TAKE ONE Presents... - The Heistpod 2: OCEAN'S ELEVEN (2001)

Episode Date: September 23, 2026

Simon and Jim return to discuss Steven Soderbergh's OCEAN'S ELEVEN, the first in his trilogy of Ocean's films. They discuss the film's huge jump in quality from the 1960 original, the stylishness and confidence of Soberbergh's filmmaking and the importance of the music in setting that tone, the extremely tight script, and the surprising lack of common ground between the original film and this remake. OCEAN'S ELEVEN really establishes how to make a heist film in the 21st Century. They also discuss Brett Ratner and his documentary MELANIA for a while for some reason. Content warnings: blackface; J. K. Rowling and transphobia; sexual assault and harassment; Donald Trump and contemporary US neofascism; domestic abuse including physical assault of children; antisemitism and harmful Jewish stereotypes.Our theme song is Heist Chase Robbery Music by Mykola Odnoroh licensed under the Pixabay Content License: https://pixabay.com/music/hard-rock-heist-chase-robbery-music-346328/Full references for this episode available in Zotero at https://www.zotero.org/groups/5642177/take_one/collections/8G36Z772/collection

Ten ought to do it, don't you think? Do you think we need one more? You think we need one more? All right, we'll get one more. Then you're out. Hello, and welcome to Take One Presents, The Heist Pod, a podcast where we watch all the Oceans franchise films in order, contextualizing them and critiquing them.

I'm Simon Bowie, and joining me, as ever, for this job, is Jim Ross. Hello, Jim. Hello. How are you? I'm good. Not pictured, is the absolute rigmaral. that Simon and I just went through trying to get this recording going because of a ridiculous leak I've got in my house. I'm currently in some optimal recording conditions in a room that had a leak in it

because it's the only one with a machine that recognises my microphone. But apart from that, I'm good. Dedication to the craft, as you just said. Dedication. But yes, we're back to record again. And today we're talking about Oceans 11 from 2001, not from 19. as we talked about last time. Thank Christ.

Yeah. So if you listen to the previous episode in this season, we did not enjoy Ocean's 11, 1960. And in fact, just this week, this past week, I saw a Reddit thread. I think it was for the blank check podcast, some Reddit, asking, is Ocean's 11 the biggest gap in quality between the original and a remake?

not in that direction because there's plenty of remakes that are a lot worse than their original but are there any that are so bad where the original is so bad and the remake is so much better people were struggling to think of any yeah I'm struggling to think of any off the top

in my head I mean it depends I don't know it depends what your proclivities are technically there was like a spider man film in the 70s or something and it was a cabinet It was a Captain America filmed in the 90s

like but you know So I don't know You could perhaps make cases of rose But I haven't seen either of those So I couldn't really speak to it But it certainly Domodony is the only thing I can think of Yeah

I'm struggling to think of much else But anyway We are discussing 2001's Oceans 11 And I think to some extent This is where the franchise Really starts Like on a technicality

It starts with the 1960 original But really This is where the style is established and the themes that will be ongoing are firmly established. So, Oceans 11. This is a 2001 film directed by Stephen Soderberg from a screenplay by Ted Griffin. Steven Soderberg, well-known American filmmaker. He's a kind of experimental filmmaker in some ways, particularly in his late period. I've really known him from his later films, from his more experimental films. I've seen his recent films like Black Bag, Presence.

I did a review of Presence for Take One Cinema.net, actually. That's a... Unsane. Insane, yeah, that was filmed on an iPhone. Presence is from the perspective of a ghost. It's a haunted house story from the perspective of the ghost. I mean, the fixed perspective of the ghost. the camera is like through the go size.

And what did I see recently? What's it called? The Christopher's. The Ian McKellen, Michaela Cole film, which was very good. But yeah, he's done a lot of different things. So apart from the Oceans trilogy, he's also done the Magic Mike films. Contagion, which I know a lot of people watched around COVID, because it specifically used some terms that came into popular popular parlance during COVID.

Have you seen much Stephen Soderberg? You seen more than... Yeah, quite a lot. I mean, I think I would say this is probably my... It's probably, I think it's probably my introduction to Soderberg. It's probably where I started paying attention to him as a filmmaker. And he is an interesting filmmaker, right, in that I think he experiments with form a lot. think he is an extremely talented filmmaker, but I would, you know, maybe I'm going to show

myself up here and somebody's going to point something out very obvious to me. I think what's interesting about him is he, he's not a very auturie filmmaker, right? I think he would struggle to look at any of these films and say, you know, there's some sort of stylistic idiosyncrasy that outs it as a Soderberg film. Yes. I, I, I, I, I, I, I, agree. I think he's fairly Kubrickian in that sense, where Kubrick always tried to do something different every time. He experimented with different genres, different ways of filming. I mean, there's some clear, like Kubrick things, like the kind of Steadicam is a continual thing that he enjoyed doing. But he kind of tries deliberately to defy expectations and do something different. and try new things.

Like you say, he's very formally inventive, which is tricky within kind of the Hollywood machine. But yeah, hard to pin down. Yeah, and I think, you know, I think that, you know, looking across a lot of his films, I think this is

probably in the most accessible bracket, but I don't mean that in a sort of, you know, pejorative sense, because he has a lot of accessible films that are extremely well done, right? I mean, I think one that actually comes to mind for me beyond the Oceans films, right? Because as we'll discuss when we get to the episodes on the sequels, I've only seen Oceans 12 once, and I haven't even seen Oceans 13 at the time of recording, right? So it actually brings to mind Logan Lucky, actually.

That's another very accessible film, because I think it's actually very well done, and I think he gets a lot of good performances out of actors. And I think, you know, we'll talk about it more as we get into the film. I think that is one of the key strengths of this film, right? It's the performances that, you know, we get from the cast. And I think if you had to choose one thing, I think there's many things that make it better than the 1960s version, right? The almost, the complete absence of Blackface is a plus.

Yeah, for instance, right? That's a definite improvement, right? But if you had to pick one thing that does the most for the film, I think it's the performance as the actors and you have to, you know, I think it's something that directors don't always get sufficient credit for, so you do have to give him credit for that, I think. Yeah, no, definitely.

So Ocean's 11, 2001 comes about, obviously in 2001, but in 1987, David Permanut, a American film producer, had wanted to produce a remake of it. He had worked on a remake of Dragnet from the 1950s,

but in terms of Ocean's 11, it never materialised, so it just sat on a shelf until Warner Brothers decided to move forwards with this in January 2000, with Stephen Soderberg attached to direct. There's a lot about casting that I think I'll get into when we get into, you know, talking through the titular 11. But yeah, they filmed it obviously, primarily in Las Vegas. one of the producers was friends with the owner of the Bellagio so they were granted special permission to film there and the cast stayed at the hotel during the shoot which is a fun which is a fun detail yeah this comes out in 2001 this comes out December 7th 2001 so I only know what this is opening against this is opening against Lord of the Rings fellowship of the Ring which came out in December of that year as I recall and I imagine somewhat buried by that because that was huge. But turning to the box office for 2001, we have at the top.

And we've read this one before because it's got Jurassic Park 3 on it, which we covered on the Dino pod. And you can go back and listen to that. But we've covered this before. But to give context, that year, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by notorious turf, J.K. Rowling. The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Ring at number two. The Better Film.

at Monsters Inc. Shrek, Ocean's 11 at number 5, Pearl Harbor, The Mummy Returns, Jurassic Park 3, Planet the Apes, the Tim Burton version, and Hannibal at number 10. So there's a few directors that we've covered before here, there's Ridley Scott, doing Hannibal, Joe Johnston, just Jurassic Park 3, and we fully discussed that film previously. Also, I don't know whether to believe the IMDB trivia page on this film, but apparently, apparently, at one point, Brett Ratner was meant to direct this. Of course, he went on to great success in the number 11 position here, Rush Hour 2. Rush Hour 2. Yeah. Rush hour 1, 2 and 3, and Tower Heists, Brett Ratner, who is definitely not known for anything else, horrendous. Yes, the disgraced film director, Brett Ratner. Yeah, I mean, Brett Ratner has sexual assault allegations against him, sexual harassment allegations, and has since gone on to direct Melania, the documentary about Melania Trump.

And bizarrely, when I was clicking through on IMDB, to see what he had done in the interim between Melania and some of the utter shite directing the naughties. A lot of Mariah Carey music videos, apparently. Sure. Didn't know that. There you go. Great. I had occasion to watch Melania fairly recently, because a friend did a Malania watch party.

Ironically, I hasten to add. It's so bad. It's so poor. It's pure propaganda, which you kind of expect going into it, but the kind of incuriosity. of Rackner as a filmmaker it really shines through

it doesn't make me laugh that whole Melania thing no because it's like oh this is really bad and it was like yeah I mean like putting aside the propaganda bit this shouldn't surprise anybody I mean I thought Brett Ratner was a bad filmmaker 20 years ago I hardly think he's improved in the interim

Yeah there's one scene that stands out for me on kind of Brett Ratner as a filmmaker and it's a scene where Donald and Melania are walking through like the back alley, the back, the back area of like a kitchen on their way to an event or whatever. And he scores it with the same music from the Goodfellas scene where they're walking, where, you know, Ray Leota's walking through the back of the kitchen. Same music, same style.

He's clearly going for a wanna that he edits to within and into its life, unfortunately. but I'm like, do you understand the point you're making here? I think you're trying to make them look cool, but you're actually making them look like mobsters. Yeah, you're specifically comparing them to mobsters. Did you understand Goodfellers? And it just shows this chasm of filmmaking between Martin Scorsese and him. I don't think he understands what he's done.

Fascinating. He is genuinely one of these filmmakers I find it quite... You know, because there are a lot of very talented filmmakers who have done horrendous things, right? It leads to this conversation, oh, can you separate the art from the artist?

There's no need to do that with Brett Rattner. Horrible things and made fucking horrible movies. Like, I can just cast him into the fires of Mount Doom quite happily, frankly. Yeah, I mean... Off your fuck with your films. Yeah, we're going to be discussing a few of the 11

who have done some egregious things. That is very unfortunate. But this comes together in this film, which is a good film, regardless of these actors and what they have done in their personal lives. Yeah, I think you'd struggle to have the same reaction with Brett Ratner. best known for the rush hour films I think it's fair to say which I haven't actually seen

so I can't judge them I would lie I recall being like quite liking at the time the first two yeah I haven't watched them since so I can't speak to whether that's a

that's an opinion I want to stand by or not but everything else he's made nah yeah rubbish this is a large tangent on Brett Rackner but yeah he was number what 11 of the highest grossing films.

And the other high-grossing films are franchise films, mostly, apart from Pearl Harbor. And the rest have turned into franchises. So Shrek, Monster Thing, has a sequel, but I think it's also part of the larger kind of Pixar. Cinematic Universe. Yeah. You'd probably also struggle to make a franchise out of Pearl Harbor for, you know, obvious reasons. Yeah. But yeah, that's 2001, when the film comes out.

And I do think this kind of stands out a little bit, because there's a lot of fantasy and science fiction. Ocean's 11 seems a lot more grounded than the other films. Yeah, it's one interesting thing I do see in Catalan, if we're going to talk, we've spoken about a lot about how Soderberg kind of like, you know, shifts around a little bit and the type of thing. film he likes to make, but I think one thing that stands out for me is

generally speaking he makes good movies for adults, and that is very much what is sitting here, right? You know, which is not to say the Lord Rings is not for adults, of course it is, right? But it's a different character of film when you think of it as a kind of a

Hollywood production, right? It's intended as a series of films that, you know, are bigger events. So is Harry Potter. Shrek probably wasn't at the time this first one, out, sure, but, you know, Pearl Harbor, I don't think you'd put in the same category for that reason. The Mummy Returns, yes, obviously, Dress About 3, obviously, Planet Vapes is a remake, and, you know, so like, it kind of, it's, and I think we're on the cusp of the period where

this sort of film continues to make serious money against those types of films. You know, I think that tide starts to shift after this, so we've discussed this a little bit with Jurassic Part 3 in particular, another feature. films that came out, kind of like a rindus era that we've done on previous series, but I think this is an example of the sort of film that was still kind of like really pulling numbers at this point, really. So, let's run through the film. We open in a prison, as Danny Ocean, played by George Clooney, attends his parole hearing.

He claims that he wouldn't commit a crime, another crime. He only did so because his wife left him, and he was upset by that. he achieves his parole and we hear the film's signature kind of heist jazz start up as he collects his personal effects. So all he has on him is like a tuxedo and a wedding ring. But the music is so important to this film and this sets the tone immediately. It's very snappy, it's very capery, light, jazzy, cool. It's going for cool It would sit quite nicely

Actually with that Sol Bass intro from the first one Yeah 100% So yeah That's a good comparison Because that's kind of what the Sol Bass intro From Ocean's 11 was going for as well This is cool, this is laid back But as we said in that episode

Laid back almost to the point of complete inertia Yeah Whereas this has some energy This has some drive This is And I'm going to talk As we go through the film, I'm going to talk about the music more, because I think it's a huge part of why this film works so much better.

Like I say, it's a huge element of it, hugely important. We cut to a clean-shaven Clooney in a casino in Atlantic City. He approaches a dealer, played by the late Bernie Mac, to arrange a meeting. And he's just arranging meetings. There's a big shot of Trump Plaza at one point, while Danny calls his parole officer and lies to him. And then we cut to Brad Pitt. He's in Hollywood and he's eating something.

He'll be eating things throughout the film. He's approached by Tofa Grace, playing himself. And he leads Tofer to a backroom where Brad Pitt is teaching various cameos how to play poker. It's a pretty fun scene and it does establish the character, you know, fairly well. I genuinely think that the scene with that scene with Tofer Grace and Joshua Jackson kind of playing themselves. It's a legitimately good cameo execution. Yeah, yeah.

It's really, like, it works. You know, you know. And it's also, it's a good example of where the script is sharp and it's funny. Like, you know, like when, I'd still laugh at anything about

like Pits delivery of the so you can't have three pairs in a five card game. And somebody claims that they have three pairs. It's just, it's you know, check this out. All reds. It's, it's good. It's, it's simple, it's sharp. The carpet's moving.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah. But Ocean sneaks in to surprise Brad Pitt, and they kind of do masculine eyes at one another over a hand of poker. There's a cool shot from the back of a car driving through L.A., and Danny tells Rusty, Brad Pitt's character, of his plan for a job with a large crew. We're not very fine and we're hardly hearing about the plan.

This is great. Yeah, stark contract. I realize this is Atlanta. And also, like, I realize it's Atlantic City rather than Vegas, the first interior casino shot we get. But it comes at two minutes and 35 seconds. I deliberately time to compare to the original film. You know, we're straight in there. Yes, I've got a time code in my notes of 12 minutes, and we're talking about the highest plan compared to 50 minutes on the original.

So Ocean wants to hit Terry Benedict's places, and this will need a variety of guys doing a variety of guys doing a variety of cons, which is kind of the framework of the film. There's some good back and forth between Brad Pitt and George Clooney in this. So Brad Pitt is playing Rusty, who is kind of Danny Ocean's partner in crime. I'll say this now. Brad Pitt has been accused of abuse, not only of his wife, but of his children, including allegedly strangling one of his children among other allegations. Not a nice guy, it would seem. No, various things have come out over various years

and he's not a good dude, shall we say. I believe Angelina Jolie has a kind of restraining order or they certainly don't see each other anymore and his children don't see him. Not great. George Clooney on the other hand seems like a class act. He seems like a genuinely nice guy who has done a lot of political advocacy

particularly around Genocides, Sudan, Armenia. Seems like a lovely fella. I think I was surprised in this that Brad Pitt is playing Rusty rather than the character

that Dean Martin played. I can't remember the character's name. I think it says a lot about the film that I cannot remember his name. But he had quite clearly the same kind of role as Rusty, and yet it's a completely different character. I think I was quite

struck by they don't even try to replicate the characters from the original, apart from Danny Ocean and arguably his wife, who has a different name. I think... Was it Beatrice?

It's a similar role, yeah. It's a similar role, but entirely different character. You know, they're not even trying to replicate the original, apart from Danny Ocean and this heist plan. There's no Duke Santos.

There's no iconic Duke Santos making phone calls. Oh, I have his name here. Sam Harmon, Dean Martin character. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, and it's interesting. I think there is a conscious effort to try, to try and get away from it a little bit. One thing I read was that when you first see,

when you first see Brad Pitt's character, Rusty, He's standing in front of a billboard and apparently I had a picture of Sinatra on it but he actually chose to cut it out to keep it as kind of separated as possible and I find that quite interesting right because I see it is a remake, the lead characters

the same but apart from that and kind of like you know back of a napkin one sentence summary that's kind of all really has in common to be honest yeah yeah there's not a huge amount in common

which I think surprised me a little I think I was expecting more. But they go to Las Vegas, Ocean and Rusty Do. And in Las Vegas they approach Ruben, who is a wealthy kind of plan man. He's played by Elliot Gould. And he outlines the three most successful heists in Vegas, which we see in black and white and period styles, which is quite a fun bit of invention.

Only one of the guys manages to get outside the front doors, and he is immediately shot in the back by cops. and Elliot Gould says once you make it out the front door you're still in the middle of the fucking desert Elliot Gould is great in this he's just incredibly charming

he's great whenever he's on he has a great presence whenever he's on screen and I find it I find it an interesting because his role is basically the same as it what the hell was the thief of the canon yeah exactly the first one

you know the guy who's kind of he's kind of like, you know, his bankrolling facility essentially, right? And I think what I found quite interesting about it is he is a comic character, right? He is there to kind of like January's last year, some very good lines, but I think the thing that I

found interesting about it was it's not a mocking portrayal, right? No. He's funny because he's kind of this larger than life character who, you know, has wit about him and is very kind of like ostentatious and ridiculous. Yeah, he's an eccentric guy, but he's...

But people are not making fun of him, right? In the way, you know, and, you know, there's like, when you get a little bit into kind of like the accents and the ethnicities and the first of the, like, you kind of started looking and going, hmm, I don't know about this. But, um, like, that, that same quality is, is not here, right? There's more kind of like, uh, gentle back and forth rather than kind of, like, actually mocking somebody. Um, and it's interesting, I think Ellie Gould is absolutely, you know, perfect for that role here. Yeah, he's part of the crew.

You know, he could so easily stand apart because he's a little older than the rest. He's obviously wealthier. He is Jewish, which they don't pay too much attention to, but he's wearing a star of David quite prominently in the first scene.

But it's not played for laughs. He's not like a, you know, greedy Jewish. Speaking of Harry Potter and the philosopher's stone, he's not a greedy anti-Semitic goblin stereotype hoarding his gold he's just a wealthy Jewish man his Judaism is part of his character

but it's not played for laughs or anything but Rumen's curiosity gets the better of him on the idea of the heist when he learns that they're hitting Terry Benedict's casinos because Benedict's muscled out Ruben he says bought his casino

with plans to demolish it which we do see later in the film and this leads us into the iconic bringing the crew together sequence that always gets replicated in kind of parodies of heist there's always a sequence of them going up to random people

and recruiting them from where they are I think there's one Rick and Morty episode where they particularly focus on this and do a parody of this I mean also it's a fairly enduring type of like section of the film I mean like I watched this and it was like

you give us a lot couple of these guys capes and shields and this is like a good 20 minute section of the Avengers for God's sake. Like you know, you know it's quite you know it's quite fun so it's quite a hard thing to make feel entertaining and zip a lot but they do manage it. But this does it really well. Yeah. So we you know we have very confident dynamic filmmaking from the start. There is interesting edits, there's kind of split screen, there's this jazz that I've talked about. It's all very slick and it feels they accomplished, which helps it all go down. But we have a little scene of everyone introducing their skills and personalities. So we have Bernie Mac, who is the dealer.

We have two brothers who are drivers. These are played by Casey Affleck and Scott Kahn. They were originally going to be played by Luke and Owen Wilson, which I think would have been fun. Wow. Owen, get out of. we're trying to record. But they had to decline because they were committed to the Royal Tenant bombs. They considered Joel and Ethan Cohen

as replacements for the Wilson brothers, which would have been interesting because I don't know how much acting they've even done, even in their own films. I mean, to be fair, I'm not really sure how much acting half-like and can to Nitz-Rowse. I do have my notes.

They do apparently, perfectly decent job, like they're good, but I think, you know. Yeah, but they do settle for... I think you'd struggle to say they're key players, really. It's true. They do go with Scott Kahn and Casey Affleck. Casey Affleck, like Brad Pitt, has had his fair share of troubles. He has been accused of sexual harassment and has settled multiple sexual harassment lawsuits.

But they are brothers, they are drivers. We get a nerdy and nervous kind of electronics guy, played by Eddie James. Jameson doesn't get a huge amount to do, to be honest. We have the explosives expert who is an English man. And he's played by Don Cheadle. And he talks a bit like this, Governor. Let's blow the bloody doors off. Yeah, I do need to take a second because there's so much going on.

There's so much going on with Don Cheadle in this film, right? because I actually kind of like his performance, right? It's engaging. It's memorable. I think he's quite funny. I quite like the scene where kind of like, you know, Brad Pitt springs him from the cops and, you know, it's all good. The accent is bloody horrific. Like, I mean, really genuinely, and I think he's, you know, he's disowned it to an extent himself in the year since.

Like, it genuinely is like sub-Dick Van Dyke and Mary Poppins. stuff. Yeah. Like, it's not good. No, it's very, you know, Cockney Geiser. And in fact, later there is a joke. Yo-Kioser be a booby-trapping. There is a joke later about Cockney rhyming slang where they can't understand his

rhyming slang or whatever, you know. Are you going up the apples and pears? What? You know, stairs, stares. Bloody hell. I think it's, is it, is it, we'll be in Barney. Yeah, we'll be in Barney. Barney Rubble, trouble.

Yeah. Yes, that's, that's, that's the last. God, I'm why you. It's a weird choice. I don't know why they got Don Cheadle to play this role. And Don Cheadle... Because it doesn't need to be an Englishman. No.

And if it needed to be an Englishman, it doesn't need to be Don Cheadle. I could have cast an Englishman. There's plenty of black English people. Exactly, right. Yeah. Don Cedle is uncredited in this film. And Cam Williams asked him about this in an interview. a few years ago, Cam said, I noticed that you sometimes appear uncredited in movies,

like in Oceans 11 and Rush Hour 2, speaking of Brett Ratner. Why is that? For different reasons, Don Gilles says, I did Rush Hour 2 just as a kind of laugh, so I didn't really need a credit. With oceans, there were some stuff that happened behind the scenes that I didn't like how it went down, so I just said, take my name off it. And that's all he said on this, as far as I could find. so I'm not sure what went down or why he's uncredited or what

Allegedly because I came across this as well and again you can take this sort of pitch so I don't have a verified source or this It was he wanted so I think the top billing I think in the film is Cleeney Pitt I think Julia Roberts maybe is well and maybe she got an and credit or something but there was somebody else who might have been Matt Damon.

I forget. Looking at the poster, it goes Clooney, Damon, Andy Garcia, Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts. Right, okay. Apparently, Cheedel wanted one of those slots. Ah. Right? And I think when he didn't get one, he said, okay, well, just leave me off. Fair. I don't know, I don't know whether that's accurate or not, but that seems to be what I've come across. I feel like the same thing happened to Gary Oldman on Hannibal, which came out the same year, where he wanted either top milling or, as it actually happens with the film release, no billing. Yeah.

Which explains for years why, I didn't it, because I remember, like, because he's unrecognisable, right? Because of, like, very heavy prosthetics. He's very heavy prosthetics. He plays a man who Hannibal drugged to the extent that he's not. he would eat his own face. So he don't look great on it. So yeah, we're still going through the montage. There is an acrobat and contortionist,

the amazing yen, played by Kin Sharobo. There is Saul, an older, retired con man, played by Carl Reiner. And so that completes the 10. They decide that they need one more. So they go to Chicago to recruit Pickpocket Linus, played by Matt Damon. and this is kind of staccato shots of him pickpocketing and discovering

yeah Linus was originally going to be played by Johnny Depp who would have added to the roster of allegations against them actors in this film but Johnny Depp had to didn't do it I think also if you think about kind of like their

status at this point in time I think Damon is a better casting choice anyway because especially you know you got bare mind we're talking about Matt Damon 2001 not Matt Damon 26 and he has a certain

sort of like youth and naivity to him compared to yeah so this is you know certainly like the Carwiner character Elliot Gold even Clooney himself and Pitt to an extent you know like this is the this is the Matt Damon of Goodwill hunting

and saving private riot. This is before the born identity. I was going to say, this is before the born franchise. So this is Goodwill Hunting, talented Mr. Ripley, Matt Damon. Where he's youthful and a younger man.

And I don't feel like you would have got that with Tony Depp even in 2001. No, I don't think so. I think that's quite different. Yeah, I mean, 2001, I mean, we'd only be two years removed from when Depp did Pirates of the Caribbean, I think. Yeah.

You know, so, like, to my mind, he's a completely different, he's a completely different persona at that point. Yeah. I think it works better with it. You know, and like, I appreciate that, you know, I may well write it slightly differently depending on who's in the role, right? But I think for the way the ensemble is working, I think it, I think it works better, you know. Damon coming off those films and kind of like what your preconceptions are. of them there compared to

Johnny Depp, you know, who I think he would have done, who do you have done recently before that, like, Blow Sleepy Hollow, he'd have done Donnie Brasco, you know, and then like all his early 90s stuff. Like he would be more, he'd be another star appearance

whereas Damon isn't in this at this time to the same extent, you know. Other people who were considered Mike Myers, Ewan McGregor, I feel like you were McGregor was maybe the Don Cheadle role. Alan Arkin, presumably the Reiner, the Carl Reiner role.

I could see that. Yeah, I could see that. I think that would work. And Ray Fines. Maybe, maybe Terry Benedict. Yeah, I could see that. Bruce Willis was definitely for Terry Benedict. In fact, he turned it down.

Yeah, I could see Ray Fines doing that. Although I kind of want to do it. do it in this in bruges persona and have a conversation with Don Cheadle so we get a bit more music, a little less conversation Elvis Presley kicks in over shots of Vegas as we know it today in kind of contrast to the

1960 film Gordy, neon crowded, all lights, all action, all people moving. Yeah, this is a very much the Las Vegas that I have been to and did not like. And did not enjoy, as you said. The group gather at a house in

Vegas, presumably belonging to Ruben. This is 29 minutes into the film. The whole 11 is assembled. They're all in the same space. Yeah. And they're talking about the plan. Linus is having some

doubts, but Elliot Gold pushes him into the house. And Danny introduces the plan. They're going to hit the Bellagio, the Mirage, and the MGM Grand. He has a fancy PowerPoint presentation with videos and stuff, in contrast to the one drawn map that Frank Sinatra had. There is a vault underneath the Balagia. Otherwise, we discussed in the last episode, it's not a map.

It's a tourist board pamphlet. There is a vault underneath the Bellagio, which holds the takings from all three. The security system for this vault rivals most nuclear missile systems. It's long and complex, they outline lots of specific details that they will have to outwit during the film, which is a fun way of setting up what will come later. So there's like a laser grid, there's laser towels, there's pressure sensors, blah, blah, blah, blah. At this point, though, is an edit zooming into balloons to disguise a cut.

Generously, this is maybe an allusion to a similar cut in the original. where there was balloons as New Year's Eve was happening. Maybe. Maybe it's just a coincidence. But they set up building an exact replica of the Bellagio Vault. Saul practices taken on the identity of a high roller, who's going to be integral to the piece. I've made a note that aside from one sex worker and one parole officer,

I'm not sure a woman has spoken in the film yet. it's something of a blind spot for this film that there is only one woman and she is the wife of one of the main characters. There's not a woman in the 11. It's a very man-centric film. Oh yeah, no, this film's a proper sausage fist. Yeah. There was a woman in the cameo, in the cameo scene where they're playing poker. Holly Marie Coombs.

Yeah. But yeah, he is a sausage feste, as you say. And we meet another man, Terry Benedict, played by Andy Garcia. Terry Benedict has a conveniently rigid schedule for controlling his casinos. At 7pm, he walks down the stairs, and this takes exactly two minutes. He's quite an OCD, you know, a very rigid way of doing things, which does work for the narrative. and Terry Benedict's wife is Julia Roberts

She is unfortunately Danny Ocean's ex-wife I think she may be Terri Benet's girlfriend actually But yeah Julia Roberts In terms of kind of like plotting characters I think this is the only one that I do scratch my head A little bit of this

And I think maybe it gets to the point about Maybe the female characters are not You know necessarily the most rounded out in this film So just to get the straight You went from con man Danny Ocean to extremely rigid

and down the line casino owner Teddy Benedict it doesn't seem like they have a great deal in common they don't they don't seem to have anything in common yeah you know

yeah yeah it's just a weird one I do like Andy Garcia in this role right and I think he I think he is quite well written I think one line that stands like to me during this little session. He's shown to be

collecting art, right? Because Tess, Tess Ocean, you know, Danny X-Y is meant to be a curator. And to what he asked him if he liked it, he just says, I like that you like it. And it kind of gets, it's just a neat little line that gets across kind of like

the fact that he's not really engaged with it. He's quite materialistic. It's about power and what he can gather. you know, it's a nice little example of how the script is, it's lean. It's incredibly, without sacrificing kind of like character dynamics, let's see.

Yeah, it's cut to the bone in a good way. It's a script. The script is incredibly tight. Like, if dialogue isn't needed, then they leave it out and they let visuals do the talking. So there's a lot of letting edits do the work, letting montage do the work. I didn't listen to the audio commentary that Stephen Soderberg has done for this film, but film critic Tansy Gardham has.

And one of her takeaways was that Stephen Soderberg re-read the script, start to finish, at least once, if not twice a week during filming. That's incredible focus on a script and getting it to the right point. I feel like that brings to mind what we said about Jurassic Park, where they spent like 18 months, I think, in pre-producing. getting the script ready, getting it to the right place, before they even started filming. And clearly Soderberg is thinking about the script, even as they're filming,

and thinking about what can go, what didn't need to say, what can be edited out, and it comes across, because it's incredibly tight and it's incredibly lean. It's also an interesting kind of perspective on changing or looking at the script during filming, right? because you hear a lot about modern film productions that become very stretched with timelines and compressed and all the rest of it and you'll often hear people say so like they were writing the script as we were filming it

and it's nearly always implied to be a bad thing and I think a lot of the time it is right but I think this is probably a good example of how context is king right and I think this is an example of how this is not writing it as you go it's right we're we're getting stuff on film we're shooting it what's working and what's not now that we've got the performers on set we're seeing what's going on right what do i need what do we need

what do we need and we don't have what is superfluous right and it's you know on the ground filmmaking yeah right it's not flying by the seat of your pants it's adapting to the people and the conditions you have it at hand and it's just it's an interesting thing because i think that sort of thing is nearly always framed as a negative and I keep coming back to it well it doesn't need to be no you know and I think this is a good example yeah once we have clune and roberts sit down and do a scene together what can we tell about them from how they interact that we don't need lines for you know what dialogue can we cut now that we see them have their back and forth there is an academic called Joyce gogging who has done a few articles on oceans 11 that i looked at one of them is

in money and culture called casinos and shore bets, Ocean's Eleven and Cinematic Money, and she points out that Terry Benedict is based on Steve Wynne, who was an actual casino owner. Like Steve Wynn, Terry Benedict comes from humble beginnings, collects art, is obsessed with security and surveillance, and most importantly, he implodes casinos and makes events of the implosions. In this film, this takes the form of a dramatization of the moment that Steve Wynn pushed a detonator at Treasure Island, that set off fireworks and made it look like he had bombed the desert-in casino hotel,

causing it to implode. So he's actually based on this real casino owner who did explode other casinos, which is a fun detail. But yes, Rusty isn't happy to discover that Tess Ocean is dating Terry Benedict and that Danny might be doing this for revenge.

Would Danny choose the money or his ex-wife if he came down to it? Why is he doing this? Saul poses as a high roller and meets with Benedict which distracts him so Danny can meet with Tess. Danny and Tess have a very good back and forth, where essentially he says he wants her back. Clooney does this great thing in this scene where he is continually fiddling with his wedding ring, and it doesn't draw attention to it, it's always at the bottom of the frame, but he's still doing it the whole time, and it's a really interesting little tick that he brings to the character when Tess is around. Meanwhile, Saul convinces Benedict to take a briefcase into the vault, which will be important for the plant.

So part of the plan is for Yen, the acrobat, to sneak into the vault in a carrier in a trolley, because he can squeeze himself up in there because he's a contortionist. And he has to get from the middle of the vault to the door without touching the floor. Meanwhile, Don Cheadle identifies a problem with the plan to shut down the power. So the problem with the plans shut down the power grab will be in Barney. This is where he does. We'll be in Barney. We need to steal a pinch, which is a kind of EMP, which will not the power out temporarily.

And then there's another problem. Danny gets red flagged, so he can't even enter a casino because of his criminal background. Linus reveals that it was because Ocean went to see Tess and Benedict and so Rusty kicks Danny out Linus has to then take over Danny's charm offensive kind of part of the con He has to be likable but forgettable So already we're getting more problems

Before the heist Before the heist than we had in the original film Which went off relatively smoothly I mean there's only so many problems you can have with force somebody to sing old Langzine and walk into a room with their counting chips. They had to blow up a pylon, but a transmission... They did have to blow up a pylon, yeah.

That's true. So, it is the night of a big boxing match in Vegas. Saul gives Benedict the briefcase. The boys load up the EMP. The brothers wheel yen into the casino in a disguised catering trolley. Linus distracts Benedict, posing as the Nevada Gaming Commission. And he takes in Bernie Macs.

for questioning. Danny meanwhile is watching all this score and he's pursuing tests to say goodbye. There's a pretty funny scene where Bernie Mac accuses Linus of being racist during the distraction interrogation and Bernie Mac plays it really well.

At one point he says you might as well call it White Jack which is fun. Genuinely I actually think I actually think the two brothers The only ones where I can't really remember a lot of what they did They're basically kind of like two extra bodies To perform part of the pladmen they need to

Everybody else kind of gets their moments And honestly Bernie Mac is pretty good value in this He gets a lot of good lines Bermack gets some good lines Yeah You didn't do a lot during the highest He is the inside man I guess And a distraction

It doesn't get a lot to do Similarly, the electronics guy, you need him because you need someone to look at cameras and stuff, but he didn't do a great deal. And he didn't have a lot to do. Saul, meanwhile, is in the security room watching his briefcase go down to the vault. He looks increasingly peeky. And then there's a problem. The guards place something on the trolley in the vault that might either keep Yen from getting out or drop onto the floor and activate the pressure sensors when Yen does get out. Sol has heart attack

which acts as cover for replacing the security feed with the pre-recorded video from their replica vault Danny meanwhile has been locked up by Benedict's goons but he escapes because there is actually another member of the crew

the guy who goes to interrogate Danny is in on it he's just not one of the 11 for whatever reason but he gets locked up and he escapes posing as a doctor and two paramedics, Rusty and the brothers sneak into the back and remove salt. This sounds quite complicated when you say it out loud, but in the film this all appears so smooth. It doesn't appear jarring or complex. It's so well edited that you don't get confused during this.

Don Cheadle turns on the EMP and Danney and Linus abseil down the shaft guarded with lasers. Vegas goes dark, they quickly absale down just before the power and the lasers come back on. So they're down at the vault level now. Yen emerges from the trolley inside the vault. Danny and Linus get into the vault. Yen's arm gets stuck on the door just as they're about to blow the vault door, but it fails to blow and Yen gets free, so they get in. They're in the vault.

Rusty calls test, talks to Benedict, he tells him that they're robbing him. So Benedict goes to security room where the footage suddenly switches back to the live feed of Danny, Linus and Yen piling up the cash. Rusty blackmails in, says we release half the money so we don't blow up the other half. Benedict calls the cops, but also tells Rusty that they have a deal. So he allows for the transfer of money in a map like that and he sends the SWAT team into the vault to secure the remaining money. cuts power to the vault, the explosive blow up the money. His men intercept the van at the airport. Meanwhile, Benedict asked the SWAT team to leave, because they've failed to do their job.

The van turns out to be empty, and it's driven by a crude robot, remote controlled by one of the brothers, which brings us to the prestige, because Benedict realizes that it doesn't say Bellagio on the vault floor in the security footage. That was only added in the last week. the footage of the robbery was pre-recorded and the money was actually taken out of the vault by the SWAT team who were the team

the heist crew dressed up as SWAT and there was a fun shot just one shot of a pioneer freshener that was lingered on earlier in the film and you don't realize why until this moment again very lean

very purposeful shots that you don't even realize until later are important. But that cues you in that this is the same van. The SWAT team is the same van as the crew had earlier. So Danny returns to the interrogation room and Benedict sings him to the cops for parole violation.

But the gang also obtained footage of Benedict being a dick. And they send that to Tess and she leaves him to seek out Danny. Claire the Loon plays and we see the aftermath of the heist. The swap van enters the warehouse and the 1110 minus Danny walk out into the Vegas night as free met. And looking at a fountain, they all contemplate their victory over Terry Benedict.

Three to six months later, Brad Pitt is again eating something outside a prison. As Danny emerges in his trademark tucks, tested in Rusty's car and they reconcile, but they are pursued by Benedict's men. It's a fun film, but it's tight. The heist has clear affinities with kind of my favorite bits of the Mission Impossible films. So I always liked the heists in the first few Mission Impossible films, but especially the visual style of the first film, the kind of grey corridors, metallic surfaces, the shaft full of lasers is very Mission Impossible,

and this is quite reminiscent of that. Yeah, and I think it's extremely well, shot, edited and written that entire sequence. And the reason being that you never feel like it's going completely off the rails, but you never feel like it's going quite according to plan. You're kind of like you're going with it, right? You understand what's happening. But it's only then when you then get to the prestige, as you termed it, right?

Because that is entirely what it is, where then you realize what has happened. Yeah. And it kind of places you a little bit more in the shoes of Teddy Benedict in that sense, right? And it's no coincidence. Yeah, it's true. You spend a lot of time from his viewpoint at this point. And it's, I think it's very easy to underestimate how hard that is to write. Oh, I'm sure.

To make that entertaining and pacey and keep it going whilst actually holding back the actual details of what happened. Yeah, 100%. And I think that's superbly done. It really is. And I think what I also find interesting about it is, re-watching this, right? So this film, I, you know, so I think I probably saw it on DVD back in the day, right? I've watched it a number of times since. I actually watched it about two years ago before we did this, purely because it would, like, the oceans 11 through 13 were on a deal for the 4K, and I just got a 4K Blu-ray, and I needed something to actually test it with, so I caught this. so I'd watch it then as well and then this

I think even on a rewatch it's still entertaining and I think that's a key thing of like how technically well I think this is made is the fact that even when you know oh yeah okay they're going to be the SWAT like it's still you still go with it it's still entertaining

to watch it cleverly sketches out like the heist plant without letting you in on the full details so you know that they need to get Yen into the vault in the trolley. So you know that portion, and you can feel some tension of, are they going to do that correctly?

You know they have to navigate the lasers, but you don't necessarily know who's going to do that or how it's going to go. But what you don't know, like you say, the perspective effectively shifts once they get inside the vault from Danny and the crew to Terry Benedict, because you don't know how,

they're going to do it from that point. You don't know what the full plan is. You haven't been let in on that information. And so it unfolds for you like it does for Benedict with the slow realisation of what is happening. Yeah. Because I think when they're going through the plan, I'm pretty sure

they stop at the park, they don't outline okay, now they're in, okay, so how the hell do we get all this bloody money out, right? It doesn't really and that's the point where they then have the perspective shifts in the film. And you think, ah, okay, so this is how they're doing it.

They're going to do the, you know, they're going to take half, okay, that's clever. And then it starts to go, it's really well done. It is really well done. And like you, I've obviously seen this before, but I didn't remember the details of it. As soon as they went down, as soon as the SWAT team entered the vault, I remembered, oh, actually, they're the SWAT team.

They're the disguised SWAT team, and they're going to take out the money as SWAT is what I remember happening. and so I piece together, oh, this must be pre-recorded video and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But you don't know that, even if you do know that, it's still exciting and exhilarating. I think because you're getting it from Benedict's perspective, because you're kind of limited,

and it's so well put together, it's so smoothly, smoothly put together. Yeah. Like I say, not a wasted shot in the film. Like, even the Pioneer Freshner, which you see earlier has significance later because you realize it was always there it was always part of the SWAT fan

this plan has always gone off which I think really makes the contrast with the original all the more stark which is incredibly flabby and it's 90% wasted shots yeah no I mean because the other thing is this is not a particularly long film I mean like you know it's

how actually long is it It's like it ever, and it's less than two hours, right? You know, and I think the point that the original film is more than two hours. And there's absolutely no reason for it to be more than ten. Ten hours, Jesus. Well, that's why I felt like ten hours. You know, there's no reason for it to be more so. I think also something that is really great about this film is it looks so good.

Like it genuinely, this is genuinely a really good. good-looking film. And it was actually it's kind of incredible to think that, so Soderberg acts as his own cinematographer. Yeah. You know, because I went and Louis-South today, like I think he, I think in the credits of the film, he credits himself under a

different name, right? Oh, right, right, right. Yeah, but I look at it, he basically genuinely seems to, you know, and I haven't dug into the details of this, so I'm sure he has, you know, assistants and stuff who probably do quite a lot of stuff. No, you're right. With him. The DOP is credited as Peter Andrews, but that is actually him. Yeah, and there's so many, there's so many scenes in this film that just looks so good.

Like, I mean, even when like Pet and Cleeney are talking in a diner earlier on, it's like, it's just, you know, capital F filmmaking, right? There is no, nothing is done half-heartedly, right? This looks great. It's tightly scripted. The performances are great, right? And there's a little bit of a sort of like symbiosis here with the script as well, because the script is really witty. And I find it interesting because I see that that sort of like back and forth kind of like witty,

you know, taking the sheen off it for a second and having a bit of banter. It kind of feeds forward into filmmaking like seven, eight years after this, right? you can kind of see the echo some of the stuff that happens in comic book films where it doesn't take it too seriously at points. The scene that I've got in mind is when they're stealing the blueprints in this very sort of like casual manner, right? You know, there's no kind of like high drama there. They've basically just got a security guard they've paid off or their buddies with or something. And Clooney has given pit the schweilers like, the house always wins until he changes the takes. And then when that big hand comes along, you bet, you know, you bet everything and you take the house.

house and it's just like, you practice that, didn't you? You know, it's stuff like that, like, where it does, it does really well and it carries it off and it's just, it's just a very well-made, enjoyable film. And I think part of the reason I think this film is so good is that's what it's going for. That's exactly what it wants to be and that is exactly what it comes out as. Yeah, you have great performances and you have great chemistry between all the actors. Clooney and Pitt are both great together. They both have incredible screen presence, and they work against one another so well,

like in that scene you've just described. They have a really good back and forth. I saw people on letterboxed critiquing Clooney and Roberts chemistry, but I think they have a good back and forth. They're not necessarily smoldering on the screen, but they have a nice, they have a good back and forth.

forth that is entertaining and wit it and worked for me for what it needed to do in the film. I think it does what it needs to in the film. I mean, I think what I would say is that, is to return to one of your earlier points, which is kind of like one of the, this film doesn't have many shortcomings in my view, but it does have a couple, right? And the one I would think of is the female characters, right? And I think what you're seeing there is it still works. I think it works on the strength of Clooney and Roberts as performers. I don't think the script is kind of as well observed at that point, but, you know, I don't want to go over the top with that criticism. I still think it's pretty decent, but I think that's maybe what people are

picking up on there, right? I think there's less, you know, it's maybe slightly less accomplished there, but I think any lack of chemistry comes in the script there. I think they still end up with sufficient and does what it needs the film to do, maybe from the performers. Yeah. I could see that. I think it's a bit hard. Yeah, I think if I had to critique, if I had to criticize, I'd say characters are quite broadly drawn. We don't actually get that much depth for insight on any of them. I think they work, because they all get a little moment to do something, but they are quite broad caricatures. They don't really get arcs, you know.

Everyone in the film is a cool dude at the start, and they're cool dudes at the end. They just have a bit more money. You know, Terry Benedict is, I suppose, humbled to some extent, but it's not like he learns anything from it, at least in this film. Maybe we'll see where he goes. I mean, Tess changes and grows to some extent in that she goes from bad Terry Benedict back to good Danny Ocean. But they're quite broadly drawn characters. Yeah, yeah. And to you see, I think that's a problem in the original film as well.

I mean, at least... More of a problem in the original film. Yeah. At least care of their personality. But the interesting thing is, but the interesting thing is, I think in terms of like the set-up, you've got 11 characters. I think it's a problem in both,

but I think this one, the script is orders of magnitude better. The performances are orders of magnitude better, so you just don't really note it as much here, whereas it becomes an absolute hamstring on the original film. I mean, like, the thing is, I did a little experiment before we started recording actually, right?

And I thought to myself, right, I'm not going to attempt to necessarily name the character's names, right? Because I'm not going to remember all of them. But I'm going to at least see if I can remember the 11 in each case, right? And I think I got four from the 1960 film, and I managed to do the full 11 here. Yeah. You know, like I couldn't remember. I could remember the, in a couple of cases, I could remember the actor, but not the character David, vice versa, right? But genuinely, I could only get four from the original.

Yeah. And three of them were Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., who would be kind of hard to forget, right? So it's, it's quite a lot of error. Don't forget the iconic cowboy who, for some reason, have a fake broken arm in one seat. or doesn't as it turns out hijinks hijinks chaper's so I mentioned that

there's this academic called Joyce Goggin who has done a lot of work on Oceans 11 she's done articles about what Ocean says about money and kind of postmodern finance so in one article

she's arguing that the ocean's films portray Vegas casinos as a safer bet than banks they also portray casino space as somehow analogous to bank space with signifiers of high culture like works of art and gold trim and high security and stuff like that so yeah she writes about how these films were made when gambling was becoming more important to the economy certainly in a pre you know know, 2008 crash, this makes a lot of sense as finance capital began to rely more and more on gambling, and public finance really took hold in the West of the idea of gambling. What she was referring to, she says, is the growing trend to generate funds for old age pensions,

medical insurance and public education through lotteries and casinos, as well as the practice of paying off pensions in volatile stocks as a means of transferring risk to the recipient. She has another article, a book chapter in second takes, critical approaches to the film sequel, where she does talk more about Oceans 12, so I'll talk about it more there, but she's talking about how the Oceans movies are produced as the gambling industry, and Las Vegas became increasingly important to the greater economy. So I think there is something in the depiction of money in these films, the depiction of casinos as high security as more of a target than banks in some ways as a more secure way of keeping your money.

And there's an element of kind of gambling propaganda to that or just representing banks in a kind of interesting early 2000s way as not relevant compared to kind of the private sector and compared to casinos and that kind of entity. Yeah. And the thing is, right, I've said the film is primarily interested in being a, you know, just an entertain keeper. And it is. There are some, there are choices made which are kind of interesting for the yet. One that I did find quite interesting is, of course, in the original,

It was one of the few things I found interesting about the original. They're all veterans, right? You know, so they're an old, you know, they know each other from being in the same army unit, whereas now it's transitioned to Danny Ocean as an ex-con, right? He's getting out of prison. And it's actually quite an interesting shift because it's almost kind of like this engaging in criminality, right? You've kind of got this charming criminal persona, all good. But when you think about when this came out, so I don't know if there's,

would have come out before or after 9-11. To a certain extent, it's immaterial, right? Because it would have been produced before then. But it feels like we're kind of really on the cusp of that period where I don't think you'd get away with portraying American veterans doing this sort of thing, right? They'd probably be pilloried for doing that, right? And that's a little bit interesting in and of itself,

and that you can see why that decision would have been taken if this had come out in like 2002, 2003 or something. But it didn't, right? It would have been produced before then. So it kind of, there is an element of, you know, a trend setting in before then. That's an interesting, an interesting choice. So the certain things there,

I think also kind of like the glamour of, or the alleged glamour of Vegas is kind of settled in now in a way that it maybe wasn't quite as much in the, the 1960 version. And that kind of plays into some of the stuff that you were talking about there in terms of like how the portrayal of money and what rich people do. Right? Because the grand irony is looking at this in 2026. And I think, you know, intelligent people probably would have realized this in 2001 as well. That's not what rich rich people do. That's not how people make money. Right. This is what you do when you're already in the sort of like multi-millionaire billionaire class and you're having a bit of fun. Right? And that's why in some ways all the stuff about kind of like, you know, you make the bet and take the house, it's kind of intriguing. But yeah, no, so it's interesting.

It's a different sensibility to the original in that sense. It doesn't interrogate it much because I don't think there's any intention of doing so. But you can see kind of like little echoes of it in some choices that are made there. In some ways, the film cleverly obscures how wealthy these men are because it needs to for us to sympathise with them. You know?

Danny has just got out of jail. He could have assets that we don't know about that aren't shown on screen. He presumably does because he's always wearing very nice suits, tailored suits, and renting high-class hotels. But I think they want to portray the idea that he's just got out of prison and he's got no money.

He's a poor man. So that you're more. sympathetic towards him stealing all this money from a casino owner. He's in effect something of a Robin Hood without the kind of obvious virtues of a Robin Hood character. And it goes, and it does go to

legs to actually portray petty crime as kind of like beneath them, right? Because they do it with the lightness character, like, and there's one line that I just absolutely love Rick. And like, he's picturing the idea of the job to him. He said, you know, you know, but you don't have to do it, but you know, you can go back to fueling up stockbrokers, like, referring to them to pickpocket.

You know, it's like, it is interesting. It's the, you know, it's combining that sort of, you know, the glamour of this big job with Vegas and money. It's an interesting little mix. It's an interesting little mix. Yeah. They almost do it by clearly portraying how much wealth Tammy Benedict has. And so by contrast, he is the greater evil because he has so much obvious wealth.

I mean, Brad Pitt is doing. you know, poker nights for celebrities. He can't be poorly off. But by contrast, with Toby Benedict, we sympathise with him because he's obviously got less money than him. Yeah, yeah.

You know, and because there is, like, it's played for last, but there is also that one little character moment with Tofer Grace, where, like, Tofer Grace wants to pay him with a check, right, because then he can write it off as a tax expense and da-da-da-da-da-da. You know, and then, you just gets this disdainful look from Penn. It's like,

I could go with cash You know But it's like But it's obviously That's the world in which we're living These are guys who like They won't pay in cash Right

They're not They're not able to make their money By playing by the rules And by the system Yeah And that's that's an interest So it kind of portrays those as It's kind of interesting

Because a lot of them as you say They have nice suits And all the right You know like they're not You know They're not down and out They are portrayed There is

they do a lot of little things like that to position them as a little more blue collar I think is the way I would appreciate it. Exactly, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's not necessarily about amount of wealth it is about class, blue collar status like you say.

Yeah, I don't know, you can trust that with Benedict who kind of like, you know, he's doing all this stuff and like, you know, he's buying art without really kind of like really appreciating it for anything more of what it does for him and, you know, it's, um, so as I say, the film doesn't linger on it because it doesn't need to and it doesn't want to. But it's interesting.

It adds a little bit of... You know, we've said the characters aren't that well-rounded out, and are not. But they do have these little moments that add colour here and there, you know. Yeah. Josh Gagin also talks about the Ocean's films as a prime example. This is useful for our purposes in kind of larger franchise discussion. She talks about studying the Ocean's films as a prime example of the kind of cinematic remakes and sequels

that have been made since the beginning of this century and which flaunt their status as one more product in a specific line or brand rather than attempting to conceal it. I feel like we talked a lot about this on Terminator which was very assets and brand-focused. These films are moreover of particular interest because they boldly thematized

both their lack of originality and their interest in money and the market as cultural phenomena, indeed as their very subject matter. These films represent how the market has worked in tandem with Hollywood since the 1960s when the first Ocean's film was made, and particularly where the circulation and investment of money is concerned. In other words, the Ocean's 11 remake and the sequels it spawns openly served to publicise

popular stars rather than act as adaptations of some revered high culture antecedent. What this means is that auto-reflexivity in these films, which is ultimately the promotion of the famous stars who act in them becomes nothing less than their aesthetic texture, architecture and function now she talks about this more in relation to a particular plot point in Oceans 12 which we'll talk

about next time I would say I think we'll talk about it at length next time but there is she has this sense that Oceans 11 and the sequels are more about the stars promoting these

these stars and there are a of them in this film, then saying something or remaking a revered original, a beloved original film, you know, the, uh, in other words, the IP isn't what is important in this franchise, it is the stars, you know what I mean? There's not some beloved original that this is remaking, like, um, Planet of the Apes, for example, it's not remaking the beloved original. it is putting stars into these roles and playing around with their personas and having them act against one another

and bringing that kind of star power to it. Yeah, I mean, and I think that it's it's very clear, I would say, in the lead roles here, right? Yeah. You know, if you think about Clooney and even what he was kind of like, even some of the stuff he was doing in this era, right? he's a very good actor.

I've got a lot of time for him. Very good screen presence, right? But this is a film where he is essentially George Clooney's screen persona, right? This is not... Yeah, I mean, this is not, oh, brother, where art, though?

This is not burn after reading. No. This is not... You know, it's none of these things where, like, I think it's interesting in the... When people think about George Clooney as an actor, I think the persona they hove in their head is this film, right? It's his role as Danny Ocean. When he's actually a lot more versatile, he can go into a lot of different modes of expression.

Yeah, he can, but he gets so often bugged down in the Clooney role, which is, you know, your clean-cut, ER doctor, Danny Ocean, Bruce Wayne. you know yeah yeah you know so so that's the clear example but I think I think it's also true Brad Pitt here as well right

again he's not doing a good after reading either yeah yeah exactly right I mean he's about as far removed from burn after reading roles you could you could get here

but I mean I'm even thinking in terms of like this performance is very different and much more in the movie star persona space than even like Tyler Durden is which predates this

you know it's certainly not it's certainly not interview of the vampire right it's a very different so in that respect what you say there

yes you absolutely see it and I think you see it also in the candy you know we'll talk about it as more if we get to the other films you see it in casting decisions in the other films as well and that that's an interesting part of it

and in terms of kind of like the way it works I also find it interesting that there was so much involvement with the Bellagio here you know yes they do that actually I don't I do remember watching the film kind of thinking how the hell do they get this level of acts is that actually? You know, and it is and they stayed there and all the rest of it's like

I find interesting how much the quality of a film plays into how much criticism it gets for certain things, right? Because if you think about other films and I'm not trying to draw an equivalent between the Belasio and the US military here, right? However, I think it would be fair to say that the the ethics and the morals of the gambling industry in Las Vegas are less than wholesome,

let's see, right? You know, and just gambling, gambling in general, and a lot of it, you know, a lot of the public perception of gambling in the states in particular stems from, like, perceptions of places like Vegas, right? It's interesting, like this film doesn't really, or at least I've never really seen it,

get particularly criticized for that aspect of it, but other films will get criticized for those and I'm not saying that they shouldn't right I think that that is worthy scrutiny but I think a lot of it interests on how good a film it ends up

and the fact of the matter is this is an extremely good well-made film whereas Transformers is a load of old hogwash yeah right there's something about quality of film but there's also the perspective of the film like clearly Las Vegas plays a huge role in this film

and enthusiastically help them to film it, but they're also somewhat positioned as antagonists. You know, Vegas is who we're pushing against. We're trying to undermine them and steal from them. And this also made me think of a film I saw last night, actually, the new James Chamberan film, Teenage Sex and Death in Kampmiasma. That has a huge amount of product placement in it, which I feel like I would criticize in a James Bond film,

for example, but here I'm thinking, oh, this is interesting. What is Shumbrun trying to say with this product placement? Why is she obviously intentionally, why have they obviously intentionally put this into the film? And what is it for? You know, why have they done this? There is an intentionality behind it. And I feel like with Steven Soderberg as well, you're thinking, why are they using Vegas? You know, what is the intention here?

he gets more he gets more of a pass basically because he's known as an intelligent filmmaker who is clearly considered that's a very fair call out on that as well yeah yeah what is the intentionality of it

and it's interesting that Goggin talks about you know this focus on branding and kind of corporatism when Stephen Soderberg himself actually pushes against a lot of that in his personal life.

So he's very vocal about his criticism of the studios, despite working with them. He is also very much, he doesn't want to be a brand. He said in an interview in 2009 that the fact I'm not an identifiable brand is very freeing because people get tired of brands and they switch brands. I've never had a desire to be out in front of anything, which is why his films don't have a possessory credit. They're not a Stephen Soderberg film. They're not directed by Stephen Soderberg on the poster.

So it's interesting that Goggin picks out this focus on branding from Oceans 11. And it does make me think about what Stephen Soderberg is doing with those films, which I guess we'll talk about with the next couple of films. I mean, also the branding part of it. I mean, and it's particularly relevant, relevant to us in terms of the way we're trying to approach each of these seas

I think actually where it's going to become particularly relevant is Oceans 8 right which we're not going to get to for quite some time but it's kind of like it will become I think probably the archetypal example of this right yeah and it's all it's weird and it will kind of you know

and I don't want to preempt that conversation where it kind of comes full circle right you know part of the brand and like is it remaking a beloved original in that point no but you know it's It's interesting. But I think this is the starting point, really. Right. You said that up top.

And I think what I find interesting is I don't think it was until I owned this on DVD in my late teens. I even realized there was an Ocean's 11 with Frank Sinatra. You know? That's not something I realized when I first. When I saw this even the first couple of times I saw it, you know? Yeah, I'm sure there is a credit for it, but I don't remember seeing a credit at the start, like, based on blah, blah, blah. I'm sure there's a based on a story from credit at some point in the credits, but I don't think it's front and centre, or at least I didn't notice it. And they're very distinct beasts, as we've talked about through this recording.

They're such distinct films in some ways that seem intentional. So it's a really interesting example of a remake. Cool. So I think that's us. I think that's Ocean's 11, brackets 2001. So next time on the podcast, next month we will be discussing Oceans 12, which came out in 2004. I have seen it. I don't remember a great deal about it. You've seen it and... I saw it in the cinema when it came out. I have never watched it since, but before we record, I will watch it in glorious 4K on the second of the discs that I got on that. Oh, what's that? Does it have all of them? It does.

Oh, at least 13. It doesn't have eight. It's the original kind of way. The original, you know, the original sausage fist. And then I'll need to do something. separate for the final one. Cool. Yeah, I don't really remember it, nor do I remember who the extra member of the 12 is. But we'll find out on the next episode. So thank you for joining us. The Heist Pod will be continuing for the next few months discussing the oceans films on this feed. So please do subscribe. Please do tell your friends. Please do tell people online because we only spread by word of mouth, let people know. Meanwhile, you can

go to take one cinema.net for film reviews and discussions. You can find us online by searching for us. But yeah, please do let us know what you think about the podcast and how it's going. Thank you very much. I think we're, I think we're done with Oceans 11 and like I say, we'll be moving on to Oceans 12. So thank you, Jim. Thank you. And we'll see you next time. Cheers. All right, chaps, hang on to your knickers.