It was such a forgettable movie - I mixed cities
In my opinion the movie sucked because the events shown were of fairly recent history and thus no reason to change them. You want to make a point and make a fictitious movie - by all means... DaVinci Code is a perfect example - it's fiction. This wasn't. This happened and it's one thing to change a name from John to Steve in the movie, but to blatantly misrepresent a recent event - Spielberg should know better. Golda Meir never made a statement she makes in the movie, the Mossad doesn't employ bumbling idiots who don't know what to do when they're suppose to shoot an enemy, and nobody committed suicide on the Israeli side after the fac...

It was such a forgettable movie - I mixed cities
In my opinion the movie sucked because the events shown were of fairly recent history and thus no reason to change them. You want to make a point and make a fictitious movie - by all means... DaVinci Code is a perfect example - it's fiction. This wasn't. This happened and it's one thing to change a name from John to Steve in the movie, but to blatantly misrepresent a recent event - Spielberg should know better. Golda Meir never made a statement she makes in the movie, the Mossad doesn't employ bumbling idiots who don't know what to do when they're suppose to shoot an enemy, and nobody committed suicide on the Israeli side after the fact (I think he must've remembered something about Hiroshima bombing and incorporated the same here for effect). And that beautiful scene about an arab saying he just wants to go home - give me a break... Both sides were shown blatantly not the way things actually went down. That's my problem with the movie. If Gibson makes Passion of the Christ - people can debate all day long whether events actually took place and specifically how, since nobody really knows what ACTUALLY took place 2 thousand years ago, but this - waste of 3 hours. And I realize this wasn't a documentary, but to so blatantly change the key points of what happened - no good.

You're saying he showed the 'dark side of fear' etc. and I would totally agree with you, if this wasn't about an event that actually took place. He could've easily shown all of these aspects with a fictitious story. But if he did - everyone would've called him a bigot, showing arabs as terrorists etc. This way he gets away with it, but to me - you don't show a tragedy like that one, totally changing the nature of the story to score your personal political points. That's where he lost me. But Hollyweird does it all the time...