Stephen Soderbergh is one of those directors - make that 'auteurs' - 'cineastes' revere. (A 'cineaste' is a man or woman, but invariably a man, who is 'passionate' about films and filmmaking. That's all you need to know about 'cineastes'.) Drop the name Soderbergh into many a conversation and you leave your mark as a man or a woman, but invariably a man, who is a cut above the hoi polloi in matters film. Sodebergh is one of a small, elite group of 'auteurs' who could fart on film and be acclaimed as 'left-field', 'original', 'daring' where you and I would be sent away with a flea in our ear for doing the same thing.
I have by no means seen all of his films but I rather liked two - Sex, Lies And Videotapes, with which he made his name (on the strength of that film the saintly Roger Ebert described Soderbergh as 'the poster boy of the Sundance generation') and Side Effects, a more conventional film but an effective thriller. Unfortunately, Soderbergh's talents, for he undoubtedly has talent, often fail him and Ocean's Twelve is a case in point. (Incidentally, Soderbergh was either not aware what a self-indulgent hotch-potch of rubbish Ocean's Twelve became - which is unlikely - or he was but thought that given his reputation he could get away with it - for more likely.)
I haven't seen Ocean's Eleven, Soderbergh's remake of the Rat Pack film, which I understand was rather good, not least because the plotting was tight, though the rule of thumb is 'if you're going to remake a film, you'd better have a very good reason for doing so' and as far as I know Sodernergh didn't have one for remaking Ocean's Eleven. As for this sequel, loose, not to say abysmally awful, plotting is one of many failures which reduce Ocean's Twelve to such a worthless piece of rubbish that you wonder why it didn't go straight to video. Actually, given the 'name actors' involved, not least George Clooney, Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt, there was no way they could even contemplate allowing it to go straight to video. Elsewhere in these pages a civilian reviewer has remarked that in the round of TV interviews launched to plug this film when it was first released, the cast was reduced to insisting what a real hoot they all had making it - never, ever a good sign. In the reviewers words the producers realised what a turkey they had on their hands and were engaged in campaign of damage limitation.
The reason Ocean's Twelve was made is obvious: Ocean's Eleven made a shedload of money so the producers took to heart Sam Goldwyn's dictum 'if they liked it once, they'll love it twice' and decided to cash in. Well, they did - just (the budget was $110,000 million, it grossed £125,000 million - not a roaring success.)
So that of the film itself? Well, it gets of to a reasonable start and the first 20 minutes more or less pass muster, although this viewer is getting a little tired of the old Hollywood schtick of 'getting the old gang together again for one last job'. If I've seen it once, I've seen it 1.000 and it doesn't change a great deal. But then the doubts mount. I don't mind being baffled a little if I feel safe in the knowledge that there is an intelligence at play here which will draw all the strands together in an honest and coherent way. But on this occasion I didn't. On this occasion I got the feeling that the inconsistencies weren't clever plot devices but because at the end of the day the director just couldn't be arsed. Roll on to the finale and that suspicion is confirmed: Soderbergh had reduced himself to the status of jobbing director getting a slice of that promised shedload of money. I shan't give a spoiler but the whole script seems to have been written on the hoof and given that finale the previous hour or so make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are an insult to the viewer.
So, Stephen, a few arty camera angles - the shot of the plane arriving in Rome with the camera simply on its side is pure adolescence - and a pseudo cinema verite style of filming with the characters all talking at the same time with the camera behaving like a drunk at a party don't give you a get out of jail card: this is clunky filmmaking at its worst. My advice to all is: just don't bother.
I have by no means seen all of his films but I rather liked two - Sex, Lies And Videotapes, with which he made his name (on the strength of that film the saintly Roger Ebert described Soderbergh as 'the poster boy of the Sundance generation') and Side Effects, a more conventional film but an effective thriller. Unfortunately, Soderbergh's talents, for he undoubtedly has talent, often fail him and Ocean's Twelve is a case in point. (Incidentally, Soderbergh was either not aware what a self-indulgent hotch-potch of rubbish Ocean's Twelve became - which is unlikely - or he was but thought that given his reputation he could get away with it - for more likely.)
I haven't seen Ocean's Eleven, Soderbergh's remake of the Rat Pack film, which I understand was rather good, not least because the plotting was tight, though the rule of thumb is 'if you're going to remake a film, you'd better have a very good reason for doing so' and as far as I know Sodernergh didn't have one for remaking Ocean's Eleven. As for this sequel, loose, not to say abysmally awful, plotting is one of many failures which reduce Ocean's Twelve to such a worthless piece of rubbish that you wonder why it didn't go straight to video. Actually, given the 'name actors' involved, not least George Clooney, Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt, there was no way they could even contemplate allowing it to go straight to video. Elsewhere in these pages a civilian reviewer has remarked that in the round of TV interviews launched to plug this film when it was first released, the cast was reduced to insisting what a real hoot they all had making it - never, ever a good sign. In the reviewers words the producers realised what a turkey they had on their hands and were engaged in campaign of damage limitation.
The reason Ocean's Twelve was made is obvious: Ocean's Eleven made a shedload of money so the producers took to heart Sam Goldwyn's dictum 'if they liked it once, they'll love it twice' and decided to cash in. Well, they did - just (the budget was $110,000 million, it grossed £125,000 million - not a roaring success.)
So that of the film itself? Well, it gets of to a reasonable start and the first 20 minutes more or less pass muster, although this viewer is getting a little tired of the old Hollywood schtick of 'getting the old gang together again for one last job'. If I've seen it once, I've seen it 1.000 and it doesn't change a great deal. But then the doubts mount. I don't mind being baffled a little if I feel safe in the knowledge that there is an intelligence at play here which will draw all the strands together in an honest and coherent way. But on this occasion I didn't. On this occasion I got the feeling that the inconsistencies weren't clever plot devices but because at the end of the day the director just couldn't be arsed. Roll on to the finale and that suspicion is confirmed: Soderbergh had reduced himself to the status of jobbing director getting a slice of that promised shedload of money. I shan't give a spoiler but the whole script seems to have been written on the hoof and given that finale the previous hour or so make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are an insult to the viewer.
So, Stephen, a few arty camera angles - the shot of the plane arriving in Rome with the camera simply on its side is pure adolescence - and a pseudo cinema verite style of filming with the characters all talking at the same time with the camera behaving like a drunk at a party don't give you a get out of jail card: this is clunky filmmaking at its worst. My advice to all is: just don't bother.
Tell Your Friends