Jason Apuzzo writes a powerful--and surprisingly positive--review of Steven Spielberg's Munich. Apuzzo describes the film as three-quarters of the blockbuster pro-War On Terror flick that Hollywood should have cranked out at least a dozen of since the fall of 2001, done in only by a poor ending dominated by the ham-handed equivalence of Tony Kushner's writing:

I would ask fellow conservatives to take a closer look at this film, and not go overboard in attacking it. Munich is not Fahrenheit 9/11, not by a long shot. Examine what Spielberg is doing here cinematically - especially in the delineation of character through action, rather than verbiage - although some of the verbiage in this film is quite good. Ask yourself who you’re sympathizing with, rooting for - and who, on the other hand, you’re led to despise or reject as inhuman. I think Spielberg is in greater agreement with you than you’re being told by some conservative critics. And calling Munich ‘anti-Israel’ is about as fair as calling The Passion ‘anti-Semitic.’

It’s extremely important for conservatives not to endlessly cry “wolf,” decrying every film that comes down Hollywood’s pipeline as liberal propaganda. [I tried to warn people earlier in the year about this with respect to Star Wars, and also Spielberg’s War of the Worlds - neither of which were as ‘politically engaged’ as some made them out to be.] Frankly, there’s enough genuine propaganda as it is - we don’t need to drag Spielberg’s film into the mire, as well. He doesn’t deserve it - and frankly, I wish we had someone on the conservative side who was as skilled and passionate on this subject.

To the liberals out there, who were so eager to embrace this film as the ‘Oscar frontrunner’ just a few weeks ago, I’d ask: did you really get the film you wanted, here? Did you like that scene when the PLO terrorist admits to Avner why the Arabs really support the Palestinians? And did you like the way that terrorist was escorted around by KGB handlers? And by the way, where was Halliburton in all this? Or Exxon? Or ‘American Imperialism’? Or Nixon’s Plumbers?

Given the present state of Hollywood, which has drifted further and further left - and become terminally unserious - I think Spielberg is basically to be commended here. If nothing else, he’s crafted the richest and most entertaining spy thriller in years. He would’ve been wise to let the film end where Hitchcock would’ve ended it: before the interminable speechifyng and hand-wringing starts. He also should’ve reigned-in his screenwriter, whose political passions get in the way of good drama.

Had he done those things, Spielberg might’ve had a classic on his hands. As it is, he’s still made a surprisingly substantive and sincere film for the times. That’s a far sight better than what the rest of Hollywood is doing.