It turns out Soderbergh IS an artist, after all

Rating: 8/10 (28 May 2002)

As in "The Limey" and "Traffic" Soderbergh will now and then (in the earlier films he did it all the time) use a visual gimmick that's pointless and ill-advised - like the useless, split-second split screen he introduces and then immediately drops during one casino sequence (why during THAT sequence, and not another?), or the jerky, stroboscopic motion of Danny and Linus running into one another on the train. It's a pity. Visually, "The Limey" and "Traffic" were ALL hollow gimmickry, which meant that no particular Jean-Luc Godard touch (like Godard, Soderbergh uses "experimental" devices as though he's trying to patent them) did much harm - but the photography in "Ocean's Eleven" is, at heart, simply wonderful: tinsel colours, beguiling bright lights, tight framing.
It's not just the visuals. Soderbergh's three previous films (the only other three I've seen) come across as mere exercises. "The Limey" (the worst) appears to be a classroom assignment that accidentally saw the light of day; "Erin Brokovich" is a formulaic commercial exercise; "Traffic" is a propaganda exercise. Soderbergh has said that in making "Ocean's Eleven" he wanted to make a purely entertaining film, and the way he said made me think that he viewed it, too, as just another exercise, but it entertains so well and with such intelligence and grace that the artistry must be regarded as real.
There's so much that's right that could not have been got right simply by accident. The thieves are all civilised: the co-operate, and when they disagree, they disagree in a civilised fashion. So many other directors would have made the tensions between them the point and driving force of the film - to give the film "depth", perhaps. But Soderbergh realises that it's eleven versus the casinos, and that factional warfare would neither complicate, nor deepen, nor enliven the picture. These thieves really are cool and intelligent. When Danny meets his ex-wife, he admits that his advice on her love life is neither disinterested nor unbiased, and then adds, "...but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong." He simply SAYS this, and Tess actually digests the comment and admits its force without being one over by it, and my God, can it be, is this an actual CONVERSATION taking place on screen? Scenes that other films would have played up as contests or clashes of passion, this one milks for their value as dialectic. It's almost a first. THAT'S why the dialogue (which by and large isn't, alas, as clever as it should be) sparkles.
And the heist itself is pleasingly clever. It's a charming film.
Spoiler ahead!
Yet, as I said, the remaining flaws somehow gnawed at me. The ending in particular. Danny and Tess shouldn't have got back together - reaching an amicable understanding would have been better for both them and the audience. And we shouldn't have seen them being tailed without, at the very least, being told whether or not they knew they were being tailed. Trust Soderbergh to make two opposing mistakes at once: weakening the intelligence of the ending for the sake of sweetness, without actually making the ending any sweeter; then taking away the sweetness for the sake (I presume) of logic, without making the ending any more intelligent.