The two films don't really compare. It's interesting how many of the comments here primarily talk about the people involved -- not even as actors or characters, but more as personalities. In a way, that makes sense. The 1960 version was a project for the Rat Pack. Sinatra, Davis, Martin, Bishop, and Lawford (and even Henry Silva and Angie Dickinson were around these guys a lot) all actually did hang out, drink, and party with each other. They were the kings of Vegas, and the standard-bearers of the last generation of dinner-jacket wearing swingers -- this was just three years before the mop-top Beatles made it to the U.S., remember. They made "Ocean's Eleven" just to have fun doing something together, and people went to see it because they were fascinated by the Rat Pack.
But let's be honest here and admit that most of the Rat Pack couldn't act to save their lives. Sinatra could, as he proved in "Man with the Golden Arm" and "Manchurian Candidate," but he was the exception. Martin had been impressive in some westerns like "Rio Bravo," but in comedies, whether as the straight man in the Martin & Lewis comedies or in a later film like "Ocean's Eleven," he always just played himself, or rather he always played the same role: Dean Martin (who was not the same person as Dino Crocetti, his real name). Joey Bishop? Peter Lawford? Please. Even Cesar Romero was more a camp icon than an actor.
As for the movie itself, let's all just admit Lewis Milestone will never make any list of Top 100 directors.
In comparison, the cast members of the newer "Ocean's Eleven" (hard to call it a re-make, when the plot is so different) weren't in anything like the situation of the Rat Pack. The closest friends of the whole group are probably Clooney and Roberts. They are actually actors, and mostly good ones: Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Garcia, Cheadle (though I agree his accent is bizarre: no one, I mean no one, whether English, American, Australian, Manx, or Martian, sounds like that). Bernie Mac, who is primarily a comic, is the exception.
As for the direction, it's no contest. Soderbergh is an excellent and innovative director who had a lot of fun making the new version as stylish as it could possibly be. It's not particularly violent, but it's exceedingly well-paced; the 1960 version drags in places, and there's hardly a memorable camera shot in the entire film.
I think people who prefer the 1960 version are being nostalgic (and I'm someone who generally prefers older films), or simply would have liked the chance to hang out the the Rat Pack for an evening. And hey, who wouldn't? But judging the films as films, this is one of those rare cases in which the newer version is simply better than the original.
reply
share
evbatboy
20 years ago
First of all, don't come into a conversation like this that deals with an opinion of two things when you've only seen one of them. Second both movies are excellent for their time. 2001 was great cuz it starred all of the big names. In 1960, that movie starred all the big names at that time. there is no comparing these two movies. I'm sorry but it's true!
reply
share
anakinskywalkeralpha
20 years ago
Do not forget, though, that Lewis Milestone won the Oscar for Best Director for All Quiet on the Western Front, which also won Best Picture for the year 1930 and is generally considered to be a very good film.
reply
share