Michael Bay has made one of the best movies of 2016

[Guestx]

I know The Bay has a lot of haters around here, but this is legit.

The other night I was looking for something to watch and settled on his new film, 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. For those unfamiliar with the movie, it's based on the real-life 2012 attacks on a diplomatic compound and CIA base in Libya in 2012. The bulk of the defense was provided by a small group of ex-military guys who were contracted to provide security to CIA operatives in the country.

Trailer:





Guys, I REALLY liked this movie. I didn't catch it in the theater because the trailer didn't wow me, but after watching it at home I realize I really missed out. It would've been awesome on the big screen.

First off, the movie is GORGEOUS. Just fucking awesome looking. Michael was able to capture the Middle Eastern landscapes in a way that shows off not only the ruggedness of the country, but also its beauty. While Bay has definitely put his own sort of visual stamp on it--it definitely feels in many ways like the kind of movie he would make when dealing with a subject like this--that doesn't prove to be a bad thing. It actually works.

Also, the performances are fantastic. John Krasinski as a special forces guy? It probably sounds silly on paper, but he does a really good job and he also got jacked for this role. The supporting cast--top to bottom--all kick ass, too.

The action is also great. Bay has proven in the past that when he really wants to, he can do action quite well. This movie isn't CGI robots slamming into each other, it's actual decipherable military action that relies almost entirely on practical effects -- real people, real guns, real explosions, real shit being blown up.

Combine all of the above with a story that is inherently interesting, and this movie is a winner. I am officially putting it up there with The Rock and Pain & Gain, two other Bay films that I think are legitimately great movies.

Anyone else seen this one already? If not, check it out.

Also, for anyone who has seen it and is interested in owning it, Target has a combo pack on sale right now for $19.99. I picked it up the other day. It comes with the Blu-Ray and DVD, and also has the original book the film was based on.

 

[BisexualMMA]

I'm skeptical, but I'll reserve judgment until I've seen it.

I thought Pain and Gain had some good things about it, but also some large and strange flaws.

 

[Guestx]

I'm skeptical, but I'll reserve judgment until I've seen it.

I thought Pain and Gain had some good things about it, but also some large and strange flaws.

Where exactly would you say your skepticism lies? Do you like military movies in general? If you do, I can't imagine you wouldn't like this one. On the other hand, if you don't I'm not sure this one will change your mind.

If you can remember, what would you say were Pain & Gain's "large and strange flaws?"

 

[HARRISON_3]

I skeptical, too.

Not sure how much is truth and how much is propaganda.

 

[Jermei]

Pass. I don't believe in Michael Bay and I can't / won't watch his movies. I'm that guy.

 

[trolololol]

Solid movie, I'd give it a 7/10. Good performances all around, and some good "Hit me right in the feels" moments in the scenes involving Krasinski's family and the dialogue between the soldiers after the attacks die down for a bit.

I missed it in the theatre too, and I wish I didn't. There's a $5 theatre close to where Iive, and it would have made for a better viewing experience.

Michael Bay is definitely at his best with an R rating. Pain & Gain is one of my favorites.

 

[Guestx]

I skeptical, too.

Not sure how much is truth and how much is propaganda.

The book was written based on the testimony of the guys who were involved, and from what I understand the movie follows the book very closely. Furthermore, the actual GRS contractors were on set providing input during the filming. So really, it comes down to how much you believe the combatants.

There is some controversy over their account on a few key details:

The film's historical accuracy has been disputed. In the film's most controversial scene, the CIA chief in Benghazi (identified only as "Bob") tells the military contractors there, who seek permission to go defend the embassy, to "stand down", thus denying them permission. The real-life CIA chief stated that there was no stand-down order. His statement was echoed by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's finding that there was "no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party."

Kris "Tonto" Paronto, a CIA contractor was involved in action during the event, has claimed "We were told to 'stand down'. Those words were used verbatim — 100 percent. ... If the truth of it affects someone's political career? Well, I'm sorry. It happens." Paronto has been accused of fabricating his account in order to make money, because he "had a book to sell and a movie to help promote." The CIA base chief portrayed in the film has directly contradicted Paronto's claims, stating, "There never was a stand-down order... At no time did I ever second-guess that the team would depart."

Also disputed is the film's portrayal that air support was denied. A House Armed Services report found that air support was unavailable, or it would have arrived too late to make a difference. Commentator David French defended the film's references to air support, writing that even if resources could have been flown in during the time available, this would itself be "scandalous", given Libya's known instability.

So you'll just have to make up your mind on who is telling the truth.

But I'll say this: Regardless of accuracy, the film stands as a very solid piece of entertainment.

 

[Guestx]

Pass. I don't believe in Michael Bay and I can't / won't watch his movies. I'm that guy.

You didn't even like The Rock?

 

[BisexualMMA]

Where exactly would you say your skepticism lies? Do you like military movies in general? If you do, I can't imagine you wouldn't like this one. On the other hand, if you don't I'm not sure this one will change your mind.

If you can remember, what would you say were Pain & Gain's "large and strange flaws?"

I like military movies in general. Platoon is among my favorites of all time, and I like a long list of Vietnam and WW2 movies - Saving Private Ryan, Patton, Hamburger Hill, Letters from Iwo Jima, etc. as well as movies about other conflicts...

My skepticism lies mainly in my general doubts regarding Michael Bay's ability to handle serious material. I don't think it's impossible...he got the very broad strokes right with somewhat-serious material a few times, like Armageddon and the Island.

As to Pain and Gain... Offhand, the biggest issues were with the tone of the film in general and especially with the characterization of the protagonists and the antagonist.

I was okay with making Tony Shalhoub's victim kind of a dick, but they made him such an asshole that it seemed they were trying to suggest that Wahlberg and the Rock weren't doing anything wrong. He was such a fucker that there was no sympathy for the man at any point.

But at the same time, they didn't paint Wahlberg and the Rock as doing anything really right OR wrong. They were sort of presented as innocent mental children like Forrest Gump, almost like they weren't responsible for their decisions and they were actually nice guys. So were we supposed to be cheering for them to get away with it? I couldn't really tell.

And this was exacerbated by things like the movie opening and closing with Wahlberg's character talking about his commitment to fitness. His commitment to fitness wasn't really central to the kidnapping and ransom plot - so why was the movie bookended with this character trait / motivation...which seemed to be there to reinforce his "innocently misguided" Forrest Gump qualities.

So then...was it supposed to be a black comedy? The movie was about a real life murder, so...black comedy lends itself a little better to things like Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs than true crime. This was a movie about the murder and dismemberment of a kidnapping victim, but Rebel Wilson was in there for fat sex jokes...which comes back around to the tone of the film. She was making the same jokes she makes in Pitch Perfect, in a true life murder story.

So... While the movie was presented in a coherent manner that I had no trouble following, which counts for something, and it was also somewhat effective as an early 90s period piece, I guess I just thought the film lacked an overall plan (in artistic / tone / emotional terms).

 

[Guestx]

Solid movie, I'd give it a 7/10. Good performances all around, and some good "Hit me right in the feels" moments in the scenes involving Krasinski's family and the dialogue between the soldiers after the attacks die down for a bit.

I missed it in the theatre too, and I wish I didn't. There's a $5 theatre close to where Iive, and it would have made for a better viewing experience.

Michael Bay is definitely at his best with an R rating. Pain & Gain is one of my favorites.

Yeah, I was surprised by the amount of heart that's in the movie. It's a lot more than just whiz bang boom. There's a real STORY here and you really come to understand that the characters are REAL PEOPLE.

And agreed on the R rating. The best Bay has managed with a PG-13 is The Island, which wasn't bad, but it's not exactly a great film either.

 

[DeepCover]

I'm looking forward to seeing it. I've wanted to see it since it was released in theatres and didn't get the chance at the time.

 

[HARRISON_3]

The book was written based on the testimony of the guys who were involved, and from what I understand the movie follows the book very closely. Furthermore, the actual GRS contractors were on set providing input during the filming. So really, it comes down to how much you believe the combatants.

There is some controversy over their account on a few key details:



So you'll just have to make up your mind on who is telling the truth.

But I'll say this: Regardless of accuracy, the film stands as a very solid piece of entertainment.

I'll probably scope it at some point.

 

[ghoul]

I've seen it. I thought it was okay, but I'm not that big a fan of military films. Of course there's a slight propaganda Murrica fuck yeah feeling, but it wasn't anything too over the top that it felt distracting.
5/10 imo

 

[Guestx]

I like military movies in general. Platoon is among my favorites of all time, and I like a long list of Vietnam and WW2 movies - Saving Private Ryan, Patton, Hamburger Hill, Letters from Iwo Jima, etc. as well as movies about other conflicts...

My skepticism lies mainly in my general doubts regarding Michael Bay's ability to handle serious material. I don't think it's impossible...he got the very broad strokes right with somewhat-serious material a few times, like Armageddon and the Island.

I had a similar concern. Is Bay going to make a mockery of this true story?

But he didn't and I think the reason why is because of his deep reverence for the military. You can watch many of his movies and tell that he has a strong respect for, and perhaps even fascination with, the US military and I think for this film he really made every effort to approach the material respectfully and with a sense of duty toward getting the story right.

Does it have the grounded, gritty feel of some of the films you mentioned? Not quite. There's still a fair amount of Michael Bay Hollywood gloss on this thing. But like I said, I think he actually found a way to make it work for this film.

As to Pain and Gain... Offhand, the biggest issues were with the tone of the film in general and especially with the characterization of the protagonists and the antagonist.

I was okay with making Tony Shalhoub's victim kind of a dick, but they made him such an asshole that it seemed they were trying to suggest that Wahlberg and the Rock weren't doing anything wrong. He was such a fucker that there was no sympathy for the man at any point.

But at the same time, they didn't paint Wahlberg and the Rock as doing anything really right OR wrong. They were sort of presented as innocent mental children like Forrest Gump, almost like they weren't responsible for their decisions and they were actually nice guys. So were we supposed to be cheering for them to get away with it? I couldn't really tell.

And this was exacerbated by things like the movie opening and closing with Wahlberg's character talking about his commitment to fitness. His commitment to fitness wasn't really central to the kidnapping and ransom plot - so why was the movie bookended with this character trait / motivation...which seemed to be there to reinforce his "innocently misguided" Forrest Gump qualities.

So then...was it supposed to be a black comedy? The movie was about a real life murder, so...black comedy lends itself a little better to things like Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs than true crime. This was a movie about the murder and dismemberment of a kidnapping victim, but Rebel Wilson was in there for fat sex jokes...which comes back around to the tone of the film. She was making the same jokes she makes in Pitch Perfect, in a true life murder story.

So... While the movie was presented in a coherent manner that I had no trouble following, which counts for something, I guess I just thought the film lacked an overall plan (in artistic / tone / emotional terms).

I've heard similar thoughts from others.

To me, Pain & Gain IS a black comedy. So we have to ask the question: Is it appropriate to take a real-life murder and make jokes about it? Some might say no, and I definitely understand where they would be coming from. But Bay did it and we, as viewers, have to make the decision to either roll with him on that or not. Personally, since the real-life guy that Shalhoub was based on was a real-life asshole, I didn't have a huge problem with it.

It's also a critique of the idea of the American Dream, or at least our main CHARACTERS' idea of the American Dream. I think they looked at this concept in the same way that they looked at bodybuilding: You start from nothing, work hard and build something, eventually attaining success. The whole movie is about their pursuit of their piece of the pie, only instead of doing it the conventional way they decided to go the crime route. But like you say, they didn't really see why this might be the wrong thing to do and not a valid path to success.

Should we root for these characters? I think that only the viewer can answer that for themselves. It depends on your own moral code. Is thieving and murdering always wrong? Or can it be an okay thing to do when you're wiping out a really shitty member of society? To me, the movie more than anything raises a lot of very interesting moral questions.

 

[BisexualMMA]

I've heard similar thoughts from others.

To me, Pain & Gain IS a black comedy. So we have to ask the question: Is it appropriate to take a real-life murder and make jokes about it? Some might say no, and I definitely understand where they would be coming from. But Bay did it and we, as viewers, have to make the decision to either roll with him on that or not. Personally, since the real-life guy that Shalhoub was based on was a real-life asshole, I didn't have a huge problem with it.

It's also a critique of the idea of the American Dream, or at least our main CHARACTERS' idea of the American Dream. I think they looked at this concept in the same way that they looked at bodybuilding: You start from nothing, work hard and build something, eventually attaining success. The whole movie is about their pursuit of their piece of the pie, only instead of doing it the conventional way they decided to go the crime route. But like you say, they didn't really see why this might be the wrong thing to do and not a valid path to success.

Should we root for these characters? I think that only the viewer can answer that for themselves. It depends on your own moral code. Is thieving and murdering always wrong? Or can it be an okay thing to do when you're wiping out a really shitty member of society? To me, the movie more than anything raises a lot of very interesting moral questions.

You are asking interesting moral questions, but I think that you are left with them because Michael Bay didn't think of them or know how to present or answer them, not because he intentionally leaves the viewer with them.

I'm open to the idea of a black comedy about real life murders. The thing was, between the Rebel Wilson humor and Shalhoub being a complete asshole, the stakes were never really made serious enough for me to get deeply invested. If the guy is that big of an asshole, what do I care if he dies? And if Wahlberg is just a mental child looking for the easy road to success while Anthony Mackie gets topridden by offseason Ronda Rousey...why am I to be invested in whether they succeed or fail?

I wasn't really cheering for or against the victim, nor for or against the criminals. And this was enhanced by the fact that the type of humor presented in the film reassured me that I wasn't to take the crimes or stakes very seriously...

 

[Jermei]

You didn't even like The Rock?

I liked when it first came out, watched it a couple years later and didn't like it.

Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, The Island, Transformers are all steaming piles and I refuse to pay or watch his movies. He's the only filmmaker I boycott.

 

[Guestx]

You are asking interesting moral questions, but I think that you are left with them because Michael Bay didn't think of them or know how to present or answer them, not because he intentionally leaves the viewer with them.

I don't know. Without Bay here to answer this for himself, it's impossible to say. But the feeling that I always get from the movie is that Bay is just presenting a story and he's intentionally doing so without spin. He's presenting the events as they happened (not the real-life events necessarily, but the events of the story that's telling) and allowing the viewer to make up their mind about what's wrong, what's wrong, and whether or not our main characters are heroes, villains or somewhere in between.

I'm open to the idea of a black comedy about real life murders. The thing was, between the Rebel Wilson humor and Shalhoub being a complete asshole, the stakes were never really made serious enough for me to get deeply invested. If the guy is that big of an asshole, what do I care if he dies? And if Wahlberg is just a mental child looking for the easy road to success while Anthony Mackie gets topridden by offseason Ronda Rousey...why am I to be invested in whether they succeed or fail?

I wasn't really cheering for or against the victim, nor for or against the criminals. And this was enhanced by the fact that the type of humor presented in the film reassured me that I wasn't to take the crimes or stakes very seriously...

I look at the movie as a "fun ride." We got some wacky characters, some crazy events, and a really energetic filmmaking style that is constantly pushing the story forward. Again, should I be having fun with a movie about a real-life murder? I don't know. But nevertheless I am.

Also, on a personal note, when I was younger I wanted to be a bodybuilder. I was always the skinny guy growing up and even into my early 20s the most I ever weighed was 125 lbs. I have something of a fascination with bodybuilding and so that subject matter being such a big part of the film also helps to keep me engaged. Whenever I get done with P&G I want to go workout.

 

[tehend]

I liked it. 8/10

 

[Sir Galahad]

I know The Bay has a lot of haters around here, but this is legit.

The other night I was looking for something to watch and settled on his new film, 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. For those unfamiliar with the movie, it's based on the real-life 2012 attacks on a diplomatic compound and CIA base in Libya in 2012. The bulk of the defense was provided by a small group of ex-military guys who were contracted to provide security to CIA operatives in the country.

Trailer:





Guys, I REALLY liked this movie. I didn't catch it in the theater because the trailer didn't wow me, but after watching it at home I realize I really missed out. It would've been awesome on the big screen.

First off, the movie is GORGEOUS. Just fucking awesome looking. Michael was able to capture the Middle Eastern landscapes in a way that shows off not only the ruggedness of the country, but also its beauty. While Bay has definitely put his own sort of visual stamp on it--it definitely feels in many ways like the kind of movie he would make when dealing with a subject like this--that doesn't prove to be a bad thing. It actually works.

Also, the performances are fantastic. John Krasinski as a special forces guy? It probably sounds silly on paper, but he does a really good job and he also got jacked for this role. The supporting cast--top to bottom--all kicks ass, too.

The action is also great. Bay has proven in the past that when he really wants to, he can do action quite well. This movie isn't CGI robots slamming into each other, it's actual decipherable military action that relies almost entirely on practical effects -- real people, real guns, real explosions, real shit being blown up.

Combine all of the above with a story that is inherently interesting, and this movie is a winner. I am officially putting it up there with The Rock and Pain & Gain, two other Bay films that I think are legitimately great movies.

Anyone else seen this one already? If not, check it out.

Also, for anyone who has seen it and is interested in owning it, Target has a combo pack on sale right now for $19.99. I picked it up the other day. It comes with the Blu-Ray and DVD, and also has the original book the film was based on.

All my friends in the service either hate or don't trust her.

 

[Guestx]

All my friends in the service either hate or don't trust her.

Doesn't surprise me. I don't know enough about the Benghazi situation to have much insight, but there are few doubts about Hillary's inherently dishonest nature.