Back To School Special: Goodbye, Mr. Chips, 1939

For my second Back To School Special, I have selected a film that also takes place in England, but this time on the right side of the tracks and also has a comma in the title. Goodbye, Mr. Chips is really one of those films that pleasantly surprises you. The first time I saw it was last TCM Oscar festival. See it had the misfortune of coming out the same year as Gone With The Wind , so it doesn't quite have the same clout on the imagination, though Robert Donat did win an Oscar for his performance and it's well earned considering the versatility he has to show in this film, showing us Chips throughout his life. I was thinking seriously, what is this crap? Then I started watching it and realized yeah, it's like that episode of Doctor Who where the Doctor is back in 1913 and he's teaching at a boys' school and he's human but he has dreams about being the Doctor. Oddly enough, the YouTube clips for that episode are much better than the ones for this movie. That's actually as close as I can get to showing you the start of this movie without showing you like twenty minutes of it. Just the boys don't seem to be jackasses in this movie. So that kept me watching long enough to realize what a truly special film this is. Robert Donat plays the titular Mr. Chips. We see him in flashback starting out as a Master in his first year at Brookfield School, a British boys' boarding school that dates back to 1492 and boasts such alumni as Sir Francis Drake. He goes in eager to be the boys' friend, but soon finds he has to use harsh discipline to teach them. He is an effective teacher, but he is lonely and laments that he can never have a real impact on the boys the way that the other masters seem to. This is heartbreakingly evident when he's passed over to be master of his own house because he doesn't seem to have the same ease with the boys. His friend a German Master takes him for a visit to his homeland of Austria, where he falls in love with Katherine played by Greer Garson. Katherine turns out to be just the change he needs and helps him become friends with the boys by hosting tea at their house every Sunday. Oh, she also gives him the nickname Chips. Everything is going incredibly well, he gets his own house, they're expecting a baby and of course, she dies. Because this is always what happens in the 1800s. There's a very touching scene where the boys discover this and they all silently try to carry on. We see the passage of time through the montage of boys giving their names, discussing events, their dress slightly changing and I have to say it's about as good a montage as there ever was. We cut next to Chips being asked to retire because he's too set in his ways for the school and his pupils coming to his rescue. He then retires, but is called back to be headmaster when World War I breaks out. I love it because he gets everything he set out for, just not in the way he expected it, We see him on his deathbed, colleagues lamenting how lonely his life must have been. He corrects him, saying he's had thousands of children, all of them boys. This clip is like ten minutes long so just fast forward. It really is a skillful film, utilizing the montage and the cuts through time in a striking way. Greer Garson is really great in this as the love of Chips' life, I much prefer her in this to Pride & Prejudice. I stand by my assessment of that film. Questions, comments, concerns? Let me know.

My Life In Movies Flashes Before My Eyes: The King's Speech, 2010

So, earlier this year, I did an Oscar special on The King's Speech and I feel as if everything I said still stands so it seems redundant to go over it again, so find it here.

But, some thoughts, have you noticed Colin Firth's posture? Also, Colin Firth wants to be on Doctor Who. Why are we wasting time on River Song when Colin Firth wants to be on Doctor Who? It would be awesome. Maybe we could save it for the fiftieth anniversary. Now, what if there was some way to get him and the Tenth Doctor in the same thing? I could be happy for a month off that.


Obviously, I meant something else. Try to put Catherine Tate in it. Preferably written by Richard Curtis. Or I could write it, either way, really.

My Life In Movies Flashes Before My Eyes: The Invention of Lying, 2009

The Invention of Lying is one of those films that no one bothered seeing in the theater, but when you mention it to people they remember it was funny. I don't know if people didn't think it was funny or got offended or what, but come on it's a movie. Maybe this is one of those times I think something British is hilarious and no one else in America gets it. Anyway, it takes place in an alternate reality where no one in the human race has ever lied. Since we never learned to lie, there's no religion, no fiction and everyone says exactly what they mean, which makes people jerks. Also, Gervais' opening voice over is pretty hilarious.


Also, movies suck and Coke ads have to be very literal with the slogan "Coke, It's Very Famous." Also my favorite slogan "Pepsi: For When They Don't Have Coke." Yup, that's true.

Mark, played by Gervais, who also write and directed along with Matthew Robinson, figures out how to lie in a moment of desperation. Since no one else can lie, he can pretty much say any ridiculous thing he wants. Wanting to comfort his dying mother, he accidentally invents religion and delivers ten rules for getting into the afterlife on the back of two pizza boxes. I love the whole "Man In The Sky" thing and when you watch this movie be sure to keep an eye out for the signs on places, such as a chapel that is signed "A Quiet Place To Think About The Man In The Sky." He's also in love with Anna adorably played by Jennifer Garner, who struggles to understand what it is she likes about Mark. There are small parts with Tina Fey, Jeffrey Tambor, Rob Lowe, Stephen Merchant, Jonah Hill, Jason Bateman and Louis CK. Oh, and the scene with Stephanie March is hilarious. Everybody should try to write a scene with Stephanie March in their movie, I put forth this and super whore as evidence. I like this movie, it seems a little radical and though I don't know for sure if we're trying to push Atheism here, I don't really care, it's a movie and it's funny. I do stand by the basic thesis here, which seems to be that we're better because we lie. Lying actually makes us better people if we don't go too far, take the scenes with the suicidal Jonah Hill.

Questions, comments on Coke or Atheism? Let me know in the comments section. Also, I feel like I was a little short on clips here and well, you know how I am. Ricky Gervais on Extras pretending to be on Doctor Who.

Made Then Remade: Fright Night, 1985 and 2011

Have you ever noticed the tags that come up at the bottom of the screen on this blog? I have since I put them there. Anyway, I noticed I mention David Tennant a lot, which is odd since I haven't actually reviewed anything he was in, I just keep throwing in Doctor Who clips. So, to be different, I've decided to talk about a movie David Tennant was actually in. And yes, that might be the poster for the international release. I just happened to like it the most for some reason that I may or may not be able to divine. I do have to say, though, the classic Fright Night poster is about the coolest part of that movie. It's as if they said, hey, we have a lame movie, let's make a really cool poster for it! And cast Marcy from Married With Children as the girlfriend! Oh, and let's add a song on the end credits where we sing "Fright Night!" That'll do it! It worked for Ghostbusters!


Okay, story is this: kid named Charlie Brewster finds out he is living next door to a vampire. He seeks help from a vampire expert, Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall and David Tennant) and has to go to war with Jerry the vampire neighbor when his best friend and girlfriend become vampires. I had already read a lot of reviews of the new one that said it was just a lame, glossy version of the old one and have you seen the old one? For real? It's just a stupid vampire movie with a cheesy eighties soundtrack that I think people must be watching ironically. I don't get it, okay? I'm not going to say the remake is the best film ever, but it's definitely better. To start off with, it has David Tennant. No offense Roddy McDowall, but you must know you don't look like David Tennant. Or you might if you were still alive, sorry.

To me, he's the best part of this movie, which shouldn't exactly be a bombshell. He's hilarious as the very often drunk and explicit, Criss Angel-like magician/vampire expert. Whovians, you won't be disappointed. I think Colin Farrell is a definite improvement as Jerry over Chris Sarandon, he's not just a vampire, he's a vampire who watches too much Criminal Minds, which is scarier. I have no idea what Chris Sarandon's deal is supposed to be. He's just there and I know I am supposed to be scared, but I'm not. Toni Collette plays Charlie's mom in the remake and it seems like an odd place to find her, but contributes notably to the proceedings over her counterpart in the remake. She's got one of the best parts in a fight scene, I hate to ruin it. I also liked the humor in the movie, showing it wasn't taking itself very seriously which I really wouldn't have been able to stand.

Like, I've stated before, my theory on remakes is that sometimes a crappy movie gets improved. Like this time.

Now might be the time for my disclaimer: I don't really care for horror movies, I freaking hate vampire movies and yes, I went to see this movie because David Tennant was in it and I didn't win the lottery to see Much Ado About Nothing in London this summer, okay? I probably should have bought a ticket. Questions, comments, concerns? Or you know, try and tell me why the old one doesn't suck. Really, I'm asking.

My Life In Movies Flashes Before My Eyes: Moulin Rouge, 2001

I know I talked about it at Oscar time, but I feel compelled to once again extol the virtues of Moulin Rouge. I'm going to try to be brief here so if you want to know what I said then, go ahead and read about it here.

Now, if you've seen the film, you know about the Green Fairy, but have you ever wondered why there was a green fairy? I think the Doctor has an explanation for us.

Basically, my theory is that she was turned into molecules and you can only see her after you've had enough absinthe. That makes sense, right? I mean it makes at least much sense as cat people or bees being aliens.


So, I love this movie and it makes you fall in love with it again and again. I never tire of it, I'm a little bit like a two year old in that respect. The Alamo Drafthouse had an Action Pack singalong of this and it was so great. You got a theater full of women, most of whom were around my age, all singing along, some of us not needing the subtitles. I even got a little competitive with this girl to my left who started singing stuff they didn't provide words for, so I joined in and then I sang the song that plays when Christian is waiting while Satine changes clothes in the elephant. Ha! You didn't know that one did you, woman? Somebody forgot to buy a little album called Moulin Rouge!: Volume 2! Then make a playlist in iTunes of the songs in the order in which they appear in the film, then sing only the Nicole Kidman parts. Yes, the whole thing works much better if you pretend Ewan McGregor is singing to you. Damn, how did that redhead get in this film? That's why it works better in the car where you can't actually see the movie.



So, 2001, favorite film: Moulin Rouge! Enough said. Also accepting your criticisms of my theory on how Kylie Minogue became a green fairy.

My Life In Movies Flashes Before My Eyes: The Lion King, 1994

So, The Lion King. I know this must seem in the sequence of films we've had so far, but I love it. I haven't been able to watch it, though, because all the copies have vanished off the face of the Earth in anticipation of a 3D release and a new release on DVD in November, so I have to go off what I remember and what I can find on YouTube. So, Disney corporate, that's my excuse for the clips, okay?

The first thing is the amazing opening sequence that shows you the splendor of the African landscape and creatures. This is a world unto itself and the scene has no dialogue, but for the Circle of Life song, the first in a brilliant soundtrack by Elton John and Tim Rice. Incidentally, I have a distant relative called Abaku who was in The Lion King on Broadway. I'm not sure if that's how you spell it, anyway, distant. The scene is fantastic, it's giving you the entire stakes of the film and mesmerizing you at the same time.


Then of course, we have some joyous, happy time but this is Disney and that can never last. I'm talking about Mufasa's death.

I cried, you cried let's just all admit it. I do not like death scenes, Disney is trying to give me serious psychological scars. Also, does it seem like as king of the animals, Mufasa probably should have just yelled at the wildebeests to stop for a minute while he got his kid? Any future lion kings, just keep that in mind.

Then, what do they do? They give you a warthog and a meerkat singing quite possibly the catchiest tune ever.


At its core, this song exemplifies the challenge Simba is going to face. Is he going to keep on with his carefree lifestyle and stand idly by as Scar rules the kingdom into ruin and decay? Or is he going to defeat the demons of his past, step up and become the Lion King? I think I just seriously over analyzed that.


And we have another lion king. And I cry. Again. Freaking Circle of Life, making me cry. Let's see what the Tenth Doctor has to say about it.


What else? Seriously, Rowan Atkinson plays a bird. You've got great performances, an epic story. One of my favorites, comments, concerns, that's what the comments section is for.

Made Then Remade: The Philadelphia Story, 1940 and High Society, 1956

Today, we have a proper Classically Obsessed post, featuring two actual classic films in a post about remakes! I think we prefer to believe that remakes are the result of a modern culture that has clearly run out of ideas. You know, the same culture that brought you Fast Five? I submit that this is not the case. Shakespeare took like half his stories at least from someone else. Speaking of which, how many times has Hamlet been performed? (Speaking of which, you should totally watch the one with David Tennant. I hope I didn't mention that already.) Remakes. And this film. In 1956, someone at MGM got the idea to remake The Philadelphia Story only this time with singing. What you get is this film.

So, let's start with the story. Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn/Grace Kelly) is a society heiress on the eve of her wedding to George Kittredge, a man of he people who has worked his way to the top. She is annoyed by the memory of her first marriage to C.K. Dexter Haven (Cary Grant/Bing Crosby), a ne'er do well of the upper class. She struggles with her father's infidelities and also with her own inabiity to look past people's weaknesses. In the midst of this, to keep news of her father's dalliances from becoming public, she allows a reporter, Mike Conner (Jimmy Stewart/Frank Sinatra) and a photographer, Elizabeth Imbrie (Ruth Hussey/Celeste Holm), from Spy Magazine into her wedding. There's a crazy little sister, an uncle with wandering hands and she almost falls in love with Mike, waking up thinking she's slept with him, which somehow she didn't which is more perplexing in the remake because well, you know Frank Sinatra, right? The only real difference is the first is in Philadelphia (hence the name) and the second is set in Newport during the weekend of the Newport Jazz Festival which also gives the characters an excuse to sing. Did I mention High Society has Louis Armstrong and songs by Cole Porter? Also, no opening scene where Dexter shoves Tracy to thr ground, which is odd in a film with Bing Crosby. Come on, people, you were thinking it, too. Anyway, it's a great opening scene, no dialogue, says everything about these two characters. In High Society you get Satchmo.



Which is awesome, but clearly this is a different kind of film, which is interesting considering so much of High Society is lifted straight out of The Philadelphia Story. Whole reams of dialogue, sometimes it looks like the costumes. There isn't one thing in High Society that doesn't come from The Philadelphia Story, other than the singing. Anyway, I love the way the jazz band functions as the Greek Chorus in this film.

But honestly, who thought, "Sure, we'll put Bing Crosby in the Cary Grant part." By what stretch of the imagination should Bing Crosby be in the Cary Grant part? It's the only part of this remake that seems off, like couldn't Grace Kelly do better? Oh, well, I guess when Frank Sinatra is in the supporting role, you have to go higher up the food chain of 1956. Meanwhile, I showed the following clip during a presentation about Frank Sinatra one time and the girl who had just presented on Bing Crosby glared at me the whole time. It was very hard not to say, "Bitch, none of my guy's kids killed themselves while they watched his movie."



Anyway, Katharine Hepburn and Grace Kelly. Isn't that the most impossible comparison? They're both elegant, they both were in films with Cary Grant (Come to think of it, Grace Kelly was also in Rear Window with Jimmy Stewart.) and they both scream class. Yet, they're so different. Katharine Hepburn is the tenacious, fiery redhead and Grace Kelly is the cool, impossible blonde. By the way, I love the way Grace Kelly plays drunk.

Then Jimmy Stewart and Frank Sinatra. How weird is that? Jimmy clearly has an aw, shucks kind of part in his performance even as he professes his loathing of the rich, we know he's really insecure. You never get that with Frank. Somewhere after the Oscar, I think Frank became incapable of playing insecure. For example, watch him in this scene with Grace Kelly.



And also, let us fully appreciate the supporting women in these films. Ruth Hussey in the former and Celeste Holm in the latter as Elizabeth Imbrie, playing the part of the spunky girl photographer with a dry sense of humor, who will still cut a bitch if she has to. Don't make her have to. Celeste also gets this song with Frank, which is one of my favorites. Actually, almost every song in High Society is one of my favorites. It's that kind of movie.



So, this is a rare remake in which we took a good movie and made another good movie. It's bizarre. I don't even know what to say. Opinions, anyone? Let me know in the comments section. Also, Bing Crosby apologists, let me know in the comments section.

Made Then Remade: The Thomas Crown Affair, 1968 & 1999

Obviously, it's been a while since my last post for which I apologize. I would like a moment to explain. First, an oversaturation of Paul Newman which I never knew could happen, but apparently it did. I'm still baffled. Second, a series of migraine attacks, which if you don't know suck. Like really suck. Third, the San Antonio Spurs and the NBA Playoffs. The mourning period attached to said playoffs and the reaffirmation of my new hatred for the Memphis Grizzlies. Fourth, I got sucked into Doctor Who. If you want my opinion read on and otherwise skip to the next paragraph: Eccleston sucks, Tennant is awesome, Smith is pretty good, I think Rose is way too stupid to be travelling through time, I don't trust that River Song chick, the new Daleks look like Dyson vacuums and I really want to see an episode about Space Florida. Like, what happened? Did Florida get rebuilt in Space? Why? Are there mosquitoes?

Okay, so that brings us to our new topic: Remakes. I feel there are two basic results for a remake. The first is what is conventionally thought by most serious film people: they're a travesty and sacrilege and the actors from the first film are rolling over in their graves. The second? They end up being quite good because we realize the first film wasn't that great to start with.




That is what I think is the case with the film in question. I'm going to admit some biases now. First, Steve McQueen: not my favorite. Second, Faye Dunaway: not my favorite. Third, Pierce Brosnan: favorite. Fourth, Rene Russo: favorite. By the way, I was wondering what happened to her and apparently she's Thor's mom or something. Hollywood is not kind.

So, The Thomas Crown Affair has the same plot in both films. Thomas Crown is a bored rich guy who steals things for fun. He gets investigated by a a sexy insurance investigator with an amazing wardrobe. And that is pretty much what they share. That and a song that will get stuck in your head FOR DAYS, possibly weeks. It also won an Academy Award. Never try to figure out what the lyrics mean, don't even attempt it.

But here's the thing that puzzles me. There are a lot of similarities between our two Thomas Crowns, but to me, Steve McQueen comes off like a bored rich asshole who needs Ritalin. Pierce Brosnan, not so much. Remember, this film was in the height of his James Bod days. Remember back when James Bond wasn't blond? My God, I hate Daniel Craig in that part. Why is he so hung up on that Vesper chick? I've wandered off topic again. Then again this could be because Steve steals money with a gun, which he doesn't need, but Pierce steals a Monet in a really clever way. They are a lot the same, they even say the same lines, however I really hate McQueen. If somebody could pin down why I hate Steve McQueen, I would appreciate it.

Then there are their leading ladies. Faye Dunaway is still not my favorite actress, but I found I didn't mind her too much. As mentioned, she and Rene Russo both have fabulous wardrobes, though I think Faye wore too many pairs of white tights. I mean, what was that about? I never saw that on Mad Men. Wait, is that next season? Stupid AMC. Rene Russo's wardrobe was designed by Michael Kors and she has an Hermes tote. How much do I love an Hermes tote? Both of the wardrobes are pretty amazing. Then the women are pretty cool. Faye was a symbol of the just burgeoning Feminist movement and social change. Rene is the other side of the coin, a working woman who finds herself somewhat disillusioned by the promises of feminism and the sexual revolution. Also, Rene is about the same age as Pierce in their film, Steve and Faye are eleven years apart, the former of which was noted at the time.

Central to both is the love story, which at times, doesn't seem much like one. Take the damn chess scene in the original. Okay, I get it. The chess is a metaphor for sex, sex is a metaphor for the game they're playing, why are we sitting here for days sucking on chess pieces and what is with the stupid kiss with the 360 degree thing going on? I feel like I'm saying this a lot, but we're not doing Shakespeare here. There's no need to be so damn dramatic. (I would have given you a clip, but apparently the scene is too damn precious to be on YouTube) They avoid this mistake in the remake. Instead of the chess scene, we have a dance sequence followed by some of the most impossible sex ever. Now, tip, if you're at a hotel, don't order the remake on the in-room movies and then have housekeeping walk in at the exact damn moment that scene takes place. They will think you have ordered something else and you will be trying to act like you don't see anything at all. "What, you mean this isn't The Lion King?" So, that's a drawback.



Then there's the ending and changing the ending is usually where you really piss off the purists. The 1968 one ends with Faye betrays Steve and he knew she would. The 1999 edition ends with Rene thinks Pierce has left her, then he really hasn't and we have a happy ending. Oh, I forgot the climax, which is very good.



By the way, if anyone knows John McTiernan, I still want to know how he stole the second painting. I listened to the commentary, he said that they eliminated a sequence explaining it, but I would like to know. Not to mention the art instead of the money gives the film a whole new level of interest and this is an art form based on spectacle. I get that the Faye Dunaway ending is sad and about the character, but I really don't care because at that point I was bored and pushing pause on my Roku remote every two minutes to see how much I had left. It's just one of those films I do not get and it's just the style, revolutionary in its days, hackneyed and tired in ours until Steven Soderbergh cleverly revived it for the Ocean's trilogy. Also, much like the Ocean's trilogy, this film gets a new layer of fun from the supporting cast notably Denis Leary and Frankie Faison as the cops working with Rene.

So, obviously, I've lost my mind, right? You probably love the original. Okay, tell me in the comments why the original is so much better. And why I hate Steve McQueen.

Also, just realized that everything I know about art comes from movies and TV. So, here's a video someone made from the Van Gogh episode of Doctor Who, which was written by Richard Curtis, who I wish would write more or at least let me know where to find his new stuff. So, again, if you know Richard Curtis, let him know.

Made Then Remade: Ocean's Eleven 1960 & 2001

Some things are regarded as sacred. Take Frank Sinatra for example. My good friend, Layla, views Frank and all his works as sacrosanct, not to be dared attempted. Indeed, the man is a hero to many. One of my favorite episodes of The Sopranos is where Carmela and Tony extoll Frank Sinatra as one of the greatest Italians who ever lived along with Christopher Columbus and Michaelangelo. Yet, why do people attempt to imitate Frank Sinatra? George Clooney has his part in this movie, Denzel Washington has his part in the remake of The Manchurian Candidate and why the hell did his son ever attempt to have a musical career? Your dad was FRANK SINATRA, for crying out loud! You could have been the coolest accountant ever, instead you chose to be the singer who will always be remembered as never quite as good as your dad. And what the hell is Nancy's deal? Okay, time to stop the rant about the Sinatra kids.





That brings us to Ocean's Eleven. Now, time to confess my affinity for George Clooney, except the guy keeps ending up with cocktail waitresses. Whatever, you can't handle me... Any chance to watch George Clooney in a gleaming, shiny anything I am pretty much up for so when this came out I was all for it. Now, as for the original, I too, hold an interest in Frank Sinatra, but I respect his singing far more than his acting because that was where he tried the hardest. Sinatra was a good actor when he wanted it like in From Here To Eternity, but other times he was just going through the motions or seeing how little he could get by with, the latter being the case in this film. Not that he didn't have cause because he had spread himself quite thin. Sinatra and the rest of the Rat Pack (Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Peter Lawford and Joey Bishop, can't believe you didn't know...) were also performing two shows a night at the Sands in Las Vegas and campaigning for John F. Kennedy. If you believe the HBO movie The Rat Pack, Frank was also setting Jack up with the same call girl Momo Giancana slept with and also having Giancana buy all the union votes in Chicago. Have the Sinatra and Kennedy estates called for a cease and desist order yet? So, the movie has some legends surrounding it to say the least and the legacy of the fim probably owes mainly to this because it's certainly not about the film itself.

The plots are similar and that's about it. Sinatra's Ocean plots with his army buddies to rob a group of Las Vegas casinos on New Year's Eve by knocking out the power. Clooney's Ocean plots with a gang of thieves to rob three Las Vegas casinos on the night of a big boxing match, those casinos owned by the new boyfriend of Danny's ex-wife, Tess, played by Julia Roberts. Sinatra's movie has a wife, too, played by Angie Dickinson and I have no idea why she's in it at all. He's Frank Sinatra so he has no problem playing at getting his wife back while he carouses with other women, seriously. There's also a big part for Peter Lawford with some sort of mother issues, that could probably best be explained by his being JFK's brother-in-law and finding the script. No, not really a big fan of Lawford. Then Sammy Davis Jr. does a song...



No songs in the other one. And I think it also has a stronger supporting cast including Carl Reiner, Don Cheadle, Matt Damon and the late great Bernie Mac. There's the other issue which is that Ted Griffin's script for the 2001 version is actually a much stronger story, with a clear antagonist, a reason for the ex-wife being there and lots of fun moments. I actually have no idea what is going on most of the time in the original. Do we need this money or what? The 1960 version doesn't have a lot of fun to it except when Dino sings and is full of guys lamenting that they're going to rob a casino. We're not doing Hamlet here, people! It's just a heist movie. Actually, if you watch David Tennant do Hamlet there is way more funny in that than than the entirety of the 1960 Ocean's Eleven. Now, the movie relies heavily upon Steven Soderbergh's intensely stylized direction, but once again, not doing Hamlet here so it's fine. So, I'm going to risk really pissing off Layla and saying that I like the 2001 version much more than the 1960 version.

Then they made Ocean's Twelve and I would like to go ahead and pick a bone here. The ending makes no sense! Eddie Izzard builds holograms? Is that even a thing? Tess looks like Julia Roberts, WTF? If Tess looks like Julia Roberts, then Danny and Rusty should stop stealing things and just rely on the fact that they look like George Clooney and Brad Pitt and instead open credit cards in their names. They more or less saved their legacy with Ocean's Thirteen, which in the end pays tribute to Sinatra, as Clooney says to the villain Al Pacino after his comeuppance, "You shook Sinatra's hand. You should know better, Willy." And of course this musical moment...



So, do you agree with Layla that I've lost my mind and think the original is perfect in every way? Or are you with me and think the 2001 edition is decidedly better? Tell me you at least agree with me about Ocean's Twelve. Let loose in the comments section.