IMDb > 13 (2010/I) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
13
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
13 More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]
Index 80 reviews in total 

147 out of 266 people found the following review useful:

I paid the right price... nothing

5/10
Author: marcsparc from montreal
3 December 2010

I really don't understand how movies like this get made. Step one, half ass a cast together of "big names" and provide a silly premise.

Step two, give someone top billing even though their role is the lesser part of 5 minutes.

Step three, find a rapper that has no talent so that your culturally bereft urban youth have a reason to see the movie.

Step four,rely upon arty cinematography as the culturalification of the movie, legitimizing that its no better than a bottom shelf rental.

Alright, get the idea? movies these days suck, no wonder I won't pay to see one.

Was the above review useful to you?

97 out of 172 people found the following review useful:

Nathan_BA's review has got it all wrong!

4/10
Author: SkovPudhandle from Danevirke
26 July 2010

First of all, if you could handle Tzameti 13 you'll be sorely disappointed in 13.

This Hollywood "rehash" resembles more closely, the Hostel series but with more jump scares, or "Saw", but with guns.

Jason Stratham, Ray Winstone, Mickey Rourke, and David Zayas are wasted and merely have what amounts to brief cameos among a cast of unknowns who do little to move the story along. Sadly, it wasn't the thriller or mind-f*&% film audiences would have hoped for. When the movie is over, it leaves you with a feeling as you just had a meal that wasn't satisfying. Some parts of the dialog were so bad that it made me wince. I had to back it up a bit to see if they actually said what I thought they said and it was even more painful to watch the second time.

I rented it from a Redbox DVD dispensing machine and I still want my dollar back.

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 57 people found the following review useful:

Preposterous in a bad way

3/10
Author: Lucian Wischik from Seattle, USA
12 February 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film is about an underground "game". It a game of pure random chance. You have a 78% chance of being killed, 17% chance of surviving, and 5% chance of walking out with a little under two million dollars.

Rich people dress up in tuxedos, act all high-class, and bet on which participant will win. The bookies offer odds. How can they offer odds on a game of pure random chance? It doesn't make sense. It's a dumb excuse for voyeuristic sadism.

Jason Stretham enters his brother into the game three times in a row, giving him a 99% chance of dying. Why would the brother do this? Why would Stretham? Why would he act all surprised when his brother dies? Okay, so the plot is particularly stupid. The characters in it are preposterous. Also the pacing is ponderous. This film has no redeeming qualities.

Was the above review useful to you?

63 out of 115 people found the following review useful:

Abominable

1/10
Author: phil neumann from Washington, DC
2 January 2011

I don't know what Géla Babluani was thinking. 13 Tzameti was a cool movie made on a shoestring budget and was ingratiating in its presentation. This newer version is completely watered down, soft around the edges, and bereft of all the charm of the original. Everything from the wide angle tracking shots to the roofing opposed to electricity (the whole in the roof was a nice device), the death in the bath as opposed to the chair, the globe hiding spot, the little sister of the protagonist in the original had a more authentic cuteness about her than the WASPY mainstream girl in this one. The protagonist steals the papers instead of finding them outside. All the minor differences favor the original. Surprisingly, even the acting was much better in the original, despite being paid a fraction of this all-star cast. The main reason I wanted to see the remake was because of the cast, but it was a total let-down.

The original was good, but it was good to the point where it was a cool idea and they were able to make it with the budget they had and it worked. It wasn't so brilliant that it deserved a big money remake which in fact hurt the credibility of the film, and in my opinion, the reputation of the director. He had his breakthrough movie, and then he could have followed up with a similarly creative idea. He may have ruined his career with this terrible remake.

All in all this movie just seemed incredibly lazy and it didn't seem like anyone working on the movie cared about the final product. Rourke is entertaining as always, but you can tell it's just another shtick role for him, nobody was making much of an effort here. As a viewer I felt like I was investing more energy into watching it than anybody put into making it, so i started to doze about halfway through.

Skip this movie, it's just not worth your time. Life is too short. If you haven't seen this, then watch the original. But if you have seen this, I think the original is spoilt for you.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Had So Much Potential

2/10
Author: The Max from United Kingdom
11 September 2012

This film had so much potential, how did the director mess this up so badly?

You have a decent number of awesome, very good and very famous actors and a starting point of an amazing story of underground gambling, the chance to make something artistic and maybe even original, but no, you go ahead and produce this film.

Hardly any character or proper story development, some bad acting and awful camera direction with weird and unnecessary camera angles. Did the director just graduate from a one year course in directing? No, probably not. A person who just did a one year course would have made a better film.

There was no proper feeling to this film and it seemed quite rushed. I was somewhat bored throughout the film. The actual gun scenes were decent, but with a little effort, they could have been amazing.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

A darkly entertaining movie about an underworld game of Russian Roulette. Winner gets money..losers die. Good cast, OK movie. I say B-

Author: Tony Heck (cosmo_tiger@hotmail.com) from United States
4 October 2011

"All players, eyes on the bulb, when it lights up you shoot." After a impulse decision to steal a man's identity, Vince (Riley) becomes a contestant in a game of Russian roulette. The winner gets a little more then a million, the loser...dies. Never having seen the original I wasn't sure what to expect, and honestly I watched this because of Statham. The beginning was a little slow, but when the game started it really picked up and was interesting and very disturbing at the same time. Comparing this to "Death Race" I think is acceptable as it involves people doing their best to survive in a grotesque game. While "Death Race" was about cars and you had more of a separation from the killing, this one is in your face. Spin the chamber, cock the hammer, point at someone's head, while someone does the same to you, then shoot. Either you live for next round or you don't. This is a pretty good movie with a good cast (not counting 50 Cent) and is a neat idea. I just think it was missing something. I think it was making you feel for the characters. You just don't seem to care who lives or dies, and that hurts the movie. Overall, an entertaining movie that is worth watching, if for no other reason then morbid curiosity. I give it a B-.

Would I watch again? - I don't think so.

*Also try - Death Race 1 & 2

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Poor and unnecessary remake

5/10
Author: adi_2002 from Sfantu Gheorghe, Covasna, Romania
24 August 2013

13 is the story of a naive young man assumes a dead man's identity and finds himself trapped in a underground world driven by greedy for power and violence. There, gangsters betting on other people's lives.

It is the American version of the French film "13 Tzameti" that I liked it very much but this rather gave me some smiles along. Beginning of the film where Vince is an electrician is too fast, we see him in glimpses when he connects two wires to a switch, Emmanuelle Chriqui appears for a few seconds but the good part is that True Blood fans have the chance to see Eric in another role than the vampire.

Sequences follow each other too smoothly and leaves the viewer thinking about the scenes and have to put them together to understand what is happening. Another remake which I think is pointless.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Gambling Can Be The Death Of You!

Author: gradyharp from United States
24 November 2011

Georgian writer Géla Babluani found such success in his film 13 Tzameti n 2005 that he decided to recreated the story, this time placing it in the United States. Co-writing this version with Gregory Pruss is the only aspect of this adaptation he shared. The story is a tough one to watch, not unlike 'Fight Club', but with higher stakes. It share how far gambling men will go to get their thrills, making cock fights seem very tame. The game at hand is based on gathering quasi-desperate men (prisoners, men deeply in debt, criminals who have little to lose, etc), placing them in a room with tee shirts bearing numbers, giving them guns, placing them in a circle, and on the command of the master of ceremonies they are to fire their gun into the head of the person in front of them. A smarmy form of Russian roulette, at first each man's gun has one bullet in the chamber, but as the game goes on more bullets are placed and the game continues until there is one man left alive. The gamblers place bets on the various numbered men and the stakes are high. This process is performed in a isolated meeting space and is closely scrutinized by detectives who seek to uncover the scheme and stop it.

Vince (Sam M. Riley of 'Control' and 'Brighton Rock') is a young electrician whose father has been in an accident resulting in sever injuries that require multiple surgeries. Vince's family must put their house up for sale to pay the expenses unless Vince can find a quicker way to make big money to pay the hospital and surgeons. Quite by accident while doing an electrical job he over hears the house owner discuss a 'job' that promises to pay a lot of money. The man plans on doing the job, receives an envelope with instructions, but then shoots up heroin and dies of an overdose. Vince helps the police who investigate, but before leaving the house Vince takes the envelope that contains instructions and a cell phone and a piece of bark with the number 13 printed on it. Vince follows the instructions and ends up in a complex scheme - the ultimate result of which is the fact that he becomes #13 in the gambling game. Others sequestered for the killer game include Mickey Rourke, Ray Winstone, and among those involved in the offensive debacle are Alexander Skarsgard, Ben Gazzara, and emcee Michael Shannon. The ending of the film is a complete surprise and revealing even part of it would ruin the impact of the film.

This is definitely not a film for the fainthearted. That such a gruesome gambling scheme could exist is terrifying. But the production and the acting and the grisly atmosphere is well worth the moviegoer's attention.

Grady Harp

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Bad movie. Horrible ending.

Author: masterfog from United States
26 October 2011

I enjoyed the premise. I just enjoyed it better in the original. Sadly this is just another bad film in a sea of bad films. The movie is mildly entertaining up until the near end. Then you get a nice feel good movie buzz from how the movie turns. Then they end it in the most nihilistic manner possible. It aggravated me to the point where I shut the film off and came here to rant.

There are plenty of good films out there within the genre to satisfy any fan of these types of movies. So please pass this one up. Its really not worth your time.

Thanks for reading and I hope I helped sway you from this atrocity.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Better than i thought

6/10
Author: Rab Wright
1 January 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Going into this film i had bad expectations after reading some other reviews and having a cousin who'd seen it tell me it was a poor film with a bad ending, i went in expecting another expendables where its all big actors but a terrible film, i was pleasantly surprised by the story which had a lot of suspense and some good acting especially from the main character who I've not seen in any other project, a few things were slightly strange like the reason to put UFC fighter Forrest griffin as a minor role and then dub over his voice with a horrible accent, the man can speak for himself and i found that quite insulting, anyway that aside it was enjoyable and i found myself surprised by it, my last point is the ending which some people have said was bad, in my opinion this shaped things up nicely, Jason's character runs off with the money because we know him as a money hungry greedy man and this stays true, the main character eats the paper to stop the police or anyone else finding out about everything that happened and ultimately reclaiming the money which was send to his family, maybe we could have seen the money and the lamb arrive at the house and the reactions by the family which would have been a good send off but thats just my opinion, overall surprising film, no classic and a one time watch but better than i thought.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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