StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

tylergee005 This film is pretty unremarkable, while still retaining that old school cool that we've come to love. I like seeing the pack in action but if replaced with no names this film would be a disaster. The foundation of the film really is the cool men themselves, with a plot so lackluster even they seem to forget what's happening at times. Worth a little bit of your time if you enjoy that suave cool style of this era, otherwise there's not much to see here.

Tweekums Fifteen years after the end of the Second World War Danny Ocean is getting his old squad back together again; not to reminisce about old times but to go on another mission… this time for themselves. Their target will be the city of Las Vegas where, if all goes according to plan, they will rob millions from five casinos on New Year's Eve. Once they have the money their problems are far from over; law enforcement officers have virtually shut the city so getting the money out without being caught will not be easy.This will is rather fun even if we don't learn what the group is planning until almost half way through the film… perhaps a good thing if you watch knowing nothing about it as one might wonder what on earth this group of old war buddies are planning. Frank Sinatra and his fellow Rat Pack friends do a good job as Danny Ocean and his buddies… if you didn't know it isn't obvious that they are better known for singing than acting… although Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr do get to sing a song or two. There are plenty of laughs to be had throughout the film even if a few of the gags have dates somewhat. The heist itself doesn't take very long which and while it is going on there is little sense of real danger which was a bit of a pity; I guess the makers wanted to keep the tone light or possibly I'm unfairly comparing it to the remake that concentrates far more on the actual heist. Overall this was fun but I still preferred the remake.

jacobs-greenwood Lewis Milestone produced and directed this original (and highly successful) heist picture which featured an all-star cast headlined by the Rat Pack: Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis, Jr., Peter Lawford, and Joey Bishop as well as Angie Dickinson and Shirley MacLaine (the latter in an uncredited cameo). Its screenplay was written by Harry Brown and Charles Lederer from a story by George Clayton Johnson and Jack Golden Russell. Other that appear include Richard Conte, Cesar Romero, Patrice Wymore, Akim Tamiroff, Henry Silva, Norman Fell, Red Skelton (as himself) and George Raft.Sinatra plays Danny Ocean, a man addicted to danger and excitement which causes estrangement from wife Beatrice (Dickinson). His latest scheme is a grand plan to reunite his 82nd Airborne Army veteran friends – fifteen years after their acclaimed service in various World War II theaters of battle – to knock over the five main casinos (Hotel Flamingo, the Sands, Desert Inn, the Riviera, the Sahara) in Las Vegas during New Year's Eve.Among Ocean's eleven co-conspirators are Martin and Davis Jr. (who each sing a couple of songs), Lawford, Conte, Bishop, Silva and Fell; additionally there's Tamiroff, who doesn't participate in the robberies, but helped to plan and finance the operation. Lawford plays Jimmy Foster, whose soon-to-be fifth father-in-law, gangster Duke Santos (Romero), figures in the aftermath, hired by the coalition of casino managers – led by Raft's character – to find and return the stolen millions.There's a somewhat predictable twist ending.

thebrshaw The 2001 version of Ocean's Eleven is one of my personal favorite movies. I had put off seeing it for a while because I tend to be a bit biased against remakes. But after seeing and liking it, I was eager to see the film it was based on. I don't really know what I expected going in to see the 1960 version, but it definitely wasn't what it turned out to be. Frankly, the remake far surpasses the original. I've talked to some people about it and they have said that it is unfair to compare the two films. If you can't compare an original film to its remake, then there is something seriously wrong.The two films bear little semblance to each other, even in terms of plot. In this movie, the protagonists all conspire to rob five Las Vegas casinos at the same time. Believe it or not, this is far less complicated than the plot of the remake. The idea here is that they cut the power to Vegas, enter the casinos, take the money, and leave. That's it. It's almost an hour before they even start planning the heist, and the sequence itself lasts only about five or ten minutes. Even if the thieves in the remake targeted only one casino, the heist serves as that movie's centerpiece; in the original, it feels like an afterthought. And there's nothing really interesting about how it's done. Some gimmicks are introduced, but they don't play any major role in the long run. For example, the Eleven put infrared paint of some kind around the casinos so they can easily navigate it in the dark. Considering how small the casinos appear to be, it seems like a flashlight would have sufficed.Another problem with hitting five casinos is that the Eleven are split up into five teams. In other words, we don't really get to know them very much. In the remake, every character had some kind of unique personality or ability. In this version, only a handful of the Eleven are memorable in any way. Peter Lawford plays a ne'er-do-well wealthy mama's boy. Richard Conte plays a Walter White-type who wants to provide for his family in the aftermath of his impending death. But that's pretty much it. When the heist is being planned, the arrival of a cowboy named Jackson is made a big deal of. The guy is then completely dropped from the story and makes no further appearances of note. Does anyone honestly remember the nuances of Henry Silva's character? How about Buddy Lester--how did he distinguish himself from the other actors? Characters should be the crux of a film like this--it's kind of implied in the title, after all.The movie is also incredibly dated. Most of the "humor" is years past its sell-by date--kind of like the actors. Most of the actors in this film are in their 40s; by modern standards, they look at least 55. Despite this, they are constantly surrounded by horny women who ogle and suck up to the main cast, something that is only in the movie to show how attractive its main characters supposedly are. Frank Sinatra, who also looks far beyond his 44 years, is cheating on his wife with a dissatisfied mistress. The subplot is only mentioned a couple of times before being quickly discarded; it only seems to exist to show that Ocean is a philanderer and therefore cool by the movie's standards. The portrayal of women in this movie was silly in 1960 and is arguably the funniest thing about it now, even if it's unintentional. Most of the actors aren't given any kind of challenging material, so trying to grade their acting is futile; it doesn't offer anything memorable good or bad. But Akim Tamiroff does have something to work with: he plays the perpetually nervous man organizing the heist. He's probably the worst actor I've ever seen. Maybe he just couldn't work with the script, but he bugs his eyes out at every opportunity and whoops and hollers like a rabid chihuahua at the slightest provocation.By the end of it all I was left wondering what the point had been. A lot of questions remained unanswered. Why did Richard Conte's character die in the middle of the heist after experiencing no symptoms in the few hours prior? What's going to happen between Danny and his wife, especially considering Angie Dickinson is given such high billing? Why did they choose to leave all the money in the garbage, where it could have been found by the police or lost? Why did they hide the money from Santos in the coffin, where it could have easily been discovered by church staff? Why are nubile 20-year-old girls mindlessly throwing themselves at 40+ men, with faces like road maps of Manhattan, within seconds of meeting them? I really wanted to like this movie. The remake is one of my favorites and I was hoping this could match it. It made me realize, however, why remakes should exist: to take sub par movies with interesting premises and make them actually deliver. This is the perfect example of that.