Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I went to see Oceans 57 this weekendFollow

#1 Jun 11 2007 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Suffice it to say that while the interaction between the various marquee actors was enjoyable, the third installment is a disappointment. The plot is flat, there is no suspense, and absolutely no twist that makes you think, "Hey, that was clever!"

In a nutshell, Danny Ocean pulls a fast one... again. The problem is the storyline doesn't have enough room in it to give all the actors other than Pitt, Clooney, and Damon time or plot enough to do more than basically a series of cameos.

The only part that made me go, "Aha!" was at the end where the FBI agent who arrests Damon as he is being seduced by Ellen Barkin is revealed obliquely as Damon's famous conman father referenced to in the original Oceans-- and is played by Super Dave.

I give this film a 4 out of 10.

Totem
#2 Jun 11 2007 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
Tell me you knew it was super dave as soon as you heard him pick up the phone. Even if you didn't, lie to me so I still think you're not a complete f'ucking moron.

It was enjoyable to watch. It was funny in places. It wasn't a total waste of time to sit through. Yeah, I was three steps ahead of the plot line, yeah it was tired and worn out as a vehicle, and yeah, they should have done more with it. Overall, though, it wasn't a bad flick if you were looking for two hours to forget about what was happening outside the theater.

6/10
#3 Jun 11 2007 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
His voice tickled my memory, but it wasn't until I saw him in the FBI office that I chuckled. Where has he been lately?

I felt kinda bad for those other 2nd tier actors in this film. They were given 10 second spots where they moved the plot along by pulling levers, getting arrested, or giving covert looks/signals at Clooney, but for the most part they were six actors too heavy for the amount of material available. Bernie Mac alone needed a larger part just to flesh out his domino scheme.

/shrugs

Yeah, it beat going to see Shrek 48 or Pirates 39, but only by a nose.

Totem
#4 Jun 11 2007 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Totem wrote:
His voice tickled my memory, but it wasn't until I saw him in the FBI office that I chuckled. Where has he been lately?


Did a stint on Arrested Development, other than that probably banging chicks left and right with his Super Dave street cred.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#5 Jun 11 2007 at 7:58 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
While I'm a huge Damon fan, I'll probably pass on this one, just like I skipped out on most of 12. 11 was ok, but the original was far better.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#6 Jun 11 2007 at 12:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
So what is the deal lately with making sequels out of remakes?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#7 Jun 11 2007 at 3:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Code Monkey
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
I liked it better than 12 at least, but meh.
____________________________
Do what now?
#8 Jun 11 2007 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Mistress of Gardening
Avatar
*****
14,661 posts
I couldn't even stay awake for the first half hour of 12.
____________________________
Yum-Yum Bento Box | Pikko Pots | Adventures in Bentomaking

Twitter


[ffxivsig]277809[/ffxivsig]
#9 Jun 11 2007 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
So what is the deal lately with making sequels out of remakes?

Hollywood ran out of ideas back in '79.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#10 Jun 11 2007 at 6:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Quote:
Hollywood ran out of ideas back in '79.

Shakedown, nineteen seven nine,
Cool kids never had the time,


Yeah, you get the idea.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#11 Jun 11 2007 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So what is the deal lately with making sequels out of remakes?

Hollywood ran out of ideas back in '79.


Yeah. But these were films that weren't worthy of sequels when the films were original ideas, but apparently *are* today?

I don't think it's Hollywood that ran out of ideas. I think that moviegoers got dumber over time. But that's just my take on it...

Edited, Jun 11th 2007 7:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Jun 11 2007 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
**
304 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So what is the deal lately with making sequels out of remakes?

Hollywood ran out of ideas back in '79.


Yeah. But these were films that weren't worthy of sequels when the films were original ideas, but apparently *are* today?

I don't think it's Hollywood that ran out of ideas. I think that moviegoers got dumber over time. But that's just my take on it...

Edited, Jun 11th 2007 7:28pm by gbaji


That or people are just nostalgic. Either one really.

Although you can't say Hollywood doesn't come up with anything new. Donnie Darko, The Matrix, Fight Club (Granted based off of a novel but still ground breaking), American History X, etc. New stuff comes out.

Problem is everything good that comes out today gets sequeled to **** (Die Hard, Pirates, etc)

Iunno, my 2 cents.
#13 Jun 11 2007 at 7:22 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So what is the deal lately with making sequels out of remakes?

Hollywood ran out of ideas back in '79.

Yeah. But these were films that weren't worthy of sequels when the films were original ideas, but apparently *are* today?

I don't think it's Hollywood that ran out of ideas. I think that moviegoers got dumber over time. But that's just my take on it...

Well, yeah, that and Hollywood generally has to pander to the lowest common denominator to keep their inflated budgets and profit margins afloat. So the two go hand in hand.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#14 Jun 12 2007 at 2:35 AM Rating: Decent
*****
15,952 posts
I hated what they did with 12 SO much. Doing a "Julia Roberts" con didn't just didn't work, it broke the "fourth wall" completely to pieces and ruined everything.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 284 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (284)