Munich: Steven Spielberg's Munich exceeded my expectations because my expectations were pretty low when I walked in. Spielberg has given some mediocre movies off-late that I didnt think he'd be able to break the rut. Its not as if he has come out with guns blazing and stuff like that, but Munich is a good movie. So I saw Daniel Craig, who is slated to play 007, drink martini and have sex with other women spies. I am beginning to like Eric Bana. He plays a reluctant unsure militant (thats essentially what he is) who later becomes too good for his own liking.
Its easy to read too much into the bigger picture of this cat & mouse game that Spielberg has developed here. The infinite loop of execution and replacement is the heart of this movie. It essentially brings out the futility of nations showing muscle power. Because of the way these covert operations are fragmented, it looks like there is buracracy in terrorism too, where the right hand does stuff without being aware of the other hand. Spielberg can't be accused of giving a biased view in this movie. Yeah, he is a jew and stuff, but I thought he developed the argument for both sides in a reasonable fashion. The argument between the PLO team leader and Eric Bana when they are ironically put in the same "safe house" is very very interesting.
There is a bunch of irony in this movie, as Eric Bana is driven to paranoia, we see the futulity of the whole effort. I understood the ending of the movie differently. I thought I got the story allright but there were people who were arguing endlessly about it. At the risk of sounding silly, i'll ask this - We see a caption that says 9 of the 11 targets were eventually eliminated. This does not mean they are the same 11 people who organized the Munich attack or does it? Because clearly I saw at least 7-8 terrorists die at the airport. I thought the "sexual moment of clarity was evident". Jamnuz Kaminski uses so much of the hand held in this movie. John Williams breaks the orchestra mould and tries to churn up a war like drumming. This to me was really haunting. I can still imagine that war-like rhythm in my head. I am gonna by the CD.
King Kong: The striking aspect of this movie was the movie producer. Just watch his eyes. Its cold ruthless and he is out to get what he wants. This is a sign of a person who is determined. His eyes tell it all. If he had not been made to say the last "beauty killed the beast" dialog, I would have though this was a complete performance. This movie, for me, was the reverse of Munich. I went in with a lot of expectations, but came out less happy. I, like most of the people, who watched this movie felt it was too long drawn. The technology and everything was okay but it didnt give me the highs. Of course the girls cried and said "poor kong" and stuff like that but I was thinking "stop swatting the planes and just die..." The plane swatting scene was too long drawn.
There were some solid scenes in the movie though. I thought 2 scenes were pretty critical in this movie, the scene where Noami Watts fiinds out that this aint a monster but just another ape trying to get a chick. There is another scene where she has to chose between a dinosaur and this ape and she slowly wades towards the ape. The trust is complete, the choice has been made. This I thought was the turning point of the movie. I also thought this signified marriages in general, where a chic choses to marry an ape because the only other choice is a dinosaur. There is some grossness also. There was this scene that totally grossed me out. The pipe like night worm swallows this guy head first. He is alive when the insect has eaten half his head and slowly loses energy. Man ..this was pretty awesome. Jack Driscoll has a pretty long probosci. In any scene, It arrives 10 minutes before he does. Its in skull island when he is in new york. The pianist needs to do something about his nose. Its too distracting. Naomi 20,000 Watts is a super hot babe. So I know what went through King Kong's head when it falls down from the empire state - " would have been a nice lay". SOrry kong! size does matter but there is something called threshold.
Narnia: This is actually an adaptation from a book that essentially tells a christian tale. I heard the book was pretty good but sadly cant say the same about the movie. Walt Disney manages to cut down the religious references and makes it a childrens movie. This is one movie which takes itself very seriously. I probably would have liked it if I was 20 years younger, but now I was thinking "nah... not possible at all". The actors were raw, untrained and worse appeared nervous. The special effects were good. Hollywood knows the art of making war scenes look good. This movie was no different.
This is a movie, which if ran in India would have the audience laughing all through the movie. Because if somebody had laughed or made a funny comment in the theater - everybody would have started laughing. Part of the crowd did laugh at the closing stages of the movie - thats because it was just too corny. Good for children though.