ram3973-375-130487

Before I get to my review, I need to preface it by saying that I read other reviewers' comments before deciding to make my own, and the hyperbole in over-use here from other reviewers claiming that this is the "worst movie I've ever seen" or "the worst movie ever made," y'all need to grow the **** up. Or... at least see more movies before making such an absurd claim.

Is this movie "great?" No. Is it awful, like other reviewers would have you believe? Also, no. It's somewhere in the middle, but the real problem with the film and audience expectations lies with the marketing team creating a trailer that led people to believe that it's a science-fiction action thriller, and it is not. It is a solid, thought-provoking, sci-fi drama, and those are something in rather short supply these days. This film is a small, quiet, intimate, introspective exploration of the human spirit. Namely, our compassion for each other and our insatiable curiosity about the unknown.

PROS: The cast (Gary Sinise, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, Jerry O'Connell, Tim Robbins, and Armin Mueller-Stahl). The production design. The (majority of the) visual effects. The original score by composer Ennio Morricone. The editing. The deliberate pace of the story. The big ideas behind the story about the possible origins of humanity.

CONS: Some really bad vfx toward the end; namely, the alien design and presentation. Gary Sinise's obvious eyeliner. And (SPOILER ALERT!!!), for a PG-rated film in the PG-13 era of more popular box office success, there is a slap-in-the-face shock visual near the beginning of the film where an astronaut is shredded to pieces by a cyclone-like, alien-made dust storm. We're talking "limb from limb" and it can be incredibly jarring for people not expecting it in a film that has been rated by the MPAA as largely being acceptable for almost all ages.

THE STORY: A second recovery team is shipped off to Mars to rescue any remaining crew members from the first Mars exploration team after communications are abruptly cut off after the aforementioned "storm" mentioned above.

I finished a repeat viewing of the masterful 1997 noir film of the same name on blu-ray, investigated the special features, and saw this TV pilot that never got picked up as a series... and you'd better thank your lucky stars for that, too! The story, dialogue, acting, direction, EVERYTHING is just beyond terrible. Thankfully, this one-and-done TV episode never got picked up, because if it had we'd never have been treated to Kiefer Sutherland's signature character, Jack Bauer, on "24" the following year.

No, this isn't Tarantino's "best", but even his worst film is still better than the majority of crap that gets released into theaters. Tarantino is a director for people who love "movies", not "film", and he makes movies for people who love movies, too. I happen to be a fan of both movies and film, so I am able to appreciate movies that have been made just to entertain an audience rather than just those that contain a message that the viewer should learn. "Django Unchained", by the above description, is an incredibly well-made movie.

The acting is top notch and the writing contains all of Tarantino's trademarks that we have loved since "Reservoir Dogs" introduced audiences to this unique talent back in 1992. Yes, the violence has been magnified to ludicrous and even comedic heights, but that only serves to remove the viewer from the more horrific atrocities depicted on screen. I happen to feel that this movie ranks in the lower half of QT's filmography, but that in no way means that I think it is a bad film. No, I still love it. It's also a little long, having been the first film he made since the passing of his longtime editor, and it could be shortened to quicken the pacing a little bit. But I'll be damned if I can think of any scenes in it that could or should have been cut from its heavy 165-minute runtime.

Having read a great deal of the other reviews of this movie on IMDb, I felt compelled to add my own, because there is a common thread that unites all of the one-star reviews. Once you see it and identify it, you definitely don't want to be associated with people like that.

I first saw this film when it opened back in January, 2012. While it's not a "great" film by any stretch, it is a solidly good one. It is also Michael Bay's most *RESTRAINED* film (which isn't saying much, but it's a FAR cry better than the last four Transformers films).

But, getting to the title of my comment, when I went back and watched this film for the second time (today, February 16, 2019), I felt compelled to pull up IMDb on my phone during the viewing and I checked out some of the user reviews. I found one thing shockingly in common among all of the one-star "reviews":

Not a single one of them had any knowledge of the events of the true incident! And it was painfully obvious that they could not have been bothered to do a little research before making their inane comments public. Many did not know the name of the militant group that attacked the compound (Ansar al-Sharia), and just randomly decided that it must be ISIS. Some felt that it was a condemnation on Hillary Clinton and her actions/lack of actions as the events unfolded (there was not a single mention of Secretary Clinton throughout the entire film, good or bad). One did not even understand why the name of the film is "13 Hours" (seriously, did they even bother to actually WATCH the film before adding their "thoughts" in a blatant effort to only try to bring down the rating percentage?)!

Is the film accurate? Of course not. When a movie is based on a true event, dramatic license is and ALWAYS has been used to make the film more compelling to viewers. And say what you will about Michael Bay's films, but the guy can masterfully direct action set pieces; each one expertly realized to get the viewer's heart pumping. Here, he does it again and again. Or, more accurately, two straight hours after the first bullets start flying to the bitter end.

It's not a definitive history lesson on what actually happened, but it is decidedly riveting and Bay's most mature film to date. One can only hope that now he's left the directorial duties of the abyssmally and increasingly brainless "Transformers" franchise to other people, maybe we can start getting more films like this from him so people can remember what he is actually capable of when he gets material to work with that he takes seriously and treats it as such.