Munich review

 Number 649 on the top 1000 films of all time is Steven Spielberg's historical thriller 'Munich.'

Munich dramatises the aftermath of the Munich Massacre where at the 1972 Munich Olympics Palestineans terrorists stormed the Israeli camp and took the team hostage, ultimately resulting in 11 Israeli athletes dying. In response, Israel launched a covert operation to hunt down the Palestineans. The film stars Eric Bana, Geoffrey Rush, Ciaran Hinds and Daniel Craig.

Spoilers

We're starting with the film's most polarising scene which takes place at the conclusion. In my Garden State review, I said that if a director has his characters have a sex scene to show they're in there, they're not in love. Unfortunately, the great Spielberg fell into this trap.

Avner Kaufman (Eric Bana) is the head of the mission to kill the Palestineans. This is an operation which leads to him being apart from his wife for years. At the film's conclusion, he finally reunites with her in the form of a cringy sex scene that is juxtaposed with footage of the Israeli athletes being massacred. Some critics loved it. Others hated it.

I am in the latter camp. It was weird, unnecessary and cheap. It also detracted from the tragedy of the Israelis being killed. I can't even say it was titillation, as there was nothing titillating about it. A strange directorial choice from Spielberg.

He also made strange casting choices. I found Eric Bana less than convincing as the morally conflicted Avner Kaufman - one moment he was steadfast in his commitment to the Zionist state - the next he was questioning everything. Meanwhile, the usually charismatic Daniel Craig was reduced to the odd snappy one-liner.

The pacing was also off - we already talked about the weird sex scene, but clips of the massacre were interspersed through the film. One solid flashback either at the beginning or the end would have been less disruptive to the film's structure. It might also have reduced Munich's overly-long 160 minute run-time.

Odd scene choices, miscasting and bad pacing all contributed to a rare misfire from Spielberg.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre review

 Number 813 on the top 1000 films of all time is the horror classic 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.'

Five  beatnik, hippie friends Sally (Marilyn Burns,) Jerry (Allen Danziger) Franklin (Paul A. Partain) Kirk (William Vail) and Pam (Teri McMinn) are on a road trip through the rural US. But their dream trip turns into a nightmare where they run into a family of cannibals led by the formidable Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen.)

I'm certainly no horror aficionado, but I have noticed that modern horror films do not hold a candle to their predecessors of the seventies and eighties. Modern horror leans far too heavily into excess. There is too much of everything. Too much gore, too much tacky CGI, too many jump cuts. It's just all blood and guts. The aim is to gross-out the viewer instead of scaring them through a slow build-up and a strong atmosphere. This is where the Texas Chainsaw Massacre excelled. It was a terrifying film because of its subtlety and understated nature.

Being made on a tiny budget, there was no money for tacky special effects or an excess of gore. In fact, the most graphic image comes right at the start. We see a grave-robber tie rotting corpses onto wooden stakes for the whole town to see. But rather than leaning into grossing-out the viewer, director Tobe Hooper patiently built up the creepiest of atmospheres. He was brilliantly selective in what he chose to show the viewer and what he with-held. We're immediately introduced to his disconcerting world when the five friends pick up a deranged hitchhiker played delightfully Edwin Neal. He had this chaotic energy that made him terrifying but compelling to watch.

Later on when the five friends unknowingly arrive at Leatherface's house, we get little snippets of what is to come. Kirk finds a human tooth that he uses to scare Pam with before he is jumped by Leatherface who appears out of nowhere. When Pam goes to investigate his disappearance, she stumbles into a room littered with animal and human remains. Leatherface then discovers her, impales her on a meathook and dismembers Kirk in front of her eyes. Yet we see precious little of the dismemberment and we don't need to. The imagery of the hidden teeth and human remains is all we need to see.

And because Hooper was so selective in what he showed us, this made his use of jump-scares all that more effective. Come evening time with all their friends go missing, Sally and Franklin, against their better judgement, start looking for them in the dark forests. Leatherface appears out of nowhere and kills Franklin with the chainsaw. This was enough to make me jump out of my seat. And this also left Sally as the final girl.  I always thought Halloween was the first horror movie to employ the final girl trope, but it looks that honour actually goes to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. 

However, unlike Halloween, I genuinely did not see any way for Sally to survive. I certainly didn't think there would be any deux ex machina. Instead, she is able to run away when the cannibals start squabbling amongst each other. But this tension, as to how or even if she could survive helped keep me on the edge of my seat.

Sure, you could argue that this narrative was propelled by stupid characters making stupid decisions. We all know now that you should never pick up hitchhikers. And our heroes are literally warned away from visiting Leatherface's house. And surely if you find a human tooth on the front porch of a house then that's a good reason not to go any further. But this was the seventies after all. Just emerging out of the era of free peace and love, stranger danger wasn't a thing yet and everybody was overall more trusting of each other.

While I am not a big horror movie fan, I can certainly appreciate why this is considered a goliath of a genre. It was subtle, understated, but with powerful and terrifying performances. And it is probably the best PSA for why you should never pick up a hitch-hiker.