Ebert & Roeper - Thirteen Days
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 лис 2019
- Both Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper gave the film Thirteen Days a thumbs up review although Roeper critiqued the role of Kevin Costner saying he was too big a star to play a supporting character and that the role of Kenny O'Donnell was over exaggerated. Every now and then I will play Thirteen Days in my U.S. History class since it is a compelling and accurate depiction of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Despite the positive reviews, the film was a major box office failure grossing $66.6 million against its $80 million budget.
- Фільми й анімація
Episode of The Sopranos. Someone brings up the Cuban Missile Crisis. Christopher remarks "Really? I thought that was just a movie." He was talking about this movie of course.
How a movie where the 90% of the plot are built around long and heavy dialogues can be so intense, powerful, moving, thrilling and exciting?
Thirteen Days is superb movie. See it.
R.I.P Ebert.
I hope to see the review of Vertical Limit, The 24 Hour Woman, Jawbreaker maybe even Office Space. Perhaps the Eddie Murphy film Bowfinger.
Its a nice companion piece to Oliver Stone's JFK. Its not 100% historically accurate, but what is, really? Its as close as it could at the time, and portrays the real danger of destruction at that time.
Well said!
JFK was pure fantasy.
@@grf15 Yeah, its a FANTAStic movie, I agree!
McNamara saw the movie and said it was good enough as a historical primer.
JFK was a well made movie was almost total fiction.
Thirteen Days is a good movie.
Phenomenal movie, so good it actually survived Costners horrific Boston accent. Since the movie already took a huge liberty by making Ken O’Donnell such a pivotal member of JFKs cabinet, they should’ve rewritten him as a native Chicago guy who moved to Boston. That way we wouldn’t have the unintentional comedy of Costner saying things like “this is yawr repowwwt cahhhd!”
Ebert was wrong on the date. It was October of 1962, not November.
Roeper is Wrong. Costner was fantastic in this movie so were Greenwood as JFK and Stephen Culp as Bobby Kennedy this had a great cast every actor was perfect for their part.
Costner didn't overshadow jfk and rfk at all.
Did he say November? Really?
roeper always on target
Roeder makes no sense with that argument
"It would have been better without Kevin Costner in it." Richard Roeper was right. The performances of Bruce Greenwood and Stephen Culp were both superlative. Greenwood's Boston accent was remarkably subtle. Culp's interpretation of Robert Kennedy was downright ghostly. Unfortunately, the film exaggerated the role of Kenny O'Donnell, a political aide who carried no weight in the making of foreign policy. I won't even go into Costner's performance.
Greenwood and Culp weren’t big name actors. To get financing for a movie, you often need a big name actor attached, which is no doubt why Costner is present. Roeper is right in that Costner is a distraction. But that’s by design. The filmmakers don’t want you to watch the movie in the eyes of the Kennedys, but rather as an observer who’s in the room with them. Take Costner out and the movie starts to feel like a documentary.
Costner even now is very intrigued about Kennedy, as a result of his role in JFK.