Great Film overall

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

This is a top class documentary, telling the story of the events surrounding the murder of Israeli athletes and coaches in Munich in 1972. There is an interview with the last surviving Palestinian who took part in the attack. He describes being picked for the mission and the specific training undertaken. He is not remorseful in any way for the deaths that took place. There are also touching interviews with family members of the Israelis. Most damningly from the German point of view local police and politicians describe honestly how confused they were in trying to settle the crisis.The film sets the scene of the Munich Olympics, describing how anxious the organisers were for the games to be as carefree as possible leading to minimal security in the athletes village. Using remarkable news footage the film gradually builds up the tension as the Israelis are taken hostage. Negotiations with local politicians and police take place. A planned rescue by police is cancelled at the last minute.Eventually the Palestinians are offered a plane and a rescue mission is planned at the airport. This is a disaster for all kinds of reasons and all the hostages are killed. The surviving Palestinians are arrested.Even more chilling is the tacit admission by the Germans that the captured Palestinians were released deliberately by way of a "mock" hijack some months after the massacre.An amazing piece of living history.

It hardly comes as a surprise to find that many a rabid left wingers nose will be firmly knocked out of joint with a film such as 'one day in September'. No rose tinted spectacles here. This is not an Al jazeera offering. They are forced to view the murderous nihilistic reality of their beloved freedom fighters. So faced with cold hard facts which cannot be readily explained away they try another defense, namely accuse the film of being one sided and not show the situation of the Palestinians.One question: Is it a documentary about Palestine or about Munich in 1972? To be fair there is quiet a bit early on to put the situation in some sort of perspective and the surviving terrorist and his opinions are given plenty of air time.You don't hear much crying from the same quarters decrying one sidedness or bias when Michael Moore makes one of his ridiculous, so called, documentaries. I think most people are familiar with the Palestinian situation, but i, for one, had not heard anything about the madness that happened in Munich in 1972. When Kevin McDonald set out to make a documentary on what happened there then its hardly surprising that we see a film dealing with the events on that terrible day. If he set out to make a documentary on Palestine and how it was taken off the Arabs by the Jew's then he would have set to that task and not dwelt too much on how the Jew's had been banished from there two thousand years ago after moses had been promised this and that.As with the BBC journalist crying when Arafat was lifted out of his compound for the last time or those who would attempt a defense of the Palestinian murder spree in Munich there seems to be a different reality or level of understanding needed when it comes to issues about Palestine or its people so its hardly surprising that a documentary like this would raise hackles.This is an excellent film.

It would appear that many people believe that the documentary format should be held to some sort of objective, news-gathering standard. Whenever two clips are spliced together, regardless of the content there is some editorializing. A documentary is an editorial. If you want nothing more than unopinionated truth, than the only avenue open to you is uninterrupted security camera footage. You can, and sometimes should, disagree with the opinions offered by the documentary filmmaker as a critical viewer, but one faulting the filmmaker for offering an opinion is like criticizing water for being wet. The line that must be discerned is whether the filmmaker is overly deceptive or insidious in trying to convince you of his or her opinion. This is a line that can be very difficult to draw.Mr. Ruvi Simmons of London does not seem to realize these basic tenets of documentary film-making: "One Day in September, however, concentrates more on the human interest of the event itself, neglecting background information in order to convey a one-sided and grossly biased perspective on a tragic occurrence." I am a filmmaker, and I know that as such one must choose a theme and a perspective for a feature length documentary. The main problem that this person has with the film is that he is "that it neither explores the underlying issues behind the Israeli-Palestinian tensions." This is a 2 hour film, not a 40 hour mini-series. There is no way that the filmmaker could have adequately explored the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and still told the story that he or she intended: the story of the hostage crisis at the Games of '72. Mr. Simmons also took offense at the filmmaker for vilifying the terrorists who perpetrated this plot. I do not need to offer a critical retort as any logical person can understand why this statement is foolishness. It sounds as though Mr. Simmons feels as though the terrorists were justified in hurting innocent athletes a continent removed from their conflict. Obviously, this person would dislike this documentary (although he does not mention that the documentarian interviewed one of the terrorists to present his side of their story).If you want to have a solid introduction to the acts of terrorism at the Games of '72, then this is a good work to watch. It is true that the thriller-style is a bit gimmicky, but it does add somewhat to the suspense if you do not know the outcome. If you are intending to see the film, "Munich," then this is probably a good primer (I have not yet seen it as it has not been released). Just remember, this film is just as much an editorial as Spielburg's film will be.~C

I can only agree on what most of the user comments here have pointed out: Notwithstanding the thrilling and gripping style - great editing for instance - in which the events are presented, the film as a whole is fairly questionable because of its undeniable intention to bash the Germans and their police force for what happened while at the same time refusing to investigate into other directions. Furthermore, it gives us little more than a glimpse of the terrorists' motivations, feeding the impression that we're watching a piece of propaganda that is - without a doubt - well executed. The probably most unbelievable faux-pas is that at no time during all the interviews the name of the witnesses are shown. Very amateurish! 8/10 for film-making, 2/10 for subject treatment. See it, but be aware of its slanted view!