13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

[Guest]

Really enjoyed the film.

 I liked that stayed away from making this movie a conspiracy political rant and just stuck with the soldiers perspective and the battle itself.

 

ill admit the the set up was a bit long, and the shaky cam was frustrating, but once the action started this movie was an intense ride.

 

ive seen others talk about how only the soldiers came of looking like heroes and everyone else looked like idiots. Couple of things. 1). This movie was based on the perspective of those soldiers and 2) there were others that performed well, including the state guys and the CIA woman.

 

the family interactions felt a bit forced,.but I believe those are real interactions based on interviews with the wives.

[Maxmoser3]

This movie has a lot of problems. Shaky cam is the major issue it is unnecessary. The second one is the film feels like a made for TV film. Also, it feels slow at times and boring during the first half. To me 13 Hours is dissapointing because I was really wanting to like the movie if it wasn't for the shaky cam maybe I can be more positive but I'm not sure how I"ll grade this I'm going to say that was a mediocre time waster at best. My grade for this will be a C-

[bartonfink]

A haunting account about irresponsibly arrogant interventionism. And the film's action and suspense is an example of superb filmmaking.

[TheMovieman]

On 1/21/2016 at 3:40 PM, Baumer said:

Another stunning achievement from Bay.  There are few directors, if any, that can tell a story the way Bay does.  His camera does things that other director's simply don't do.  He adds so much nuance because of his thought process.  

 

My problem with views like Panda's are that I don't recall people bitching about Platoon or Apocalypse Now or Deer Hunter.  A war film doesn't have to tell both sides of the story.  They never did before.  What exactly do you want Bay and the writer's to do?  Do you want them to get into the heads and lives of the people shooting up the embassy?  Would you rather them focus 15 or 20 minutes on the guy shooting the RPG into the compound?  As WB said, he did plenty to show that these were fanatics and that not all Libyans were the bad guys.  There was even a quick shot at the end with a Libyan holding up a sign apologizing for what happened.  He also added a post script that said that thousands of Libyans attended the funeral of the American ambassador.  

 

I hate to paint you with broad strokes Panda, but it just seems to me that you wanted to hate this and you found reasons to hate it.  None of you xenophobia accusations have a merit of truth to them.  And this can be proven with everything WB mentioned as well as what I said.

 

Also, "everyone was the bad guy" yes this was uttered more than once in the film by the Americans.  But that's how it felt to them.  They didn't know if an approaching car would somehow start shooting at them.  They didn't know if the local police were there to help out or to kill them.  They didn't know if their "friendlies" were actually friendly.  All they knew is that it was chaos and that at any given moment they were going to be fired upon.

 

I think Bay did an excellent job telling this story.  His vision and attention to detail really helped bring this incredible story to life.  This was first and foremost a story about friends and brothers not giving up on one another.  These were not soldiers, they were security guards there to do a job.  And when they were over run and outnumbered and had to watch as a lot of their friends and acquaintances were killed, they never left one another and stayed till the end.  That makes them heroes.  It's not about heroic American and jingoism, this is a story about the human condition and doing the right thing.  

 

I thought the acting was outstanding as well and the script was well written.  This will certainly make my top 25 of the year.

 

9/10

 

Didn't like quite as much but I generally agree. I actually thought it wasn't that political outside of a one or two lines, the bulk of the 2+ hours was building up the characters and then the Bay action sequences which were well directed, conveyed the chaos really well. Oh, and John Krasinski turned in one hell of a performance, can't wait to see him in that Jack Ryan TV series.

 

***¾/*****, (B+, 7.6/10, 3/4)

Edited June 5, 2016 by TheMovieman

[baumer]

Yep, I just recently saw it again and loved it.

[BK007]

A

 

Best movie of the year.

 

Recalled Black Hawk Down for me. 

 

I didn't even realize Michael Bay directed it, though I'm not sure knowing that would've brought me to the cinema anyway considering Dark of the Moon. Did he do TF4 too?

 

Anyway, very underrated and it's a laugh that it gets such mediocre reviews and gets painted with broad brushstrokes of Bayism flaws when Civil War gets a 90 and so forth. 

 

Amongst recent war movies, I'd say Fury is another good one. American Sniper, Lone Survivor, Zero Dark Thirty, The Hurt Locker etc. all had their own flaws and some or most are pretty forgettable. Don't really remember a single thing about ZDT or LS for one.

[AniNate]

Bay's heart feels in the right place making this film, and coupled with quite a few genuinely thrilling action setpieces it's made a generally tolerable experience by Krasinski's committed lead performance and solid acting all around. But it still falls victim to Bay's worst tendencies of overdoing the sappy homefront/patriotism imagery, overlong battle scenes that dilute the excitement, and aggressively on-the-nose dialogue. But as I seem to be more forgiving of those things than most I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy this.

Edited June 14, 2016 by tribefan695

[The Futurist]

On 23 janvier 2016 at 0:40 AM, Baumer said:

Another stunning achievement from Bay.  There are few directors, if any, that can tell a story the way Bay does.  His camera does things that other director's simply don't do.  He adds so much nuance because of his thought process.  

 

My problem with views like Panda's are that I don't recall people bitching about Platoon or Apocalypse Now or Deer Hunter.  A war film doesn't have to tell both sides of the story.  They never did before.  What exactly do you want Bay and the writer's to do?  Do you want them to get into the heads and lives of the people shooting up the embassy?  Would you rather them focus 15 or 20 minutes on the guy shooting the RPG into the compound?  As WB said, he did plenty to show that these were fanatics and that not all Libyans were the bad guys.  There was even a quick shot at the end with a Libyan holding up a sign apologizing for what happened.  He also added a post script that said that thousands of Libyans attended the funeral of the American ambassador.  

 

I hate to paint you with broad strokes Panda, but it just seems to me that you wanted to hate this and you found reasons to hate it.  None of you xenophobia accusations have a merit of truth to them.  And this can be proven with everything WB mentioned as well as what I said.

 

Also, "everyone was the bad guy" yes this was uttered more than once in the film by the Americans.  But that's how it felt to them.  They didn't know if an approaching car would somehow start shooting at them.  They didn't know if the local police were there to help out or to kill them.  They didn't know if their "friendlies" were actually friendly.  All they knew is that it was chaos and that at any given moment they were going to be fired upon.

 

I think Bay did an excellent job telling this story.  His vision and attention to detail really helped bring this incredible story to life.  This was first and foremost a story about friends and brothers not giving up on one another.  These were not soldiers, they were security guards there to do a job.  And when they were over run and outnumbered and had to watch as a lot of their friends and acquaintances were killed, they never left one another and stayed till the end.  That makes them heroes.  It's not about heroic American and jingoism, this is a story about the human condition and doing the right thing.  

 

I thought the acting was outstanding as well and the script was well written.  This will certainly make my top 25 of the year.

 

9/10

 

This.

 

Absolutely riveting stuff.

 

One of Bay s best film.

 

Incredible.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2016 by The Futurist

[Klingo]

It was a very good movie!

[The Futurist]

I liked all the shots of the "enemies" families that cry over the dead bodies.

 

Every soldier is a son of a father and a mother.

 

From all sides.

 

 

[Lordmandeep]

To me this was Bay's work since TF1 and likely has cemented the Benghazi controversy. 

 

The film is nowhere near as bad as reviews said as audience scores are very good at  7.4 on imdb and 85% on Flixter 

 

Its not amazing but its nice to see a film done from a different political Hollywood point of view. 

Edited July 16, 2016 by Lordmandeep

[Goffe]

13 hours ago, Lordmandeep said:

To me this was Bay's work since TF1 and likely has cemented the Benghazi controversy. 

 

The film is nowhere near as bad as reviews said as audience scores are very good at  7.4 on imdb and 85% on Flixter 

 

Its not amazing but its nice to see a film done from a different political Hollywood point of view. 

 

except reviews are not bad. more critics liked than dislike it actually, going by RT approval percentage.

[Joel M]

Wow! that was one of Bay's best movies. This movie would of course gets labeled by some as propaganda but that happens at some level with every american war movie that takes place during the last 20-25 years. For me that kind of argument doesn't hold much water with this movie. I think it is more about making heroes out of the strong silent type soldiers than villify foreigners. Every stranger is a possible enemy for the heroes, there's even that line that gets repeated every time a new batch of people coming "are we expect any friendlies?", and everytime it sounds more desperate. I think one of the last scenes with the widows mourning the fighters of the other side is pretty telling to Bay's good intentions. But aside from the movies politics or lack thereof it's a pretty amazing piece of cinema, definately one of his best and most ambitious movies. The entire 90 minute segment of the attack(s) is the most well organised chaos I've seen in a long time. It's not trying to be documentary/shakycam "real" but it never fully goes into detached Bayhem spectacle.

 

I like the first Transformers and I kinda liked the Island but I think the 00s was a mostly wasted decade of Michael Bay's talent. 13 hours along with Pain and Gain are his 2 best movies since the 90s. So I'm fine with another Transformers sequel no one but China cares about every few years if that means he's gonna keep unleashing his inner auter with these smaller side projects.

 

Also it's one of the most gorgeous looking movies of 2016

 

[baumer]

So glad many of you like it and see what kind of terrific film maker Bay really is.

[Lordmandeep]

On 9/25/2016 at 8:13 AM, Baumer liked Blair Witch said:

So glad many of you like it and see what kind of terrific film maker Bay really is.

 

 

I think the political side of the film overshadowed it to a lot of people.

 

To be fair if you watch this film, you likely do change your opinion about the politics a bit lol 

[Kvikk Lunsj]

Bland characters really hurt this movie.  I could not telll them apart. 

2/5

[baumer]

On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 2:38 AM, tribefan695 said:

Bay's heart feels in the right place making this film, and coupled with quite a few genuinely thrilling action setpieces it's made a generally tolerable experience by Krasinski's committed lead performance and solid acting all around. But it still falls victim to Bay's worst tendencies of overdoing the sappy homefront/patriotism imagery, overlong battle scenes that dilute the excitement, and aggressively on-the-nose dialogue. But as I seem to be more forgiving of those things than most I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy this.

 

Someone has got to explain to me, especially an American, when patriotism became a bad thing in a movie? On one hand Americans get upset at you if you tell them that things are not quite as the way the media and politicians will tell you. And then on the other hand people will say that there's too much patriotism in a movie. I just don't get it.

[Goffe]

One can only imagine how much better it could have been in the hands of a capable director.

 

The soldiers are the typical alpha fuck yeah we know better than everyone else hunks that generally has a place in every Bay film. Problem is that here they take the protagonist roles, which exorcises any nuance the film might have had.

 

I gotta say though, it flows a lot better than most Bay flicks, that alone guarantees a place in in the top 3 of Michael Bay excuses for explosions and corny patriotism.

 

50/100

Edited December 27, 2016 by Goffe

[AniNate]

17 hours ago, Christmas Baumer said:

 

Someone has got to explain to me, especially an American, when patriotism became a bad thing in a movie? On one hand Americans get upset at you if you tell them that things are not quite as the way the media and politicians will tell you. And then on the other hand people will say that there's too much patriotism in a movie. I just don't get it.

 

If there are Americans that get upset by the idea that you shouldn't buy into political rhetoric, I'd hope I'm not one of them.

 

Patriotism isn't inherently a bad thing, but Bay often uses it as a cheap ploy to wring emotion out of the audience. It's very similar to the kind of thing that annoys people about political campaigning where all they have to say is "America Rules" and they get cheers.

[The Futurist]

I never saw the movie as patriotic, just about brave men trying to do the right thing in awful circumstances.

 

It s also about being brothers in arms and how soldiers have that invisible bond that cannot be denied because they know the true meaning of the word

 

sacrifice.