1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (1930's)

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: 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 individual but always about the group.

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, 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, 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: 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 of movies, at the end, he would get the girl but, here, she actually rebuffed. 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, 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 haven't seen this one yet...

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

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

Notes: 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 80 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. Anyway, to conclude, I think it is a great flick.

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 haven't seen this one yet...

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 though. Indeed, in my opinion, the story was a little too simplistic, there was no plot and there were only a few characters developped. I know that many people would said that it is actually the strength of this movie and because it is simple that is why it is so great but I wasn't really blown away by the whole thing. The acting was fine though above all from Michel Simon who was quite hilarious. Eventually, the best thing about this movie was how relevant it is though, even 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 in this movie.

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 haven't seen this one yet...

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

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

Notes: 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 technical side was maybe not as elaborate as it is 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: I haven't seen this one yet...

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

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

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 haven't seen this one yet...

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

Notes: Well, 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. To conclude, it is quite fascinating that, even if this movie was basically a B monster with a rather silly plot, eventually, it still did end up being one of the most influential movies ever made.

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. In my opinion, it is one of these rather obscure movies that could and/or should be removed from this list. 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). 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: 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: I haven't seen this one yet...

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

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

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

Notes: Basically, it is one of those classics I knew I should watch at some point but I kept postponing it indefinitely since I was pretty sure I would have a hard time to care for the whole thing. And, indeed, If you are a real movie buff, you have to watch this movie at some point but, man, it remains a tough watch though... I mean, I have to admit it, it was pretty impressive from a technical point of view and it has a huge historical value but it is also seriously boring and quite sickening to behold. Basically, half of the movie is about Adolf and his demented buddies making some dreadful speeches and the other half is about some endless marches involving 1000’s and 1000’s of fanatics in uniform. Like I said before, it was quite groundbreaking at the time and you can imagine that Leni Riefenstahl couldn't resist the temptation of making such a huge production with a virtually limitless budget so she did some pretty impressive stuff visually speaking making the most notorious propaganda feature ever conceived. Still, I felt pretty sick during most of the duration and even their uplifting music couldn’t cheer me up.

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

Notes: I must confess, I'm not a huge fan of his very old British features. I mean, they are old pretty good and entertaining, that's for sure, but except for 'The Lady Vanishes' which really impressed me, none of them actually blew me away and this movie was not an exception. It seems that it is a very popular story since it has been adapted 4 times already and, apparently, this version is the most acclaimed one. Basically, it is one of those many British spy movies Hitchcock made back in those days and even though I enjoyed it, I couldn't shake the thought that he was still rehearsing before creating all his masterpieces he made in the 40's and the 50's. Still, this movie is considered as a major British film of its time so I might re-watch it at some point in the future to make up my mind for good. Anyway, even though it didn't really blow me away, it is still a very entertaining vintage spy feature.

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: Even if it turned out to be a decent watch, I have to admit that I had a rather hard time to really care about the damned thing. I mean, sure, with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers involved, there were obviously some very good dancing scenes, the songs were not bad and there were even some funny dialogues here and there. Unfortunately, even though I am well aware that it is inherent to the genre, I thought that the story was really fluffy. On top of that, I always get rather bored when a romantic comedy is solely based on a misunderstanding as it is must be one of the most tedious and overused gimmicks in this genre. Anyway, it is pretty obvious that this movie didn’t really work for me but I have to admit that it was actually a very well made feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

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.

Notes: By now, I have seen all the movies directed by Charles Chaplin and, even though I really love 'The Great Dictator', this movie remains hands down my favorite Chaplin feature. Indeed, even as a kid, I saw the damned thing many times and, already at the time, I thought it was completely marvelous. In my opinion, with this movie, Chaplin managed to find the perfect balance between the funny bits with his usual awesome slapstick, the poetry and also the social relevancy. Back then, sound had already been invented for a while but Chaplin was still perfecting his own brand of movie, using sound only sporadically but the end-result was just tremendous, resulting in a movie completely entertaining and spellbinding to watch. Like I said before, I was very young when I watched it the first time, I really loved it and I think it is a great way to introduce movies to children, instead of the usual animated features.

Notes: First of all, to be honest, I have to admit that I have never been a huge musical fan. As a matter of fact, I recently saw ‘La La Land’ and even though , it was a big critical and commercial success, I still had a hard time to care about the damned thing. Well, coming back to our main feature, since it is a huge classic, I still had to watch it at some point. Well, even though I usually prefer Gene Kelly, I must admit that Fred Astaire was really awesome in this flick. Indeed, together with Ginger Rogers, they had some great chemistry and they gave some really strong dance scenes here. Furthermore, I laughed a few times, above all thanks to the supporting cast which was pretty good. Still, even though I'm well aware that it is inherent to the genre, the plot was just so silly and frivolous and I really had a hard time to care about the story and the characters involved. Still, it is and remains a classic and it is definitely worth a look

Notes: Basically, it is one of those big classics from the 1930's and, to be honest, I’m not really a huge fan of this genre and I had a rather hard time to really care about the whole thing. Indeed, they just don’t make movies like this anymore, such whimsical tales taking place in some idyllic version of the USA. The lead man, this time very well played by Gary Cooper, is completely flawless and virtuous and towards the end, everything is solved and it is as if all the problems in the world have been solved at once. Basically, it is all cute and charming but I guess I’m just too cynical for this material and, on top of that, I actually first saw the really weak and underwhelming remake starring Adam Sandler and that might have ruined this story for me. I have to admit that it was still a sweet and cute tale and thanks to the actors involved, it was still entertaining. Anyway, even though I wasn’t completely blown away by the whole thing, it was still a decent watch.

Notes: To be honest, I have to admit that I'm not a huge fan of such classic screwball comedies. Indeed, even though some of them are still really popular, in my opinion, they usually didn't grow old very well. However, this movie was actually an exception and I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Obviously, it had all the trademarks of the genre but, even though it might seem really frivolous like the other movies in the genre, I thought it was actually quite sharp and so much satiric. Indeed, in such movies, we are supposed to care about the so-called difficult life of the Rich or Aristocrats but, here, they were all portrayed are completely hysterical and seriously dim-witted and the homeless seemed to be much more sensible. I also liked the idea that if we stopped complaining about our little problems and simply gave the people in need a chance, they would actually grab it with both hands. To be honest, I think it would have better worked if Godfrey didn't come from the same social class as his 'masters' and I didn't care much for the ending which was some typical screwball silly nonsense. Still, I really enjoyed this movie though.