A little bit better than second part, 10 times worse than first part. Overall - crap.

Rating C-.

Your review is Bogus and makes no sense.. You insinuate it's crap but give it a "C"?? Come on..

You know BKB... Most people just don't go around handing out F's to every crap film. Most crap film are in the D-C range. Most average films are in the C-B range. And good/great films are in the B-A range.

Just because ANOTHER one of your precious movies isn't good, doesn't mean you have to throw a hissy fit.

Movie is crap but there are worse movies so C- is actually a good rating. For me C is crap level. B is good level and A is awesome level. D is below crap level and F is just total disaster.

So let me get his straight. What you're saying then is: crap is good -- right?

crap is the new good. like 13 is the new 12 and the 12 was the new 11

Ocean's Thirteen

First, I ONLY liked the first one. I thought it was just great entertain and nothing more (which was enough for -barely- getting B+ ). Ocean's Twelve, however, blew me away (A-). I watched both films again few days ago. And my thought is still the same (I even like 11 less and love 12 more).
Ocean's Thirteen, while doesn't featured great heist sequence (well, not as great) as the one in 11, or while it's not as wild as 12, it's still highly entertaining or to say it better; very fun to watch. Like its predecessors, the charm is the casts. It's a magic of this franchise that never failed to impress me. With addition of 'Al Pacino' = gold. It also has one great twist (not in term of 'oh, I totally didn't see this coming' but more like 'oh, how dare!' -which was I liked about 12, dare & boldness, Julia Robert being Julia Robert? How dare!-).
Overall, Ocean's Thirteen is more like a bit from 11, less from 12 (but different nonetheless). And the result of the combination is the weakest of this trilogy. But frankly, this thing still worked to watch all the casts all together saying funny thing, doing funny thing. Although not as well, but I still walked out satisfied.
***1/2 out of ***** (B+ well again, barely)

What grade would you give this then???

WTF??? You say that most average films are in the "C" to "B" range, but then you say a good to great film is from a "B" to an "A", but you just said a grade of a B is average.. If a film is pure crap, then it flat out get's an F.. No 2 ways about it.. You can't call a film that's average with a grade of a "C" crap.. This is just odd grading in an effort to put the movie down and you know it.. You either liked it or you didn't..

No. I said that Ocean's 13 could have got a lower mark than C-, but I thought it would be a better rating if I gave it C- instead of D.

I'll have a review up in a bit but I liked it. Could have done with a bit of the middle cut out and the plan they used was completely fantastical but I was entertained overall.

Indeed, he should have been featured more, those opening 25 minutes were an unfair tease.

http://www.worldofkj.com/articleIndex.php?tid=30450

Hm. For background, I liked Ocean's 11 and 12 about the same, but for different reasons. 11 had the better heist, the more articulate planning, and the better payoff at the end. 12 had more character and style. 13 has a nice combination o the two. I was worried midway through that there wouldn't be much of a payoff at the end, like there was in especially 11 and even 12. But there was. overall I'd say it is about as good as the other two, offering a middle sampling of what both offered - great hesit and execution vs. style and character. B+

I enjoyed it immensely.

I loved this movie. It is the definition of entertainment and cool. The cast blends together once again and they all look like they are having fun. Al Pacino steals the show as he usually does, a great addition to the cast. I found this one to be the funniest of the three and easily the best. One of the best times I have had in a theater.

A-

Only the sagging middle and way Garcia was shoehorned into the plot irritated me.

I concur. The middle section and Garcia were problematic. The first act was aces (Eddie Izzard and the funky flashback structure, for starters).

I liked it better than the second, but not as good as the first. B+

crap. I give a D. (but voted C because my bf thought it was entertaining)

Meh.

This one was okay, kinda workman like with cool stuff sprinkled about to try and hold your interest. But the whole schmozzle coulda surely been tightened up -- I wouldn't of missed a half hour edited out of the middle to relieve some of the bloat.

No where near as much fun as O12, the pinnacle of the series, but still better than the moribund O11. I hope they return to their wacked out ways in O14...

3 out of 5.



(PS: What a freakin' waste of Al Pacino's talent!!!)

So that's the bad crap?

This movie is not what I thought it would be. Let's just say I was completely disappointed with this movie. The plot was insanely ridiculous, and the characters all looked bored. Everything about this movie looked unfinished to me. The only saving graces were Pacino and Garcia. They brought the French guy back and he did absolutely nothing. He literally had about 1 minute on screen. A complete jumbled mess of a story and I'm only giving it a C because of the style.

C

I really didn't mind the French guy having 1 minute of screen time, especially the way it played out. And whodathunkit, I guess thusfar it's just yoshue and myself who were really, really entertained by it. I expected Al Pacino to be a little bit more aware of their plan, but it hardly stopped the film's terrific style, groovy cinematography (favorite shot was when the camera followed Clooney and Pitt from the floor and rose up to land on the door's room number.), and clever humor from keeping it running smooth. The Mexico gag in particular really cracked me up, those two are my favorites in some ways.

KJ is simply a tough crowd to please with any movie it seems cause the reaction and reviews from other movie sites have been very favorable for the most part.. Your talking about film elitist at this site..