1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (1970's)

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: Well, that was definitely a very intriguing picture. Basically, it was dealing with a talented man who made the decision to literally throw it all away and, in the process, he also decided to make a mess of himself and his life. Eventually, the guy didn't give a sh*t about anything or anyone and it lead to a rather destructive behavior. Who else than Jack Nicholson could play such a conflicted part?!? Not many actors, I guess. Following his guest part in 'Easy Rider', this movie definitely put him in the spotlights and he didn't leave the A list for the following 40 years. To be honest, the first half was in fact rather slow and I wasn't really interested by the whole thing but during the second half, you finally get acquainted with his dual side and then the movie became a fascinating character study. Eventually, you come to the conclusion that this guy didn't fit anywhere. He despised the elitair crowd with which his family was hanging out but he despised just as well his working class ‘friends’. You really wonder what he will be doing with himself but you get the feeling he didn’t have a clue himself either.

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: To be honest, I have already seen this movie but it was ages ago and I should definitely re-watch it at some point. Still, back then, I really loved the damned thing. Indeed, back in those days, Dustin Hoffman just got his breakthrough a couple of years before with ‘The Graduate’ and the guy was already at the top of his game. In my opinion, it was one of the very few movies which managed to take a classic genre (in this case, the Western) and gave it a nice satirical twist. Seriously, it worked on so many level as it was an ambitious epic tale spread over decades, a really funny dark comedy and also a political and social critic on the state of the USA at the time. Furthermore, it was another example that the 70’s was the golden age of the American movies showing how these guys would be creative at the time.

Notes: Well, this movie definitely deserved to win the Best Picture Academy award at the time. Indeed, it is quite a fascinating war feature with a fascinating real figure in the middle. It seemed that Patton was quite a character but you can’t deny that he was a great military strategist and the masterstroke in this movie was to make a multi-layered portrait of this ultimate soldier. Obviously, George C. Scott (who also won the Academy award but refused it because he was against the idea of a competition between actors) was quite brilliant and this performance would be the one he will be forever remembered. The funny thing is that he didn’t believe that he actually did a good job and would, apparently, apologize often to the director Franklin J. Schaffner because he didn’t deliver the goods. Francis Ford Coppola, who was even younger than I am today, was also involved in this classic and would even win his first Academy award as a writer.

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: Sometimes, you keep hearing about a movie, everyone seems to agree that it is a great classic, you get some high hopes, expecting to watch something truly amazing. But then, you watch the damned thing and, as it turns out, you don’t connect at all with the movie. Well, unfortunately, that’s what happened for me with this movie. I mean, sure, I thought it was not bad but I seriously couldn’t see what was so amazing about it. First of all, I have to admit that I was very young when I watched it and, maybe, if I would re-watch it nowadays, I would be blown away but I have my doubts. Basically, the main issue I had is that I never really cared for the episodic structure. Sure, I don’t necessarily need a plot but all these little stories were rather half-baked in my opinion. On top of that, many people (including the great Roger Ebert) thought it was just hilarious and, once again, I thought it was fairly amusing but not much more than that, I’m afraid.

Notes: Honestly, it is such a weird movie. I mean, it is not really a bad flick, a massive director like Michelangelo Antonioni couldn’t really direct a bad flick, but, still, the whole thing was so misguided, so flawed, it is still pretty much considered as a low point in his impressive career. Indeed, when it was released it was a huge flop and it was pretty much destroyed by the critics but, somehow, there was still something intriguing about the whole thing and it has become more or less a cult-classic. Basically, it is a mix with the hippy/counter-culture spirit, Antonioni’s artistical European directing style and the US film industry as it was the first time Michelangelo Antonioni shot in America. Therefore, the end-result was a rather schizophrenic feature which was visually still quite impressive, with some nice music provided by such bands like Pink Floyd, but the plot and the pathetic characters made it really difficult to root for this flick. Eventually, Antonio would rebound with ‘Professione: reporter’ 5 years later, but he will never reach the same heights he did before with such classics like ‘Blowup’.

Notes: Eventually, like the other movies Nicolas Roeg would make in the 70’s, I have to admit that it was slightly too cryptic for my taste but, with his directorial debut, even if it was often pretty weird, it was always intriguing though. Basically, it was involving the dark seedy London gangster world in some kind of full frontal collision with the dark seedy London bohemian world. I have to admit that, since Mick Jagger was displayed prominently on all the promotional material, I didn’t expect him to show up only during the 2nd half. On top of that, his character was not really far from who he probably was at the time so you could hardly call it ‘acting’. On the other hand, there is no denying that the Rolling Stone singer was definitely charismatic and it’s too bad that he would only make a handful movies afterwards. In fact, I was above all quite impressed by James Fox who was really convincing in this role. However, I found out that the experience might have been quite traumatic for Fox since he then stopped acting for almost 10 years afterwards. Anyway, was it really clear what Roeg tried to achieve here? Not really but the end-result was still interesting and I think it is is definitely worth a look.

Notes: I have always loved this documentary. The first time I saw it, I was about 16 years old and it really blew me away. Indeed, back then and still nowadays, I was a huge fan of the music they made in the mid-60’s to the mid-70’s, probably one of the most prolific periode in music history so it was just a blast to see this massive concert with all these legendary music artists involved. What I didn’t know is that there were also a lot of footage involving the audience and what was going on around the concert. Those bits were also really interesting and the whole thing is just an invaluable time bubble which made possible to more or less experience what it must have been to live at the time. I have seen it a couple of time since then (I think I have seen it at least once every decade) and it hasn’t lost his power after multiple viewings.

Notes: To be honest, the fact that didn’t know much about the Rolling Stones and what happened during this infamous concert before watching this movie made it rather difficult for me to get a good grip on the damned thing. Indeed, it actually took me forever to figure out that the concert footage at the beginning had actually nothing to do with the Altamont Free Concert and was in fact taken during some previous concert in the Madison Square Garden. There was also some footage showing the Rolling Stones at work for some songs for their coming-up album ‘Sticky Fingers’ but, to be honest, it all felt rather random. However, there is no denying that the scenes involving the Altamont Concert were actually quite fascinating to behold or seriously disturbing might actually be more accurate. Indeed, back in 1969, Woodstock turned out to be arguably the best concert ever filmed, well, the very same year, the Altamont Free Concert might turn out to be the worst concert ever filmed. Eventually, not only it was a milestone as this event was considered as the end of the Flower Power era but I think it also completely changed how concerts would be managed in the future. Indeed, can you imagine a free concert with 300 000 people with a stage only a meter high, no gates between the stage and the audience, no check at the entrance and a security composed of unprofessional goons probably all drunk? In fact, it is more surprising that something even more dramatic happened before at Woodstock or any other massive music festival. Finally, the most stunning scene in this movie was probably when you get to see Mick Jagger actually watching the footage of a man pointing out a gun and then being savagely stabbed to death by one of the Hell Angels while Jagger himself was actually trying to perform on stage. Seriously, it was so surreal and it felt like watching a snuff movie with this Rock and Roll legend.

Notes: At first glance, it seemed to be about the rise of Fascism in Italy and its impact on the rich Jews living in a small city but De Sica obviously went beyond that but, to be honest, I'm not sure I fully understood what he was getting at. Eventually, what were we supposed to feel about the Finzi Contini? Were we suppose to feel sorry for them because even their incredible wealth couldn't save them from the Fascist madness? Also, what was the deal with Alberto who was sick throughout the whole movie? At least, it was intriguing that most of these Jews were attractive with blond hair and blue eyes which made them look like some perfect Nazis which shows that Fascism is not only an ignorant ideology but, apparently, it is also blind. Anyway, even if I didn't care much about the characters, they were still complex and interesting.

Notes: Well, Barbara Loden did deliver a strange movie here. By the way, who was Barbara Loden actually? Apparently, she did show up in only a couple of movies and she was mostly famous for being married with Elia Kazan until her untimely death. Anyway, coming back on her directorial debut and only film she directed, it turned out to be some kind of combination of ‘Bonny and Clyde’, ‘Badlands’ and another movie which I can’t remember right now. Eventually, what should we think about Wanda, the main character? Sure, she was attractive but Loden definitely didn’t sugarcoat this portrayal as her character was the most aimless woman I have ever seen. Basically, she is a woman who doesn’t know why she exists (in fact, most of us pretty much pretend we do but that's another story, I guess) but it didn’t seem to concern her that much. Well, it sure did give me some panic attacks when I was around my 20’s. Still, she was definitely not cheerful though, that’s for sure, her life, even herself, was basically completely empty and the whole thing was therefore seriously gloomy. At some point, she did get involved with a guy called Mr. Dennis and the whole thing became even weirder than it already was. By the way, for some reason, I thought that Norman Dennis was some kind of unhinged version of Walter White and I really wonder if this movie was an inspiration for Bryan Cranston when he created his iconic character because there were so many similarities.

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: Even though I have watched many times the Spaghetti Westerns starring Clint Eastwood when I was a kid with my dad, I discovered his Dirty Harry flicks much later on in my life. Eventually, even though I still prefer his Westerns, I still enjoyed his famous cop features as well. The interesting thing with this franchise is that the sequels were actually pretty decent but, obviously, this first installment was the only one which became a real classic. Indeed, Harry Calahan must be one of the most notorious police characters ever created, very often copied but never matched. At the time, Clint Eastwood was pretty much in control of his career. He picked up 4 different drafts of the script (one written by no one else than Terrence Malick). made sure that Don Siegel was hired to direct this movie and he was also responsible for hiring Andy Robinson to play Scorpio. When it was released, it was a critical and commercial success but there was also some controversy as it displayed and almost glorified police brutality. Basically, the Scorpio killer was pretty messed up and, eventually, Harry Calahan was not much better, he just happened to be on the right side of the law.

Notes: I'm pretty sure it was the first movie directed by Stanley Kubirck that I saw and I can remember when I saw it for the first time. I was about 15 years old at the time and I was jut completely blown away by the whole thing. I mean, I had seen some good movies before but nothing like this. The thing that most impressed me, back then, is that even though it was made almost 25 years before, it felt actually really modern. This flick had basically everything : the visuals, the directing, the acting, the music, the thoughtfulness,.... Obviously, the whole thing was bleak and grim and it is rather understandable that many viewers wouldn't like it (Roger Ebert, for example, really despised it). Furthermore, he main character was really despicable and I think it is an aquired taste but you can't deny that the directing was just flawless. Later on, I have read the book and it is interesting that the book has actually one more chapter with a happy ending. Even though the book was pretty awesome, I enjoyed the movie even more because it is was darker, more pessimistic and just more compelling in my opinion.

Notes: While watching this, I realized that Altman is actually a rather difficult director. I mean, it is not that his movies are really cryptic or difficult to follow like David Lynch or Kim Ki-Duk for example, but he definitely has a very oblic approach concerning his directing which might explain why I have sometimes a hard time with his movies. Basically, he usually puts his camera in the middle of the scene and leave the characters do the talking but there is no real editing and, sometimes, you have 5 characters speaking to each other, sometimes improvising their dialogues which have nothing to do with the plot. It is like when someone gets into a room, normally, he would be presented to the audience somehow but, since the characters already know this person, they just skip this. As a result, you get something really realistic and this directing style definitely was Robert Altman’s trademark but, honestly, I think it was rather alienating. I mean, there is something pretty mesmerizing about this directing style but I think it is also creates a gap between the audience and the characters. Still, even though this movie didn’t really blow me away, it looked quite terrific, the songs provided by Leonard Cohen were a perfect fit and it must be one of the gloomiest Western I have ever seen.

Notes: Even though I have never been a fan of Roald Dahl’s book adaptations, since this movie was a classic and arguably the best of these adaptations, I was really eager to check it out. First of all, I have to admit it, it is a pretty cool story, absolutely, I even think I read the book when I was a kid but, still, I wasn’t really blown away by this movie and I would say that I preferred Tim Burton’s version. Indeed, I forgot that it was a musical version and all those songs were pretty boring to me. Then, I’m sorry, but I wasn’t really impressed by Wonka’s factory. I mean, 40 years later, the scale was not really impressive and it didn’t look delicious (apparently, 1/3 of the set was actually eatable, even the chocolate river so they did actually try). Another thing that bothered me was that maybe half of the movie was about looking for those damned golden tickets and the rest of the movie felt pretty rushed. Finally, Gene Wilder gave a really good performance but I felt they only scratched the surface about this mysterious Willy Wonka figure and it would have been nice to learn a little more about him.

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: Now, that’s what I call a weird movie. Indeed, I wasn’t ready at all to watch something like this and I was expecting actually something else. I thought it would be a movie about a walkabout done by an Aborigene but I was really mistaken. This movie is definitely something else entirely and I would have a rather hard time to explain what it was actually really about. Basically, it was probably one of the most random movies I have ever seen which made the damned thing equally fascinating and frustating to watch. Later on, I discovered that Roger Ebert really loved this flick and he developed some interesting views about the communication issues between the 3 main characters but, personally, I had a hard time with those 3 characters, above all, with their numb behavior. Still, there was definitely something mesmerizing about the whole thing.

Notes: To be honest, I was rather surprised that this movie was included in this list. I mean, it is a pretty good thriller, no doubt about it, but to add it on this prestigious list might be giving it slighty too much credit. Once again, it is definitely a solid feature, Alan J. Pakula managed to create a tensed and rather mesmerizing mood. Furthermore, Donald Sutherland and Jane Fonda were just terrific in this. Eventually, Fonda got the most credit and she did give an impressive performance, winning her first Academy award in the process. So, the movie looked very good and it was quite spellbinding to watch but, somehow, I wasn't completely blown away by the whole thing. I don’t know, maybe it is because I have seen too many sleazy thrillers which were made afterwards but the story was actually rather straightforward. Basically, in my opinion, it was pure style but no substance but it is still a decent thriller though.

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this movie and I should definitely re-watch it at some point. Even though I have a lot of respect for this flick, eventually, it didn’t really win me over though. That’s something that sometimes happen with huge old classics like this one. Indeed, at the time of its release, it must have been really groundbreaking but, during the following 40 years, they have made so many similar movies that it has lost some of its impact, at least, in my case. Still, there is no denying that it is really solid gritty thriller with a star-making performance from Gene Hackman. This movie will be also forever remembered for its amazing car chase which is still considered as one of the best ever made, even after all these years. A couple of years later, William Friedkin would come back with ‘The Exorcist’ which was another massive hit and definitely one of the most highly regarded horror movies ever released. Unfortunately, after making 2 classics back-to-back, the rest of his career turned out ot be rather underwhelming.

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: Basically, with this movie, it was a similar situation that we had with ‘Ed Wood’ which was a great movie about the making-off of ‘Plan 9 from Outer Space’ which was pretty awful. I mean, this movie was not as bad as ‘Plan 9 from Outer Space’ was but, to be honest, it wasn’t really good either. Indeed, half of it was about Sweetback running around and the other half was pretty much impossible to follow. Furthermore, it was rather poorly shot with some weak performances. And, yet, while watching this flick, you shouldn’t forget that it was a huge milestone. Indeed, pretty much like ‘Black Panther’ released in 2018 displayed that there could be successful blockbusters with an all black cast and crew, this movie broke many stereotypes concerning the black folks and even launched the Blaxploitation genre. Furthermore, making this movie was difficult, mostly on a financial level but not only, and this struggle also deserves some respect.

Notes: First of all, it is thanks to this movie that Jeff Bridges' career really took off and it was just really neat to see him when he was much younger (and, apparently, already very talented) . Basically, it is one of those movies where nothing much really happen and nothing much is even told. I know, it doesn’t sound really sound really exciting but, basically, it is way more nuanced than your usual flick and you had to carefully analyse the body language and the looks that the characters give to each other to really understand what's going on (I’m not sure I did but just to follow them was quite spellbinding). For Peter Bogdanovich, this movie was a huge breakthrough and, at the time, he was hailed as the next best thing but, even though he was quite productive in the 70’s, none of his other features managed to reach this level of awesomness.

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: It has been a while since I have seen this movie and I will definitely check it out again when I have the opportunity. To be honest, I was actually slightly disappointed by ‘Wild Bunch’. I mean, sure, I thought it was pretty good but I failed to see what was so impressive and, in fact, I was more able to connect with this other classic directed by Sam Peckinpah. In my opinion, it is actually one of his more subtle directing efforts. Of course, in fact, as usual with this rather brutal director, it wasn’t actually not subtle at all, quite violent, especially back in those days and borderline misogynist but, for a Peckinpah feature, it had actually quite some depth. I also enjoyed to see Dustin Hoffman who has at the top of his game at the time. Indeed, Hoffman was an unexpected but great choice to play the lead and I thought it was more intriguing to have him go beserk instead of one of the usual tough guys that you might have in such violent setting.

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this flick and maybe I should check it out again at some point. In fact, I remember it quite well the first time I watched it. Indeed, I kept hearing some really good things about this flick so I was really eager to check it out and I had some rather high expectations about the damned thing. Well, eventually, even though I though it was indeed pretty good, I can’t say I was really blown away and, to be honest, I thought it was actually slightly underwhelming. Sure, it was well made and fairly entertaining but I couldn’t help thinking that it was rather outdated. When it was first released more than 40 years ago, it must have been terribly shocking for the mainstream audience but, after all these years, we have been used to watch some much more violence, both physical and psychological, so the whole thing didn’t have much impact on me. Anyway, even though I didn’t really connect with this flick, I have to admit that it was still pretty good.

Notes: It is probably the most famous movie directed by Werner Herzog and since I kept hearing some great things about the damned thing, I was really eager to check it out. Well, it completely deserved its reputation and, even though it might be slow for some impatient viewers, I thought it was just quite spellbinding to behold. For this movie, for the very first time, Herzorg was working with Klaus Kinski who gave probably his most famous performance as Don Lope de Aguirre. Anyway, apparently, those 2 guys seemed to think that, to make a movie about an insane man, well, you pretty much have to become actually insane yourself. Of course, you might wonder if it was really a good idea to go so far just to make a movie but you can't argue that the end-result was quite amazing. In the future, I should definitely watch ‘Fitzcarraldo’ which was apparently another fascinating and insane jungle adventure involving once again Herzorg and Kinski.

Notes: To be honest, I'm not a huge of musicals but, still, I try to remain open-minded and, like any other genre, if you watch the very best of them, there is a good chance they will be something you like about them. So, indeed, I thought it was pretty good, even if I wasn't completely blown away. Basically, it was Bob Fosse's 2nd directing effort and it was probably his most successful movie, at least critically. Fosse himself was actually quite a phenomenon. Indeed, he was an actor, a dancer, a choreographer, a musical director, a screenwriter and a film director. He won an unprecedented eight Tony Awards for choreography and was nominated for an Academy Award four times, winning for his direction of 'Cabaret' (beating Francis Ford Coppola for 'The Godfather' no less). If you ask me Coppola should have won the oscar back then but still the directing was pretty solid. Honestly, I never cared much about Liza Minelli but she was pretty good. Above all, the thing I enjoyed the most was how dark and gloomy the whole thing was. Indeed, most musicals are really joyful which tends to get on my nerves but this one was actually really sad and I really liked this approach.

Notes: It was pretty neat that, after a WWII drama and a medieval epic, Tarkovsky was coming up with something completely different and again really ambitious. Anyway, as usual with this director, it turned out to be terribly challenging though but, at this point, I wouldn’t expect less from the Russian master. And, yet, even if it was pretty tough to watch, there was still something quite mesmerizing about the damned thing. In my opinion, it was some kind of reflection on the fact that we are, as a specie, terribly arrogant because we have been ruling this Earth for millenniums but, in fact, we barely know ourselves after all. As a result, we are actually rather poorly equipped if we would encounter another kind of life form in some distant future. Indeed, in the vast majority of SF films, aliens are portrayed either as some human-eating monsters or as a superior life-form who actually are very similar to us and they always fit some logical frame corresponding with how we see ourselves and how we see life in general. However, as it was displayed in this movie, we would probably encounter something completely ‘different’. In fact, the gap between what we would expect and what we would actually get would be so huge that we would probably not have the mental and psychological capabilities to handle such an encounter. At least, that’s what I got from the damned thing but maybe Tarkovsky actually meant something completely different.

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: Even though some people believe this movie doesn't deserve so much praise, you can't possibly deny its huge impact on motion picture history. Basically, it is one of those flicks that you could/should watch every 10 years. Indeed, the first time I watched it, I was about 16 years old and, of course, I had some huge expectations and, to be honest, I thought it was slightly disappointing. Indeed, even though I did like it, it didn't really grab me like, for example, 'Goodfellas' did. The point is that Scorsese's masterpiece is full of energy, wildly entertaining, pretty much in-your-face and really accessible for younger viewers. Coppola's masterpiece, on the other hand, is a total different kind of ball game. Indeed, it is really subtle, quiet, slow paced, really meditative and, quite frankly, it went over my head when I was younger. So, I re-watched it, 10 years later and I was really blown away by the whole thing. Indeed, this time, I was able to appreciate this masterpiece in all its perfection. Whereas 'Goodfellas' was basically shouting at me about its awesomeness, this movie was actually whispering about its greatness and I wasn't able to hear it the first time around. Basically, the story was just spellbinding, the cast was great and Coppola was absolutely at the top of his game.

Notes: Marlon Brando’s career has always been rather chaotic and this flick must have been his most controversial one. Basically, it is quite a messed up flick, I have to admit that it is an acquired taste and if you are not yourself more or less twisted, there is a fair chance that you won’t like it whatsoever. Personally, I thought it was just fascinating and it is one of the best studies about sex I have ever seen. The point is that Marlon Brando’s character is pretty much a major frustrated manipulative douche-bag and, apparently himself and Bertolucci were quite terrible towards the very young Maria Schneider, so it is something that you have to be able to handle otherwise, the whole thing would be almost unwatchable. For Brando, 1972 would be an amazing year as he would also star in ‘The Godfather’, possibly the best movie ever made. Eventually, I was really impressed by this flick and, even though it is definitely not for everybody, I think it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Bernardo Bertolucci’s work.

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...

Notes: I haven't seen this one yet...