I’m not too interested in whether Munich is a good film (in the sense of well shot, well acted it is) but in what way Spielberg questions the use of violence, since throughout the movie his characters express, hesitation, and finally those still living refuse to have anything to do with violence. Particularly, it is the character of Avner Kaufman that seems to suggest some week thinking on the part of the film maker. It is not so much that Avner looses faith in the mission, nor that Ephraim’s mechanical and ruthless planing is upsetting, but you have the impression that the reason for the movie to be is so that it can have a character renounce the violence. Sure the characters argue about the mission and the growing sense of its endlessness, but it is not the violence they are renouncing, but the endlessness of it. These are two different things, and the movie mixes the two ideas quite freely. They are not the same and what seems like a film that renounces the eye for an eye violence is confused and though it suggest there is an endlessness to it, it does not say attacking your enemies is wrong. Instead, one could suggest it is acceptable as long as the goal is defined (of course, these goals often change once the violence starts). Or one could suggest as long as long as the killing is not endless, or you rotate out your assassins more frequently, these kind of missions are acceptable.

The danger with films that are anti-war or anti-violence is that they seldom are. As Anthony Swaford pointed out, anti-war films are just as easily pro-war films. And in the hands of Spielberg who is often tempted by his great skills as a film maker to make an entertaining film, the message, what ever it is supposed to be, is usually confused.