vrabecj
I was only a toddler during the crisis, but over the years I have read over 30 books about the JFK assassination and some of those talk about the Cuban Missile Crisis at length.The US was within hours of a nuclear war with the USSR and Kennedy's intelligence and calmness saved the day. The war hawks in the administration along with those with the same sentiment on Khrushchev's side kept ratcheting up their desire to go to war.After JFK was murdered, Khruschev mentioned that the chance of the Cold War ending died with JFK.I have loved this movie since its first release and enjoy watching it still today. A good history lesson for people that want to know more about Kennedy's presidency.As far as Costner's accent, to me it didn't hinder the movie at all. The story is the thing and the acting overall was top notch.
Python Hyena
Thirteen Days (2000): Dir: Roger Donaldson / Cast: Kevin Costner, Bruce Greenwood, Steven Culp, Dylan Baker, Stephanie Romanov: Good concept sabotaged by bad acting and an overly American viewpoint. In the conclusion there is a half ass speech about the battle being fought by all countries yet all viewers see is Americans. Time is running out and answers are needed in this story set in October 1962 regarding the missile crisis. Kevin Costner stars as the political adviser. There is a military build up on a Cuban island and the United States President has only 13 days to come up with a solution. The first solution is to better train the actors with their ham handed accents. Directed with insight by Roger Donaldson who has made such dreck as Dante's Peak. He doesn't exactly improve by much here but perhaps providing a translator for every time Costner speaks. Costner appears to be speaking a language unknown to man. Sample dialogue: "Roight, abbaut, noice, sugor, smot." Translation: right, about, nice, sugar, smart. Costner reduces the role to a joke every time he opens his mouth. Bruce Greenwood overacts as the President whom we are suppose to applaud for his efforts. Perhaps in another film but here I could hardly find myself caring. Also with Steven Culp and Dylan Baker. Its over American attitude makes it difficult to sit through 13 minutes. Score: 3 / 10
Jonathan Russell
A good movie, with some excellent performances. Bruce Greenwood is utterly believable as President Kennedy and was a bit of inspired casting, and Steven Culp makes an excellent Bobby Kennedy. The latter's performance deserves special mention, I feel, as Culp is otherwise a relative unknown, someone who has a long list of walk on parts in numerous TV series from The Cosby Show to Grey's Anatomy, yet is not exactly a familiar name or face.As a drama it is enjoyable to follow and achieves real dramatic tension during critical moments, which is a tricky act to pull off in any story when one already knows the end (if not, Google 'Cuban Missile Crisis'!)I was not left with an impression of having watched a high end movie, it left more of an impression of a high quality TV drama-documentary. In short I liked it! It kept my attention all the way through, and I'm someone who easily loses interest if I feel the quality of a movie is becoming suspect, or it is simply boringly told.Kevin Costner ... his performance is good, I suppose, but ... what is it about the man? Towards the end of the movie I get the feeling he's trying to steal the show. He simply a presidential adviser, but as the political tensions escalate I feel Cosner is forgetting that the movie is not about him, but about Kennedy, nucleur missiles and a key moment in world diplomatic history. He should stayed in the background and trusted the abilities of Greenwood, etc. to carry the drama to its conclusion.Or maybe this criticism should really be directed at the writers or director. However, maybe I'm overdoing the criticism. Costner's a big name. If he'd been an unknown in his first movie I'd be praising he to the heavens.All-in-all a movie I'd recommend to a friend as a memorable drama which will leave a good impression and even educate one a little bit.
billk51
Now that we are removed almost 50 years from this event, can we at last give the straightforward account of the Cuban Missle Crisis.In 1961 the United States moved one hundred Intermediate Range Ballastic Missiles onto the territory of its allies Turkey and Italy. These missiles could strike Moscow with nuclear warheads on very short notice.The Soviet Union, not being pleased by this, countered by moving intermediate range ballistic missiles into its ally Cuba, where they could strike Washington on short notice.The United States showed outrage at this provocative policy without drawing the obvious comparison with the US missiles in Turkey and Italy, except to getting around to saying that the missiles were obsolete anyway one year after being deployed. The US threatened to attack the missiles in Cuba and then invade.This supposedly would move us to the brink of mutual nuclear annihilation. But given the reasonable sanity of our government (except for Gen. Curtis Lemay, the mass murderer of millions of Japanese women and children in WWII), would this have actually happened? Someone would have pulled back from the brink at the cost of looking weak. This someone turned out to be the "stupid peasant" leader of the USSR Nikita Khrushchev, who arranged a back door deal to break the deadlock.What the deal came down to really required brilliance: the Russians would remove the missiles from Cuba and the US would remove the missiles from Turkey (which were obsolete, you recall). But the removal of the Turkish missiles was not to be made public. Instead it would be said that the missiles were being removed because the US promised never to invade Cuba. As if a diplomatic promise between two enemies was ever good for anything.So the hero turns out to be stupid Khrushchev, who appeared to be making the bargain of a weak fool, but did not let that stop him from preventing the destruction of the world.
AD
