REVIEW: 13 Hours

8 Responses to REVIEW: 13 Hours

1. pray4truth says:

   20 January 2016 at 1:10 PM

   My husband and I also saw it yesterday. It was very well done and smartly apolitical. I highly recommend it to anyone old enough to vote.
2. CradleRevert says:

   20 January 2016 at 2:47 PM

   Interesting. When I heard the director (Michael Bay of Pearl Harbor and Transformers fame), I had largely written off any expectation that this movie would be any good. Now I’m intrigued.
3. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf says:

   20 January 2016 at 3:14 PM

   CradleRevert says: Michael Bay

   I know. I, too, was a little skeptical at first. This movie grabs you by the windpipe from the beginning and it doesn’t stop shaking you until it’s over.
4. Papabile says:

   20 January 2016 at 3:38 PM

   I felt strangely at home. The pulsing throb of bullets emanating from the M240B and M249SAW were correct. [I read an interesting article in the Feb 2016 issue of Guns & Ammo about the weapons in the movie. How accurate were the weapons? The article started “At the request of the government, certain elements of this story have been redacted with the           mark to protect individuals still in the service of the United States.” And also, “There are several area of the story, including some of the equipment used by members of the           interviewed for the article we were asked to withhold specific makes and models about carbines, pistols and night vision devices to prevent identifying information from falling in the hands of the enemy.” So, the movies shows similar weapons to those actually used. One caption reads, “As depicted in a dramatic firefight scene, Tig did use a 40mm grenade launcher and the FN M249 SAW during the actual 2012 Benghazi attack. Though we know of this 5.56 belt-fed machine gun, the specific grenade launcher was intentionally misrepresented in the movie.” And also, “ISS Weapons provided props such as the Colt M4 with EOTech sight and SureFire Scout light. This firearm and its configuration were intentionally created to avoid disclosing the actual guns and gear used by the security team at Benghazi.”] Though, I thought the grenade explosions somewhat overdone. [The RPGs?] It’s almost always just shrapnel.

   Good tactics for defense of the perimeter, though strongpointing all four buildings, while not ideal, was a tactical necessity for complete coverage of their fields of fire. It would have been better if they coulds have presented a triangular defense, but c’es la vie with the situation they were given.

   What the movie does not mention, but what occurred was that the first mortar rounds were hitting the complex shortly after the first complex attack on the Embassy. That goes toward indicating that the moles sat in 17 Feb.

   What Father said is correct. I wouldn’t bring any of my children to it until they were close to military age. It’s fairly realistic in it’s view of combat. I do have a hard time believing that any Chief of Station would be so arrogant however. But, that may well be one of the things that contributes to the story. (Please note, I am not contesting the accuracy of what he ordered them to do, but simply thought the portrayal of his ‘arrogance’ was overdone, and that’s it.)
5. Bob B. says:

   21 January 2016 at 12:42 AM

   For those Vietnam vets and for those who want to see a true depiction of Vietnam, if Ride the Thunder is playing anywhere near you, go see it. It was nominated for the Academy Awards, but Hollywood still excludes most true stories about the war.
   I’ll see 13 Hours soon.
6. wanda says:

   21 January 2016 at 10:56 AM

   Husband and I saw it yesterday. As Fr. Z. said, it grips you from the beginning and squeezes tighter and tighter.
   I found myself cringing down a little in my seat toward the end and yes, welling up. Left feeling angry that they were left on their own. May those who gave their fullest measure rest in peace.
   Go and see this story. Pretty accurate without being political.
7. little women says:

   21 January 2016 at 11:22 AM

   Interesting that you sit near the back, Fr. Z. A month ago, we attended a movie with friends, and since they eschew cokes and popcorn, they went in and saved us seats, in the back, next to the door. I felt so vulnerable and was sure if a gunman came in, I was going to be the first victim. I’d much rather be nearer the side door emergency exit up front. I feel like I could crouch down and waddle to the door, and the seats would give me some protection.
8. rodin says:

   21 January 2016 at 5:35 PM

   If you have not read the book you might find it worthwhile. About page 99 where the rescuers were trying to get permission to go to the assistance of those begging for help, it is made clear that “Bob” was speaking with some unknown person in Washington who was apparently responsible for the “stand down” order that the rescuers later ignored. We know it was not the Commander in Chief since we later learned that no one knew where he was, nor was it the Secretary of State because we later learned from her emails that she was at home emailing her daughter that it was a terrorist attack and not a fictional protest on the spur of the moment.

   Who was it? Apparently Trey Gowdy’s inquiry has not turned up that information.

   I might also ask, if a private on guard duty walks away from his task what happens to him? Compare that with the missing Commander in Chief.

Comments are closed.