Play Live Radio
Next Up:
Available On Air Stations
Watch Live

Cinema Junkie by Beth Accomando

Ocean's 13

If Ocean's 13 (opening June 8 throughout San Diego) could treat theaters like clubs then they'd place bouncers at the doors so that only the cool people would be let in. That would definitely cut into profits but it would be in keeping with how the film would like to brand itself as the hip, cool, happening place to be this summer. Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Matt Damon re-team for Ocean's 13

Back in 2001, Steven Soderbergh, the one-time darling of the indie film scene made the 1960 Rat Pack caper film, Ocean's 11 . Now there's a certain novelty to the idea of remaking a mediocre film. After all if you remake a film that wasn't good to begin with, your film is unlikely to suffer in comparison. Soderbergh's wah-fer thin idea was to tap into what he saw as today's contemporary Rat Pack--stars such as George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon. The 1960 Ocean's 11 was all about chemistry, about seeing Sinatra, Dino, Sammy and the guys hanging out together on screen in a jokey, off the cuff manner that reflected the way we imagined they really hung out together off screen. Their easy rapport and obvious pleasure in each others company infected the audience with a sense of fun. But as a heist film, the original Ocean's 11 was a lazy piece of work.

Not surprisingly, Soderbergh's remake was equally lame as a heist film. It also failed to ignite much chemistry amongst it players. But that hasn't stopped Soderbergh from trying to build his bit of star fluff into a franchise. So Ocean's 11 was followed by Ocean's 12 (which I have to confess to not having seen) and now we have Ocean's 13 . I guess there was no superstition over using the number 13, or else everyone thought that jumping from Ocean's 12 to Ocean's 14 would have just confused people. Anyway the boys are at it again, not so much for the money but for the sport and the revenge.


The original 11 in Ocean's 13

The plot is impossible to follow since the proposed scam involves a multitude of moving parts that no one has bothered to properly think through. The premise involves breaking the bank at the Bank Casino, named after its smooth as a silk suit but ruthlessly unscrupulous owner Willy Bank (Al Pacino please tell me he took home a huge paycheck to justify his presence in this film). Bank has just double crossed one of the original eleven, Reuben (Elliott Gould), and as we know if you cross one Ocean you cross them all. So Danny Ocean (George Clooney) gathers up the eleven, plus the one they picked up in the last film (was that Eddie Izzard?) plus a new one to make thirteen but don't ask me who the new guy is this time out, I can't do the math.

Anyway, the new plot is so outlandish that Soderbergh, and writers Brian Koppelman and David Levein wisely gloss over any of its details for fear wed laugh the film off the screen. And we don't really need to know what they're trying to pull off because Soderbergh doesn't waste any energy trying to build suspense or tension. You know Danny's going to come out on top and you know that anything that seems to go wrong will simply turn out to be a clever twist that Danny had anticipated all along. Yawn.

The film relies heavily on insider humor. Cryptic comments, punch lines with no set ups and smug gags between the stars are tossed out and designed to deliberately make people feel like outsiders. The goalbe obscure so people will feel as if they're just not hip enough to get the inside jokes but they'll be too embarrassed to complain because then that will mark them as uncool. Get the logic? Well, what it means is that no one works very hard at anything.

Al Pacino plays the double-crossing Willy Bank in Ocean's 13


Soderbergh serves up some of Hollywoods sexiest stars and yet he never plays on their glamour. Soderbergh invests the film with neither grit nor glamour. There's a lot of money on screen in the Armani suits, gold cell phones and swanky hotels but it's all just set dressing and background detail at best. Only the films score reveals any bounce or zing. The new Ocean films are amazingly devoid of any real style. This one, like its predecessors, is just badly shot too--lots of flat static shots with awkward, unmotivated camera moves. The editing by Stephen Morrione tries to create pace by going to split screens in the tradition of 60s heist films such as The Thomas Crown Affair. But Morrione (who's done fine work on 13 Conversations About One Thing and Go ) can't manufacture pace or interest no matter how he cuts this material together. Crap, no matter how you slice it is still crap. The film and the stars are just full of themselves thinking they are just so adorable and funny.

Old timers Elliott Gould and Carl Reiner (whos barely in the film at all) are the most fun to watch. Clooney and Pitt are easy on the eyes, and make nice set dressing but that's about it. Don Cheadle has an accent that comes and goes; Eddie Izzard talks unconvincingly about women; Shaoboo Qin wisely speaks only Chinese; and Matt Damon just talks fast in the hopes that we don't notice he has nothing to say. Youngsters Scott Caan and Casey Affleck are kept on the periphery is a side plot involving a worker's revolution in Mexico. There's no chemistry between the stars except for a forced jokiness. But Soderbergh does miss some opportunities for some inside jokes. He never plays off the fact that this is the first time Pacino and Ellen Barkin (as Bank's right hand woman) have re-teamed since their steamy encounter in Sea of Love. Plus there's no acknowledgment that Pacino starred with Scott Caan's dad James in The Godfather . The way the roles are divvied out also reveals how the star heirrarchy in Hollywood hasn't changed much since the 60s. Ocean's 13 may include blacks and Asians but their roles are as subordinate as Sammy Davis' role was back in 1960. The stars now, as they were then, are still white and male.

The film attempts to pay homage to Frank Sinatra by putting him up on a gaudy Vegas pedestal. The whole film ultimately comes down to the fact that Bank shook Sinatra's hand but didn't accept the code that came with the gesture. One irony, though, is that Sinatra was a staunch Republican and this new Ocean entourage takes pride in their liberal views. But there's something discordant in the way the film makes lame jokes about Zapata and workers' rights at a Mexican factory. Danny even makes a crass joke about writing a check for $36,000 to triple the wages of the workers so that they go back to work and make the rigged dice for the con game Ocean is planning. Heck just imagine how much poverty could be eradicated if Clooney and Soderbergh donated the films budget to a worthy cause, and spared audiences the pain and suffering of yet another mindless Ocean journey.

Anyway this all brings me back to the point I was at back in 2001. Why did Soderbergh want to remake Ocean's 11 in the first place? I thought he had gotten the big budget Hollywood star vehicle out of his system when he did Erin Brockovich but I guess he still felt the need to make an all star ensemble caper film. But now with this second sequel to a remake, he still exhibits no particular vision or purpose, and not even a sense of fun.

Ocean's 13 (rated PG-13) is mindless fare. If it had a light and breezy touch you might be able to accept it as mild diversion and not be offended. But considering the price tag and the talent involved, it's an obnoxious example of self-indulgent waste.

Companion viewing: Oceans 11 (1960), The Heist, The Score, Snatch, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

Tim Cridland
June 11, 2007 at 10:42 PM
At a time when people seem to be infatuated with celebrities who are famous for nothing more than being famous, its not surprising that Hollywood would try to throw a bunch of stars in a film and expect us to watch in glee because, after all, they are stars! I, for one, want more. It's bad enough we encourage Hollywood to make bad sequels to descent movies. but I wish people would draw the line at bad sequels to bad movies. Thanks for being able to see through the glare. -----

Danny Ocean
June 12, 2007 at 03:19 PM
Speaking of lame, in the first portion of your review, you indicate that you "confess to not having seen" Oceans 12, yet you later mention that "[t]his one, like its predecessors, is just badly shot too." How do you know? Perhaps you know this about Oceans 11, but how can you make this statement about Oceans 12?

Beth Accomando
June 12, 2007 at 05:20 PM
Okay... although I did not see the entire Ocean's 12 (and based on the other two films I'm glad to have spared myself those 125 minutes), I did have the opportunity to see trailers and about 15 minutes of clips from the film. So you're right, I cannot in all fairness say that the entire Ocean's 12 was badly shot but based on the footage I saw (which equals about 10% of the film), Ocean's 12 looked to be as badly shot as both Ocean's 11 and Ocean's 13. Would you accept that as a less "lame" criticism of an entirely lame film? Thanks for reading so closely.

Henry Austin
June 12, 2007 at 06:19 PM
Where did you get the idea that they were trying to make people feel left out? Combined with your conspiracy-theorist-resembling idea that minorities were put in less important roles, it's pretty clear you have issues far beyond seeing movies you dont like. Sorry to let you down but no, Hollywood is not out to make us feel likc crap, nor is it trying to exclude minorities. Let's relax a little and review movies...not make social statements. I'm amazed that a legitimate website would put such an unprofessional review up. Do the movie going world a favor and stop reviewing movies you clearly have trouble understanding.

June 13, 2007 at 12:21 AM
I must admit i have not finished reading thru your review but it is so wrongly reviewed that i wouldn't wanna carry on. The plot is not impossible to follow but i believe you are mentally-challenged to make such statement. If you think it is rather unfair for me to give such a comment if i hadn't finish reading your review then that's not true as well because i have read more than 10% of your crappy review.

June 13, 2007 at 12:21 AM
^^^ Owned.

Cynthia Webb
June 13, 2007 at 01:01 AM
I ususally enjoy listening to your reviews on the radio film club, but this review is very disappointing...maybe a bad hair day that nothing was safe in your line of fire? a bit over the top on the negatives. makes David Elliot sound like Anne Curry.

Henry Austin
June 13, 2007 at 03:59 AM
Good...I'm not the only one...

Rusty Ryan
June 13, 2007 at 04:35 AM
I didn't think we were that bad...sure the story is outrageous, but damn we're handsome. It's harmless fun, lighten up and give us a good review! All harmless fun automatically deserves a good review!!!

Beth Accomando
June 13, 2007 at 07:54 AM
Henry, I don't have any conspiracy theories about Hollywood and minorities, I only made the observation that 47 years after the first Ocean's 11, it's ironic that it's still white males in the lead roles. No conspiracy. Just funny how some things haven't changed. But if you see any of the black, Asian or even female performers in this film taking on a major role please point them out to me. Nor do I think Hollywood is out to make people feel like crap, quite the contrary, it's out to make everyone feel good or at the very least to have people leave the theater feeling everything's okay. And finally, can I just ask what's "unprofessional" about criticizing a movie? Are movie reviews only supposed to be positive? Am I supposed to like all movies that do well at the box office? Or are you just looking for reviews that agree with your opinion? (And based on your second posting maybe that is what you what in a review.) I didn't have trouble understanding this film (it wants to be a hip, jaunty caper flick)-- I just didn't like it. I think film criticism is all about starting discussions. I love the fact that people are posting and disagreeing with me. Sure Ocean's 13 is a harmless piece of fluff. But when it comes to fun I'd rather see something like Hot Fuzz or Knocked Up. Heck, Hostel II was far more fun and entertaining. As I always tell my son, everyone's got different tastes and without that diversity movies would be pretty bland. Film critics like myself are just expressing opinions, colored by our personal tastes. And the reason I run this movie blog is to let other people express their opinions so that we can engage in a lively discussion. That's why I like working with Scott Marks on the Film Club, because we get into arguments. Even when we like a film we seem to disagree on why. Anyway, thanks for posting and thanks to Tim for being my lone supporter.

June 14, 2007 at 05:03 AM
A rather perplexing review. This movie seems to have struck a nerve with you far deeper than a movie of this levity should. Perhaps it is rooted in the fact that this is a guy buddy flick and you are not a guy. I don't know, but you should know that, while varying in quality, I know many people who have the Ocean movies as regular features in their home entertainment circuit. They're fun. They're classy (perhaps not Thomas Crowne Affair classy, but more than background). The romantic banter - especially in 11 - holds its own with any movie throughout the century. Also, many film buffs specifically admire this series for how it was shot. I'm not saying you're wrong on that point, but it's so interesting you claim the opposite of everything I've previously heard. Also, while I feel Bernie Mac has been sorely underutilized since the first installment (not because of his color, but because of his talent), Catherine Zeta-Jones has an empowered lead role in 12. Although, if you had trouble following the plot in 13, don't try making it past the 10% you've seen of 12.

Willie Bank
June 14, 2007 at 06:35 AM
SInce Danny and Rusty have chimed in, I thought maybe you should hear from the other side... When the film put up graphics of the dollar amounts the casino was losing as the con went down, all I could think about was how much money was being wasted on this stupid film.

Beth Accomando
June 14, 2007 at 07:51 AM
Ian, This film didn't strike a deep nerve with me. I had completely dismissed it and have only returned to it because it has generated comments. As for not being a guy--you got me there, it's true. But that hasn't stopped me from loving Snatch, Reservoir Dogs, Dog Soldiers, Mean Streets, Sin City and plenty of other so-called "guy" flicks. But maybe I hated Ocean's 13 because it plays like a neutered guy flick. I also hated the remake of Thomas Crown Affair but liked the original. But I don't think either qualifies as a guy film. As for the romantic banter holding its own with other films in the century, I would have to heartily disagree. What about Tracy and Hepburn, Loy and Powell, even Groucho Marx and Margaret Dumont? Or if you want something more recent, Clooney and Zeta-Jones in the Coens' Intolerable Cruelty. That had far more fun and zing. Or heck how about Clooney and Lopez in Soderbergh's Out of Sight--that shows off both Clooney and Soderbergh to far better effect than Ocean's 13. As for the glowing praise you say the film has won, check out all the Rotten Reviews the film has received at Apparently not everyone has embraced the film as you and the other posters have. I'm glad all of you can enjoy the film, and for your sakes I hope you'll get an Ocean's 14, 15, and on and on until George and his pals are rattling around in walkers. I just doubt I'll ever warm up to this particular series. But who knows, if Quentin Tarantino took over the franchise and replaced Clooney, Pitt and Damon with Chow Yun Fat, Samuel L. Jackson and Clive Owen... now that's starting to sound interesting. As for Ocean's 12, you're right, I doubt I would make it past the opening ten minutes. Thanks for posting.

June 14, 2007 at 01:59 PM
After coming out of the movie last night I felt slightly disappointed albeit entertained. Out of curiosity I decided to read what other people disliked about the movie. I have to admit I completely disagree with you on pretty much every account. Lets see, youre opening line If Oceans 13 could treat theaters like clubs then theyd place bouncers at the doors so that only the cool people would be let in it would be in keeping with how the film would like to brand itself as the hip, cool, happening place to be this summer. What is wrong with that? Yes the movie branded itself as the hip, cool, and happening place to be. Guess what, thats what Hollywood is all about. Hollywood has become a metonym for cool. To be honest, I closed up after reading this sentence. I instantly had a feeling that this review was about more than the movie. It is obvious that you have some deep seeded detestation for the in crowd. Moving on, I agree with you that the movie is all about the chemistry of the contemporary rat pack, but I disagree that Oceans 13 fails to deliver. Just like I cant help but smile when I watch video footage of Sinatra, Dino, Sammy hanging out, Clooney, Pitt, and Damon provide a certain charm that makes any bloke wish he was their friends. You site that the movie attempts to bring its charm through inside jokes, enigmatic observations, and gags. The film does this very well. What confuses me is how you dont understand the insider humor, cryptic comments, and smug gags between the stars. My guess is that it is for the same reason you fail to follow the films uncharacteristically simple plot. This time around, Ocean and crew had no hidden agenda as their entire heist is laid out early in the movie. My complaint is that the plot was too easy to follow, the inside jokes too infrequent, and the ending lackluster. Oceans 11 and Oceans 12 both had plots that were slightly more complex, with endings that at the very least leave the audience smiling at Dannys ingenuity. My complaint is that 13 was too simple and too easy to understand. This versions ending was desperate at best. Dannys revelation to Benedict that he was in fact spying on him and Toulour all along was simply put lame. You complain about the importance of Sinatra in the movie while also complaining about Soderberghs lack of commentary on the Barkin Pacino, Pacino -Caan relationships. Sinatra is placed on a pedestal because if it wasnt for him this movie wouldnt be made. Do you expect Soderbergh to comment on every real life relationship amongst the stars of a movie with arguably 10 in it? Back to my original point, did you realize you wrote the words cool three times, hip twice, and happening twice all in a negative light. Normally I would agree that Hollywood puts too much emphasis on such things, but your disdain for these ideals is borderline disturbing. You repeat self-indulgent, smug, and full of themselves so often that your audience cant help but sense a hint of the Shakespearean green monster. I just want to end with a quote from your review: Their easy rapport and obvious pleasure in each others company infected the audience with a sense of fun. Will you read that to yourself? Do you not have an easy rapport with anyone? Do you not take pleasure in anyones company? And if you dont, why are friends comfort and pleasure in each other infectious?

June 14, 2007 at 04:18 PM
Sorry, just realized that was harshly negative. I did like your review on Knocked Up!

June 14, 2007 at 06:49 PM
Leave your sexism at the door when you want to review a movie. Thanks.

June 14, 2007 at 10:31 PM
This is a horribly written review, and I didn't even like Ocean's 13.

Beth Accomando
June 16, 2007 at 05:39 AM
Nick, I love your comments. Seriously. At least you took the time to take me to task over specific points and waited until the end to deliver the low blow (but your second post seemed to acknowledge that). Of course I still have to disagree with you. I have nothing against hip and cool unless it's shoved down my throat like a brand or a product, which is how it felt in Ocean's 13. Sinatra was hip and cool; James Dean epitomized hip and cool; and nowadays Chow Yun Fat displays effortless cool. Those are examples of hip and cool that I can embrace. But I really have low tolerance for films that maintain a pretense of cool. That's what I was criticizing. I agree with your feelings about the original Rat Pack. And their genuine rapport made the 1960's Ocean's 11 fun because you felt like you were getting a private glimpse at what these guys were like off screen. Sinatra, Dino, Sammy--they REALLY did hang out with each other because they frequently worked Vegas at the same time, and you sensed that. But this new "Rat Pack" has a manufactured camraderie, it doesn't feel genuine. I don't get the sense that all these guys hang out with each on a regular basis. So I was criticizing the artificiality of it. As for the cryptic lines and inside jokes, they don't play well for me because they just feel lazy when they could have been more clever (that's why I mentioned the connections between Pacino and some of the other stars). As for not understanding the 2 Ocean's films--well, I find Shakespeare easier to understand because he actually thought through his plots and invested them with intelligence. Ocean's 13 is complicated without being complex. I mean, did you really buy the whole subplot about going to a Mexican plant to rig dice that would miraculously end up at just the right moment to pull off a con? And then why throw in a workers' revolution on top of that? That was unnecessarily complicated without being the least bit clever. For clever plotting in a heist film check out David Mamet's The Heist or for something sillier, Snatch. Finally, I think you're working far too hard to find negative things in my review. My comment about "infected the audience with a sense of fun" was not negative. The dictionary does list as a definition of infect: "to work upon so as to induce sympathy, belief or support." And infectious is often used in a postive sense as in "infectious humor" or someone who "has an infectious laugh." I also intended it to mean that their rapport was something that you just couldn't resist. So check your dictionary and re-read that line again and see if you missed the fact that it was positive. And I know you may find this hard to believe but I do have an easy rapport with someone and I do take pleasure in others' company, and I do find the passion my friends have for movies quite delightfully infectious. I know it's hard to believe but even critics have friends. Thanks for posting, Nick. I appreciate the fact that even though you "closed up" after the first line you still went back over the review with a fine tooth comb to build your argument. If you live in San Diego, you should call into the live Film Club show I do with Scott marks on These Days. I think you'd be fun to argue with... and I mean that in an entirely positive way. Thanks again to all the posters who help keep this site entertaining.

Tigger Nitties
June 16, 2007 at 07:01 PM
This absolute nonsense about minorities not getting lead roles is so tiresome. I guess you only saw 10% of the first Ocean's film as well with Don Cheadle?? Why does it make you feel bad that there were no minorities? Do you wring your hands over the paucity of white athletes in the NFL, NBA, etc? Try thinking for yourself and not seeing everything through a racial prism. Very unprofessional to bring these non-factors into your "review".

June 21, 2007 at 02:24 AM
I saw this movie, it was better than the first two!

June 21, 2007 at 09:26 PM
I know I'm a bit late but I'll probably go check it out today

June 22, 2007 at 07:41 PM
Been to see Oceans Thirteen? Check out the soundtrack here:

Lissy Hogan
June 23, 2007 at 03:28 AM
A movie is for entertainment! Staring at 10 gorgeous guys one who is probably the best actor ever is NOT a waste of 2 hours of my life! If George Clooney reads this you are such a wonderful human being, a great actor and I am sorry for the loss of your beloved pot bellied pig. This movie was sharp, fun, funny and a great ride. With everything in the world that doesn't make sense like murder, death and a war shut up and see a great movie that takes your mind off your worries! It did just that!!!!

Lissy Hogan
June 23, 2007 at 03:31 AM
Al Pacino, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon and all the rest Gorgeous hunks Great Actors It was fun, sharp, clever and a great ride! With murder, death and a war that is killing innocent people...shut up and stop criticizing it! It was great! The end!

Jimmy B
June 24, 2007 at 03:52 AM
Im not going to read all of the comments and I havent paid great attention to the review that I read in full, and to be honest I will never come back here to check what you may say in reply to this. You are ignorant, you do not use fact in your accusations and simply spout nothing more than a 6 foot vaginal flamer would. Im not going to reply to your review with grace and try to express my intelligence when you have battered your competence already. Simply put - you have no basis for accusation and you simply need to learn how to write a constructive paper, whether it be a critique or not. Good luck in your ridiculous endeavors.

bob the duck fu cker
June 24, 2007 at 01:45 PM
fuc k all yall go suck a duck next to truck full of tarts

June 27, 2007 at 05:48 PM
i wholeheartedly agree with you on your review. ignore the naysayers, it's FACT: the ocean's series of movies suck. as do pretty much every other soderbergh flicks

Michael Cravey
July 01, 2007 at 02:33 PM
I think the same sort of negative reaction I recieve from people being jealous of me is precisely the same motivation going on behind these negative reviews about this movie. This movie was a master piece, in my opinion. It also requires having a different kind of intelligence to appreciate it. A socially intelligent mind, who understands people, would find the characters better than the plot. The movie was so down-to-earth (ironically) that it constantly reminded the viewer that he or she was in a movie. Take for instance the mirrored door that almost shows the camera crew at the end, that gets people ready for the message that poor people deserve attention from the rich who play games.

Tom Atkins
July 03, 2007 at 09:55 AM
We saw it today... it sucked. Delivering the giant drilling machine that dug the tunnel beneath the English Channel on a single flat bed truck? They lost me right then and there. Where did they put all the dirt? How did the diamond display stay lit up dangling from the chopper? Where are the power cords for the lights? Have these directors ever taken an elementary physics class? How can so much money be put into a movie, so much talent?... our best directors, actors and technology to make such a smelly production?

July 10, 2007 at 06:10 AM
Beth, I agree with your review, although I did find the movie enjoyable enough that I didn't regret having paid $9 to see it. It was pretty unbelievable and unexciting, and it really didn't build any suspense. And it would be great to see a woman or person of color having a major role in one of the Oceans movies, although it's hard to beat Pitt and Clooney for leads. Even in a lackluster vehicle like this one, they exude charm and are easy on the eyes. Too bad this film wasn't better, but I'm not asking for my money back.

November 10, 2007 at 05:16 AM
jkslrzcx qwjpfakl etjmolda [URL=]olsbqzlb[/URL] afjqpepz

November 23, 2007 at 01:24 AM
Check out Elliott Gould on Chanukah With The stars

Barbie Yost
January 05, 2008 at 08:10 PM
I did enjoy the movie but the quality of the DVD we rented was terrible. I hope the movie in the theater didn't look this bad.

Maria Chang
January 10, 2008 at 05:47 PM
I just saw "Ocean's 13" on Netflix DVD--and I am pissed. I was expecting a light caper movie, but this is simply lousy movie-making. Shame on you, Steven Soderberg. Shame on the entire cast, especially the returning cast from the previous 2 Ocean's, beginning with George Clooney. You all obviously signed on to this execrable excuse of a movie for the big bucks. Beth Accomando, you nailed all that's wrong with this movie in your excellent review!--especially your very insightful observation that the racial/ethnic/gender caste system lives on. That this bunch actually call themselves "liberal" and "left" completely exposes their hypocrisy.

al from pacino
June 30, 2008 at 05:23 PM
listen you, this is a very unprofessional review. why you ask? i'll tell you why, it's because you haven't even seen the movie! how in the red sooty hell are you given the privilege to review this superb movie! this movie gold! you did not do your homework missy. i do my homework before i do my roles, that is why i am a big fat stinking rich hollywood actor and you are not. let me tell you something sweetheart, maybe some where you might have seen george or brad or myself and we pushed you aside when you asked for our autographs but that doesn't mean you bash the lead actors of this movie. someone in your comments said it true, it's not about skin colour, race or ethnicity, it's about talent, and the talented people were clearly set in the lead roles. i hereby forever ban you from reviewing any of my future movies.

Beth Accomando from San Diego
June 30, 2008 at 06:44 PM
Well Al, I guess you were too busy making great "art" like 88 Minutes (which was in theaters for what, about 85 minutes?) to respond to this review when it originally came out. If you had read my review, you would have realized that I did see the movie I was reviewing (Ocean's 13), and I simply didn't like it. The movie I did not see -- and it was a movie you weren't in, or did you forget? -- was the second Ocean's film, Ocean's 12 (which I saw about 15 minutes of and that was ll I could take). But I wasn't reviewing that film. As for your ban-- sorry but it will have no effect here. Unless of course your films -- like People I Know -- don't even open in town and go direct to video. The only thing you can do to protect yourself from critical assaults is to go back to making great films like The Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon and Looking for Richard. Thanks for the comments.