The reviews split sharply, and the spread is wide: a handful of critics enjoy the film as a loose, improvised riff on the caper, while more of them find it smug and undernourished. The praise clusters around the cast, whose ease with one another is credited on both sides of the divide, and around Soderbergh’s handling, the handheld camera, quick zooms and stylistic detours that keep even the sceptics watching. The reservations cluster around the script. Even admirers concede the plot is trivial and the pace slacker than the original’s; detractors go further and call the film lazy, plotless and pleased with itself, with the Julia Roberts sequence and the celebrity cameos singled out as the worst of the in-jokery. The Guardian and Slant Magazine are the harshest, treating it as vacuous rather than merely slight. The gentlest verdicts, from RogerEbert.com and The New York Times, accept the digressions as the point. Most critics do not.
The critic praises the film's playful improvisation on caper themes and the charm of its stars, especially Clooney, Pitt, Roberts and Zeta-Jones, over any strict adherence to plot logic.
Read the full review →