 "A very strong movie" | 2010-01-19 |
| - Reviewed By Werthead from Colchester, Essex United Kingdom |
Given that vast numbers of books and films depict a 'high-stakes' scenario where the fate of the world (real or imagined) hangs in the balance, it is interesting that relatively little attention has been paid in recent years to the one time when the fate of our world really did hang in the balance. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 is the closest that the Cold War ever came to heating up (certainly the closest moment that was known about at the time; a Soviet computer malfunction in 1983 was extremely dangerous but not widely known until years later), when the United States and the Soviet Union stared one another down and the most careful diplomacy had to be used to defuse the crisis. The diplomatic resolution over the crisis was considerably complicated by the lack of any direct methods of communication between the White House and the Kremlin, with messages having to be sent by back channels and feelers extended through the media and the United Nations. In fact, the crisis resulted in the installation of the Washington-Moscow hotline to avoid such problems in the future.
Roger Donaldson's film, released in late 2000, attempts to chronicle the crisis exclusively from the point-of-view of the United States government. There are no scenes set in Havana or Moscow, and the only scenes in Cuba are transition-based ones showing the progress of the missiles being set up and fuelled. This approach is highly effective, as it means the viewer is as blind to what is going on in the USSR and Cuba as the President and his advisors are, and this heightens dramatic moments near the end of the film where important decisions have to be made almost by guesswork: has Khrushchev been deposed in a military coup or not? Is a peace offer genuine or simply an attempt to stall for time? Just as the President and his inner circle had no way of knowing in 1962, so the viewer has no way of knowing in the film.
The film makes the interesting choice to have the action seen from the perspective of Kennedy's appointments secretary (and effective chief of staff), Kenneth O'Donnell, who had no formal policy or advisory role but was a close and old friend of both JFK and his brother Robert. This is an interesting and wise choice, as many of the other characters involved in the crisis are politicians or generals of fairly grand stature themselves, such as General Le May, McNamara, Adlai Stevenson and so on, and using them as the main POV would make the film more about them than the crisis. The relatively unknown O'Donnell, played very well by the surprisingly good Kevin Costner (struggling manfully with a bad accent), carries less baggage and the film isn't so much about him (despite a few half-hearted family scenes) as about the Kennedy brothers and the crisis itself.
Bruce Greenwood plays JFK and Steven Culp his brother Robert, and both are excellent, really inhabiting their characters. Greenwood in particular delivers real gravitas as the President, but also lets slip a few moments of annoyance and contempt for some of his advisors, reflecting some of the tensions that dogged the Kennedy presidency. The lack of faith that Kennedy can deal with the crisis is almost palpable among the senior military figures, and the stress this inflects on the President is well-depicted by Greenwood.
The movie makes several interesting historical points. Whilst some elements, such as the worth of O'Donnell's counsel (Kennedy is seen consulting with O'Donnell and apparently heeding his advice more than the experts, which is questionable), are historically dubious, the idea that Kennedy considered the fates of Cuba and Berlin to be entwined and a US attack on Cuba would trigger a Soviet attack on Berlin is strongly pushed in the film. Kennedy's deep concern over Berlin, heightened by the recent construction of the Berlin Wall, would lead him to a historically famous visit to the city just a few months after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Less successful is its depiction of the military. The movie starts off by presenting a pretty credible case for military action. A swift and massive US aerial assault on Cuba is portrayed as not leading automatically to war (whilst an invasion would), but could destroy the USA's moral authority in a future conflict. Nevertheless, the strong advantages of the aerial assault are initially fairly presented. However, from then on the military option is consistently presented as the 'wrong' one and some of the senior admirals and generals, such as Le May, are presented almost as villains who even sidestep around Kennedy to try to trigger a conflict. This simplification of the military's actions during the crisis is the movie's key weak point and muddles the issues involved somewhat as well as coming across as a needless attempt to introduce more drama to the script.
This weakness is a shame as the rest of the movie is very good. The dramatic tension of the military build-up and the politicians' mounting confusion during the fog of diplomacy as they attempt to second-guess the Soviet motives at the end of the film are handled superbly. The performances in the movie has pretty much first-rate across the board (Costner's accent issues aside), and the few special effects sequences showing spy planes overflying Cuba and so far are effective, if inexplicably expensive; the movie had a budget of $80 million, higher than Independence Day, and is totally bereft of comparable action or effects sequences.
Thirteen Days (****½) is a very solid film. It shows the stresses of government and effectively depicts a period in the history of the world that should never be forgotten. The film is available now on DVD (UK, USA). |
| |
| "An entertaining, historical thriller told from the inside." | 2009-11-07 |
| - Reviewed By BSXX |
As others point out, this is an excellent movie and Greenwood gives a solid and believable performance as JFK. Costner and Culp are also good, but the story puts Greenwood in the spotlight.
I'm not sure why, but I read a lot of criticism of Costner wherever he is involved. His mistakes are apparently unforgivable and live forever in the minds of his critics. In this movie, the accent is overblown, but good grief get over it and enjoy this excellent movie. Some of his home & family scenes were a little out of place, but this was a writing problem, not an acting problem. Regardless, Costner is the big name in this movie, but he is not the star. Greenwood is the star of the movie due to the fact he plays JFK, period. It couldn't have been any other way to fulfill the design of this movie. That is not a criticism, its just what the movie required.
Back on point, the movie provides an interesting and dramatic insight into the internal debate and conflict during the crisis. The back-and-forth of ideas on how the US should respond was quite interesting and showed the enormous pressure the President and all the players were under during the crisis. One wrong move could have literally killed millions. It's incomprehensible.
My main gripe was the negative portrayal of the military. After all, even if they did push for military action, they were also under tremendous pressure, and were watching their tactical advantage dwindle on a daily basis. If I may make the understatement of the week, the nuclear bombs of a hostile and aggressive 1962 Russia just a few miles off the coast was cause for concern. You would expect the military to take any step that would increase the chances of a successful military operation if diplomacy failed to resolve the conflict, which it nearly did. Don't view or evaluate the political situation by today's standards, or be naïve about the need for military action based on today's situation. If the Russian ships had not stopped and turned back at the blockade, and the US was forced to fire on them, the military's recommendation, while we still had the element of surprise with us, may have proven to have been the better option, as the element of surprise would now have been gone. I digress.
Although there are around 250 reviews on Amazon, I believe this is still a relatively unknown movie as I discovered the few times I lent my copy to friends and family. They had never heard of it.....but loved the movie. The movie has some faults, but the subject matter, Greenwoods JFK, and the escalating drama overpower the minor flaws and make for an excellent movie.
|
| |
| "Must-see for AP US History Class" | 2009-10-05 |
| - Reviewed By moogoo from Silicon Valley, CA, USA |
| This DVD is required viewing for the AP (Advanced Placement) US History class (at least at my kid's high school). Great history lesson. |
| |
| "Great movie on the Cuban Missile Crisis" | 2009-08-10 |
| - Reviewed By Chris906 from Biloxi, MS United States |
Over the last few years I have been very interested in American political history of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Obviously John F. Kennedy looms large during this time and has become a martyr because of his tragic death in Dallas. The cornucopia of written, audio and visual material on this time in American history is staggering. There are so many great books on this time in our history. The amount of books on Kennedy is astounding. I definitely would recommend Robert Reaves' 'President Kennedy-Profile in Power' and Michael Beschloss' 'The Crisis Years' to put this film in historical perspective. I really think they will add even more to a person's enjoyment of 'Thirteen Days'.
'Thirteen Days' is just a really good depiction of this critical time in American history. I always enjoy watching it even though we know how it will end. Bruce Greenwood is really great as JFK. He really captures the man pretty well and is not just a talking wax figure of a historical person. He really makes him come alive. Steven Culp is also excellent as RFK and he captures quite well the mannerisms and voice of the other Kennedy martyr. He also imbues his character with life. Kevin Costner is good as Kenny O'Donnell but you really want to see more of Greenwood and Culp. Costner is pretty much the audiences 'in' to the picture and is quite good in the role he is given. Kenny O' Donnell really was a close friend of JFK and I recommend his memoir 'Johnny, we hardly knew ye' for further insight. Other historical characters such as McNamara, Acheson, and Stephenson are also depicted in a very capable and human way. The acting in this movie is very good.
The DVD is really a must have because it contains so much good material on the making of the movie and the history that inspired it. The picture and audio are both well done also. Really after watching the DVD I felt as if I had been there in October 1962. Really a top notch historical thriller. I wish more well made historical movies like this were done.
Highly Recommended! |
| |
| "You'd Especially Appreciate it if You Lived Through It" | 2009-06-22 |
| - Reviewed By Rocks In Head from Wood Dale, Illinois, USA |
There are some points to quibble over, yet this is an excellent historical film that's a character-driven thriller. As such, I was somewhat disappointed that the movie didn't give more film-time to RFK, the reporter (memory's failing)who was the go-between w/a USSR spy & the actual character who discovered the missles in the satellite photos. The latter was supposed to have been Costner's character and was far more important than the movie shows, yet he was cast as an advisor to JFK. But w/out this plot device, the audience would've had a very difficult time getting close to the inside story--The one that none of us knew was going on over those extremely tense days. We couldn't have gotten access to the Oval Office, the discussions in the War Room (some aspects of which are revealed for the first time in a hollywood movie, including JFK's capitulation to some of the military demands, the U2 spy plane and subsequent Very risky airforce tree-top level fly overs) and the actual footage shot during the 60s--especially the all-important role of Adele Stevenson at the UN. In my opinion, the best, most affective UN representative ever. Here the average citizen actually saw the drama that led up to our confrontation w/the USSR unfold on television. The movie also showed how the Airforce general, itching for a nuclear war continually tried to undermine Kennedy's attempt to walk the razor's edge.
It's disappointing that so few younger people were interested in this. JFK & RFK together stood up to Kruschev and Kruschev blinked first And the two leaders, recognizing the madness of the policy "Mutually Assured Destruction" (aptly shortened to "MAD") went on to draft & agree to the first Nuclear Arms Reduction treaty ever.
I lived right next to a major military base which later became one of the country's largest commercial airports. It was this fact that heightened the tensions for me and my brother as we watched the enormous B52's in constant patrol as well as the world's largest cargo plane of the the time and jet fighters continually fill the air. To top this off, our elementary school did none of the stupid 'duck and cover' drills, but recognizing the true gravity of the situation, gave us drills in which we were instructed to go home or to the home of the nearest relative or friend. If that didn't make things serious enough, though our parents told us nothing about what was happening, our intuitive knowledge of what we could comprehend from the news, the drills, the increased Airforce activity came to the dramatic conclusion that most youngsters never realized when we saw nuclear warheads being trucked through our town as we walked home from school. And that conclusionwas: "This may be the last day of our lives due to some silly argument between our two countries. What insanity have we been born into?"
But ever since we awoke to another day on Earth I've considered JFK to have been the greatest president since FDR-despite what historians say-because he made Kruchev blink first. And ever since then the likelyhood of nuclear war madness has decreased, if only somewhat.
If only the public knew what was happening behind the scenes, as shown in the movie, nuclear weapons might have been forever banned. |
| |
| "i love this" | 2009-06-22 |
| - Reviewed By bill nicholas from Mahwah, NJ USA |
I have read about the Cuban Missile Crisis and seen most of the films on the subject. It is hard if not impossible to sift through what is almost endless material on an event like this and figure out what EXACTLY happened.
But, in general terms, Thirteen Days is a great film. The movie does fantastically at dramatizing how dangerous the cold war was and how much one side mistrusted the other. If you grew up in the 1970s and 80s as I did, it is difficult to grasp how, in the 50s and 60s, atomic confrontation was a possibility you had to live with every day. I read once where John Kennedy asked someone if he built a fallout shelter or a swimming pool in his back yard. "You made the wrong choice." Kennedy said when he was told his friend built the pool.
Thirteen Days brings this sense of danger to life. Costner is great, and Bruce Greenwood and Steven Culp play the Kennedy's well. They are not doing charactatures of the brothers, but are actors placing themselves in the situation, and giving convincing performances. You know that you are not looking at Jack and Bobby, but you are getting a great idea of how they, possibly, reacted.
Two points stuck out, for me, watching Thirteen Days: At the start of the crisis, there seemed two options--War, or capitulation. It is amazing to watch how Kennedy and his inner-circle felt their way through, uncertainly, reactively, to find a third way.
But what fancinated me more is how BAD communications were in 1962 and how this effected the Kennedys reactions and desicion making. Hours went by, waiting for telex messages to come through, waiting for phone calls, and trying to set up meetings through back channels. There was not even a hotline from Washington to Moscow yet. It was set up in 1963, probably in large part due to this crisis.
I am 40, and I have read a lot about the 1960s, but it is amazing to see how slow and cumbersome the world could be in this era. Could this crisis have been prevented or solved in a day or two in a world of cell phones and Email. I don't have the answer, but this question really makes me wonder.
Shoe on the other foot: How would JFK have dealt with 9/11 and Iraq?
History or action, this is a great movie. |
| |
Expedited Available
