Blair wrote:
"Still, like the original, I think it really was more about a fun ensemble
cast. Even more so poignant when the humour is somewhat more palpable in
the updated version. I also think that too many stars in an ensemble cast
can give the impression of an edited star-party of sorts, where the
personalities dangerously overshadow the character."
That is what I went to see Ocean's 11 expecting to get, and got. For one of
those heist-caper-building-the-perfect-team type of movies, eleven members
of the gang is, on the face of it, a pretty large call. The challenge is to
handle the crew of crooks in such a way that we aren't obviously subjected
to eleven separate backstories, demonstrations of specialities (explosives,
driving, contortion, impersonation etc), but we are still able to remember
who is who. (Not that I ever have this problem where Mr Clooney is
involved.) I think it was Stanley Cavell who drew distinctions between
certain of the earliest New Hollywood movies on the grounds that some
successfully used supporting actors to populate their worlds, and others
failed miserably.
The Rat Pack version was shown on prime time local telly the night after I
saw the remake. God, what an outrageously dumb film. But fabulously
tailored to the star personas. The actors in the remake don't have quite
the same off-screen notoriety to play with, do they? Perhaps that's another
reason why they were allowed to keep the cash.
Laura
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
|