13 is the story of a naive young man assumes a dead man's identity and finds himself trapped in a underground world driven by greedy for power and violence. There, gangsters betting on other people's lives.

It is the American version of the French film "13 Tzameti" that I liked it very much but this rather gave me some smiles along. Beginning of the film where Vince is an electrician is too fast, we see him in glimpses when he connects two wires to a switch, Emmanuelle Chriqui appears for a few seconds but the good part is that True Blood fans have the chance to see Eric in another role than the vampire.

Sequences follow each other too smoothly and leaves the viewer thinking about the scenes and have to put them together to understand what is happening. Another remake which I think is pointless.

I really don't understand how movies like this get made. Step one, half ass a cast together of "big names" and provide a silly premise.

Step two, give someone top billing even though their role is the lesser part of 5 minutes.

Step three, find a rapper that has no talent so that your culturally bereft urban youth have a reason to see the movie.

Step four,rely upon arty cinematography as the culturalification of the movie, legitimizing that its no better than a bottom shelf rental.

Alright, get the idea? movies these days suck, no wonder I won't pay to see one.

This film is about an underground "game". It a game of pure random chance. You have a 78% chance of being killed, 17% chance of surviving, and 5% chance of walking out with a little under two million dollars.

Rich people dress up in tuxedos, act all high-class, and bet on which participant will win. The bookies offer odds. How can they offer odds on a game of pure random chance? It doesn't make sense. It's a dumb excuse for voyeuristic sadism.

Jason Stretham enters his brother into the game three times in a row, giving him a 99% chance of dying. Why would the brother do this? Why would Stretham? Why would he act all surprised when his brother dies? Okay, so the plot is particularly stupid. The characters in it are preposterous. Also the pacing is ponderous. This film has no redeeming qualities.

Georgian writer Géla Babluani found such success in his film 13 Tzameti n 2005 that he decided to recreated the story, this time placing it in the United States. Co-writing this version with Gregory Pruss is the only aspect of this adaptation he shared. The story is a tough one to watch, not unlike 'Fight Club', but with higher stakes. It share how far gambling men will go to get their thrills, making cock fights seem very 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, giving them guns, placing them in a circle, and on the command of the master of ceremonies they are to fire their gun into the head of the person in front of them. A smarmy form of Russian roulette, at first each man's gun has one bullet in the chamber, but as the game goes on more bullets are placed and the game continues until there is one man left alive. The gamblers place bets on the various numbered men and the stakes are high. This process is performed in a isolated meeting space and is closely scrutinized by detectives who seek to uncover the scheme and stop it.

Vince (Sam M. Riley of 'Control' and 'Brighton Rock') is a young electrician whose father has been in an accident resulting in sever injuries that require multiple surgeries. Vince's family must put their house up for sale to pay the expenses unless Vince can find a quicker way to make big money to pay the hospital and surgeons. Quite by accident while doing an electrical job he over hears the house owner discuss a 'job' that promises to pay a lot of money. The man plans on doing the job, receives an envelope with instructions, but then shoots up heroin and dies of an overdose. Vince helps the police who investigate, but before leaving the house Vince takes the envelope that contains instructions and a cell phone and a piece of bark with the number 13 printed on it. Vince follows the instructions and ends up in a complex scheme - the ultimate result of which is the fact that he becomes #13 in the gambling game. Others sequestered for the killer game include Mickey Rourke, Ray Winstone, and among those involved in the offensive debacle are Alexander Skarsgard, Ben Gazzara, and emcee Michael Shannon. The ending of the film is a complete surprise and revealing even part of it would ruin the impact of the film.

This is definitely not a film for the fainthearted. That such a gruesome gambling scheme could exist is terrifying. But the production and the acting and the grisly atmosphere is well worth the moviegoer's attention.

Grady Harp

I don't know what Géla Babluani was thinking. 13 Tzameti was a cool movie made on a shoestring budget and was ingratiating in its presentation. This newer version is completely watered down, soft around the edges, and bereft of all the charm of the original. Everything from the wide angle tracking shots to the roofing opposed to electricity (the whole in the roof was a nice device), the death in the bath as opposed to the chair, the globe hiding spot, the little sister of the protagonist in the original had a more authentic cuteness about her than the WASPY mainstream girl in this one. The protagonist steals the papers instead of finding them outside. All the minor differences favor the original. Surprisingly, even the acting was much better in the original, despite being paid a fraction of this all-star cast. The main reason I wanted to see the remake was because of the cast, but it was a total let-down.

The original was good, but it was good to the point where it was a cool idea and they were able to make it with the budget they had and it worked. It wasn't so brilliant that it deserved a big money remake which in fact hurt the credibility of the film, and in my opinion, the reputation of the director. He had his breakthrough movie, and then he could have followed up with a similarly creative idea. He may have ruined his career with this terrible remake.

All in all this movie just seemed incredibly lazy and it didn't seem like anyone working on the movie cared about the final product. Rourke is entertaining as always, but you can tell it's just another shtick role for him, nobody was making much of an effort here. As a viewer I felt like I was investing more energy into watching it than anybody put into making it, so i started to doze about halfway through.

Skip this movie, it's just not worth your time. Life is too short. If you haven't seen this, then watch the original. But if you have seen this, I think the original is spoilt for you.

The plot: Bewildered young man stumbles into a tense game of chance when he impetuously steals a dead man's invitation.

I really liked the original French movie, though I found it to be a little pretentious. The American remake excises all of the art house elements in favor of big name actors, a curiously extended back story for Mickey Rourke's character, and some really bizarre (but awesome) acting from Michael Shannon. The original French version was also a bit more bleak and nihilist, which I think was watered down for American version. Despite this, I've seen several people complain that this movie was too bleak and nihilist! Wow. I guess some people were expecting a traditional, by-the-numbers thriller with car chases and shoot-outs rather than a pensive, darker drama. Unfortunately, a lot of the tension was also streamlined out this version, though I might be misjudging because I already knew the plot. Still, the brutality and nihilism of the original, made all the starker by the black and white stock, really stuck with me, and I didn't feel as though I had quite the same experience when watching the remake.

I'm not one of those snobs who thinks that the original movie is always better than the remake, but, in this case, I think it's true. If I hadn't seen the original and liked it so much, I'd probably rate this a bit higher. Judged on its own merits, I think this is an enjoyable movie, but it doesn't live up to the original. For a movie billed as a thriller, it's lacking the tension that audiences expect, and, as a Jason Statham movie, it's lacking in Jason Statham scenes, which audiences will also expect. Despite my criticism and lukewarm rating, I still liked 13, and I'd probably recommend it to people who haven't seen the original. However, I'd highly recommend you see the original, instead. It's a better movie.

"All players, eyes on the bulb, when it lights up you shoot." After a impulse decision to steal a man's identity, Vince (Riley) becomes a contestant in a game of Russian roulette. The winner gets a little more then a million, the loser...dies. Never having seen the original I wasn't sure what to expect, and honestly I watched this because of Statham. The beginning was a little slow, but when the game started it really picked up and was interesting and very disturbing at the same time. Comparing this to "Death Race" I think is acceptable as it involves people doing their best to survive in a grotesque game. While "Death Race" was about cars and you had more of a separation from the killing, this one is in your face. Spin the chamber, cock the hammer, point at someone's head, while someone does the same to you, then shoot. Either you live for next round or you don't. This is a pretty good movie with a good cast (not counting 50 Cent) and is a neat idea. I just think it was missing something. I think it was making you feel for the characters. You just don't seem to care who lives or dies, and that hurts the movie. Overall, an entertaining movie that is worth watching, if for no other reason then morbid curiosity. I give it a B-.

Would I watch again? - I don't think so.

*Also try - Death Race 1 & 2

The first review on this film by Dr Yvon is incorrect. Fans of the original 13 will enjoy this remake. As the OP would like to suggest this is yet again another film in the Hollywood machine, I would argue that the original 13 director/writer Géla Babluani is behind the helm yet again.

Géla Babluani was given a chance to do what many filmmakers dream of doing.... remaking their films with a Hollywood budget and the chance to put top tier actors into their work. The eclectic mix of actors is amazing..... Jason Stratham, Ray Winstone, Mickey Rourke, and David Zayas who American audiences know from his many roles as detectives.

If you could handle Tzameti 13 you'll love 13.

This film had so much potential, how did the director mess this up so badly?

You have a decent number of very good, famous actors and a starting point of an amazing story of underground gambling and the chance to make something artistic and maybe even original, but no, you go ahead and produce this film.

Hardly any character or proper story development, some bad acting and awful camera direction with weird and unnecessary camera angles. There was no proper feeling to this film and it seemed quite rushed. I was somewhat bored throughout the film. The actual gun scenes were decent, but with a little effort, they could have been amazing.

I would give it a 1, but I will reserve that for movies that are as absolutely bad as I could possibly imagine. All the big name stars phoned it in on this one. WHAT'S WITH THE MUMBLING?! Does everyone have to mumble? Spit the gravel out before you give your lines. By the third round, I was rooting for them to shoot the announcer. Why was he standing on a ladder? I would have rated it a 6 if they had winged the guy. And where did that train come from at the end? There are no trains that clean in America! Great plan, Jason Statham. Get him on a deserted train and shoot him at a deserted station. Only in (somewhere that's not) America! This is the type of movie that I would have thought up while I was daydreaming in fifth grade. Strike that; third grade. It's an awesome candidate for MST3K. Where is Max Bialystock when you need him?

I enjoyed the premise. I just enjoyed it better in the original. Sadly this is just another bad film in a sea of bad films. The movie is mildly entertaining up until the near end. Then you get a nice feel good movie buzz from how the movie turns. Then they end it in the most nihilistic manner possible. It aggravated me to the point where I shut the film off and came here to rant.

There are plenty of good films out there within the genre to satisfy any fan of these types of movies. So please pass this one up. Its really not worth your time.

Thanks for reading and I hope I helped sway you from this atrocity.

I've just returned from the premiere screening of 13 in Tbilisi. I want to make parallels between original and remake. I've seen many remakes and their originals, but those remade ones had added something new and fresh. I was watching 13 and I had impression that I've already watched it earlier. It was original one converted in colors. Black & White was one of the main factor that added to original one high tension. 13 has almost every minor nuance that is shown in Tzameti, same actions, places, characters. Dialogues are just translated from French to English. Only difference is that characters of Mickey Rourke and 50 Cent don't appear in Tzameti. I realize that Gela made that movie for Americans and the target audience is the people who haven't seen Tzameti, but for us who were waiting for 2-3 years for that he didn't add anything new to his project.

Despite my disappointing I think that this movie deserves recognition and success. If I haven't watched Tzameti, I'd undoubtedly love 13.

Gela Babluani is one of the most hopeful movie directors nowadays and I hope that he'll gain recognition and will make his new projects successfully. I'll be proud with it.

Certainly this one really needed to be remade. It's so original in plot and direction that it had to be redone by the same director : Babluani, the cousin of Tribiani, Joe, which had one marble rolling through his numb skull-ani. He devised a plot so perfect that it had to be told twice-ani. It drags...taxi's, bad lighting, celebrity appearing for 30 seconds, no doubt on break from a real project Chiriqui, then Gazarra, then bad lighting, then Statham, on a cigarette break from Expendables filming next door, as Rourke, static...bad dialog, then it drags some more, bad lighting, why Micheal Shannon, why? then snuff feel bad grain on film, then...he just needed a snappy title. Let's go with 13, it sounds mystical-ani, two pea brain Bablu, the son of renowned director Skip This One.

Not that I expected a lot, but the film itself was not interesting to me. It was not 100% predictable, but still boring. No suspense, no drama, no nothing. It was supposed to have actors who play deep dramatic roles as it was required by scenario but instead you have charming Statham who tries to bend the brows but you can't believe he's a bad guy. Mickey Rourke is not even funny this time. If you've seen him in Iron man - that's exactly the same way he plays here. I even think he didn't bother to change the make up since the previous film. Appearance of Mickey Rourke, 50 Cent and Ray Liotta does not help. It is a first time I see Sam Riley and he did not impress at all. He was not able to show the level of tension one would expect in such circumstances. He is a boy at the very beginning of the movie at things happening with him will definitely change his personality, but it happens too quickly and oops! he's a coldblooded lad who lies to cops without batting an eye and kills man enjoying his victory .

Moreover, the script is a bit hectic but still very slow. Statham and Ray Winstone are probably the best part of 13.

Wait until it out on DVD.

So there i was sitting in the morale tent in Afghanistan when the Lt brought in a movie he had bought(poor guy) and little did we know, the Afghanistan experience was about to get a little worse. We could barely hear the beginning of the movie, all we really knew was that we were being bored to death. Considering we just watched "Knight and Day" a couple days prior, we were really hoping to see a movie that was entertaining...or at least had a half naked girl in it. But watching movies these days is a little bit like playing Russian Roulette, sometimes you pick a movie that feels like a bullet to the head. I guess thats where this movie shines, because Russian Roulette is actually the plot and from what i gather it makes for a pretty lucrative betting franchise. If you left "Requiem for a Dream" feeling like you just saw the most uplifting feel good story of your life, then you will love this movie. If your NOT a sick bastard, like most of us, then you will probably feel like crap the entire movie. The writer, having watched the Deer Hunter WAAAYYY too many time, thought it would be a good idea to just make a whole movie about guys standing in a circle shooting each other in the head. Each round of betting goes by and another bullet is added until (Spoiler alert in case you didn't read the title of this god awful movie) 13 becomes the victor and shortly afterwords is killed by an obvious person in predictable fashion. Its not all a fun and games so if your not a sports fan Don't worry. When the characters aren't shooting each other in the head, they are laying in the fetal position in the break room crying until the next round starts. If thats not enough of a break between the action packed "spin the cylinder, wait till the light comes on, fire" sequences, the cameras also go to the bookies taking bets from tux wearing high rollers. Lots of Big names grace the screen in a movie that must have taken almost 2 hours to film, and 3 minutes to write on a napkin at "Denny's" after a night of binge drinking. You care nothing of any of the characters and during the first round of betting you hope every contestants gun goes off. This film was so bad that i went and became a registered user just to post this review.

Terrible compared to the original 13 Tzameti. I recommend that everyone watches the black and white version with English subtitles and steers clear of this one. This remake was most likely a vain attempt to pad the pockets by milking an over-saturated market that necessitates familiarity and a complete lack of suspense and subtlety. The entire premise of the film is ruined with poor 'foreshadowing' less than a minute in and worse acting throughout. The scenes and characters are predominantly bizarro reflections of a movie that was done perfectly well in the first place, and ends up destroying any hope that this remake could add anything of value within the first 30 minutes.

Although I never watched the original version of this film, reading reviews, it seems to have been pretty good. Like with other remake movies, it is unfortunate that much can be lost attempting to recreate or better the original as in this case. The atmosphere in the original helped the storyline and vice-versa. In this version, an atmosphere was never created. It seemed that most of the cast was forced to be part of this hopeless attempt of a remake. Who knows, maybe they were in it just for the money.... The cast list might have been promising but seeing their performance, they could have easily been replaced by a group of amateurs. Can't really blame them though as the script was very poor, the plot was bland and predictable, the point of creating some tension was completely missed, in fact certain scenes, performances and lines were on the verge of comical. The 'subplots' were entirely meaningless. Pathetic.

hello, First of i saw the cast and thought mmm should be OK. I made the mistake of now watching the film though. From start to finish it was awefull. Throughout the whole 97 minuites i was expecting something to happen but nothing really did. The Hollywood cast was wasted on silly parts which needed no acting skills at all.The film tries to give some intensity and suspense but it lasts for about 10 seconds. I think the film could of been about 90 minuites shorter.I found myself extremely disappointed 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 with open water it really is that bad and is one of the worst films i have ever ever ever watched. Avoid!!!!

Yes, the video photography was great, wonderful actors were involved in the project however, if your looking for a good movie to watch this is not the best choice. The beginning is slow, the middle is designed to leave the viewer feeling anxious and the end is over quickly and without explanation. The movie left me with a feeling of well- one can only describe it as- emptiness. I was actually quite disappointed I had wasted nearly two hours of my life watching this and whilst I love Jason Statham, he wasn't a central character, but one who I was not fond of by the end. I would strongly recommend people not to watch this unless they like pointless movies with horrible story morals.

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

Terribly directed. Seriously, a real disaster for someone who could gather 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 minute of the movie with loud music, cause not every moment is intense or thrilling. YOU DON'T ACHIEVE DRAMATIC SCENES BY ONLY PLAYING MUSIC ON THE BACKGROUND, and especially if the music doesn't really fit at all with what is happening. Acting is very bad as well, with a few exceptions, 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 little more believable. The problem here is direction. Maybe is inexperience, maybe is very bad taste, but the final outcome is embarrassing. I couldn't avoid feeling that way.

You look at the cast and feel like this should be a good movie but it is not.

You expect the performances to be fine but there is not a single performance in the movie that you can point out and say OK not even a single scene.

I did not like anything about it , specially the fact that in many scene there is no sound or music, I think the director felt like this could intensify the situation but it turned it into a silence movie.

It was either a good script butchered by awful direction or these 5 talented actors were wrong for doing this movie, either way I won't even want to watch A minute of it again

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

I've never written a movie review before BUT I had to review this movie because I felt so cheated with the ending. The guy is lying on the train, is he dead or alive?

What happened to the shooter running with the bag of convenience store goodies?(would've loved to see his face when he opened the bag)

Did the money reach #13 family safely? NONE of those questions were answered.

I wanted to see the final result of everything number 13 went through. This was a complete waste of time,50 cent was appropriately cast because that's about all the movie is worth. Don't waste your time!!!

Hi,

I was really excited when I first saw the cast and the director. And so perhaps I set a high standard for my expectations. Because the cast is like an all star team to me. So I think they really wasted some true talents in this movie. The scenario is really interesting but the movie is a bit boring. The idea is a killer so maybe they thought it could carry out the whole movie. But unfortunately it didn't. Still worth to see though. An electrician, desperate for money, replaces a client which kills himself. Follows the directions he is given and finds himself in an underworld hell.

To sum up its more brilliant than most of the movies you see every day. But still a waste of these talents.