Cheap Thirteen Days (Infinifilm Edition) (DVD) (Kevin Costner, Bruce Greenwood) (Roger Donaldson) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Thirteen Days (Infinifilm Edition)

The "Cuban Missile Crisis," as history has dubbed this autumnal fortnight, was perhaps the closest humanity has ever come to nuclear annihilation. In the year 2000 - thirty-eight years after humanity's "near death experience" - came a movie that attempts to re-create the tension and fear of the Cuban Missile Crisis. "Thirteen Days," starring Kevin Costner, Bruce Greenwood, Steven Culp, and Dylan Baker, is a well acted, directed, written historical drama that largely succeeds in bringing to life one of the great political crises of the twentieth century.

"Thirteen Days" is a very well written film that largely succeeds in conveying the sense of urgency and palpable tension that existed within the Kennedy administration during these dark days. The film certainly has an air of historical authenticity about it. Screen writer David Self based much of his material on a book entitled "The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis," by Ernest R. May and Philip D. Zelikow. This book contains transcripts of secretly taped conversations that occurred inside the Oval Office and Cabinet Room during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's clearly apparent that many of the scenes in "Thirteen Days" are faithful reproductions of those taped conversations.

Most of the historical events shown in the film - the discovery of the missiles; the decision to impose a naval blockade; the intense efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to the crisis are well documented in history. So, it's safe to say that "Thirteen Days" is a reasonably faithful distillation of what actually happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The film may be historically accurate, but how historically objective is it? How well do the filmmakers resist the temptation to put a particular political "spin" on the events depicted in "Thirteen Days?" Here, I think, the film does not fare quite so well.

It's hampered at the outset by virtue of the fact that the entire story is seen through the eyes of President Kennedy's closest political advisor and friend, Kenny O'Donnell (played by Kevin Costner). It's well known that O'Donnell, who died in 1977, practically "hero-worshipped" Kennedy, so it's doubtful that anything he left behind, in the form of speeches, memoirs, or other communications, would have been particularly objective in nature.

There's no mistaking the filmmakers' attempt to paint the nation's senior military leadership as nothing but a bunch of conniving warmongers, however. Generals Taylor and LeMay, and Admiral Anderson, are all painted as virulent opponents of President Kennedy, and conspirators in an overt plot to start a war they desperately want. From what I've read of history, the senior military leaders during the Kennedy administration were extremely competent and always acted in a highly professional manner. So, the film's subtle efforts to portray all military people as connivers and conspirators are inexcusable.

The film's portrayal of John and Robert Kennedy is more sympathetic... and, oddly, more balanced. We see the Kennedys' strengths and weaknesses in equal measure. President Kennedy is seen as a man genuinely desirous of peace, desperately searching for a way to avoid Armageddon. Yet, confronted with a series of life-and-death decisions, he seems at times almost paralyzed by indecisiveness. Robert Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States, comes off as idealistic, loyal, smart, competent... and at the same time ruthless, and willing to compromise his ethics for political advantage.

The acting is, for the most part, pretty good. Bruce Greenwood and Steven Culp give masterful portrayals of the brothers John and Robert Kennedy respectively. Dylan Baker is excellent as the precise, almost robotic Defense Secretary Robert McNamara; as are Michael Fairman as Adlai Stevenson; Kevin Conway as General Curtis ("bomb 'em back to the Stone Age") LeMay; and Bill Smitrovich as General Maxwell Taylor.

Kevin Costner's performance as Kenny O'Donnell is the one major disappointment in this film. His acting problems begin with an absolutely ludicrous Boston "accent," but they don't end there. He imbues his character with the same stiffness, colorlessness, and lifelessness that's typical of all his work. He consistently sounds like he's reading or reciting his lines, not speaking them naturally.

Despite Costner's poor performance and some questions concerning the film's historical objectivity, "Thirteen Days" remains a very good film. It successfully captures the tension and fear that pervaded not only the government, but society as a whole. It opens a window on the tough decision-making required from men untested in the crucible of history. And, it's just plain good old fashioned entertainment to boot.

Entertainment yes! History no!
Since I am a history buff I tend to eventually get around to most of the films that are history based. I am old enough to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis very well. I also tend toward the conservative side in political views.

Thirteen Days is a good movie. From a dramatic standpoint it is a success. Bruce Greenwood I thought did a particularly good job as JFK. I think the speech and manners were well done and his general bearing and tone are convincing. The supporting cast, for the most part, is good to very good. I was particularly impressed with Len Cariou, in a minor role as Dean Acheson. I had not been previously aware of this actor.

Kevin Costner has been criticized for a bad accent and a stiff performance. I thought that the script overplayed his role in the Crisis. Perhaps this was because his star status demanded more lines? And I am not able to accept the almost saint-like image that the role gives to his portrayal of JFK assistant Kenny O'Donnell. At times the camera time seems to give the impression that Costner/O'Donnell is the focus of the film.

This was all a bit distracting but not serious enough to wreck a good dramatic effort. The characters and the script are all well delivered and believable. Even though you know the outcome the tension and suspense work. It is good cinema.

As for historical accuracy the overall effect gives JFK a hero aura. In one sense he deserves this. It was a serious crisis and he got out reasonably clean without war. On the other hand all that he he had previously done badly, which undoubtedly contributed to Kruschev's willingness to take the risks, were simply not mentioned.

In addition Hollywood consistently portrays the military in the poorest light. They didn't fail us here. General Curtis LeMay is portrayed as little short of an overbearing, arrogant savage. Admiral George Anderson comes across as a pompous man who fails utterly to understand the geopolitical aspects of the naval blockade action.

A good show if you are looking for entertainment. If you looking for history read the relevant history first. So armed this film will help bring it to life for you.

Boring
I saw this film in a history class I was taking and it definitely was not viewed for the sake of accuracy, more as a comparative piece to an actual historical documentary and I must say I found the documentary of still pictures & voice overs more entertaining. I struggled to stay awake during this drag of a movie.