Saw it last night and loved it. Very good plot, extremely good cinematography and directing. Almost no swearing at all, no sex (or even nudity), and no violence.
Anyone else?
[quote=“Fortigurn”]Saw it last night and loved it. Very good plot, extremely good cinematography and directing. Almost no swearing at all, no sex (or even nudity), and no violence.
Anyone else?[/quote]
Sorry Fort. I was left high and dry by it.
The actual heist was not nearly as sexy as the Bellagio heist. Come on, create a diversion and pull the switch? This is B-movie stuff. And a Faberge egg? Oooooooooo…
It seemed to me like they just put a bunch of A-list actors before a camera and filmed them while they teased each other. Like that whole bit about Clooney looking 50 years old. I mean, really. And Julia Roberts looks like Julia Roberts? How Deus-ex-machina can you get? If Tess can look like JR, why didn’t anyone notice Rusty’s uncanny resemblance to BP, or how Danny looks alot like that guy from the old episodes of Roseanne? Hey, wasn’t that big black guy also the Vice-president of the USA in Head of State? I am sure I have seen the entire gang in something else but I think you get my point by now.
Even when the Carl Reiner character shows up to save the day. His efforts were over-run within 2 minutes.
No, I felt it would be a sad attempt at regaining the past glory and IMHO, it failed miserably. I can only think of one successful venture of this ilk. The Fish Called Wanda crowd ably re-tooled and re-pooled their talent into a completely different film. Ocean’s 12 is the second worst thing to come out of the ocean in the last 2 weeks.
[quote=“James T”][quote=“Fortigurn”]Saw it last night and loved it. Very good plot, extremely good cinematography and directing. Almost no swearing at all, no sex (or even nudity), and no violence.
Anyone else?[/quote]
Sorry Fort. I was left high and dry by it.
The actual heist was not nearly as sexy as the Bellagio heist.[/quote]
I didn’t see the first one, so I don’t have a point of comparison.
I was disappointed by the means by which they actually pulled the genuine article, but I can’t help reflecting that historically some of the greatest heists have indeed been precisely this simple. Indeed, some of the great art thefts have involved nothing more than a bit of daring, some good timing, and the quick use of a razor blade, in broad daylight.
Nice egg. 
I didn’t know half of them, so to me it didn’t look like a bunch of A-list actors. I only recognised Clooney and Willis. My wife had to tell me which one was Brad Pitt, and that ‘You do realise that is actually Julia Roberts, don’t you?’.
For me the teasing was some of the best dialogue.
I don’t have a problem with a well executed Deus ex machina, especially if it’s well orchestrated. The charm is in the process, not the result.
A little playful self-referentialism isn’t a bad thing, I think. I thought it worked quite well.
Sorry, I don’t understand this bit. Who was the Carl Reiner figure?
All I can say is that perhaps it was good that I hadn’t seen the first one. My wife has, and she thought this compared quite well.
For me, the best part was certainly the directing. I really enjoyed the achronicity of the plot presentation, the deliberately mixed dialogue, and the cinematography (especially the quirky angles, out of focus shots, and off center subjects).
The first one was a re-make. I was disappointed by it and found I wanted to see the original after it. The cinematography was nice but I suspect even that copied the original. When I saw this came out-the first question that came to my head was: Why would anyone make a sequel to a re-make?
I don’t think I’ll pay full price to see it.
Yes, my wife tells me the original was a Sinatra film, is that correct?
[quote]The cinematography was nice but I suspect even that copied the original. When I saw this came out-the first question that came to my head was: Why would anyone make a sequel to a re-make?
I don’t think I’ll pay full price to see it.[/quote]
Well it takes different kinds. Thanks for expressing your opinion politely and in an intelligent way.
Yes, enjoyed it.
Except of course for the lack of swearing, sex and violence.
Yes, my wife tells me the original was a Sinatra film, is that correct?[/quote]
In fact, the entire Rat Pack filmed it in between gigs on Vegas stages. It’s pretty camp when you watch it now, but it was huge back in the day.
[quote][quote]The cinematography was nice but I suspect even that copied the original. When I saw this came out-the first question that came to my head was: Why would anyone make a sequel to a re-make?
I don’t think I’ll pay full price to see it.[/quote]
Well it takes different kinds. Thanks for expressing your opinion politely and in an intelligent way. [/quote]
I am sorry I paid full price ($200NT each) even though we got to view a digital version of it. The images were very sharp, but not noticeably so. It was a fun romp, but the hype led me to believe that they had come up with an amazingly surprising script. It was not, imho, surprising at all.
Fun yes. Intelligent no.
my wife fell asleep
so the fbi woman is actually in the fbi or was she pretending too? you can’t trust any of these weasels…
Ocean’s 11 was crap so one would only expect Ocean’s 12 to be crappier.
What is a good movie in your world? I mean is it more Pulp Fiction or Sound of Music or something in between.
Enjoyed oceans 11, but oceans 12 was terrible. When Bruce Willis shows up as himself, it was the final nail in the coffin for me.
What is a deus ex machina? I have been wondering that ever since I saw “Adaptation.”
Literally “God from the Machine”, IIRC. Basically means a totally contrived plot point (usually the ending) with no obvious justification, which has just been thrown in to make things easy for a lazy prick of a writer because he’s painted himself into a corner.
Literally “God from the Machine”, IIRC.[/quote]
Actually ‘machine [contrivance] from God’ would be better, contextually speaking. And the rest of the definition was a little biased. The Deus has been a recognised literary technique for centuries, and has been used adroitly by the classics.
As I said above, it’s all about the process.
I think it dates back to the accient greek stories (hence the greek word, wait, that doesn’t sound right) When the gods would turn up at the end from nowhere to save the good guys from a pickle. Seems a bit of a con because the good guys should save themselves.
I bought a copy yesterday and watched in the privacy of home. Not too bad. Like most recent movies I’ve seen lately the last 20 minutes was totally unneedeed.
Deus Ex Machina.
Tetsuo had a very accurate description. When Greek playwrights had written their protaganists into a corner, they would fly in a god to extricate them from the pinch. The actor playing the god would be hoisted (or canti-levered) over the skena (backdrop), thusly creating a god in the machine. The canti-lever was the machine.
Traditionally, it is used when a writer can’t figure out how to get out of the plot. Mostly, a derisive and critical assessment, however it can and has been used very effectively to make a statement. Moliere used the convention in Tartuffe to in fact denegrate the church he held in such low esteem. In fact, Lars van Trier also uses it in Dogville, the machine being replaced by a car. In so doing, he allowed us to understand that Nicole’s character was not of this earth, giving the entire film a sort of The Bacchae treatment.
In the case of Ocean’s 12, it was used because the script was so weak, the writers had little choice. They tried to hand it to us as a semi-comical breaking of tradition, but I thought it was completely lame.
And another thing: Why did they stick around to go thru with the challenge if they already had the egg?
The film sucked. Worse film I’ve seen since Tears of the Sun or whatever that BW claptrap was called.
Isn’t there only seven oceans?
Eight. You forgot Billy.