Ocean's Thirteen

In the third installment of this somewhat beloved series, the entire "Oceans" gang is back. At least, I thought going in the entire gang was back. Perhaps you were in a different boat than me, Rory, but I'll cop to the fact I had no idea that Julia Roberts was not in this movie. I'm completely unaware how I didn't know this considering I saw several previews for it but at about the hour mark I remember thinking to myself, "Wait, I haven't seen Julia Roberts. Have I?" I hadn't. And I didn't. So, in any event, almost the entire "Oceans" gang is back and this time they're going all Charles Bronson (i.e. It's a revenge movie).

Elliot Gould's Ruben, you see, has decided to go into business with casino tycoon Willy Bank (Al Pacino) only to have Bank bilk him out of his fortune. And when this happens the rest of the "Oceans" gang - spearheaded once again by Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt) - decide it's payback time. They hatch an elaborate scheme (is there any other kind?) to bilk Bank out of a great deal of his own fortune on the Grand Opening night of his new casino while at the same time stealing an unstealable collection of Bank's diamonds.

Now, before we go any further, I'd like to explain that while most of America seemed to dislike - or, at least, not like it anywhere near as much as the first one - Oceans Twelve, I loved it. In fact, I'll state for the record that I thought it was better than the first one. Was it indulgent? Without question. Was it, as many people have claimed, nothing more than a bunch of well-paid actors having a good time in front of a camera? Absolutely. And I say, what the hell's wrong with that? They were having a good time and so I had a good time watching them. I thought Julia Roberts' character pretending to be Julia Roberts was the comic zenith.

And that's why the first 15-20 minutes of Oceans Thirteen felt excruciatingly flat. All they did was set up and explain the heist that was to come and the actors didn't look in any way like they were having a good time and therefore the movie didn't feel like it was having a good time and therefore the audience isn't having a good time.


Once we actually get to the heist, though, things pick up, if not as much as I would hope. The how of the heist really didn't concern me as much as what went on the way to and during the heist. Like, for instance, the interesting detour that occurs with Casey Affleck's character when he is dispatched to a Mexican factory. Or Matt Damon literally donning a fake nose and yukking it up. Or Clooney and Pitt engaging in their witty rapport. (And, by the way, is there anyone better at reaction shots than George Clooney? He's the King of the Reaction Shot.)

Oceans Thirteen is certainly diverting, meaning it's worth the price of admission on a humid summer night. But there just isn't anything as uproarious in this one as the second one. And the heist doesn't feel as elaborate or as cool as the first one. They wanted to include all the good things from the first two except nothing here feels as well done as either of them.

Or maybe I was just disappointed that Julia Roberts' absence meant they couldn't up the ante by, say, working it out so Tess was posing as Julia Roberts who was, in turn, posing as Julia Roberts' stunt double.

Rory, I eagerly await your response.

Nick

A Response:

If Nick's greatest fear for this forum was that we would agree on our first film out of the gate, my biggest fear was that I would end up hating every movie that was discussed, thus making me look like a person who doesn't like anything. (I assure you, reader, that I do in fact on occasion like movies.) Luckily for Nick and sadly for me, we are once again in disagreement and I mark two negatives in the movie column. The Ocean gang is indeed back for revenge as Nick says. The revenge is over the top, but this film is going for over the top. I was aware that Julia Roberts would not be in this film and I was aware that Catherine Zeta-Jones was not in this film (yeah, I remember she made her debut as Rusty's love interest in the second film). There absences are explained away in a cheap way.

(I would like to note that I'm not fond of the "going Charles Bronson" metaphor because, if in fact the Ocean Gang had gone Charles Bronson, this film would have been way different with a much higher body count. (Go check out Soderberg's The Limey for a great, stylistic revenge film.) Actually as I think about it, this would have been weirdly intriguing, if the film had "gone Charles Bronson.")

Since, Nick, you've opened the door to Ocean's Twelve, I'll add my two cents worth as well. I agree it was indulgent. The actors were having one fantastic time (it seemed). The problem is it felt like one big in joke, which I wasn't in on. You know the kind, the kind that makes you feel bad because you don't get the joke. To me that is what Ocean's Twelve felt like.

But this isn't about its predecessors, its about the current film. Twenty minutes of film for lackluster start, Nick? I'm sorry, no. Let me say that the opening of this film made me do something I rarely do. I checked the time. After an interminably long time, I actually pulled out my time piece and looked at it. The previews for this movie started at 7:00 pm. Even if I'm generous and say they lasted twenty minutes (which they didn't), then the set up for this film finally concluded at 7:50 pm. That means there was a full half hour of set up, all done as exposition. Sure they tried to hide it behind dialogue between Pitt, Clooney and Eddie Izzard but nonetheless it was exposition. But that wasn't even the end of it, there must have been an additional ten to fifteen minutes of exposition later. The movie, which clocks in at just over two hours, had almost forty five minutes of explaining? Are they kidding me?

So after a very long explanation we know the who, what, where, when, why and even how the gang will pull off its caper. Will they pull it off? I don't think I need to answer that. What made the first caper from the first film so great was that we didn't actually know the how. We knew some of it, but not the whole thing, which was revealed in the end. We knew they would pull it off, but we were slightly in the dark as to the how. Now it might be cheap to repeat oneself, but knowing everything isn't entertaining.

Casey Affleck's side plot at the factory in Mexico was by far the most humorous part of the film. I actually laughed out loud when he gave his speech about Zapata. The effect of that speech was priceless. Once they were all back in Vegas, it was boring business as usual. Damon yuks it up with his prosthetic nose but he has a really awful scene with Ellen Barkin. It was actually painful to watch. I felt bad for Ellen Barkin.

And what about the "thirteen" of the title? I actually lost count of how many people were involved in this job. It was more than thirteen though. And sweet merciful crap was that Super Dave Osborne as Damon's father? Oh, you better believe it. Add all that up and I was done. I didn't leave but I checked out. It was just too much bad and ridiculous with too much explanation and too many dull scenes.

Here's hoping the next film I see is good (but I'm not optimistic).

Rory

A Rebuttal:

Your mentioning of the actual allotted time for exposition and set-up makes me wonder if I too mentally checked out, at least at the start. You state there was an explaining away of Julia Roberts' absence, and a couple reviews I read after seeing the movie also spoke of this explaining away, but I don't remember it happening. I must have been asleep, I guess.

What's the deal with the summer sequels this year and exposition? Are the filmmakers just lazy? Are they in too much of a rush to make their release dates? Are they hiring screenwriters straight out of UCLA who don't know any better? At this point I envision the first hour of Live Free or Die Hard as nothing but Bruce Willis sitting around with supporting characters, flipping through Kodak pictures of all his adventures since Die Hard 3, explaining them in detail.

Casey Affleck's "Zapata" speech was indeed hilarious. Probably the single best moment of the movie outside of the gag at the very end, which I won't give away. And I just really, really enjoy the chemistry between George Clooney and Brad Pitt. There were times, yes, where they seemed to be on auto pilot but auto pilot with this duo still makes for a very smooth ride. Steven Soderbergh is a junkie for experimentation and I think he should experiment with a movie just starring Clooney and Pitt in a room riffing. No, wait! How about this?! A Tape-like movie (have you seen that one?) set entirely in one room but done as a comedy with Julia Roberts as the Uma Thurman character. That would be fantastic! Okay, maybe no one else would like it, but I think I would.

But as for Oceans Thirteen, I still liked it. At least, I did once the set-up was done. But I do wonder if I liked it as much as I thought I did just because I didn't want to gouge out my own eyeballs, a la Pirates of the Caribbean 3. And if so, that kind of disturbs me. Is that the new criteria for judging these summertime tentpole movies? Did it make me want to gouge out my own eyeballs or did it not want to make me gouge out my own eyeballs? It didn't so it's a success.

In any event, how long until The Bourne Ultimatum?

Sincerely, Nick