steph-oakley

Putting history to one side and viewing it purely as cinematic entertainment, the first two hours are quite thrilling. With good story telling, realistic acting (apart from some dodgy accents) and big explosions, it's all quite compelling.

Without going into the story too much, 5 Jewish hit men are assigned to assassinate the 11 perpetrators of the 1972 Munich Olympics hostage disaster. All the hits are styled in a hand held camera fashion, which adds great tension and realism in true Spielberg style. Yes, the action is exceptional. There are two fantastic scenes where the hit men themselves get caught up in their own hit i.e. Explosives and being too close when it goes off.

Although Munich plays accurately to the tragic 1972-hostage situation (so I believe), it's still a ham-fisted film. Some scenes don't knit together well and confuse cinema-goers, especially after the two-hour mark. That's when the film really goes down hill, but I'll get to the crap ending soon...so please be patient The overall style of the film plays like a documentary at times, especially the start. When story kicks in, it's all very typical of Spielberg and his limited view of outer USA. In a way this isn't a criticism, more of a observation i.e. When in Paris we see the Eiffel Tower, when in Amsterdam everybody rides push bikes, and so on. Clichés like this are always prevalent with American filmmakers. I was disappointed when in London we didn't see the Tower or Big Ben, although it was raining.

Now to the big issue, and it is big my friends. This is a big spoiler so stop reading now if spoilers aren't your thing. The ending, apart from being 30 minutes too long is awful. The camera splits between Eric Bana (Avner) having sex with his wife and the final act of the hostage talking where the hostages are brutally shot and blown up in a helicopter all synchronised with Avners almighty orgasm. It was truly sickening. Spielberg's a master filmmaker with yes men for editors who can't keep his films under two hoursbut hey, that's just me.

A young 11-year-old boy discovers life, death and girls. My Life as a Dog really is as simple as that. Nothing else really happens, but that's what makes it so magical.

Ingemar (Anton Glanzelius) leads a simple but complex life where his mother dies young and he is consequently sent to live with his uncle. At first I thought this would be depressing, but this was not the case. I thought his uncle would abuse him; the other kids wouldn't like him etc. I was pleasantly surprised to see Ingemar loved by all.

Ingemar meets a girl on the football pitch, gets beaten by the same girl at boxing and falls through a window trying to spy on a naked women posing for a sculpture. He reads the text from an underwear section in a mail order catalogue to his uncles Dad and learns the art of glass blowing. It's all very simple and silly, but completely enjoyable.

There are a few uncomfortable moments, which could be misconstrued as inciting paedophilia, but it's just what kids do when growing up. "You show me yours and I'll show you mine" is all part of growing up, it happens to us all. Whether it should be shown on screen is another thing. I found it uncomfortable to watch but I could relate to it, hence making it compelling. This is not a criticism…it's credit.

Anton Glanzelius gives a wonderful performance as 11-year-old Ingemar, as do the rest of the cast. The scenery, when it's not snowing, is green and wonderful to look at.

The film barely scrapes the 90minute mark, which is just enough. Anymore and it would have been boring. You can only show so much of the Swedish countryside. Lasse Hallstrom's The Shipping News has a similar simple plot, but was boring because it was too long at 111 minutes. 90 minutes is perfect for something so simple.