13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016)

[#Darren]

I hear this is an amazing film.

Gonna watch it at the cinema, which I rarely do these days.

I'm thinking this will be my favourite Michael Bay film, and a must own BD.

The 13 HOURS: THE SECRET SOLDIERS OF BENGHAZI three-disc Blu-ray Combo Pack with Digital HD includes an hour of bonus content featuring behind-the-scenes footage and interviews with the six ex-military operators recounting the extraordinary detail involved in recreating the events from the attack. Plus, join the cast and crew as they highlight the filmmaking process and how director Michael Bay brought the film to life.

The Blu-ray containing the feature film is encoded in Dolby TrueHD and features a Dolby Atmos® soundtrack* remixed specifically for the home theater environment. Dolby Atmos delivers captivating sound that places and moves audio anywhere in the room, including overhead, to bring entertainment alive all around the audience.


Disc #1 - Blu-ray

· Feature film in high definition


Disc #2 – Blu-ray

· For the Record: Finding the Truth Amid the Noise

· Uncovering Benghazi’s Secret Soldiers

· Preparing for Battle: Behind the Scenes of 13 Hours

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/13-Ho...lu-ray/147975/

[Will.]

I haven't heard many good things about it, but I'll be willing to try it. Bay is hit or miss with me but I love this genre.

[Corner Camping Noob]

Hopefully i won't have the 'Jim Halpert' character stuck in my head the whole time.

[Bourne1886]

I saw the film today and I think it's Bays best ever. Such a great film.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Bourne1886

I saw the film today and I think it's Bays best ever. Such a great film.

it's definitely up there. I would put The Rock and Pain & Gain above it, but that's it.

[THS]

Ranking the Bay-hem:

1. The Rock
2. Pain & Gain
3. The Island
4. Armageddon
5. Bad Boys
6. Bad Boys II
7. Transformers
8. 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
9. Transformers: Dark of the Moon
10. Transformers: Age of Extinction
11. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
12. Pearl Harbor

[Bourne1886]

Originally Posted by spectre08

it's definitely up there. I would put The Rock and Pain & Gain above it, but that's it.

I'm actually really pleased and pleasantly surprised he directed this. I think there's more to Bay than meets the eye. He should do more serious films.

[Al_The_Strange]

The inner critic in me wanted to admonish this film for its excesses, storytelling contrivances, obvious attempts to yank on heartstrings (especially from the patriotism angle), and glossing over the events with a blockbuster veneer. Pretty much a lot of the same issues that went into Pearl Harbor.

However, I find myself admiring the film more and more for showing ample restraint (at least when compared to other Bay movies), its cinematic style, the creditable-looking production value, and the experience overall.

I initially rated this a 3.5/5, although my score could go up the more I appreciate the production and the gravity of the real-life events. I will probably buy this on Blu-Ray - preferably when it's on sale.

[manufanatic]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

The inner critic in me wanted to admonish this film for its excesses, storytelling contrivances, obvious attempts to yank on heartstrings (especially from the patriotism angle), and glossing over the events with a blockbuster veneer. Pretty much a lot of the same issues that went into Pearl Harbor.

However, I find myself admiring the film more and more for showing ample restraint (at least when compared to other Bay movies), its cinematic style, the creditable-looking production value, and the experience overall.

I initially rated this a 3.5/5, although my score could go up the more I appreciate the production and the gravity of the real-life events. I will probably buy this on Blu-Ray - preferably when it's on sale.

Excesses? Contrivances? This movie was faithful to the book and faithful to the people who were there. Almost apolitical as a movie like this can be. To compare this to Pearl Harbor is a travesty. Did you read the book?

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by manufanatic

Excesses? Contrivances? This movie was faithful to the book and faithful to the people who were there. Almost apolitical as a movie like this can be. To compare this to Pearl Harbor is a travesty. Did you read the book?

I did not read the book. Forgot it was based on one. But it is based on real-life events the same way Pearl Harbor was, no?

People always gripe about PH, but it looked creditable and a lot of scenes were based on accounts from veterans. It's only the love triangle plot that makes the experience drag.

You know what else is funny? Both 13H and PH have shots where the camera follows a bomb (or mortar) from launch all the way to its target. There's at least one thing in common.

The biggest thing I wanted to highlight though was the idea that both movies take a real-life tragedy and gives it a blockbuster gloss - levity, exhausting action, spectacle, style, more drama, etc. 13 Hours has all of that, and all of these things exist in every Michael Bay movie. I couldn't help but to think that it glosses over the realmism of what happened by making it entertainment. PH does that to an even larger degree. 13H shows maturity, but I personally still see all the classic Michael Bay-sisms in effect, and it almost took me out of the movie.

I have read about the spiel with the CIA director, and I don't know who or what to believe. Maybe he is trying to cover his hide, but then, it felt to me like the film needed a bad guy so badly that they deliberately villainized him more than they could have. That shouldn't mean that the soldiers' accounts are non-creditable, I just think that the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle.

I know every historic film distorts reality for a dramatic purpose, so maybe my observations are unwarranted. In fact, the more I read about the film and the events, the more I see how accurate it actually was. It's Bay's style and sensibilities I question the most.

Wouldn't this film have found a better balance, more dramatic power, and more credibility if it was in the hands of somebody like Eastwood? Or Spielberg? Kathryn Bigelow? Wouldn't a more distinguished director have done better justice to the soldiers who served (in addition to the CIA folks)?

[steve_dave]

Read the book, the soldiers actually involved in the writing of the book and movie blame the director of the CIA annex site. He did, according to the soldiers, hold them back because he did not want to create an international incident.

The CIA's primary reason for staying in Benghazi was to make sure the weapons we provided to resistance fighters did not end up with the wrong people. The movie paints it as they wanted to ensure that no US weapons ended up in the wrong hands. The CIA was merely there to catalog sales but because the annex site should not be there, they used contracted former soldiers to provide additional security. The primary security was the Lebonese resistance fighters.

The soldiers have admitted that it felt like a movie and most of the time for modern soldiers it is. Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down contains the same viseral images and goes further by showing child soldiers in Mogadishu. American Sniper, directed by Eastwood, also has similar imagery and Chris Kyle is even stressed with having to decide to shoot a child holding an RPG.

According to the soldiers in Benghazi, there was no drama. To them: it was a fight, a nightmare, and the worse thing they could experience. These six men were abandoned by Libya's resistance fighters, left with no support from the US, and ignored by ally nations. The only thing they knew from the start of the attack to the end was violence with some breaks to catch their breath.

The men who were in Mogadishu also experienced high levels of violence with very few breaks to catch their breath. Sometimes you get lucky and the fight is over quickly, other times... you are Marcus Luttrell and caught in what seems like endless gunfights and explosions.

Of course, the soldiers have admitted Bay was given one conceit: a car chase scene because they knew it was Bay directing. Other than that, the movie is pretty much the book.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Read the book, the soldiers actually involved in the writing of the book and movie blame the director of the CIA annex site. He did, according to the soldiers, hold them back because he did not want to create an international incident.

The CIA's primary reason for staying in Benghazi was to make sure the weapons we provided to resistance fighters did not end up with the wrong people. The movie paints it as they wanted to ensure that no US weapons ended up in the wrong hands. The CIA was merely there to catalog sales but because the annex site should not be there, they used contracted former soldiers to provide additional security. The primary security was the Lebonese resistance fighters.

The soldiers have admitted that it felt like a movie and most of the time for modern soldiers it is. Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down contains the same viseral images and goes further by showing child soldiers in Mogadishu. American Sniper, directed by Eastwood, also has similar imagery and Chris Kyle is even stressed with having to decide to shoot a child holding an RPG.

According to the soldiers in Benghazi, there was no drama. To them: it was a fight, a nightmare, and the worse thing they could experience. These six men were abandoned by Libya's resistance fighters, left with no support from the US, and ignored by ally nations. The only thing they knew from the start of the attack to the end was violence with some breaks to catch their breath.

The men who were in Mogadishu also experienced high levels of violence with very few breaks to catch their breath. Sometimes you get lucky and the fight is over quickly, other times... you are Marcus Luttrell and caught in what seems like endless gunfights and explosions.

Of course, the soldiers have admitted Bay was given one conceit: a car chase scene because they knew it was Bay directing. Other than that, the movie is pretty much the book.

Interesting. I'll have to find/read that book.

[Greg_M]

I've had this pre-ordered for weeks now.
Anyone know when they are going to actually release it?

[Dubstar]

I would assume Paramount will go with the original theatrical Atmos mix ... or will this also be a DTS-X release

[The Debts]

06/07

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/13-hours...&skuId=4840700

[philip74]

seems to be life`s irony that it`s always the movies I want in the collection the fastest, take the longest to be released

[PrestigeWorldwide]

Originally Posted by philip74

seems to be life`s irony that it`s always the movies I want in the collection the fastest, take the longest to be released

Hopefully we'll get some decent extras for the wait. Day 1 for me.

[darkness2918]

Didn't see this in theaters but I'm more then willing to give it a chance on BD.

[Jakdonark]

I'm a bit late posting this over here, as I mentioned it already in the steelbook thread, but do you suppose it's a coincidence that this was released on blu Ray on the 20th anniversary (to the day!) of The Rock?

And I actually was able to find time to watch this and I enjoyed it.

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by The Debts

06/07

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/13-hours...&skuId=4840700

I guess that June 7 date was once there but has now been removed? As of this writing, the page reads "Release Date: Not Yet Announced."

I sure wish Par would announce UHD support with this amongst the first slate of titles.