1001 Movies ... my own version (1930's)

Notes: I have to admit that it’s only afterwards that it discovered that it was actually one of D.W. Griffith’s last movies but, even though it was a decent watch, I’m afraid it was a rather minor effort for this master after all. I mean, the topic was super interesting and it was a pretty neat idea to make a biopic about Abraham Lincoln’s whole life, going from his birth to his untimely death by the hand of John Wilkes Booth. However, for some reason, they took less than 90 mins which seemed way too short to cover such a complex and eventful life. It is even more bewildering when you think that Griffith did deliver before some silent epics which lasted more than 3 hrs. Anyway, the whole thing felt really episodic, dashing through some bullet points covering more or less the highlights of Lincoln’s life. As a result, it was also narratively rather clunky. For example, at some point, you see him mourning Ann Rutledge who was apparently the love of his life but then, during the very next scene, he was at some ball trying to woo Mary Todd. At least, even though he played an extremely romanticized version of the famous American president, Walter Huston was actually pretty good here. There were also a couple of battle scenes which were actually quite impressive, especially if you think about the fact that this movie was made more than 90 years ago.

Notes: To be honest, the beginning was rather messy. Indeed, I don’t really understand why they started to show these police officers in their precinct. Then, they suddenly switched to a rather unclear robbery. Fortunately, after that, the movie finally did settle with a basic structure which was, at least, easier to follow. Indeed, you then had two parts. During the first part, you basically followed the main character running around in the streets trying to escape from the police and I think there was some surrealist quality about this 1st half. Indeed, they gave at the time no intertitles and it was visually pretty neat as well which I didn’t expect from such a vintage Ozu feature. The second part was also quite interesting because it completely flipped your expectations concerning this man but also concerning the guy chasing him. In this case, this humanistic approach was much more some classic Ozu but he was definitely the master in this genre, giving time and time such seemingly simple and yet complex human characters and this movie was no exception. Eventually, the material was a little bit slight though and it is no wonder that the running time was around 60 mins.

Notes: To be honest, it took me a while to get into the damned thing. The fact that the copy I saw was pretty bad probably didn’t help but I also believe that the first half was rather slow. Indeed, it seemed that it was dealing with a frustrated teacher who entertained the same sexual fantasies that his pupils had and I thought the guy was actually rather pathetic and not really interesting. However, it all changed when the guy decided to actually marry Lola Lola. Indeed, it was such a surprising turn of events and it didn’t seem to be make any sense to everyone, his colleagues, Lola, her colleagues,… And that’s when the movie did start to become fascinating. Indeed, how could this decision actually make sense to Professor Immanuel Rath himself? Behind his stiff demeanor, was he actually some closeted romantic? Eventually, you never really found out why he made this choice but watching his downward spiral was so spellbinding to behold. It was definitely a strange character and the main reason why he actually worked was because Emil Jannings gave here such a strong performance. Concerning Marlene Dietrich, she got her breakthrough with this movie and she was, of course, pretty good but, in my opinion, her character was much more straightforward than Immanuel Rath and therefore less interesting.

Notes: Since I kept hearing some pretty good things about W.C. Fields, I was quite eager to check one of his movies. Well, apparently, Fields didn’t have such a prolific career and this movie turned out to be one of his more obscure shorts. Still, I have to admit that I really enjoyed the damned thing. To be honest, the beginning scenes were rather clunky and, for some reason, they didn’t start with the main character played by W.C. Fields but instead focused on some other customer staying at his hotel. Then, they finally got to the fakest golf course you could imagine and, well, in spite of its title, not a single golf ball was actually hit by this so-called ‘specialist’. And, yet, I was really entertained. Indeed, in contrary to the other comedians of this time period (Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Laurel & Hardy), Fields played his character as if the guy was, well, mentally deranged which was often quite hilarious. The fact that this partner was a promiscuous woman with some questionable habits made them an irresistible couple. Concerning the silent caddy, he was not bad but, considering how daft the other two characters already were, I think someone straight would have worked better as a counterbalance. Anyway, Fields was quite hilarious and apparently really deserved his stellar reputation.

Notes: I was actually quite blown away by the damned thing which turned out to be even better than I expected. I have to admit that I always wondered why Jean Vigo had such a strong reputation since the guy managed to direct only one full-length feature film and a few shorts but, after watching 3 of them (pretty much his whole filmography), I really understand why now. In this case, it is amazing how much emotion he managed to generate in me with what was supposed to be a rather rather harmless travelogue about a touristic city on the French Rivera, with no story, no main characters and no dialogues. I know that many viewers focused on how it was satirical towards the wealthy people living in this city but, while it was definitely one of his goals, I think this description is actually too reductive. Indeed, there was also something soothing about this seemingly random mix of images and the fact that the score perfectly fit the visuals was also a great asset. I think it was also the oldest movie I have ever seen with some aerial shots of a city so the damned thing was also visually really neat. Anyway, for some reason, this short was just spellbinding to watch.

Notes: Basically, it is one of Alfred Hitchcock's very old features but I thought it was actually very enjoyable. Indeed, back in those days, Hitchcock was really productive, often making 3 movies a year and during these period, he tried about everything from comedies to drama. With this movie, we finally get to see the great master handling the genre that would make him an household name, the mystery thriller, and it was just a really fun movie to behold. Indeed, the directing was really neat with some nice visual tricks and there were also a lot of funny bits contrasting with the mystery elements. Of course, it doesn’t the reach the greatness of his amazing classics. Indeed, the plot didn’t really hold very well in the 2nd half and this guy, John Mercier, was an intriguing character but he was a little too self-righteous for my taste. Still, among the older movies made by the master, it is one of his best and it is definitely worth a look.

Notes: To be honest, I really had a hard time to connect with the damned thing after all. The fact that I saw a very poor copy on YouTube probably didn’t help but the issue went beyond that I’m afraid. I have to admit that I’m not really familiar with the old Soviet propaganda movies (it was only the 2nd movie I have seen in this genre). Anyway, I was rather amazed by how this movie was filmed and edited. Indeed, it is usually considered as a masterpiece but probably 90% of the shots were some close-ups which is such a weird way and, to be honest, rather uncomfortable way to shoot a movie. I thought it was even more bewildering since it was a silent movie. Indeed, most silent movies do actually the opposite, they focus more on wide shots showing the characters being more active to compensate the lack of dialogues. However, in this movie, you get instead a succession of faces constantly moving their lips but in complete silence. Considering the story itself, well, there was actually no real story and no characters involved, it was either a beautiful allegorical poem about the glory of the rise of the poor farmers against the landlords or some blatant Soviet propaganda, depending on where you stand regarding this matter. Anyway, it had been a while since I have struggled so much with an old classic so maybe I should give it another try at some point in the future.

Notes: To be honest, it has been ages since I have seen this flick and I should probably re-watch it at some point. After his first surreal experiment with Salvador Dali with ‘Un chien andalou’, Luis Buñuel was this time working on his own but he still managed to deliver another surrealist cult-classic and, from this point, Buñuel would be the master of the genre through his whole career. At least, this movie had some kind of a plot but it was hardly what Buñuel cared about. Indeed, the whole thing was pretty much a succession of really weird and sometimes pretty messed up scenes and it is hard to imagine a major director trying to bring up something like this nowadays. David Lynch might be the most obvious exception but the fact that he has stopped making movies for already more than a decade shows how hard it is, even impossible, to make something truly surreal in the current movie business. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, even though it might be an acquired taste, I thought it was quite fascinating to behold.

Notes: To be honest, even though some older movies are still considered as classics, in fact, they feel rather dated and I’m not always a fan of them (especially comedies like ‘Some Like It Hot’ or ’Breakfast at Tiffany's’). However, some other movies are still as powerful as when they were released decades ago and this movie was definitely one of those. Basically, it is one of the first great war movies and the whole thing was quite impressive to behold. Indeed, it was just terribly realistic and greatly done and even though this flick was very old, I thought the whole thing was still completely spellbinding. It gives such a bleak view on the concept of war and, as a result, this movie belongs to the great anti-war features. I also liked the fact that it didn’t focus on a single character, there is no hero here and that’s the best way to deal with this subject because, in a war, it is never about the individuals but always about the group.

Notes: To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this movie, like all the major masterpieces directed by Charles Chaplin, I should definitely re-watch it at some point. Anyway, I have noticed that, according to IMDb, this movie is supposed to be the best one delivered by this great master but I personally prefer 'Modern Times' and 'The Great Dictator' because I believe they are socially and historically more relevant than this movie which I considered as merely a romantic comedy. Back then, Chaplin was apparently facing some extreme pressure to make the film as a talkie, but his popularity and power in Hollywood were such that he was able to release the film as a silent feature (with recorded music though) at a time when the rest of the American motion picture industry had converted to sound. Just a moment ago, I mentioned that it was merely a romantic comedy but I should add that it is also probably one of the very best one in this genre though. Indeed, it is funny, beautiful and really poetic.

Notes: I have to admit that I was actually quite impressed by how much I enjoyed the damned thing and, within 10 mins, I understood why these guys had been so popular back then. To be honest, the intro with this talent agent was not bad but not really much more than that but pretty much everything else afterwards was just so hilarious. After watching so many vintage comedies recently, I thought I was getting slightly fed up with the genre but, seriously, I can’t remember the last time I laughed so much. Eventually, I would be hard-pressed to pick-up a favorite scene or joke because everything worked so well especially from the moment they got on this boat. What I enjoyed the most was the free-wheeling energy displayed by the brothers and it’s interesting because almost all the slapstick comedies at the time were really random which can become tiresome at some point but it didn’t bother me at all here. It was also neat that each brother had his own character/personality but, above all, I really loved Groucho Marx who was able to perfectly deliver such weird but also intricate dialogues. Another neat thing is that it was the first movie I saw starring the Marx Brothers but it is not even considered as one of their best so their top movies must be quite amazing and I hope I will have the opportunity to watch them at some point.

Notes: Recently, I have been watching some older movies from the 30’s and 40’s and, back then, the screwball comedies were really popular but, to be honest, I always struggle with this genre. Indeed, most of these movies are just too silly for my taste. Well, this movie was something else and, only therefore, I gave it some extra points. Sure, it was maybe not really ground-breaking and it was pretty obvious that it was adapted from a play but I did like this idea of focusing on the stoop of some average building in Manhattan for about 24 hrs. Indeed, they gave us this way such a convincing and compelling portrayal of the diverse people living in New York with all their different backgrounds, cultures, religions and even prejudices. It also displayed one of the most basic murders I have ever seen but it was actually quite refreshing. Indeed, Hollywood movies, especially thrillers, can be so far-fetched but, in fact, in many cases, women are killed by their jealous husband as it was depicted in this movie. Eventually, in my opinion, the only thing that prevented this movie to become even better was that the acting was most of the time borderline average. It’s too bad because most of the characters felt genuine and were interesting enough and the writing was actually quite solid.

Notes: I was actually surprised by how much I enjoyed the damned thing after all. William Powell has always been praised for his stellar performance while the rest of the movie has been discarded but I don’t agree with this assessment. Sure, Powell was awesome but, in my opinion, the movie itself was possibly one of the best movies about a con-man I have seen. First of all, the cons displayed were actually believable and not some completely far-fetched fantasies. And, indeed, William Powell was so just so fascinating to behold. Sure, his character was suave and cool, it goes with the trade, but he also added such melancholy to his performance which was quite spellbinding to behold. Basically, even if he would manage to get all the money in the world, this way-of-life would still be lonely and even rather pathetic for a man like him who had the brains to become someone really brilliant. To be honest, I wish they developed a little bit more Carole Lombard’s character which could have explained why Michael Trevor could fall so much for her like this. On the other hand, you could sense that, even before he met her, the guy was getting already fed up with his way of making a living and she was basically the last drop for him. I also loved how they concluded the whole thing. Indeed, in fact, it wasn't Irene’s threat which made him drop the woman he loved, it was the fact that he understood that he thought he would never be worthy of such a beautiful romance.

Notes: I had heard of René Clair before but it was the first movie I saw directed by this guy. Well, I have to admit that I was so impressed by the damned thing. I have noticed that this movie has been heralded as a great satirical comedy but, in my opinion, it is also a fascinating political manifesto displaying so many Anarchist concepts and ideas. Indeed, it was against so many things such as Capitalism, working, productivity, money, wealth,… pretty much following the Anarchist dogma which was so neat. What was even more brilliant was that the fact it was tackled in such a light manner with some cute little longs along the way. These songs didn’t bother me at all, in the contrary, which was even more remarkable since I’m far from being a huge fan of musicals. Finally, even though it might all seem frivolous and superficial, I thought it was narratively actually quite strong. For example, at some point, Emile became head over heels in love with some random girl he met. Well, in most movies, at the end, he would get the girl but, here, she actually rebuffed him. It was really unexpected but it completely made sense because , well, she didn’t know him at all and it was so striking because it went against the most basic narrative conventions. Finally, at the end, the two main characters had basically nothing, no money, no job, no women, no possessions whatsoever,… They only had each other and, yet, they had both never been happier which was just so awesome and inspiring.

Notes: Mario Peixoto definitely delivered a strange movie here, that’s for sure, and I have to admit that I had pretty much no clue what the damned thing was actually about. Apparently, one woman had escaped from prison, another woman had left a bad marriage and there was a man in love with someone else's wife but, to be honest, it didn’t get all that at all. It’s also interesting that this movie would be Peixoto only directing effort but, even if the guy was only around 21 years old at the time, his movie would still manage to become one of the best Brazilian movies ever made, no less than that. Anyway, even if I didn't really get what it was all about or what the hell was actually going on, I have to admit that I really dug the beginning scenes though. Above all, I think I especially enjoyed the melancholic haunting score and, in combination with the surrealist visuals, it made the whole thing quite spellbinding to behold. Unfortunately, they didn’t stick to this score and, after 15 mins, they went instead for some generic violin tune which was not awful but this movie definitely didn’t have the same impact at all anymore. As a result, I had a hard time to keep my focus on the damned thing. Furthermore, even though I do appreciate a surrealist/experimental movie when it is rather short, 2 hours of this was just seriously challenging though.

Notes: I wonder if it was, after ‘Nosferatu’, only the 2nd movie directed by Murnau that I have seen so far and it is quite impressive how the two movies were so different from each other. With this in mind, I’m not surprised that Murnau was considered as one of the great masters of silent movies and I should definitely check his other movies. Eventually, what I enjoyed the most about this movie was its visual aspect. Indeed, the vintage footage was quite beautiful to look at and, while ‘Nosferatu’ was a dark fantastical tale and still one of the best horror movies ever made, this movie was so luminous with some gorgeous natural landscapes. It also felt quite realistic (at least, it seemed to be) and I wonder if they made up all this ‘tabu’ stuff or if it was some actual tradition in Bora Bora back in those days. Anyway, they basically gave a mix of some realistic beautiful exotic footage from this remote island with a basic but efficient doomed love tale and this mix worked surprisingly well. Still, eventually, even if the damned thing was very well made, the story was still too basic for my taste though. The biggest issue was the fact that none of the characters was developed whatsoever. Anyway, even if it didn’t completely blow me away, it was still a solid watch.

Notes: To be honest, I don’t think this movie grew old very well. I mean, 90 years after it was released, so many vastly superior gangster flicks have been released such as ‘The Godfather’ 1 and 2, ‘Goodfellas’, ‘Scarface’ and many others. And yet, even if this movie was maybe not the first in this genre, it was certainly a major trendsetter, the precursor of all the gritty gangster movies that came in the 30’s but also afterwards up until nowadays. On top of that, even if the movie itself didn’t really impress me, I have to admit that Edward G. Robinson was pure gold though. Indeed, the guy was just so convincing and even if you maybe didn’t like his character, he was still seriously charismatic. Sure, he was definitely not a nice guy but he was tough and rather smart and, eventually, it all made sense how Little Caesar managed to climb up the ladder in the mob world. As a result, this realistic approach made the whole thing quite compelling to behold. However, the rest of the movie didn’t have much to offer, I’m afraid. Indeed, none of the other characters was remarkable whatsoever. It’s also interesting that there was only one female character involved, a character barely developed, and you might wonder why the main character didn’t have a girlfriend or a lover which is usually a main attribute for any average gangster. Even if it didn’t complete blow me away, it was still a really solid vintage gangster flick though.

Notes: Honestly, it has been a while since I have seen this flick and I should definitely re-watch it at some point whenever I get the opportunity. The point is that this flick is just a massive masterpiece and it really blew me away the first time I saw it. Basically, in my opinion, it is the ultimate psychopath movie and during the last 90 years, they have tried to improve the formula but they never improved on the blue print developped in this feature. The funny thing is that I have always been a little bit dismissive towards the serial killer sub-genre. Indeed, most of them, even such massive classics like ‘The Silence of The Lambs’ and ‘Seven’, are so far-fetched, so over the top, I always have a hard time to really connect with them. This one is different though. Indeed, there are no chases, no shootings, no explosions like you see in your typical US thriller. What you have instead is just a frightening and fascinating psychological study of a sick mind and I thought it was much more interesting to behold.

Notes: I thought it was actually pretty cool to see the very first movie adaptation of a book dealing with commissaire Maigret, probably the most famous French police detective ever. The fact that it was directed by one of the best French directors was also quite promising and, indeed, this movie is considered as the very first French film noir, no less than that. Unfortunately, to be honest, I actually had a rather hard time to get into this movie after all. Sure, the fact that the copy I saw on YouTube was of very poor quality with sometimes some barely audible dialogues probably didn’t help but I still think it was a rather minor effort from Renoir. Concerning the characters, Maigret was actually played by Pierre Renoir, Jean Renoir’s own brother, and the guy was pretty good, even if his character not very developed. However, the most intriguing character turned out to be Else Andersen. It was pretty neat that Winna Winifried was actually Danish like her character was supposed to be and rather bewildering that she was apparently only 18 years old at the time but she certainly brought something weird and unhinged to her character. It’s too bad that the other characters didn’t get the same curtesy but, with less than 80 mins of running time, it was to be expected.

Notes: Since Jean Renoir is one of the best French directors ever, I was really curious to check out this flick. It also stars Michel Simon who was back then the best actor in France. Eventually, I thought it was pretty good but not Renoir's best work. Indeed, I thought the story was a little too simplistic, there is no plot and there are only a few characters developped. I know that many people would said that it is actually the strength of this movie that because it is simple that is why it is so great but I wasn't really blown away by the whole thing. The best thing about it is how relevant it is, almost 90 years after it was made. Indeed, the different attitudes of people coming from different social classes, the way norm and values dictate our behavior, it was really spot on here with this movie. They made a remake a few years ago starring Gérard Depardieu, another giant of the French cinéma, I haven't seen it yet but I heard it was not really that good. The acting was pretty efficient here above all by Michel Simon who was pretty hilarious.

Notes: Even though Carl Theodor Dreyer himself was Danish, this movie really felt like it belonged to the German expressionism. It was also pretty obvious that it was produced at the end of the silent movies era as there were very few sounds and dialogues and most of the story was told through some (rather massive) cards with caption and some whole pages of a book dealing with vampires. I don’t know, maybe the damned thing was too random for my taste but there is no doubt that the atmosphere was grim and quite mesmerizing at the same time. Indeed, it’s rather difficult to imagine a vampire movie nowadays without either a rather heavy script or some huge action scenes. This one was actually much more straightforward and, when you think about it, really simple and, yet, its stripped-down aspect was really intriguing. Concerning the actors, they were apparently almost all non-professionals but even though they all had a striking look, I had a rather hard time to connect with any of them. It probably had to do with the fact that most of what we learned about them was through some title cards and not through the dialogues or their performances. Anyway, even if I wasn’t completely sold, it was still a solid watch.

Notes: I remember it very well, I actually saw ‘Ed Wood’ in the movie theater when it was released (and it is still one of the best movies ever delivered by Tim Burton). Well, it’s funny that I took me 30 years to finally see an actual vintage horror feature starring Bela Lugosi. After ‘Dracula’ (which I unfortunately still haven’t seen yet), it must be one of his most famous movies but, to be honest, it wasn’t really good though. Indeed, it was narratively very clunky. For example, at least a 3rd of the story is literally told to us by the characters and not actually displayed on the screen (probably to reduce the costs). Furthermore, all the characters were so poorly developed and underwhelming. Fortunately, Bela Lugosi was pretty good though. Sure, his performance was rather over-the-top but it perfectly fit the material. A nice touch was that Lugosi did pronounce ‘Monsieur’ in a really perfect French accent (I’m French myself). Sure, it’s a small detail but it shows that, even though the guy was typecast in such cheesy horror features, I do believe that he was actually a solid actor. And, yet, I have to admit that the damned thing still worked though. I mean, it did help that it was short and, to be honest, if I would have watched it when I was younger, I probably would have seriously dislike it. Eventually, it all depends if you feel a connection with the mood which was fairly creepy and terribly cheesy at the same time.

Notes: I have to admit that I had no idea that these Betty Boop cartoons were so old and I was also quite surprised that I enjoyed this one so much. Indeed, for a movie made almost 100 years ago, the animation was actually quite impressive but I think I enjoyed the tone even more. Indeed, back then, there was no real censorship yet, these guys really went wild and it was so refreshing to see an animated feature miles away from what Disney was already making at the time. This short was also the first of three collaboration of Cab Calloway with this cartoon series and the intro featuring Calloway and his band was already a delight. As a result, the music was also top-notch through the whole duration and there was a really nice jazzy vibe combined with some really spooky stuff. The only complaint I might have was that the whole thing was finished so quickly, there was really no time to develop an actual plot and, as a result, Betty Boop got pretty much nothing to do, I'm afraid. Still, it was a minor flaw and the end-result was actually really neat.

Notes: To be honest, even though Maurice Chevalier was quite famous in the 30’s, it was actually the first time I saw a movie starring this guy. However, from the moment he started to speak, I remembered right away that he was the guy who actually sang the title song for ‘The AristoCats’. The funny thing is that I would usually never care for a character speaking English with such a heavy French accent, it is such a tiresome and annoying gimmick, the fact that I barely can stand it probably has to do with the fact that I’m French myself. However, with Chevalier, I have to admit that it actually worked so well. Indeed, this way of speaking of English was pretty much his trademark and the guy was just really charismatic. It is only afterwards that I discovered that Chevalier spent most of his career as a singer, which might explain why I didn’t see him before in another movie and, indeed, the songs here were not bad at all. Concerning the rest of the cast, they were quite entertaining as well and Chevalier definitely had some nice chemistry with Jeanette MacDonald (Myrna Loy was probably even more intriguing though). Concerning the story itself, sure, it was really feather-light and I have to admit that it is usually not my thing but I thought it was this time actually quite entertaining.

Notes: I have to admit that I haven’t seen many Asian silent movies and it was the first time I saw an Asian silent comedy. It was so intriguing because it was probably the first silent comedy I saw which wasn’t from the US. Anyway, the damned thing was just so funny, original and surprising. Indeed, I think it was also the 1st time I saw a silent comedy with some children as the main characters and these 2 kids were just hilarious. Seriously, it was just impressive how they could deliver such strong performances while they were not even 10 years old at the time and it was even more impressive when you think that they had to deliver such performances without using any dialogues. Eventually, I’m pretty sure those two young boys gave some of the best children performances I have ever seen. Concerning the rest of the movie, at first, it did feel rather random, at least, too much to really make an impression. However, slowly, I have to admit that the damned thing really grabbed me and, towards the end, beyond being seriously entertained, I became actually quite fascinated by the damned thing. Indeed, it is usually a known fact that, in Japan, respect is so important towards your parents or your boss, much more than in Western countries and I can imagine it was even more so back then in the 30’s. However, towards the end, you had this very young boy throwing a tantrum against his father which was just so surprising but also so intriguing because it seemed to go against so many stereotypes regarding Japanese culture.

Notes: I have to admit that even though I had heard of Jean Cocteau, it was actually the very first movie he has made that I have seen so far. In general, I wasn’t familiar with Cocteau’s work at all, the guy was mostly a poet but his Art was very diverse including poems, novels, plays, essays, drawings and, of course, films. This movie was basically his directorial debut and, well, it turned out to be a pretty wild surrealist picture, that’s for sure. Indeed, it was basically a succession of rather intriguing but also sometimes disturbing scenes and, to be honest, it was rather difficult to see what Cocteau was getting at exactly. Basically, it was some kind of visual poem which was interesting but I was also seriously random and I was rather relieved that it was rather short. In fact, it could have been even shorter in my opinion. Indeed, such surrealist wild movies are interesting but, even though I love Art, I don’t feel like watching the same painting for 50 mins. By the way, with the current CGI technology, can you imagine what such directors like Jean Cocteau or Luis Buñuel could have come up with? It’s too bad that, even though this modern movie technology is such a great tool box, it’s mostly used to create some monsters or huge explosions in your average blockbuster popcorn flicks.

Notes: I wasn’t sure what to expect from this movie but since it has a solid reputation, I was quite eager to check it out. Eventually, I have to admit that I was quite blown away by the damned thing. Seriously, I had never seen anything like this before and, while watching this movie, I was really wondering why they never made more movies about this subject. The problem, if they would make a similar movie nowadays, if it would be fake, it wouldn’t really work but, if it would be for real, then most people would be probably outraged by the damned thing. Basically, this movie was made more than 80 years ago, when the movie technics were maybe not as elaborate as they are today but, on the other hand, there were no real ‘rules’ or actual censorship so the movie makers could still make pretty much whatever they wanted and get away with anything without much trouble. Coming back to our main feature, after all these years, it is still a really weird movie but, somehow, I think its 'weirdness' was actually positive, in spite of its controversial subject.

Notes: It turned out be some kind of vintage Japanese film noir and, for some reason, it also reminded me of ‘Mean Streets’ with these rather pathetic smalltime thugs doing seemingly nothing the whole day. I have to admit that I was actually surprised that it turned out to be a silent movie. Indeed, I have been focusing on older movies recently but, back then in the US and in Europe, they had already started to deliver movies with sound for quite a while already. Anyway, to be honest, even if the mood was pretty neat, the damned thing did feel rather messy though. Indeed, the lack of sound was actually rather disorienting and the lack of actual plot didn’t help either but it is actually quite usual with this Japanese master though. On the other hand, there was actually something quite fascinating about how the actors managed to compensate the lack of dialogues with their body language. Indeed, in contrary to most silent movies, the acting was actually fairly subtle here. Furthermore, even if Ozu never really cared much about the plot, he always managed to deliver some intriguing and complex characters and this movie was not an exception. Sure, they might all seem stereotypical, much more than in his future classics, but there was something quite genuine about the emotions displayed.

Notes: It’s usually considered as the most obscure Best Picture Academy award winner ever but, in fact, it was actually a big box-office success when it was released. Indeed, it was apparently adapted from a very popular Noël Coward’s play which was so intricate, so technically complex, that it was pretty much impossible to show it around the world so the audience at the time were apparently thrilled with this adaptation. Well, I have to admit that the concept was intriguing. Indeed, you get to see 30 years of British history through the eyes of this family which was pretty cool. It was especially interesting how much wars these folks had to face and, by the time this movie was released, only 6 years later, they would have to face yet another war, probably the biggest world conflict ever. I think we tend to forget, in Western Europe, how lucky we are that we never had to face the hardships of war for already 80 years. So, there was definitely some potential but, to be honest, I still struggled to really care about the damned thing though. I think the main issue was the fact that all the characters involved were rather underwhelming. On top of that, at the ending, I thought it was rather bewildering that the Marryots seemed to be rather content on how their lives turned out to be when, in fact, both their children died before them in some really tragic circumstances. I mean, eventually, they did end up with no children, no grand-children either and most people who ever did start a family would be seriously crushed by this.

Notes: To be honest, I thought the damned thing was rather messy. In my opinion, it seemed rather foolish to try to cover 5 of his 6 marriages in just 90 minutes of running time. The fact that I saw this movie without subtitles probably didn’t help though. It’s weird because I actually saw every single episodes of ‘The Tudors’ so I was actually quite familiar with the material. It’s too bad because there has always been something quite fascinating about Henry VIII’s convoluted love life. Indeed, it did lead to England breaking from the Roman Catholic Church and the establishment of the Church of England and it’s complete separation from this Church which was something huge at the time. However, it didn’t care much for the approach they chose for this movie. Fortunately, Charles Laughton was so awesome though. I have to admit that I discovered Laughton only recently but the guy keeps impressing me each time I see him. Seriously, he has become one of my favorite actors, no less than that. In this case, he actually really looked like Henry VIII which was definitely not the case when Jonathan Rhys Meyers was playing the same character in ‘The Tudors’. But, above all, he once again completely disappeared in this character and he even won an Academy Award for this performance at the time. Even though none of the wives were really developed, Henry did go through a whole range of feelings, Laughton was definitely up to the task and the guy was quite spellbinding to behold.

Notes: It was the very first movie I saw starring Mae West and, well, it turned out to be quite unforgettable, that's for sure. Still, to be honest, it's too bad the movie itself was rather clunky after all. Indeed, even though it was lasting only 1 hour, there were so many characters and so many sub-plots involved but, with such a short running time, there was no way that any of it could be fleshed out properly. To make it work, they should have either remove at least half of the characters or double the running time. Anyway, at least, there is no doubt that Mae West was fascinating to behold though. The funny thing was that she was not extraordinary gorgeous but she had such a charisma and her dialogues full of wits and innuendos were just awesome and such a contrast with what you would get only a few years later in your average Hollywood production. Indeed, that's another interesting with this movie, the fact that it was made just before they came up with some official moral rules and censorship, something that's still impacting movies today. As a result, sure, there was still no nudity and no sex at all but the character played by Mae West basically couldn't have a normal conversation with a man without turning him upside down with her words. In general, beside Mae West herself, the dialogues were the other asset in this movie but, unfortunately, the rest barely worked though.

Notes: I have seen a few Soviet movies during the last months and they were usually all rather hard to digest. Indeed, with such Soviet propaganda features, the characters are not developed whatsoever, instead, they focus more on such concepts like, for example, the proletariat was/is a specific entity. However, this movie turned out to be even more difficult to decipher though. Seriously, even though I saw it just yesterday, I’m still not sure what it was all about. The best I can come up with was that they wanted to display the last years of the Russian empire and how WWI was basically the last drop launching the first revolts and basically the whole Russian revolution. As a result, you get a fairly negative view on WWI which was basically a useless war during which the Russian soldiers were fighting some poor German soldiers who had more in common with them than with the Tsar and aristocrats who sent them to this bloodbath. There were also interesting artistic choices. Indeed, even though there was some sound, it was never, let’s say, complete. For example, if someone would talk, that’s the only thing you would hear. Or when there would be some crowd scenes, you would hear only the clopping of the horses’ hooves. There were also some really unexpected funny moments when some characters would pull out their tongues or would wink at the camera.

Notes: First of all, it has been ages since I saw this flick and, to be honest, I have to admit that I don’t remember much about it. I mean, sure, it is a decent early Buñuel, no doubt about it, but if it would have directed by someone else, I’m pretty sure it would have been completely forgotten by now. Still, it’s interesting that Buñuel would start his career with a hyper-realistic documentary when he will be eventually known as one of the most surrealist directors that ever worked. Anyway, the stuff displayed in this documentary was actually pretty extreme and, somehow, you might hope it was some kind of dark mockumentary but it was apparently the real deal (in fact, this movie was even banned in Spain from 1933 until 1936). However, some people consider this film as a parody of the similar documentaries made back then. Apparently, the film was deliberately factually wrong and exaggerated, narratively inconsistent and staged. Anyway, even if I wouldn’t call it a movie that you have to see at all costs, it was still a decent watch.

Notes: Jean Vigo is one of these mythic movie directors who managed to deliver only one masterpiece (‘L’Atalante’) before dying very young. Vigo did also manage to direct a few shorts and this one is probably the most famous one. Well, to beginning with, I just loved this title. I mean, even though this movie was made 60 years before I myself went to junior high-school in France, I completely could identify myself with these kids who felt completely misunderstood by the school and by the establishment in general. In their case, it was actually much worse though since, at least, I didn’t have to sleep there. This movie also displayed the unrest and melancholy that you can experience at this age, when you start to realize that your games are becoming childish and that you discover that the grown-ups around you are not so great after all. So, the approach was definitely quite realistic and I’m pretty sure that this movie must have been a major inspiration for François Truffaut when he made ‘Les quatre cents coups’ 25 years later. However, in spite of Vigo’s realistic approach, there was also a few seriously surrealist moments, the kind of wild combination you would see only back then when they were still experimenting on how to make a movie and these few surrealist bits made the whole thing even more unique and even quite poetic.

Notes: To be honest, it was after all a rather silly story (the fact that I had seen before so many remakes and rip-offs of course didn’t help). Another thing that slightly bothered me was that the damned thing turned out to be such a scream party. Seriously, from the moment Kong finally showed up, it was pretty much a non-stop screaming contest, especially from Fay Wray who basically spent half of the movie screaming her lungs out. Still, there is no denying that this movie was such a huge milestone in movie making history and the general silliness was compensated by some massive ambition. In fact, it might be one of the most ambitious movies I have seen. Especially visually speaking, I was expecting to see an old and clumsy movie but, eventually, I was just impressed by how awesome the whole thing actually looked, even 90 years after its release. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, this movie was also a huge milestone as it was obviously a precursor for all the monsters movies that came afterwards but it was also a huge inspiration for all the bombastic blockbusters that came decades later such as ‘Jurassic Park’ or even the ‘Tranformers’ franchise. Eventually, it is quite fascinating that, even if this movie was basically a B monster flick with a rather silly plot, it still did end up being one of the most influential movies ever made.

Notes: Even though I was rather oblivious about Buster Keaton’s work for a very long time, like with Charles Chaplin, I saw many shorts starring Laurel and Hardy when I was a kid and, back then, I thought these guys were just hilarious. However, I think it was at least 25 years ago the last time I saw one of their movies so I was wondering what I would think of them after all these years. Well, first of all, with this title, you might expect the comedic duo to go to some exotic location but you would be disappointed, as they eventually ended up at some convention in Chicago. At the end of the day, it was just about two ordinary guys who had nothing else more exciting to do then fixating on some fraternity. In fact, most of the movie was basically a play taking place at Hardy’s place involving usually the two men and sometimes their wives. So, it was nothing really complex or ambitious but it was obviously not the point. Indeed, it was more about the interactions and dialogues between these two guys and, even if it was not as hilarious as what I remembered as a kid, it was still certainly entertaining though. To be honest, in my opinion, Stan Laurel verges sometimes too much towards Chaplin but Oliver Hardy is always there, making sure he snaps out of it, and the combination of them together made them so unique and so successful.

Notes: Well, even though I really enjoyed this movie, it didn’t have the same impact ‘Zéro de conduite’ had on me. Basically, I was immediately able to relate with his famous short as it was dealing with some rascals in a French junior school. Indeed, it felt so recognizable even if the damned thing had been shot 60 years before I went to such a school myself. Eventually, connecting with these few characters living in a barge was not so obvious, at least, to me. Furthermore, even though this movie has been pretty much universally praised as being a masterpiece, I think it was pretty obvious that it was Vigo’s directing debut as his characters were still barely developed. I mean, we do get slightly more information about Jules (apparently, the guy had been all around the world) and this character was unsurprisingly the most interesting of the bunch. The fact that Michel Simon, most likely the best French actor at the time, delivered another really strong performance probably did help as well. Still, there is no denying that Vigo had a unique directing style and the damned was quite spellbinding to behold. Indeed, it might seem a rather quaint love story but the fact that it takes place on a raggedy even rather filthy barge was quite striking and actually really poetic.

Notes: The first interesting thing with this movie was how much it clearly stood from the comedies they made at the time, by Harold Lloyd himself but also by all his other colleague comedians. Indeed, there was in fact no visual gags, no slapstick, no elaborate seemingly hazardous stunts involved and, instead, they went for something dialogue-heavy. Fortunately, I thought that Lloyd did pull it off rather nicely. On the other hand, it was rather cringe-inducing to keep hearing Jake Mayo mentioning these ‘Chinks’ but, since the character was supposed to be a corrupt ignorant moron, I guess it was acceptable. Una Merkel was also pretty good as she had some of the best lines, even though I thought it was rather unlikely that Pet Pratt would decide to get married with Ezekiel Cobb. Eventually, even though I do believe that Harold Lloyd made the most of this material, the concept was still pretty thin and I wish it would have been slightly shorter. Concerning this satire of the politics in a small town in the US, sure, it was exaggerated but, on the other hand, I always thought that there was something bothering me about this country where you can vote only for 2 parties and 2 parties which are vastly similar after all on top of that. Obviously, it is not the same as the corruption displayed in this movie but the lack of choices between candidates did feel similar and hardly democratic.

Notes: I have to admit that I have never read Alexandre Dumas’s famous book. However, I did watch Kevin Reynold’s adaptation but it was years ago and, to be honest, I didn’t remember much about it. Anyway, it is definitely a classic tale and, from all the numerous adaptations that had been delivered so far, it is usually considered as the best one. Well, to be honest, I still had some mixed feelings about the damned thing though. I completely forgot that Napoleon’s return from exile and finale demise had something to do with Edmond Dantes’s tragic story but, all in all, it felt rather convoluted. Still, it does deserve its classic tale status though and, from the moment Dantes started to dig this tunnel, a task which took him a whopping 10 years, I have to admit that the damned thing did become quite entertaining after all. Concerning Robert Donat, I have noticed that the guy was praised for his work in this movie but it actually took me a while to warm up to his performance. Indeed, I thought he was terribly stiff when his character was still a naïve young man. However, it was pretty neat how he played the character differently when he became the Count of Monte Cristo. Sure, he was the good guy and everything ended up well for him and the people he loved but there was something slightly psychotic and sinister about his demeanor and it was all thanks to Donat’s subtle performance.

Notes: This is only the 2nd movie I have seen involving the legendary comedian but, to be honest, it seems that the guy played pretty much the same character in all his movies. Furthermore, I have to admit that I was rather tired and distracted when I watched the damned thing but, to be honest, the story and the characters involved were not really strong. In fact, almost half of the duration was some kind of Vaudeville act involving the Great McGonigle and his troupe but I thought it was only mildly entertaining. However, it was absolutely quite awesome when W.C. Fields or the Great McGonigle did his juggling act. Indeed, I always loved this kind of circus acts and I have to admit that I was actually quite blown away by Fields’s skills. I also think it displayed that, even though the Great McGonigle was a hustler, a loser, a cheat, he was also a real artist after all and I think it was pretty neat. Anyway, even if the plot was hardly inspiring, there is no doubt that Fields was the real deal and the guy was always entertaining. Another thing that I enjoyed was the final scene. Indeed, even though it might not seem much, I thought it was really awesome because it made me realized that the character Dr. Aldous Smith in ‘La ballade des Dalton’ (a rather obscure French animated feature which I saw 100’s times when I was a kid) was actually based on W.C. Fields which was really cool.

Notes: The first interesting thing with this movie is that it is labeled as a documentary but, to be honest, I think it must be the least educational documentary I have ever seen. The funny thing was that there were actually so many title cards through the whole duration but they were never used to convey some actual information either on Lenin himself, on the Soviet Union or on how it was to live in this country back in the 30’s. Indeed, instead, these title cards were constantly used to hammer the fact that Lenin was apparently totally awesome and I can imagine that this approach could be frustrating, even nauseating for some viewers (which was definitely the feeling I had when I watched ‘Triumph des Willens’). At the end of the day, it is and remains a Soviet propaganda feature, the rather pathetic bombastic rhetoric goes with the territory, and, as far as I’m concerned, even though I wouldn’t go as far as saying that it was inspiring, I still think it that there was something quite lyrical and artistic about the damned thing. Sure, the Soviet Union was a big failure at the time but, beside the fact that, at the time, the Soviets embraced a completely different lifestyle, they also really subverted the movie language. Sure, it might all seem rather disturbing but I think it was actually quite intriguing and this movie was a good example, even if it was probably not the most memorable movie in this genre.

Notes: I have to admit that I had never heard of the Aran islands before but it definitely didn’t seem to be the most welcoming place to live. On the other hand, I already saw a couple of movies directed by Robert J. Flaherty, especially the impressive ‘Nanook of the North’. Eventually, the guy was rightfully considered as the precursor of the modern documentaries, even if there was always something fake in pretty much all his movies. For example, in this case, even though the shark hunting was quite spectacular, it was apparently something they haven’t done for many years, even decades. However, there was one thing that wasn’t fake and it was the sea itself. Indeed, I can’t remember the last time I saw such incredible sea footage showing how the sea can be and, apparently, always is raging at these remote Irish islands. Especially at the beginning, you get to see this family of fishermen going back and forth trying to retrieve some net and this scene was just so weird and yet quite mesmerizing at the same time. It’s too bad the copy I saw on YouTube was pretty weak (on the other hand, I should have maybe lower my expectations since this movie is almost 100 years old). However, even so, the damned thing was still visually quite impressive.

Notes: I think it must be the oldest Asian movie I have ever seen and, yet, I thought the approach on the topic of prostitution was actually quite modern. Indeed, this movie was basically a really humanist movie, giving a sympathetic look on this profession and I was actually rather surprised when the school principal would stand up for her. I really didn’t expect, even if it didn’t work out. However, this dramatic turn of events was actually more accurate, I’m afraid. Indeed, even nowadays, prostitutes are rather despised, even though the vast majority of these women certainly didn’t choose this job because it would be a great career move. What was also interesting is that, even though it was a silent movie, the acting was actually really subtle, especially by Lingyu Ruan who was just quite spellbinding to behold. Ruan, with her charisma and talent was apparently a huge star back in those days in China. However, to be honest, the whole thing was still a little bit dry. Basically, this poor girl ended up in a very precarious but also lonely situation but this character and her situation didn’t really evolve through the whole thing (ok, it did get slightly worse towards the end, I‘ll have to admit that). Furthermore, to see her ‘boss’ constantly harassing her over and over again became slightly redundant at some point. Basically, it was a rather well made but fairly simple tale after all and if you expect something epic, you might be disappointed.

Notes: Since it is such a classic, I really had to watch this movie at some point. Eventually, I ended up with some mixed feelings. Indeed, it is now almost 90 years old, it has obviously become a blueprint for all the romantic comedies that came afterwards and, therefore, it definitely deserves some respect. On the other hand, I can't say I was blown away by the whole thing. Indeed, I did enjoy it and I thought it was entertaining but that's about it, I'm afraid. I mean, Clark Gable was damned charming and provided a decent performance but, honestly, I didn't care much about the story or the characters involved. With the old classics, it can go either way in my opinion. For example, 'Citizen Kane' remains a tremendous and fascinating picture even 70 years after being released but some other movies like this one while they were great when they came out, kind of lost a little bit of their glory after all those years. Of course, it is a matter of taste and some viewers are still huge fans of this movie.

Notes: I wonder if it was Alfred Hitchcock's first real success. I mean, before that he already did direct around 20 movies but they were rather obscure and forgotten nowadays. Anyway, Hitchcock would even remake this flick 20 years later with James Stewart and Doris Day with even more success. Since I already saw the 2nd version, I wasn’t really sure what to expect this time but I was rather pleased that the two movies didn’t have much in common actually. I mean, the basic plot is indeed similar but the execution was really different so it is really worth a look to watch both movies. Basically, it follows the usual gimmick used by Hitchcock, which is to put some ordinary folks in some obscure thriller. The thing I enjoyed the most was probably Peter Lorre’s performance. The guy became famous with ‘M’, this was his first English language film and he did a great job. Indeed, all the other actors were decent but Lorre clearly stood out creating a spellbinding mannered man which was even more impressive when you learn that he didn’t even speak much English at the time. Anyway, to conclude, even if it is not one of Hitchcock’s masterpieces, it is still a pretty good thriller though.

Notes: To be honest, I wasn’t really impressed by the end-result, in fact, I was almost falling asleep during the last 15 mins but it was probably due to the fact that I was more tired than I expected. Anyway, basically, it was a rather weird mix of comedy and thriller but, above all, it was based on a very generic gimmick which was never really entertaining. Concerning Jean Arthur, she was just as lovely as usual and she did what she could with this material playing some kind of wise-*ss lady but I think she was rather wasted here playing a character who was barely developed. Eventually, the main (and only?) cool thing in this movie was to see the great Edward G. Robinson playing a dual role which he both really nailed. Indeed, so far, I had seen the actor playing only 2 kinds of characters, the tough guy/gangster or the mild-mannered man, 2 extremes and, well, Robinson got the opportunity to play both types in the same movie and, very often, at the same time. To make the whole thing even more intricate, you even had some scenes during which Edward G. Robinson was playing 'Killer' Mannion pretending to be Arthur Ferguson Jones. Sure, it might look clumsy almost 90 years later from a technical point of view but, from an acting point of view, I think it was a real nice showcase of Robinson’s talent. It’s too bad that the movie didn’t have much else to offer though.

Notes: It is usually considered as a major milestone in motion picture history because it was the very first movie shot in Technicolor. Well, the damned thing sure looked pretty good but I’m not sure if I really cared about the story though. In fact, it’s only when the movie started that I realized that Becky Sharp was actually the main character of ‘Vanity Fair’. Eventually, it turned out that this movie was in fact an adaptation of a play adapted from this book. Well, I’m not surprised that it was based on a play since the performances of all the actors were quite theatrical and the end-result was slightly jarring. Basically, instead of talking normally, they all seemed to be shouting their dialogues which might be appropriate for a play but it was a rather dubious choice for a movie like this one. Still, I have to admit that the cast was often quite entertaining to behold though. Concerning the story, it reminded me of ‘Barry Lyndon’ which is not surprising as Stanley Kubrick thought about for a while to adapt ‘Vanity Fair’ at some point but decided to do ‘Barry Lyndon’ instead after all. Indeed, the time period was similar and both stories were dealing with some rather selfish social climbers starting very low and reaching some improbable heights without caring much about the people around them. However, even in glorious Technicolor, there is no way this movie could compete with a Kubrick production, in any area or department you could think of.

Notes: Even though I was pretty sure that it would be some kind of saccharine tedious children feature, I have to admit that I was actually amazed by how much I actually enjoyed the damned thing after all. First of all, I have to admit that Shirley Temple was actually the real deal. Indeed, at just 7 years old, it’s just insane how charismatic and entertaining she was and she really impressed me. I’m not saying that she was a great actor but I have been disappointed by so many underwhelming child actors in the past. Fortunately, it wasn’t the case with her, that's for sure. The other thing that I enjoyed with this movie was that it was also a sweet tale of intolerance. Indeed, even though Colonel Lloyd, also very well played by Lionel Barrymore, was just a terrible racist southerner, it doesn’t mean that he didn’t deserve to be loved which was quite inspiring. Indeed, even if Lloyd Sherman would never share his views, she still loved him nonetheless and because of her love, he actually became a better man or, at least, a slightly less awful bigot. Sure, you might think that I’m naïve to believe in such things but I think it was quite touching. I shouldn’t forget to also mention the groundbreaking scene during which Temple danced with Bill Robinson, a black actor, which was something unheard of at the time. Concerning the rest of the movie, well, to be honest, it wasn’t really strong though. Indeed, even though the money trouble of her parents was just terribly generic, the whole concept of the bad guys trying to rob them was actually even worse and a real cheap way to reunite this whole family towards the end. Still, even if it was not a masterpiece whatsoever, I have to admit that this movie was actually quite entertaining.

Notes: Back then, they made a whopping 47 installments of Charlie Chan movies and it was in fact the 11th movie starring this character. However, for the completists, I'm afraid the first 2 installments are lost. Anyway, it’s too bad the video I saw on YouTube was of very poor quality but, beside this, I have to admit that I was actually surprised by how entertaining the damned thing turned out to be. Indeed, the directing was rather average but there was something nicely pulpy about the story. Concerning Charlie Chan, he turned out to be some kind of Asian version of Hercule Poirot but the guy was definitely entertaining and Warner Oland, who played the character in 16 movies in total, was pretty good, even if he was actually Swedish and not Asian at all. Eventually, the only thing that really bothered me was the sometimes awful racist stereotypes they displayed, especially with Snowshoes. It was just weird and even nauseating to see all these White characters being played straight and, suddenly, this Black character being played as a completely dim-witted and slightly hysterical coward just to have a good laugh. Seriously, it was awful and it did actually ruin the damned thing for me. It’s as if, because the only smart and interesting character was Asian, they had to make sure that the most stupid character was not White, to make sure the White audience was not offended. In spite of all this, I have to admit that it was still a decent watch though.

Notes: Unfortunately, after watching a pristine restored version of ‘The Kid Brother’ on YouTube, for this movie, the version I saw on YouTube as well was seriously bad. In fact, the beginning was pretty much unwatchable and I almost quit at some point. Concerning the movie itself, it turned out to be a strange and super romantic tale. For some reason, it did remind me of ‘When Harry met Sally…’ and how this movie could have turned out to be if the main characters were not so cynical. And, yet, with all its old-fashioned approach, I thought it actually did work which might be surprising since I’m also quite cynical like Harry Burns and Sally Albright. I guess there was something pure and unambiguous on how they approached a romantic relationship. To be honest, the movie didn’t have much else to offer though (with a running time of barely 85 mins, there was basically no time for it). There was also the fact that the story didn’t make much sense. Wouldn’t it have been more logical that Peter meet again Mary in Paris instead of during some completely random work assignment? In fact, even the the two main characters were barely developed at all. Still, there is no denying that Gary Cooper (who, for some reason, thought he was miscast for this part) really made the most of this material and the guy was just super charismatic.