I’m a bit behind on my movie-watching for the holidays. I’ve got a free ticket to see King Kong, which I will allow myself to do next week if I get enough of my comic writing done, and Melinda wants to see The Producers for New Year’s.

But after reading Jason Apuzzo’s review of Munich, I wish I could go see it soon…and that’s saying a lot, as I had little wish to see it at all before today. It’s not so much that I’ve been worried about Spielberg’s leanings as I am concerned about Tony Kushner’s politically-obvious writing and the questionable book the movie was based on.

I’ll summarize Apuzzo’s review, though it’s well worth reading in full: Spielberg has created an exciting thriller that is staunchly on the side of Israel almost in spite of the screenwriter, and it is only in the last 1/5th or so that the movie gets Kushner-heavy with “circle of violence” hand-wringing.

Granted, this seems to be a movie where viewers all take away different messages. Over on Dixonverse, Calamari Kid spoiled the ending shot and there was some discussion as to what it’s really saying.

What’s more, it seems as though 2005 was the year for Spielberg and Lucas to give interviews that gave viewers the wrong preconceptions of the movies they were making. In this case, Spielberg has talked of the movie being a message about “intransigence,” and it sure doesn’t sound like that was the message Apuzzo took from the film. Earlier this year, the public got the impression from interviews that Obi-Wan Kenobi was calling Dubya a Sith Lord and the Martian invaders were representing the American military, though the actual movies didn’t really emphasize such a message. All such interviews manage to do is infuriate part of the potential audience and lead to negative commentary, and despite what they say about “no such thing as bad publicity” I have to think that hurts the box office in the long run. (Well, as much as ANYTHING can hurt a Star Wars movie’s box office.)