Ocean's Thirteen 2/5 reviewed by Mike

Whew! Look at us crankin' out reviews like we're so cool!

Before you see "Thirteen," ask yourself: Have you seen Ocean's Eleven? Have you seen Ocean's Twelve? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then you have already seen Ocean's Thirteen and been bored by it.

Don't get me wrong, I like the other two films (the second one is pretty lacking, but had some really fun parts). But this one is very flawed.

The plot is about the good ol' gang getting revenge on a Vegas Tycoon (Al Pacino) for the financial backstabbing and hospitalization of one of their friends. It takes all of about 3 minutes to set this up and you're instantly off and running on planning and executing the con. Herein lies the first problem. In the other two films, there was pretty decent motivation for the characters to do what they did. In this one, there isn't. It never makes you care about doing this con job, so everything just feels empty. Also, as far as twists, this movie just doesn't have them. You see everything coming ten miles away, especially if you've seen the other two. Nothing will surprise you here. I could go on about how ludicrous it is that not one, but two drills big enough to dig the English Channel can be hauled all over Vegas without raising an eyebrow, and how the writers thought the best use of the incredible Don Cheadle was to put him in a musty equivalent of the Star Trek engine room for the whole film... At every turn, the script pretty much says to you, "well, we need another one..."

This attitude carries over into how the actors play their roles. They just seem bored. Yeah, there's some one liners, there's some wit, but it's not as sharp as what you've seen before. The writing and the acting screams, "Are we DONE yet?" at every scene. Pacino phones in one of the worst acting jobs of his life. He does nothing to make his character interesting, scary, creepy, or cool in any way. Your sister could have played his part just as well. Even a Super-Dave Osborn cameo, which was set up to be hilarious, doesn't take advantage of any of the set-up, and ends up being pathetic.

The camera work is trying desperately to make you think it's cool, but it never knows what kind of movie it's in. Is it shaky-camera? Grainy action? 70's overlaid images? Comic book panels ala the Hulk? Documentary style? Slow pans ala Star Trek? (stand back for this! It's a forbidden casino!) It doesn't matter, because the director (Steven Soderbergh) was just throwing together little clips of every over-stylized "stlye" that exists. I mean, at least be honest with yourself and rip off Guy Ritchie's cinematography, and be consistent, instead of this begging-us-to-think-you're-innovative. Oh, and I can do without the 70's, Grindhouse style title cards and credits.

To the movie's credit, the acting isn't bad, it's just not good. The music is quite awesome, though, the sweet growls of upright bass slides are awesome, and another cool cover of Ellington's "Caravan" makes an appearance. The sets and costumes are great, and there's enough funny moments to make it not horrible to sit through. If you absolutely love just looking at these actors, or if you were fanatic about the first two, then you'll probably enjoy it more than I. There are certainly much worse films lurking around this summer. Spidey 3 this isn't, but if I were you, I'd put in a DVD of The Sting, Snatch, or even Ocean's Eleven instead.

See this movie if:
-you REALLY love the other two films--I mean REALLY LOVE
-you'll take any excuse to see Pitt, Clooney, or Damon. I gotta say, they look pretty good here... (but man, George is gettin' old...)
-You love any and all heist movies. It's a heist movie, just not a good one
-It's actually probably a good date movie, so have at it

Don't see this movie if:
-You like heist movies only when they're surprising and clever
-You only kindof liked the other two
-You don't like an obscene amount of self-referencing celebrities in your movies