Genres

Visitors Review

VladDev 2012-05-25 06:38:25

Interestingly, with the meaning, with the idea, with psychology.

It seems not everyone saw the meaning which should have been seen. Noteveryone realized that the whole point is not Russian roulette. Whatgenre thriller appeared by chance, look for him there is useless.Someone was waiting for the carrier with Jason Statham. From thisconfusion, this resentment, this bad reviews...The film "Thirteen" is better than you think. Better than you notthink. He's just better.But now about the movie itself, not the misinterpretation around him. Imust say that the French version I have not seen, so I'll evaluate thefilm on the basis of the fact that he was alone and had no brothers.The main plot of the money and nothing but money. Money pushing themain character at first to steal, then to hiding threat uncertainty.Money, money, money. Someone thinks not too much money here. And youanswer the question: Do you own them enough? And not much money shouldyou own?But back to the film. The main character (the character of Sam Riley)steals an envelope from one unclean in the case of a man who promisesfabulous wealth. He does not know what kind of work that will need tomake, he merely carries out the instructions that are contained in thisenvelope. Pushes it to is the fact that his family has absolutely nomoney. Family sells home to our hero's father lived. Therefore, themain character needs money, very much needed. Follows on the heels ofthe police, but Vince, namely the so-called hero of the film, can notescape. For the time being...And then Vince gets into the house, where he learned that he will play.Play in the death. On a lot of money. And no way back. Here begins thepsychological part of the film: fear for their lives and fear for themurder of another man. Usually, this game is played criminals: past orpresent. Usually they are under the drug, but even they can not hideall the fear, is what we see in the film. And our main character, whichis not something that does not use drugs, but even refuses to alcohol.Perhaps the pure intelligence allows him so long to stay alive.I will not tell all the moments of this deadly game, because it must beseen and not heard, but Vince comes out of it and the winner receives asubstantial fee. Worth mentioning that at the end of killing hisbrother in a duel of the character Jason Statham (Jasper). Jasper justheartbroken. No, not for my brother! For the lost money! Vince realizesthat he is in for it in the hands of this man and he runs out of thehouse. It it turns out.But the police, which only temporarily lost sight of Vince, once againbegins to hunt for him, and Vince hides his money in a garbage tank,when he sees that he could catch. His catch, hear a lie, but, for lackof evidence, let go. And money in the tank anymore... break a bunch ofgarbage, Vince finds a bag of money. Send them by mail back home,family, and decides to stay a little one, on the one hand, to calm hisnerves, on the other, to protect the family from misfortunes.Soon Vince goes home, and in one of the shops to buy toy lamb, a whitewith black ears, to distinguish it from a friend who wanted so much tohis sister. But at the station he sees Jasper. Is to say that chance inthis movie too, have a special place. So, a series rencontre on oneroad heads against two enemies: Vince and Jasper. After a briefconversation on the train Jasper kills Vince, taking... lamb, thinkingthat the bag of money. End.What conclusion from all this? And the conclusion is very simple: moneydoes not bring goodness, do not bring happiness. For their mistakes,always reckoning. The succession of accidents can lead to anything, youneed to think before doing something. We strongly encourage everyone tovisit this film! But for that you should not read beyond the firstparagraph!Give many explosions, jokes, cool shooting, monsters and zombies. Thereis nothing of this. But there is a sense, the psychology is the idea.Thanks director Gela Babluani for such a good movie. Also, all thosewho read this record, too, thanks.

branimirst-924-707069 2012-05-24 14:15:17

Afer long time one different,exciting and shocking movie

It's not about whether Mickey Rourke or Jason Stratham and all othermore famous actors in this movie have played or not the role accordingto their reputation. This is on very beginning wrong approach. If youexpected more from those actors that was not actually the intention,point and meaning of this movie at all.First of all, I saw this movie and I can say I haven't watched betterstory for a long time. The director focused on the story particularlyand in the same time all other, regardless whether they are more orless famous actors have played the role so realistic and exactly what Ihave expected from them.Further on, it was very important that director managed to present usone unpredictable developments of the storyline. Frankly I couldn'timagine what will happen and what kind of problems are expecting mainrole in this movie, and that's is exactly what I as a viewer expectingfrom the scenario. The ''game'' they played was presentation how peopleand their eagerness, curiosity or need for money can be brutal andshocking. With respect to dialogues I think that they were just in accordancewith the situations and circumstances in which the actors have been.Nobody shall expect Tarantino's dialogues in this kind ofcircumstances.Please don't judge this film because the big actors have not been inthe front line, all others did pretty well and have gave contributionto the quality of this movie.

Yusuf_Saggyass 2012-05-19 14:34:10

Dr Yvon's Review is "Spot On", as it were...

Firstly, I agree completely with Dr Yvon's Review.I notice, too, that on this site 13 is rated 8 stars out of 10. Theaction was not spectacular nor was the acting. But that is not thereason why critics blasted the movie. It was because of thepredictability of the script. The original 13 Tzameti was excellentbecause it had a degenerate, clandestine world of mental chaos behindclosed doors in which men gamble on the lives of others men, and it hada pretty good though not exactly novel revenge story.Sticking to the original script would have given this movie an edgeover other regular MTV-like Hostel inspired movies. But this one wasstill far better than say Martyrs 2 which won out because of curvingbullets and a mega budget.Yes the plot holes lacked fizzle, yes Jason Statham was as wooden asusual, and yes it is predictable but as I said worse movies have beenhits.....zzzzzzzzzzz.What sorry was I sleeping? Slow impossible film is too slow andimpossible. It put me right out. Which isn't normal for the Pangs whocreate films that make you want to watch to the end even if thematerial isn't very good. Despite not really caring what happened, I'lltry it again on home video.

thedogwithoutaface 2012-05-18 18:08:45

13 film review..uhh rubbish

hello, First of i saw the cast and thought mmm should be OK. I made themistake of now watching the film though. From start to finish it wasawefull. Throughout the whole 97 minuites i was expecting something tohappen but nothing really did. The Hollywood cast was wasted on sillyparts which needed no acting skills at all.The film tries to give someintensity and suspense but it lasts for about 10 seconds. I think thefilm could of been about 90 minuites shorter.I found myself extremelydisappointed and therefore give it 1 star.If you love rubbish films then watch this because it is just that.I think it is fair to say that this film was just about on par withopen water it really is that bad and is one of the worst films i haveever ever ever watched. Avoid!!!!

roberttphillips93 2012-05-17 02:17:24

Great

All the other reviews are focusing too much on what the directorobviously didn't care about. I was personally focusing on the situationand how adrenaline packed it was. A circle of men each with a bullet inthe chamber, praying and cursing at the same time, the edge of darknessso close at hand. Nothing can be more powerful than that moment, andhonestly I think it was captured perfectly. Sure there were problemswith the flick that could have definitely been fixed with some review,but so long as you aren't staring at the film criticizing everything,then you will enjoy this movie. I'm just saying, for all the badreviews, its not a bad movie at all. To make the movie better, neverexpect anything, because there really aren't any twists, just go braindead and enjoy.

dsmith81 2012-05-16 10:07:58

Would of been better if it had an ending

i would of rated this movie quiet highly if i hadn't seen the ending,as a matter of fact i wish i didn't. its like finding a really hotAsian bird, getting the best blow job, then find she's a man when shetakes her pants off!has a great story line, a cool underground illegal Russian roulettegame with huge stakes and high stakes, a good cast.But the way it ended was poor, we see all these little focus scenes inthe movie, which leads me to believe we will see them all connect up inthe end or see where they go.......... But they don't, they don't evengive you enough to let you choose how it ends. its simply like writinga letter on the back of a postcard and suddenly running out of room inthe middle of some big newseither that or the writer got hit by a bus, and was replaced by atyping chimpi can usually get over bad movie's fairly fast, but this one annoyedthe sh** out of me because it had potential to be great, and all thatwas taken away.........save yourself the time

metalforos 2012-05-14 18:52:26

Famous actors don't guarantee success.

This movie it supposed to be a thriller and a drama. They failed inboth. You won't be thrilled no matter how many minutes you see theprotagonist being pointed with the gun. No matter how much emphasis thedirector gives in this "Russian roulette". There is also no dramathere. You won't feel sympathetic or pity for none of these actorsdespite the directors efforts. Not for the kid that accidentally getsinto this, not for the criminal that's is forced to risk his life, notfor the two brothers (the manager and the "player"). It's just a slowmovie full of killings for gambling. The plot is so slow that at leasthalf an hour of this movie is useless.Forget the action, forget the thrill. Plain movie with nothing to show,meaningless. Famous actors are not enough.The friend i was watching it with went to see videos on you-tube. Ikept watching this believing something will happen. I was wrong.The fact that we have a new and developed Russian just makes it worse.Who had that idea!? At least the traditional one would have probablymade this movie a little betterP.S. The word "spin" was mentioned too many times in this movie thatlost it's meaning.

chesland 2012-05-14 16:02:01

I knew nothing about the movie before I watched and I enjoyed it very much

Before I pop the DVD into the player, I didn't know what to expect. Iknow Jason Statham is in the movie but I didn't know what the story isabout. Of course I didn't know it was a remake and the director's nameis totally new to me. All of the above has made this a pleasantcinematic experience for me. I have to confess that I fell asleep notlong after the movie started because I was pretty tired that day. I waswoken by the shout of the umpire (moderator?) and saw the spider lightbulb turned on. I was captivated by the following scene and wide awakefor the rest of the film. I think the acting is superb, Sam Riley hasdone a great job transitioning from a fear stricken first round playerto the seething finalist. Michael Shannon is also great as the umpire;you can sense the evil in him playing god. The wickedness can also befound among the gamblers and their complete disregard (disrespect) forhuman lives. Even the light bulb has some evilness in it! The directorperhaps trying to relay the message that we are just pawns of fate andthere is no escape in the end. It is a pretty dark movie but the moodis consistent throughout and captivating overall. Ignorant is bliss.

CJS 2012-05-14 07:27:22

Terrible

This is the worst movie I've seen in a long time. Even though I onlypaid $1 to rent this movie, I still feel cheated. Sam Riley's character Vince steals another man's identity in the hopeof making some quick cash to pay for his father's medical bills.Unwittingly he is forced to compete in a game of Russian roulette,surrounded by rich mafia types who bet big money on the outcome of the"duel". For me, this movie was an epic fail for two main reasons: 1. I couldn'tcome to grips with the main premise of the movie - that big stakesgamblers would gamble on a game of pure chance. 2. I felt no sympathyfor Sam Riley's character - I felt he deserved a bullet for hisstupidity in getting himself into that situation. Lastly, the DVD cover is misleading - it gives the appearance of JasonStatham being the lead actor, but his screen time is minimal. The leadactor is Sam Riley, who says little and does his best to look sick andscared all the time.

masterfog 2012-05-14 04:26:20

Bad movie. Horrible ending.

I enjoyed the premise. I just enjoyed it better in the original. Sadlythis is just another bad film in a sea of bad films. The movie ismildly entertaining up until the near end. Then you get a nice feelgood movie buzz from how the movie turns. Then they end it in the mostnihilistic manner possible. It aggravated me to the point where I shutthe film off and came here to rant.There are plenty of good films out there within the genre to satisfyany fan of these types of movies. So please pass this one up. Itsreally not worth your time. Thanks for reading and I hope I helped sway you from this atrocity.

TxMike 2012-05-13 13:32:02

Hard to imagine that anyone would WANT to play this game.

DVD from my public library. I went into it not knowing what I was aboutto see. It is a grimy underbelly of wealthy sport and betting, and Ifound myself wondering if this sort of thing really happens.The subject matter most will find very distasteful (I did) but when youlook past that it really comes down to a pretty simple story of aloving son wanting to help his father with mounting medical bills.Sam Riley is the focus, as Ohioan Vince Ferro , a hard-working youngelectrician. One day while in a stranger's home doing a repair heoverhears something about a "job" that pays a lot of money. His dad wasin the hospital, and needing yet another surgery. The home is mortgagedwith no end in sight.Then when the other man ends up dead by a self-inflicted O.D., Vinceintercepts a letter, goes to a mailing station, and signs for anenvelope. Inside are a phone and instructions. Vince still has no ideawhat he is volunteering for, or what the payday might be.Saying anything more would amount to spoilers so I will mention itbelow, after the SPOILERS warning. Two other stars of note are JasonStatham as Jasper and Mickey Rourke as Jefferson. Who thinks up these weird things??SPOILERS: The "game" is to entertain wealthy bettors, in a large homein a secluded location in Pennsylvania. Each "participant" has anumber, Vince ends up as Number 13, thus the title of the movie. Eachplayer starts out with one bullet, then spins the chamber untildirected to stop, then in a circle each aims the gun at the nextfellow's head. When they pull their triggers, some die, some don't.Vince survives this first round. In next rounds they get 2, then later3, bullets. Ultimately Vince wins, gets almost $2Million in bills in aknapsack. Afraid he will be harmed he sneaks away at night, but has achance encounter on the train home with Jasper who waits until thetrain stops, shoots and kills Vince, and takes his knapsack. But itonly has a stuffed animal inside, Vince had used USPS Priority Mail tosend the money home, he dies but the rest of his family will be able topay the bills.

SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain 2012-05-12 22:39:33

13 (2010)

After watching the original, it was the first time I believed aHollywood remake could be an improvement. I'm amazed to find out I wasright. All of my hangups concerning the original have been addressedhere. First of all, Babluani has an exceptional eye for color. It addsto the depth and tragic aesthetic, more so than black and white. Ifound this film to be very tense at times, whereas the original justsort of limped along. Even though I knew what was going to happen, Iwas still enthralled and captivated. This was mainly due to theinclusion of some humanity to the piece. More characters are exploredand defined. Even minor roles explode, such as Skarsgard's caringdriver. The only flat acting comes from 50 Cent. Luckily, he's quite aminor role. Michael Shannon takes a simple role as an emcee, andtransforms it into a terrifying and interesting character. The man iscinematic dynamite and has an intensity that is now being recognized.Winstone and Rourke add some empathy to their hard men roles. For s afilm I had already seen, this was still exciting stuff, and I enjoyedit on more levels than the original. Well done to the director forimproving on his potential.

leroybinson 2012-05-04 22:20:49

Snore-a-palooza

I would give it a 1, but I will reserve that for movies that are asabsolutely bad as I could possibly imagine. All the big name starsphoned it in on this one. WHAT'S WITH THE MUMBLING?! Does everyone haveto mumble? Spit the gravel out before you give your lines. By the thirdround, I was rooting for them to shoot the announcer. Why was hestanding on a ladder? I would have rated it a 6 if they had winged theguy. And where did that train come from at the end? There are no trainsthat clean in America! Great plan, Jason Statham. Get him on a desertedtrain and shoot him at a deserted station. Only in (somewhere that'snot) America! This is the type of movie that I would have thought upwhile I was daydreaming in fifth grade. Strike that; third grade. It'san awesome candidate for MST3K. Where is Max Bialystock when you needhim?

marcsparc 2012-05-04 13:51:38

I paid the right price... nothing

I really don't understand how movies like this get made. Step one, halfass a cast together of "big names" and provide a silly premise.Step two, give someone top billing even though their role is the lesserpart of 5 minutes.Step three, find a rapper that has no talent so that your culturallybereft urban youth have a reason to see the movie.Step four,rely upon arty cinematography as the culturalification of themovie, legitimizing that its no better than a bottom shelf rental.Alright, get the idea? movies these days suck, no wonder I won't pay tosee one.

artalmarcelo 2012-04-30 12:19:18

Embarrassing movie.

Terribly directed. Seriously, a real disaster for someone who couldgather 3 or 4 famous actors and convince them to get in this project.The music! Hey, director, there's no need to fill every single minuteof the movie with loud music, cause not every moment is intense orthrilling. YOU DON'T ACHIEVE DRAMATIC SCENES BY ONLY PLAYING MUSIC ONTHE BACKGROUND, and especially if the music doesn't really fit at allwith what is happening. Acting is very bad as well, with a fewexceptions, like the main character (he does it well) or Mickey Rourke.The story is not bad, maybe needs a couple of twists to get a littlemore believable. The problem here is direction. Maybe is inexperience,maybe is very bad taste, but the final outcome is embarrassing. Icouldn't avoid feeling that way.

dilemmamuptelasi 2012-04-30 06:55:06

So So.

There are too many long and boring scenes supposed to be thrilling.Director trynna give us the "tension" and some blood, however we can'tget these. This movie is a story of a man who want to buoy his father up (he'sill). He finds a letter, and so on...It achieves to create a psychological reality, that's cool. But myconclusive decision is that this movie is totally commercial, and idon't appreciate it. Tzameti was cooler. But I admit the scenario is same. And this movie is(these movies are) wounded by it.By the way... What the hell was the police scene? Huh? I can't imagineI ain't gonna be watched after I involve in a criminal situation. Think'bout this. Policeman asks some questions to the suspect, then let himgo, and he doesn't care him. Anyone, even one cop, doesn't follow him.He goes back, digs out the garbage bags, finds the money bag, then goesin a unlimited freedom. Watch and forget.

gradyharp 2012-04-29 11:32:32

Gambling Can Be The Death Of You!

Georgian writer Géla Babluani found such success in his film 13 Tzametin 2005 that he decided to recreated the story, this time placing it inthe United States. Co-writing this version with Gregory Pruss is theonly aspect of this adaptation he shared. The story is a tough one towatch, not unlike 'Fight Club', but with higher stakes. It share howfar gambling men will go to get their thrills, making cock fights seemvery tame. The game at hand is based on gathering quasi-desperate men(prisoners, men deeply in debt, criminals who have little to lose,etc), placing them in a room with tee shirts bearing numbers, givingthem guns, placing them in a circle, and on the command of the masterof ceremonies they are to fire their gun into the head of the person infront of them. A smarmy form of Russian roulette, at first each man'sgun has one bullet in the chamber, but as the game goes on more bulletsare placed and the game continues until there is one man left alive.The gamblers place bets on the various numbered men and the stakes arehigh. This process is performed in a isolated meeting space and isclosely scrutinized by detectives who seek to uncover the scheme andstop it.Vince (Sam M. Riley of 'Control' and 'Brighton Rock') is a youngelectrician whose father has been in an accident resulting in severinjuries that require multiple surgeries. Vince's family must put theirhouse up for sale to pay the expenses unless Vince can find a quickerway to make big money to pay the hospital and surgeons. Quite byaccident while doing an electrical job he over hears the house ownerdiscuss a 'job' that promises to pay a lot of money. The man plans ondoing the job, receives an envelope with instructions, but then shootsup heroin and dies of an overdose. Vince helps the police whoinvestigate, but before leaving the house Vince takes the envelope thatcontains instructions and a cell phone and a piece of bark with thenumber 13 printed on it. Vince follows the instructions and ends up ina complex scheme - the ultimate result of which is the fact that hebecomes #13 in the gambling game. Others sequestered for the killergame include Mickey Rourke, Ray Winstone, and among those involved inthe offensive debacle are Alexander Skarsgard, Ben Gazzara, and emceeMichael Shannon. The ending of the film is a complete surprise andrevealing even part of it would ruin the impact of the film.This is definitely not a film for the fainthearted. That such agruesome gambling scheme could exist is terrifying. But the productionand the acting and the grisly atmosphere is well worth the moviegoer'sattention. Grady Harp

searchoscar 2012-04-29 06:54:48

It wasn't horror, it wasn't action, it was a bad mix with a poor ending

The Acting is very good, which accounts for 2 points.To some degree there was something exciting about the theme... Its likea Nightmare Vegas Casino... that gets another point. Making 3/10.But the whole idea was OK.. Just OK. I felt by the end of the filmneither inspired or moved or fulfilled. Actually I am now verydisappointed and board.Using death as the only thrill ingredient is so dated and crass.The ending was so quick and felt unresolved.Its a shame the Actors were far too good for the finished product whichreally lowers their status.

sardissimo 2012-04-27 11:09:12

Decent story, but poorly directed

Story line was OK but the ending blows! Director could have done somuch more with this story, especially with the ending; instead hedecided to end it the way everyone expected. Movie was very predictablethroughout. I can think of a thousand better ways to end this movie.What's wrong director, did you run out of heroin before you reached theend, so you decided to just blow it? Moral to this story: Good guysalways get screwed! Everybody else is a piece of sh..t. I hate myselffor watching this movie all the way to the end. At least it was onpoint and short and didn't drag for 2 hrs. I'll make sure I never watchanother movie from this director. Cheers

samuel-legassick 2012-04-26 21:57:29

A Remake By Same Director? Surely This Isn't A Game Of Chance

Sadly another foreign classic has been taken on by Hollywood and ripped apart. It's a shame as the cast is quite impressive: Mickey Rourke, Ray Winstone, Sam Riley, Jason Statham, David Zayas (looking a bit more menacing here), an awful 50 Cent and the incredible Michael Shannon (fast becoming one of my favourite actors). But with such an engaging story, a respectable cast and with the same director as the original French film, surely they're not taking any chances here? Spin. Aim. Not necessarily survive.13 Tzameti was a great film for all the right reasons. The story, if you don't know, is about an underground game of Russian Roulette where people bet a lot of money on the outcome. In a weird sequence of events, a young man gets involved without knowing what it is and ends up having to play the game. The first film was a black and white, gritty, disturbing film that was full of suspense and everything that worked about it has sadly floundered in this remake.There's a number of reasons why. Firstly, there is a multiple narrative about some of the other contestants, this means that you lose the personal attachment you have with Riley in the first place. It also means that due to the famous cast, you know who is going to survive and who isn't. The Hollywood sheen where it looks pretty, full of rich colours and takes place in a rich mansion means it loses all it's dirty, hostile and cold surroundings that made the original film feel so awkward to situate yourself in. The build-up to watching the bulb is about 1% of the tension of the original, you honestly didn't know what was going to happen in the first one but in this instance you feel like you do and the tension isn't there at all. Instead it feels like a stupid game where you don't care about anyone.The stories of the other contestants detract from the mood and feel like a complete distraction. Rourke's storyline especially. His little story alongside the painfully unbearable 50 Cent is completely unjustified and a waste of time. Statham and Winstone's brotherly love hasn't been thought out and feels superfluous to say the least. Sam Riley does an okay job as the young innocent player, but his lack of conviction makes you feel like a voyeur rather than being involved. The actual game itself and the gambling techniques were also completely unclear and convoluted with the bulb, once being the main source of tension in the first film, rather being set as a preoccupation. The reason why they had a hanging bulb in the first room is that it was a tiny concrete room, so the only thing there was the bulb hanging down, casting judgement. Whereas here, you can't imagine that blowing each other's brains out around such rich tapestry is ideal for cleaning up.The rest of the acting was awful and even Shannon, as another crazy character, is so OTT that you can't help but feel it's comical. The only saving grace about this film is the Russian Roulette itself but I implore you not to watch this film and go out of your way to watch the original instead, otherwise it will ruin the experience for you completely. You'd think since 2005 Babluani would have become a better director, sadly he hasn't and with The Legacy ( L'héritage ) being his only film made between the original and this one, perhaps he's just out of practise. A film that should never have been remade and is an example that Hollywood should sometimes just leave things alone instead of ruining the experience for everyone.Rating: 3/10