I’m “biast” (con): not a Michael Bay fan
I have not read the source material
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
This purportedly true account of the 2012 “Battle of Benghazi” opens with American military contractors Jack Silva (John Krasinski: The Wind Rises, Monsters University), who has just arrived in town, and his old buddy Tyrone “Rone” Woods (James Badge Dale: The Walk, Parkland) bluffing their way past a roadblock by armed Libyans. It doesn’t matter what side the Libyans are on, in the chaos that erupted after Gaddafi’s death: the point is that they are Libyans — suspiciously lawless violent folk, that is, who cannot even get their own nation under control — and not Americans. The nature of the bluff involves Rone suggesting to the leader of this band of militants that, as an American, he is willing to die for his country, so he’s happy to wait for the U.S. military air support that is on its way (that’s part of the bluff: no air support is on its way; there is no “air support” for mercenaries) to bomb the hell out of them all, if the Libyan would prefer not to let them pass. (How Rone dying here would constitute “dying for America” is not made clear, but it sure sounds badass, don’t it?) Is the Libyan willing to die for his country? Of course not: only Americans can say that. The Libyan backs down, and the men drive on. America wins the day.
Much of 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi will unfold along similiar, and similiarly hypocritical, lines. Michael Bay (Transformers: Age of Extinction, Pain and Gain) has now gone full Leni Riefenstahl, except not for the U.S. government but for the right-wing hate-o-sphere, for the conspiracy theorists, the Obama haters, and the Clinton bashers. An action film that pretends not to be political, 13 Hours sweats with the usual Bayian testosterone but seethes with new condescension and disdain for anyone who isn’t a former elite soldier turned independent mercenary. This is not propagandizing America but rather a tiny slice of America, the slice that recognizes gun-toting anything and for-profit everything as the only “true America.”
So it is that Jack’s introduction to this new job — doing security at a not-supposed-to-be-there CIA base that all the locals know about — is also ours, and we meet people like Bob (David Costabile: Runner Runner, The Bounty Hunter), the head spy here, who rejects proposals to ramp up safety measures with “If you have useful info, put it in a memo.” (Get it? Memos? He’s a paper-pusher, and he likes it, and hence is worthy of derision. And, clearly, his masculinity is somewhat suspect.) And also “There is no real threat here.” (Hahaha, the joke will be on him, won’t it?) We meet Sona (Alexia Barlier), a “French-raised American,” which earns her a special dislike by the film. She’s supposedly a spy but appears to be mostly spoiled-brat whose work seems to consist entirely of meeting people for coffee and dinner (though later, during the battle, she may become useful in helping bandage up a wounded Real Man, and gazing adoringly at her saviors). The contractors on the six-man security team — the others are Kris “Tanto” Paronto (Pablo Schreiber: Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Lords of Dogtown), Dave “Boon” Benton (David Denman: The Gift (2015), Men, Women & Children), John “Tig” Tiegen (Dominic Fumusa: Focus, Management), and Mark “Oz” Geist (Max Martini: Fifty Shades of Grey, Sabotage) — joke about how the CIA analysts they are protecting are all from Harvard and Yale, implying that this makes them out of touch with the real world only soldiers and contractors have true knowledge of. None of them know quite what to make of U.S. ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens (Matt Letscher: Her, Devil’s Knot), who isn’t a time-killing political-appointee functionary but a “true believer” in helping the struggling nation; does this make him somehow more risible? The guys don’t seem sure. They do know that the “temporary diplomatic outpost” — not an embassy — where Stevens is staying about a mile away from the open-secret CIA compound is not well secured or guarded. It is, in Jack’s words, “some real dot-gov shit.”
The federal gubmint is not to be trusted. Woosy liberals and intellectuals are not to be trusted. Sovereign men with guns who aren’t afraid to use them are what makes America great. They might band together with a few likeminded manly souls, as long as it’s not in a gay way, and yes, the movie makes sure to shoehorn in the assurance that there will be no buggery among this crew. (Intellectualism that is acceptable: quoting from Joseph Campbell’s The Power of Myth, as long as it is suggesting that these contractors are not only tortured and tormented heroes but gods.) A few actual soldiers — as in, employed by the federal government and wearing uniforms — might get a chance for some small redemption in the battle that comes, but even that can only be taken so far. Rone and Jack and the other four are the heroes here, initially because they refuse to follow Bob’s orders not to go to Stevens’ rescue when the diplomatic outpost is attacked. Never mind that they don’t manage to do any good there and, in fact, leave the CIA outpost open for attack (which comes next): they went out and blew up some shit and shot some swarthy bearded types who were putting bullets into the Stars and Stripes in slo-motion, the bastards!
“I feel like I’m in a fucking horror movie,” one of the gun-toting Americans says later, when they’re back at the CIA compound and picking off all the Libyans — who are, ahem, obviously not afraid to die for their country — who are running straight at the compound walls apparently heedless of the danger from men armed with machine guns and equipped with night vision. “Zombieland,” the contractors call the space on the other side of the compound walls… and they called it that long before this attack began. At least the Americans the film hates get names and faces; the Libyans are, almost to a one, anonymous hordes. The only Libyan character is the translator working at the CIA outpost, Amahl (Peyman Moaadi: Camp X-Ray)… and he is treated mostly like a pitiable fool.
But what is any of that in the face of helicopter shots of sexy armored SUVs — stolen from Gaddafi, of course — blazing across an exotic Middle Eastern city, and hard manly men chomping out orders like “I need a bag full of money and a flight to Benghazi” and philosophizing that “as long as I’m doing the right thing, God will protect me.” What’s important is that Bay squeezed in as much footage of that Golden Hour that he loves so much, even though the Battle of Benghazi began long after sunset. What matters is that in a world where “you can’t tell good guys from bad guys,” Americans — or, well, certain Americans, at least — are always the good guys.
Just out of curiosity: If this film had gotten a “Where are the Women?” rating, how close to the bottom would it be?
Oh, nowhere near. There are almost no women in the film, but the few who are there aren’t eye candy. It would probably be a -10 or -15, something like that.
Sean Smith, one of the four who were killed, was a beloved moderator at Something Awful, so there’s been a lot of discussion of how he was killed. I’ll quote directly:
From what I’ve heard, he’s portrayed as a coward hiding under his desk and a stereotypical nerd, when he was much more collected and on top of things. Also, they had him playing a shooter instead of EVE online, which seems minor, but EVE is a game at least partly about diplomacy. In other words, by taking that away, they make him seem like a wannabe tough guy. I don’t know how accurate all this is- I haven’t seen this movie and I don’t intend to.
Great film, based on true american heroes’ accounts. And let’s be honest, Michael Bay did a great job of leaving the politics out of it. If critics feel the right wing are demonizing Clinton and Obama, then maybe they feel there is some truth to that. Bay leaves viewers to draw their own conclusions.
let’s be honest Bay did a great job of leaving the politics out of it.
You just read a thousand words illustrating exactly how Bay didn’t “leave politics out of it”.
So yes, by all means “let’s be honest” and point out that your comment was wholly dishonest.
Obviously you didn’t bother to watch the film. THere’s so many facts beyond politics involving Clinton that the filmmaker didn’t touch. You’re clearly speaking to people that didn’t watch the film. Anyone who’s seen it knows you’re full of fecal matter.
The thousand word lie you point to demonstrated the hate Liberals have for the truth behind Benghazi.
You’re adorable. Try facts next time.
haven’t seen the movie, just commenting on the author of this article.
WTF? Do you have anything to say about the film, or is this just a platform to say how much you hate anything that is even remotely pro-American. From what I’ve heard, Bay tried hard to keep politics out of it, so why don’t you?
It was oozing with politics!
I would agree with, if you we assumed the audience already knew the background of this story. But most people don’t. And since (from what I heard) the movie doesn’t name-drop Hillary or Obama, the movie doesn’t ooze with politics. It’s just a vague indictment of generalized government incompetence and indifference.
Sure, nothing political about that.
http://media2.giphy.com/media/Fml0fgAxVx1eM/giphy.gif
Are all liberals now sociopathic liars? Anyone who has seen it knows, undisputably, there wasn’t anything remotely smacking of politics. In fact, they tried so hard to protect Hillary in this film, they LEFT OUT undeniable facts to protect her.
If you haven’t seen the movie, then how do you know she’s wrong about it?
My comment isn’t about the movie, it’s about her article. I know she’s wrong because of her tone. It’s dripping with contempt for anything military. Her comments mirror what I’ve heard others say who also hate the military. Her review doesn’t say much about the movie so much as what she thinks about Soldiers. So I ask my question: does she have anything to say about the film, or is this just her soap box to stand on?
Every movie review is a personal opinion, and every movie reviewer has a tone. She IS talking about the movie — including what she sees as the movie’s message, and what she thinks of that message. It’s fine if you disagree with her, but it’s perfectly valid for her to talk about the movie from her point of view.
How about you go see the movie, and then come back and point out all the passages where you think she got it wrong?
Wish I could see the film, but it’s not in my area, so I’ll have to wait.
Of course a review is an opinion and has a tone. I’m talking about the particular opinions and tone she is taking. She seems more interested in opining on people’s image of America and the military, versus her opinion on the film itself. I think she would be more in her element writing for Mother Jones or the Huff Post than her writing political commentary under the guise of a “movie review”.
Every sentence in that review is relevant to her opinion of the film. A film’s perceived message IS part of the film! If she thinks the film is jingoistic propaganda, how can she NOT talk about that aspect of it? If all you want is a review of the cinematography and special effects, you may want to seek out a different reviewer.
Fair enough. But when I read something claiming to be a film review, I don’t usually expect nothing but political commentary.
Reviews are subjective and reviewers all focus on different things. A film’s perceived political message is absolutely fair game for a movie review. If you disagree with her points, by all means engage her on those points, but she has every right to make them.
You might be better able to argue about the film after you’ve actually seen it. :-) Who knows, you might actually agree with her on some of her points.
I’m not arguing against her right to a political opinion. I serve to protect those rights. And you’re right, as a reviewer she can focus on what she likes. My critique as a reader of movie reviews is that I want to here about the movie itself, the actors, the director, the writers, was it well made; not the author’s political opinion. If I wanted that I would read the New Republic or the New Yorker. See my response of her post to me.
She IS talking about the movie, just not those parts of the movie you were interested in. She talks about plot, about characterization, about the message she sees underlying the plot and characterization, and about what she thinks of that message. THAT IS TALKING ABOUT THE MOVIE.
If her focus isn’t what you want, move on.
with all due deference, she hasn’t talked about the plot. Compared to other reviews I read (that whole moving on thing) she hasn’t covered the plot. She just mentioned a few particular scenes that she offers political commentary on. She doesn’t tie them together, or talk about any scenes that might run contrary to her view. In other words, she was shopping for things that offend her. Her view was very different than others I’ve read, and they are very antagonistic to the film. Which is why I took a second, before moving on, to write a comment on her obvious bias compared to other critics. Then I spend the afternoon playing comment tag with all of you nice strangers.
Much love
She’s not attacking “the military” as a whole. She’s attacking a particular attitude, which this film seems to glorify. The military men in this movie are chauvinistic, homophobic, blindly patriotic gun lovers. Michael Bay apparently thinks that’s a good thing. If you do, too, then you might enjoy this movie.
Other people think that attitude is dangerous and simple-minded—and has serious political repercussions. We’re going to take the review as a warning and avoid the movie. We may also decide, based on the review, that the characters are one-dimensional stereotypes, the dialogue often makes no sense, and the story is a simplistic, distorted version of the events.
If you want to sum up the film in political terms, MaryAnn thinks 13 Hours is jingoistic propaganda. And during an election cycle in which Benghazi has been discussed at great length, it’s important for critics to call attention to the propaganda. But this review also calls attention to the film’s many flaws as a piece of cinema.
If you, personally, are an ultra-patriotic gun lover, then her review may make you want to see the movie. In that case, the review has done its job. It’s accurately described the film to its potential audience. But some readers—including members of the military who aren’t homophobic or jingoistic—may decide to skip the film for the same reason.
Honest question: have you served?
“The military men in this movie are chauvinistic, homophobic, blindly patriotic gun lovers.”
These are meant as derogatory statements. They are most often used as pejoratives by people who haven’t served, don’t understand the culture and don’t want to. You talk about propoganda, but what is this review if not propoganda, catered to those who already despise the military?
I haven’t served, but I’ve met people in the military, and some of them are very obviously not chauvinistic, homophobic, or blindly patriotic. Some of them aren’t overly attached to their guns, though they may appreciate their practical value. There are different branches of “the military” (to use your vague term), and each one has members with different backgrounds and different points of view.
There have been films about non-military people who are chauvinistic, homophobic, and blindly patriotic. If the films glorify those attitudes, then those films also deserve derogatory statements. I think a number of people in the military would agree.
I don’t disagree with your statement at all.
My point is that some people choose to see chauvinism, homophobia, and blind patriotism whenever they see a “war” or “military” movie. They project their biases on the film, especially when it doesn’t reflect their view. To some, the only good war films are like Casualties of War or Platoon, because they reinforce the negative stereotypes they hold.
Johanson did a review of American Sniper, with the same vitriol and political commentary as tis review. Her review of Hurt Locker had more substance about the actual film, but that’s largely due to that film being more anti-war.
What I’m trying to say is that she’s a political commentator, not a movie critic.
Have YOU served? I mean anyone but yourself?
You obviously despise civilians, as your comments positively drip with contempt for the people who pay your salary and put food in your complaining pie hole.
Maybe if you hate us so much you should stop taking out filthy tax-dollars, eh? Get off that government teat you sniff at and get a job in the real world like the rest of us – no one is forcing you to be a government employee. There is a whole big world of opportunity in private enterprise if that is more to your liking.
But If you can’t (or don’t want to) fend for yourself outside the warm embrace of a government job that provides you with three-hots-and-a-cot you should just stop whining about how unappreciated you are because I’m tired of hearing about it.
Some of you self-righteous military windbags are really beyond the pale. Just grow up, okay? Grow up.
Just ridiculous.
;)
Actually, I have a civilian job. I’m a high-voltage electrician. You see all those big power lines that bring the convenience of electricity to your home? You’re welcome.
After my active duty obligation was over, I joined the reserves. I actually lose money because of my military service, but that’s a sacrifice that many self-righteous military windbags choose to make.
Got anymore ad hominem attacks?
All my love,
one of the guys who fights for your freedom whether you like us or not
Got it, you received all of your training and experience on my dime as a taxpayer, and now you want me to thank you for providing you with a career.
It’s called life you crybaby, and all the rest of us do it without having to have our egos stoked and without require endless coddled for just for doing our jobs.
Your thanks is a paycheck, that’s how it works in the adult world, so grow up and get used to it you child.
Jesus Christ.
;)
Actually, I served as an Arabic linguist, so I received none of my electrical training on “your” dime, especially since I’m a taxpayer too. So, “you” didn’t provide me with a career.
I don’t know you, but I know I’m not like you. So I’m not going to lecture a stranger about “life”.
And our paycheck in the military is not your thanks, its called being paid for services rendered. We are not slaves, we get paid for our work.
Any more ad hominems, or are you getting tired of putting your foot in your mouth?
Lots of love,
your crybaby, child, war veteran
So to be clear, you’ve never had a job as an adult that didn’t reply upon taxpayer dollars, either directly or indirectly?
That’s what I thought.
You did a job and you got paid for it. I do my job and I get paid for it. The difference between you and me is that I don’t walk around all puffed-up demanding unearned respect for doing my job.
You should just get over yourself, that’s all.
I disagree with a number of the comments that AmericanSoldier82 has posted, and I think that some of them are hyperbolic. But 82 hasn’t demanded any unearned respect and hasn’t resorted to personal insults. It’s probably too late to request that we keep this discussion from getting heated, but maybe we can refrain from making it personal.
Cheers, mate!
I’m gonna have to disagree with that. I think 82’s participation in this review is based in no small part on a sense of being personally disrespected. And comments like “one of the guys who fights for your freedom whether you like us or not” aren’t exactly subtle.
You’re right. I’m not subtle. ;)
You’re absolutely right. I’ve never had a job that didn’t directly or indirectly rely on taxpayer dollars.
Except the one I mentioned above. Or the job I had before I joined the Army. Or all the jobs I had when I went through college. Or the one I had before college. But other than those, you’re absolutely right.
Lots of love,
All puffed up
Look pal, I was a in the Marine Corps, from 1978 to 1985. That was a government job, I don’t deny it or pretend it was anything else. The difference between you and me is that I don’t whine and demand respect me for putting on a uniform.
Anyone who demands “did you serve?” like you did is a hump, that’s all I’t saying.
I never demanded respect for wearing the uniform. And I don’t need to. I don’t rely on strangers from internet forums to validate my sense of self worth, no offense intended.
Lots of love,
A hump
PS – thanks for keeping our feet dry ;)
Fair enough, sorry if I was hard on you. The whole “did you ever serve” thing gets my goat.
Cheers, leatherneck!
Semper fidelis
No call for personal attacks.
And I have a new tagline for the site!
Yes, this is my soap box to stand on. Whose else would it be?
If you think my review isn’t about the content of the film, and that it is about hating America, I put to you that you cannot have read what I wrote.
Oh, you caught me! Surely if I had read it, I would agree with you.
I was looking for a movie review, not someone’s political opinion. Don’t get me wrong, you can have any opinion you like. Guys like me, and those represented in the movie, serve so you can have that right (with all due deference to the ACLU when they fight for it). Its only unfortunate that the government sends us to sh*tholes that don’t really help in that respect. None of us signed up to stop Gaddafi from creating the gold dinar (see Hillary’s emails) or to run guns to al-Qaeda in Syria.
But I was interested in the film, not anyone’s politics. For example, John Krasinski was in the film. I loved him in The Office, but a role in this kind of film is definitely a new direction. How did he do? Was he able to find that range as an actor, or did his comedy background detract from his performance? Things along this vein is what I was looking for.
Statements like, ‘What matters is that in a world where “you can’t tell good guys from bad guys,” Americans — or, well, certain Americans, at least — are always the good guys.’ doesn’t tell me anything about the movie. It only tells me about you. Since the movie isn’t available in my area, I have to rely on movie critics until it is, but I learned nothing about the film from you.
But why care what I think when I can be reduced to “the right-wing hate-o-sphere, … the conspiracy theorists, the Obama haters, and the Clinton bashers.”?
P.S. – just for your own edification, your statement: (that’s part of the bluff: no air support is on its way; there is no “air support” for mercenaries). There was air support for our mercs in Iraq. There was also air support denied for our uniformed, official Soldiers in Mogudishu by Presidential (B. Clinton) order. You should probably avoid commenting on ROE (Rules of Engagement) policies if you don’t know the facts. A Stand-Down order for air support for a US Consulate could have only come from the President.
Fondest regards,
someone interested in a movie review minus personal biases
But there are plenty of movie critics, and they don’t all agree. Who will you rely on, the New York Daily Post which gave it a glowing review, or the Guardian which thought it was terrible? Critics are all different. Just find the ones you like. Move on from the ones who don’t do anything for you.
No such review exists. But we only notice a reviewer’s personal bias when it disagrees with our own. When our biases match a reviewer’s, we think the reviewer is “objective.” ;-)
with all due respect, give me an ounce of credit. I can recognized bias, whether it agrees with my views or not.
Much love to you, who hasn’t been disrespectful, like others in this forum
I think I’m in love with you. You are AWESOME! I know 5 months have passed and you have probably already seen 13 Hours, but it was a great movie.
I have never served in the military. I am a woman.
Regardless of my disdain for HRC and our current POTUS, I believe I can honestly say the movie had no political slant at all. Knowing prior to seeing 13 Hours some of the facts and history of the attacks on the consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi, I really wish the film had exposed the particulars as to why no support was sent to help those soldiers and the CIA officers. I suppose the main reasons those particulars weren’t revealed in the film are 1) there are still no solid answers as to who gave the stand down order, and 2) the filmmaker accomplished having no political bias in relating the account of the surviving men of the security detail.
(P.S. ~ Do you think we should tell our lovely hostess there is no such word as “biast” which she used in her ‘Pro and Con” section, or should we keep that as our little secret?)
Have a nice day. :)
Hmmm. Should I point out to you that “biast” is in sarcasm quotes, and that the explanation is in the “critic’s minifesto” link right below it, which you obviously failed to click on? Or should we all just secretly laugh at you as the latest among the many people who smugly thought they caught her out, while in reality revealing their own cluelessness?
Have a nice day. :)
Some days, I think MaryAnn should replace “What is this about?” with “Why is ‘biast’ spelled funny?” for the sake of clarity. Other days, I think that would deprive us of free entertainment.
Oh, I vote she keeps it just as it is. It’s a brilliant way to trip up smug, lazy readers on their own condescension.
I love that so many people who think they’re so clever do not understand the concept of wordplay.
No, Dear. The word itself leapt out at me overshadowing the ‘sarcasm quotes’. So glad I could supply some entertainment for folks here since your review appeared to disappoint many of your readers.
I felt no need to read your “critic’s minifesto”. I figured I gained enough knowledge as to what you’re about within your movie critique. To each his own though, you go girl! Work that “biast”!
A smug, lazy, sometimes clever reader,
Good day :)
And I love that you think I’m her. In addition to not paying attention to sarcasm quotes, you also don’t pay attention to usernames. Clearly a reading comprehension remedial class might benefit you. Smug and lazy indeed!
I guess that shows you how much I gave a shat regarding any subject you (or she) spent your sweet time writing about. *Yawn* Not really worth putting in a lot of effort. What dingbat ever needed sarcasm quotes anyway? If what you’re writing doesn’t come across as sarcasm, it’s not being done correctly. Ridiculous! Must be one of those new millennial, cry baby, “safe zone” things.
“Rub some dirt on it and get back out there.” ~ Coach (from the movie: ‘Johnny Be Good’ )
Former EMT — Dangerously slinging sarcasm before safety “sarcasm quotation marks” were required equipment!
I really wonder if you’re aware of the irony of your own comments. By your own argument, this officially makes you a dingbat.
She just wrote three detailed paragraphs telling us she doesn’t give a “shat” about this subject. I’m pretty sure irony is lost on her. She’s also oddly proud of how little thought she put into her comments.
No. I’m not proud. Not proud at all. It’s a compulsion. I just. can’t. help. myself.
I’m a little odd sometimes and I am proud of it to be quite honest. Why be normal? What’s normal anyway?
“Oh, and I can see Daniel waving goodbye.
God, it looks like Daniel. Must be the clouds in my eyes.” — I love this song! Can you name that tune?
:)
OMG! You’re right! The irony. Hey! We should form an official dingbat club. Wouldn’t that be fun?
Right now though I gotta go find a safe zone ‘cuz you got my feelings.
You are dangerously close to getting banned. Behave like a grownup, or leave.
I meant no harm. What I wrote to Bluejay WAS sarcasm with probably too much bite. My apologies to you, Ms. Johanson. You may write about anything you choose with any opinion you have. That’s what is great about America.
No need to ban me at all. I have dallied with you and your friends long enough.
Best of luck to you.
Yeah, you might want to look into that.
Adorable.
Does not exist. If you read a review and you think it’s unbiased, that means its biases align with your own.
I did not say that.
Like Adam Sandler, Michael Bay seems bound and determined to make MaryAnn regret any nice thing she ever said about any of his movies.
That said, I found it almost impossible to get through this review without thinking of this famous movie quote:
That quote should be attributed to the character of Patton in Patton, not George C. Scott, who famously rejected the lionization of General Patton. Or, perhaps Coppola or Edmund North, the screenwriters.
But, yes, very apt.
Well, I was tempted to attribute to Patton but since this is a forum for the discussion of movies — and since I was not sure until after I posted it how accurate a representation of an actual Patton quote it was — it seemed more logical to assume that most people here would be more familiar with the movie version of said quote.
For what it’s worth, I’ve seen books of movie quotes mention the screenwriter(s) as well as the actor/actress responsible for said quote, but as commendable as I find the intentions behind that type of quotation, I usually find that formula to be a bit awkward to either read or write. After all, most people here are intelligent enough to know that George C. Scott did not literally make up that quote out of his own head when he said it in the movie — though it says something about his skill as an actor that he created a very convincing illusion of having done so. And in any event, not every film critic who mentions a line of Bogart’s from Casablanca bothers to attribute it to Rick Blaine. Nor for that matter does every writer who quotes one of Vivian Leigh’s lines from Gone with the Wind attribute said line to Scarlett O’Hara.
I just saw the movie. I expected not to like it. I expected it to be politically slanted. This “critique” is dishonest and embarrassing. The only propaganda are articles like this one. Lots of political activists posing as movie critics are trashing this movie. It was a good movie, the acting was excellent and I gleaned no political overtones from it whatsoever. The writer of this faux bunch of b.s. sounds like a spoiled brat that should just serve coffee. The most pathetic thing is that apparently Johanson cries herself to sleep at night over there being no names or faces attached to any Libyans (but one) in the movie, just to illustrate how much more diverser-than-thou she is, because it apparently didn’t occur to her that maybe these guys didn’t know any other Libyans. (?) Give me a break, it’s like a SNL sketch it is so stupid. Go watch the movie yourself then come back and re-read this article and you will see the b.s. for what it is.
This one’s gonna bruise a lot of delicate fee-fees.
I think you forgot to add:
I’m biast: (con) I’m a progressive socialist that hates everything that made America great.
There, that should put your review in better context.
You’re adorable.
Just like a left-wing wacko to hate a film for being factual. Now facts have become the new hate speech. Where is your brain?