IMDb > Ocean's Thirteen (2007) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Ocean's Thirteen
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
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 293 reviews in total 

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:


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?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

One of the stupidest, or maybe even the stupidiest, dumb dumber dumbest movie ever...

Author: caespoo from Finland
5 January 2008

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

The Next Plan 9 From Outer Space?

Author: skmediabox from United States
24 August 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

A fortune won and lost on Soderbergh's deal

Author: richard_sleboe from Germany
18 June 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Hard to miss with this cast, but they did

Author: B Schultz from United States
10 June 2007

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Frank is good!

Author: neilmac ( 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

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?

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

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

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?

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