IMDb > Ocean's Thirteen (2007) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Ocean's Thirteen
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Ocean's Thirteen More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 29:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 281 reviews in total 

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

I didn't get it

6/10
Author: Dusty White from United States
24 June 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really liked O. 11, and even 12, and of course what's not to like about Brad Pitt and George Clooney leading around a small parade of excellent actors. The jokes were funny, everyone was handsome, blah, blah, blah.

but where was the plot? I must have seen a different cut than all of the sycophants rabidly howling how this movie is the second coming. It seemed like one long 2 hour inside joke. The special effects were great and all that, but really, the whole thing seemed rushed. The set up happens and then the rest of the movie is action.

Spoiler ahead: For example. Was it not just a bit contrived that there should be a huge tunnel digging machine that just happened to be digging a tunnel under the very casino they were going to hit? And when it broke, thy got ANOTHER ONE in 3 minutes? And no one seemed to notice this? I have lived in Las Vegas and you just don't fly a 300 ton tunnel-making machine into McCarren (airport) and the city officials don't blink an eye, much less it not making the news, Al Pacino being informed by any of HIS (casino oriented) sycophants.

I really wanted to like this movie a lot more than I did. I will probably go spend another $12 to see it a second time to see if it makes any more sense, but it just comes across as far too rushed and convenient. But that has been the curse of movies with too many celebrities in them - even the ones I like the most.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Why make it in the first place??

2/10
Author: vinniejo from India
25 October 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've never been a fan of the Ocean's series. I saw Ocean's 11 & found it to be a drab affair without a good script .George Clooney was the only guy who held that movie together. This is why I chose to avoid Ocean's 12. But when Ocean's 13 was about to release, I was really excited because it had Al Pacino in it. Alas! Even he could not save this movie.

It was another movie which involved robbery of a Casino. I don't know as to where to begin with while criticizing the movie. Its script was shabby & all over the place with a number of loopholes. Why was it such a big deal that Rueben was kicked out by Willie Bank? Why Ellen Barkin was portrayed as a gullible secretary of Willie Bank? The ideas given by Matt Damon were ridiculous to say the least. The earthquake thing was simply not digestible. The way the Chinese guy entered the hotel, it made the entire hotel staff look stupid. The dialogues & one-liners were all drab & out of place. The whole concept of changing the dies & manipulating the gambling results was too far fetched. The pace of the movie was lightening fast & so it was difficult to catch up with it. The technological & gizmo jargon could be understood only by rocket scientists. Needless to say Al Pacino was completely wasted.

The direction by Steven Soderbergh was clumsy. Most of the actors were wooden faced and the whole thing just couldn't come alive at any point of time. It looked as if the actors were all directing themselves.

I just fail to understand the logic of remaking such a pathetic series. Why would top actors in Hollywood join hands to create one disaster of a flick? Not once, not twice, but three times in a row.

It's high time that this series is brought to an end for the benefit of all the movie-goers around the world.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Third part with the same group and again with suspense,thriller and intelligent twists

6/10
Author: ma-cortes from Santander Spain
14 June 2007

Again the Danny Ocean bunch with the biggest heist of all . Reuben (Elliot Gould) suffers a heart attack for a treason and as revenge Danny Ocean pull off a plan introducing the schemes for a new robbery venture and gathering the eclectic group for a new caper . This time , Benedict (Andy Garcia) agrees with Ocean backed by his motley gang to execute it , the group is the same people (Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, Scott Cahan, Bernie Mac, Casey Affleck , Carl Reiner, Qin) . Their objective is the ambitious Willie Bank (Al Pacino), owner of a luxurious Las Vegas hotel . He turns out their victim along with the hot woman manager (Ellen Barkin) . The crew back in action , in the inauguration day . They blew all the light , shutting off the electrify and provoke an earthquake on the hotel . The thirteen men team headed by mastermind George Clooney attempting to rob the game-table , jackpots from hotel casino proprietary of mogul Pacino , executing simultaneously . We never met a band like Ocean's thirteen . This rendition gets one of the greatest entertainment of the trilogy .

This thrilling as well as hilarious heist film displays from the beginning to the ending , comedy , suspense , plot twists along with limited action of varied manner . There appears special cameo by Oprah Winfrey , Julian Sands and Jerry Weintraub , he's trilogy's producer . The film contains an intelligent screenplay and ,of course, outstanding final surprise . The comic relief being developed during the amusing relationship between the several and motley characters and their jokes among them . Atmospheric musical score by habitual saga , David Holmes . Colorful cinematography though sometimes some dark about interior scenarios photographed by the same , as usual, Soderbergh . This is a funny and stylish following ,being well directed by Steven Soderbergh .

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

An Excuse to Hang Out in Vegas

6/10
Author: Quicksand from United States
10 June 2007

It's been about 48 hours now since I saw "Ocean's Thirteen." I saw it with a group of people (the only way to see a movie), and the movie took so long to get going, I really got the impression that my friends were hating it. The theater didn't laugh very often, I laughed less, and when the lights came up, my friends told me what a good movie it was. "Definitely better than the second," they said.

I disagreed, but it took me a while to figure out why. "O13" isn't bad, per se, and I didn't really hate it while I was watching it, though it did take a while for it to get going. I think, ultimately, the reason the first movie was so good, was because it was fun, funny, and witty, but still knew the difference between "when to be funny" and "when to not be funny." Andy Garcia's character was dangerous, and treated as such. The situations were potentially dangerous, and you got the sense of real peril for the characters. You knew what was at stake. It was a real movie, and just as good on repeat viewings, due to a really original and fresh approach (as well as some great one-liners).

The second movie wasn't reviewed nearly as well, and having watched it again since, it's really not bad either, except for the huge and sudden changes in tone throughout, as well as the fact that it pulls the last 10 minutes out of its rear end. It was originally written as a different movie, then re-tooled for the "Ocean's" cast, and you can kinda tell; it's darker, tries to be more clever than it actually is, and as a result, is a lot less fun.

Whatever strengths the first two movies may or may not have had, the third is lacking them all, except the actors. Everyone from Clooney on down, including Pacino, Vincent Cassel and Eddie Izzard, all bring their A-game, and are pleasant to watch. But the plot is minimal; whether there was a screenplay or not (and there was, from the writers of "Rounders"), you still get the impression that this is just an excuse for buddies to hang out in Vegas and shoot a movie, a la "Blue in the Face" back in the mid-1990's. No one has to do any heavy lifting, and the only actors who even try are the bickering brothers of Casey Affleck and Scott Caan, and of course Pacino, though he could be phoning it in too, and you'd never know it.

Whether you're a movie fanatic or not, the three films can still be summed up by their opening shots. In the first film, cut to: a chair. Clooney sits down in it. The movie itself is really about him, and what makes his Danny Ocean tick, not just before, but during, and after the action. In the second film, cut to: a magnifying glass. Brad Pitt walks into a room, and the next 100 minutes is a closer look at Rusty's life and his relationship with the woman he wakes up in that first scene. Third film? Cut to: a toy store. Yeah, that sounds about right. Soderbergh ain't so dumb.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Sexual Editing

Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach
17 June 2007

Is this the most valuable franchise in film? Will it last for a decade?

I like Soderbergh. I even like him when he has no goal in the world but making money through simple entertaining.

I like him because he actually thinks about film. About the bullets the towels. The phrases and melodies.

Superficially, this has two overt components. One is the well established con form. The strict version is that we don't fully understand what is going on and "see" it only at the end. Then it all makes sense. This is a weaker version where we see some of the plotting and problems. This is where the jokes are.

The second overt component is simply coolness. Its the sort of coolness that Apple-inspired ad editing has given us, in opposition to the heavy rap-gangster intimidation-coolness of the last great sales cycle. This is referenced within the movie with a bit about an all American black jumper (with a Jewelled flag on his teeth). Its colorful, fast. The pace is translucent with the music. Vegas Cellophane. The actors are cool. Even Matt Damon, who knows cool, plays uncool with coolness.

But its the technique here that impresses. Shots have shape and how those shapes are modulated (as they usually are not) and then assembled with those shapes forming new ones, is a matter of unique style with this filmmaker. Look at how fertile soft ends are punctured by sharp beginnings so that the very passage of time in the eye here is a matter of conceptual copulation.

Look at how many shots end on one of those colored artificial flavors and create a romantic movie at the atomic level as if a John Coltrane was compressing a thousand easy ballads into a few moments. This takes knowledge and the filmmaker has to actually operate the camera to pull this off. It was in his "Limey" and not in the other Ocean's.

And it takes an editor who knows. The best editor was found fresh off "Babel" which among other variations, had the three segments vary on shotshape assembly. This matters. This is a five diamond film, yes?

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

Trash!!

1/10
Author: simon_van_der_kruk from Netherlands, Zoetermeer
25 June 2007

Last Friday I went out with a friend of mine. He fall asleep. I was watching the movie and thought: 'Can anybody tell me what is this about?' The characters were like robots, there happened nothing. Nothing to laugh, nothing to cry, no tension at all. The movie was boring. The clichés could be thought by a child. The hotel ranking man couldn't entertain me at all. Unbelievable that a top actor like Al Pacino decided to cooperate with such a bad movie. He can perform much better. Hollywood, please stop this awful Ocean's experiment, go and make exiting movies please!! Make thrilling movies that make you sit at the point of your chair!

Was the above review useful to you?

35 out of 67 people found the following review useful:

Good film, good film.

7/10
Author: freaky28962 from United Kingdom
8 June 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Just got back from from watching this and I'd have to say it's probably the best film I've seen in about six months. It definitely cheered me up after that disappointing Spiderman sequel. Don't get me wrong Ocean's 13 is not quite as good as 11 but it's still a good watch (Big improvement on the second one). The absence of Catherine Zeta Jones and Julia Roberts was a bit of a surprise, but I doubt their presence would have improved the film greatly. The addition of the great Al Pacino was definitely a big positive and as usual he played his role well and brought a lot to the film. The action sequence were well done, there are quite a few funny segments in the film involving some pretty hilarious disguises. The camera work and techniques are excellent. The story was a big improvement on O-12 but I agree with what I read in another review, that it definitely lacked the suspense of the first one. Nothing really happened where the whole plan went to cock and they had to quickly come up with an even more ingenious plan or else all was doomed. It was more like, oh no somethings broken, what do we do? I know, lets buy a replacement, Phew! Apart from that, everyone played their roles fantastically, with the exception of maybe Eddie Izzard who I think was a little off character, which I found disappointing because I really enjoyed his short part in the O-12. In summary I'd say; Room for improvement, still a really good film, definitely worth the price of admission.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Could've Used Work

6/10
Author: rmwaal from United States
17 June 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I like heist movies, but this one was not my cup of tea to be dead honest. The acting and style was good, but the plot was just way too complicated for it's own good. The actors spend literally 40% of the movie on screen talking about hacking computers and missions that they plan to accomplish to destroy the casino, but due to the heavy "heist speak" I had no idea what any of the significance was throughout a large portion of the movie. The ending was also not clever and un-eventful. Of course they'll ruin Al Pacino's casino, but the way they do it could've been a whole lot more interesting. This is just a supreme disappointment. A good rental, but nothing special that you'll remember a year from now.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Potemkin's town, NV

4/10
Author: ddr_sparwasser from Switzerland
16 June 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A friend of mine dragged me into the theater and had me watch this movie (the first & last one of the series I hope).

It all seemed staged. The actors all read their lines smoothly but without showing any emotions. The plot seems about as real as Las Vegas.

SPOILER ALERT: As an "exit strategy", they manage to haul a tunnel boring machine from France to Nevada (how they managed this remains as unclear as many other things in the film). Instead of makings billions with a powerful pheromone, the bunch decides to make millions by enchanting poor Ellen Barkin to have her guard down, while stealing her boss's diamonds. Instead of opening a language school (for unknown reasons they all speak and understand Chinese; probably a marketing trick for the Chinese market), they have a Chinese actor (to call him a character would be a exaggeration) climb around and do stuff I really didn't care about.

I never got my own exit strategy right: leaving early…

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Sucks

1/10
Author: DavidBrent22 from United Kingdom
25 August 2008

The other 2 oceans films were at least good to watch but this movie is a real stinker. NOTHING HAPPENS It's just like watching Brad Pitt and George Clooney hold a conversation for 2 hours. I was nodding off while watching this movie and the few times i looked back at the screen it was just more people in suits talking to each other. This movie will depress you and make you feel like pulling your hair out begging the director to please show something interesting. The other actors in this film do all the same thing as the 3 main actors just talking and smiling. this movie is really a waste of time and if you like it then you do not no what a good film is.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 2 of 29:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history