I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I love this movie so much

Beautiful, moving film.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I read the original novel this movie is based on before watching the movie, and I really enjoyed it. My hopes were up for this movie because the writer of the novel was also one of the screenwriters. Unfortunately, I felt kind of let down at the end.The movie has some good attributes. For a Canadian movie, most of the production values are pretty good. There are also some tense and effective moments, the highlight being the swimming pool sequence. Also, Christopher Plummer gives an effective performance in his supporting role.But as I said in my summary line, the movie doesn't work overall. The main problem with this movie is its pacing. You have to wait until the 50 minute mark before the hero gets into Czechoslovakia and starts his plan of revenge. After that point, you have to wait a long time before he scratches the first person off his target list. I was not demanding an unbelievably fast pace, but things definitely could have been tightened a bit.Other faults in the movie include the photography (the colors look muddy for the most part), and that the idea of the movie - someone taking on a task that's clearly over his head - didn't come across.This is far from the worst movie ever made, but it's still disappointing. As of this date, they are working on a remake of this movie. While I usually think remakes are unnecessary, in this case I think there's definitely room for improvement. However, since European politics have changed radically since this movie was made, they'll have to make some big changes for a 21 century audience.

A leftist terror group erupts into the US Consulate in München, and takes a number of hostages, including Americans. The hardboiled team demands the immediate release of a number of fellow terrorist, otherwise the US hostages will be shot dead at a rate of one per hour. A "post Münich '72" discussion takes place between German and US spokesmen to determine what to do. As the terrorists' demands aren't met within the imposed deadline, one of the hostages gets executed in cold blood. The young woman who got shot dead was the girlfriend of a CIA computer specialist. But at the same time -strange coincidence- , the killer too is working for the CIA, and has infiltrated the terrorist cell. The boyfriend of the executed girl -although an "egghead" or CIA bureaucrat- wants to avenge her death by killing systematically all the members of the cell. He learns that they are hiding in Easter Europe. As the CIA doesn't seem to be inclined to help him, he uses some arm twisting techniques to force the Director of Central Intelligence to change his stance...The film certainly isn't bad, but at the same time I couldn't call it fantastic either. Therefor, the story is built on just too much coincidences and unlikely events. Also, the idea of the non-experienced CIA man managing to do unlikely things, exactly because he's no trained and therefor predictable field agent has been treated in a much more convincing way in "Three Days of the Condor".Christopher Plummer was doing a relatively nice job as Professor Lakos, but on the whole, I found the actors too neither sensational, neither incredibly bad. Same thing for the OST. That is -to me at least- the weak point of the movie: it is in almost all its aspects "just average", nothing more, nothing less.The strongest side of the movie is the excellent choice of locations. The chosen Austrian landscapes, and a few Skoda's here and really give the impression the movie has been shot somewhere in Eastern Europe.

This is the movie that introduced me to international intrigue. For this, I owe it many things. It paved the way for me to appreciate several important historical points that have served me well in the ensuing years of my education.What attracted me to this movie was the aspect of a complete amateur being caught up in the world of terrorism. His utter frustration is handled and eventual involvement is treated, without a lot of glitzy, unnecessary gadgets or gratuitous or cartoonish (and unbelievable) violence.No, nothing of that is experienced in this movie. And thank goodness for that. The grittiness is real. There are no cardboard characters like Matt Damon and Tom Cruise battling European forces of evil. You feel for JOHN SAVAGE and his life. You care for him and his pain...you feel his frustrations and his victories.Yes, this is intrigue at its most real depiction (within the framework of a commercial movie.) Human life is important, cherished and defended. You will come from this experience with the idea of what a more realistic exposition of events can be.I recommend anyone who still loves intrigue done without a lot of CGI junk thrown in.

This isn't anti-American nonsense, despite the protest of one viewer. Why would it be outrageous to assume that this is indeed how the CIA operates at times? Siding secretly with certain members staging terrorist threats in order to advance a policy agenda? Maybe it doesn't occur exactly as displayed in the sometimes confusing and poorly paced 'The Amateur', but if recent films like 'Syriana', which are based on the documented experiences of agency insiders, then it is not entirely impossible. In fact, such movies should've done a better job of shattering the ultra-patriotic myths that, at least within the vocal majority, define the perceptions of America.This is the story of a CIA agent who's wife was a hostage in a terrorist invasion in Munich. She was killed and he's not sure exactly how to move on until a friend, a Holocaust survivor, had told his own story of how he tracked down the doctor in the death camps who gassed his family and strangled him. The idiot agent, however, decides to ask for official permission to personally avenge the terrorists that murdered his wife. A ciphering expert, he blackmails the agency with evidence of their own foreign foul play which in turn, can be leaked to the public. But, the terrorists are not exactly who they seem to be, and his travels in Czechoslovakia, tracking them down, soon turn deadly when he is chased around by other agents looking to kill him.The problem with a lot of political espionage films is that they tend to involve too many characters who are introduced into an already complex plot of treason and dispute. Their placement in the story is often explained long after their introduction, as are their names, and further make things difficult for the viewer to sort out in his head as the events pass. Moreover, a good deal of the beginning of this film, setting the ground work for what the agent wants to do, is played out with such slow pacing, none of the action really seems to come about until the later half of the second act.I suspect this one was based on a true story, judging by the words summing up the post-film fate of the characters.