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 guide
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 8 of 30: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
Index 294 reviews in total 

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Frank is good!

4/10
Author: neilmac (neilmak3@yahoo.com) from Sydney, Australia
23 June 2007

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 bits.

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...

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Disappearing up it's own Sting

5/10
Author: Framescourer from London, UK
19 June 2007

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 film.

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

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Where's the story?

4/10
Author: PWNYCNY from United States
19 June 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 17 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?

9 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Great fun

8/10
Author: vinaybar from India
8 June 2007

*** 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?

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Ocean's 13, very good job

10/10
Author: kachorritolosa from Windsor. VT
10 June 2007

Very good movie. Better than Ocean's 12 by far, but not better than Ocean's 11. Ocean's 13 has more the taste of Ocean's 11. Plus the MASTER: Al Pacino.

I saw it on Hanover, NH with my wife, and we liked it a lot. Clooney does a fine job, Pitt is just ... Pitt. He didn't do much in this movie. Pacino is good on everything he does. My favorite performance is the one from Carl Reiner. Ellen Barkin does a wonderful job as well. Lots of fun. Well done movie.

Very nice view of Las Vegas.

Highly recommended !!!

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Tame and Tired

5/10
Author: tabuno from utah
9 June 2007

This third and hopefully final version of Ocean takes a almost tired look at a prolonged criminal caper in Vegas that isn't as exciting nor captivating as its predecessors. The beginning plot outline seems almost desperate and forced together. Too characters, difficult editing and transitions, no time to really get caught up into most of the scenes. There are a few nice comedy pieces sprinkled throughout but absent the strength of female character starlets leaves this movie more about trying to be impressive without much power nor punch. While semi-literate, actively involving and managing to make it to the end credits, this movie moves more on inertia than interesting characters and tense plot situations. Five out of Ten Stars.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 21 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?

15 out of 29 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?

15 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

A Gold-Plated Cow Patty.

4/10
Author: imxo
10 June 2007

"Ocean's Thirteen" is a glitzy, gaudy joke. Unfortunately for the audience, though, the joke is on them. I have felt more self-respect after visiting gypsy fortune tellers than I have after seeing this pile of glamorous, conceited, nothing. An Alka-Seltzer has more substance to it than this movie.

Undoubtedly, fewer and fewer people are going to remember that this movie is based on the 1960's Las Vegas so-called "Rat Pack" of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis, Jr., comedian Joey Bishop, and actor Peter Lawford. For all their talents, all of them were on the down-side of their careers, some sliding faster than others. Considerations of money aside, once you reach Vegas your creative career is over. Next stop, Atlantic City. The Rat Pack were famous for being famous, and everything they did was some sort of unfunny in-joke. Nevertheless, the one positive thing you can say about them is that they were who they were.

With the Ocean's Thirteen bunch, though, they are not who they are. George Clooney may appeal to many people, but no one can accuse him of having a surfeit of talent. Brad Pitt and Matt Damon are still decent actors, but you'd never know it from the roles they play in this piece of self-centered fluff. One of them should have given up his role to Ben Affleck, an actor much more suited to the vapidity of these roles. And to see Al Pacino in this film is practically a national tragedy.

Mostly, though, I'm mad at myself for ignoring my movie instincts and for joining my fellow movie-going lemmings in donating money to the makers of this idiotic enterprise. See, the joke is on me.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 8 of 30: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [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