Chris Hemsworth Rides a Horse into War in First Trailer for '12 Strong'

October 19, 2017
Source: USA Today

12 Strong Trailer

"There's no playbook here…" Warner Bros has unveiled the first trailer for their movie called 12 Strong, formerly known as Horse Soldiers. The full title (which explains the plot) is: 12 Strong: The Declassified True Story Of The Horse Soldiers. It's about a team of Special Forces soldiers sent into Afghanistan at the beginning of the war after 9/11. They end up working with a local Afghani warlord in order to take down the Taliban, riding horses into battle (like they used to do hundreds of years ago). Chris Hemsworth stars, along with an ensemble cast including Taylor Sheridan, Michael Shannon, Austin Stowell, Michael Peña, Geoff Stults, and Elsa Pataky. This looks like pretty much every other modern war movie, but with a twist, though it's still about good ole American soldiers risking their lives to keep the country safe & free.

Here's the first official trailer for Nicolai Fuglsig's 12 Strong, originally embedded from USA Today:

12 Strong Movie

12 Strong Movie

12 Strong Movie

12 Strong tells the story of the first Special Forces team deployed to Afghanistan after 9/11; under the leadership of a new captain, the team must work with an Afghani warlord to take down the Taliban. 12 Strong, originally titled Horse Soldiers, is directed by Danish filmmaker Nicolai Fuglsig, of only one other film titled Exfil previously; he graduated from the Danish School of Journalism. The screenplay is written by Peter Craig and Ted Tally; adapted from Doug Stanton's book Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan. Warner Bros will release Fuglsig's 12 Strong in theaters everywhere starting January 19th, 2018 early next year. So who's interested in seeing this one?

Find more posts: To Watch, Trailer



Looks really good and its a true story, I'm in.

SteadyEddieTX on Oct 19, 2017


Patriotism in its true repulsiveness. But I guess, that can be still a way in 21st century to make a career ...

shiboleth on Oct 19, 2017


united states suffers a terrible terrorist attack - and responds against is that "Patriotism in its true repulsiveness"?

dan on Oct 19, 2017


Well, in so many ways, Choose one, there are thousands of them. Of course, if you don't know any of them, then you just have nothing to say about the whole thing. And I wasn't really referring to US, but to patriotism generally. It is repulsive everywhere ...

shiboleth on Oct 20, 2017


Patriotism isn't repulsive. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being proud of your country. You might not agree with Afghanistan but to make a blanket statement that patriotism is repulsive, is a little strong.

Payne by name on Oct 20, 2017


It definitely is a strong statement. But it was meant to be also strong, although it has broader meaning, as historically reactionist sentiment about political societies we mostly live in. I am not proud of any country, especially not mine, but I am proud of many people. All people simply are not patriots and that's something which isn't visible and understandable to many.

shiboleth on Oct 20, 2017


"thousands of them"........????? again - name ONE. or is your reading comprehension that bad as to not understand the question? btw - call me crazy; but, when you use the "patriotism" phrase to refer to a movie about the US, it seems very obvious you're talking about US patriotism (and not patriotism, in general). I mean, it isn't like you'd be discussing Ugandan patriotism - right?

dan on Oct 20, 2017


Wrong, I wasn't thinking about any particular patriotism although I did take example from this trailer, which is obviously American, as a pretext to say that patriotism is repulsive in general, regardless any country. But, to be fair, the most repulsive patriotism is patriotism of my country, Croatian one, but it also renders repulsiveness of patriotism as such. And yes, on this thread there are many reasons why patriotism is repulsive. All you have to do is to read them .

shiboleth on Oct 20, 2017


I don't think patriotism is a bad thing as long as it's not taken to extremes or looked at with blinders on. thanks for the nice reply.

dan on Oct 20, 2017


Well, everybody is not a patriot and those that are not don't think good of it. Simple as that. But of course, there's the other side. Non-patriots do understand that there are patriots, but that rarely works with the opposite situation. To each its own, I guess ...

shiboleth on Oct 21, 2017


The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was pre-planned before 911. Everyone now knows it was the Saudi's who were behind the attack, but still the US and the UK sells them arms, it's a weird world.

Carpola on Oct 20, 2017


well, if we're going to talk the dirty goings-on of the world, there are no innocent govts out there - every single one of them (US included) has some sort of shady goings on. but I hope you aren't suggesting the US shouldn't have responded to the 9/11 attack . and you nailed it when you said it's a weird world - it certainly is!

dan on Oct 20, 2017


The invasion of Afghanistan was pre-planned before 9/11, it's pretty common knowledge now. I think they just used the attacks to get everyone behind the idea. It's just weird that an overwhelming percentage of the attackers were Saudi, but somehow they ended up in Afghanistan fighting a group of people trained by the CIA. What I feel movies like this do is show a small victory in an unwinnable war. Just as long as there's enough stability for people to profit from the oil flow, I really don't think anyone cares. I live in the UK, we've sold arms to everyone, our last Prime Minister wouldn't even say anything about the Saudi's beheading people, just kept selling them weapons.

Carpola on Oct 21, 2017


Jerry Bruckheimer...We are the best of the best! Yes Sir! Or how to make robot soldiers.

tarek on Oct 19, 2017


A bit dramatized, but seems to be a cool story of what these guys do VOLUNTARILY for their country and fellow countrymen. Solid cast too.

THE_RAW_ on Oct 19, 2017


Which is weird, because their country is thousands miles away... ;D They create chaos, and then send soldiers to die for their nasty hidden agenda.

tarek on Oct 19, 2017


what, exactly, is this "nasty hidden agenda" that you refer to? I'm curious as to what you think it is. edit - btw, Germany is several thousand miles away - I'm guessing from your comments you that you think US was wrong to step into WWII as well? not sure though, since your comment is so vague.

dan on Oct 19, 2017


Because its hip and trendy to attack war films as propaganda, with such remarks as 'hidden agenda'. I'm not American or a US supporter, but still find such comments as poor taste and low.

Lewis on Oct 20, 2017


agreed. I think it looks like a good movie. and I'm not looking at it with any type of political slant. I like the cast and the action looks solid. thanks for the level-headed reply!

dan on Oct 20, 2017


nasty hidden agendas mean $$$$. You think it was a mistake USA supported Talibans and financed their ascension to power and then discovered they were ugly people? You think USA made a mistake when it supported dictatorship regimes like Saddam and then ended up fighting him ? Do you think USA made a mistake when it supported Rebels in Syria ( whom part of them became ISIS) and then decided they were bad people? Do you think USA made a mistake when...Just name it. Wake up Neo.

tarek on Oct 20, 2017


ooooh - you're a conspiracy theorist. everything is explained. I won't bother you anymore.

dan on Oct 20, 2017


Nope. I'm just someone who uses his brain. You should try someday.

tarek on Oct 20, 2017


no. you're a conspiracy theorist - and a nutjob. I kind of figured where this would go when I went down this rabbit hole with you and bo. I come to this site (most of the time) just to read your (and bo) bizarre and hilarious comments. you 2 should re-read your comments - you both come across like a couple of kooks. keep those eyes spinning counter-clockwise tarek and don't let that tinfoil hat fall off your head......LOL

dan on Oct 20, 2017


It's always reassuring for some people to think that their governments are nice persons who are working hard to make the world safer. It's called denial. I won't blame you for that. Wish I were blessed by your naivety. I'll sleep better.

tarek on Oct 21, 2017


Do you think it would be a better world if the USA didn't become involve in the wider world? Do you think the world is black and white? Do you think the USA wouldn't need to make deals with dangerous people in a world that is in truth grey, or more likely subtle shades of brown. Wake up tin foil hat man.

Lewis on Oct 21, 2017


The world is grey indeed. In fact its colorful. But those who rule it from behind the curtain see in black and white. They Create the problem and then convince you that they can fix it. Chaos is not a pit. It's a ladder...

tarek on Oct 21, 2017


Colourful - very true, there are some great parts to it. Sorry, but don't believe in some hidden cabal ruling behind the curtain. People talk of elite groups as though privy to secret knowledge and the like, but they are as human as the rest of us and prone to gossip. The majority of conspiracy theories are like mans need to have religion, to justify something they can't understand.

Lewis on Oct 21, 2017


Wish I could share with you your optimism. But all the readings I am doing tell me the contrary. Or how do you explain this: BinLadin was Saudi ( and worked for the CIA). the dudes who were (allegedly) behind the 911 were Saudi. Saudi Arabia was and is still supporting many ji-ha-di groups and is ruled by archaic and dictatorship regime. So, how do you explain that they were never concerned by the Exec. Order 13.769 or by any other diplomatic pressure, knowing that the USA litteraly destroyed Iraq ( with the help of Saudi Arabia) to "instaure" democracy? Because...And because...and because. See. No conspiracy theory here. Just facts.

tarek on Oct 21, 2017


Wish I could share with you your optimism. But all the readings I am doing tell me the contrary. Or how do you explain this: "censored name" was Saudi ( and worked for the "See I A"). the dudes who were (allegedly) behind the nine eleven were Saudi. Saudi Arabia was and is still supporting many radical groups and is ruled by archaic and dictatorship regime. So, how do you explain that they were never concerned by the Exec. Order 13.769 or by any other diplomatic pressure, knowing that the USA litteraly destroyed Iraq ( with the help of Saudi Arabia) to "instaure" democracy? Because...And because...and because. See. No conspiracy theory here. Just facts.

tarek on Oct 21, 2017


Well for starters it depends on if what you are reading are actual facts, or simply another misinformation site. Which seem to me to be just as bad as certain news outlets that are bias on political parties. In regard to Saudi Arabia I would imagine they simply don't have full control of their own country and the USA isn't going to go to war with them simply because of money and oil. Unless the state was an overt threat, there would be no way of a confrontation. There is simply to much trade, mainly arms, between the west and the Middle East (fully aware that the UK is top of that list for dealings). Money makes the world go round, that's not a hidden agenda but the truth. People moan about the war, but oil prices are relatively low, they might well be higher if Saddam was still in power. Then of course people would moan about the price of fuel.

Lewis on Oct 21, 2017


this was right after 9/11. do you REALLY think these guys didn't have any idea as to why they were out there (and possibly might die)???????????

dan on Oct 19, 2017


right after 9/ you REALLY think these guys had no idea why they were there (and could possibly die)? the US was attacked by terrorists and had to respond. this movie is based on a true story of that first response. how to you get "another 'rah rah rah..go America...America's great...rah rah rah!" out of it. it's just telling about an event that actually happened.

dan on Oct 20, 2017


Th US was attacked because when you piss in the wind, you end up being soaked by your own piss. Piss or Love? You have to choose.

tarek on Oct 20, 2017


so, you're saying those people in the towers deserved to die ?brilliant thinking.

dan on Oct 20, 2017


Nope. I am saying those who are to blame are those who created those terrorists. It's not rocket science what I am saying.

tarek on Oct 20, 2017


i do agree you're thinking is DEFINITELY not rocket science.

dan on Oct 20, 2017



tarek on Oct 21, 2017


What has any of this got to do with a film? If anything the film company is using patriotism to generate money, there is no hidden agenda other than to make money. I thought this was a site to do discuss films, not political agendas......

Lewis on Oct 21, 2017


This is not just a story. When you spread a disease and then come to sell me a cure, do you think I should trust you? ;D

tarek on Oct 21, 2017


Its a story, no more or less than Black Hawk Down.

Lewis on Oct 21, 2017


bo, since you seem to have short term memory - here is what you wrote: "Go die for your country just because that's what you're supposed to do without any thought of why you're dying for it" - end quote. there is no missing the point and I'd love for you to answer my initial question. and, I have no like or dislike for your "rah rah" nonsense. my perceptions are in no way "distorted". I read your comment and I'm just trying to figure out what you're babbling about because it doesn't make any sense. it's a MOVIE - NOT a propaganda film. finally, you like tareks comment below? so, you think a trite cliché is a perfect explanation for a terrorist attack that killed thousands? how immature.

dan on Oct 20, 2017


Its just a film.... Indeed the producers are using patriotism to generate a cashflow, but that's about it. There is no hidden agenda. Plus what is wrong with using patriotism to make money? I'm a Brit, where our support for troops is somewhat lacking, so I'm interested to know why its deemed so wrong.

Lewis on Oct 21, 2017


While I'm sure this will be politicised and critiqued, I loved Black Hawk Down. I'll watch this.

Fixed Flight Films on Oct 20, 2017


Did they go straight to Saudi Arabia? Did they fuck. Secure the oil boys. Secure the oil.

Carpola on Oct 19, 2017


I usually like your comments. but, what does "secure the oil"; "saudia Arabia"; and the question "did they fuck" have to do with the US response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

dan on Oct 20, 2017


Pena's gotta have a dozen of these roles in the bag already...

DAVIDPD on Oct 19, 2017


Shocking that the majority of the comments on this thread are political and not about the film itself, which with a strong cast and a true story looks quite solid. In regard to a "hidden agenda"......I don't recall Saving Private Ryan having such comments, and to be honest its a bit tired and I hope the mods do something to keep discussion on the movies themselves.

Lewis on Oct 21, 2017


You have to forgive us Lewis. We need our shot of politics every now and then. ;D Just for your information, Sniper and 13 hours induced the same debate. Men are thinking animals. Entertaining is good and healthy, as long as it doesn't try to manipulate the masses. We have to stay vigilant. Oh, and please don't ask for some censorship, as long as the discussion is respectuous. we are grown men here.

tarek on Oct 21, 2017


I could understand the points more concerning American Sniper, which is extremely pro-american. Something like 13 Hours though is more like Lone Survivor or Black Hawk Down, in that while there will be elements of pro-USA its not overtly pushed into the story. The story should come first and I would agree that its not always the case, but its a bit early to be hateful on a film when the trailer shows on very basic elements of pro-USA. Yes it mentions 911, but its story of the team that was used because of those events. Grown men can also be very childish from what I can tell by some of the petty comments on the boards. I'm not from the USA, but a Brit. I don't understand the US position on guns or involvement in certain parts of the world, nor do I support Trump. However, on another thread on a different film I saw a comment along the lines of at least its not an American made film. That's just sad.

Lewis on Oct 21, 2017


Oh come on, this film can be read as political propaganda which makes it also a political statement. Why would comments be more naive than that? And saying that film has the political message is also talking about the film ...

shiboleth on Oct 21, 2017


You see it as a political propaganda film? wow.......

Lewis on Oct 21, 2017


Well, if you are not aware of propaganda in it, don't worry, Jerry Bruckheimer is. You can remain an ignorant child ...

shiboleth on Oct 22, 2017


What's with the insults? Should I call you a tin-hat in response? It has elements of pro-USA patriotism, just like any other war film focused on US forces, though it remains to be seen at what level. The upcoming film on the Iranian Siege in London will be pro-conservative and UK forces. Being pro-whatever doesn't make it a bad thing unless is widely off the mark of the story. You've seen a trailer, nothing more, yet your as judgmental as those you have a go at.

Lewis on Oct 22, 2017


First of all, I wasn't meaning to insult you. In that respect, I can even offer you an apology. But I do think that your ignorance of propaganda in films is insulting. And not just yours. Just because you like going blind when propaganda is present in film is your choice, it doesn't mean that it works the same way for others. So, being judgmental is also having an attitude. I do absolutely support your refusing to have any. In your view, that might be just insulting. Really, don't get insulted, that's not my intention...

shiboleth on Oct 22, 2017


Thank you for a well thought out reply. I wouldn't say I was totally blind to a measure of propaganda in films, see plenty in the way the news is reported as well. However, I do believe the vast majority of film are out to simply generate money. Now admittedly the studios are going to be more receptive to films they lean towards politically, but again its the generation of money that the primary concern. Take this new war film, like most US war films it panders towards the US, simply because its the largest domestic market I would imagine. Now as a Brit sometimes its quite insulting to see history re-written so that the US won WW2 all on its own (not that I don't recognise the importance of its involvement). However, to alter true stories for a US spin is still in poor taste to those that served. I still think its a bit judgemental to attack a trailer, that to be honest might be showing the most elements of US patriotism simply to generate interest mainly in the US market.

Lewis on Oct 22, 2017


Same here, thank you for your thought out reply too. I do pretty much agree with many things you said (the money part especially). But I would also extend one side of your argument to another. Namely, it's not just that WWII serves as some pretext to overemphasize US involvement in that war through films. They are doing it here, too, with this film (and elsewhere). In my view, since I am from the Eastern Europe, they are acting like spoiled East European countries with their nationalism when it comes to patriotism. Anyway, this is good point from you, one I can relate with. But to be honest, making more critical films (And we need to wait to see if that's going to happen here, with this one. Although, with Jerry Bruckheimer behind the project, this is highly unlikely) would be also some kind of propaganda too. But it would more honest one, more open to thinking things through. And yes, let the patriotism be in the films (a lot of people is infused by it), but in American (and not only in their films) it is also mostly very one-sided rendering of it, so other perspectives are needed, too. And yes, I do think it's dishonest to use patriotism to, as you say, generate interest in the US (or any) market. Of course, patriotism and sex sell, but I can hardly find and endorse a rationalization for it ...

shiboleth on Oct 22, 2017


I agree other perspectives are needed, but the film industries is mainly US led and until other countries support their film-makers more its going to remain that way. Dunkirk for example I believe was only remade to due to Nolan's box-office draw. With regret I agree patriotism and sex do sell, and people will always take advantage of it. They may be immoral to do so, but then so is the general public that are lapping it up. This isn't a hidden agenda as some appear to think the world is governed, but simply the primal need to have power in the form of wealth by appealing to our basic primal needs in selling what the masses desire.

Lewis on Oct 22, 2017


Of course, it's hard not to agree with this things said in your post, but also to add that one should not accept those things without stating something alternative. Films like American ones tend to obliterate such perspectives. Which brings us back to the arguments already stated. And just to add, I'm glad someone stated the obvious about the Nolan's Dunkirk. Stay good, Lewis ...

shiboleth on Oct 22, 2017

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram