Harris writes historical fiction. He puts a fictional story inside a historical event. I just mentioned that because I've read some comments saying they don't believe something like this happened. It's not based on anything that happened it's him toying with an idea.

I am a huge fan of Robert Harris and have read about all of his books. Many of his novels have been made into movies so I wasn't surprised "Munich" did, too. I can't say how it compares to the book because it is just about the only one I haven't read yet. So I look just at the movie.

Concerning the story - like I mentioned it didn't happen. But it could have, I guess. And that's what I like about Harris. He gives you something to think about. What if Chamberlain had had this info ? Would he still sign the agreement? Did he, like the story want's to make us believe, bought time ? And what if he didn't sign ? Would it ultimately changed anything ? No one can really answer that. It's all theoretical.

I think they got the look alright. You get something from the atmosphere of the time in both, England and Germany. Especially the German arrogance was displayed rather well. Jeremy Irons seem like the reincarnation of Chamberlain from all I know of the historical footage. On the other side Matthes wasn't a perfect look alike. Nevertheless his portrayal of Hitler was very uncomfortable to watch. And I mean that as a compliment. As a whole I did enjoy the movie very much. It's more along the lines of classic film making far removed from blockbuster cinema.