I just saw it for the first time today and I enjoyed it very much! However, I come on here and saw it got a 6.2/10 what the hell is that? Sinatra, Davis. Jr, Martin and Lawford all in one film? How cool is that!
shareIt's an old film that doesn't meet up to the standards of today's films. The only reason it is rated so high is because of people who like old films.
The dialogue, music, transitions, and more are all very 50s / 60s for which most people don't care.
Personally, this film is among my favorites but I know many others don't feel the same way.
Probably low because it is too polished to compare with the junk they put out, these days. Look at the top 250, and how many films are out of position or simply don't belong. IMDB voters are, many of them, kind of out to lunch or otherwise ignorant of what makes a good film. And it was only intended to be a b-movie, and 'vehicle' for these guys to work together. Lawford, I think, was the guy who got the book and put it together, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.
There's another Rat Pack film that might deserve distribution - Sargeant's 3. Maybe they don't have a copy any more. Maybe there are licensing problems?
And there's of course Sammy's role in Porgy and Bess - the 'wide shot' movie. The estate apparently has kept that bottled up, thank you Sono Bono and 'revised' copyright law. While the studio let their copies turn to dust, apparently there are some good solid versions available. But they can't be legally distributed.
There are 4 Rat Pack movies (to my knowledge) and all contain a number in the title:
Oceans 11
Robin and the 7 Hoods
Sergeants 3
4 for Texas
Because that's what it deserves. It probably was fun back in the day, seeing the rat pack onscreen and showing a bit of their coolness. Watching it today, it comes across as slow, stiff, and devoid of energy.
shareIt could have been a great movie, but Frank's attitude kept if from reaching it's potential. The producers, director etc. couldn't really tell Frank anything, he wouldn't do most retakes, and everything was "good enough." Those involved in the project have been pretty unanimous in their comments over the years, all of them saying that there really wasn't much you could do when the star of the film owns the casino you're filming at, the town you're filming in, etc. etc.
To paraphrase, in this one, the inmates were indeed running the asylum. Too bad Frank didn't have a longer view of things, this could have been great, as it stands, it's mediocre at best. I love it, but don't watch it for it's artistic or dramatic content, more of it's "vibe." Vegas baby!
> I come on here and saw it got a 6.2/10 <
One can only guess. That's all. The guess would be that there's an agenda to demand that modern is ALWAYS better. Our way, is better. Their way was not, because it was . . theirs. It sounds silly. And it IS just a guess. But that sort of insanity does go around, and does spread.
Just in terms of the films, the key difference between the original and the Clooney is that the Clooney is a 'Rube Goldberg' mass of confusion, that should have broken down at any point. And it's serious as can be. The old film was a 'star vehicle', sometimes played for laughs as with the Skelton and McClain cameo scenes, and others. And one can believe that the plot could actually work. It wasn't that complicated.
As for seedy, the old Vegas was 'intimate'. You couldn't lose your money as fast. You had to put the coins in, AND pull the handle. Now they have cards and push-buttons. And in the old Vegas, if you could avoid 'the lure', then you could catch the lounge act right behind the bar, as shown in the film. I don't think they have anything like that in the 'new' Vegas. The old one was more honest - about the gambling. The new tries to make it look like Disneyland.
Have you actually been to Vegas lately? It's practically turned into Disneyland.
shareThat's pretty much it. Vegas has gone corporate: Mobsters out, family-friendly in. Same with Times Square: Used be a good place for adults to find what they wanted, now your tripping over children with Lion King souvenirs.
shareI saw the movie for the first time last year, and I loved it. The surprise ending was classic. I rate it 9/10.
Volker Flenske: (While torturing David) I don't know why you're doing this to yourself!
It's 6,6 now and that's by all means appropriate or a tad too high even. Besides the cast list, there's nothing extraordinary about it.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
It's an underwhelming caper film that is lackadaisical to a fault with too many characters, cameos...It literally feels 3 hours long. Lack of pacing, focus and POV makes it feel like it's never going to end. Ironically, director Lewis Milestone's next film 1962s Mutiny on the Bounty was 3 hours long and his last theatrical film.
share