13 Hours: The Siege of Benghazi (2016)

I started watching this movie based on a recommendation from briskhound2, feeling pretty hyped and optimistic, but man, I just can't do it.
As soon as I saw that part where they jam the barrel right into a terrorist's face during that first firefight, my stomach basically did a backflip, and let's be real—the intro is a total rip-off of Scott's Black Hawk Down.

If anyone can give me even one single good reason to stick with this, maybe I'll keep going...

I couldn't even sit through more than an hour of this garbage without feeling like I was losing my mind... it's nothing but a blatant propaganda piece and a total waste of time...

I have to agree... I actually sat through the whole thing until the very end... It’s probably worth watching once, I suppose—but after that, you'll likely just forget it ever happened.

What a total head-scratcher of a movie... honestly, it’s just completely overcharged with all that gamma-style intensity—not to mention that whole Pearl Harbor-esque tracking of the projectiles. 🙏

In short, it's pure propaganda. They hit all the usual beats: patriotism, the flag, the USA, family values... then they spice it up with plenty of gunfire and that classic American arrogance...

People keep claiming it’s not a typical Bay film, but please, it totally is—it just doesn't have Transformers ☕

Honestly, if the movie had focused a bit more on the ambassador and his specific story, it might have actually been interesting, like this 🥱

The movie itself is a tragedy, but the real disaster is what they've done to an otherwise functional nation... honestly, we should just go ahead and do the exact same thing to the USA.

Bryan Taylor9 said:In short, it's pure propaganda. They hit all the usual beats: patriotism, the flag, the USA, family values... then they spice it up with plenty of gunfire and that classic American arrogance...

People keep claiming it’s not a typical Bay film, but please, it totally is—it just doesn't have Transformers ☕

Honestly, if the movie had focused a bit more on the ambassador and his specific story, it might have actually been interesting, like this 🥱

I mean, seriously? If you take away an American's home, their flag, their country, and their family... then there’s just no movie left to make. How can you even film anything without that foundation?
What’s even crazier? It looks like that actually works for them. They manage to keep the value of their machinery up just by using that "fuel." Can you believe that?
Around here, that whole patriotic surge mostly fizzled out once the immediate threat disappeared. Our neighbors? They didn't even blink—they just tossed the flag and those big ideals aside without a second thought and ran for the hills.
It’s basically an art form, isn't it? Keeping a huge chunk of the population constantly revved up with that kind of "fuel," even when there isn't a single real reason for it—other than some vague American interests scattered all over the globe. Honestly, they do this all the time for domestic consumption, and I never really buy into it. For me, it's just flashy, colorful action scenery. If it works for them, who am I to argue? I just watch the movie as is.

If this movie actually focused on the Ambassador and his version of events, it would just be selling us some classic American smoke and mirrors. His "heartfelt story" is nothing more than a convenient little piece of a much larger master plan—one that we definitely wouldn't want to get a look at.
Look, if a movie is about mercenaries, that’s the whole point. Everything else is just background noise you accept so you can actually enjoy the show. Honestly, since we can't seem to sell those massive "preachy" movies about modern conflicts anymore, the industry has pivoted. Now, they've specialized in these gritty stories about small-scale players and their specific fates. It's become its own niche. We get endless movies about snipers, mercs, high-stakes missions, or embassy sieges, and even the Marine types. It’s the same pattern as those reality shows and series about chefs, nurses, or firefighters. You get what you signed up for, right?

Grace Fowler37 Asks:
The movie was a tragedy, but what they did to a once-organized country is an even bigger disaster. Honestly, they should just go ahead and do the same thing to the USA.

Man, if only things had been more stable over there. 🤷Look, if they had actually made it functional—if they’d managed to establish some kind of fragile "balance" or organization (honestly, I'm not even sure which word fits better) in regions that didn't even grasp the concept of a state or an organized body until recently—then maybe we'd be talking. But this? They just created a brand new flashpoint for instability right on the doorstep of Europe. And let’s be real, having a chaotic mess like that so close to our allies isn't exactly what the US wants right now, is it?
I just can't wrap my head around their exit strategy. Everywhere they've stepped foot to deal with some "undesirable" society that doesn't fit their little worldview, they just screw everything up. They wreck the entire ecosystem and leave behind a total disaster, yet somehow they always act like they don't have an elegant way to wrap things up. How does that even work?

I'm honestly dying to see what kind of movies come out about Syria. There are just a million different angles to play with, not to mention all the countries involved... I bet we're going to get a million different versions of the "truth," right?

Where are all the giant robots? Oops, I guess they aren't actually Transformers... Damn, it's almost like they are because everything else feels so much like a Michael Bay production. Just flat, overblown action!

A few people in the first couple of posts were raving about this movie like it was some kind of cinematic masterpiece, which unfortunately lured me in with a certain level of expectation. However, I have to say, the film is quite poor.
For the first hour or so, there is virtually nothing happening; instead, we get this buildup that feels like they're preparing for World War III. It’s just total filler that unnecessarily drags the runtime out to a full 144 minutes.
After that, we finally get some action, but it isn't anything spectacular. I couldn't find a way to connect with the characters to care about their fates, nor were there any impressive directorial flourishes to speak of.
The casting felt a bit off too. I mostly remember Krasinski from The Office, and he felt somewhat out of place in this role, regardless of how hard he tried.

And then, of course, there is that unmistakable sense of Bay's American propaganda. All things considered, the movie is essentially a classic Bay propaganda flick, just with less action, less spectacle, and less interest. Honestly, I’d much rather watch Transformers and just let my brain turn off completely than sit through something like this...

Those guys with the beards were coming right for me—honestly, it was kind of tough to tell them apart, they all just kind of blurred together...

Just another one of those propaganda pieces coming out of Hollywood. The first third of the movie was incredibly dull... You keep thinking, "Okay, here comes the action," only for the screen to flash 5 months later. Give me a break. I have no idea why the original cut was supposedly four hours long, but this is still way too much. A tight 90 to 100 minutes would have been perfect.
They tore apart a country that actually had potential, and now they’re complaining about how it fell apart. What a joke. 🤦

Michael Jackson10 said:If I remember that scene right, there were only maybe 3 or 4 mines used alongside the mortar (which doesn't really prove much, I guess...)
Since we're talking about a ragtag group, their aim seemed almost too precise for my liking...
Keep in mind, since Muammar Gaddafi had only just started drawing lines for a "modern" Libya, the borders back then were basically just coast-to-coast, and deep inland, everyone just did whatever they wanted. It’s likely that outside the urban areas, those ancient tribal structures were still very much in charge.
That tribal setup just morphed into neighborhood or street gangs taking advantage of the lawlessness and all the available weapons. The headquarters was in some house where they got ambushed, while other neighborhoods were clearly ruled by different crews. It looks like the only "common" ally the Americans had was some 17th-century style vibe... their ultimate goal was basically just looting an attractive car; forget all that ideology stuff.

The actual attack tactics are pretty predictable: a mob charging in, guys firing rifles "from the hip" without any real military training, and the peak of their tactical genius being ducking behind a pillar. They're all way too young, and that initial success with the ambassador just pumps up the euphoria....
Could they have used handheld launchers more and charged around like Bat Živojinović less?
Sure, but who's to say they even knew how to handle a launcher properly, especially when they're wielding rifles like they're nothing more than glorified sticks?
My real issue is that the attackers felt too much like "junkies from the dark days of Harlem": from their outfits to the way they moved and acted, they felt more like that than modern jihadists...
Swap the scenery and you've got an authentic version of a "raid on a police station."

Anyway, I honestly thought this would be just another one of those Steven and Dolf movies, but surprisingly, lately there's been more of these "small," underrated films that actually manage to teleport the viewer right into the scene.
Basically, they avoided the trap of big words and grand ideas, though Americans can't seem to help themselves with that stuff and pathetic shots of the flag over ruins: this time they were obsessing over paying tribute to mercenaries???

This whole narrative about the disorganized Arab attack really spoils the overall impression of the movie for me. It reminds me far too much of the Alamo. Based on certain American metrics and available data, roughly 100 Libyans were killed (which is much lower than what the film leads you to believe)

How accurate that kind of "ballpark" approach actually is is best illustrated by the story of the bombing raids on Schweinfurt during WWII. In the first raid, the Americans lost 5 fighters and 60 B-17 bombers, while the crews estimated they downed 320 German fighters. The second raid on Schweinfurt was even more devastating, losing 77 flying fortresses and one fighter, yet again the story goes that hundreds of German planes were brought down. After the war, looking through German archives, it was revealed that in the first raid, only 27 fighters were downed, and in the second, only 38!

You get a similar picture when it comes to films about the Vietnam War, with the famous line "we won every battle but lost the war." Whether they actually won every single battle is something you'll have to decide for yourself. One American officer conducted an analysis that many people find quite uncomfortable: http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

So, those are my thoughts on how estimates in films lose all sense of reality due to a dramatic or propagandistic approach...

I don't really get why they didn't just start by hitting them with mortars before sending in the infantry. I mean, everyone was armed to the teeth, and they surely had enough mines to just level the whole place. If they’d just brought in a few combat vehicles and started hammering them with heavy machine guns from every single side, the Americans wouldn't have stood a chance. Instead, a hundred people died because they decided to charge a fortified building across open ground. I just don't follow the strategy here. It also doesn't make sense to me why the Americans didn't just use a drone when they had everyone in their sights. It seems incredibly illogical, honestly.

Anthony Kim37 said:I don't really get why they didn't just start by hitting them with mortars before sending in the infantry. I mean, everyone was armed to the teeth, and they surely had enough mines to just level the whole place. If they’d just brought in a few combat vehicles and started hammering them with heavy machine guns from every single side, the Americans wouldn't have stood a chance. Instead, a hundred people died because they decided to charge a fortified building across open ground. I just don't follow the strategy here. It also doesn't make sense to me why the Americans didn't just use a drone when they had everyone in their sights. It seems incredibly illogical, honestly.

Exactly. Either that, or why they just stopped hitting them with mortars instead of leveling the entire area.

It’s because the US Army doesn't really want to go toe-to-toe with actual trained soldiers... they prefer fighting people who've barely held a rifle for five minutes before being sent out as cannon fodder—it's the exact same vibe as in
Black Hawk Down
. I honestly can't help but wonder how they would have fared if they were facing off against a group like the defenders of El Paso

It’s a pretty controversial story. There was this rumor floating around about a SOTU unit being prepped for a rescue mission—specifically US Army Special Forces, the Green Berets—but apparently, they were told from the very top, whether it was Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, that they weren't allowed to step foot in Libya.
And get this—that specific group of Green Berets was actually in the States training alongside our own military commandos at the time, but they were pulled for action so fast that it was all for nothing. 😁

Surprisingly good movie, considering the genre.

A subpar motion picture. I found it entirely unappealing. 2/10. 😳 ☕

Honestly, this was a pretty solid watch. It might even be my favorite from 2016, but I really shouldn't jump the gun on a final verdict until I've checked a few more off my list, you know?

I actually really dug the cast selection here; they didn't just throw in a massive name like Brad Pitt or some other huge superstar, which was honestly such a breath of fresh air to see some less "loud" names for a change.