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

Page 2 of 28:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

10 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Gone..., 23 June 2007

Author: jpschapira from Argentina

When I visited the Warner Studios in Los Angeles last year, my family and me had a tour; the guide was explaining to us that most of the stages, at that time, were being used for the movie "Ocean's 13". I recognized the Bank Casino in the film; I saw it when they were constructing it. My point is that if they were using all these stages for one movie, it involved big money, big production. Was all of this money unnecessarily spent? No, because they're getting it back with interests.

However, "Ocean's 13" is, by all means, an unnecessary film. We keep getting all these sequels (there are more coming, don't count them) and it's hard to see one doing things right. At least this Ocean travesty is not the embarrassment that was "Mission Impossible 3", but it's too much for Soderbergh, Clooney, Pitt, Damon and the guys; they've taken it too far.

I invited a friend to watch the film and he said he didn't want to because he hadn't seen the first two. Well, you don't really need to watch the first two installments to watch this one, if you date to plan to. You see? The only connection between the three pictures is the cast, the director and David Holmes' entertaining and very loud score. The three films were written by different people and involve one or more big heists that develop throughout the piece; you don't need to be a genius to write something funny and the effort is less if persons like a relaxed Clooney, Pitt and Pacino (what a waste) are saying your lines.

The formula worked well in the first two movies. A lot of people didn't like "Ocean's 12" because they said it didn't take itself seriously, and because it used Julia Roberts as herself for a very funny scene. The truth is that "Ocean's 11" didn't take itself seriously either; it was just Soberbergh and his actors having fun. And the fact that they wanted to travel to Europe and that they invented a plot line to pull the second film off there is so joyful; because cinema can be about having fun and that's the formula these guys chose: slick fun.

But when "Ocean's 13" begins, you can sense something's missing; it's the fun. Maybe it's because the script takes itself too seriously, maybe because it tries to be funny at the same time, or because the actors are not feeling their characters any longer. Maybe the whole movie takes itself seriously (which I doubt), but that naturalness and coziness I mentioned is gone; and the film just doesn't flow.

Fortunately, Soderbergh's camera is still a highlight, filling the piece with complex and riveting shots, and the old pros Carl Reiner and Elliott Gould have a blast; but Casey Affleck's Spanish speaking and an entire Mexican plot line is completely out of place. Let's just hope the honorable Soderbergh doesn't get the team back for a fourth round: it's not working anymore.

One more thing: there's a character played by David Paymer...It must be one of the most unfortunate characters in movie history...Watch and tell me if I'm wrong.

12 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Just saw this today - My summary, 8 June 2007

Author: Sreyas S S from India

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Just came back from the theatre, well... well

First impression: Tricks and cons too complicated for their own good, some fun is lost as a result.

Feel: Has the feel of both 11 & 12.

Locations, camera work, linear structure of story, focus of film clearly being on the incredible job they need to pull off - all these aspects make this look like 11.

But the stars' in-jokes, nonchalance of the characters, sense of humour, almost too much style and class - all these aspects make it similar to 12.

Another thing to note - Soderbergh has NOT experimented too much here with camera-work and other technical aspects. So fans of Soderbergh may feel disappointed because it is his experimentation that sets him apart from the regular directors. This is closer to a regular heist film with loads of comedy mostly in the form of the banter and reactions of the actors.

Music: Definite low, not as good as 11 and not half as good as 12.

The artwork and sets are amazing in this film. Possibly, you can see the film for this one reason alone. This is one area where everyone will give 10/10 I think.

Pace is quick. But you will have a hard time understanding how exactly they are rigging all those machines with all those gadgets, complicated as I said before. As a result, you don't really exult at the climax because you are not quite sure of all the details of how they did it.

Make no mistake, Las Vegas is a main character in the movie. This is a movie about Vegas.

And ya... Ellen Barkin is hotter than I thought, her scene with Matt Damon makes you long for more.

All in all, definitely good... but may just require a second viewing BECAUSE THIS IS ONE FILM WHERE TOO MUCH IS GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME

David Paymer, Al Pacino, Carl Reiner, Andy Garcia, Vincent Cassell, Ellen Barkin, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, Scott Caan - all great performances especially Garcia and Carl Reiner

Clooney - okay

Brad Pitt - could've done better

FINALLY: Ocean's Thirteen is different in its style from both 11 and 12. It may have features from both but it has to be treated as a standalone film and not your regular sequel. Don't go expecting either 11 or 12. And of course, fans of the series will surely like this.

Hope I have summed up without giving too much away. Hope this helps the neutral viewers decide if they are going to see this or not.

36 out of 68 people found the following review useful:
Good film, good film., 8 June 2007

Author: freaky28962 from United Kingdom

*** 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.

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
I didn't get it, 24 June 2007

Author: Dusty White from United States

*** 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.

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Why make it in the first place??, 25 October 2007

Author: vinniejo from India

*** 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.

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Could've Used Work, 17 June 2007

Author: rmwaal from United States

*** 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.

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
This Is The Worst Out Of The Ocean Series!, 11 September 2009

Author: AmericanPsycho2013 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is terrible. I have no idea why the actors chose to do Ocean's Thirteen. I remember seeing it online for free about a year ago. I guess after making Ocean's Eleven and Ocean's Twelve, they would make more money with this one as well. Well, they were wrong.

Danny Ocean and his gang are at it again. This time, to rob a hotel and casino owner. Why? They caused one of their members Saul to have a heart attack. Now they want revenge. It's a stupid reason to rob someone.

Most of the time, they just stand around and talk. Even if something does happen, it isn't suspenseful in the slightest. The actors didn't even try to act in this one. They looked like they were bored and wished the series would just die.

Al Pacino was in this. That was the only reason I saw it. Even Al Pacino can't save this film. He is terrible in it. Al Pacino has had a long list of great movies. Unfortunately, he made a BAD choice for starring in this. This is not his style.

Overall, the movie is boring, there aren't any funny lines anymore, there is nothing suspenseful, etc. The whole movie is bad.

I give this 1 star out of 10. Get Ocean's Eleven and Ocean's Twelve and just watch those again instead of this.

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Potemkin's town, NV, 16 June 2007

Author: ddr_sparwasser from Switzerland

*** 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…

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
very dumb - retarded level plot and scenario, 8 September 2009

Author: houmanrm from France

I just can't believe, for the life of me, how anyone can give this disjointed, pompous, silly, absurd, daft, foolish, half-witted, idiotic, inane, moronic, and downright stupid flick any kind of credibility by giving it any stars. Preposterous...

Words are not enough, simply not potent enough to describe the absolute, the rock bottom stupidity behind this thing, can't even call it a movie. Resting on the famous names that have now discredited themselves...

I just can't emphasize enough the fact that this movie is dumb, it's dumb folks plain and simple: DUMB...

If I would have watched it for free I would have still demanded my money back.

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
A puddle not an ocean, 16 June 2007

Author: ntrbo1749 from Canada

It took a while but the day after I realized: The word that summarizes this movie is "idiotic", possibly mindless.

Apparently (I fell asleep but 12 had a more complex plot - was this a way to make it more user friendly to the extreme formulaic so easy to digest no twists turns surprises or anything stimulating???) I had free tickets for this anyway so didn't mind. So it was a tad boring to say the least but kept the interest somewhat. Some would say it was insulting to their intelligence too. So much for a good story.

Further observations - could anyone (apparently a meany greedy man) like Bank (what a silly name) played by Pacino seem less upset or concerned about losing that much money? What saved this and made it mildly entertaining after a long week was the actors, aside from that guy that played Bank. They provided some levity.

Barkin should eat a Big Mac and retrieve the (bigger) nose she had in the Big Easy. She was much prettier then - and not because she was 20 years younger at all.

I discussed George Clooney with my mother and we both think he is getting more attractive with age! Thanks, Puddles

Page 2 of 28:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Add another review

Related Links