Halloween 2

Three years after director John Carpenter’s low-budget horror film “Halloween” debuted in theaters, taking both Hollywood and audiences by surprise; the masked killer, Michael Myers, was back and ready to take another stab at the one that got away.

“Halloween 2” picks up immediately where the first film ended. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) has just lived through one of the most traumatic nights of her life and believes herself to be safe from any further harm. Sometimes though, appearances can be deceiving. For even though Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) shot Laurie’s would-be killer Michael Myers numerous times; somehow, the masked lunatic survived and managed to evade capture by the authorities. Now, as Laurie is taken to the local hospital, her seemingly unstoppable predator patiently bides his time, just waiting for the perfect moment to strike. With only Dr. Loomis and a handful of police officers and hospital workers standing between Michael and his quarry, Laurie’s night of terror may have only just begun.

I’ve heard it said many times in regards to the plethora of horror franchises, “This series (insert horror franchise of choice) would have been better off if it would have ended after number one.” Generally speaking this statement is fairly accurate. In fact, we could look at numerous horror franchises, and even some from other genres, to which this would apply. However, I will spare you my picks for that rather lengthy list, in order to discuss whether or not the burgeoning ‘Halloween’ franchise has been doomed to a place therein.

Penned by the returning writing and producing duo of John Carpenter and Debra Hill, the film takes us through the remaining hours of that terrifying night depicted in the original. Carpenter and Hill do their level best to retain that special something that made their first movie’s story work so well. Yet, despite their best efforts the film never really seems to grab hold in the way its predecessor did.

The dialogue was stronger in some places, but still suffered from an over-abundance of clichés (which now seems to be a horror movie tradition) and several moments of blandness. While the dialogue was somewhat improved, the suspenseful nature of the original was almost nowhere to be found, much to the chagrin of many a fan. Lastly, there is the obvious lack of character development that runs more or less across the board. This oversight in the story actually surprised me given that franchise originator John Carpenter co-wrote the script. I expected him of all people to continue trying to expand upon the characters he had created. Oddly enough, one of the characters that received some development (albeit ever so briefly touched upon and clumsily handled) is the killer himself, Michael Myers. Aside from that brief moment for Michael, character development was quite scant, and didn’t really seem to occur at all until the final half-hour or so of the movie.

Perhaps these problems were a result of the fact that John Carpenter has admitted on several occasions that he hadn’t really planned ahead for a second installment, and that he only intended to make just the one film. Although, to be honest his excuse has always seemed a little hard to believe when one considers the wide open ending of “Halloween”. Anyways, maybe there is some truth in his words, because it’s possible that John hadn’t really considered continuing the series beyond the first movie, and that any potential sequels were expected to be handled by someone else in every respect. If you think about it, crafting a story that follows a successful movie cannot be an easy task, no matter how talented the screenwriter may be. To make matters worse, having a screenplay that runs into a severe snag approximately halfway through the film isn’t exactly a confidence booster either.

Case in point, when the writer of a story, or in this case a screenplay, realizes that they do not have an ending for their narrative, this typically means that the movie should be a no-go. Yet, in this rare instance, the lack of resolution presented the screenwriters with a chance to deliver a surprising revelation that would provide the plot with a satisfying conclusion. The revelation, although ostracizing to some fans of the original due to the affect it had on the previous film’s story, resulted in the series having a much more intimate overall storyline than it would have had otherwise.

As for the film’s director, Rick Rosenthal was placed in the unenviable position of helming a follow-up to the very film that by all accounts created the sub-genre the series now exists within. To Rick’s credit he tried to recapture the look and feel of the first film via the use of long tracking shots throughout the various locales in the film, and numerous times placed us once more into the shoes of Michael Myers. For the most part, Rick did an admirable job, and it is during those times, listed a moment ago, that the movie really starts to work. However, even during this movie’s stronger moments there are still two key elements to the first film’s success that were noticeably absent from this one’s visual style.

First, there was the lack of subtlety in the scares and/or death scenes. The first film relied heavily on shadows and implication during these moments. By not showing as much of what was happening within the scene, the audience was then forced to imagine the events based on their sounds and shadows moving; thus, the audience’s own imaginations and fears could take over resulting in potentially bigger scares. As I said, with “Halloween 2” the subtlety is essentially gone; in its place, a higher body count and much more gore. Supposedly, the stylistic exchange of more gore for subtlety was a result of re-shoots courtesy of John Carpenter who reportedly wanted the film to be able to go toe-to-toe with its slasher film competition. Whatever the case may be, I feel the decision was detrimental to the end result. Frankly, I’m surprised that John Carpenter didn’t see that flaw in the decision himself.

The second stylistic element that was lacking, although “changed” is probably a more accurate wording, was having Michael Myers extremely visible throughout the entirety of the film. In the original, we had glimpses of Michael for a majority of the time, and were shown more of him near the end. Despite the fact that we already knowing what he looks like, that didn’t mean he needed to be more out in the open. Much of the fear Michael’s character evoked was a result of him sticking predominantly to the shadows. Once that factor is removed he was no longer as mysterious, or even frightening for that matter; instead, he was just another masked man with a knife trying to kill this one young woman that got away.

Speaking of the one that got away, Jamie Lee Curtis was made into a star with her portrayal of would-be victim Laurie Strode. Her performance in the original film was so much more mature than one would usually expect from a horror film character. Of course, the role made such a strong connection with the audience due to the surprising amount of character development that occurred over the course of the movie, a trait that is generally unheard of in horror. However, in this installment, Jamie’s character is reduced to nothing more than a nearly catatonic zombie; effectively wasting her talents as an actress, while doing virtually nothing to enhance the character of Laurie Strode and her involvement in the series. Honestly, it almost seemed as if Jamie was included in the film in order to ensure some star power to attract audiences and nothing else.

Once again leading the supporting cast members is Donald Pleasence as Michael’s former shrink Dr. Loomis. In the last film, Donald received nearly as much screen time and character development as Jamie Lee; thankfully, that was not the case here (in terms of character development, that is). The character of Dr. Loomis appeared to be stalling in terms of his development early on in the film, and for a moment Donald Pleasence looked as if he too was going to be another wasted talent in this picture. However, unlike with Jamie Lee, Loomis’ role became much more intriguing once the big revelation occurred within the story, and his obsession to stop Michael once and for all really kicked into high gear. Within the movie’s final half-hour Donald really began to sink his teeth into the role of Loomis, and the change in his character’s resolve and demeanor were very well conveyed throughout the closing moments of his performance.

The other supporting characters share many of the same attributes as their predecessors from the original; the only big difference is that this time most of the characters are in their early twenties to thirties rather than teenagers. That being said, their age doesn’t appear to have resulted in maturity for most of them. For instance, Leo Rossi’s (“Relentless”) character only seems to exist in the movie to fulfill the role of the horny teenager, but as an adult. Then, there’s Pamela Shoop who seems to have slightly more going on upstairs than Leo Rossi’s character, but not by much. Her role is to provide the obligatory, and completely gratuitous, nude scene so that young teenage males watching the movie won’t be disappointed. Lastly, there’s Lance Guest (“The Last Starfighter”) who aside from Jamie Lee appears to be the youngest member of the main cast of characters. Lance doesn’t give much of a noteworthy performance, but he is clearly trying to make his character more interesting than just a carbon copy of what’s come before. Overall, the supporting cast, Donald Pleasence excluded, were as pointless in their existence as those of the original and maybe even more so.

It was quite clear from the get-go that this particular follow-up was not going to come anywhere close to matching the quality of “Halloween”. While the movie is plagued by more problems than the first film; there were still moments where it did shine (mostly when it was emulating the stronger elements of its predecessor). In the end, “Halloween 2” is a below average sequel that doesn’t completely doom the series, but any more problems and it would have been a different story.

“Halloween 2” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.

Halloween

Beginning in 1978 the landscape of cinema changed forever with the introduction of one knife-wielding, masked killer named Michael Myers. The film that introduced audiences to this man was the seminal horror classic “Halloween”. With this one movie director John Carpenter (“Escape from New York”) launched his directing career to new heights, and made Jamie Lee Curtis into a movie star (“True Lies”). Not to mention, the monster success of this low-budget horror thriller subsequently created an entire sub-genre of horror known as the slasher film.

“Halloween” centers on the sleepy little town of Haddonfield, Illinois. For most people, Haddonfield appears to be the most idyllic place to live; however, beneath the surface lays a deadly secret. Fifteen years ago, on Halloween night, a deranged young boy named Michael Myers murdered his older sister. Now, all these years later, Michael has escaped from a mental institution and is returning home to continue what he started so long ago.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I personally find it strange to refer to a horror film as a classic in any regard. Because for the most part, entries into this genre are some of the most forgettable movies ever committed to film no matter how many sequels they may generate. However, with “Halloween” John Carpenter created a movie that was more in the vein of a thriller than previous horror titles, resulting in a movie that still stands relatively unchallenged by its genre, even to this day. So, to say that this is a classic horror film, a feat that doesn’t seem that hard to achieve, is nothing short of the truth.

In my opinion, the key to why John Carpenter’s vision of that horror-filled October 31st remains so resonant with audiences is due to the way he used the camera to bring the viewer into the events. Unlike most modern horror films, well truthfully any horror film made since the release of “Halloween”, this one opts to not rely on buckets and buckets of blood and gore to freak out audiences. Instead, John took a much more innovative approach by imbuing the film with an atmosphere saturated with a foreboding sense of terror and dread; thus, keeping the viewers in an almost constant state of suspense from start to finish. In addition, Carpenter filmed many scenes with these slow-moving tracking shots that were designed to give the audience the unsettling viewpoint of virtually being in Michael Myers’ shoes as he methodically stalks his prey. If it weren’t for the ingenuity of John Carpenter on display while filming this movie, some of which may have been a result of the film’s tiny budget, “Halloween” would most likely not have been the often imitated and respected movie that it is today.

With all that being said, I don’t want to diminish the story’s impact on the film’s long-lasting appeal. Co-written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill (“Escape from L.A.”), the screenplay is a nearly perfect example of how a horror film, or thriller for that matter, should be paced to allow the tension within the story to naturally build from moment to moment until it reaches its maximum potential for the final act. Both Carpenter and Hill were smart enough to not rush the story to get to the scares quicker, an approach ignored by the majority of horror films released these days. By not rushing into the horror aspect, the screenplay takes some time in attempting to develop the characters, especially Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) and Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence).

Also, the story preys upon many people’s fear of the mysterious and unknown by taking the less is more approach to showing Michael on screen. This move was both bold and brilliant all at once, and again is a tactic ignored by modern day slasher films. By placing Michael predominantly in shadows, the story escalates the audience’s apprehension, because now, they aren’t even sure where he’s going to strike from next. To me, if I’m a horror director, this is one movie that I would study over and over, because it seems to be that this is the film by which all others are compared.

While the storyline played a very pivotal role in the success of this film, it is not without its share of problems. As a horror movie one must expect certain faults to be evident in the story; however, that still doesn’t excuse them from being noted either. For instance, the various characters in the movie are, for the most part, given very little to do other than potentially serve as fodder for Michael. Now this doesn’t apply to Jamie’s character or Donald Pleasence’s, both of theirs received numerous moments of development, and the movie benefits greatly from those times. But if your character doesn’t happen to be as important as either one of those two… Look out. Most likely you’ll end up appearing as little more than a horny teenager heading for a not-so pleasant demise at the business end of a knife.

Another area this movie suffers, to an extent, is in the dialogue, which seems like a common problem for many a horror movie. There are areas of the movie that are well-written and polished, but other times the characters sound as if their brains have been removed and they’re just making pointless, inane conversation. Although to be fair, some of the dialogue problems may have had more to do with the actor or actress speaking the line rather than the actual line itself.

The acting in this film is a mixed bag of surprisingly good performances and those that are barely average or below. Leading the cast was the relatively unknown (at the time) Jamie Lee Curtis. I still am impressed by the work Jamie put into creating Laurie. The innocence and naiveté that she displays is what makes her so endearing to the audience, resulting in us rooting for her survival all the more. Her compassion and bravery during the more harrowing scenes her character goes through are also very commendable. It is not often in horror movies that the characters appear to be as genuinely concerned for the safety of others over their own. Within these moments for Laurie Strode I believe John Carpenter really excelled in driving home her maturity and development as a character over the course of the film.

Veteran actor Donald Pleasence, whose character of Dr. Sam Loomis shares nearly as much screen time as Jamie’s, delivered to audiences a character that could have been written off as being one dimensional by so many other actors. Donald portrayed Loomis with an interesting mix of fierce determination to stop Michael’s reign of terror, and also an underlying remorse for not being able to cure Michael of his bloodlust. It was this dichotomy within the role that made him an intriguing member of the cast for not only this movie, but the numerous sequels that followed in which he co-starred.

The remaining characters in the movie are easily forgotten, but I would be remiss not to mention the less than stellar performances from the movie. First off, we have actress Nancy Kyes (or Nancy Loomis as she was known back then), who gave easily the worst performance in the movie. Perhaps some people liked her character of Annie Brackett in this film, but I for one found her to be whiny, brash and irritating. Nancy’s performance in the movie is the reason for why I earlier proposed that perhaps it was the actor or actress speaking the lines that made them sound bad rather than the line being poorly written. Her delivery was incredibly slow and at times painful to sit through as she struggled to get the words out in anything resembling a normal speech pattern. What’s disappointing about the character of Annie is that in the hands of a more capable actress, perhaps she would have been a more likeable addition to the movie; instead, I hated almost every moment she was on screen.

Lastly, there’s actress P.J. Soles, who was given the role of Lynda, a character whose sole purpose was to provide the obligatory sex appeal that these movies typically contain. The role of Lynda was a complete waste of time and P.J.’s phoned-in performance didn’t do anything to strengthen her character’s paper-thin story arc either. At least with Nancy Kyes’ character the script gave her more to do, it’s just she wasn’t able to really sell it. Perhaps P.J. should have been given the role of Annie rather than Nancy Kyes, because out of the two, P.J. is the more accomplished actress. Maybe with a different role P.J. could have given a better performance in this movie. Although, to be fair one would be hard pressed to find anything in this film, other than her looks, that shows how good P.J. Soles can be.

Despite its flaws, of which there are several, “Halloween” still stands tall as one of the best horror movies of all-time. Featuring a relatively solid storyline, good acting from the two principal players, a reliance on creating genuine scares rather than gore, and one of the eeriest musical scores I’ve ever heard, “Halloween” birthed not only a popular movie franchise, but an entire sub-genre. Not too shabby for a movie that was made for next to nothing.

“Halloween” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.

Phone Booth

“Isn’t it funny? You hear a phone ring and it could be anybody. But a ringing phone has to be answered, doesn’t it?” This particular line, when used outside of the context of the movie, appears to be nothing more than a rudimentary observation of a typical human inclination. However, this very same line when spoken by actor Keifer Sutherland, with his distinctly recognizable voice that has instilled fear into many a terrorist on TV’s “24”, takes on a creepy and ominous tone. With this one line of dialogue the movie, “Phone Booth”, quickly kicks into high-gear and embarks upon a taut, tense thrill ride that will no doubt leave most audience members questioning whether or not they will answer a ringing public phone ever again.

“Phone Booth” focuses on one really bad day in the life of publicist Stu Shepard (Colin Farrell) as his day goes from average to terrifying with one phone call. On the other end of the line is a deadly accurate sniper with a high-powered rifle aimed right at Stu. If Stu hopes to make it out of this ordeal alive he must do exactly what the caller dictates; if not, then his next breath could be his last.

Making a movie where your main character is forced to spend the better part of 90 minutes stuck in essentially one spot would seem to not only be a hard sell to the actor or actress playing the role, but also to the director, supporting cast members, and any potential studio looking at bankrolling and/or distributing the film. I mean, seriously how can this premise actually sustain an audiences interest for that long, while remaining believable and on top of that, maintaining a high level of suspense? I suppose one could say that making a movie about a man alone on a deserted island with a volleyball for a companion is just as hard, if not harder to sell. Yet, that particular movie (“Cast Away” for those that either don’t recall or weren’t aware) actually did well with both critics and audiences, proving that this type of film can work when done properly. All I can say is that clearly director Joel Schumacher (“A Time to Kill”), along with his cast, crew, and screenwriter, knew precisely what they were doing, thus creating an incredibly intense movie experience centered around one of the most mundane locations known to man… a phone booth.

Written by Larry Cohen, a writer who may have an affinity for all things phone related (another movie he wrote was titled “Cellular”), the story takes an interesting, albeit potentially boring and problematic, concept that could have been riddled with clichés and unoriginality, and turns it into a sleek, inventive, fast-paced thriller. One particular aspect I enjoyed about this film’s story is that it gives the audience enough of a taste of what Stu is like as a man prior to his ordeal, and then cleverly reveals more character details and flaws throughout the phone conversations. This method could have made the additional character development feel wedged into the story as an obvious means of exposition that would cause the pace to slow down; however, Cohen has weaved the details throughout the film in a way that never feels forced or unnatural within the context of the various phone calls.

Another aspect of the story that worked really well (and increased the tension for the audience), was the realism inherent in the story. The fact that the bulk of the movie takes place within such an ordinary and mundane setting, like a phone booth, makes what is occurring all the more frightening because it actually could happen to one us. The best scares movies have ever given to audiences almost always revolve around events and/or settings that most of us either encounter or potentially could in our normal day-to-day lives. It is the familiarity of the surroundings and the realistic nature of the threat in “Phone Booth” that amplifies our dread to a much greater degree than anything most horror films can ever hope to achieve.

Headlining this relatively small primary cast of characters is the ever-capable actor Colin Farrell (“American Outlaws”). Colin has proven over the course of several films during his relatively short career that he is an extremely talented actor and one that can hold his own with the biggest stars in the business. To my knowledge, “Phone Booth” is the first movie in which Colin must carry the lion’s share of the film’s workload alone. As with any actor or actress, a film such as this will test just how skilled an individual they truly are. With Colin’s stellar performance in this movie he easily proves his worth to not only audiences, but critics as well.

Alongside Colin in the supporting roles for the film are actors Forest Whitaker (“Phenomenon”) and Keifer Sutherland (TV’s “24”). Forest Whitaker brings more depth and believability to his character than the typical one-dimensional take the script seemed to provide. It is Whitaker’s warmth that exudes from the character’s initial conversations in the movie that makes him more relatable and balances out the otherwise cold and unforgiving nature of the rest of the police force depicted in the film.

Keifer Sutherland delivers one of the most chilling villainous portrayals in modern cinema, at least in my opinion. What’s most impressive about this performance is that it was acted predominantly through voice-over or in this case, phone calls. Surprisingly, this approach for showcasing the film’s main antagonist didn’t weaken the portrayal one bit. It is quite an achievement for an actor to make his presence feared throughout an entire movie without being seen for a majority of the duration. Keifer’s gruff and menacing voice work in this film is unsettling enough, but his character’s nonchalant approach to what he’s doing is perhaps the most terrifying of all. Nothing is more disturbing than a villain that believes he or she is justified in whatever actions they may take, and Keifer’s performance absolutely personifies that frame of mind.

Lastly, actresses Radha Mitchell (“Man on Fire”) and Katie Holmes (“Batman Begins”) are left with little more to do than just look good on camera and provide some added tension to a couple of moments within the film. Between the two, Radha’s character of Kelly, Stu’s wife, is given a few brief moments of development and importance within the film; however, even then her scenes really didn’t add all that much to the proceedings. Truth be told, I thought both actresses’ characters, or at least Katie’s character of Pam, could have been left out of the story and only be referred to in the conversations without sacrificing any of the intensity or excitement. In the end, both roles felt like nothing more than afterthoughts within the script.

With a screenplay rife with tension, solid performances from the cast especially star Colin Farrell, and a real world setting that makes the whole ordeal all the more startling to the audience; “Phone Booth” is an excellent thriller that will have you on the edge of your seat from start to finish.

“Phone Booth” is rated R for pervasive language, brief violence, and sexual references.

Ocean’s Thirteen

In 2001, director Steven Soderbergh brought us the re-imagining of the Rat Pack classic “Ocean’s Eleven”, and then in 2004, he followed it up with the not nearly as entertaining sequel “Ocean’s Twelve”. Three years later Soderbergh, and most of his original cast from the previous two films, returned one more time for “Ocean’s Thirteen”. For a franchise that has seen one great movie and one not-so great in its franchise’s relatively short existence, one must wonder how the third effort will turn out. Will “Ocean’s Thirteen” bring back the fun and excitement of the first film, or continue to falter under its own self-importance as “Ocean’s Twelve” did?

“Ocean’s Thirteen” begins with a member of Danny’s crew being swindled out of a share of profits in a new Las Vegas hotel by a nefarious businessman named Willy Bank (Al Pacino). Now, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and company want retribution for their deceived comrade, but to succeed they will have to pull off their most daring job yet.

Screenwriting duo Brian Koppelman and David Levien (“Knockaround Guys”) bring back to the “Ocean’s” franchise something that had been sorely missed in its second outing… all of the fun. This time around, not only is the script much more in the vein of the first film, but the entertainment value is nearly as high as it was the first go-round. With the clever comebacks, the wit, and an overall feel good atmosphere, none of which ever decreased the interesting and entertaining nature of “Ocean’s Eleven”, this latest installment brings the series back from the doldrums that ensnared it throughout the lesser-entertaining “Ocean’s Twelve”.

While the fun of the series has been revived that is not to say that this movie is lacking in any sort of drama. The story for “Ocean’s Thirteen” is the most intimate the series has ever been. By placing the Ocean’s crew in a position where one of theirs has been wronged and thus their newest job is driven purely by retribution from the get-go creates a fresh, new twist for what could have been an all-too familiar tale. One other aspect of this film’s story that one will notice when watching the movie is that there appears to be a sense of finality to the series’ various character arcs. I have heard that this is intended to be the final film in the franchise, at least with this cast, and if so, I appreciate the efforts made in the screenplay to bring resolution to not only the characters, but also the various plot threads that have existed since the first film. If this is indeed the final chapter for Danny Ocean and his crew, then this was a very satisfying and enjoyable ending to the series.

Reprising their roles from the previous two films are essentially everybody that we have become familiar with since 2001; however, Julia Roberts and previous newcomer Catherine Zeta-Jones are noticeably absent from the proceedings. Aside from those two missing assets, everyone else is back, and arguably better than ever. I was especially pleased to discover that the fast-paced repartee amongst the characters, primarily between Danny (George Clooney) and Rusty (Brad Pitt), was back in full force, and just as fluid and smartly crafted as before.

From my perspective as a fan of the series, despite the low point of “Ocean’s Twelve”, one of the highlights in the cast has remained Matt Damon’s character of Linus. Damon’s portrayal of Linus has evolved naturally over the course of the previous two films, culminating in this one with the audience finally getting to see Linus in a capacity that rivals Danny or Rusty in terms of respect, usefulness, and skill. Another highlight of the cast would be Carl Reiner who had been somewhat under-utilized in the previous two films; this time around he is given much more to do with his character. His comedic timing and immersion into the character is great, and he proves that even at his age he can easily keep up with his much younger co-stars.

Of course, when discussing the cast of “Ocean’s Thirteen” one would be remiss not to mention the terrific performances from the two newcomers to the series, Al Pacino (“The Godfather”) and Ellen Barkin (“Sea of Love”). These two enduring talents are extremely fun to watch in this film as both clearly appear to be enjoying themselves on camera. Ellen Barkin is perfect in the role of the seductive assistant to Al’s Willy Bank character. Ellen takes a character that should have been a fairly one-dimensional role and turned her into a complex, modern woman who is nearly as ruthless as her boss.

However, it was Al Pacino’s performance that was the most surprising to me. I know it sounds strange to say that Al Pacino gave a surprising performance, I mean let’s face it the guy is a legend, but it’s because of how low-key he was in this role when compared to some of his work from the last 10 to 15 years that I can say that. Here’s an actor that has become heavily parodied by today’s comedians because of his penchant for yelling his lines at random, and yet, in this film I can hardly recall a single instance where he really cut loose with the volume. Along with his reserved performance, Pacino delivers a character in Willy Bank that is so slimy, distrustful, and utterly narcissistic that you instantly hate him, but at the same time there’s something about the role that is flat-out entertaining. Honestly, Al’s portrayal of Willy Bank in “Ocean’s Thirteen” is some of the best work he’s done of late and is vastly superior to his less-than-stellar performances in “Righteous Kill” and “88 Minutes”.

“Ocean’s Thirteen” is an incredibly fun heist movie that brings the trilogy full circle, wrapping up the various threads in a very satisfying manner. Although not quite as good as the first film in the series, “Thirteen” is a very close second and more than makes up for the shortcomings of its predecessor.

“Ocean’s Thirteen” is rated PG-13 for language.