|
| Ocean's Thirteen (Full-Screen Edition) | 
 enlarge
| Actors: Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Gould
Studio: Warner Home Video
Category: DVD
List Price: $19.98
Buy Used: $1.54
You Save: $18.44 (92%)
New (61) Used (55) from $1.54
Avg. Customer Rating:  162 reviews
Sales Rank: 6426
Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Dvd-video, Full Screen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled), French (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled), French (Dubbed), Spanish (Dubbed)
Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 122
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.3 x 0.6
MPN: WARD118928D
UPC: 085391189282
EAN: 0085391189282
ASIN: B000WBZ5M0
Release Date: November 13, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: Previous Rental, One Rental/Security Sticker, Carefully Packed And Quickly Shipped.
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Studio: Warner Home Video Release Date: 11/11/2008 Run time: 122 minutes Rating: Pg13
Amazon.com
George Clooney is one, Brad Pitt is two, Matt Damon three... well, let's just assume there are 13 collaborators in this installment of Steven Soderbergh's profitable caper franchise. We're back in Las Vegas for Ocean's Thirteen, where the boys plot to shut down the brand-new venture of a backstabbing hotelier (Al Pacino) because the guy double-crossed the now-ailing Reuben (Elliott Gould). If you look at the plot too closely, the entire edifice collapses (hey, how about those Chunnel-digging giant drills?), but Soderbergh conjures up a visual style that swings like Bobby Darin at the Copa. Other than the movie-star dazzle, the main reason to see the film is Soderbergh's uncanny feel for how the widescreen frame can float through the neon spaces of Vegas or sort through groups of characters sitting in hotel rooms talking (he shot the film himself, under his pseudonym Peter Andrews). The film doesn't give enough time to goofballs Casey Affleck and Scott Caan (whose riffs made Ocean's Twelve worth seeing), although it provides comic stuff for a fun roster of actors, including Eddie Izzard, David Paymer, and Bob ("Super Dave") Einstein. Meanwhile, Ellen Barkin makes a fetching assistant for Pacino, and Pacino himself, his hair dyed Trumpian orange, is content to gnaw on some ham for the duration. Biggest puzzle about the two sequels is why George Clooney seems content to retreat from centerstage. Still, his Hemingwayesque conversations with Pitt are an amusing form of male shorthand, and even as the movie overstays its welcome during a long finale, Clooney's easy sense of cool makes it all seem acceptable. --Robert Horton
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 157 more reviews...
 Girlie eye candy and nothing more. December 28, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Okay, if your idea of a good movie is one in which you get to do nothing more than swoon at the male lead, this must be your dream movie. On the other hand, if you like your movies to have a story, character development, suspense, intrigue, action, great dialogue, interesting locations... well, just about anything other than a hunk to stare at, you are seriously out of luck here!
This is a truly abysmal movie. Not least because the writers/director/producers just went through the motions. For example, on countless occasions the characters tell us about some absolutely impossible problem they're up against and yet, within seconds, they've overcome that 'impossible' problem with almost no difficulty or thought. There is never any 'will they succeed or won't they' suspense created. There is no action to speak of. There is no intrigue surrounding the characters or story. There is not cunningly elaborate scam. As for character development? Okay, you don't always need a great deal of that to make a great movie, but here there's just squat! Really, the characters all appear - all cardboard - go through the motions with a plot that gives them nothing to work with, then the movie finishes. That's it.
This is one of the worst movies of recent times. It offers nothing. The only people who may like it are those who are easily satisfied by being able to drool over Clooney, Pitt, or Damon for an hour or two.
 What a complete waste of talent December 26, 2008
Having seen the first one (Ocean 11) and found it bearable lighthearted entertainment I came across Ocean 13 on cable and gave it a chance. Of all the low ratings most seem to be unhappy with the DVD quality but finding the movie ok....
As I saw it on cable I cannot comment on the DVD format but can safely say I found the movie boring, the acting uninspired and the plot far fetched and overly technical. You dont need to be 88 years old to be unable to relate to the way in which the plot is to be carried out... the main actors repeatedly admit they dont even themselves when presented to them.
The movie is very slow paced and often outright boring and there is very few witty lines to cheer up us viewers. Clearly this movie was made, as most sequels are, to make 'an easy buck' which I am sure they did on our expense.
Good movie. Bad picture quality. November 22, 2008
I enjoyed this movie in theatres and decided to buy it on Bluray since it was a very visually appealing movie. Well let me tell you, don't spend the extra money on Bluray, just buy the DVD if you like this movie. I borrowed my friends DVD to see the difference after I was very unsatisfied with my Bluray and the quality is almost identical. If you're into High-def movies like me, this isn't one to get. Spend half the money and get the same picture quality.
Somewhat of a mess October 28, 2008
I loved the first one but was confused by the second until I rewatched it a few times. Ocean's 13 is even more confusing and I have NO desire to rewatch this mess of a film. The plot is just way too ridiculous and even more far fetched than the other two films. Also, I felt that the characters didn't really work as a team as in the other films. I just didn't feel like they gave it their all, and were just in it for another paycheck.
Also, I found that the actual dvd quality was terrible. One of the worst I've ever seen. It just showed up extremely dark and saturated on my 46".
There is absolutely no point in watching this film except if you like the actors in it. Other than that, the film is an utter confusing mess.
 Just when I thought I was going to hate this movie... October 17, 2008
1 out of 1 found this 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.
|
|
|
 Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
