Spielberg to make movie about '72 Munich massacre and aftermath

I'm wondering how he's going to get a cute little girl and an alien into the story.

 

Spielberg...subtlety and nuance. Spielberg...subtlety and nuance.

Nope, not happening.

This film has "camp classic" written all over it.

 

"Talented yet stupid" sums it up pretty well. I'm pretty much sick of his movies.

 

Or which Mossad agent will be played by Tom Cruise.

 

Rumor has it that Harrison Ford will play Golda Meir.

 

A list of all the films he's directed (IMDB, sorted by ranking):

(8.80) - Schindler's List (1993)
(8.70) - Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
(8.30) - Saving Private Ryan (1998)
(8.20) - Jaws (1975)
(8.10) - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
(7.80) - Minority Report (2002)
(7.80) - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
(7.70) - Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
(7.70) - Duel (1971/I) (TV)
(7.60) - The Color Purple (1985)
(7.60) - Catch Me If You Can (2002)
(7.50) - Empire of the Sun (1987)
(7.40) - Jurassic Park (1993)
(7.20) - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
(7.19) - Amblin' (1968)
(7.10) - The Terminal (2004)
(7.02) - Night Gallery (1969) (TV)
(7.00) - Amistad (1997)
(7.00) - War of the Worlds (2005)
(6.94) - Columbo: Murder by the Book (1971) (TV)
(6.88) - The Unfinished Journey (1999)
(6.80) - Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001)
(6.71) - The Sugarland Express (1974)
(6.26) - Amazing Stories: Book One (1992) (V)
(6.21) - Always (1989)
(6.17) - Something Evil (1972) (TV)
(6.11) - Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983)
(5.80) - Hook (1991)
(5.61) - 1941 (1979)
(5.50) - The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

I avoid Holocaust stuff so I didn't see Schindler's List. Maybe that was a great film, but that would have to be the only one, from an artisitc perspective. I loved the first and last Raiders' movies and enjoyed ET and Saving Private Ryan. The rest have been various degrees of bleh. I still can't figure out why so many people loved Jaws.

 

I think it's amusing that 1941 ranks above The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

 

Actually, to me it sounds like Spielberg is taking an authentic risk by tackling a controversial subject. His legacy is intact with films like "Raiders" and "Schindler's List" and who the hell remembers "Hook" or "1941"? Maybe this will bomb, maybe this will alienate a lot of people, but at least he's taking a risk.

 

Read this - One Day in September: The Full Story of the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and the Israeli Revenge Operation "Wrath of God"
by Simon Reeve


Then watch this -

 

There is a great story to be told here. If done well, this could be a really entertaining movie.

 

Oren's book ,Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East, should be required reading for an understanding of the region

 

There may be more to this movie than just special effects.

 

"1941" is an underrated gem IMO. A true guilty pleasure.

(so says the guy with John Belushi in his avatar)

 

I am sure we will all run out and take the kids to see this movie.

 

With Tony Kushner on the script, I'm going to hold out hope that this will be watchable.

 

It will be aremake of "Sword of Gideon" which was in the 80's, that also had a stupid plot, where the main Mossad agent has doubsts after awhile that if everyone takes retaliations or revenge or an "eye for an eye" theme, then the world would be full of blind people. I hope Mr. Spielberg for once (beside Schindler's List) remembers where his ancestors came from and the reason why Jews have outlived all great empires - humor, religion and payback. As much as I love this subject of Mossad going after terrorists and killing them, if this movie will have a theme of "Let's all just try to understand and no one's at fault" I won't pay a dime for it. If he wants to show the real history and make a distinct difference between Terrorists who kill innocent athletes and Mossad agents going after not so-innocent terrorists, then I will watch the movie

 

Yeah Spielberg is pretty stupid.
Thank goodness he has enough fingers so he can still count the zeros in his net worth............barely.

 

Um, the point is that his movies are usually pretty stupid, but like Charlie Brown kicking the football I keep looking forward to them (see War of the Worlds...actually don't).

Nobody doubts that he's extremely bright and makes more money than any other filmmaker.

 

So I should have read it as stupid film maker or maker of stupid films and not stupid filmmaker as it was written.

Either way I'm still saying that he is stupid. If you want to say his movies are stupid, fine you can have that. I still think that he is stupid. So I'll give you that his films are stupid if you'll allow me that he is stupid. The original wording did not make that very clear so being the benevolent SOB that I am I'll allow for either. Also, are his films stupid when compared to films as a whole or when only compared to a select group of films. And does he have a select group of films that are not stupid at all, but might be pretty good. Ones that could be separated from his entire catalogue. He has made a specialty of overly sentimental blockbusters and a few have been gems in my opinion. One is even among my favorites.

There is also the possibility I thought that the word stupid is improper in properly describing the shortcomings of him or his films and that was what I was making light of. I would agree with the idea that many of his movies are flawed, but I would not use stupid to describe the flaws in him or his movies.

Imbecilic works much better for me.

 

Certainly. Everything everyone thinks is forever completely proper. If you don't believe me just ask them. Or better yet contradict them. Then you'll be certain they'll be right no matter the reasons they must contrive. When you contradict someone, no matter how slightly or innocently, they are always right.

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/calahan.htm