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

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

in the movie who does Jim from the office work for?

Surprisingly, still Dunder-Mifflin

 

[Rohn Jambo]

in the movie who does Jim from the office work for?

Hillary made Jim work out for the role.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/film/13hours/krasinski1-xlarge.jpg

 

[Smack Tripper]

As Vox says, this is essentially a movie about the big strong bearded good guys vs the egg head Harvard educated evil gov't bureaucrats. Though billed as a true story, little of it stands up to scrutiny; it's Bay doing what he does best, making movies for 14 year old boys.

Bay is a genius in this respect; he recognized that the overlap in Republican foreign policy and teenage boys and is going to make millions.

I just want to point something out about this piece:

But at the same time, Bay constantly reminds us that his film is telling a "true" story. 13 Hours is littered with myriad timestamps, datelines, and title cards intended to ground us in reality. 13 Hours presents itself as the truth.

And that's where it struggles.

The movie deals with true events. But its assured, unquestioned logic of everything in between is difficult to trust. Amid the pronounced chaos of the movie, 13 hours just offers up too clean a premise: Follow these steps, and you're safe. In reality, there are no promises that good people won't get hurt.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/10775470/13-hours-benghazi-reviewVox talks a lot about the tone and look of the movie but nowhere does it say any specific event or factual claim is false. The review just says that the movie supposedly gives off a premise (that good people won't get hurt) which is false. (I think we know Stevens at least is "hurt" but anyway...). It actually has nothing to say to contradict the factual telling. That's remarkable.

You sure about that?

What a boring, paint by numbers, review.

I'm amazed by reviews like this, in deriding "macho" film basically make fun of something for being gay. If a film chose to play "gay" content for laughs "the wrong" way, the reviewer would critique yet here he thinks he's breaking new ground by pointing out the irony(?) or making the observation about the content of the film. It's tired and it's not new and it's half of this review.

Apparently this guy is surprised by the fact special forces guys with down time might actually stay in shape. Maybe he wanted to see a short minority woman with glasses added to the team in a film based in real events?

This sort of review is exactly what I mention with lazy reviewing deciding on a piece in the opening credits at times.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As Vox says, this is essentially a movie about the big strong bearded good guys vs the egg head Harvard educated evil gov't bureaucrats. Though billed as a true story, little of it stands up to scrutiny; it's Bay doing what he does best, making movies for 14 year old boys.

Bay is a genius in this respect; he recognized that the overlap in Republican foreign policy and teenage boys and is going to make millions.

I just want to point something out about this piece:

But at the same time, Bay constantly reminds us that his film is telling a "true" story. 13 Hours is littered with myriad timestamps, datelines, and title cards intended to ground us in reality. 13 Hours presents itself as the truth.

And that's where it struggles.

The movie deals with true events. But its assured, unquestioned logic of everything in between is difficult to trust. Amid the pronounced chaos of the movie, 13 hours just offers up too clean a premise: Follow these steps, and you're safe. In reality, there are no promises that good people won't get hurt.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/10775470/13-hours-benghazi-reviewVox talks a lot about the tone and look of the movie but nowhere does it say any specific event or factual claim is false. The review just says that the movie supposedly gives off a premise (that good people won't get hurt) which is false. (I think we know Stevens at least is "hurt" but anyway...). It actually has nothing to say to contradict the factual telling. That's remarkable.

You sure about that?

Tommy I believe I just quoted the entirety of what the review says about the film factually. Let me know what I'm missing. Thanks.

 

[tommyboy]

Lolz

 

[MaxThreshold]

As Vox says, this is essentially a movie about the big strong bearded good guys vs the egg head Harvard educated evil gov't bureaucrats. Though billed as a true story, little of it stands up to scrutiny; it's Bay doing what he does best, making movies for 14 year old boys.

Bay is a genius in this respect; he recognized that the overlap in Republican foreign policy and teenage boys and is going to make millions.

I just want to point something out about this piece:

But at the same time, Bay constantly reminds us that his film is telling a "true" story. 13 Hours is littered with myriad timestamps, datelines, and title cards intended to ground us in reality. 13 Hours presents itself as the truth.

And that's where it struggles.

The movie deals with true events. But its assured, unquestioned logic of everything in between is difficult to trust. Amid the pronounced chaos of the movie, 13 hours just offers up too clean a premise: Follow these steps, and you're safe. In reality, there are no promises that good people won't get hurt.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/10775470/13-hours-benghazi-reviewVox talks a lot about the tone and look of the movie but nowhere does it say any specific event or factual claim is false. The review just says that the movie supposedly gives off a premise (that good people won't get hurt) which is false. (I think we know Stevens at least is "hurt" but anyway...). It actually has nothing to say to contradict the factual telling. That's remarkable.

You sure about that?

Tommy I believe I just quoted the entirety of what the review says about the film factually. Let me know what I'm missing. Thanks.

I got some bad, but not entirely unexpected news for you: TGunz doesn't deal in facts. Only cherry-picked snippets and talking points directly from the DNC or Obama.

 

[RBM]

As Vox says, this is essentially a movie about the big strong bearded good guys vs the egg head Harvard educated evil gov't bureaucrats. Though billed as a true story, little of it stands up to scrutiny; it's Bay doing what he does best, making movies for 14 year old boys.

Bay is a genius in this respect; he recognized that the overlap in Republican foreign policy and teenage boys and is going to make millions.

I just want to point something out about this piece:

But at the same time, Bay constantly reminds us that his film is telling a "true" story. 13 Hours is littered with myriad timestamps, datelines, and title cards intended to ground us in reality. 13 Hours presents itself as the truth.

And that's where it struggles.

The movie deals with true events. But its assured, unquestioned logic of everything in between is difficult to trust. Amid the pronounced chaos of the movie, 13 hours just offers up too clean a premise: Follow these steps, and you're safe. In reality, there are no promises that good people won't get hurt.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/15/10775470/13-hours-benghazi-reviewVox talks a lot about the tone and look of the movie but nowhere does it say any specific event or factual claim is false. The review just says that the movie supposedly gives off a premise (that good people won't get hurt) which is false. (I think we know Stevens at least is "hurt" but anyway...). It actually has nothing to say to contradict the factual telling. That's remarkable.

You sure about that?

Tommy I believe I just quoted the entirety of what the review says about the film factually. Let me know what I'm missing. Thanks.

I got some bad, but not entirely unexpected news for you: TGunz doesn't deal in facts. Only cherry-picked snippets and talking points directly from the DNC or Obama.

Ever see TGunz and Rachel Maddow in the same room at the same time?

 

[Johnnymac]

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.

Citizens United has a whole helluva lot more impact than a ####### movie. Give me a break.

 

[Christo]

What's wrong with John Krasinski?

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

Im a fan of his he just isnt believable in most serious roles, especially an action flick.

I see him in pretty much the same range as Stiller.

That's harsh

 

[bigbottom]

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.

So, American Sniper.

Or Blackhawk Down.

-btw - As far as I know there has been no criticism of the factual telling in the film so far.

What?

It is being panned as crap filmmaking and historically inaccurate all over the place.

The film making is it's own thing. People can discuss how enjoyable the movie or how good it is separately.

The second link addresses the factually of that specific issue of the CIA officer has already been discussed up thread. The only difference factually is whether the CIA officer was planning to gather more resources for an attack or if he was issuing a stand down order. The timing (20 minute delay) and everything else is the same. That's the only difference there.

The fight scenes, violence, etc., are all significantly exaggerated in many ways compared to what was in the book, something not true about Blackhawk Down, for example. Let's just say that there is a lot of Hollywood literary license in this one....

I haven't read the book, so I can't personally compare, but I heard an interview with Mark Geist (Oz) and he said the movie was extremely accurate in terms of the events depicted. He said the only changes were that a few of the things were done by a different guy than the one depicted in the film. And these guys maintain that the station chief told them to stand down and actually said those words. They don't maintain that a stand down order necessarily came from up the chain.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Its a MOVIE.

Nothing more.

 

[bigbottom]

Its a MOVIE.

Nothing more.

I thought it was a pretty good movie, which surprised me given that Bay was at the helm.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Its a MOVIE.

Nothing more.

Based on a book based on....

 

[Rove!]

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.

So, American Sniper.

Or Blackhawk Down.

-btw - As far as I know there has been no criticism of the factual telling in the film so far.

What?

It is being panned as crap filmmaking and historically inaccurate all over the place.

The film making is it's own thing. People can discuss how enjoyable the movie or how good it is separately.

The second link addresses the factually of that specific issue of the CIA officer has already been discussed up thread. The only difference factually is whether the CIA officer was planning to gather more resources for an attack or if he was issuing a stand down order. The timing (20 minute delay) and everything else is the same. That's the only difference there.

The fight scenes, violence, etc., are all significantly exaggerated in many ways compared to what was in the book, something not true about Blackhawk Down, for example. Let's just say that there is a lot of Hollywood literary license in this one....

I haven't read the book, so I can't personally compare, but I heard an interview with Mark Geist (Oz) and he said the movie was extremely accurate in terms of the events depicted. He said the only changes were that a few of the things were done by a different guy than the one depicted in the film. And these guys maintain that the station chief told them to stand down and actually said those words. They don't maintain that a stand down order necessarily came from up the chain.

They would have know way of knowing that, so to assert otherwise would be wrong...this is their account.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Its a MOVIE.

Nothing more.

Based on a book based on....

Just a movie. Try as you might.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Its a MOVIE.

Nothing more.

Based on a book based on....

Just a movie. Try as you might.

Not really controversial that it's based on a book.

 

[bigbottom]

For what it's worth, when Mark Geist, one of the surviving soldiers, was asked about the political fallout from the incident he was equally critical of folks on both sides of the aisle who played "political football" over the incident, and who have misrepresented what happened. In particular, he mentioned some right wing sites that reported that the ambassador was drug through the streets. He said that never happened, and that the ambassador's body was recovered by a friendly neighbor who thought he might still be alive and took him to the hospital. He also emphasized the help they received from the locals during the incident.

 

[The Kerminator]

Crazy video from Wildwood NJ and the southern jersey shore

https://www.facebook.com/TheBoardwalkBlog/

That is crazy. Hopefully in 13 hours it will be better

 

[Smack Tripper]

Crazy video from Wildwood NJ and the southern jersey shore

https://www.facebook.com/TheBoardwalkBlog/

That is crazy. Hopefully in 13 hours it will be better

oops wrong thread

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

For what it's worth, when Mark Geist, one of the surviving soldiers, was asked about the political fallout from the incident he was equally critical of folks on both sides of the aisle who played "political football" over the incident, and who have misrepresented what happened. In particular, he mentioned some right wing sites that reported that the ambassador was drug through the streets. He said that never happened, and that the ambassador's body was recovered by a friendly neighbor who thought he might still be alive and took him to the hospital. He also emphasized the help they received from the locals during the incident.

Agree.

For anyone interested here is the testimony of Charlene Lamb, Leon Panetta and Gen. Carter Ham in terms of the details of the attack..

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012-10-09-Lamb-Testimony-FINAL1.pdf

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Panetta%2002-07-13.pdf

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=AAEBCAA5-4C8F-4820-BACD-2DB9B53C3424

As Lamb stated:

Let me add here that over the course of the attack, two local Libyan security personnel were beaten, and two were shot. We should not lose sight of their service.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Its a MOVIE.

Nothing more.

Based on a book based on....

Just a movie. Try as you might.

So was Fahrenheit 9/11 and the left slobbered all over that as if it was true.

 

[bigbottom]

Its a MOVIE.

Nothing more.

Based on a book based on....

Just a movie. Try as you might.

So was Fahrenheit 9/11 and the left slobbered all over that as if it was true.

I get your point, but I don't think these films are the least bit comparable. By and large, 13 Hours is a completely apolitical movie. It's a recounting of the event itself as it unfolded, and basically has nothing to say about the political aftermath. The only material factual dispute appears to be whether the section chief told the guys to stand down when they wanted to go to the embassy. The station chief denies saying that while the soldiers maintain he did. But as far as I recall, there is nothing in the film that in any way attributes that order up the chain.By the way, in the interview I heard, Mark Geist explained why that order made some sense. They weren't there to protect the embassy. They were there to protect all the assets at the CIA compound. By leaving for the embassy, they left the compound undefended, and as we know, it became a target later in the evening.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It's the overarching theme of the movie consistent with the right's portrayal of the attacks? Brave soldiers ('Merica!!!) vs inept gov't bureaucrats?

 

[RBM]

It's the overarching theme of the movie consistent with the right's portrayal of the attacks? Brave soldiers ('Merica!!!) vs inept gov't bureaucrats?

That your worst nightmare?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's the overarching theme of the movie consistent with the right's portrayal of the attacks? Brave soldiers ('Merica!!!) vs inept gov't bureaucrats?

You could at least look at the testimony of Panetta, Lamb and Ham from the administration (posted above) to get the administration's POV of the attack.

The Chairman: I appreciate that, both of those times, so I can get kind of a handle on that. Okay. The attack started at 9:42. I don It see any mention here about a demonstration, just simply an attack. Do you know if there was some kind of demonstration before this attack?

General Ham. I am not aware of one, sir. It became pretty apparent to me, and I think to most at Africa Command pretty shortly after this attack began, that this was an attack.

- Gen. Carter Ham

In the months since the tragedy at the Temporary Mission Facility and nearby Annex in Benghazi, we’ve learned these were actually two short duration attacks that occurred some six hours apart.

The four Americans who perished in Benghazi – Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and security personnel Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty – were heroes and patriots.

- Leon Panetta

Is the administration even in disagreement?

I could be wrong but I don't think that the soldiers in their book or in the movie indicate that the stand down order (if there was one) extended past the CIA annex chief, and even if true it corresponds with what BB says, that the Annex may have been the focus of the mission, not the mission itself.

 

[tommyboy]

The main political gotcha message from the movie would be the lack of help. Thats it. I don't even see that as political personally, just sad. The movie is good, go see it

 

[tommyGunZ]

The main political gotcha message from the movie would be the lack of help. Thats it. I don't even see that as political personally, just sad. The movie is good, go see it

60% on Rotten Tomatoes. Zero chance I see a film this poorly reviewed.

 

[tommyboy]

Too bad for you bro, it really is a good movie

 

[KarmaPolice]

Its a MOVIE.

Nothing more.

Based on a book based on....

Just a movie. Try as you might.

So was Fahrenheit 9/11 and the left slobbered all over that as if it was true.

That and W were crap. How is it related though?

 

[bigbottom]

It's the overarching theme of the movie consistent with the right's portrayal of the attacks? Brave soldiers ('Merica!!!) vs inept gov't bureaucrats?

From what I understand, it is consistent with the surviving soldiers' recounting of the event.As for ineptitude, I would say that the non-military personnel at the CIA compound were generally portrayed as competent. The soldiers do butt heads with the station chief at a couple critical moments, but overall I would say that he was portrayed as conflicted more than inept. There were some moments of ineptitude portrayed, however, but those were actually of soldiers and security detail. The ambassador's security detail seemed completely ill-equipped, and the SEAL team coming in as reinforcements got lost driving from the airport to the compound.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The main political gotcha message from the movie would be the lack of help. Thats it. I don't even see that as political personally, just sad. The movie is good, go see it

60% on Rotten Tomatoes. Zero chance I see a film this poorly reviewed.

Hey Ebert - 60% is actually, "fresh" on the tomatometer. Once again ignoring evidence to the contrary.

 

[nightmare]

60% is the CRITICS score. 88% is the audience's score.

Critic's usually pan comedy's and movies like this.

Good movie, go see it.

 

[Rove!]

It's the overarching theme of the movie consistent with the right's portrayal of the attacks? Brave soldiers ('Merica!!!) vs inept gov't bureaucrats?

I think it opens with a a couple of Middle Eastern gentleman ( played by actors of Europenan descent), watching a YouTube video and expressing outrage in the most stereotypical Middle Eastern accents and flying into fits of unhinged rage....

Oh wait, that's the movie Hillary would have made....

 

[Capella]

Ok movie, dumb thread.

The constant phone calls home to the crying wife, and the long shots of the burned/ruined American flag really detract from these type of movies. Just too much pandering for tears.

I also don't see how the movie is a knock on Hillary at all.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So I saw this.

I didn't think the portrayal of the CIA chief was as bad as made out when you look at how the movie portrayed the CIA team in general, Ivy League, upper crust, well the CIA does have that rep. You have to remember that this was written by grunts, guys who were regular military now working for Blackwater, it doesn't seem that unreasonable that these guys would view the CIA that way nor that the CIA would view them that way.

Iraq was not that long ago and the administration was using Blackwater in Libya. Is it so crazy to think that the administration, or the CIA or the CIA mission chief didn't want these guys getting involved in a firefight with militia? They were viewed as unaccountable and aggressive, so what the authors suggest as the CIA POV of them does seem reasonable.

I also read the WaPo article with the CIA chief and I'm not so sure his view of things is incompatible with the movie. The movie doesn't suggest that the 'stand down' was pre existent or that it was permanent, it suggests the CIA chief was awaiting further information or help. I think even in the WaPo interview the CIA chief doesn't deny that he told the team to wait.

There don't seem to be any political points made. Per the men involved there was no protest of any kind, it was a military attack and not an unexpected one. The fact that there were only two State security personnel in site and that Stevens was allowed to stay at the consulate (Stare Dept mission) which really was just a mansion in an untenable security situation is pretty damning, it makes no sense and it's sad, and someone should have made a call on that.

The movie also highlights that the CIA mission may have been the real focus of the overall mission. Apparently Stevens came into something underway, to add an overt diplomatic element to what was already an ongoing, much larger covert intelligence operation.

I think the movie was enjoyable, the fight scenes seemed believable, tense and sad. The focus is more on the bond of friendships than the fighting though. I guess you come away with a sense of sadness for the impossible situation they were all put into.

 

[Dignan_]

Watched this to kick off Memorial Day weekend. 

Great movie.

Anybody who says otherwise is a political hack and shouldn't be trusted around women or children. 

 

[[icon]]

I for one am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY, that the usual Billary stumps are panning this flick. I never would have seen that coming. 

 

[beer 30]

Just finished watching this. It's really good, and really intense. I put it in that Zero Dark Thirty/American Sniper echelon, but it's even more intense than both of them.

I'm sad and angry. It's just a ####ty story to tell, but well worth viewing.

Finally got around to seeing this last night. Above sums up my feelings pretty well. Really enjoyed the movie, didn't think there was an overtly political message aside from the one Saints mentioned in that housing an Ambassador in that mansion was a complete and utter mistake which absolutely cost him his life.

 

[Rove!]

Finally got around to seeing this last night. Above sums up my feelings pretty well. Really enjoyed the movie, didn't think there was an overtly political message aside from the one Saints mentioned in that housing an Ambassador in that mansion was a complete and utter mistake which absolutely cost him his life.

He was a sitting duck with no military support...

 

[the moops]

Got about half way through. Terrible.

 

[Max Power]

Pretty accurate timeline of events.  Enjoyable movie.

 

[Sconch]

How many times did Krasinski look at the camera?

Well?

 

[Courtjester]

I liked it, but my only complaint is how unrealistic the fight scenes were as far as the Americans hitting every target they shot at whole you had 300 insurgents who could not hit anything. They just kind of blindly ran at the compound and got killed. I understand the Americans had the benefit of night vision, but why didn't one of the bad guys with a basic rifle just crouch down and pick off an Americans?

 

[NutterButter]

Is it really that simple for an untrained gunmen to shoot someone in a covered elevated position from a few hundred yards away in pitch darkness using what was probably an AK?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Is it really that simple for an untrained gunmen to shoot someone in a covered elevated position from a few hundred yards away in pitch darkness using what was probably an AK?

no, it's not.  I've never fired an AK, but I bet it has some kick to it as well since it fires a 7.62mm round with full auto (no single shot/burst/full auto option like the M16) which means it would be harder to control and less accurate.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I liked it, but my only complaint is how unrealistic the fight scenes were as far as the Americans hitting every target they shot at whole you had 300 insurgents who could not hit anything. They just kind of blindly ran at the compound and got killed. I understand the Americans had the benefit of night vision, but why didn't one of the bad guys with a basic rifle just crouch down and pick off an Americans?

Is it really that simple for an untrained gunmen to shoot someone in a covered elevated position from a few hundred yards away in pitch darkness using what was probably an AK?

- Well somebody did some pretty amazing things because that handful of guys did hold off a militia attack for a half day until the cavalry arrived.