 It's not all clear sailing for Ocean's 13 , but for the most part, critics are giving it a free pass. Jan Stuart in Newsday suggests that the only thing that matters "is that for two hours, life as you drearily know it is effectively suspended and a summery delirium takes over." Claudia Puig in USA Today makes the case that "this slick bauble of a movie qualifies as the best of the summer 'threequels.'" Manohla Dargis in the New York Times calls it "a gas" and she apparently means that literally, writing, "It's lighter than air, prettier than life, a romp, a goof and an attentively oiled machine." Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times figures "most moviegoers will probably feel they got their money's worth, and that's the bottom line. But I grew impatient with the lickety-split pacing." Jack Mathews in the New York Daily News concludes that the movie's plot "is sometimes clever, often funny and almost never believable." Likewise, Joel Seigel commented on Good Morning America: "Complicated? How about preposterous. But it's fun. It's funny." And Lou Lumenick in the New York Post refers to it as "the least overbearing of the franchise installments rolled out so far." But if these critics are willing to give the Steven Soderbergh film the benefit of a doubt, other critics are not. Michael Phillips in the Chicago Sun Times complains that the movie "offers criminally little in the way of moviegoing pleasure." Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times comments: "Though it's certainly serviceable as the second sequel to a remake, it lacks the brio and elan that made the 2001 film such a treat." And Stephen Hunter in the Washington Post begins his review by remarking "Ocean's Thirteen is too complicated for its own mediocrity." |
