Movie Reviews: "Munich" and "V For Vendetta"

Long story short, buy, don't rent these movies. They're great.

Munich is based on the story of a Mossad team who, basically, dealt some payback to the terrorists who killed 11 Israeli athletes during the Olympics in 1972. I think it's the best movie Steven Spielburg has made since Saving Private Ryan. In his introduction on the DVD, Spielburg mentions the idea of using terrorism to combat terrorism, and what would motivate a country to use terrorism as a weapon. Very interesting.
The movie is very personal, right down to the feeling of personal loss in the name of Israel. Avner (Eric Bana) gets ultra paranoid. The bombmaker, Robert, mentions near the end of the movie, "We [Jews] are supposed to be righteous. That's a beautiful thing. And we're losing it. If I lose that, that's everything. That's my soul."
On the screen, Munich is fantastic. The feel is definitely 70'sish, without looking or feeling like "That 70's Show". Eric Bana is fantastic. I'm not sure how historically accurate or inaccurate the movie is, but Spielburg usually does a great job on that aspect in his movies. If some of the antics in the movie are true, you definitely feel for the poor Mossad agents when something doesn't quite go according to plan (then you wonder how they got sent on the assignment). My favorite of the assassinations is the one in Athens, from the safe house to when they leave. You'll have to watch the movie to find out what happens.
I screwed up when I was at Hastings and rented the full screen version. Don't make my mistake; the movie would be more spectacular in wide screen.

V For Vendetta. I get the feeling that a graphic novel adaptation probably doesn't get paired with a spy action thriller all that often. However, I think it's a great movie to watch either before or after Munich. No, I promise you I haven't gone off the deep end.
In V For Vendetta, Britain has become a dictatorship, and the U.S. is virtually nonexistant. (Look what we have to look forward to!) The big storyarc is that V, a character that no one can quite trace, pulls some terrorist stunts in London and vows to return the following year, inviting the masses to join him if they agree that there is something vastly wrong with Britain's leadership. V doesn't just wear a mask; he wears a Guy Fawkes mask that renders zero facial expression. Quite the challenge for Hugo Weaving, which he pulls off well (I'd like to see an actor do better).
The big intellectual nibble that I got out of this was the idea that terrorism could be used to accomplish good things, quite the curiousity in the post-9/11 world. While V is morally ambiguous, doing whatever he feels necessary to make his point, you still feel he's a good guy. The worn point of having intangible things that are more important to hold onto than life itself, things that we must save at any price, is brilliantly sharpened in the film.
For those who like to dissect movies, there's also a lot of symbolism, some more obvious than others (the roses and the huge nod to Guy Fawkes).
I haven't even mentioned Natalie Portman! She's radiant in the film.

There you have it: two Hollywood takes on terrorism. And you didn't think the movies had anything in common.