Andrew Ellington 2008-10-17
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
...I didn't!
Okay, so I made it obvious with my review of `Ocean's Twelve', and before that with my review of `Ocean's Eleven', that I am really disappointed with the way these films have turned out. With such an eclectic cast of big name, highly enjoyable stars you would think that these movies would be nothing short of amazing, but in actuality they have been rather boring, dull and forgettable. They have even lacked any real charm. I mean, these movies star George `king of charm' Clooney, not to mention Brad Pitt and yet they seem to fizzle as apposed to sizzle.
That is about to change though.
`Ocean's Thirteen' should have marked the beginning, not the end of the this franchise (I'm still scared they may try and pull of an `Ocean's Fourteen', and I'm not so certain they would fare this well again judging from their track record). The film is witty, interesting, farfetched yet in an engaging and forgivable way, and get this; it has charm (thanks in large part to Matt Damon, who in my opinion was a weak link in the first two films).
The film brings the boys back to Vegas where they attempt to outsmart (and bleed dry) a corrupt and dishonest hotelier named Bank who has cheated their friend Reuben, leaving him in the hospital. Danny and his crew concoct a harebrained (I mean really, heists like these are impossible and totally preposterous to consider as valid) scheme to rob this man blind. In the process they enlist the help of Terry Benedict, leaving their jilted past aside in order to ruin a man who has damaged them all.
The scheme they concoct is probably the easiest of the three to follow and despite it's impossibility they make it seem almost probable (don't even try to attempt this at home). Regardless of the fact that it is stupid to believe this can be done, the whole idea is rather neat and each and every part of the ultimate equation is fun to watch them work out.
The acting is far better than the previous films as well. Clooney is in even less of this movie than he was in `Twelve' (has this become Pitt's vehicle?) but when he is on, he is dashing. Pitt is also charming, more so than the previous films, but it is Matt Damon that really takes this film to another level. Maybe he was upset that `Twelve' used him so sparingly, and practically made him a laughingstock, so he decided that this time he wanted to be front and center. Well, whoever decided it, it was a smart decision. He adds something fresh to this movie, something that Pitt or Clooney could not. Another surprise was Pacino, who sinks his teeth into his hammy role with so much charisma and grace. I just loved him here. Ellen Barkin is fetching as Banks' partner in crime, and David Paymer is devastatingly hilarious as the casino's VUP. I really wish that there would have been more Izzard or Cheadle, but I cannot complain too much, for this film is so much more than I imagined it would be.
It is still far from perfect. I am not a fan of Soderbergh's muted use of color. I mentioned this in my review of `Twelve'. These films needed to be vibrant and colorful and he insists on giving almost every scene a yellowy tint. I just don't like that very much. I was just in Vegas a few weeks ago, and everything pops out at you. For some reason Soderbergh doesn't get that.
Still, I can honestly say that this is a pretty decent movie, and one that I would watch again without hesitation. I only wish they had started with this and built up from it, instead of starting at the bottom, dropping below the bottom and then scrounging up something good for a final pow-wow. It would have been really cool to have three films this engaging on the roster, but alas, at least we have one.