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 »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 29:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 288 reviews in total 

6 out of 8 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?

12 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Not even close to the first one! Shame.

4/10
Author: nsterjo from Albania
9 June 2007

Too much talk, no action, no humor, no good enough plot and not big enough ending. You keep watching and expecting something really big to happen to make a climax, but suddenly you realize it's the ending. A real disappointment concerning the big names involved and the great acting.

And what was the deal with that nose? The tasks were made to seem pretty easy to achieve and there was nothing left from the former glory of the team.

A movie without spirit and essence.

A shame really!

Glad there's not going to be a forth one.

Was the above review useful to you?

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?

15 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

Gone...

6/10
Author: jpschapira from Argentina
23 June 2007

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.

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?

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Not as good as 11...Much better than 12.

8/10
Author: emrelanur from Australia
8 August 2007

Normally the sequel to a movie is a let down. Especially if the first part was really good. I think that's what's happened with Ocean's 12 for many but l hope this doesn't mean that they won't be watching '13'.

I was happy to see all of the same characters and actors together again because that is one big cool cast. Not to mention Al Pacino...icing on the cake.Who could resist?

For those who are in doubt about Ocean's 13, i hope you're not affected by some bad reviews because history doesn't repeat itself with this one. It's got an interesting story and some fabulous actors and acting. Don't miss out.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 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?

11 out of 20 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?

11 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Yawn !

6/10
Author: danzs from India
9 June 2007

Its time now to end the series NOW before it causes any more embarrassment. Even an entire troupe of stars cannot save a movie if it lacks a soul.

Oceans 13 is all about a star studded cast doing their own thing. Not one manages to create a connection with the audience. Even the great Al Pacino has his limitations when the script does not allow any scope for character development.

This time around the pack wants to settle the score with sly and hardboiled Willie Bank (Al Pacino) for duping their colleague Reuben (Elliot Gould). The plan is simple. Willie Bank has to go bankrupt on the opening night of his casino.

To narrate how they go about it, the movie drags through the first half, and then drags some more during the second. There are just too many characters around and many more angles to think your way through.

I give this movie a 6/10 just for giving the audience the likes of Pacino, Clooney, Pitt, Matt, Don Cheadle and Garcia to feast their eyes upon.

Chill out on your bean bag and wait for the DVD release to watch this flick. Cause it just ain't worth your ticket money. Yawn!

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 External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history