Ocean's Twelve

Gold Trumpet · December 13, 2004, 11:04:32 PM

Quote from: themodernage02it was nowhere near as fun as the first one. the tone was all over the place. ALL the characters were underused. the story did not work. and i thought this one was far more predictable. it was a very uneven film, but if you're willing to forgive all that because it still had its moments then...

One thing I am noticing that seems to be with what everyone says is that their reviews can't be defended. They really are general opinions. I, myself, have no clue how to really explain with depth of analysis why I liked this film. And as much as I want to say how I disagree with every point here, I have no clue where to even start. I'll even say the inability of people to really "sum" this film up is one of its strong points.

The Silver Bullet · December 14, 2004, 03:52:35 PM

"This time 'round, one can't help but feel that hedonism is back in vogue; plot gives way to the whole "European-holiday-on-the-company's-tab"-type feel; script gives way [at times] to incoherent ramblings of the film's ensemble cast; the characters, so vivid and alive in the first film give way to pretty much nothing at all."

MY REVIEW[/url]

Recce · December 16, 2004, 11:54:29 AM

I went to see it for the second time yesterday, and I liked it a lot more. I was able to let go of how different it ways from the first one and just watch it as an entirely new film. With that, it was much funner. Some of the moments felt a little bit more forced then they should have considering he had an all-star cast, but overall, I liked it. I really enjoyed the low production value style. The credits were simple, yet elegant. The lighting was horrible pretty much throughout, but that just added to the style, I think. It felt like soderbergh just went out with his DOP and the actors and shot this thing, then edited himself at home. I like it now.

Ghostboy · December 16, 2004, 11:58:11 AM

Quote from: RecceIt felt like soderbergh just went out with his DOP

AKA himself...

Dtm115300 · December 16, 2004, 09:47:19 PM

first off i would just like to say, i enjoyed this film. I think i enjoyed the first one more, but im not sure. I wasn't to excited about this movie when i heard it was being made, but did enjoy watching it.

Question: i noticed some problems with the film. Now i don't know if it was ment to be like this, or maybe my theater was having equipment trouble, but the editing looked jumpy to me. At lest in the first 30minsof the movie. It kinda looked like in between dialog the actors would jump alittle out of position(kinda looked like a jump cut). Did anyone else notice this, or was my theater just F*cked up?

Recce · December 16, 2004, 10:59:48 PM

Well, he did use some less then textbook jump cuts. I think I know the one you're talking about, so no, it wasn't your theatre. I really liked that about it, though. He also had a bunch of really rough focuses. Again, this just added to the 'independant' feel, despite the fact that its, like, huge. What was the budget on this thing? Anybody know? Cause if it was an insane amount, I'll loose some respect for soderbergh. I understand they have to pay all the actors, but still.

Ghostboy · December 16, 2004, 11:01:05 PM

Get ready to lose some respect for Soderbergh -- I think it was 110 million, if I remember correctly.

modage · December 16, 2004, 11:03:16 PM

GODDAMN thats a lot of money considering this was not exactly an effects heavy summer spectacle or anything.

metroshane · December 17, 2004, 12:19:08 PM

I'm just not understanding the logic of it being OK to jump cut, have focus problems, script holes, etc as long as the director is deemed cool. Had a lesser director made this same film, we'd be crucifying him.

It's ok to be experimental as long as you have the good judgement to know when it isn't working.

grand theft sparrow · December 17, 2004, 12:42:53 PM

Quote from: GhostboyGet ready to lose some respect for Soderbergh -- I think it was 110 million, if I remember correctly.

The only reason Soderbergh would be to blame for that budget is that he has expensive friends.

MacGuffin · December 17, 2004, 02:01:33 PM

Quote from: Yahoo Movies and ez-entertainment bothFilming: The first locations will be in Rome, Italy, and the budget for the film is in the $85 million range, which is the same budget as the first movie. Other locations after Rome will include Paris, Amsterdam, New York City and Chicago. Previously, London and Berlin had been announced as locations, but they were replaced by Paris and Amsterdam.

Director and producer Steven Soderbergh has been quoted as saying he is aiming to make a "bigger movie" on the same budget, in an attempt to dispel the notion that sequels are always more expensive. Of course, he's doing that by asking his stars to take even smaller salaries than they did for the first movie (which was already a discount for the five biggest stars).

bluejaytwist · December 17, 2004, 09:37:44 PM

that was exactly what i was just about to type, filming in those locations, never mind the star power, would balloon a budget considerably

Jeremy Blackman · December 23, 2004, 01:34:09 AM

What a great heist movie. It's even more joyous and in love with itself than Ocean's 11. I'm surprised, though, that people think this is so much different than the first movie.

Brad Pitt was definitely the highlight... the guy who played the Night Fox, not so much.

Gold Trumpet · December 23, 2004, 01:40:20 AM

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanWhat a great heist movie. It's even more joyous and in love with itself than Ocean's 11. I'm surprised, though, that people think this is so much different than the first movie.

I didn't find it that different either. Plot focus is really the major difference (and maybe that's big), but the charm and lovability of the first one feels carried over to the second and heightened. Also, it must be known to the board that Thrindle loved this film. Liked it way more than the first one. There, its official, this film is qualified as decent overall.

matt35mm · December 23, 2004, 02:29:18 AM

Quote from: Jeremy Blackmanthe guy who played the Night Fox, not so much.

Vincent Cassel. Even if you didn't recognize his face, I'm sure half the forum members would recognize his penis. Uh, if it had been shown in Ocean's 12, that is.

The movie's okay. NOT as good as the first one, but I did enjoy the sheer messy carefreeness of it all. I never follow the plot of things anyway, so the lack of a good one didn't bother me that much. I didn't laugh out loud that often, but smiled quite often. I liked how over-the-top Elliot Gould got to be in this movie. My two favorite parts were probably just the in-joke that Topher Grace makes about his "Dennis Quaid movie," and Eddie Izzard's appearance (I'm a big fan).

But the worst offense, by far, if we're gonna criticize the movie, is that Bernie Mac totally dropped out of the movie after a few minutes! I don't really recall if there was a reason for that. After his "I'm a private contractor!" scene, I don't really remember seeing him until the end. I know the movie's got a big cast, but it's Bernie Mac that REALLY makes these movies.

The main device in storytelling that doesn't really work for me either is having Danny reveal what he did AFTER the fact. The movie is essentially as eleborate a diversion for the audience as the one that was played on the Night Fox guy, and then there's a big "Oh no we tricked you. Actually what happened was..." etc.

And yeah I didn't care about the whole Zeta-Jones/lost dad thing at all. Were we really supposed to care?

But like I said, I liked and enjoyed enough to call it decent and definitely worthwhile.