Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Evan Wessman (CinematicInceptions) This was one of the less sensationalized historical movies I've seen, though it surely took some liberties in the pacing of the escalation of the Cuban Missile Crisis and some of the political debates that took place. That said, the movie did an impressive job at keeping the level of drama at a palatably high level while having the majority of scenes involve nothing more than actors debating in a room. This is good because it gives a better sense of how the actual events played out and is a testament to how diplomacy rather than military engagement won the day in this period of tension. On the downside, it will not be easy for those who are not familiar with the Cuban Missile Crisis and Cold War tensions in general to understand. It has the feel of an action movie, but since it's the Cold War there are not any actual battles to depict, although there are a couple scenes of reconnaissance and military suspense.I do not agree with the choice to make Kenny O'Donnell the protagonist. He contributes very little to the decisions being made, and is little more than another strident voice in Kennedy's ear. The story is all about weighing the odds and deciding the best course of action, so it does not make sense for the main character to not be a part of that. The logical choice for the movie's hero would have been JFK seeing as he was the leader who said yes or no to every proposed course of action, although this may have been problematic since he's almost portrayed as perfect like the fictional presidents in Roland Emmerich's movies. JFK does deserve a great deal of credit for avoiding catastrophe under great pressure from many sides, but I think they were a little too generous to him here. The one who I thought should have been given the most attention is Bobby Kennedy. He doesn't have the same power as his brother, but he is the one who strikes the pivotal deal with Russia, and I think that moment in the movie was downplayed because Bobby wasn't made to be important enough. All of the actors overact a bit in their parts, and the fake Boston accents are pretty bad, particularly Kevin Costner's atrocious inconsistency in diction.The actual suspense factor for the audience is greatly lessened by the fact that this is historical; we know by virtue of the fact that we are sitting and watching the movie that nuclear war did not ensue. However, each scene does a good job of the "how" overcoming the "if" as the dramatic question of every given complication. It's not about "will nuclear war be avoided?", it's about "how can nuclear war be avoided?". This makes it a good lesson for how to prevent similar tragedies in today's world. A historical movie about nuclear war actually ensuing would make exponentially more money than Thirteen Days made, but it would lack the resilience of the human spirit that is on display here.In terms of the actual events, I see nothing blatantly inaccurate, but there was probably some manipulation of the time line of when everything happened. By this, I do not mean that events were shown out of order, that wouldn't make sense. Some of the more personal moments with Kenny and his family like when he gets called back to the White House five minutes after getting home and when he goes to his son's football game were probably contrived. This isn't really a problem or a bad choice by the writers, but I thought those scenes detracted from the overall movie. I think the writers did a good job making sure the characters addressed all sides of the very complex implications of the characters' actions. Whenever a decision had to be made, they had to factor in whether the press knew, how the military felt about it, how it made Kennedy look, how Russia and Cuba would respond, and whether it would weaken the US's diplomatic position. The periodic use of black and white seems to be done to imply that the movie is really historically accurate, but I don't think it worked well. Sometimes black and white scenes work like in Casino Royale or Memento, but here it just looked weird visually and was distracting.I would recommend this if you are willing to pay attention to dialogue and can follow a somewhat complicated plot pretty well. It's not a war movie and there is no real action, but if you like war movies this may appeal to you. If you just want to know more about the Cuban Missile Crisis, it's probably not a bad place to go if you don't want to do any hard core research. I would recommend not watching it in one sitting because it's pretty long and you may want to backtrack a couple times just to remember the exact situation. The pace is pretty good, but not enough that it will keep your attention for a straight 145 minutes. It's not a great work of cinema, but it's made with care and should engage you at least a little. Overall Rating: 7.5/10.

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

elshikh4 It's impossible not to relate between the date of the film's events, and the date of its production. The crises of the Russian missiles of 1962 and Kennedy's caution towards the idea of declaring a war against Cuba come to assure the smartness of the late leader, and expose – at the same time – the stupidity of other living leaders ! The spread lines, here and there in the film, about striking a little nation and turning it back to the Stone Age as something the people of that nation, along with the Americans themselves, don't deserve at all is not a matter far from any other American war on other little nations. The link is more than tangible. See how it prognosticates, or reads well, the American war on Iraq with the last line of "Let's broaden our influence in the middle east.", said by one of the white house's wicked exacts, particularly after the peaceful termination that the Cuban-American situation ended up to.Choosing (Roger Donaldson) to take over the director's chair was a bit disappointing, maybe for him and sure for us. Because he's that clever pure action thriller director (No Way Out, The Getaway, Dante's Peak, The Recruit) he was out of his area for nearly all the time. Save the moment of picturing the missiles by fast planes, which was done astonishingly, (Donaldson) was manacled by endless conversations in closed rooms. I think he got board in way got to us as well.(Donaldson) couldn't handle the script the smart way it did with the thrill. There is a cold sense all over it. Most of the scenes is TV-ish with executive mark (standing men, talking in the oval office). Resorting to black and white image sometimes didn't give it any deepness or singularity. Add to that, not going into anyone's life or background else the president's consultant (played by the film's star and producer Kevin Costner).Using stock footage, from old documentaries or films, that show the Marines getting ready for war wasn't for the film's sake. The quality of their image contradicted highly with the so modern quality of the film's image. Therefore they looked so inharmonic, unlike the intended. Strangely the 44-year-old Bruce Greenwood looked older than the 45-year-old John F. Kennedy, and uglier. Poor Greenwood was also eaten by the presence of Costner and the character that was given to him; despite how many historical sources state that Kenny O'Donnell had no role in the crisis, and that it was in fact Ted Sorensen who pulled the administration together.A producer proves that he or she is distinct and bold by being enthusiastic for the different thing. (Costner) produced Dances with Wolves (1990) with a story about the old west, acted in Red Indian language, and ran for 3 hours when it was usual to refuse only the first part ! Knowing the nature of (Thirteen Days), being anything like the epical, flashy and meant to entertain other films he produced, such as Wyatt Earp (1994), Waterworld (1995), The Postman (1997), you have to respect the role he played to make a project like this see the light. This time he gives quite a testimony about an American leader's wisdom and leaning to piece, once. Let alone that testimony's impeccable timing. OK, Costner is not only distinct and bold, he also has a conscience. That's something rare to find in a producer in Hollywood ! Couple of years before this film, precisely on October 31, 1998, Bill Clinton signed a law which instituted a policy of "regime change" against Iraq. Although it explicitly stated it did not speak to the use of American military forces, Clinton launched a four-day bombing campaign, lasting from December 16 to December 19, 1998. The rest can be watched through George W. Bush's presidency, when Iraq was invaded for false accusations of owning nuclear arms. So if Clinton, Bush, or Obama didn't make themselves, and the world, a favor by watching and understanding the film that took place in their presidential house, then let me hope that next presidents would. However, obviously lately, stupidity, greed, or simply the arms dealers, don't want any similar critical situation to end in just 13 days. Enough to say that the one who managed to do it, John Kennedy, was killed in the next year (ironically after 13 months of the crises' start !). All the American propaganda films is about "let's war", and "how we're good at it". This one is about "let's not war", and "how we can do it good", making rare propaganda for rationality over madness. It is a good film about giant event. Despite being a bit cinematically pale, its strength comes from its well-made sensitive drama. And its uniqueness comes from being the history lesson that nearly nobody wanted / wants to listen to.