13 Hours - Benghazi film by Michael Bay (1 Viewer)

[Smack Tripper]

Saw it begrudgingly tonight, as I heard zero buzz, saw 2.5 star reviews and heard it presented as right wing propoganda.

It was fantastic.

Compelling content presented phenomally by Bay. Not typically a fan but his best work since The Rock.

The perfect war film for the modern era, as there was such a unique telling in the contractor solider element.

Even john krasinski, who I don't generally enjoy, is amazing.

Not sure if it's the content or Bay but I saw 2-2.5 star ratings. That's absurd.

There's a saying that some directors can add a star to a review and some you can automatically subtract one from. Bay is the prime example of the latter.

American sniper vibe and if you liked that you'll love this. It's a more complex and challenging film.

Can not speak to the accuracy of the events but I highly recommend it.

 

[Ladsud]

Ill be seeing it on the Sunday between the championship weekend and Super Bowl. Thanks for the brief review.

 

[jamny]

wow...nice to hear.

 

[tommyboy]

Heard its awesome

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

How many times did Krasinski look at the camera?

 

[Rove!]

Saw it begrudgingly tonight, as I heard zero buzz, saw 2.5 star reviews and heard it presented as right wing propoganda.

It was fantastic.

Compelling content presented phenomally by Bay. Not typically a fan but his best work since The Rock.

The perfect war film for the modern era, as there was such a unique telling in the contractor solider element.

Even john krasinski, who I don't generally enjoy, is amazing.

Not sure if it's the content or Bay but I saw 2-2.5 star ratings. That's absurd.

There's a saying that some directors can add a star to a review and some you can automatically subtract one from. Bay is the prime example of the latter.

American sniper vibe and if you liked that you'll love this. It's a more complex and challenging film.

Can not speak to the accuracy of the events but I highly recommend it.

The critics will subtract stars for 'Michael Bay' and because their personal political biases

 

[Northern Voice]

What's wrong with John Krasinski?

 

[Sabertooth]

Looking forward to seeing this.

 

[nightmare]

Saw it Yesterday. This is Bay's best work. Compelling story even though you
know what's going to happen. Critics rating at rottentomatoes.com is mid 50's
Fans rating is mid 80's. Believe the fans. This is a good movie.

I didn't get any kind of "propaganda" vibe from the film. I suppose You could
slant this movie if you wanted too-it's a film about combat. you have the standard C.I.A. and special ops soldier types thrown at you with no development because none is needed. You've seen these guys before.

The film does go a little long but I don't think there were any wasted scenes. What
is crazy is how these soldiers are in the middle of a combat zone and have to identify who the bad guys are and who to trust.

Again-compelling story that keeps you on edge and doesn't let go until the credits.

WARNING!!!!! This thread turns into a political CRAPFEST from here out.

 

[Brony]

What's wrong with John Krasinski?

he's polish

 

[Max Power]

I'm excited to see this. I've heard the story isn't accurately depicted, but I'll comment after I watch it.

 

[Otis]

How many times did Krasinski look at the camera?

 

[Otis]

his best work since The Rock.

lol

 

[Smack Tripper]

his best work since The Rock.

lol

The rock is a great flick, say what you will about him

 

[culdeus]

I assume the movie opened with the terrorists all huddled around watching youtube

 

[Smack Tripper]

What's wrong with John Krasinski?

Meh. I rarely have biases toward actors, but something about him. Irrational I'll grant you

 

[the moops]

I didn't get any kind of "propaganda" vibe from the film.

You think Donald Trump is renting out a theater to show this because he loves films? Or that Ted Cruz mentioned this in his closing statements at the debate because he is a big Bay fan?

 

[RBM]

his best work since The Rock.

lol

You didn't like The Rock? Never heard anyone not like that...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I didn't get any kind of "propaganda" vibe from the film.

You think Donald Trump is renting out a theater to show this because he loves films? Or that Ted Cruz mentioned this in his closing statements at the debate because he is a big Bay fan?

The book was written by the men who were there.

Propaganda would be the hypothetical situation where a government altered that version for public consumption for political purposes.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I didn't get any kind of "propaganda" vibe from the film.

You think Donald Trump is renting out a theater to show this because he loves films? Or that Ted Cruz mentioned this in his closing statements at the debate because he is a big Bay fan?

Maybe because there are some people that believe the attack was from a small group of people protesting due to a video and not a larger scale planned attack that went on for hours. I have heard the film doesn't point any fingers at Hillary or the Obama administration.

 

[Max Power]

I didn't get any kind of "propaganda" vibe from the film.

You think Donald Trump is renting out a theater to show this because he loves films? Or that Ted Cruz mentioned this in his closing statements at the debate because he is a big Bay fan?

The book was written by the men who were there.

Propaganda would be the hypothetical situation where a government altered that version for public consumption for political purposes.

Curiosity... who wrote the book?

 

[the moops]

I didn't get any kind of "propaganda" vibe from the film.

You think Donald Trump is renting out a theater to show this because he loves films? Or that Ted Cruz mentioned this in his closing statements at the debate because he is a big Bay fan?

The book was written by the men who were there.

Propaganda would be the hypothetical situation where a government altered that version for public consumption for political purposes.

Government doesn't need to be involved in the telling of the story for it to be propaganda.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But traditionally it is. Arguably revolutionary or rebel political groups have put it out as well. If private citizens put out a viewpoint that some disagree with that's just plain free speech. However the book which this movie is based on is written by men who were there, you will not find a more direct viewpoint of this story.

 

[the moops]

But traditionally it is. Arguably revolutionary or rebel political groups have put it out as well. If private citizens put out a viewpoint that some disagree with that's just plain free speech. However the book which this movie is based on is written by men who were there, you will not find a more direct viewpoint of this story.

Yea, people never embellish their personal stories

 

[bud29]

I Watched Michael Bay's Benghazi Movie at Cowboys Stadium with 30,000 Pissed-Off Patriots

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Moops you think these men are lying???

 

[the moops]

Moops you think these men are lying???

No. Or, I have no idea. I'm just bored

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Moops you think these men are lying???

Well, Ive heard time and time again... "Are they trying to sell a book?" and "Are they trying to sell a movie?."

If so apparently they are not documenting or reporting... they are profiteering. Nothing more or less.

ITS A MOVIE. That's it.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Saw it begrudgingly tonight, as I heard zero buzz, saw 2.5 star reviews and heard it presented as right wing propoganda.

It was fantastic.

Compelling content presented phenomally by Bay. Not typically a fan but his best work since The Rock.

The perfect war film for the modern era, as there was such a unique telling in the contractor solider element.

Even john krasinski, who I don't generally enjoy, is amazing.

Not sure if it's the content or Bay but I saw 2-2.5 star ratings. That's absurd.

There's a saying that some directors can add a star to a review and some you can automatically subtract one from. Bay is the prime example of the latter.

American sniper vibe and if you liked that you'll love this. It's a more complex and challenging film.

Can not speak to the accuracy of the events but I highly recommend it.

The critics will subtract stars for 'Michael Bay' and because their personal political biases

Yep, I am sure that's it.

 

[timschochet]

its not propaganda against Obama or Hillary, supposedly.

But even if it was, so what? Some of the greatest art we have, including film, was written with propaganda in mind. On the Waterfront was a juatification of the McCarthy era. High Noon was a criticism of the McCarthy era. Two of the greatest films we have.

I'm not going to see it because it doesn't look like my kind of movie. I'll probably catch it on Amazon later on.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Moops you think these men are lying???

Well, Ive heard time and time again... "Are they trying to sell a book?" and "Are they trying to sell a movie?."

If so apparently they are not documenting or reporting... they are profiteering. Nothing more or less.

ITS A MOVIE. That's it.

This was reported before their book came out. It also comports with Leon Panetta's testimony.

 

[culdeus]

Was it better than mad max?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Moops you think these men are lying???

No. Or, I have no idea. I'm just bored

Ha, a poster after my own heart.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's a rundown of the book from September 2014.

http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/omahan-in-benghazi-in-faults-cia-station-chief-s-stand/article_be49e943-caa9-5d8e-9fa0-1560a9abbe89.html

 

[Smack Tripper]

I didn't get any kind of "propaganda" vibe from the film.

You think Donald Trump is renting out a theater to show this because he loves films? Or that Ted Cruz mentioned this in his closing statements at the debate because he is a big Bay fan?

The book was written by the men who were there.

Propaganda would be the hypothetical situation where a government altered that version for public consumption for political purposes.

Having read up a bit more now, this seems to be the issue.

There have been official investigations that depicted one chain of events but what this movie details is the use of outside "security forces" who are ex special forces guys. So they have military experience in the region but are contractors who are approved (I assume) but not technically a military presence.

Would love to hear from doctor Detroit or anyone with more particulars about this. It was a real interesting element of the movie

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I didn't get any kind of "propaganda" vibe from the film.

You think Donald Trump is renting out a theater to show this because he loves films? Or that Ted Cruz mentioned this in his closing statements at the debate because he is a big Bay fan?

The book was written by the men who were there.

Propaganda would be the hypothetical situation where a government altered that version for public consumption for political purposes.

Having read up a bit more now, this seems to be the issue.

There have been official investigations that depicted one chain of events but what this movie details is the use of outside "security forces" who are ex special forces guys. So they have military experience in the region but are contractors who are approved (I assume) but not technically a military presence.

Would love to hear from doctor Detroit or anyone with more particulars about this. It was a real interesting element of the movie

I am curious about that aspect as well. Supposedly the administration was loathe to have US military boots on the ground but basically these guys were Blackwater or something similar at the CIA Annex. I'm also curious if there is any take on whether the CIA Annex was supporting the mission or if the mission was supporting the Annex.

 

[timschochet]

its not propaganda against Obama or Hillary, supposedly.

But even if it was, so what? Some of the greatest art we have, including film, was written with propaganda in mind. On the Waterfront was a juatification of the McCarthy era. High Noon was a criticism of the McCarthy era. Two of the greatest films we have.

I'm not going to see it because it doesn't look like my kind of movie. I'll probably catch it on Amazon later on.

So what? Huh?

It's an election year. They're advertising this movie within months of the primaries.

It's exactly the issue Citizen United was about.

If there's no problem with propaganda movies being advertised on TV during campaign season, then why the complaints about Citizens United?

My complaint about that is about financing candidates. A film is one thing; political commercials are another.

 

[dirtyjay]

Saw it, great. In my eyes it shows how little that anyone out side of the embassy and the CIA that night knew anything as it all happened so fast. Props to the 6 men for protecting their brothers even after the stand down order from Annex as depicted. Sad story but great movie.

To get somewhat political...

There is a reason people are not promoting it big time, it does a good job of showing this was not a Hillary issue since she wasnt the problem in any way. That has to bite the Reps and shows why she has never been brought up on charges.

 

[Mario Kart]

I Watched Michael Bay's Benghazi Movie at Cowboys Stadium with 30,000 Pissed-Off Patriots

These people should be in Oregon instead of some cushy seat watching a movie. 13 Hours: Oregon... Coming to a theater near you.

 

[jamny]

Saw it, great. In my eyes it shows how little that anyone out side of the embassy and the CIA that night knew anything as it all happened so fast. Props to the 6 men for protecting their brothers even after the stand down order from Annex as depicted. Sad story but great movie.

To get somewhat political...

There is a reason people are not promoting it big time, it does a good job of showing this was not a Hillary issue since she wasnt the problem in any way. That has to bite the Reps and shows why she has never been brought up on charges.

If they show a stand down order, isn't it then a criticism of Hillary? Doesn't the Obama Administration insist there never was one?

 

[timschochet]

its not propaganda against Obama or Hillary, supposedly.

But even if it was, so what? Some of the greatest art we have, including film, was written with propaganda in mind. On the Waterfront was a juatification of the McCarthy era. High Noon was a criticism of the McCarthy era. Two of the greatest films we have.

I'm not going to see it because it doesn't look like my kind of movie. I'll probably catch it on Amazon later on.

So what? Huh? It's an election year. They're advertising this movie within months of the primaries.

It's exactly the issue Citizen United was about.

If there's no problem with propaganda movies being advertised on TV during campaign season, then why the complaints about Citizens United?

My complaint about that is about financing candidates. A film is one thing; political commercials are another.

Citizens United advertised a movie on TV before the primaries. That was exactly the issue in the case. Anyone who is silent on this movie can't complain about that decision.

Edit: except you, Tim, because you can't keep quiet about anything and I forgot how many hypocritical opinions you manage to hold at the same time. Nevermind.

WTF? I was talking about the content of this film not about commercials. The connection you're making is extremely tenuous.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Didn't W come out during election season as well?

 

[matuski]

its not propaganda against Obama or Hillary, supposedly.

But even if it was, so what? Some of the greatest art we have, including film, was written with propaganda in mind. On the Waterfront was a juatification of the McCarthy era. High Noon was a criticism of the McCarthy era. Two of the greatest films we have.

I'm not going to see it because it doesn't look like my kind of movie. I'll probably catch it on Amazon later on.

So what? Huh?It's an election year. They're advertising this movie within months of the primaries.

It's exactly the issue Citizen United was about.

If there's no problem with propaganda movies being advertised on TV during campaign season, then why the complaints about Citizens United?

My complaint about that is about financing candidates. A film is one thing; political commercials are another.

Citizens United advertised a movie on TV before the primaries. That was exactly the issue in the case.Anyone who is silent on this movie can't complain about that decision.

Edit: except you, Tim, because you can't keep quiet about anything and I forgot how many hypocritical opinions you manage to hold at the same time. Nevermind.

Why are you being so hostile?

 

[avoiding injuries]

Didn't W come out during election season as well?

10-17-08That was different though

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saw it, great. In my eyes it shows how little that anyone out side of the embassy and the CIA that night knew anything as it all happened so fast. Props to the 6 men for protecting their brothers even after the stand down order from Annex as depicted. Sad story but great movie.

To get somewhat political...

There is a reason people are not promoting it big time, it does a good job of showing this was not a Hillary issue since she wasnt the problem in any way. That has to bite the Reps and shows why she has never been brought up on charges.

Thank you.

I will add everyone can get past the political angle now. It was 3+ years ago, now not even the government or administration, or Hillary for that matter, says that the movie had anything to do with what happened. Everyone except a few have moved on.

 

[RBM]

I Watched Michael Bay's Benghazi Movie at Cowboys Stadium with 30,000 Pissed-Off Patriots

Man it never ceases to amaze me at how angry people get toward patriotism. I mean this flake is just so disgusted by the sight of it. Total loser.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

its not propaganda against Obama or Hillary, supposedly.

But even if it was, so what? Some of the greatest art we have, including film, was written with propaganda in mind. On the Waterfront was a juatification of the McCarthy era. High Noon was a criticism of the McCarthy era. Two of the greatest films we have.

I'm not going to see it because it doesn't look like my kind of movie. I'll probably catch it on Amazon later on.

So what? Huh?It's an election year. They're advertising this movie within months of the primaries.

It's exactly the issue Citizen United was about.

If there's no problem with propaganda movies being advertised on TV during campaign season, then why the complaints about Citizens United?

My complaint about that is about financing candidates. A film is one thing; political commercials are another.

Citizens United advertised a movie on TV before the primaries. That was exactly the issue in the case.Anyone who is silent on this movie can't complain about that decision.

Edit: except you, Tim, because you can't keep quiet about anything and I forgot how many hypocritical opinions you manage to hold at the same time. Nevermind.

WTF? I was talking about the content of this film not about commercials. The connection you're making is extremely tenuous.

Hillary the movie was a movie, not a commercial. The government before the USSC argued that the FEC law would apply to any medium, even books.

eta - I think a lot of people who are for the prior law are for the campaign spending and contribution limits and transparency regulations, which I am generally as well, but not for this aspect.

 

[dirtyjay]

Saw it, great. In my eyes it shows how little that anyone out side of the embassy and the CIA that night knew anything as it all happened so fast. Props to the 6 men for protecting their brothers even after the stand down order from Annex as depicted. Sad story but great movie.

To get somewhat political...

There is a reason people are not promoting it big time, it does a good job of showing this was not a Hillary issue since she wasnt the problem in any way. That has to bite the Reps and shows why she has never been brought up on charges.

If they show a stand down order, isn't it then a criticism of Hillary? Doesn't the Obama Administration insist there never was one?

It came from the person in charge of the Annex that hired the 6 servicemen to protect them, something the news never ever ever shared with the public. They decided that protecting their brothers was more important as it was their family. The stand down order was from the guy who paid them, and at that point they were never actually part of the military. They were independent contractors. Hillary had no control over the 6 employees of the CIA, the guy who issued the stand down order did. You would never have heard about it if you watch Fox News, not saying you do, just that their viewers would not. Hillary had no input in the attack because it happened so quick.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I Watched Michael Bay's Benghazi Movie at Cowboys Stadium with 30,000 Pissed-Off Patriots

The worst is the nebbishy and callous CIA station chief, played by David Costabile, who serves as a stand-in for the neglect and dishonor exhibited, in Benghazi narratives, by the politicians and bureaucrats, repeatedly giving the warriors cowardly and self-serving orders. In an early scene, he calls the contractors “hired help” who “should act like it.” He’s as sympathetic as a banker in a Capra film. As the bodies mount, he’s repeatedly unmanned by the warriors, to applause from the audience, until he’s left a quaking hulk at the end. Jim has to shame him into evacuating.

- This would be the CIA Annex chief who told the men not to go rescue Stevens at the embassy, The 20 or so minutes it delayed them may have cost Stevens his life. It sounds like if anyone deserves this treatment it's this guy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saw it, great. In my eyes it shows how little that anyone out side of the embassy and the CIA that night knew anything as it all happened so fast. Props to the 6 men for protecting their brothers even after the stand down order from Annex as depicted. Sad story but great movie.

To get somewhat political...

There is a reason people are not promoting it big time, it does a good job of showing this was not a Hillary issue since she wasnt the problem in any way. That has to bite the Reps and shows why she has never been brought up on charges.

If they show a stand down order, isn't it then a criticism of Hillary? Doesn't the Obama Administration insist there never was one?

It came from the person in charge of the Annex that hired the 6 servicemen to protect them, something the news never ever ever shared with the public. They decided that protecting their brothers was more important as it was their family. The stand down order was from the guy who paid them, and at that point they were never actually part of the military. They were independent contractors. Hillary had no control over the 6 employees of the CIA, the guy who issued the stand down order did. You would never have heard about it if you watch Fox News, not saying you do, just that their viewers would not. Hillary had no input in the attack because it happened so quick.

I just thought I'd point out I agree with this.

Now it's possible the CIA chief did get that order to not intervene from someone, somewhere along the way, or not, but I'm not sure that has ever been documented and I doubt it will at this point.