DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Ocean's Twelve (1 Viewer)

[Julian Lalor]

Those extras don't look so hot. Probably EPK crap and one of those god-awful HBO making of featurettes. Frankly, the film was so acted and directed with such obvious disinterest (and with nothing more than a paycheck in mind for many, no doubt) that I can't imagine Soderbergh would be into an SE for this film.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I just have to chime in here....

I bought this film blindly on DVD a week ago.

Never got to watch the DVD but it was the feature
presentation on my recent flight between Los Angeles
and New Jersey.

What a horrible, horrible film this was.

I have never been so disappointed in a film as
of late than Ocean's Twelve. I watched
30 minutes and had to remove my headphones. When
I couldn't sleep I picked it up again a little
later and found myself twitching in the seat.

After immensely enjoying the first film, I am
so surprised at how lackluster this sequel was.
Crawdaddy nailed it (above) when he said the
actors were just going through the motions.
It was as if you placed all these big named
actors in beautiful European locales and had
them do nothing.

The entire film was phoned in.

 

[nolesrule]

I found the movie played much better the second time I watched it. Probably had to do with expectations based on the first one.

 

[ArthurMy]

I don't go into a movie to hate it. I go in expecting to see a movie that works, which Ocean's Twelve, IMO, does not. It's not inept, it's not the worst film ever made, but if you think this is a good screenplay, I would say you're very young (this post refers to four or five posts above). Sometimes people are fooled by bad movies, sometimes they're not.

 

[Herb Kane]

Several years back, my sister-in-law and her husband bought a monster house about a quarter of mile from our international airport. Huge house – gorgeous in fact, on a large parcel of property. The day after they took possession, she spent the next three years complaining about the constant noise that emanated from the airport.

My point?

What did she expect….?

I see this film as a perfect comparison. Truth be told, the 2001 version was no 5 Against The House either. It was a modern day version of what might be described as today’s Rat Pack – a fun, tongue-in-cheek caper flick that possessed little more (if any) substance than its source of inspiration, some 45 years earlier. Both films showed off the stars of the day – and neither of which seemed overly interested in laying out the details of an intricate caper plot. As I said in the review, I can’t imagine anyone being truly disappointed with this film if they were familiar with the 2001 version (if you didn’t like Eleven, would you have wasted your time on Twelve?). And perhaps therein lays the problem. Truth be told, due to the lack of substantive effort of the first film (though film goers were accepting of it due to the overt starpower), they couldn’t stomach more of the same for the sequel – it brought nothing new to the table save for a romp through Europe.

Criticism of the film is more than warranted here but to be fair if we’re going to be critical of this film, I can’t imagine how we can be any less critical of the 2001 version – it’s no better.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Herb,
In your opinion. However, based on my opinion, I found this film very lackluster in comparison to the 2001 film. I had a great time watching the 2001 film and have revisited it more than once since then because I liked the writing, characters and the actors that played them. I found the heist concept interesting and it kept my attention. Now, as far as Twelve, I was bored stiff and couldn't wait to get out of the movie theater. This film's dialogue didn't appeal to me and neither did any of the characters nor plotline. Go figure, many of the same characters and similar plot.

In closing, how I critique a film is purely based on my own personal preferences and thoughts with the same holding true for others which in itself, is why I can imagine anybody else disliking this film while at the same time have a definite affection for the 2001 film. Furthermore, I can imagine why others would think and feel something totally opposite of what I just stated. People are funny, they observed and process events and information differently which makes people the fascinating creatures we are.








Crawdaddy

 

[Herb Kane]

Crawdaddy... absolutely - agree 100%. The fact that you too, feel the characters and plot are similar is what I mean, however. Really, my only point here is that I'm of the opinion that moviegoers enjoyed and were accepting of the 2001 version based on the characters (be it, the wow or cool factor or simply that they, for the most part, are all pretty likeable) but this time around, nothing changes. The wow factor ran out of gas and now the same theatergoers are not as tolerant. But I was willing to accept it for what it was. I wouldn't however, have a desire to see it again, anytime soon.

But I don't see either film as better than the other - they are what they are - no more, no less. But you are right; people are different with a broad sense of likes and dislikes.

 

[Bill Williams]

It makes absolutely no sense for Wal-Mart to sell a 2-disc package with the HBO making-of special taking up the entire second disc. Whoever came up with that lamebrain decision ought to be flogged. They could have easily thrown it onto the main disc with the film and it wouldn't have mattered whatsoever. Pass.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Herb,
I went into this movie expecting the cast of characters and the plotline to be similar and I'm sure many others expected the same result. However, what we got with this film is an unimaginative storyline that caused the characters to looked tired and the actors playing them uninspired. In short, they mailed their performances in and people like me picked up on it. Film history is litered with sequels having the same characters and storyline as the original and people still loving those films and in some cases, even more than the original film because the sequels were made in such a way that the characters remained fresh, the actors had juice in their performances and the dialogue was well-written. This film didn't have any of that which is why it's a major disappointment to me.






Crawdaddy

 

[Scott Merryfield]

My feelings are similar to Colin's... I thought the "Julia Roberts" sequence was cute, but the rest of the film just fell flat. My wife, who loved the first film, actually wanted to shut this one off halfway through, but I convinced her to hang in there. I should have listened to her.

 

[Allen Hirsch]

The first Soderbergh one is worth repeat viewings, IMO, b/c enough of the heist plot is "given" or shown in bits and pieces, if you know what to look for, and it has a certain artsy-techno panache to it.

O's 12 is devoid of both those elements - the heist plot is incomprehensible from watching the movie itself (except for the required "explanation" at the end), and there's almost no gusto or panache to it. Disappointing, for sure.

Can't imagine they'd try again for another sequel. O's 12 showed they'd already run out of ideas ('course, since when has that ever stopped Hollywood? ).

 

[ErichH]

They could at least produce a heist here, but no (that was not a movie worthy heist)

It was an expensive rental. Good thing I didn't pop for the theater on this one.


E

 

[David Galindo]

I thought it might have made an interesting movie on its own merits, but as the sequel to Oceans Eleven...no. Egads, this is a terrible, terrible sequel. Very disappointed in that regard.

And I really hate the tagline for the movie.

"Twelve is the New Eleven."

 

[Paul_D]

R2 France.
I suppose it was pretty obvious that this would get a 2-discer at some point, but given that Soderbergh always comes straight out with an SE, and the film's poor critical reception, I went ahead and bought the first edition. Nuts.