1001 Movies ... my own version (1960's)

Notes: Since this movie had a very good reputation and since it is considered as one of Malle's best movies, my expectations were pretty high. Unfortunately, I thought it was rather disappointing after all and I actually had a hard time to care for the whole thing. I mean, the directing was solid and this little girl did provide a pretty good performance but there was something that really bothered me about the tone. Indeed, basically, there was not much of a plot and the whole thing was supposed to be some kind of satirical whimsical tale but it was so frivolous, it actually tended to get on my nerves, it even became slightly obnoxious at some point. I don't know, maybe I wasn't in the right mood when I watched it and maybe I should give it a second chance at some point but I simply didn't connect with it. Still, Louis Malle is a terrific director and he managed to make an interesting flick, I will have to admit that.

Notes: I always had a weak spot for Yul Brynner and even more for Steve McQueen. James Coburn and Charles Bronson were also some fine actors so, with such a cast, I really had to see this flick at some point. Eventually, it was pretty good but I still think the original directed by Akira Kurosawa ('Seven samurai') was actually much better. It didn’t help that I saw 'Seven samurai' before so the whole thing didn’t feel really ‘fresh’. Still, it was definitely entertaining and it was above all rather fun to see Steve McQueen, originally just a supporting part, trying to upstage Yul Brynner who was at the time a bigger star. Anyway, even if it didn’t really blow me away, it is still a classic.

Notes: To be honest, it is not one of François Truffaut's most prestigious work and it definitely belongs to his more obscure work but I still think it was quite enjoyable. Basically, the tone was more frivolous and the whole thing was actually rather unfocused. Indeed, even though it is supposed to be a thriller/film noir, it is obvious that Truffaut didn’t really care much about the plot and he wanted to rather focus on the colorful characters and there was also some fixation towards women, a trademark in François Truffaut’s work. It was also rather fun to see Charles Aznavour, a very famous singer in France, playing the main character. Anyway, eventually, even though it was rather well received by the critics, it was actually a box-office flop and, following this failure, Truffaut decided to drop the New Wave directing style based mostly on improvisation to some more traditionally structured dramas. Anyway, even if it is not really a masterpiece, it is still a pretty good flick.

Notes: There are a few movies which I consider milestones in my movie watching history but this movie is definitely one of them. It is one of those movies which you keep hearing about and when you watch them, they basically hit you like a train. The first time I watched it, I must have been 15 or 16 years old, I thought it was just awesome and it became right away one of my favorite movies of all time. Basically, it is just a boy, a girl, a car and a gun, that's it, but because it is so simple, it became a really pure movie experience. However, even though those elements were quite simple, Godard did something quite revolutionary at the time which was stripping down many of the conventional narrative stereotypes (a core aspect of the French New Wave) making the whole thing even more spellbinding. Eventually, I re-watched it years later and I did lower my rating a little bit since there were a few dull moments but I absolutely remains one of my favorite French movies. Unfortunately, later on in his career, Godard would start to make some really obscure movies and, in the process, more or less deliberately started to alineate his audience but this was his first directing feature and it became instantly a timeless masterpiece.

Notes: It is supposed to be one of the greatest comedies ever made but, to be honest, even though I thought it was fairly entertaining, I can’t say I wasn't really blown away by this movie. I mean, sure, it was pretty good, and I enjoyed it but I wasn't really laughing out loud but merely smiling during the whole thing. In my opinion, it is one of those comedies which was really great and ground-breaking when it was released but, nowadays, it all feels rather outdated. I mean, it is still a pretty good comedy, it is just I don’t really see what was so great about it. Still, I have to admit that Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine both gave some solid performances but, to be honest, I didn’t really care much for their characters. On top of that, the whole thing was just too long in my opinion. Considering Billy Wilder’s work, after watching almost half of his movies, I came to the conclusion that I enjoyed much more his dramas than his comedies . Anyway, even if I’m not a huge fan of this flick, it is still a classic.

Notes: I always had a weak spot for movies dealing with prison escapes and this one was easily one of the best I have seen in this genre. Indeed, eventually, the whole thing was just so raw and gritty and, yet, without any catchy soundtrack, without fancy special effects or bombastic action scenes, it was actually seriously quite spellbinding to behold. You also get the feeling that you enter a strange underworld with 5 guys stuck into a small room for hours, almost sleeping on top of each other. Except for Claude Gaspard with his good looks, we’ll never know how they did end up there but you might wonder if they really deserved to live in such dehumanizing conditions. As a result, you might argue that the characters were not really developed but I think it goes along with how dreadful this place was. Indeed, slowly, they all lose some trademarks specific to their personalities, becoming one grey uniform human mass in the process. Finally, the neat thing with such a vintage prison break is that, back then, they didn’t have such advanced security systems like they have nowadays and, as a result, it was actually believable that these guys would try and actually manage to pull this out. Even the ending actually made sense. Of course, you could blame Gaspard but both options had some massive downside. I mean, would it really make sense to escape with his buddies when he was supposed to be released soon? No really but it doesn’t change the fact that what he did was really a rat move.

Notes: In my opinion, it is rather amusing when people tell me that 'Gladiator' is totally awesome. Do they know that the Peplum is actually one of the oldest genres in cinema and that 'Gladiator' is merely a reboot? Anyway, this movie was probably the least personal project for Stanley Kubrick as he was hired at the last minute by Kirk Douglas. Indeed, the whole thing was supposed to be directed by Anthony Mann but he was fired by Douglas who then hired Stanley Kubrick but they didn’t get along either and Douglas swore he would never work again with Kubrick. This movie was also the first and last time Kubrick made what you could call a 'standard' big budget studio feature without full control. Even so, I thought it was a really awesome flick with some spectacular scenes and it is definitely my favorite peplum. It is obviously the movie which stands out the most from Kubrick’s filmography as his touch is not so omnipresent and I think it is his most accessible flick but it is not necessarily a bad thing.

Notes: It is already more than 50 years old but it is still one of the best thrillers ever made. Whereas some older horror/thriller flicks tend to get a little bit cheesy and outdated when you see them so many years later, this one still looks modern and the structure is still stricking even for nowadays standards (Indeed, at first, the focus is set on Janet Leigh but she is in fact killed really early in the movie). The whole thing was so unexpected, it was just pure genius and the fact that it hasn't been more copied later on is because most of the directors don't have the balls to try such a daring move. I can imagine how the audience must have been shocked at the time, it must have been awesome to witness it first hand. Furthermore, it is still pretty creepy and Anthony Perkins gave one of the best performances in motion picture history. Indeed, he managed to create such a fascinating character, at the same time, rather sweet and even charismatic but also awkward and antisocial. When I check Hitchock's filmography, I think I still prefer 'Vertigo' even more but this flick is probably a closed second.

Notes: To be honest, the first time I watched it, even though I did like it, I can't say it really blew me away but maybe I was too young or not smart enough at the time to properly appreciate this masterpiece. Unfortunately, even after rewatching this movie after all these years, I still struggled to connect with the damned thing. I mean, what was it supposed to be really about? Was it to show how tedious and trivial the night life was in Roma back in those days? Furthermore, it all felt seriously random and it didn't help that it didn't care much about the characters involved. Of course, it is still a good movie and it would be foolish of me to dismiss the damned thing just because I didn't really understand it. Indeed, Fellini was definitely a very good director and it is a beautiful movie to look at. Furthermore, Marcello Mastroianni and Anita Ekberg were both seriously charismatic, even though it is rather funny that everyone remembers Ekberg in this movie when she was there maybe only 20 minutes. Anyway, maybe I should try again in another 20 years and maybe, this time, I will fall in love with the damned thing but, even so, it is still a major classic.

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. I have to admit that, when I was a teenager, I thought that Alain Delon was a rather lame actor (at the time, he certainly didn’t have a stellar reputation in France or else where so give me a break…) and I had no idea that, in the 60's and the 70's, the guy was actually one of the best actors around. It’s just too bad his career went downhill in the 80's and it has been probably a couple of decades since he has done anything really worthwhile. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, many might argue that it was the best movie directed by Visconti and it is probably my favourite one so far but I still have to watch more than half of his work. Anyway, this was quite an amazing movie. Indeed, everything from the directing, the mood to the actors was just top notch.

Notes: It turned out to be such a complex and fascinating look on this famous trial. Sure, what the Nazi’s did was one of the worst tragedies in the whole humankind history but what were they/we actually supposed to do with the Germans after the war was over? On one hand, you can’t held them all responsible for what happened but, on the other hand, it is really frustrating to keep hearing everything single one of them saying that they had really no idea about what was going on in the concentration camps. That’s why the very last scene with Spencer Tracy and Burt Lancaster was pure gold and pitch-perfect. Indeed, if you get to see on a daily basis people getting arrested for various reasons and never coming back or even people getting killed for really dubious reasons, even if you don’t know all the details, you actually know enough. Concerning Spencer Tracy, even though he is sometimes mentioned as one of the greatest movie actors of all time, it was actually the first time that the guy really impressed me and I finally understood why he was so highly regarded. Eventually, the only minor critic I might have was about the fact that, earlier on, they made a switch with the German characters and made them speak in English. Indeed, I think it would have been better to keep the German languages and add some subtitles. On the other hand, they would have lost most of the stellar cast involved (Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, Judy Garland) and I have to admit they were all really good here.

Notes: This flick is probably one of the most famous directed by Akira Kurosawa and therefore I was really eager to check it out. Indeed, it is above all famous because Sergio Leone made a few years later a little remake called ‘For a Fistful of Dollars’ and it was at the time a big mess because they didn’t give any credit to Kurosawa. Eventually, after watching ‘For a Fistful of Dollars’ so many times, it was rather difficult for me to really get into this flick to be honest. I think I would have enjoyed it more if it would have been the first time I saw this story but it is something you should always try to avoid : watching the remake before the original version. Still, it is definitely an entertaining samurai flick with some very good directing by Akira Kurosawa and a solid performance by the always dependable Toshiro Mifune.

Notes: Basically, it is one of those movies which are more famous for their troubled production than for the movie itself. Indeed, not only Marilyn Monroe was reportedly impossible to handle during the shooting but all 3 major stars died soon after this movie (Clark Gable died just after filming this movie, Marilyn Monroe died a year later before completing any other project and Montgomery Clift died just a few years later). Sure, that’s all really fascinating but what about the movie itself? Well, it was an intriguing piece of work but I was not sure what to make of it. Indeed, it basically deals with some outcasts, who were in fact pretty much some losers confused with themselves and about what they should do with themselves. Seriously, it was pretty eerie when considering where those actors stood at this point in their own life. Still, even though it was sometimes quite fascinating to watch, those characters were also, at some point, pretty pathetic and annoying (especially Marilyn Monroe's character). Still, in spite of its flaws, it remains a rather spellbinding movie

Notes: Basically, it is a decent and really entertaining WWII feature. To be honest, it might not be really original or mind-blowing but it was still a nice watch. Anyway, it was a pretty expensive movie, one of the most expensive ever made at the time, and it was a huge success at the box-office, apparently the highest grossing movie released in 1961. It wasn’t really surprising since there was a really nice cast (Gregory Peck, David Niven, Anthony Quinn, Irene Papas, Richard Harris) and even though Gregory Peck felt miscast as a British soldier, I thought he was pretty cool, as usual. An another interesting element is that it was meant to be an anti-war feature but it is apparently something that was missed by the mainstream audience at that time. Eventually, they would make a sequel starring an up and coming actor called Harrison Ford. Not only this sequel was made only 17 years later but also none of the actors were coming back (on the other hand with such a gap between the two movies, that wasn’t really surprising…) and both movies didn’t have much to do with each other.

Notes: To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this movie so maybe I should re-watch it at some point. Basically, when I started to discover the great treasures of the motion picture history, I became interested in the Italian masters and I saw at the time many movies directed by Federico Fellini, Luchino Visconti but, somehow, only 2 movies directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, this one and 'Teorema' . I really loved 'Teorema' and it had a massive impact on me but this directing debut was also really strong as well. Indeed, it was much more straightforward but still quite spellbinding and it could be considered as a late neorealist feature since it had many trademarks of the genre. For example, the whole thing was seriously bleak and if you think that they tried to glamorize the life of a pimp, well, that was definitely not the case, that's for sure. And yet, even though it was certainly a gloomy affair, there was still something quite poetic about the damned thing and this mix was just quite spellbinding to behold.

Notes: To be honest, I think I have never seen such a flawed classic. I mean, I know it is a huge classic and Audrey Hepburn was obviously quite charming in this flick but I seriously don’t understand how someone might consider this movie a masterpiece with the awful character played by the Mickey Rooney. Seriously, this character was so awful, he seriously ruined the whole thing for me. Coming to our main feature, it is a rather fluffy comedy which would be forever remembered for Holly Golightly, probably the most iconic character played by Audrey Hepburn. Eventually, Hepburn herself thought she was miscast but it became ultimately one of her most popular roles. Apparently, the story written by Capote was slightly darker with the main character even flirting with bisexuality but it was all removed and the end-result was something rather clean and boring. Anyway, I think the whole thing did have some potential but, by adding one of the most offending characters I have ever seen in a movie, they really lost me but since it is such a classic, it is still worth a look though.

Notes: I have to admit that I have never been a huge fan of musicals but this one was definitely an exception. Sure, it was yet another adaptation of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ but it is one of the very few movies which managed to give a satisfying modern twist to this timeless tale. Furthermore, most of the songs were pretty neat (even if none of the main cast actually sang those tunes) but, above all, I really loved the dancing which was some of the best I have seen in a musical. If you are familiar with Michael Jackson’s work, you will notice that this movie had a huge influence on him which was pretty cool as well. The only issue I might have had with this movie is that it was maybe slightly too long. Indeed, even though it was actually a rather simple story which took place only during 2 days, they still managed to reach more than 150 minutes of running time but that’s something that often happens with such musicals when the characters stop every 2 minutes to sing a song.

Notes: To be honest, it has been ages since I saw this movie and I should definitely re-watch at some point. I have to admit that except for ‘Blowup, I didn’t care so much for the movies I have seen directed by Michelangelo Antonioni but there is no denying that, in the 60's, he was a major movie director and this movie was one of the many masterpieces he made back in those days. Jeanne Moreau and Marcello Mastroianni were both really strong here as they delivered some great perfomances. Above all, I thought it was a very deep movie which didn't deal with some chases, shootings, explosions and special effects but with relationships and the human mind in general.

Notes: It has been a while since I have seen this flick and I should definitely re-watch it at some point. To be honest, before watching the damned thing, I was actually completely unaware of its reputation and I think I decided to give it a try just because the review on the TV magazine was really positive. Eventually, I was completely blown away by the whole thing and it turned out to be one of the best cinematic surprises I ever watched. First of all, for some reasons, I have always been fascinated by the pool game and by pool hustlers and this movie is just by far the best ever made dealing with this subject. Indeed, it looked gorgeous, Paul Newman gave one of his best performances and the whole thing was just really damned entertaining. Eventually, 25 years later, they would release a sequel directed by Martin Scorsese and starring both Paul Newman and Tom Cruise but while it turned out to be a decent watch, it never came near the greatness displayed in this flick, I’m afraid.

Notes: Even though it is usually considered as Tarkovsky’s most accessible movie above all because it was the shortest one he made, to be honest, I still struggled to connect with this movie. Still, it was interesting that the directing was so different from what he did for ‘Stalker’ (the only movie I saw before from this director). Indeed, there were some scenes in this movie which were actually quite lyrical, even surreal sometimes. Still, what was the damned thing all about? Was the main goal to show WWII from the Soviets point of view? In this case, it wasn’t really convincing since Ivan had contact with only a handful of soldiers but it was probably not what Tarkovsky was aiming for. This movie was probably more about the depiction of the impact warfare might have on such a young child like Ivan. Indeed, it was rather striking how, at same time, it gave him a sense of purpose in this completely chaotic world but also constantly traumatized him even more. In a similar fashion, even though the ‘grown-up’ soldiers found Ivan’s involvement regrettable, you can sense that they actually liked to have him around as a simple distraction or because it was probably more satisfying or even soothing to take care of a young child instead of killing a bunch of random unknow guys and not getting yourself killed in the process.

Notes: Even though I really liked it, to be honest, I wasn't completely sold though. First of all, the whole point was obviously to see two huge acting icons, Joan Crawford and Better Davis, playing some sisters and the fact that they apparently hated each other in real life made the whole thing even more spellbinding to watch. However, even though Davis took some major risks and gave an outstanding performance, Crawford played the whole thing way too safe constantly trying to protect her glamorous reputation. Indeed, she tried to play the whole thing as some innocent victim but it didn't work as it made her character rather flat and boring and she was as a result completely upstaged by Davis. If both women would have been on the same level, playing some demented old movie stars who have hated each other since childhood, pretty much matching the actual hatred the actresses had for each other, then, the whole thing would have been really awesome. On top of that, another issue was that most of the movie was about the two sisters living together in the same house but it actually didn't make much sense that Jane would actually take care of her sister after all what happened between them. The twist at the end also had very little impact and only proved again that Crawford had chosen the wrong approach all along. Still, in spite of its flaws, it was a really solid psychological thriller though.

Notes: Unfortunately, I watched this movie on the BBC without subtitles and I have to admit that I did struggle a bit to follow the dialogues so I should probably re-watch it at some point. I still really enjoyed it though and it definitely deserves its reputation of best cold war paranoid thriller. The most interesting thing with this movie is how John Frankenheimer managed to mix a realistic approach with a totally far-fetched story. Indeed, the hypnotism and brainwashing thing was quite preposterous and, on paper, there is no way this story should have worked. However, the fact that it was taking place in a fairly realistic world created this constant mix of realism and surrealism. One of the most striking scenes was probably the ‘meet cute’ involving Frank Sinatra and Janet Leigh. Indeed, even though Bennett Marco was at his lowest and looked like a total wreck, Eugenie Rose Chaney still really flirted hard on him. To make this moment even more surreal, they had the weirdest conversation ever. Was Marco dreaming or hallucinating? Was Eugenie actually another spy? Those were really the best moments, when Marco seemed really vulnerable and when the viewers are not really sure what the hell is actually going on. To make the whole thing even more far-out, you had some anti-McCarthyism, the Communist Dr. Yen Lo who kept making jokes, Eleanor Shaw Iselin who might have had some incestuous feelings for her son and who happened to be a spy as well,… so there was a lot going on, maybe too much, but there is no denying that it was quite unique.

Notes: To be honest, it was rather tricky for me to judge this movie. I mean, it is so subtle and I was never really sure what Luis Buñuel was actually trying to achieve here. The interesting thing is that, the first time around, I thought it was great and inspiring and I really loved the damned thing. After all these years, it is rather difficult to imagine how shocking this movie must have been when it came out at the beginning of the 60's (in fact, even though it was made and produced in Spain, it was banned in this country for many years). Maybe, what Buñuel meant with this movie, was that the traditional religious dogma might be actually a waste of time as it goes against many of our basic urges. Eventually, we are all sinners some way or another so there is really no need to feel so guilty about it, as displayed in the last scene, and our sins are basically what makes us human. Anyway, even if it didn’t completely blow me away, it was still a really intriguing flick.

Notes: By now, I have seen all the James Bond instalments, sometimes, even several times, but to be honest, most of them are actually rather forgettable and I would have a rather hard time to really recall most of them in details. However, there are a few exceptions and this first instalment is definitely one of them. Indeed, back then, they had their lowest budget so it was probably not the most elaborate instalment but it was understandable since the formula was new at the time. They still managed to already introduce many elements that they still use more than 50 years later. Indeed, the whole concept of the James Bond girl started here with the gorgeous Ursula Andress and it would always be a great challenge for many actresses to fill in her shoes. Dr. No would be also a really memorable villain and the blueprint for many other villains that would come later on in this franchise. And, of course, the ultimate masterstroke was James Bond himself. I mean, right from the start, he became one of the most iconic characters and even though many believed that Sean Connery was a poor choice (even Ian Fleming himself), he was just awesome giving this character many of his most famous trademarks.

Notes: Honestly, it has been a while since I have watched this flick and maybe I should re-watch it again at some point. Basically, I was and still am a huge fan of ‘Les quatre cents coups’, the awesome directing debut by Truffaut. Right away, I became a huge fan of his work and I was really eager to see this flick which was considered as his second masterpiece. So, with this in mind, I had some rather huge expectations and, to be honest, I thought it was slightly disappointing. I don’t know, maybe I was too young at the time, but even though I thought it was fairly enjoyable, it didn’t really blow me away. I mean, sure, it was a decent romantic triangle and Jeanne Moreau, one of the greatest French actresses that ever lived, was quite fascinating to behold but, at the end of the day, I never really cared for either Jules or Jim. Anyway, even if it didn’t turn out to be one of my favorites movies, it was still a really good romantic feature and it is pretty much a classic.

Notes: Since it is such a massive classic, I was really eager to check it out and I had some really high expectations towards the damned thing. Eventually, the more I think about it, the more I come to believe that this movie might be actually rather overrated, even by myself. I mean, it is indeed a huge classic and I really liked it but there were definitely some elements that did bother me. The first thing was probably the fact that Roger Ebert surprisingly didn't like it and, in his review, he developed some really solid arguments about what went wrong with this movie. Furthermore, I thought it did take a very long time to take off. Also, you always hear that Atticus Finch is a great character, brilliantly played by Gregory Peck. It is true but actually the movie didn't focus on him but on his children and I wasn't thrilled by this choice. Anyway, to conclude, I should definitely rewatch it at some point to make up my mind about the damned thing but, for the time being, it remains a very good movie.

Notes: Since I really liked a lot ‘Twelve monkeys’, it is easily my favourite movie directed by Terry Gilliam, so I was really curious about this short feature because Gillian was inspired by this short. Eventually, the whole thing just really blew me away. Seriously, by now, I have seen more than 6000 movies and it is very rare that a movie brings up something really new or ground-breaking. Well, this flick was definitely an exception and it is certainly one of the most original movies I have ever seen. Indeed, basically, it was made only with some still shot photography and even though it might sound tedious, I thought it made the whole thing in fact quite mesmerizing to behold. If you truly love movies and if you think of movies as a work of Art, you should check this one out. Eventually, I was really impressed by this flick, I thought it was just very inspiring and it is definitely worth a look

Notes: Since this movie is quite a classic, I was really eager to check it out and I had some rather high expectations. To be honest, I thought it would be better than this but still, it remains a damned good picture nonetheless. There was an impressive cast (John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, Richard Burton, Sean Connery, Rod Steiger, Bourvil, Robert Wagner, Paul Anka) and even though there were some critics that many of those actors were actually too old to portray their characters (For example, at 54 years old, John Wayne was actually twice older than Col. Benjamin Vandervoort actually was) , they were all pretty good and the story was interesting enough. I don’t know, 40 years later, Steven Spielberg made ‘Saving Private Ryan’ and even though I think this movie was vastly overrated, I have to admit that its introduction, its depiction of the D day, was just unforgettable and it was probably one of the most impressive scenes I ever saw and, compared to this, ‘The Longest Day’ is a solid feature but not as mind-blowing as this sequence. Anyway, I still think it is a fine WWII feature.

Notes: From all the massive classics directed by David Lean, it is easily and by far my favorite one. I mean, of course, I enjoyed ‘The Bridge on the River Kwai’, ‘Great Expectations’, ‘Brief Encounter’ and even ‘Doctor Zhivago’ but this movie is definitely from a different level. First of all, visually speaking, it is Lean’s most thrilling epic. For example, at the beginning of the movie, you have this amazing paranomic shot of the desert and it was just mesmerizing. It is a very long static shot of the desert and, at some point, you finally see a camel rider coming from afar and coming slowly towards you. In this very shot, you have the real essence of this movie. Indeed, it is slow but also very meditative and so beautiful to look at. Of course, Peter O’Toole was just brilliant in this star-making performance and ever since I saw him in this movie, I became fascinated by this actor and I try to check his other movies whenever I get the opportunity. Somehow, I also connected with this character torn apart between two cultures which maybe has to do with the fact that I’m half-French and half-Dutch.

Notes: Among all the masterpieces Stanley Kubrick has made throughout his prestigious career, this flick doesn't seem to get much love but I do believe that it is actually rather underrated. As usual with Kubrick’s work, even if the movie is nowadays almost 60 years old, it still feels really modern. I mean, can you imagine how it must have felt when the folks watched it 50 years ago ?!? Even though there is no sex scene, there is such a huge sexual tension and Kubrick dared to tackle here one of the biggest taboos in our society. Even though it is common practice to cast much older actors to play some teenagers, with the notorious example of 'Grease' with some actors well in their 30's portraying some 18 years old kids, Kubrick cast a young girl (Sue Lyon) who was just 15 years old during the shooting and it made the whole thing even more unsettling. Anyway, there was here some flawless directing, the acting was great and the story was just spellbinding to watch.

Notes: Well, it is such a solid and entertaining WWII feature. First of all, the cast was pretty neat (Steve McQueen, James Garner, Richard Attenborough, Charles Bronson, Donald Pleasence, James Coburn) and they all delivered some solid performances, especially Steve McQueen who was at the top of his game at the time. And, of course, it is a fun movie, that’s for sure but, after rewatching it, I was actually surprised that most of it was actually pretty realistic. Sure, some of the details were not really convincing. For example, even though it was supposed to be a high-security prison, there was barely any checks from the guards but, still, most of it made sense. Furthermore, I was also positively surprised by the ending. Indeed, even though the whole thing was rather light, the ending was actually pretty dark (they were actually planning to have 250 inmates to escape, 75 got out, 50 got shot and only a handful actually managed to really escape after all). Anyway, even if it is not one of my favorite WWII movies, it is a genuine classic.

Notes: Since I kept hearing some good things about this franchise, I was really eager to check it out. Above all, after watching the dismal version starring Steve Martin, I was really wondering if it was any good. Eventually, I wasn't disappointed. Indeed, Peter Sellers is really amazing in this flick and he gave her one of the best comic performances I have ever seen. What's amazing in this performance is that, even though Clouseau was really clumsy and clueless, Sellers never pushed the boundary too far and, as a result, the character always remained believable and compelling to watch. The best thing is that Clouseau was actually just a small part but he completely upstaged the other characters which was something I have rarely seen before. Unfortunately, even though Clouseau was pretty awesome, the rest of characters were barely interesting and/or entertaining and the same goes concerning the story itself. Basically, while watching this flick, you just keep waiting Sellers to pop back during some rather boring stretches but it was definitely worth the wait.

Notes: Eventually, I thought it was pretty good but I can’t say I found it really amazing. The point is that the story was just way too convoluted and fluffy for my taste and I’m rather amazed that many viewers compare this movie to Hitchcock’s work. Hitchcock’s movies were sometimes complicated but they always made sense and they were terribly smart whereas this movie was honestly full of non-sense and huge plot holes. As far as I’m concerned, if the characters or the makers don’t take the story seriously, why should I? Still, I thought it was quite enjoyable. Indeed, even though her character was rather clueless, Audrey Hepburn was just really charming, as usual. Above all, I thought that Cary Grant was just awesome. I mean, he is basically one of those actors who always plays the same part in every single movie but he is always great anyway. This movie was not an exception. It was one of his last movies and he stood above all the rest of the cast and delivered the best lines. Personally, I didn’t care much about the multiple identity thing and I thought it would have been more interesting if he remained a random guy who get accidentally involved in some shady spy conspiracy but, it didn’t matter, I thought he was great anyway.

Notes: I have to admit that I always had some rather mixed feelings about Jean-Luc Godard. Indeed, I really loved ‘À bout de souffle’ and, after all these years, it is still one of my all-time favorites movies. Unfortunately, everything he has done afterwards has been increasingly difficult to watch and his work became at some point pretty much unwatchable. This movie is a fine example. Indeed, it was made only a few years after ‘À bout de souffle’, it was Godard’s first and only attempt at making a big budget production, even working with Brigitte Bardot, one of the biggest stars in the world at the time, and there was definitely something quite spellbinding about this movie. And, yet, I thought the whole thing was rather bleak, cynical and you could argue that ‘Contempt’ was not only the title of this movie but also what Godard felt about his American backers, about Brigitte Bardot, about the whole world in general for requiring him to make such a production beneath his standards. That’s the whole point with this movie and Godard’s work in general: it’s so obscure that you can pretty much read anything and nothing in the subtext. Anyway, I’m not huge fan of this flick (Godard himself apparently hated it or at least hated making it) but it still definitely worth a look.

Notes: One of the biggest problems I had with watching classics is that I would hear about them for so many years and, at some point, I would finally have the opportunity to see them. But, in some cases, my expectations were just so high and after fantasizing about the damned thing for so long, the end result would sometimes turn out to be slightly underwhelming. Well, that's exactly what happened with this flick. I mean, obviously, I did like it but, at the end of the day, I can’t I was really blown away as I expected to be. Basically, I believe that Federico Fellini was and still is one of the great movie masters but his movies are sometimes rather difficult to digest and I really struggled to connect with this movie because I was trying all the time to understand what the guy was actually trying to do on the screen. Anyway, I should definitely re-watch it at some point and even if I didn’t really love it, it is still pretty much a must-see.

Notes: First of all, I always had a weak spot for movies about mental institutions and this movie is probably the oldest one I have seen dealing with this subject. Well, I was surprised by how good it turned out to be. Indeed, what I enjoyed the most was the explanation they gave about how these patients ended up in this place. Indeed, the fascinating theory developed in this movie is that nobody is really born crazy. In most cases, for most people, after having a terribly stressing or even traumatizing experience, their brain apparently could handle these tremendous pressure and it just snapped. It displayed that we are basically all on the edge of insanity and this idea was also further developed by what eventually happened to the main character. To be honest, I’m not sure if I really cared about the murder investigation though. I mean, I do understand that they needed an excuse to have the main character going there but I think it would have worked better if they went instead for an investigation on how mental instutions were working at the time. Anyway, I still really liked the damned thing.

Notes: Since I’m a huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock, of course, I was really eager to check this flick and I had some really high expectations. Eventually, it didn’t turn out to be one of my favorite movies from this great master. Indeed, to be honest, I do think that the concept was a little bit limited preventing this movie from being truly great but it was still pretty awesome and it completely deserves its stellar reputation. Nowadays, one thing that really bores me is that, in thriller or horror movies, they spend so much time trying to rationalize the most preposterous things (the best example I can think of is ‘The Ring’ remake starring Naomi Watts). The greatness of Hitchcock, in this movie, was to skip all this boring stuff and to only focus on what was really important which is basically ‘how do people would react with such circumstances?’. As a result, you get such a spellbinding ominous mood and this awesome effect would have been completely ruined if they would have given any kind of explanation about what the hell was actually going on.

Notes: More than 20 years ago, I started to get really interested in movies and I started to discover the great classics. In this journey, one of my first discoveries would be Akira Kurosawa. In the 90’s, I have seen many of his movies and he has been ever since one of my favorite directors. Even though Kurosawa has been mostly famous for his samuraï movies (‘Rashomon’, ‘Ran’, ‘Kagemusha’, ‘Yojimbo’, ‘Shichinin no samurai’,…) , he also did direct a few contemporary features and this one was the best of the bunch in my opinion. Indeed, basically, it is a raw and realistic thriller and it was so spellbinding that, in its own sub- genre (abduction thriller), it is easily the best movie I have ever seen. It was actually a rather simple and straightforward tale with no shootings, no chases, no explosions, but it was still really spellbinding to behold. In my opinion, the masterstroke was to focus on the characters and what they were going through instead of the usual far-fetched gimmicks involved in this genre. Anyway, it was just a captivating story brought by an amazing cast and it shows that Kurosowa was a director with a very wide range.

Notes: Basically, it is once again one of those really obscure French movies which almost no one has seen here on Listal. Indeed, it is one of those unknow/underrated gem and I'm pretty sure everybody has forgot about it but it's a real shame since I really loved this movie. Until today, I never really realized that it had been directed by Jacques Demy. I have seen Demy’s more famous features (‘Les parapluies de Cherbourg’ and ‘Les demoiselles de Rochefort’) but I never really cared about those. He did direct this flick before those two and I thought it was much darker and simply much better. Indeed, it is one of those fascinating stories about gambling (a favorite theme of mine, especially when it is well handled like here) and, actually, I do believe it is one of the best movies about the subject. Indeed, most of the glamour is removed and what remains is the sadness, the loneliness and general sorrow involving the gambling habit.

Notes: Honestly, I have never heard of this movie before but since I'm a huge fan of Peter O'Toole, I still wanted to check it out. On the other hand, I can't say I knew much Richard Burton and I was more acquainted with his tumultuous relationship with Elizabeth Taylor than his work. Anyway, these two guys were just amazing in this movie. Indeed, they provided such great performances, it was just quite impressive. This movie was actually an adaptation of a play written by a French dude called Jean Anouilh who wrote many plays such as 'Antigone'. Apparently, Anouilh didn't care much about historical accuracy but he sure was able to write some fascinating characters. Indeed, the king and his best 'friend' were some of the most spellbinding fictional creatures I have ever encountered. I mean, they were smart, ambitious, arrogant, fun, reprehensible, friends, enemies and many other things. This story was also filled with some homo-erotic tones, just to add even more ambiguity to the whole thing. It is quite remarkable that, even though the movie lasts about 150 minutes and you basically just have those two men talking to each other, it was still really spellbinding to watch.

Notes: First of all, I have to admit I’m not one of those kids that grew up with this movie, watching it over and over again. Anyway, my wife thought it was a huge gap in my cultural education and, for once, I had to agree with her and I finally managed to watch it at some point. Unfortunately, since I saw it as a grown-up, I can’t say it was really amazing. It has probably to do with the fact that I’m not a huge fan of musicals. Still, it was a good flick, that’s for sure. Indeed, Julie Andrews gave one of the most memorable acting debut and became at the time an instant star. Furthermore, there were so many iconic scenes. Indeed, the beginning scenes were just really fun and even the songs were pretty good. Unfortunately, I'm afraid this feeling only did last for 30 minutes maybe. Above all, what mostly dragged the whole thing down was the fact that this movie is just way too long and the fact that everything happening is completelly random didn't help either. To be honest, I would have a hard time to believe that kids nowadays would manage to see this movie with a running time of almost 150 minutes without getting completely bored out of their minds. Still, it is definitely a classic though.

Notes: First of all, , I thought it was pretty awesome to see Catherine Deneuve at such a young age. Indeed, she is such a terrific actress, she was already awesome back then and the more movies I watch starring this actress, the more she fascinates me. What about the movie itself ? To be honest, even though I thought it was indeed pretty good with some nice songs, at the end of the day, it was obvious that it was not my thing. For example, all the dialogue in the film is sung and while the fan of the genre praised this choice, I always thought it was a rather tedious gimmick. Still even though I have never been a big fan of musicals, I liked this one. Indeed, I can't deny the fact that it was very well made and it definitely had some quirky qualities. Since this movie was a big critical success, a few years later, Jacques Demy would make another musical called ‘Les demoiselles de Rochefort’, also starring the lovely Catherine Deneuve but also her sister, Francoise Dorleac.

Notes: First of all, it is obvious that you can't really analyse this movie as a straightforward story as the concept was rather preposterous. I mean, let's assume that this village would really need to dig the sand to survive, it would be much easier and efficient to send some of the local villagers every 3 months willingly going down there for a specific period of time instead of kidnapping some poor random guy. Eventually, it was a very subtle parable but did I really get what the director wanted to tell us? I'm not so sure as I might not be smart enough. As far as I was concerned, I saw it as a psychological thriller with some erotic undertones. Furthermore, I think it was about the fact that, in order to survive, we all need a purpose, even if almost everything we do might seem pointless and we might as well dig endlessly in the sand.

Notes: Even though 'Casino Royale' and 'Skyfall' were critically and financially hugely successful, even though Daniel Craig turned out to be a terrific James Bond, this flick still remains easily my favorite James Bond installment. Indeed, in my opinion, it is the only movie which perfectly mixed all the basic elements which you can find in this old institution. However, since it was only the 3rd movie with this legendary character, the makers were still really creative and not constantly repeating themselves (which is always the case nowadays). I mean, that's the charm and the curse of thoses movies, this familiarity, the fact that even before the movie has started, you really know 90% of what is going to happen, how it is going to happen and who is going to take care of it. In my opinion, it wasn't the case back then in 1964. Back then, they were still perfecting the formula and it will never be that good again. I mean, Sean Connery, the ultimate James Bond, was at the top of his game, the James Bond girls were mythic (it doesn't get much better than the gold painted girl and Pussy Galore), Auric Goldfinger was one of the best villains and there was a terrific title song by Shirley Basset. Above all, for once, I really enjoyed the plot, probably the best James Bond story. So, you may wonder why my rating is not higher since I really enjoyed this flick. The point is that, even with the best James Bond movie ever, I still think that the formula is rather limited and, to be honest, I have never been really a fan of those flicks. Still, it is a really fun and entertaining spy feature featuring the most famous spy ever.

Notes: Even though I’m not a huge fan of musicals, since it is a huge classic, I was still interested in this flick. The directing by veteran George Cukor (‘A Star Is Born’, ‘Born Yesterday’, ‘Adam's Rib’, ‘The Philadelphia Story’) was solid and Audrey Hepburn was also really charming and gave a decent performance even though she wasn’t even nominated at the Academy awards at the time. Hepburn was back then at the top of her popularity and she reprised the role which was originally played by Julie Andrews on Broadway. Eventually, it was a tremendous success and eventually won 8 Academy awards and since then, it has became one of the most beloved musicals ever made. Eventually, personally, I thought it was pretty good but nothing really mind-blowing though. I mean, it is a very well made musical, with some pretty good songs but like most of the musicals, I thought the story was actually pretty weak. I know it is inherent to the genre but I don’t believe it is necessary that musicals should have such fluffy storylines. Still, it remains an enjoyable flick, absolutely.

Notes: First of all, I have to admit it, even though I have some huge respect for their legacy, I have actually never been a big fan of the Beattles and I never really cared for their music. Still, even so, I thought it was actually a rather enjoyable feature. To be honest, I wasn't really able to follow the whole thing as it was in English without subtitles and the accents were sometimes rather thick but, obviously, this movie was not really about the plot or the dialogues either. At the time, it was a surprising box-office hit and many bands tried later on to release some similar movies like this one but most of them were some massive flops (the worse one being probably ‘Spice World’). Anyway, even if this movie didn’t seem to be something for me, I thought it was actually pretty cool and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are a fan of the most famous band that ever existed.

Notes: When I was a kid, I have watched this movie so many times with my father (I was probably way too young at the time but I thought it was still really awesome). Years later, I would watch it again with Nick, my step-son, but, somehow, he didn’t connect with the whole thing. I think it may have had to do with the pacing as it was way too slow for him. In fact, when you think about it, maybe half of the movie is made of static close-ups of the actors and there were not so many action scenes after all. Basically, it is all about the mood and, personally, right from the opening credits with the awesome score by Ennio Morricone, I was getting some major goose-bumps. The way I feel about this movie probably has to do with a little bit of nostalgia but, still, even 50 years later, the whole thing is really entertaining. Personally, I always had a hard time with Westerns, even the major classics starring John Wayne, but those directed by Sergio Leone are still pretty awesome, even after multiple re-watches. Of course, Clint Eastwood, in a star making performance, was completely bad-ass and combined with the inspired directing by Sergio Leone, they pretty much reinvented the whole genre.

Notes: To be honest, this movie was the only one directed by Stanley Kubrick with which I didn't have much a connection. I mean, I did like it but it didn't blow me away like the rest of his movies. Fortunately, I had the opportunity to watch it again recently and, this time, I understood why it was regarded as one of his best movies. It was the only comedy made by the great master and, as expected from the best director ever, it ended up being one of the best comedies ever made. Indeed, there were so many hysterical and hilarious scenes, I couldn't pick just one. Furthermore, everybody remembers Peter Sellers who was indeed excellent but the rest of the cast was also pretty awesome (George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, Slim Pickens). Above all, I enjoyed the fact that it was very timely, especially when it was made and it was also very smart compared to all the stupid comedies they make nowadays. For example, everything happening in the plane was really accurate and made the whole thing even more surreal. Personally, I won't give it a higher rating because I don't think it was such a masterpiece as it was quite funny but not really hilarious but it is still one of the best comedies I have seen.

Notes: To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this flick and I should probably re-watch the damned thing at some point. Even though François Truffaut died to soon at the beginning of the 80’s, on the other hand, Jean-Luc Godard, the other master of the Frenh New Wave, has been quite productive even nowadays but I always thought that his work has become increasingly frustrating and alienating. It’s too bad because the movies he made at the beginning of his career were just amazing and his directing debut, ‘À bout de souffle’, is still one of my all-time favorite movies. This movie is another perfect example. Indeed, basically, pretty much like in ‘À bout de souffle’, Godard didn’t really have a plot here and, instead, you just followed the 3 characters through some random scenes in Paris. Following the philosophy of the New Wave, Godard went for a very loose narration but it worked really well here and I thought the whole thing was quite spellbinding to watch. Eventually, the only small thing about this movie is that the trio Sami Frey, Claude Brasseur and Anna Karina was not as charismatic as the duo Jean-Paul Belmond and Jean Seberg but it wasn’t a big deal.

Notes: To be honest, even though it might be surprising, even though I really enjoyed this movie, I thought it was in fact slightly underwhelming. First of all, I thought I saw it years ago as a kid but while watching the damned thing, I couldn’t remember a thing so I was maybe mistaken. Then, even though everyone seems to think that it was an improvement on the first installment, I wasn’t really convinced. At best, it was as good but I think I still prefer ‘A Fistful of Dollars’ because, this time, they didn’t really add anything really new to the formula with this 2nd installment. Sure, this time, you had Lee Van Cleef and even Good Old Klaus Kinski was added to the mix but the whole thing felt like a déjà vu, at least, in my case. I mean, Gian Maria Volonte was again pretty good but he played basically the same character. Maybe my expectations were too high, I don’t know. Still, it remains a really entertaining and seminal Western and the amazing soundtrack by Ennio Morricone always gives me some major goosebumps.