Despite knowing the resolution, I felt this was a tense and gripping movie. The scenes with Hitler were suitably chilling.
The Ninth Day... Inglourious Basterds... Allied... and now this one.
Damn if there's an uniformed nazi in a movie you bet your ass August Diehl will be playing him.
Well, it's fiction, historical fiction, aka based on historical facts but plays loosely with it.
Is it possible two friends had information that helped turn the war? Another comment said the story was improbable, except in the 1920s students were all wealthy, so a wealthy German spends a couple years at Oxford? Very possible. Made friends with a Brit? Also very probable. Both wealthy enough to be close to the power base but still too young to be directly in it? Very probable too. Each having access to information or persons to tilt the war? Maybe, maybe not.
So it's an interesting story, good script, really good cinematography. One comment compared it to James Bond movies. Perhaps she might need a lesson in who Sir Ian Fleming was during WWII and following Might need to read the books rather than just watch the movies. This stayed more true to a spy novel than some of the movies of the genre have.
I would've said 7.5. Rotten tomatoes says 8.6 (86%) at this time. So I rounded up.
Good movie, although it obviously had to bend reality a bit to make the story work. For example Hitler made them sit in their hotel room till 3am so they would be exhausted and tired before meeting them - he didn't have an afternoon meeting. Otherwise it's good and worth watching.
7.5/10
Intriguing or farcical? The idea that two school mates would have had an opportunity to subvert a world war and attempted to do so on their own is almost comedic. It’s not a bad movie but you have to suspend logic at the outset and buy into the fiction of it all.
the subject and cinematography was good but acting and presentation was weak. 6/10 from me.
Review by FinFanBlockedParent2022-02-01T15:02:05Z
Harris writes historical fiction. He puts a fictional story inside a historical event. I just mentioned that because I've read some comments saying they don't believe something like this happened. It's not based on anything that happened it's him toying with an idea.
I am a huge fan of Robert Harris and have read about all of his books. Many of his novels have been made into movies so I wasn't surprised "Munich" did, too. I can't say how it compares to the book because it is just about the only one I haven't read yet. So I look just at the movie.
Concerning the story - like I mentioned it didn't happen. But it could have, I guess. And that's what I like about Harris. He gives you something to think about. What if Chamberlain had had this info ? Would he still sign the agreement? Did he, like the story want's to make us believe, bought time ? And what if he didn't sign ? Would it ultimately changed anything ? No one can really answer that. It's all theoretical.
I think they got the look alright. You get something from the atmosphere of the time in both, England and Germany. Especially the German arrogance was displayed rather well. Jeremy Irons seem like the reincarnation of Chamberlain from all I know of the historical footage. On the other side Matthes wasn't a perfect look alike. Nevertheless his portrayal of Hitler was very uncomfortable to watch. And I mean that as a compliment. As a whole I did enjoy the movie very much. It's more along the lines of classic film making far removed from blockbuster cinema.