SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

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.

Kate Black If there are any fans of this movie out there I'm sorry, but I didn't think this movie was very good. At all really. The plot was very hard to follow, the acting wasn't that good, and the soundtrack basically consisted of two songs. Ain't That a Kick in the Head by Dean Martin and Eee-O-11 by Sammy Davis Jr. , both of which were played over and over though out the film. By the end of the film, I was so sick of those songs I wanted to scream. And Frank Sinatra didn't sing at all which was kinda the main reason I watched the movie in the first place. To hear him sing. Big disappointment there. But Sinatra was the highlight of the film anyway. I always enjoy his performances, no matter how bad the film itself is. If I were a viewer, I would watch the remake of this film instead. It's made much better and the acting is better as well. I'm sad to say it but this film was kind of a flop.

MartinHafer There is something about heist pictures. Nearly all of them are very good and exciting and of all the genres, it's one of the most consistently good. Think about it--with films like "Rififi", "Grand Slam", "The Italian Job", "The Killing" and "Topkapi" it's easy to find a great heist film. Well, despite my trepidation, it turns out that "Ocean's Eleven" is also another dandy heist film. I say trepidation because I always assumed it was just a vanity project--an excuse for Sinatra and his friends to get together and make a film. Well, while this is true, the film also was quite nice--with a dandy script and nice acting all around.The film's title comes from Frank Sinatra's character's name--Danny Ocean. Danny is organizing a bunch of his old war buddies to commit the ultimate robbery--to simultaneously hit the five big casinos in Vegas. The planning is meticulous, the heist comes off without a hitch--but you KNOW with a film like this SOMETHING will go wrong, and by the end, that's exactly what happens. See it for yourself and you'll know what I mean.I really liked the movie. Although this WAS a bunch of friends getting together to make a film, they obviously cared to make a good one. The great twist ending sure helped but it also was nice that they gathered such an amazing ensemble cast. Well worth seeing--particularly so you can hear Sammy Davis deliver the line: "I knew this color would come in handy one day". Watch the film--you'll understand why it's so funny.

dotdashdash Contrary to many other reviewers here who gave the film a poor rating, I'm not complaining about the plot. In fact, the plot of the film is not so bad, and certainly not weaker than that of the 2001 remake (which I liked much more than this original). It's just that this work doesn't develop the plot very well: The first half of the film is wasted on people talking other people into participating in the coup (which, in the end, they do, of course). The planning stage is virtually non-existent - Frank Sinatra simply pulls out a handkerchief with a "map" of Las Vegas and lays out the plan in detail, anticipating and refuting all possible objections. The preparation stage goes on smoothly, with the team's electrician simply walking into restricted areas of the casinos and re-wiring key electrics of the houses without being bothered by security. Too implausible for me to believe. Then the execution of the plan, which is almost a minor sub-sequence of the film to which the director did neither devote much time nor love for detail. The rest of the film is wasted on an overly extended plot about the gang trying to escape capture and get the money out of town. The setting of priorities could have been better, I dare say.Clearly the film draws some bonus points from its all-star cast, but it does not employ them very well. The dialogues are mostly wooden - even sequences where there would have been an opportunity to intersperse some witty lines are handled rather unlovingly and with dull, flat dialogues (there are some exceptions to this, such as a nice little sequence with Dean Martin and Shirley MacLaine in a cameo as a drunken casino guest, but gems of this sort remain rare). The rat-pack stars don't even get much chance to display their talents in full, with only Sammy Davis Jr and Dean Martin getting one rather short song each.To me, it seems that this film was just another step in Frank Sinatra's ultimately unsuccessful attempts to establish a noteworthy film career. An opportunity wasted, since with a setting and a cast like this, something much better could have been produced.