1001 Movies ... my own version (1950's)

Notes: By now, it was the 3rd movie I saw directed by Jean Cocteau and I guess I’m starting to get more familiar with his surrealist vibe. Recently, I also watched ‘La belle et la bête’ by Cocteau but, even if it did like it, to be honest, it didn’t really blow me away though. In fact, I thought this other directing effort by Cocteau was actually much more intriguing. Sure, visually speaking, it was less fancy than ‘La belle et la bête’ but Cocteau still had some neat tricks in this area but, as far as I was concerned, it wasn’t the most interesting thing about this movie. Basically, he took an ancient Greek myth and set it in a contemporary setting, which is basically what we often do with many classic Shakespeare plays. Anyway, it was above all quite fun to see that he really took some liberties with the classic mythological tale. Indeed, even though Orphée still did go to Hell to save his wife Eurydice, he seemed to be actually most of the time rather annoyed by her and, in fact, he seemed to be actually more interested by Death who herself was also in love with Orphée. It probably sounds pretty weird if you haven’t seen this movie and it was indeed weird but these unexpected turns were super interesting. Still, I have to admit I still struggled to get a good grip on this challenging material (the fact that I was really tired when I watched it probably didn’t help) and I should probably re-watch it at some point.

Notes: In fact, it was the very first movie directed by Roberto Rossellini that I have seen so far and, hopefully, I will watch much more of his work in the near future. The first interesting thing about this movie was that, even though it seemed deeply pious, Rossellini was not really a religious man himself. In fact, back then right when he was making this movie, there was this huge scandal as he was having a baby with Ingrid Bergman while they were still both married with other people. I guess, Rossellini was a little bit like me in the sense that, even if he wasn’t really religious, he thought that religion was a fascinating subject. Still, even if this movie was intriguing, it was never really fascinating though. I mean, I did appreciate its focus on the purest form of Catholicism but, in my opinion, its episodic form prevented it from really developing St. Francis as a character and also as a concept. Sure, it was faithful to the book it was based from, ‘Little Flowers of St. Francis’ which was based on more than 50 episodic chapters but I just didn’t care much for this approach. It was still a fine piece Italian neo-realism though and I was amazed to discover afterwards that the characters were not played by actors but by actual Franciscan monks. Apparently, Rossellini usually preferred to work with non-professional actors and, in this case, it did work fine.

Notes: To be honest, I’m not usually not a huge fan of such old Westerns but I have to admit that this one was not bad at all. Indeed, I really liked a how they mixed a rather generic vendetta with the odyssey of a precious stolen rifle. Indeed, while James Stewart’s character kept hunting for his nemesis, which was rather generic, it seemed that his stolen rifle was somehow cursed as every new owner managed to keep it only for a short while and most of them violently died in the process. As a result, it made the whole thing completely unpredictable and more entertaining than if it only focused on James Stewart’s character obsessively chasing some seemingly random dude. It’s too bad that they didn’t manage to do more with Shelley Winters’s character as she was such a charismatic actress. Indeed, in my opinion, she was more interesting than many pretty faces who were much more famous than her at the time. In fact, even Winters was not exactly impressed by what they had done with her character who basically waited on the side line until she could finally end up with the main character. Anyway, even if I don’t think that it was anything really ground-breaking, it was still a solid vintage Western.

Notes: While watching this movie, I was wondering who Jean Genet actually was. In fact, he only directed this short and mostly wrote some books and poems which were at least as sulfurous and controversial as this only directorial effort. Eventually, Genet had a rather fascinating life, almost even more interesting than his body of work. Anyway, coming back on this short, the damned thing was seriously disturbing and, yet, quite fascinating at the same time. To be honest, it is hardly surprising that it had been banned for decades in most countries. Back then, Genet himself spent many years in prison himself and he gave us a rather bleak look on a French prison in the 50's but, obviously, it went way beyond this. Indeed, it was combined this with some (sometimes very explicit) homo-erotic imagery and the end-result was seriously disturbing. Basically, this mix of filth, hopelessness, violence, virility, sexuality and love was just so weird and, yet, at the same time, actually quite intoxicating and spellbinding to behold.

Notes: Well, even though it wasn’t bad, I have to admit that I seriously had a hard time to care about the damned thing. At least, Judy Hollyday did look gorgeous and she definitely gave a very good performance (she even won at the time the Academy Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role) . It is quite a shame she would stop only 10 years later after this movie because she was seriously talented and charismatic. Anyway, except for Holliday, the movie itself was actually nothing really amazing in my opinion. Sure, it was all rather harmless and innocent but it was also rather dull. I mean, seriously, back then, it was possible to release a comedy with such a rather lame concept and get a hit but I doubt it would work nowadays. And, indeed, 40 years later, they tried to remake the damned thing with Melanie Griffith playing the main character but it was really poorly received. Anyway, even if I don’t think it grew old very well, it is still a classic.

Notes: Well, even though it is definitely a classic, in this genre, I think that 'Sleeping Beauty' is actually vastly superior. Indeed, even though the animation was fine here, it was however really gorgeous and quite mesmerizing in their other classic fairy tale and, compared to Maleficent, Lady Tremaine was a rather pathetic bad guy. I was also surprised by how little I did remember the first half but it made sense since it was in fact terribly unremarkable. Indeed, eventually, they didn't spend so much time with the main character who could have been more developed and instead focused on some mice which was rather disappointing. Eventually, it's only when the Fairy Godmother finally showed up that the damned thing finally took off but, fortunately, it was definitely worth the wait. Indeed, it remains one of the most iconic scenes ever delivered by Disney and it remains so enchanting even after so many decades have passed by. From this point on, the whole thing remained fairly entertaining even if you already know how it will all end. It's a pity that they pretty much messed up a good chunk of the running time with the typical Disney talking animals, and, especially with a rather short running time, they should have probably not wasted any of it. Anyway, even if it is far from being one of Disney's best animated features, it is still a classic romantic fairy tale.

Notes: Well, I wasn't disappointed and the damned thing completely deserved its stellar reputation. Still, there was one thing that did prevent this movie from being completely amazing though. Indeed, I thought it was rather far-fetched that a big star like Margo Channing would hire such a total stranger to be her assistant just like that. I mean, it's not as if the girl was starving or living under a bridge. Fortunately, this small issue wasn't a deal breaker, not at all, and the rest of the movie was pretty much flawless. Indeed, I just loved the introduction, how all the characters were in fact rather messed up and the whole thing gave a dark and fascinating look on the acting world. It shows how at least half of this world is in fact really superficial and hard work and talent won't be apparently enough, you would need to be also ruthlessly ambitious to succceed. Concerning Bette Davis, I have to confess that I haven't seen so much of her work so far but she was definitely impressive in this movie.

Notes: It is a classic which definitely lives up to its strong reputation. Indeed, the directing by Billy Wilder was pretty impressive but Gloria Swanson was the one who really stole the show with her amazing performance. It was quite amazing that even though some scenes in this movie were rather over the top, this movie was still well nuanced and subtle. Personally, I have not always been a huge fan of Billy Wilder’s work, especially his comedies like ‘Sabrina’, ‘Some Like It Hot’ or ‘The Apartment’, but here, he delivered a really dark tale and it was just spellbinding to behold. You can say whatever you want about Hollywood but, from time to time, they do allow a great director to go really dark and, in this case, the end-result was just quite amazing. On top of that, this movie works on so many levels, it tells a story about the characters, about the actors involved, about Hollywood in general and it goes on and on.

Notes: It is one of those movies I should definitely re-watch. Indeed, I saw it only once and it must have been something like 15 years ago. Still, I remember it as if it was yesterday. I was pretty young back in those days and after hearing so many good things about it, I thought I should give it a try. Of course, at first, I was a little bit worried, you know, a 60 years old movie, in black and white, in Japanese, I thought it might be boring. Oh boy, I was so wrong... I think after 10 minutes, I was completely sold. Indeed, it might be very old but at the same time I do believe it has actually a very modern structure (I mean, just check how many recent half-baked thrillers just copied the very same pattern). Personally, I'm not a huge fan of modern thrillers. I mean, some are really entertaining but I usually don't think that they are great because they always present a really preposterous plot and usually some ridiculous twist(s) at the end. This movie doesn't have this issue and basically gives a masterclass about how to properly create a thriller. This movie is so pure, interesting and devilishly entertaining.

Notes: Even though it is really highly rated, it is not one of those huge classics like 'North by Northwest', 'Vertigo', 'Psycho' or 'The Birds', at least not in my mind. Anyway, it is an awesome film noir/thriller which was a speciality of the great master. I mean, even though it is almost 70 years old, it is still so relevant and completely entertaining even nowadays. There is no chases, shootings or explosions but it is just very well directed and written. After watching so many ridiculous and far-fetched modern thrillers, it is so refreshing to see one which is smart, clever and which totally makes sense. The cast is not really made of big stars but it didn't matter at all since they all delivered some convincing performances. I know, it is black and white, I know, it is terribly old but if you manage to go beyond those elements, you will find a spellbinding feature and you'll remain on the edge of your seat from the beginning until the end.

Notes: To be honest, it has been a while since I saw this flick and I should definitely re-watch it at some point. In fact, I was actually given this movie on VHS by a friend of my mother but, even though the guy was really positive that this flick was a major classic, I was hardly convinced at the time. I mean, back then, I was maybe 15 years old and, to me, it seemed to be a rather old cheesy flick, especially with such a title. Well, I still gave it a try but, to be honest, I wasn’t really impressed, that’s for sure. Basically, it’s a movie which tryed to mix a typical film noir with some fantasy elements but, as far as I was concerned, I didn’t care much for this mix. Still, I always had a weak spot for James Mason who was a fine actor, I have to admit that Ava Gardner was really gorgeous back in those days and this movie pretty much solidified her status as a rising star.

Notes: It was the first movie I saw directed by Robert Bresson and, as I expected, his work turned out to be quite challenging. Indeed, I’m not surprised that Andrei Tarkovsky was a huge fan of Bresson’s work and, to be honest, just like with Tarkovsky’s work, I did struggle to feel a connection with this movie. Indeed, even though the main character keeps telling us his feelings and thoughts mostly when writing in his diary, I was never really sure what I should think regarding the events displayed in this movie. I mean, you could argue that they tried to display the contradictions between what this community was expecting from their new priest and what he was expected to do according to his religious dogma. However, this theory completely clashed with the fact that the main character was heavily ill through most of the duration and, as result, the whole thing was rather murky, at least, to me. Still, Bresson had such a raw and realistic directing style, it made the whole thing rather ostentatious but also quite spellbinding to behold. It is also interesting to note that Bresson used to make takes after takes so that the actors would basically forget that they were acting but, to be honest, even if the performances were intriguing, I didn’t think that they were super realistic. Still, Claude Laydu, in his first acting part, was actually really good.

Notes: Back then, they didn’t have monstrous budget (as a matter of fact, it was made with only 40,000 dollars) and they didn’t have such complex special effects or CGI like nowadays. In those days, it was all about the characters and what they were going through. Basically, there were 3 group of characters : the military, the scientists and the press (solely represented by Scotty). Each group had their own reaction towards the ‘thing’ and it was pretty interesting to see them discuss how they should handle the situation. I thought it was also pretty neat that, for a good chunk of the movie, you didn’t see ‘it’ at all, you just had to imagine ‘it’ following the words and the body language of the characters. As soon as the alien (which of course looked rather ridiculous) was displayed, this tale unfortunately lost its edge but, still, for a 70 year old feature, it thought it was pretty solid.

Notes: It is probably one of the best stories ever adapted by Disney, it definitely had some potential and, eventually, the end-result was indeed probably their wildest movie. However, I'm afraid it didn't completely work though. Basically, from the moment Alice went into this rabbit hole, she basically never stopped running. As a result, the action and characters were just relentlessly frenetic and, to be honest, it wore me down at some point. I think this movie should have been slightly longer with some moments for the audience to take a breath and to be able to handle what they just saw. Instead, the only moments when the action slowed down a bit where during the songs which were quite numerous but it is something I never really enjoyed in the Disney animated features and I don't think that any of them was really remarkable. Finally, from a technical point of view, the animation was fine but it was far from being Disney's most gorgeous movie. At least, it remains a wild tale which allowed a massive burst of creativity from the animation studio and Alice was also one of the best female characters delivered by Disney so far, at least, she was something else than the usual helpless princess waiting for a prince to save her.

Notes: Eventually, it turned out to be a decent comedy but, to be honest, not much more than that in my opinion. First of all, I saw the damned thing on the BBC without subtitles so I have to admit that I didn’t get all the jokes so maybe if I rewatch it with some subtitles, I might be able to enjoy it more. Still, it was a fun flick with another strong performance by Alec Guinness. Furthermore, I always had a weak spot for the heist genre, especially when the heist is actually quite realistic like it was in this case, at least, until the 3rd act. Indeed, at some point, the characters started to chase these little girls with their golden Eiffel towers and, in my opinion, even if it was maybe entertaining, the whole thing didn’t make much sense after that. Anyway, even if I wasn’t completely blown away by the whole thing, it was still a decent watch.

Notes: Eventually, I have to admit that I really had a good time with this movie and I thought it was quite entertaining. Indeed, Gene Kelly is definitely an amazing dancer (I always thought he was much more interesting than Fred Astaire) and there were indeed some impressive dancing numbers, probably the best I have ever seen in fact. Back then, there was a big controversy because ‘An American in Paris’ managed to sweep the Oscars while 'Singin in the rain' was snobbed when it was in fact considered a much superior movie by many. In fact, later on, I did watch 'Singin in the rain' and, in my opinion, I thought that the dancing scenes were actually much more impressive in this movie. Unfortunately, I really had a hard time to care for the story which was rather weak but I guess it is rather inherent to the genre. Anyway, even though I wasn’t completely blown away by the whole thing, it is still a classic and it is definitely worth a look.

Notes: To be honest, it has been ages since I have seen this flick and I should definitely re-watch it at some point. In fact, if I recall it correctly, I actually read this play when I was studying English in college. Anyway, it is such a fascinating tale and a major milestone in motion picture history. Indeed, not only Marlon Brando, probably one of the best actors that ever lived, got his breakthrough with this movie, but it was also the birth of a new acting method or, at least, it was with this movie that the mainstream audience first became acquainted with such a realistic acting style, a style which still inspires actors nowadays. Concerning the story, it is actually pretty basic and yet so spellbinding. Indeed, it deals with some average people but, like any average people, these characters were in fact seriously twisted and actually pretty messed up. As a result, it was some pretty dark stuff but the whole thing was actually quite relatable and I’m pretty sure I would enjoy it even more now since I’m older.

Notes: Well, to be honest, even though it is considered as a classic, it didn’t have much an impact on me, at least not as much as ‘The Treasure of the Sierra Madre’ which was really amazing and the best thing starring Bogart I have seen so far. I mean, sure, it was a solid and fun adventure and I had a good time watching it but, eventually, it was rather generic so it didn’t really blow me away. Eventually, one of the most interesting things about it was that this movie basically focused only on Bogart's and Hepburn's characters and they did they make a great couple to watch, absolutely. After all, they were some of the best actors of their generation and, eventually, Bogart would win the only Oscar of his career for this flick but, to be honest, I thought he was so much better in ‘The Treasure of the Sierra Madre’. Anyway, even though I don’t think it was really amazing, it is still a decent classic.

Notes: It turned out to be a nice film noir, even if the story was rather flimsy and generic. Indeed, from the start, it was pretty obvious that there was something fishy about Lester Blaine and it was never really convincing how a bright woman like Myra Hudson would fall head over heels like that for a guy she basically barely knew. Fortunately, the directing by David Miller was really efficient (it would be easily one of his best movies) and, above all, there was a top-notch cast involved. Back then, Joan Crawford was at top of her game or at least, her power. Indeed, she was the executive producer, she hired the screenwriter and the director and also cast her co-stars. Anyway, apparently, she knew what she was doing since this movie is considered by many as one of the last good movies she ever made and, even though I’m not really familiar with her work, I thought she was indeed really good here. Especially with her eyes, she was just so expressive. Concerning the rest of the cast, a few months ago, I saw ‘Film Stars Don't Die in Liverpool’ so it was pretty cool to see a movie actually starring Gloria Grahame. Well, I have to admit that she actually impress me here and I hope I will see more of her work in the future. Concerning Jack Palance, it had been ages since I saw this guy, this movie was actually his big break in the business and he definitely turned out to be a perfect choice to play this character. I also enjoyed the ending.

Notes: I was actually caught out of guard by this movie as it turned out to be such an intense and intriguing drama. Indeed, for most of the duration, I didn’t really know what they were getting at with this story but, while it could have been frustrating, I thought it was actually quite fascinating. I’m not surprised that it was adapted from a play since most of the action took place in the Delaney’s house with only a handful of characters involved but I was just so impressed by the dialogues and the depth they brought to Lola and Doc Delaney. Back then, there were some critics that Burt Lancaster was actually too young to play that part and I have to admit that it was probably the case. Eventually, you have to get used to the idea that this man was actually married with this woman who seemed to be much older than he is. And, yet, Lancaster gave here a strong performance but, even though he was displayed on all the promotional material, I was above all so impressed by Shirley Booth who received an Academy Award for her work here. Indeed, she was just brilliant, playing the most ordinary woman that you could possibly imagine and, yet, there were so many layers in her performance, it was just mind-blowing. I think it also gave a ghastly but realistic look on what alcoholism can do to an individual and their relatives. In my opinion, it shows how ridiculous it is that it is socially acceptable to drink when you can’t even smoke a cigarette in peace when drinking obviously can actually have such a devastating impact.

Notes: I have to admit that I have never been a huge fan of such classic screwball comedies, in fact, it was probably the first one I have ever saw almost 20 years ago which might explain why I didn’t connect with the damned thing the first time I saw it. Anyway, sure, it is actually a really silly story but that’s why it’s actually quite fun because no one involved actually took the damned thing seriously. The cast was also pitch-perfect (Cary Grant, Ginger Rogers, Marilyn Monroe). Sure, you might argue that Grant was maybe not really convincing as a super smart scientist and, in fact, I think that Rogers actually stole the show here. Indeed, she was actually the most convincing of the two playing not only a caring housewife but also a hyperactive teenager and a mischievous young kid. Concerning Marilyn Monroe, she was not yet a super star but she was soon going to be and she was playing here her usual brainless pin-up but it was exactly what was needed here. Another thing that I enjoyed with this movie was that the fact that it was not dealing with a couple who was supposed to fall in love after the usual shenanigans, it was actually dealing with a strong stable couple which was just quite refreshing and I think that Cary Grant and Ginger Rogers had some really nice chemistry.

Notes: First of all, I had to admit it, I'm not really familiar with John Wayne's work and, in my opinion, he basically always portrayed typical tough guys so I was rather surprised to see him being cast in a such a romantic feature. And the best thing is that it actually worked. Basically, it is a rather simple and very old-fashioned romantic feature. Still, the fact that it was so old-fashioned made it, at the same time, very cute and charming but also sometimes rather annoying to watch. Still, I thought it was quite enjoyable to watch and the whole thing had an extra personal dimension (indeed, my own father moved from the Netherlands to live in France and I myself moved from France to live in the Netherlands). Eventually, it remains a harmless romantic flick and I thought it was pretty good, even if it was nothing really mind-blowing.

Notes: It was the final film that Charles Chaplin produced in America before moving to Europe after being accused of being communist and many consider it as his last masterpiece and therefore I was really eager to check it out. There was also a huge fuss about the fact that Buster Keaton and Charles Chaplin were finally both on screen but, honestly, even though they were pretty good together, Keaton had a rather small part. Anyway, in my opinion, this movie was not as great as his previous work. Here, Chaplin has got older and his movie doesn't have the energy of his earlier flicks and it tends to be more dramatic and contemplative but it was not necessarily a bad thing. I don't know, I basically grew up watching his funny movies with the Tramp and I really had a hard time switching from genre with him. On the other hand, the more I think about this movie, the more I believe that the whole thing was actually really subtle and thoughtful so I think I will have to re-watch someday to make up my mind for good.

Notes: First of all, even though I never really cared for Fred Astaire, I always thought that Gene Kelly was very charismatic and he was, of course, a great dancer but, even though this movie was supposed to be his magnum opus, I have to admit that I had a rather hard time to really care about the damned thing. I mean, sure , I did like it but I can't say it really blew me away. Even though the story is usually the weakest point in most of the musicals I have seen, I actually enjoyed this plot but, to be honest, I expected more from the songs and dances. I know, it might sound surprising but most of these dance sequences didn’t really impress me and, eventually, I thought that the dance scenes in ‘An American in Paris’ were actually cooler than in this movie. Anyway, it probably had to do with the fact that I am not a fan of musicals and, at the end of the day, it remains a classic and it is definitely worth a look.

Notes: It had been ages since I saw a movie directed by Akira Kurosawa so I was really eager to check this flick, especially since it is considered as one of his best movies. Well, even though I did like it, in my opinion, it turned out to be one of his most difficult movies to grasp. It is not that it was really complicated, it was more that I’m not sure if I fully understood what Kurosawa was trying to achieve here. The best I can come up with was that we should all live as if today is going to be our last day on Earth but, eventually, very few people actually do it. Eventually, as a result, even though Takashi Shimura delivered a very strong performance, the other characters turned out to be actually more interesting. Indeed, even though we all wish to be like Kanji Watanabe, in fact, we act more like the other characters who are most of the time rather oblivious regarding Watanabe’s actions. The best example would be the final act taking place after his death during his wake. Eventually, it is one of these movies that I enjoyed more afterwards then when I was actually watching the damned thing but I should definitely re-watch it at some point. However, even though I didn’t completely blow me away, it was still pretty good.

Notes: To be honest, I usually have a hard time to care about those old classic Westerns. Indeed, even though I enjoyed such movies like 'Rio Bravo' or 'Shane', they didn't really blow me away. Fortunately, I liked this one a lot. The point is that it is not only a Western, it is also actually a nail-bitting thriller and, during the whole thing, you wonder how it will end up. Furthermore, it was also a very interesting character study. Indeed, Fred Zinnemann, a director I start to like more and more, took his time to develop all the people in this town, not only Will Kane, who is basically your typical righteous sheriff. All the reactions of this common people felt really genuine and their reactions, even though it might seem cowardice, were actually rather understandable. As a result, you get a rather dark Western which clearly stands out from the other movies in this genre. I have to admit, I was at first a little bit disappointed by the end (great, another shoot-out during which the hero kills all the bad guys and saves the day...) but the way he throws his star to the ground, looks disgusted towards his fellow citizens and leaves the town right away with this wife was just priceless.

Notes: Eventually, it actually turned out to be definitely one of the saddest movies I have ever seen. First, they gave us this opening with this famous melancholic guitar tune which kept coming back throughout the whole thing. Then, in the very first scene, there was this 5 year old girl holding her dead dog while both her parents were being shot by a plane. I mean, it was just 5 minutes into the movie and I was already a total wreck...Then, they kept bringing again and again some heartbreaking scenes and, as expected, the end was also completely devastating. A few weeks before, I actually saw 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' and everybody seemed to think that it was a major tearjerker but even though it was indeed pretty heavy, compared to this feature, it was actually a piece of cake. A part from that, the acting by the kids was just really impressive and I also enjoyed the writing. Indeed, all the characters were three dimensional and felt really genuine in the sense that they were sometimes nice and sometimes pretty nasty, even the two children. I have to admit that I didn't care much about the whole cross stealing thing but, a part from that, this movie was really impressive.

Notes: To be honest, I’m not a huge fan of musicals but I have to admit that this one was actually pretty good. Indeed, what I enjoyed the most was that Fred Astaire was playing a different character than usual, some kind of washed-up insecure veteran actor, and this character was much more interesting and entertaining than what I have seen him doing in his other movies. I think it was also the first movie I saw starring Cyd Charisse and not only she was quite gorgeous but she was probably the best dancer I have ever seen in such a classic musical. Especially the scene called ‘Dancing In The Dark’ during she was dancing with Fred Astaire was just downright amazing and probably one of the best musical scenes I have seen. It’s unfortunate that, even though Astaire and Charisse were some incredible dancers, in my opinion, they didn’t have much chemistry together when they were not dancing. In fact, except for Fred Astaire’s character, none of the other characters involved were really interesting or entertaining. Finally, I couldn’t really make head or tail out of the musical-within-the-musical. Indeed, I wish they displayed at least a bit of Jeffrey Cordova’s version, explaining why it was such a flop. At least, the rehearsal did display that this musical was a disaster in the making. Anyway, in spite of its flaws, it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Notes: Basically, even though the damned thing has a really solid reputation, I thought it was a rather standard Western story. Indeed, it was a generic tale about some simple farmers who are bullied by some evil cattle baron and, of course, a mysterious stranger passes by and saves the day. Seriously, it wasn’t original at all and it was completely predictable but I guess I shouldn't forget that this Western was made 60 years ago and it was made before many other Westerns would use afterwards the same template. Still, the directing and acting were solid and I did like the attention they gave to the details. It was also interesting to notice that there was barely any shooting during the whole thing, there was one big fight though. In fact, the main character was without a gun during the whole thing and it was a nice approach. Indeed, instead of making the shootings look cool like most other Westerns, they displayed here that, even though such shootings were sometimes inevitable, the consequences were usually dreadfull.

Notes: Eventually, even though I thought it was fairly enjoyable, I can’t say it was really my thing though. I think it has to do somewhat with my political beliefs. Indeed, I'm a left-wing and I find it always difficult to care for the supposedly difficult romantic life of the rich and aristocrats. Sure, you could argue that since it is a romantic feature, I shouldn't take it so seriously but it is just too frivolous for me or maybe I'm just too cynical for this material. Eventually, the greatest thing about this flick was probably the fact that it introduced Audrey Hepburn to the world. Right away, she managed to win an Academy award for her performance and, above all, she became instantly one of the biggest movie stars in the world, a position she would keep during the following 10 years. Indeed, Hepburn was always nice to see in a movie, especially right there at the beginning of her career and she had some great chemistry with Gregory Peck. Furthermore, I must admit that the ending was also rather refreshing.

Notes: Well, it turned out to be a really solid film noir, that's for sure. In fact, the opening scene in the subway was just amazing and probably one of the best scenes I have seen in this genre. I liked as well the fact that there was no main character and also that pretty much everyone involved in this tale was actually pretty murky. The main issue, in my opinion, was that, even though it was fairly realistic how they found out who was the pickpocket, it happened really soon in the movie and, from this point on, the whole thing became rather repetitive. I mean, how many times did Candy or the cops eventually went to Skip's shack? Apparently, I did watch a version 20 mins longer than the official one and maybe it worked better with a shorter running time. Another thing that slightly bothered me was that, even though it made sense that Skip would fall for Candy (who wouldn't?), it was harder to believe that she would fall in love with him. Anyway, even if it wasn't a real masterpiece, it was still really entertaining.

Notes: Well, eventually, I really liked it and I thought it was much more enjoyable than 'Lola Montès', another classic from Max Ophüls which I saw already twice. The tricky thing with this director is that his movies are always visually so elaborate, they are always a marvel to look at, but, as a result, they might seem really superficial. In this case, the fact that it was dealing with the frivolous romances of the Aristocrats didn't help either. And, yet, even though I usually don't care much for this genre, this story did work very well. It mostly had to do with the stellar performances from Charles Boyer, Danielle Darrieux and Vittorio De Sica but their characters were also very well written. Indeed, they really evolved through this tale and I actually cared about what these characters were going through. I have to admit that my rating might be slightly too harsh and I will probably re-watch it at some point.

Notes: Honestly, I'm not really familiar with Billy Wilder's work but I have fortunately managed to watch a few of his movies lately and this movie was easily of one of his best. The first striking thing about this movie is its introduction when the voice-over tell you that they had never made a flick about a POW camp before. I don't know if it was indeed true but, personally, it was indeed the oldest I have seen so far (for example, 'The Bridge on the River Kwai' came soon after in 1957 and 'The Great Escape' in 1967). What I enjoyed the most was that the main character played by William Holden was not some hot-headed macho hero like Steve McQueen in 'The Great Escape'. No, he was a smart but really selfish con-artist looking only for his own interests and there was not a single moment when he suddenly had a change of conscience and became heroic, even at the end, he seemed mostly concerned about saving his ass. The other characters were not too bad but a little too stereotypical in my opinion and I was a little bothered that too many German characters spoke English fluently but it was something inherent in Hollywood back then and it still is nowaydays. Still, I liked the solid directing by Wilder, the tone and this main character so I really enjoyed this flick which has inspired all the similar movies that came afterwards about the same subject.

Notes: Even though I did like this movie and even though it’s supposed to be be Jacques Tati’s best directing effort, I thought it was pretty good but still nothing really mind-blowing. I mean, sure, the whole thing was really sweet and clever but it was never really interesting or seriously entertaining. It is pretty obvious that Tati was some kind of French version of Charles Chaplin but the big difference was that Chaplin put so much poetry, drama in his stories and his characters, even if they were completely silent, were so much more developed than here. Indeed, Tati never really allows you to care about Hulot or the different characters involved and, as a result, I had a hard time to really care about what they were going through. Still, in contrary to ‘Jour de fête’ which I saw when I was a teenager, I was able to appreciate the tone delivered by Tati and the damned thing was also a great time capsule showing how it must have been to go on holiday in France back in the 50’s. Finally, it was pretty neat to see that this character was an obvious inspiration for Rowan Atkinson when he created his Mr. Bean.

Notes: Well, even though I definitely could see why this movie has such a stellar reputation, to be honest, I still struggled to really connect with the damned thing. The point is that this movie is actually very simple and very complex at the same time. Indeed, it is simple in the sense that Ozu didn’t use any gimmicks or visual tricks to shot his movie as it was composed of static shots with minimal cuts. In a similar fashion, it was dealing with some average people with no secret agenda or deep secrets and nothing really extraordinary happened to any one of them through the whole duration. And, yet, it was such a complex movie in the sense that Ozu never tells you what the characters are actually thinking or feeling, he doesn’t tell you what he himself is actually thinking or feeling about what is showing you and is certainly not telling the viewers what they should be thinking or feeling. It is definitely a nice approach but it is also quite disorienting following years of watching rather dumb US movies in which every piece of information is pretty much spoonfed to the viewers. Still, what the hell did Ozu mean with his movie?!? The more I think about it, the more I believe that this movie was actually dealing with the meaning of life, no less than that. It might explain why it is still completely relevant even 70 years later for someone like me who was born in Europe and had no direct connection with Japanese culture. Indeed, basically, for the most part of our lives, we will struggle some way or another to connect with other people, even with the people the closest to us. As a result, we are all pretty much very lonely and it is fitting that Noriko, the nicest person in this movie, is actually the loneliest. Anyway, even if it didn’t really blow me away, it was still a strong movie.

Notes: Eventually, even though some old classics sometimes don’t really live up to their reputation, this one certainly didn’t disappoint me. Indeed, even though the damned thing is almost 70 years old, it has aged very well and it is considered as one of the greasted classics produced in France. Well, it was definitely a fascinating picture. Back then, obviously, there was no CGI, no expensive special effects but still, it really succeeded in being completely suspensful, in fact, it was much more exciting to watch than many recent Hollywood productions. Indeed, the directing by Henri-Georges Clouzot, probably one of the best French directors that ever lived, was really impressive and Yves Montand, who was just starting at the time, delivered a really solid performance. A the end of the 70’s, William Friedkin who just had some massice success directing back-to-back ‘The French Connection’ and ‘The Exorcist’ decided to remake this but even though it might sound misguided and even though it turned out to be a flop, it still managed to have a decent reputation, especially for a remake.

Notes: Well, to be honest, even though I did like it, I have to admit that I did struggle a little bit to get into this movie. I mean, it is a beautiful but terribly tragic tale and, sometimes, it felt like a sad poem using film instead of words. Sometimes, I also had the feeling that I was watching a Japanese version of 'Gladiator', except that they removed all the action scenes and replaced them with some really dramatic scenes. Anyway, the best way to describe this movie would be the scene involving the suicide of Anju. Indeed, it is probably the most famous and powerful moment in this movie and it was equally heartbreaking and unforgettable to behold but, to be honest, while watching it, I also felt that it was rather over-the-top. I mean, did it really make sense that she stayed behind and killed herself? Her argument was that Zushiô had more chances to escape without her but she then made him carry a dying woman. Wouldn't it then make more sense to go together and leave the poor woman behind? I guess that's what slightly bothered me with this movie, the fact that everything was quite theatrical but I won't deny that it was still quite mesmerising nonetheless.

Notes: I’m pretty sure I did watch this animated feature when I was a kid, probably even at school. I was quite impressed back in those days and I thought it was time for a re-watch. Personally, I always had a weak spot with animated features trying to be aimed towards a grown-up audience. Indeed, the market is dominated by the kiddies stuff, which is fine, but the tone is rather monotonous. It was also one of the major weaknesses in this flick, the way they still added some little fluffy bits here and there. It is rather understandable, I mean, the whole thing was terribly bleak which was quite shocking for the audience at the time so, they added the children friendly stuff to make sure they didn’t completely alienate the viewers. Personally, I think they should have gone all the way. Still, I thought it was quite fascinating to behold. Indeed, in my opinion, even though this movie was used as anti-communist propaganda by the CIA I think it gives a very good depiction about what went wrong with this ideology. Basically, Communism is actually a great way of thinking but it has been corrupted by some opportunists with the results that everyone thinks that this ideology is complete rubbish.

Notes: To be honest, I’m not a huge fan of such old Westerns. Anyway, in this genre, I have to admit it, this movie was not bad at all and I definitely had a weak spot for the damned thing. Indeed, it was especially neat to see a Western with a woman playing the lead and, even though Joan Crawford always thought that Mercedes McCambridge was stealing the show in this movie, I was above all impressed by Crawford after all. Eventually, the biggest issue with this movie (or biggest draw, depending on who you would ask) is that the story was rather over-the-top and, in my case, I thought it was rather difficult to take it really seriously. Anyway, even if this movie didn’t completely work for me, I still think it is probably one of the most interesting Westerns they made at the time.

Notes: Apparently, it is a very popular story and they have made already 4 different versions with the latest one coming out in 2018 directed by Bradley Cooper and starring Lady Gaga. In fact, this latest version actually turned out to be a big critical and commercial success. Anyway, we are only talking about the official versions but they are also so many movies following the same template such as the infamous 'Showgirls'. Anyway, back to the movie itself, I know it is a beloved classic and, indeed, it was quite entertaining but I honestly didn't care much about the whole thing. I don't know, like I said before, it is a very old basic story and maybe I have seen too many similar tales before. I have to admit it though, Judy Garland was pretty good but, in fact, I was more interested in James Mason who is such a fine actor and eventually, I would rather have had the movie focusing on him. Anyway, it is and remains a classic, a very well made musical with an ageless story.

Notes: To be honest, I didn’t remember that this movie was so long (it would be in fact Akira Kurosawa’s longest directing effort) but it didn’t matter since the damned thing was so entertaining. Thanks to the long running time, we had indeed the opportunity to understand what was going on with this village, what was their struggle and how they would try to find a solution. In the following acts, they really took their time to show the strategy developed by the samurais instead of giving us some non-sensical action scenes like you usually get in a Michael Bay movie for example. Eventually, it is one of these rare movies which, even though it is more than 60 years old, still feels so modern and it was basically a major milestone in motion picture history as it is usually considered as the first action movie ever made. At the end of the day, even though it might not be my favorite movie directed by Kurosawa, I still really enjoyed the damned thing and it is much better than its remake which was still a worthy movie though.

Notes: It is rather surprising that, even though I am a massive movie buff and even though I have seen more than 40 movies directed by Alfred Hitchcock (more than any other director), it took me so long to watch this classic. Well, even though I thoroughly enjoyed it, I must admit it, I thought I was slightly disappointing. The point is that I wanted to watch this movie for so long and so badly that I had some massive expectations and I’m afraid it didn’t really fulfill those expectations. I mean, it is a very good thriller, no doubt about it, developping some interesting ideas around the fact we are all some peeping toms, especially us, the movie watchers. I also enjoyed the fact that the main character was pretty much an arrogant douchebag who can’t even be satisfied when the lovely Grace Kelly tells him that she loves him and wants to take care of him until the day he dies. The ending was also terrific and those last 10 minutes were completely nail-biting. Still, that’s the main issue, except for those last 10 minutes, there were a lot of unnecessary scenes distracting us from the obsessive behavior of the main character and the whole thing took forever to finally take off. Still, these were minor flaws and even though it might not be the amazing masterpiece I was expecting, it remains an amazing thriller though.

Notes: Even though Marlon Brando’s career has always been rather inconsistent, I have always been a huge fan of the guy and since this flick is considered as one of his classics, I was quite eager to check it out. Man, at the time, he was really on fire and gave one of his best performances, arguably one of the best performances ever given by an actor. Personally, I still prefer ‘A Streetcar named Desire’ but this flick is definitely not far behind. Anyway, 3 years after making this seminal classic, Elia Kazan was working again with Marlon Brando and the end-result was once again quite impressive. Basically, contrary to most of the movies produced by Hollywood at the time and still nowadays, the main character was not some kind of almighty hero but an average man who was deeply flawed. However, even though the guy was not a real hero, he still showed some dignity but it didn’t mean that the whole thing would end up with an happy ending and the grim tone remained from the beginning until the end.

Notes: I have seen this movie a very long time ago but I was very impressed and I never have forgot it. To be honest, even though I have watched many other movies directed by Fellini, very often, it didn’t really connect with them, even some massive classics like ‘La Dolce Vita’ and ‘8 ½’. I mean, I did like them and I could see why they were considered masterpieces but they simply didn’t really blow me away. This movie is an exception though and it remains my favorite one among his work. Indeed, with this movie, you still have the poetic side of Fellini but this feature is also pretty realistic and I just loved this combination. In 2013, I went to see it again in the theater with some uncles and aunts who have formed a film club and I had a wonderful time. Unfortunately, I had a bad night sleep the night before and I could barely stay awake ruding the last 30 minutes but still what a great picture. This time, I was above all impressed by Giulietta Masina. I mean, Anthony Quinn was really good as well but Masina really stole the show portraying some kind of female Charles Chaplin character.

Notes: To be honest, it has been while since I have seen this flick but like everything directed by Luchino Visconti, it was quite fascinating to behold. Indeed, even though Visconti started his career with ‘Ossessione’, the first Italian neorealist film, later on in his career he would become famous for his luxurious dramas involving the Italian aristocracy, the most famous one being ‘Il Gattopardo’. Surprisingly, I still haven’t watched ‘Il Gattopardo’ but I did watch his one which Visconti made 10 years after his directing debut. To be honest, I’m not sure I really cared about the story. Basically, it was a rather standard doomed love story and the fact that I wasn’t really familiar with this time period didn’t help either. Eventually, what I really enjoyed about this movie was above all the mood created thanks to a gorgeous cinematography. On top of that, apparently, Visconti wanted Ingrid Bergman and Marlon Brando to play the lead roles but Alida Valli and Farley Granger were some great choices as well. Eventually, even if it might not be one of Visconti’s best movies, it was still a really solid period drama.

Notes: I was really impressed by the damned thing and I think it completely deserves its stellar reputation. Apparently, back in those days, the biggest rival to Alfred Hitchcock was the French director, Henri-George Clouzot. They were actually both competing to make this movie but, eventually, Clouzot was the one who had the honor to adapt this best-seller and he did it with great success as it became an instant classic. Indeed, some older movies didn’t grow old very well but this one is still pretty damned amazing, even after all these years. Basically, the directing was quite amazing and provided a mesmerizing eerie atmosphere. The cast included one of the biggest French stars Simone Signoret and also Vérat Clouzot and they both gave some impressive performances. In my opinion, this movie is the perfect example that you don't need any shootings, explosions or chases to make a fascinating thriller. The characters, the dialogues, the shots build up the tensions, that's it and that's more than enough.

Notes: Eventually, even though it was never really impressive, it was still pretty good and I was fairly entertained throughout the whole thing. Indeed, the directing was all right and, above all, James Stewart was, as usual, really charismatic and rather awesome to watch. The main issue with this kind of movies is that, even though they are usually highly regarded, it seem to me that they are really outdated. I mean, for some movies like 'Citizen Kane', 'M' or basically anything directed by Charles Chaplin, they are just as much valuable today as they were when they were released decades ago. On the other hand, I have to admit that, even though this movie has some solid rep, it is definitely not one of the best in this genre so it might be unfair to take it as an example. Anyway, teven if I don't think it is really a masterpiece, it was still a decent watch.

Notes: Honestly, I thought that the whole thing was slightly disappointing. I mean, I did like it but I was expecting more from it. Indeed, the concept really sounded pretty cool but, unfortunately, the story turned out to be rather dull after all. Apparently, Hitchcock didn’t focus too much on the plot which was rather light and frivolous. Instead, he focused more on the relationship between Cary Grant and Grace Kelly and, fortunately, they had a great chemistry together. Indeed, Cary Grant played here his usual suave charming fellow but he did it so well, he was once again quite irresistible. Even more impressive than Grant, Grace Kelly must have been one of the most ravishing creatures I have ever seen. Seriously, it was actually quite distracting and I’m not sure she was acting well or not. The other thing that I enjoyed was the great landscape and cities of South France. Even though I’m French, I have never been there and it looked quite awesome. Eventually, I think it is rather sad that this movie was obviously a minor effort for Alfred Hitchcock but it was still a huge box-office success when it was released when some more thoughtful movies of his would really tank. Anyway, even if it is nothing mind-blowing, it is still a classic.

Notes: After watching the damned thing, the first thing I thought was how interesting it was that such a small and low key feature would actually win the Best picture Academy award. Indeed, do you think it would have a chance against our contemporary epics with a huge budget such as ‘Gladiator’, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, ‘Dance with the Wolves’, or ‘Titanic’? Even if some smaller productions did win the big prize recently like ‘Spotlight’, ‘Birdman’ or ’12 Years a Slave’, they were still much more ambitious than this movie. Eventually, the fact it was so small was definitely part of its charm and why it was fairly successful commercially and critically when it was released. For Ernest Borgnine, a character actor throughout all his lengthy career, it was definitely a all-time high and he even won the Academy award for Best Actor in a Leading Role for his performance. Anyway, I thought it was charming movie with a a really solid Ernest Borgnine.

Notes: Considering the fact that I’m not a huge fan of musicals in general, I wasn’t sure what to expect from this flick but since it is a classic, I was still eager to check it out. With the first dance sequence, I got kind of worried and thought it would be a rather long and boring watch. Fortunately, as soon as Frank Sinatra and, above all, Marlon Brando showed up, it became much more enjoyable. I mean, Frank Sinatra was pretty good but I was above all impressed by Marlon Brando. Back then, the guy was really on fire, probably the best actor around and he shows he could take anything, even a musical, and make the whole thing actually quite spellbinding to watch. Of course, he was incredibly charismatic but it goes further than this as he gave his character some extra layers which made him really stand out from the crowd. Furthermore, I actually liked the general ambiguous attitude towards gambling and drinking (after watching this flick, does it look really look so bad to you?).