|Page 8 of 29:||               |
|Index||288 reviews in total|
.....I guess Carl Reiner will be about 115 years old by then. His son
must be so proud.
I liked this film. The ensemble cast, as usual, was true to form and all interacted well. Don Cheadle, Elliott Gould, Carl Reiner, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and the Asian guy (whose name, regrettably, I don't remember) in a much appreciated somewhat expanded role, among others, all shine in their performances. I liked watching these GUYS on screen in concentrated form. David Paymer as the long suffering hotel reviewer gets the Best Actor award for this film. He's very good and fun to watch whenever he's on screen. There was a noticeable lack of a strong female presence. Weakest links...Pacino, doing his same old Al Pacino thing in a really bad toupee, Garcia, paunchy acting, paunchy looking, and especially Ellen Barkin whose performance seemed stilted and wooden. Guess she needs to get some remediation at Lee Strasburg's since she's been out of it for so long. Additionally, some of the camera angles employed in her scenes make her look very old, and there are a couple of shots where her breasts look like coconut halves glued to her chest. I enjoy Bernie Mac's presence and expressiveness, but will someone please get him a gift certificate for elocution lessons for Christmas? I can understand only about half of what he's saying when he speaks.
The plot development was pretty good and, as in the previous two installments, I enjoyed seeing the plan come together. I thought, however, that the initial premise for the heist was a bit weak...poor, poor Elliot...but how could he NOT see that coming ?! I tried to forget that the Chunnel drills were left at the bottom of the English Channel, since they CAN'T go backwards or be retrieved after the job was completed. The strike at the dice factory was fun to watch unfold and the monetary resolution made me laugh out loud. And just HOW long will Barkin and Damon sip wine before finally 'gettin' down to binness'? The movie's very glitzy and Vegas-y and made me think that I'd like to visit Vegas again after not having been there since all those renovations have taken place, about 14 years.
The main objection I have is the cost of the experience. $8.50 to get in, $5. for a SMALL popcorn, I brought my own bottle of water....$13.50 total!!! When will it end...........Rent it on DVD or see it at the $2. theater if there's one nearby, 'cause it's good....but not great!
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 so many 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.
A boat load of stars standing around while the director, (was one even on the set?), has them run through a few reaction shots, read a few lines, stand up, move around a little and in the end just insert edit their payday work into a standard low budget, no brain caper film that has the look of last years 'I've got all the new FX plug-ins' on my cool Final Cut Pro machine. Obviously in the execution of this sorry excuse for a film, the Writer(s), Director, and Studio couldn't even convince Brad Pitt, Matt Damon et al to even pretend (act?) they were aware of what movie they were in. It would be surprising if they even knew until they cashed their 'contractual obligation' paychecks that they where 'acting' in a movie that day. Al Pacino typically growls up a storm, and attempts to carry the film, all the while playing to a George Clooney that might as well have been green screened into their scenes, or the whole film for that matter. In short, a waste of time and money that all parties should be ashamed of being associated with.
I knew it before I saw it, so I only have myself to blame. This isn't the third installment of a three-figure blockbuster. This is more like a nondescript episode of a second-rate TV series in its third season. The plot is so lame and the acting is so uninspired that I kept asking myself, why is it that Ellen Barkin's supposedly high-flying character only owns a single cocktail dress? "Ocean's 13" is beyond saving, even from Al Pacino and his self-travesty as gambling mogul Willy Bank. I expected a guest appearance, but in fact his is a surprisingly big part. Not that it helps. The only thing there seems to have been no lack of is spray-on tan, seen on virtually all actors. Also, wouldn't you agree a deliberately shallow movie at least needs a hot chick? The only one who comes even close is Olga Sosnovska as Debbie. It's a minor part, but from what I've seen of her preppy charm and cold ambition, I'd say she's Bond girl material.
This didn't produce. Very little engaging and fun repartee between the guys. Loved the "Oprah" bit. Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones are missed. Certain shots of Barkin are almost criminally unflattering to her. She's a beautiful woman, and they made her look stupid and sexually repulsive. It would have made for a better plot if some of the characters had really been interested in her, and distracted from their scam. No character development. Cartoonish stock characterizations used very little of the cast member's tremendous charm and wit. Plot was predictable stock with no cleverness or surprises. I love the premise and thought O-12 wasn't as bad as the some reviewers, but this one was a miss. See it, but wait for it to come out on DVD.
Frank Sinatra that is. Listen to Frank deliver Lee Hazelwood's song
"This Town" like nobody else could and enjoy - it's one of the few good
And the movie? Flabby and self-indulgent. It is supposed to be a heist movie but the tension is never effectively developed. You get the impression that Clooney and his mates enjoyed the last one and decided to get together again in Vegas and knock out a movie while they were there. The cast seem to be enjoying themselves while forgetting the basics of movie making i.e. entertaining the audience. The pace sags in places and you never really get involved in the story. Elliot Gould and Ellen Barkin are good in their roles but that is not enough to carry the movie. Maybe Hollywood has forgotten how to make an effective comedy/thriller? The original Rat Packers were better than this - and they were singers, not actors...
After the pan-European schlep of '12' we're back in the Casino. The
glitz and suspense of focusing on a single, spangly venue is a welcome
return - and, of course, the glamour is half the reason for seeing the
However, the script is the choppiest yet. Non-sequitur dialogue bookends 'cool' aphorisms and the inevitable in-house jokes. This makes following the thing very difficult. I know it's meant to keep you guessing as to how they're going to pull things off but sometimes I wonder if Soderbergh has forgotten the audience.
Talking of forgetting people: having Al Pacino on the project as well as trying to find cameos for all those who have become part of the shenanigans means there's now not enough to go round. Bernie Mac loses out; Vincent Cassel & Andy Garcia's parts are lumpen add-ons. Even Pacino seems a bit diluted.
Loved Ellen Barkin though, who brought some haughteur back to the minority women's contingent. And a quick word too for Olga Sosnovska (an important character in the premium middle-period of BBC spy series Spooks) who managed to be striking and cool in her few moments as a Bank Hotel receptionist.
Passed an evening, but they can leave it there. I will. 5/10
I watched the movie. I thought about it afterward. And I asked myself, and indeed still ask: Is it me or is it the movie? What the heck is this movie about? When I can't figure out what a movie is about, then there is a problem. Maybe it's my problem, maybe it's the movie's. But that the question is even asked means that something is wrong because when a movie is good, the question NEVER comes up. This movie has to be one of the more mindless, pointless products from the Hollywood potboiler production factory. The movie tries to be sophisticated, the movie tries to be funny, but all it does is generate that short yet poignant question: SO WHAT? A bunch of guys trying to rob a Las Vegas casino, going through gyrations that are so disjointed and confusing that it defies all logic. What WAS good about this movie, however, were the performances of David Paymer and Ellen Barkin. Both demonstrated a level of comic acting that is responsible for whatever humor this movie was capable of generating. Ms. Barkin definitely has what it takes to be a wonderful comic actress and Mr. Paymer definitely should have a sitcom of his own. As for the other characters, let is be, as the song says. Go on to other projects, do other roles, may your careers prosper but please, OH PLEASE, DO NOT return to Las Vegas, except as a paying guest, because you'll just confuse the audience some more and probably put the audience to sleep, or cause them to ask questions.
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.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Let's face it.Ocean's 11 was great,ocean's 12 was pathetic.But,finally
Sodenbergh goes back to the roots of his original film and makes it a
fun caper.No more Le Marc,no more Julia Roberts and all that crap.This
is possibly the best heist film since ocean's 11.Ocean's 13 marries the
heist part of the original film with the complexity of ocean's 12 but
in no way does it appear self-indulgent or laboured.
Clooney is great as always and so are the rest of the gang.Expect to see a lot of Linus in this film.But,I feel that Rusty fans will be disappointed.The poor guy hardly has much to do as compared to the previous 2 films.Al Pacino doesn't disappoint though I felt that his character lacked the ruthlessness of Terry Benedict.
Forget the aberration known as ocean's 12 and go and get your kicks with ocean's 13.
Can we have ocean's 14 Steve?
|Page 8 of 29:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|