is Spielberg calling his critics fundamentalists. If he is reading this (possibly is), next time, please think before you speak. I personaly think that he should not have made the film. If you are reading this, and if you want another jewish subject, please stick to something less contraversial, or get used to criticism. Don't respond to your critics ad hominem. I do not recall to many ad hominem attacks on you, from serious reviewers. Don't expect that Israelis will be in awe because you are famous, we address our prime ministers by their nickname. In Israel, you are just another jew, nothing more. You just happen to be a bit more famous then most... something like Pinati (of the hummus fame, but Pinati is more famous in Jerusalem). If Pinati screws up his Hummus, he will be bashed far worse then you did. Either live with it, or stay away from contraversial jewish subjects. If you want a jewish subject that you can do well, try, for example, making the story of Rabbi Akiva, Finkelstein's biography could be the source. Yeah, that would be cool. You could cast Sean Connery as rabbi Akiva and Anthony Perkins as Turnus Rufus. That would be a cool movie, and you would get bad press only from antisemites. Just please don't try making a movie about Etzel or Lechi... Please...

rough going for you - who cares what offends you. You should have stuck to facts, or not at all. Now you are surprised ? You are a bigger fool than I thought Mr. Spielberg

Speilberg planned to come to Israel for the Israeli openning of Munich but cancelled once he knew the picture would be panned by MOST Israelis (not just the right wing as he implies).

Awww, how horrible for him! He's used to the Hollywood phonies kissing his ass after every one of his movies, regardless of quality or content. We Jews are simply NOT like that. So he feels fit to just dismiss us as " right-wing fundamentalists" if we didn't care for the movie or its "message." Whatever helps him sleep better at night...but trust me people who care about Israel across the boards were upset with this. Also, I thought he wanted to encourage "discussion" so aren't we free to discuss what a piece of crap this was without him whining about it? "Because I am who I am, I had a right to tackle this topic. If I hadn't backed this project, no studio would have approved it. Only someone like me, completely independent, could have raised funding for a movie like Munich. I knew that Schindler's List, and my past as a filmmaker and a Jew give me credibility. I thought people would give me a bit more credit, knowing how much I love Israel." He needs to seriously get over himself. "Most of the Jews in the U.S. have embraced Munich as a very important and objective work of conscience." Who are these Jews he is speaking of? Most of the Jews I know who saw the movie hated it and others simply refused to see it. Again he is talking about the Hollywood ass-kissers.

On the one hand, Spielberg says he's insulted and shocked that anyone would dare interpret Munich in a way which contradicts his views; apparently, those of us who see moral equivalence and anti-Israel bias in the film ought to just shut up. On the other, he says the movie is based on his belief in the nedd for "dialogue". So "dialogue" is good for everyone but Mr. Speilberg.

steve, old mate, you F***ed it up champ. dont come whinging to us when you cant recount what happened properly. you are an absolute disgrace.

I hope Spielberg reads these. He uses Bush tactics quite well for a man who opposes him. Extreme right wingers! My ass. I am a moderate zionist who is offended by the very idea that he gave a voice to the terrorists. He's been in hollywood far too long.

That Spielberg is pushing himself as a Jew is laughable. Here is a man who feels the need to fir in with his Hollywood buddies and blindly feel rage when he is not worshipped like the rest of Hollywood. Would this be a form of Avodah Zorah? If he wanted to see how a real Jew would feel, he could have a look to the Torah where a zealot by the name of Pinchas kills in the name of preserving the Jews from an nemy and is rewarded by being elevated to the priesthood. Nowhere does it say he had remorse for his actions. I guess that Mr. Kushner was not an author of this story. If Spielberg would repent and realize that on his judgement day he will face his most important critic, perhaps he will understand the feelings of thinking people not the Hollywood crowd that are as transient as the cellulose on which they used to record their fantasies.Remember Stephen, Olam Haboh is better than Oscar, and If you follow the self-proclaimed guardians of morals you will get neither.

Sadly, this vanilla take does not add much to what many notable thinkers have said here in the U.S. If any it serves as a platform to whitewash and deny Spielberg’s sins of rewriting history. But on Oscar’s niht the humiliation to this mearchant of drek will be total and unequivocal! He will leave as usual with NADA award! 1. Steven Spielberg makes movies for children, with the aim of manipulating one's emotions. He force feeds you with what you must think. This is known as Kitch! 2 He is not accustomed to be questioned or challenged because he is a successful and influential film-maker. Therefore, being challenged by an Israeli is particularly upsetting to him, especially after paying a former influential Mossad strategist a handful of dollars to manipulate the Israeli mind with a blitz of detestable public relations campaign. 3. I am sure that Mr. Ron Myburgh reply to 'Munich', shown on one of Israel T.V channels recently was fresh and authentic, lacking with the usual phony and virulent Leftist diatribe by dialogue writer Tony Kushner, who regards Israel as ‘one big msitake’ (Another 'one of us') and his groupie, Speilebrg, a devout Jew, who cannot comprehand why he is so detested in this town 4. If the Yediot Achronot writer cared to compare the dollars made with all of Speilberg's movies and the number of awards this town gave him, he would know that Speilberg is not what the Academy cosniders CLASS! DO yur own counties devided by 38 years! 6. The notion that an Israeli Defense employee will have to immigrate to Brooklyn, N.Y after completeing certain operation, is a unique put down for all Israelis. To deny and question a Jew for the moral right to remain in Israel, or forcing him to leave for America is absurd, childish and profoundly insulting. 7. Few recent flicks irritated so many Jewish intellectuals as well as many friends of Israel, which again is but a testimony to the simplemindedness of this purveyor of schlock-cinema! Al Ramey, Los Angeles

Since all of you guys (esp. 4, 13, 24)made such wonderful, poignant retorts to Mr. Spielberg, there is no need for me to repeat the same. So I'll address a different issue - how do you spot a leftist journalist?... I was initially shocked by the slight nuances conveyed in this article, which are supportive of Spielberg in face of his criticism in Israel. In this paragraph: "Spielberg should have known about the "what-have-you-done-for-me-lately" that prevails here, and that no one would consider his previous films or the Holocaust project. He should have known that people... would talk about Munich in terms that border on treason, as if Spielberg owes us anything besides a good movie. " - here the obvious conclusion is that the criticism of Munich in Israel is exaggerated, and the people here are ingrateful. I wondered - why on earth would the journalist convey himself in such way? But then when I saw who the journalist is - Ofer Shelach - I understood completely. For those of you foreign readers who don't know, Ofer Shelach is a gifted sports columnist, who could wonderfully analyze a game of basketball, baseball or American football. Unfortunately, this is where his journalistic skills end. When he starts writing politics, his bias and leftist one-sidedness scream to high heaven. Ofer, we all know you cast a ballot for Meretz, you don't need to make a point about it time and again. Now either stick with your wonderful basketball analysis, or drop the stupid political jabs when making a serious article like this.

I remember an interview with one of Macc-TA basketball players, I think it was Derek Sharp, one of the americans. He said that he played for several countries but he never met fans like Israeli fans, they stop him in the street and say things like "That ball you lost in the last game, man, don't do that, in the next game, be more careful." He got used to it and he loved it. I guess Spielberg didn't, and doesn't love it. His problem.