MovieChat Forums > Ocean's Eleven (1960) Discussion > which do you think's better, the 1960 ve...

which do you think's better, the 1960 version of the 2001 version?


I was wondering which movie people was better, the 1960 version of Ocean's 11 or the 2001 version of Ocean's 11.

reply

2001 rocks! However, I haven't seen the 1960 one

reply

The two films are only similar really in name only. The story line of the new version I feel is just based loosely on the old version. I can't make a comparison between the two as it would be like comparing Jaws to Orca the killer whale. Both have big fish and were enjoyable. Both the Oceans Eleven have eleven thieves off to steal the "big one".

I enjoyed the both films however. The original does have a great twist at the end which left me thinking about it a lot longer than the "new" one. Also, the fact that the music and singing from that era is to my view far more musical than todays "music". This left a longer lasting impression on me.

reply

I think the new version is cooler, but I enjoyed the original more, because it´s the better movie.

reply

I wish that the Hollywood bosses would start putting more effort into creating original scripts, rather than keep plundering old movies and TV shows. There's a total lack of invention in the big movies these days. The original Ocean's Eleven may not have been the best movie ever made, but there are few stars around today who could compete with their sense of comedy and style.

reply

This is one movie I can stand having a remake of, because its so different, and the idea is great, robbing a Las Vegas casino, its classic. The old one had that Rat Pack feel, and it couldnt be copied by anyone now, so they made a different movie.

Otherwise, I think the only remake i can really stand is Mr Deeds.

reply

Think of it this way though, if they hadn't made the new oceans 11, I might never have heard of the original movie, or at least been interested enough to watch it. But as now the title is familiar, I will be much more likely to go see the original one. So in a way, it's good for the originals too.

That's a box.

reply

> I wish that the Hollywood bosses would start putting more effort into creating original scripts, rather than keep plundering old movies and TV shows.

Yeah yaknow, 'cause Mission Impossible the modern films was _SO_ much like the original TV show. I mean, if you're going to present the old show to modern audiences, at least represent the old presentation instead of just rob the name and slap your own concept on it.

I caught the original EO11 on PBS last night (interestingly enough followed by the original Tomas Crown Affair). I had heard about the differences between the old Ocean's and new Ocean's back when the new Ocean's was in theatre -- I seem to recall something said to the effect of 'the new one has what the old one lacked, the old one has what the new one lacked'. I'd say that was an apt remark, but I'd still say that the new one could have included more of the old one's flavour. The remark I also heard that the old one was a typical back slap of rat-pack slap I think was totally off the mark.

Take Strange Days written by James Cameron (tho lacking that typical JCameron smell -- hoorah!) -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114558/ -- considerably original I think w/in the near-future(at the time)techy-murder-mystery. A cool thing about it to me is I fail to see how a Part2 could be made to the flick. Good job on a film IMO.

I think Adam West was 100% lagit in complaining about not including any credit to his version of the TV show's contribution to the Batman story. I mean, hey, Chris Reeves got to stick his thumb into Smallville, right? Why didn't AWest and I-forgot-his-name-Robin get to play some other bit parts in one of the four previous films? (bearing in mind I have no clue if they got space in the latest flick).

How'd the Mod Squad turn out? Was Charlie's Angles better than the show. All in all, I'd just say that this type stuff is just jacked and shouldn't be done unless it's going to be done w/ good reverence. I'm still hugely grateful that Cassablanka(sp) didn't get redone -- with who?!?! Sean Penn as Bogie, and Julia Roberts. Speaking of Julia, Flatliners could probably get a Part2 made to it, but I think it would be better left alone, and all I could see coming out of it would be another reheat-flick of the original. I think pref films that stand on their own & don't get remade -- however, would I kybosh the 4 or 5 Alien flicks, no, probably not. Speaking of which, where's my DVD remote & box set?

See yas
~MOPs

reply

I think the original flick was very charactristic of films of it's time. From the opening presentation with the opening credits, the body, the close.

...and I think the modern O11 was charactristic of modern films... oof, which includes the re-hack of originals.... hmmm, but like the new CharlieCoocooFactory, (sarcasm mode: ON) we know better in modern day and can take liberties... make a 2nd film (O12) from the original (which I actually want to see, I guess just to finish it out) -- I understand that TBurton added to Wonka, gave back story not in the book about how Wonka's dad was a jerk or something. Someone else also suggested that the book really isn't a kids book -- some heavy creepy stuff in it not for kids.... kinda like how some modern kids cartoons have some very suggestive adult-humor material.... just because that stuff flys over the kiddie's heads doesn't necessarily mean its OK to send thier way.

reply



just watched the 60s version & really enjoyed it, however the newer ones are better, Danny Ocean IS George Clooney, Sinatras to frail to pull t off.

reply

remember this is FRANK SINATRA we're talking about. he did danny ocean first!

reply

Not to me Clooney isn’t. Sinatra will always be Danny Ocean. He had more swag than Clooney any day.

reply

Le’see: George “bobble head,”
TV actor Clooney vs. Frank CHAIRMAN OF THE FUCKING BOARD, Old Blue Eyes, Mobbed-Up Sinatra, who will be remembered and enjoyed after the last worm has eaten Clooney’s remains? Hmmm. Let me think . . . ?

What the fuck is wrong with you, aslly? It’s no sin to be young, but it’s hard to forgive ignorance.

reply

[deleted]

This.




Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?

reply

I enjoyed the 1960 version, because well...I hate remakes. They always screw up the meaning of origionals. And I am not a big fan of George Clooney, Matt Damon and Julia Roberts.

reply

I like them both, but the ending of the remake felt like it was tacked on, and as for Julia Roberts, when we first see her and Brad Pitt says "THIS IS THE BEST PART OF MY DAY", all I could think was, boy you must be having a *beep* day.



"If God hadn't meant for them to be sheared, he wouldn't have made them sheep"

reply

and as for Julia Roberts, when we first see her and Brad Pitt says "THIS IS THE BEST PART OF MY DAY", all I could think was, boy you must be having a *beep* day.

My thoughts/feelings *EXACTLY*!!!!!!!!! *rolls eyes*

reply

Actually, it's Matt Damon's character who says "This is the best part of my day..."

reply

so true!





"Picnics are for fascists."

reply

Haha I thought that too. I love the 2001 version though, the only thing I didn't like about it was Julia Roberts. There is something very seriously wrong when the only good movie you appear in is the movie that has your worst performance, heh.

---
"Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are."-Kurt Cobain

reply

Definitely the new version. Why is Frank Sinatra supposed to be cool? He's just a very small, very skinny guy. And they look all like old men, that's not what I understand of a 'rat pack'. Well, I have to admit, I've seen the 2001 version about 4 or 5 times, the 1960s film only once and - unfortunately - in the dubbed German version, which makes matters worse. I'll come back after having seen the English original.

reply

If you can, read the book "The Way You Wear Your Hat : Frank Sinatra and the Lost Art of Livin'"

That's cool, and I got a lump in my throat when I first read the title.

reply

You're kidding - Frank Sinatra is one of the greatest entertainers of the 20th century. Furthermore, he's got to be one of the "coolest" people to have walked the planet; a more swinging cat there has not been.

Your inadequate comments don't really explain at any great length your problems with Sinatra..."very small, very skinny". Perhaps stupendously fat chodes would satisfy your viewing needs. He was a killer with the ladies and had more charisma than you can possibly comprehend.

What is it you understand of a "rat pack"? Clearly nothing. You are a damn imbecile.

reply

You couldn't have put it any better than that. I've never really been a Rat Pack fan, but after watching the 1960 version I can't get enough of their music. Small! Skinny! Who cares. It matches his/her brain.

reply

The Rat Pack define cool. Those guys were not actors pretending to be cool, those guys were the real deal and if you know anything about the way they actually lived their lives and what they did and who they hung out with you would bite your tounge. Go back in time and call Frank a skinny small old man and watch how fast you end up in a dumpster bleeding. The Rat pack lived in the mobster era Las Vegas, and they had alot of stroke, these guys were not unbelievable kids like most of the newer cast of which I only think Clooney was properly cast as he is "Almost" cool enough to justify being in the remake. But even Clooney is no Blue Eyes and noone in that cast was anywhere near as cool a customer as Dean Martin.

reply

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to this, but I haven't checked in in a while.
I think you prove my point - if I ended up "in a dumpster, bleeding" it wouldn't be of Little Frankie's doing, it would be the sycophantic thugs who surrounded him, desperate for a bit of attention or fame by association. I don't deny he could, and did, arrange to have people worked over. Does that make someone cool? Not by my semantics.

As seems to be the consensus, Dino had natural cool in spades - Sinatra worked like a Trojan at acquiring cool, and boy could you see the cogs turning, but he failed to achieve it. The Mob made him and kept him in his position of power. That power then became self-perpetuating.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Why is Frank Sinatra supposed to be cool? He's just a very small, very skinny guy. And they look all like old men, that's not what I understand of a 'rat pack'. Well, I have to admit, I've seen the 2001 version about 4 or 5 times, the 1960s film only once and - unfortunately - in the dubbed German version, which makes matters worse. I'll come back after having seen the English original.


This has got to be one of the most idiotic things ive ever read. You give stupid people a bad name.

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

reply

[deleted]

I like both, but the 1960's version has a better twist at the end. Besides it gives us a chance to see ledgends at work.

reply

[deleted]

i should probably see the original 60's version, that is beside the point, just had one completely unrelated question that popped into my head whilst reading this topic.....

"Aren't you a little SHOES??? for a stormtrooper?"

dear god lady, fix your signature quick!!!!!

reply

[deleted]

Both are great movies. They both had great casts, But they were opposite in their approach, I like george clooney sometimes (ER, Oceans 11), Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, but the people who make the movie are the character actors. Don Cheadle, Elliott Gould, etc are great. But in the old one the first billed actors are the ones who perform the best.

The old one is much cooler, in the sense that these guys were partying and stuff in between planning all of it, instead of being lifetime heist guys, and following people, planning, etc. But the new one moves much faster for the same reason, who really wants to watch other people socialize? Get me in on the action.

Mild Spoilers

I think the heist in the old one was much more realistic. There are too many things that could go wrong with the new ones plot, it has holes in the heist that arent shown, a real person in a heist would never ever talk to the person in the casino they were robbing, and with the state of Casino Security, it seemed very impossible. Personally, what irks me some is in the first scene with Brad Pitt, he is teaching five card draw, five card draw? who plays five card draw?

In the old one though, the plan is pretty simple, they keep to themselves, and really if something went wrong they pretty much could run around in the pandemonium and not get caught. Casino security isnt what it is now, so it seemed much more realistic. The boyfriend realizing the plan is kind of unrealistic, and him asking to figure it out is plain weird.

The old one had a better ending, but both are some of my favorite conclusions ever, I had heard this before and thought there was no way it could beat the ending of the remake. But although the ending of the remake is super entertaining, and definitely the coolest part of the movie, the old ones ending is just amazing.

So all in all, I love both, if I want to entertain, or be entertained I'd watch the new one, but if I just feel like sitting down with some whiskey and get the feeling of the Rat Pack, the first one never lets me down.

reply

"Personally, what irks me some is in the first scene with Brad Pitt, he is teaching five card draw, five card draw? who plays five card draw? "

That would be idiot actors who were paying Rusty to teach 'em poker. And as bad as they were I don't blame him for starting with 5 card draw. Try to start with Texas Hold 'Em and they're heads would blow up!

reply

Both were entertaining, but by far, the original is better, it was much more amusing!!!!!!! George Clooney is very handsome, but no one can beat ol' blue eyes!

reply

Even though the 2001 version is a lot more hi-tec the 1960 is far more better. Frank Sinatra is a lot more cooler (and more handsome I might add)(on a side note: I have Frank posters all around my room!lol!) than George Clooney. I was just dissapointed cuz Frank didn't sing anything!! But, I enjoyed both.

reply

So, in all this verbiage of Frank v. Clooney, not WORD ONE about Sammy Davis Jr, who had more talent in his left nostril than every asshole in the remake, combined.

SDJ was Michael Jackson decades before Michael Jackson was born and, unlike MJ or ANYONE, in the remake, he could also act and be genuinely funny.

Any success the remake enjoys is due to the audience having no knowledge of history.

reply