Thanks for the memories!

People are voting emotionally.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

While based on the same events, this film is a much better movie than the more recent "Munich". The acting is much better, the story is more true to the facts and the writer and director are content to tell a very interesting and exciting story without getting all "preachy" in blaming western civilization for radical Islamic terrorism. The actors in this film gave their characters a depth not seen in many films. This is a tribute to Michael Anderson's direction in bringing this story to life even more than the actor's ability to become characters based on real people and accurately portraying the trials and emotions these real people felt. A good film for anyone who wants a glimpse of the "War on Terror" as it was fought in the 70's. Highly recommended!

This 1986 movie told the same story Steven Spielberg schmalzed up in "Munich" in 2005. But it told it cleaner, and without Spielberg's weird suggestion of moral equivalency between the Mossad commandos and the Palestinian murderers they were hunting. Young Steven Bauer as Avner Kaufman showed the anguish of a civilized man sent to kill other human beings, but without the complete loss of direction that Spielberg's Eric Bana seemed to suffer at the end.As the civilized world struggles for survival against the forces of Jihadist Islam, this movie is a stark reminder that, still, only Israel takes the threat seriously.

i just recently viewed 'munich'. i knew that a picture was made which almost mirrored 'munich' but until i remembered that Michael york was a featured player i could not remember the name of the 'sword of Gideon'. i followed 'munich' pretty well since i knew in advance what was going to happen. the major difference, i thought, was that the organization that was supplying the locations of the terrorists to the Israeli team towards the end of 'sword' told them never to get in touch with them again. in 'munich' it seemed Israel's was paying them a tremendous amount of money and they didn't want to lose the income.i would suggest that the viewers see both pictures to compare. i wonder, though, if Spielberg knew about Gideon - or whether he thought his was the original

When Psycho was redone, the same camera angles, etc. were utilized as in the original Hitchcock version. Having just seen Munich, The Sword of Gideon inspired a big deja vu. Twenty years later and the great Spielberg could not find a way to improve on Gideon. Gideon's emotion was no less and support from people like Rod Steiger and Colleen Dewhurst is hard to top. The Gideon sets were replicated in the Munich version as well. Interestingly, both movies ran about the same exact amount of time. Bauer's Avner was intense and emotional. If one of these films is to be seen, I'd call it a six of one and half a dozen of the other.