13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

Movie Information

The Story: The supposedly true story of the attack on the embassy in Beghazi. The Lowdown: Michael Bay blows up stuff, unleashes massive firepower and concludes not much of anything in this jingoistic mess of a movie.
Score:

Genre: Fact-Based Action
Director: Michael Bay
Starring: John Krasinski, James Badge Dale, Pablo Schreiber, David Denman, Dominic Fumusa, Max Martini, David Costabile
Rated: R

The-Real-Life-Heroes-Behind-13-Hours-The-Secret-Soldiers-of-Benghazi

 

When a movie starts with the words “This is a true story,” your skepticism-ometer ought to kick in to overdrive. Michael Bay’s 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi is most assuredly no exception. The film does its damnedest to be nonpolitical by mentioning Obama just once (and only as “the POTUS”) and Hillary not at all — something being roundly ignored by reddest of the red state-minded, of course. It is, however, clearly designed to instill maximum armchair-warrior outrage with a minimum of thought. Well, it’s a Michael Bay movie, so this is no big surprise. Anyone who slogged through his Pearl Harbor (2001) knows the drill by now — right down to the bomb point-of-view shot. A lot of bang for a lot of bucks with a broad, highly colored, audience-pandering account of history and not a scintilla of nuance. Nuance is unknown to Bay, whose idea of characters is pure cardboard and whose sense of humor seems to begin and end with animals having sex. Remember the rats who would copulate on cue in 2003’s Bad Boys II? Their equivalent can be found here — twice. I am unclear as to whether he finds running over dead bodies funny or just cool, but that is also recycled from Bad Boys II.

 

maxresdefault

 

What we get here is a mind- (and butt-) numbing 144 minutes of Michael Bayhem — interspersed with appallingly clunky stabs at heart-string tugging and dime-store jingoism. The movie takes 45 minutes to get to the actual story that, according to the film, took 13 hours. Bay makes it feel like no more than four or five hours, thanks to the almost constant barrage of shooting and explosions. The only relief we get from this comes in the form of flashbacks to the family back in the U.S. or pseudo-deep conversations among the six mostly interchangeable “secret soldiers.” All such scenes are underscored with the same dreary “emotive chords.” It scarcely qualifies as music, just as a set of sounds to tell the viewer what to feel.

 

12-Hour-Ben-Ghazi-Movie-3

 

It is a film filled with noise and firepower and shameless bombast. It’s The Green Berets (1968) for the 21st century, which is to say that letters from home have been replaced by Skyping with the family. The other, somewhat puzzling, change is that these soldiers (who are actually paid contractors and not U.S. troops) are presented as almost completely at sea regarding what they’re doing in Libya in the first place. Is it money? Is it an addiction to warfare? (That might have made for an interesting take, despite the fact that The Hurt Locker got there back in 2008.) Unfortunately, John Wayne’s not there to tell some appealing little Libyan boy, “You’re what this war’s all about.” But there’s not exactly a war. And, goodness knows, there are no appealing little Libyan boys in 13 Hours.

 

518976441_4_o

 

Since the film tries to be strictly apolitical, it opts to take a vague stance against any and all thumb-twiddling, pencil-pushing bureaucrats who keep these soldiers from rushing in. He’s embodied here by the head of the local CIA (their boss) and is merely named “Bob” in the film, strongly suggesting that the character played by David Costabile is constructed specifically for the film in order to provide someone to order them to “stand down.” (Since there has been no evidence that they were ever told to do this, it’s clearly the safest approach — just ask any legal department.)

 

861e45b0b0bfb35835e40e76d7aea99038d294d4

 

In the end, this is just another bad Michael Bay movie. You get a handful of well-executed action scenes, even more incomprehensible ones where it’s impossible to tell who is doing what to whom (or even who is who) and about a dime’s worth of dialogue. (Our heroes call each other “bro” — a lot.) I freely concede that the scene where the embassy compound is set on fire is brilliantly executed and nightmarish but struck me as empty posturing in the service of blowing “stuff up real neat.” Its apparent target audience will undoubtedly disagree with this assessment and insist on viewing the movie as a political game changer, but before enumerating unborn poultry they might also note that 13 Hours is coming in fourth at the box office, and it’s a long, long way from so much as breaking even. Rated R for strong combat violence throughout, bloody images and language.

 

SHARE
About Ken Hanke
Head film critic for Mountain Xpress from December 2000 until his death in June 2016. Author of books "Ken Russell's Films," "Charlie Chan at the Movies," "A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series," "Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker."

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

75 thoughts on “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi

  1. T.rex

    This is a Michael Bay film. The only credit I need to read to stay the hell away.

    • Edwin Arnaudin

      In other words, you’ve yet to see Pain & Gain – the exception to the Bay rule, to the point where I’m starting to think it was ghost directed.

      • T.rex

        Actually I did see it and liked it. I feel guilty about that, I guess it is the one exception. In a strange way Bay was a perfect fit for story about idiotic shallow violent despicable body builders.

        • Edwin Arnaudin

          I also like The Rock, even though it’s wheelhouse Bay.

        • Blu

          “Idiotic hallow violent despicable body builders”? Wish I could drop you in the middle of that scene. I think I would like to have them on my side rather than a wimpy little prick like you.

          • T.rex

            wWhat the hell are you saying? I was talking about the characters in the film, they are fucking idiotic psychopaths. I was not talking about bodybuilders in general. Calm down.

          • Ken Hanke

            I think the poster calling himself “Blu” objects to calling them that, based on the idea that they are an “accurate” reflection of the characters they’re partially based on. Why he insists on name-calling is a mystery of some note, but I will say it stops here.

  2. Edwin Arnaudin

    even more incomprehensible ones where it’s impossible to tell who is doing what to whom (or even who is who)

    The movie’s proponents are calling this intentional and praising how it conveys the confusion of the situation.

    Riiiiight.

  3. Colin O'Leary

    This movie avoided the obvious because that is the same result the government wants us to beleive. It seems that you want to interject your personal political bias to keep us from enjoying the movie as entertainment. You missed the point of the Relevant so it’s easy to understand why you wouldn’t like it.

      • Andrew Leal

        At least THE GREEN BERETS had Jack Soo (which still hasn’t been enough incentive for me to watch it yet, but…)

          • Andrew Leal

            In my case, that should hardly surprise you. (Plus I received the DVD documentary YOU DON’T KNOW JACK: THE JACK SOO STORY for a birthday present. So that says it all.)

  4. beef39

    Saying there’s “no evidence” of a stand down order is wildly inaccurate. There are multiple eye witnesses who state the exact words “stand down” were used. You obviously choose to disbelief, but that doesn’t mean no evidence exists.

      • beef39

        Yes, well…you’re either dishonest, or you failed to do your homework before writing this review.

          • beef39

            I have made no statement about my beliefs. It is fact that there is evidence. I understand that you don’t believe the evidence, but that doesn’t mean you can accurately report that it doesn’t exist.

          • Ken Hanke

            I can accurately report that no such evidence was accepted as verified by the committee appointed to investigate it.

          • beef39

            Absolutely correct…it’s a classic “he said, she said” situation, which of course is far different than “no evidence” existing.

          • Ken Hanke

            No evidence deemed sufficiently credible then.

          • beef39

            A Congressional committee determined there was a delay in acting but was unable to determine why…because of conflicting accounts from the people on the ground. Some say there was a “stand down” order. Some say there was a “delay” order, which is technically different. Some say there was no order. The committee did not determine there was “no evidence” or that the evidence was not “sufficiently credible.” In spite of testimony from many people, all of whom are considered credible, no reason for the delay was determined. It was basically chalked up to confusion caused by the fog of war.

            In light of this, if you were fair, you would also state that there is no evidence that the contractors who insist a “stand down” order was given are lying. Their side of the story has never been deemed any less credible than the other side.

            I understand the pointlessness of trying to reach someone so thoroughly indoctrinated. It’s a shame you cannot leave your personal political opinions out of movie reviews.

          • Ken Hanke

            It’s a political movie, despite trying not to be.

            I cannot, by the way, believe that your objections are not an expression of your political bent.

          • beef39

            It’s irrelevant what my political persuasion is. A journalist (or whatever a movie reviewer is) shouldn’t purposely twist the facts to suit his point of view.

          • beef39

            By the way, I’m wondering when was the last time you panned a movie at least partially because of historical inaccuracy? Or do you only save that criticism for when the movie covers a story you’d like to be untrue?

          • Ken Hanke

            You advertise your political beliefs with every post. I suppose it’s inevitable.

            A movie critic is a columnist, not a journalist. In essence, it’s an opinion column.

            I didn’t pan this thing for its politics, but because it’s a lousy movie. As for citing historical inaccuracies, yes, I do it in every instance where a movie is claiming to be a true story.

          • beef39

            So a columnist just gets to make up “facts” to support his opinion…I understand now.

            And yes, I know…since you’ve deemed me a conservative, my comments are irrelevant.

          • Ken Hanke

            I did not make up “facts.” My reading of the situation is that when a hand-picked Republican committee determined to find fault with the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton conclude there is no verifiable evidence of any wrongdoing and no clear evidence of a stand-down order, then it’s pretty hard to buy anything else.

            I will leave you to have the inevitable last word.

            If I have any reason to dismiss your comments, it has more to do with the business of hiding behind the anonymity of a screen name than anything else.

          • beef39

            You just made my point for me. You presented your reading of the situation as fact when you said there was no evidence. That has been my entire objection from the beginning.

          • beef39

            Yes, well…you have a responsibility to be honest that you refuse to live up to. I suppose spreading left-wing propaganda is so important to you that you figure the rules shouldn’t apply.

          • beef39

            I made a point that has nothing to do with politics. You should not report your opinion as fact. Why do you refuse to address that?

          • Ken Hanke

            I didn’t fail to address it.

            “I did not make up “facts.” My reading of the situation is that when a hand-picked Republican committee determined to find fault with the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton conclude there is no verifiable evidence of any wrongdoing and no clear evidence of a stand-down order, then it’s pretty hard to buy anything else.”

            That is exactly why I said there is no evidence — at least verifiable evidence — and why I stand by that. Now, if it amuses you to keep on ranting about my “left-wing propaganda” (while you claim your points are not political), go right ahead. I’m done.

          • beef39

            Perhaps I gave you too much credit. I guess it is possible that you do not understand the difference between “no evidence” and “no evidence I care to believe.”

          • Ken Hanke

            The difference is between “no evidence” and “no evidence that convinced a Republican committee investigating allegd wrong-doings. It has nothing to do with what I “care to believe.”

          • beef39

            I tend to believe the eye witnesses who said that a stand down order happened. I get that you do not. Neither of us really knows because there is credible evidence on both sides. The difference is I would not report my belief as a fact. That is exactly what you did. And now you are playing a series of word games to try to justify your behavior.

          • Ken Hanke

            I tend to believe the eye witnesses who said that a stand down order happened.

            You are at liberty to, and the fact is that you do indeed claim that that equals “evidence.”

          • beef39

            I am very certain that you’ll try to play some silly word game with this, but actually that is the definition of what evidence is. It has nothing to do with my claim. You may choose not to believe, but eye-witness testimony, while not incontrovertible, is usually considered one of the strongest forms of evidence. To say you don’t believe it is not to say it doesn’t exist…which once again, you did and are defending for some reason.

  5. Gregory Michael Howard

    You really should learn what the word “jingoistic ” means before using it. You are so off them mark on this I can only think your hate blinds you.

    • Ken Hanke

      You mean, “the feelings and beliefs of people who think that their country is always right and who are in favor of aggressive acts against other countries.”

  6. Edwin Arnaudin

    All this hubbub over a loud, boring, overlong and ultimately forgettable movie…

    • Ken Hanke

      Tell me about it. It’s also worth noting that it’s a huge flop that has yet to gross back its production costs.

      • beef39

        Huge flop? You just can’t help yourself, can you? This movie is already 2 million dollars in the black based solely on US box office to date. Raging financial success? No. Huge flop? Not even close.

        • beef39

          Correction: 2 million profit based on worldwide box office to date. You see, Ken, when a responsible person says something he finds out to be untrue, he corrects it.

          • Ken Hanke

            According to Box Office Mojo, the film had a production budget of $50 million (that’s not including advertising). As of this past weekend, it had grossed $48,701,080 after last weekend and had grossed $3,218,664 in foreign sales. That’s $51,919,744. That does not constitute a profit of $2 million. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

            Before you go spouting off “facts,” you should understand that studios get approximately 55 cents of every dollar taken in by the theaters — and that advertising is added onto this. The basic rule of thumb is that a movie has to gross twice its budget to break even. That means 13 Hours needs to rake in another $48 million to be in the black.

            There is a difference between gross and net.

          • beef39

            You are the one who said it did not gross back its production cost. Perhaps you should reread your earlier post. Once again you have stated something that is factually inaccurate because you have an agenda to serve.

          • Scott Douglas

            Dear Beef39,

            I have taken note of your grievances with Ken Hanke, and I wanted to reach out to you to express my condolences. I understand that you have been offended by a comment which you perceived to be dishonest or lacking in journalistic integrity, and I am addressing you directly in the hopes of better understanding your point of view. Is it your opinion that this was a good film? I gather that your objection with Ken’s review is rooted in his assessment of the factual events on which the film was based, as opposed to the quality of the film based on those events. If my understanding is accurate, you would seem to have missed the point of film criticism. To the best of my knowledge, neither of you were in Benghazi. As I do not purport to have been either, I feel confident in assuming that no one involved in this discussion can speak with any authority on the events in question or on the veracity of their portrayal in this film. My brothers served in Iraq and Afghanistan as Marine Corps infantry officers, and I have nothing but the most sincere respect for the men and women who serve this country. But Michael Bay is not one of them. Michael Bay is a hack that couldn’t direct his way out of a paper bag full of squibs and regurgitated dialogue. You, sir, have been arguing your point for a week now. While I respect your right to your opinion, you must also respect the fundamental right of other Americans to hold, and voice, views differing from your own. Was your purpose in this discussion to convince Ken Hanke that this was a good film? Was your intention to convince him that you have a better understanding of the historical events on which it was purportedly based? Either way, you have failed. I appreciate your engagement in any discussion of the actual merits or deficiencies of a given film, but unfortunately you seem to have strayed rather far from that mark.

            Sincerely,
            Scott Douglas

        • Ken Hanke

          Oh, for Chrissakes, when I wrote that, I had only seen the US totals: $48,701,080. That is clearly less than $50 million. Regardless, you are apparently incapable of grasping that the movie is in any case very much in the red and unlikely at this point to get out of it. That in any language is a flop as far as the box office is concerned.

          • beef39

            Scott Douglas…you said it yourself. Since none of us were there and the accounts of the people who were there conflict, you cannot say with certainty what happened. You can only make assumptions and draw conclusions Hanke, however, has presented at least one of his conclusions as fact, with no qualifier. When I called him out on it, his answer is something like 1. you’re a conservative so your point is invalid and 2. I’m sure my belief is right so I don’t have to explain that it’s just an opinion.

          • Scott Douglas

            Beef 39,

            Ken did, in fact, state to you explicitly that he was expressing his opinion, albeit one based on his understanding of the facts as they have been presented to the public:
            “A movie critic is a columnist, not a journalist. In essence, it’s an opinion column.” – Ken Hanke, in response to Beef39
            Again, my question for you has nothing to do with your understanding of the facts as you have perceived them, but with your objective in engaging in a speculative debate on the details of a currently unknowable event in military history. You have acknowledged that you have no first-hand knowledge of this event, and yet you seem compelled to argue your point regardless of this limitation. What do you seek to accomplish with this debate? You clearly feel very strongly about this subject, so wouldn’t your time and energy be better spent addressing your concerns to your congressional representatives than in the comments section of a film review for a month-old movie that is barely still in theaters? I apologize if I’m missing something, but your vehemence in this discussion is incomprehensible to me.

          • beef39

            Scott, you are missing something. In his review he used the phrase “no evidence.” That is false. There is abundant eye-witness evidence. Ken chooses to discount that evidence for all of the reasons he has stated. He has every right to do that. However, he should then point that out in his article, instead of declaring as fact that there is “no evidence.” Writing an opinion article doesn’t mean it’s ok to misrepresent fact…which he did.

            Why is this a big deal to me? I think people in the press should present the facts and let the chips falls where they may. Ken had a point to prove and when the real story didn’t support his point well enough, he decided to present his view of the situation as a fact. He seems terrified that if left to draw our own conclusions, we idiots may pick the wrong ones…so his answer is to misstate what happened so that he can guide us to the right conclusion. It’s dishonest and insulting.

  7. beef39

    I have the same problem with his characterization that the movie is a “huge flop” financially, as defined by gross revenue vs. production cost (his standard, not mine). When he called it a huge flop, the movie was roughly $1mil in the red, using his standard. He didn’t explain that it was close to breaking even because that didn’t fit his narrative. However, when I pointed out that the movie had crossed barely into the black, he threw a fit about how I was splitting hairs. The point being, once again he didn’t want to give you the numbers because they didn’t fit his narrative. He knew the movie was about to move into the black, but he led you to believe the opposite. He also never pointed out that by Hollywood standards, there are many, many movies that flop worse than this one. In the grand story of Hollywood financial flops this one comes nowhere close to even being an honorable mention.

    • Scott Douglas

      Beef 39,

      I have been very reasonable with you. I will ask you once more, what is it that you are seeking to accomplish here? Have you addressed your concerns to the congressional representatives that might have some influence on these matters, or are you content to troll the comments section of a film review? I understand that you disagree with Ken’s assessment of the facts upon which this film is based. That is your prerogative. You have not convinced anyone that you have a superior understanding of the events which transpired in Libya, and the fact of the matter is your understanding is just as limited as everyone else who was not there. You yourself have acknowledged this fact. So why are you wasting your time here? Your voice has been heard. Let it go, or do something about it that might warrant some action by taking up your concerns in a more appropriate setting. This was a film review, and I have asked you repeatedly and respectfully to limit your comments to the film itself. Why is that such a difficult proposition for you? Have you even seen the film? Do you really have so much spare time that you can spend a week arguing with every film critic who holds a viewpoint differing from your own? And if so, why are you not spending that time more constructively by taking some sort of political action? If you would like to drive some sort of change in this nation’s foreign policy, you have most certainly chosen the wrong setting to voice those desires.

      • beef39

        Amazing…have you read my posts at all? I care nothing of what Ken’s assessment is. I merely state that he, and all others in the media, should present their assessment as an opinion, and not as fact. That is all. My point is simple. Why would I go to Congress about that?

        • Scott Douglas

          Yes beef, I have read all of your posts, and you have just stated what my problem with them entails. Ken is not a pundit or a foreign correspondent. Ken is a film critic, and as such, he writes about films. If you don’t care about his assessment, in that context and that context alone, why did you bother to read his review? Since you didn’t have the courtesy to address my direct and simple question, I’m going to have to assume that you have not, in fact, seen this terrible movie. So I will once again ask, what do you expect to accomplish here? Do you think you’re going to change his mind? If so, you are certainly wasting your time. He stated to you with no equivocation that his film reviews are opinion pieces, as you should know since I quoted the pertinent phrase in a reply to you. If you genuinely feel that “he, and all others in media” should be beholden to your journalistic standards (even though he stated plainly that he is not a journalist), do you spend this much time policing other media outlets, or have the Mountain Xpress movie reviews drawn your attention as a hotbed of inaccurate reportage? I have never seen the byline “beef39” next to the word “editor” on any newspaper or website, so I think you might be misinterpreting your role in assessing the work and integrity of the entire media. My simple point, which you have chosen to overlook because it does not serve your agenda or fit your narrative, is that if you spent half as much time addressing congress about what you perceive to be a miscarriage of justice or dereliction of duty as you have hassling a film critic, then you might someday accomplish something worthwhile with all this time you have on your hands. As it stands, you’re tilting at windmills in a sleepy corner of the internet to no productive end.

          • beef39

            I totally agree that asking an indoctrinated leftist to stop lying is useless. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to make stuff up to buttress your opinion. Even columnists should be bound by fact.

          • Ken Hanke

            Scott, I think the chances of Mr. beef answering whether or not he’s seen this lousy movie are slim indeed.

          • Scott Douglas

            It would appear, beef, that asking an indoctrinated right-winger to stop whining is equally useless. Ken clarified in his comments that his statement regarding the lack of evidence of a “stand down” order was based on the findings of the Congressional committee tasked with assessing the Benghazi incident. This committee did, indeed, find that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of any malfeasance. If you feel that this ruling was in error, take it up with them. Your repeated insistence on taking a film critic to task over one line in a 700 word review, and your repeated refusal to address the points I’ve raised in questioning your motivations for doing so, can only lead me to conclude that you are an attention-seeking malcontent who would rather engage in a pointless political polemic than do something productive with his time. Your accusations of dishonesty border on slanderous, and are, at the very least, utterly lacking in class and dignity. A critic has no obligation to point out that his or her reviews are subjective, because most rational people understand that criticism is an inherently opinion-based endeavor. The only thing that anyone has made up here is your role as the self-appointed arbiter of pan-media accuracy for the entire world. Your comportment in this discussion is not doing you, or your crusade for honesty as you perceive it, any favors. It’s time to stop.

          • Ken Hanke

            This is like trying comb the hair on an iron donkey…

          • beef39

            Your questions of me are nothing but an attempt to divert from the issue because you don’t wish to deal with it. I saw the movie. I liked it…kind of predictable since I knew the basic story in advance but entertaining nonetheless. However, that’s completely irrelevant. And yes, I am taking him to task over 1 line in a 700 word review. That one line is erroneous and written with the conscious intent to mislead people into believing that his version is incontrovertible fact. He could scratch 2 words from the review, and I would shut up.

          • Scott Douglas and Edwin Arnaudin

            You realize, of course, that he’s not going to scratch anything and eventually you’ll shut up anyway. My questions of you are an attempt, not to divert, but to redirect you to an appropriate discussion of the film (this comment section does pertain to a film review, as I recall). Your political hand-wringing is the only diversion here, and I have addressed your concerns multiple times. However, your irrational dedication to your agenda has prevented you from hearing me and entering into a reasonable discussion of the facts at hand. If you genuinely believe that Ken is a part of some nefarious left-wing conspiracy to dupe the populace, then you must also believe that people are getting their news on a four year old story from the Mountain Xpress movie reviews, which is a ludicrous proposition. Do you spend this much time complaining to Rush Limbaugh or Neal Boortz when they misrepresent facts? I still contend that Ken did not misrepresent any verifiable fact in his review, and yet you have conflated his choice of words with some premeditated effort to deceive his readers, which is a patently delusional assertion. In your self-aggrandizing effort to foist your misguided beliefs on others and insult a man you’ve never met while protected by the anonymity the internet provides, you’ve accomplished nothing further than establishing yourself as an unreasonable blowhard. In so doing, you have injured the credibility of others who might share your beliefs. I’m glad you enjoyed the movie, but I’m curious as to whether or not you’ve contacted Michael Bay about its myriad inaccuracies in your duties as the self-proclaimed adjudicator of media truthiness.

          • Scott Douglas

            Edwin Arnaudin was not involved in that post, apologies for the error. He probably wouldn’t sully his hands with this nonsense.

  8. beef39

    Just want to be clear on your points…

    1. No matter how erroneous, the part I question will never be corrected (FYI…I already knew that).
    2. Nobody gets their news from your little paper anyway so why bother with accuracy?
    3. Your misstatement of fact stems not from a nefarious plot but from simple delusion.
    4. Because others misstate facts and you are ignorant to whether I know about it or challenge it, you are free to misstate facts and I shouldn’t question.
    5. Because you deduced I’m on the wrong side of political aisle, none of my comments should be viewed as credible.

    Did I miss anything?

    • beef39

      By the way, your condescending comment about redirecting me to a discussion of the film is so far off base. If you go back to the beginning, you’ll see that I made not one political comment. I questioned something about the review itself and nothing else. Your cohort is the one who deflected the discussion.

    • Scott Douglas

      1. You have presented no concrete evidence that the part you find questionable is, in fact, erroneous. But if you already knew the review would not be changed, why have you wasted so much time complaining about it? (FYI, I have asked you multiple times what you were trying to accomplish here, and have received no response other than some nebulous platitudes about holding all media accountable for what YOU deem inaccuracy)
      2. Nobody should be getting their news from a film review, especially regarding a story that has been dissected ad infinitum many years ago. Belittling the Xpress is a shameful tactic, but one I’m not surprised to see someone like you use when backed into a dialectical corner.
      3. I have not misstated any fact. I accurately pointed out that the findings of a Congressional committee contradicted YOUR OPINION. Furthermore, you stated that Ken knowingly and willfully attempted to deceive his readers, which would imply machination as opposed to delusion. You’re either contradicting yourself, or you don’t understand what those words mean.
      4. The phrasing in this sentence makes no sense whatsoever. On what grounds are you accusing me of ignorance? You yourself have acknowledged that you can’t possibly know what happened in Libya, although you certainly seem to think that you do, so I am clearly not ignorant of your “knowledge” (or lack thereof). I am not ignorant of the fact that you are challenging what you believe to be an inaccuracy, because I’ve been putting up with your inane challenges for days. The final nail in the semantic coffin of this pitiful sentence is that I have not misrepresented any fact at any point in this conversation.
      5. I have been a registered Republican since I was old enough to vote. This is America, there is no “wrong” side of the political aisle. The only wrong side is the side of unreasonable, inflexible narcissists who believe that their inflated valuation of their own opinion supersedes the right of others to voice differing points of view, and there are people from all political parties that fall on that “wrong” side of the delineation. As you are apparently such a person, no, I do not attribute any validity or credibility to your comments.

      All you missed was the entire purpose of my interaction with you. Let it go.

      • beef39

        It is all so simple and I’ve made my point so clear. Since you claim you don’t get my point, I’ll explain it for what seems like the millionth time. There is an abundance of eye-witness testimony that a stand down order was issued. Whether you believe that evidence or not, it is inaccurate to present that as “no evidence.”

        I take no issue with Ken’s opinion of the movie. I care not what his political leanings are. It is irrelevant what some Congressional committee concluded. He put a factually inaccurate statement in the article to try to buttress some point of his, and that’s wrong of him and wrong of you to defend.

        • Scott Douglas

          I have understood your point from day one. Everyone understands your point, because you won’t shut up about it. MY point was that, having made yours, and being well aware that it would not change Ken’s review (or his mind), a reasonable person would’ve gotten on with his life. Eye-witness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence that can be presented in a court of law, and you yourself have acknowledged that contradictory eye-witness testimony was also presented in the Congressional hearings. The result of all hearings thus far is that there was NO EVIDENCE of malfeasance. If you think you’re better equipped to rule on such matters than our duly elected officials, maybe you should run for Congress (you do not have my vote). If you truly find our Congress to be irrelevant, maybe you should move to a country without one. I, for one, would not be sorry to see you go.

          My question for you, one that you have consistently refused to answer, is what exactly you’ve been seeking to accomplish with this sad little tantrum of yours. Furthermore, you have not addressed the question of whether or not you respond this vehemently to every piece of media that you deem inaccurate. If not, then you are clearly a hypocrite. If so, then you must lead an empty life of rejection and thwarted ambition, because I highly doubt anyone has ever printed a retraction of any sort on the basis of your specious and poorly-worded logic.

          As to my defense of Ken; in the interest of full disclosure, I am a freelance writer who, on occasion, contributes film reviews and beer journalism to the Mountain Xpress. If I become aware of a factual inaccuracy in one of my beer articles, I change it, because those are journalistic pieces. If, however, someone takes issue with a statement in one of my film reviews, I flatly ignore them. Those reviews are subjective opinion pieces, and in taking ownership of my opinions, I welcome constructive input from my readers but will never acquiesce to pressure from those who disagree with me. In defending Ken, I am defending my own right to state my opinion without concern for the petulant, self-righteous whinging of the beef39s of the world.

          If I were to come to your place of employment and tell you how to do your job, or call you a liar in front of your coworkers, I imagine you would be deeply offended. And yet you have no qualms about treating Ken, and myself, in such a disrespectful manner from the comfort and safety of your computer keyboard. I highly doubt you would be willing to so thoroughly embarrass yourself in public and to our faces. As a reasonable person, I recognize that I am not going change your perception of the factual events that transpired or your disagreement with Ken’s assessment thereof. Having made my point, I am more than happy to move on with my life. I do not expect the apology that you clearly owe Ken and myself to ever be issued, because insecure people are rarely willing to take accountability for their inappropriate behavior. However, if you continue in your condescending and insulting attacks on my character, or his, I will continue to rhetorically take you apart. I certainly have better things to do with my time, but I will never condone or tolerate a sanctimonious bully with an exaggerated sense of entitlement.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.