1926. The Chinese Civil War. Drifter Ted Beaubien is captured and forced to witness his girlfriend's execution. He finally escapes and vows to avenge her death by taking on a deadly mission... See full summary »
In October, 1962, U-2 surveillance photos reveal that the Soviet Union is in the process of placing nuclear weapons in Cuba. These weapons have the capability of wiping out most of the Eastern and Southern United States in minutes if they become operational. President John F. Kennedy and his advisors must come up with a plan of action against the Soviets. Kennedy is determined to show that he is strong enough to stand up to the threat, and the Pentagon advises U.S. military strikes against Cuba--which could lead the way to another U.S. invasion of the island. However, Kennedy is reluctant to follow through, because a U.S. invasion could cause the Soviets to retaliate in Europe. A nuclear showdown appears to be almost inevitable. Can it be prevented? Written by
President John F. Kennedy very frequently set up recording machines during meetings at the White House. Much of the dialogue from the movie is taken directly from Kennedy's tapes. See more »
President Kennedy wanted an eyewitness account so badly that Commander Ecker was ordered to the Pentagon to brief the Joint Chiefs of Staff immediately after landing his RF-8A Crusader, sweaty flight suit and all. This is often thought to be a glaring error in the movie, but his attire is absolutely accurate. Cdr. Ecker was not even allowed to exit his Crusader when he landed at NAS Cecil Field, Jacksonville FL. His film canisters were unloaded from his aircraft, he was refueled and sent immediately to Washington D.C., landing at Andrews AFB and whisked by limousine directly to the Pentagon where he met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, apologizing right away for appearing at the briefing in his sweat-soaked flight suit. Cdr. Ecker, parched from the Cuba overflight and then the flight north to Washington, asked in a hoarse voice for a drink of water when he arrived. He refuses it in the movie. See more »
So I understand you correctly, if the missiles in Cuba were dismantled - returned to the Soviet Union - and a guarantee was made not to reintroduce them, the United States would be prepared to guarantee that it would never invade Cuba.
That is correct.
And this is from the highest authority?
Yes - *the* highest authority. There are two conditions. The UN must be allowed to inspect the removal of the missiles.
Of course, the UN must also be allowed to observe the redeployment of forces from the ...
[...] See more »
Thrilling Examination Of A Tense Moment In History
The fact of JFK's assassination, and especially the highly mysterious circumstances surrounding it, has resulted in a very distinct historical niche being carved around him. However, the majority of written examinations have concerned his assassination. The man's presidency, short though it was, was fraught with fascinating events and, both in literature and in film, they remain frustratingly under-examined. Which is why "Thirteen Days" is such a treat.
What the film essentially does is offer us a clearly partly-fictionalised but fairly true to the events account of the thirteen days of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. It's a fascinating close-up on a fascinating man, who might have been a truly great president if he had gotten a proper chance. Of course, the filmic portrayal of JFK may be just a tad overly sympathetic, and the treatment of the military a tad overly harsh, and the importance of Kenny O'Donnell, played by Kevin Costner, is probably exaggerated, but these are minor quibbles. What this film really does is show us just how complicated and multi-faceted was the problem of Russian nuclear missiles being installed in Cuba. Not only did the president have to face the dim and distant threat of a faceless Russian bureaucracy, he had to deal with the multiple and conflicting options constantly being advanced to him, the dangers posed by certain special interests in military and intelligence and the popular opinion of the American people. The repercussions of any number of different courses of action were almost unthinkable. Tilting the hand seemingly in the American favour in one place, say in Cuba, would destabilise another danger zone, such as Berlin. Despite the fact that we all know how the events played out in the end, it can't be denied that this film keeps adding to the tension constantly, occasionally letting off a little and then piling on a whole lot more. It's a wonderful portrayal.
At its core, however, the film is an intelligent study of the ultimately paralysing effects of power, and the stark horror of mutual destruction as made possible by the harnessing of atomic power. The discovery of nuclear fission reactions has forever changed the face of warfare, because there now exists an ultimate solution so terrible it is almost beyond contemplation. In the comparatively safer times in which we now live, it is easy to forget how possible, perhaps even likely, the threat of nuclear war. America was then, and remains now, the most powerful nation on the planet, and yet a single wrong move could have ended all that, and at the cost of millions of innocent lives. Bearing the weight of decisions which could cost so much must have been a horrible burden to Kennedy, and, if nothing else, we should thank our lucky stars that he didn't buckle under the multifarious pressures placed on him. This film is a tribute to reason over hotheadedness, and peace over war. We should not forget the lessons that time has to impart, and if this represents a way to remember, then everyone ought to watch it.
83 of 91 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?