1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (1940's)

Notes: Even though I was pretty sure that I saw this movie when I was a kid, when I finally re-watched it with my own children, I didn't remember much of it. For example, I was actually surprised that the most iconic trademark of Pinocchio, the fact that his nose is growing when he lies, actually shows up just once in the movie. It actually shows how powerful this tale is and how it will be forever linked to this Disney version. Indeed, after the tremendous success of 'Snow White', Disney decided to go for another well known tale and it became another major classic. What I personally enjoy the most about the whole thing was actually how dark the whole thing was. Indeed, back then, they were still pretty much experimenting, testing how far they could go, and they didn't develop yet their traditional formula of avoiding anything that could be possibly challenging in order to always reach the lowest common denominator. Here, you get a rather complex main character who makes some terrible decisions but this little guy was much more fascinating than the perfect princes and heroes that they would give us afterwards.

Notes: To be honest, I always had a hard time to care for these old comedies, even the supposedly great ones, and this one was not an exception, I’m afraid. The point is that the plot was so fluffy, so unsubstantial, I really had a hard time to care about the whole thing. Somehow, this movie and the other classics in this genre are still considered as hilarious even today but, personally, I thought it was just amusing at best. Obviously, it is still a solid comedy though. Indeed, Cary Grant was one of the best actors at the time (at least, one of the most popular ones but I still think the guy was also great), he was very good here and he had some very nice chemistry with the charming Rosalind Russell. Furthermore, even though nothing much happen during the whole thing, the dialogues were really witty and funny and they were definitely the biggest asset in this flick.

Notes: In my opinion, it is not one of Alfred Hitchcock's great masterpieces but it is still a very solid thriller nonetheless. It was actually a rather important movie in his career. Indeed, it was the first film he made in Hollywood and the only one that managed to win the Best Picture Oscar (that the guy never managed to win a Best Director Academy Award is quite mind-blowing). To be frank, I don’t think it is one of the strongest stories developed by the great master but it was greatly compensated by the awesome mood created and the very good cast. Honestly, I haven’t seen many movies starring Laurence Olivier but the guy was sure a fine actor and I will definitely check his other movies whenever I get the opportunity. Against him, you had Joan Fontaine, one of the many female stars we have seen in Hitchcock’s spellbinding thrillers. Fontaine was pretty good as well and together they had some great chemistry. Anyway, this first American feature was a success and his career which was doing already pretty well became even bigger, much bigger in the following years.

Notes: Since I’m a huge movie buff, I watch all kinds of movies and I’m particularly interested in Classics. However, to be honest, in my opinion, there are two kinds of classics, some of them which remain untouched by time , and which will always be great and amazing like ‘Citizen Kane’ , ‘M’, ‘ Rashomon’ or ‘A bout de souffle’ and the other sort which are still very well regarded but which seems rather dated like ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ , ‘The Wizard of Oz’ or ‘Gone with the Wind’ (Of course, it all depends what your taste is. You might find those movies still amazing and much better than the ones I mentioned before). Anyway, in my opinion, this movie belongs to the second category. I mean, it is a decent comedy with 3 amazing actors (Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, James Stewart) and the whole thing was rather fun but also terribly fluffy and I really had a hard time to care about the story. I’ll give you that it was much better than all those inane romantic-comedies you get nowadays but I can’t say I was really blown away by this flick. You could argue that the whole fluffiness is inherent to the genre but I don’t agree, a comedy always has to be funny but I don’t think it has to be shallow, at least, that’s my opinion.

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: There always will be a debate about this movie. Some think it is indeed the best movie ever made and some will tell you it is the most overrated movie ever made. It is always the risk with such a huge classic that, if you watch it at a very young age (like I did the first time around) after building up some huge expectations, you might wonder what was the fuss all about. In my opinion, this movie is great because it is really subtle and also because it was much ahead of its time. I think it is something you can appreciate most of all if you have seen a lot of movies. Anyway, the second time I watched it, I was then able to see how modern and so well put together the whole thing was. It was simply mesmerizing. And think about it, Orson Welles was only 26 when he directed it... That's rather insane. To think that, at such a young age, this man who was much younger than me, managed to make possibly the best movie of all time. The thought is rather mind-blowing and it was also a curse for Orson Welles who always struggled as a director ever since, even though some of his following directing efforts were more than decent.

Notes: I always had a weak spot for this feature. Indeed, there is one thing that always bothered me with Disney’s animated features and it is their terrible lack of originality. Basically, all their movies tend to follow the very same formulas and set of rules and even though it was fine when ‘Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs’ was released, almost 80 years later, it has become seriously tedious. For this reason, I always had a weak spot for this flick because, even though it is flawed, it remains one of their most original productions and only for this, it should get much more credit, at least, that’s my opinion. Take for example the ‘Night on Bald Mountain’ sequence, it is probably one of the creepiest things ever produced by Disney and, even though parents have been complaining about this sequence for decades, I wish Disney would go more often in this direction.

Notes: It turned out to be a piece of war propaganda which was released just before the US joined WWII and it was apparently a huge box-office success when it was released. Well, to be honest, I have to admit that I had a rather hard time to connect with the damned thing after all. On the other hand, I have to admit that the version I saw on YouTube was of very poor quality and the fact that it was without subtitles also didn’t help. Indeed, above all in the 1st half, everyone was talking with such a thick Tennessee accent so I was barely able to figure out what they were actually saying. Coming back on the story itself, Alvin York was apparently a real famous war hero during WWI and they tried to be accurate as possible because York himself was actually involved. On paper, the story of this poor barely literate farmer going from major village drunkard to born-again Christian to finally most famous US decorated WWI soldier absolutely had some potential but, as far as I was concerned, I was hardly impressed with the end-result and the whole thing felt rather clunky. Eventually, this movie did remind me of ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ which didn’t become such a classic but I thought it was much more superior though. At least, there is no denying that Gary Cooper did deliver a really solid performance and, in the process, he managed to win his first Academy Award.

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: Eventually, this movie will be mostly remembered for winning the Best Picture Academy Award at the expense of 'Citizen Kane' but I was still eager to check it out to see if it was actually any good. Well, while the reputation of 'Citizen Kane' has only increased through the years and it is usually considered by most as one of the greatest movies ever made, this movie on the other hand didn't grow old very well, I'm afraid. I can imagine that it had been a big commercial and critical success at the time when it was released but, nowadays, it seems terribly cheesy, at least, that's what I felt like watching the damned thing. I mean, I have to admit that it was well made with some solid performances so it turned out to be OK but not much more than that. Sure, it was dealing with some nice and decent people but, as far as I'm concerned, I would rather have instead the complexity displayed in 'Citizen Kane'. At least, it was very neat to see the lovely Maureen O'Hara who must have been one of the most gorgeous actress ever.

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

Notes: To be honest, the circumstances I watched the damned thing were far from being ideal (I was really tired and the recording was seriously messed up). On top of that, this movie has a disadvantage of being already 70 years old and, by that time, I had alredy watched many other film noirs with or without Humphrey Bogart so I wasn’t completely blown away by the whole thing. Furthermore, it is always the same issue with this genre, the plot is terribly murky and, in fact, it never really matters which is always something that bother me a little. And, yet, it is still quite an awesome flick nonetheless. Indeed, it is historically quite priceless as it started the directing career of John Huston, the career of Humphrey Bogart and it pretty much launched the genre at the time. Indeed, even though Sam Spade might be the main character, he is not actually a hero, he is definitely not a nice guy and he pretty much dumps the female lead at the end without shedding a single tear.

Notes: The funny thing about this production is that, even though 'Pinocchio' and 'Fantasia' were both critically heralded, they were also some really ambitious projects that had cost Disney a lot and they didn't turn out to be some huge box-office success like 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs'. So, back then, they decided to come up with something smaller and cheaper and, surprisingly, it turned out to be a hit. To be honest, I think that the scope was too limited to make it one of my favorites and, with a running time of barely 60 minutes, and the fact that Timothy Q. Mouse was just a recycled version of Jiminy Cricket, it did feel a little bit cheap. And yet, this Dumbo character was really awesome. Indeed, it showed some guts to have a title character who didn’t say a word during the whole thing and there were a couple of scenes involving him and his mother that were just amazing and quite heartbreaking to behold. Also, you won't see any time soon in a Disney feature an infant getting drunk and hallucinating afterwards and a bunch of black crowns smoking some huge cigars. On top of that, they gave us their weirdest (but, in my opinion, also one of their most awesome) musical sequence with the legendary 'pink elephants on parade'.

Notes: First of all, to be honest, I’m usually not a huge fan of such classic screwball comedies. In this case, there was also the issue that they developed the idea that, for a pretty woman like Gerry Jeffers, the best prospect was not to find an actual job to support herself but finding some rich guy who would support her. Sure, you might argue that I shouldn’t take this movie too seriously but it did make the damned thing look rather dated. And, yet, I have to admit that this movie actually worked for me. For starters, the intro was just so weird, I had no idea what this movie was actually about and I thought they were showing that would actually happen afterwards. However, the story was not about how this couple fell in love and got married. Indeed, instead, it was about how she tried to escape this marriage, not because they didn’t care for each other anymore but mostly because their marriage was a failure considering their financial and social status. Well, I have to admit that this approach was actually quite refreshing and I really enjoyed most of the jokes and most of the dialogues were just so fun and witty.

Notes: Basically, back in those days, these movies were really tailor-made around Bette Davis, and, to be honest, it takes a while to get used to the fact that these movies didn’t have much else to offer, at least, as far as I was concerned. Still, I was more able to enjoy this one though. Sure, the gimmick of the ugly duckling transforming into a gorgeous woman has never been really interesting but there is no doubt that Davis absolutely made the best of it. Indeed, she was so good when playing this fragile and psychologically disturbed young woman. Later on, when she played the same woman but as strong and independent, it was obviously not such a stretch for Davis who was basically being herself but I have to admit that she was so charismatic. This movie was also a perfect example of toxic narcissistic behavior and the character of the mother was actually quite fascinating, even if her behavior could have been slightly more subtle. At least, the main character didn't fell in love with her doctor like she did in ‘Dark Victory’, the romance was here more convincing here and I think Davis had some pretty good chemistry with Paul Henreid. I have to admit that I was also really surprised that they didn’t end up together but it was actually a refreshing way to conclude this romance.

Notes: To be honest, usually, even though I have a lot of respect for such old classic comedies, I find most of them rather dated and they never really blow me away (a notable exception would be the greatest masterpieces directed by Charles Chaplin which are just amazing and hilarious). This movie was however an exception and I seriously enjoyed it a lot. First of all, the whole thing was actually slightly weird as the makers tried to combined seamlessly a comedy and a thriller. It was a really tricky mix but I was really amazed about how well it worked. Indeed, as a result, half of the time, I was laughing my ass off and, the rest of time, I was actually wondering if the characters were actually going to make it. The whole thing is even more impressive when you think that it was made in the middle of WWII and released just a few months after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Notes: To be honest, it has been ages since I have seen this flick and I should definitely re-watch it at some point. Well, even though Orson Welles will always be remembered for ‘Citizen Kane’, this follow-up was actually more representative of his career. Indeed, following the tremendous success of ‘Citizen Kane’, there was a huge buzz about his next directing effort and you would have expected that the guy would receive pretty much ‘carte blanche’ but, instead, his movie was famously butchered by the studio. From then on, Welles would struggle through his whole career to get his directings project from the ground. It was especially sad with this movie because, in spite of the studio meddling, it was actually still a very good movie and Welles for example really loved the damned thing. Eventually, it could have been a great masterpiece and you can only wonder what his career could have turned out to be if this movie had been released intact. Anyway, even in this form, I still liked this movie a lot and it is definitely worth a look.

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

Notes: I wasn’t sure what to expect from this movie but since it won 6 Academy awards (including the one for Best Picture), I thought I should check it out. Well, to be honest, I really had a hard time to care about the damned thing after all. Indeed, even though the beginning scenes were supposed to be sweet and gentle, I thought there were just too fluffy and even borderline silly, to be honest. For example, you had this deal with the roses competition which was seriously tedious. Then, the main plot was not bad but still nothing really amazing and, on top of that, it turned out to be some massive propaganda which was rather disappointing. In my opinion, the whole thing feels nowadays terribly dated and I’m rather amazed it is still getting so much credit nowadays. At least, I have to admit it, Greer Garson and Teresa Wright were both really lovely but it was certainly not enough.

Notes: I have actually seen this one when I was younger but I can’t say I was really blown away so I thought it was time for a re-watch, to make up my mind for good. And, indeed, I now understand why it is so loved. I mean, it still is not one of my favorites but it is sure a really solid feature which completely deserves its reputation. It is interesting to notice that nobody involved, the director, the actors, the producers thought it would be a success and it was just yet another small production which was supposed to disappear pretty quickly at the box-office. Of course, it turned out to be a huge blockbuster. Personally, I really enjoyed the look of the whole thing. Some people don’t like black and white pictures but they really don’t know what they are missing, especially with these everlasting masterpieces. Furthermore, there was this tremendous chemistry between Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman which has become a blueprint for many doomed love stories that came afterwards.

Notes: First of all, when you watch this flick, you have to keep in mind that you are actually watching one of the first ancestors of our contemporary horror movies and it was pretty neat to see how it has changed in 70 years. Back then, there was basically no sex, no blood, in fact, to be honest, nothing much happened during the whole thing when you think about it. Pretty muck like today, they made this choice mostly because they basically had no money but it made the whole thing even more effective. There was indeed constantly this eerie atmosphere which was not really frightening but it still made me uneasy throughout the whole duration. To show the impact of this flick, you should know that the horror movie technique of slowly building tension to a jarring shock which turns out to be something completely harmless is actually called a ‘Lewton bus’ after a famous scene from this movie. How amazing is that?

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

Notes: To be honest, I’m usually not a huge fan of such vintage Westerns but this one actually really grabbed me. Indeed, it might seem to be a short and simple Western without much action and lots of dialogues instead. It’s too bad I saw it on YouTube without subtitles and I did struggle to follow the dialogues so I will probably re-watch it at some point. Anyway, it turned out to be some kind of Western version of ‘12 Angry Men’ and even though it probably didn’t go so deep, it was still really effective and often quite fascinating to watch. Back then, it was actually quite a controversial movie, it was even a flop when it was released but I was amazed by how relevant it still is nowadays. Indeed, our digital world is dominated by fake news which did result, in the US, with the storming of the Capitol back in 2021. Sure, we don’t lynch people anymore (at least, I hope so) but, deep inside, we are apparently still the same. At least, in this movie, at the end, they all seemed to deeply regret their actions but I think, in reality, most people always find some excuse or some way to rationalize what they do or did. Concerning Henry Fonda, I should definitely watch more of his old movies because the guy was back then so charismatic and fascinating to behold. Unsurprisingly, it was one of his favorite movies.

Notes: It was the 2nd movie directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger and it would be their first critical and commercial hit. Well, to be honest, it actually took me a while to get into this story but it was eventually really worth it. Indeed, the whole thing turned out to be some rather fascinating study of a character with a 40 years span. I was first of all blown away by the make-up but it was also a very nuanced movie. The directing was also quite impressive and the actors were top notch. It was also rather amazing that they dared portray a German character in a postive light (Apparently, it seems that Churchill hated this flick). And, yet, like most of the movies directed by these guys, even though I was able to admit the work done, I still had a hard time to connect with the damned thing. At the end of day, it is all a matter of taste and, if you are into this kind of movies, you will love it, otherwise, it might actually bore you.

Notes: What a strange and beautiful movie. First of all, I have seen my share of silent movies (probably not enough though) but it was the first time I saw a movie without even some background music added afterwards, as it was apparently intended to be watched this way. To be honest, I thought it was incredibly difficult to focus without any sound or music whatsoever. Still, the damned thing was really neat. Indeed, I was above all impressed how it was visually completely different than anything produced back then in the 40's. Seriously, it felt so modern that it reminded me of many surreal videoclips that come out on a regular basis, except that this movie was made almost 80 years ago. I have to admit that this movie was rather hard to grasp, I'm grateful that it was so short as it would probably not work with a longer format. Anyway, maybe I should re-watch it at some point because the damned thing was so intriguing.

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

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

Notes: I have always been a huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock’s work and I was really eager to check it out. On top of that, it was apparently Hitchcock’s favorite movies so I was expecting a lot from the damned thing. Well, to be honest, I was rather amazed by how little I actually cared about this movie. I mean, sure, it was still a decent thriller but I really couldn’t see what was supposed to be so amazing about this feature. Indeed, during the first half, nothing much really interesting happened and it took the damned thing forever to take off. Then, in the second half, it started to become slightly more entertaining but it was too little, too late. Basically, the main idea is that the ominous Uncle Charlie goes to his relatives and the viewers are supposed to be charmed by this sweet family living in this nice little town. Well, to be honest, I didn’t care much for them. Furthermore, I never really understood their fascination and obsession towards this Uncle Charlie. Still, it remains a decent watch though.

Notes: I wonder if it was the first movie directed by Luchino Visconti that I managed to watch. Anyway, I remember it very well the first time I saw it. Indeed, back then I was studying in England, in Cambridge for a year, and I managed to follow a course about movies which was easily my favorite course. Every week we would watch a movie and talk about it, starting from the silent era going up to the 90’s. I think this movie was one of the first we watched and it had a great impact one me. At the time, I wasn’t familiar with this story (I hadn’t seen yet both versions of ‘The Postman Always Rings Twice’ from 1946 and 1981 but Visconti’s take was still the best) and I thought it was quite fascinating. What was even more impressive is that this movie was Visconti's directing debut. For a first time director, the guy definitely displayed some skills and, just like Godard and Truffaut with the New Wave, he pretty much managed to launch a whole movie genre in the process (Italian neo-realism).

Notes: In fact, the first time I saw the damned thing, it was at school when I was a teenager. Basically, like anyone else, I got to watch some movies with my teachers but, most of these attempts were rather disastrous. Indeed, instead of making us watch such modern classics like ‘Pulp Fiction’ or ‘Fight Club’, they would make us watch some old movies which were usually very poorly received. For example, one teacher made us watch ‘Johnny Got His Gun’ and even though it is in fact a great classic, can you imagine watching this with a classroom filled with 30 brainless teenagers? However, there was this one English teacher who actually did manage to show us some very old flicks and, surprisingly, those old classics turned out to be really interesting and entertaining. This movie turned out to be the best of the bunch. Indeed, for each class, we would watch like 15-20 minutes and then we would have a discussion about what actually happened and what could happen next. Eventually, the damned thing was so spellbinding that we would still talk about it even after the class during the break. On top of that, Gene Tierney was easily one of the best femmes fatal I had ever seen.

Notes: I have to admit that the whole thing looked really nice and the production value was quite impressive. Judy Garland, who was only 21 years old at the time, was also at the top of her game. Indeed, she was really quite charming and, even if I didn’t care much about the songs in this movie, her voice was still quite marvellous. Unfortunately, those were pretty much the only things I did enjoy in this flick. Sure, Margaret O'Brien did give a decent performance as Tootie Smith but I still didn’t care much about her character and the rest of the characters were even more tedious, at least, to me. Above all, the story was just so flimsy and shallow. Seriously, what did really happen during this movie after all? Not much. Nobody loses his job, Nobody gets sick, nobodies dies,… I mean, the most and only dramatic event was for the family to move from St Louis to New York but even this ‘tragic’ event didn't occur after all. Sure, I’m well aware it is inherent to the genre to give 2 hours of entertainment with songs and dance with very little drama or without even a basic plot. However, in my opinion, the best movies in this genre still manage to do something original or at least interesting with this formula but it wasn't the case here. Anyway, even if I didn’t care much about the damned thing, it is still a classic and it is worth a look.

Notes: Well, this movie is really the stuff of legend. First of all, it was the first movie starring Lauren Bacall and back in those days, she was only 20 years old when she made it and it was also the first movie she made with her future husband, Humphrey Bogart. Furthermore, it was directed by the great Howard Hawks and it is an adaptation of a novel written by Ernest Hemingway. Basically, it doesn't get more prestigious than this, does it? Anyway, the acting was off the charts, the directing was very good and I just really enjoyed the story, basically one of those typical film noir they used to make back then. I mean, it was a rather typical film noir but it was full of awesome one-liners and the tone was just really well set and I thought it was completely entertaining. To conclude, it is really a good classic and it is definitely worth a look.

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

Notes: Nowadays, they usually adapt the classic Shakespeare plays with a modern setting but I really did appreciate that Laurence Olivier set the story in the 15th century like it was in Shakespeare’s original work. I was also impressed to discover that it was actually Olivier’s directorial debut as this lavish production was quite ambitious for a first time effort. Still, to be honest, it has been a while since I have seen such a challenging movie though. Indeed, even if I did watch it with some English subtitles, I still struggled with these 2 hours of non-stop vintage Shakespearean dialogues. Furthermore, is it me or was the story actually super simple? In fact, I actually saw Kenneth Branagh’s version but it was ages ago and I can’t say I remember much about it though. Anyway, it seemed that Henry V, for some rather dubious reasons at least to me, went to France, kicked their ass, and married the daughter of the French king, Charles VI, but I thought it all seemed rather thin for more than 2 hours of running time. Eventually, the whole point was obviously not the plot but the intricate but still marvelous dialogues written by the Bard. On top of that, it was probably the most faithful adaptation of a Shakespeare’s play I have seen so far. Indeed, Olivier went as far as having the first scenes taking place as an actual play in some theater in 1600 and this approach was unexpected but really neat. The rest of the story was then handled in a much more straightforward way but it still worked though.

Notes: Eventually, I wasn't disappointed, that's for sure. Indeed, it was a spellbinding film noir, easily one of the best movies in this genre, and it completely deserved its stellar reputation. What I loved the most was the simple and minimalistic way this story was told. Indeed, most of the movie was just about Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck only together in one room talking with each other and giving us some of the best dialogues ever written for a movie. Nowadays, they would give us some boring climax with some huge action scene and, of course, the usual tedious twist at the end but, here, the whole thing remained focused and sharp from the beginning and until the end. It was like the plan they came up with, it was not so far-fetched at all and it made the whole thing even more spellbinding to behold. I also loved the fact that the main character was not fooled by this girl and at first simply walked away when he found out what she was up to, even if he felt terribly attracted to her. That's another great thing about this movie, the characters were all rather shaddy and you could never be sure what they were actually thinking.

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

This entry is for Part I and Part II



Part I (1944)


Part II (1958)

Notes: Among Eisenstein’s prestigious track-record, this movie and its follow-up are considered as some of the best movies ever made and I could see right away why. Indeed, even if this movie was backed by Stalin himself, it clearly stood out from the propaganda movies made by Eisenstein during the 20’s. Above all, the damned thing was visually so impressive. On top of that, the performances were pretty good, especially by Nikolay Cherkasov who was just so strong here. Seriously, it is hard to believe that it was the same actor who played the Czar Ivan IV at the beginning and at the end of this movie. However, even if the scale was epic thanks to its visuals and the strong performances, to be honest, in my opinion, nothing much really happened after all. Basically, most of the duration was about the boyars either complaining or plotting against the Czar but, right from the start, Ivan was well aware of the fact that the boyars were against him but I don’t get why he didn’t do anything to get rid of them or, at least, diminish their influence since they were clearly his biggest enemies. Still, this movie did provide a very interesting balance showing at the same time that Ivan was a charismatic leader and visionary who set the foundations for modern Russia but also a paranoid delusional megalomaniac. Concerning the 2nd part, Even though it was shot just after the 1st installment, this movie was eventually released more than 10 years later because Stalin apparently hated the damned thing. It would be released only after his death (by then Sergei Eisenstein had long passed away as well). Basically, even though Stalin was positive about Eisenstein’s first movie, he didn’t care for this sequel because its portrayal of Ivan was too negative but, to be honest, I didn’t see much difference with the previous movie. It’s not that it was bad though, not at all. Indeed, once again, it was visually quite impressive and Ivan was once again a really interesting character. However, I was expecting more evolution from happened in the previous movie, above all, I thought that Ivan would evolve but, as far as I was concerned, it was all pretty much the same. On the other hand, I have to admit that I really enjoyed how Ivan completely flipped around the plot to assassinate him. It was also really neat to see Eisenstein experimenting with color and one can only imagine what he could have done if he didn’t die fairly young and if he wouldn’t have been crippled by the Soviet regime for most of his career.

Notes: Well, even though it was indeed pretty good, to be honest, it didn't completely blow me away. First of all, even though Joan Crawford delivered a solid performance and won at the time the Academy Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role, in my opinion, her character should have been more complex. Indeed, even though Mildred Pierce was first presented as a possible murderer, Crawford slowly removed any evidence that this woman was anything else than perfect and it backfired as it made this woman much lesser interesting then when the movie started. Eventually, the more complex character turned out to be actually Veda Pierce thanks to a really strong performance by Ann Blyth but even this character didn't really work after all. Basically, all what Mildred Pierce did was to give a better life to her children, especially Veda. However, at some point, she managed to become really rich which should have been more than sufficient but Veda kept on being impossible to deal with with no real explanation whatsoever except to provide some conflict to move the story forward. Anyway, even though it didn't completely work for me, I have to admit that it was still a solid film noir.

Notes: To be honest, even though this movie has a very good reputation, it turned out to be a decent watch but not much more than that. I mean, sure, it was a solid film noir, no doubt about it, but there are some much better movies in this genre, at least, that's my opinion. Eventually, nothing much really happened through the whole thing and it was basically about the unluckiest main character I have ever seen or maybe, as it was argued by some critics, just a thief telling a bunch of lies to the audience but I think it be would giving this movie too much credit. Eventually, I was actually more interested in Vera thanks to Ann Savage who gave such a strong performance. In my opinion, she completely stole the show from the moment she got involved. Anyway, even if it didn't really blow me away, it was still pretty good though.

Notes: By now, I have seen 5 movies directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger and all of them were included in this list. Well, from all those movies I have seen, this is the only one I didn't really enjoy. I mean, the title was pretty good but the scope was rather small this time, compared to their other productions which were much more ambitious and, to be honest, I didn't care much about the story and the characters involved. I mean, the whole thing was well directed and it was not bad at all but I didn't really enjoyed it probably because it was not my cup of tea, I guess. Still, it is a classic and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

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

Notes: Since it is considered one of the greatest classics of the French cinema, of course, I was really eager to check it out and eventually, I wasn’t disappointed, that’s for sure. Indeed, first of all, you have to check the great people who were involved in this production (it was directed by Marcel Carné and written by French poet Jacques Prévert). When you dig into its history, it is even more amazing as you think that they managed to make this flick during the height of the Nazi occupation and, apparently, it seems that many members of the resistance were actually involved in this production. I have to admit, it is a rather long feature but, with some gorgeous black and white cinematography, some really impressive actors, the whole thing was still pretty damned mesmerizing. By now, I have seen my share of movies directed by Marcel Carné and this must be the most prestigious one.

Notes: To be honest, I had a rather hard time to connect with this movie. First of all, I saw it a little bit late so I wasn't really focused. On top of that, it didn't help that John Huston's voice was terribly monotonous and, even though what he told the viewers was quite informative, I don't think it always matched the action on the screen. As a result, while I was constantly trying to follow his narration, I was also struggling to follow at the same time what was actually going on on the battlefield. Seriously, I wish he did shut up for a few mins and just let the images actually handle the narrative, that's what movies are about, otherwise, we can just as well listen to the radio. Anyway, I thought it was some rather basic US propaganda but this movie is usually considered as a fairly accurate and above all rather bleak depiction of warfare during WWII. In fact, the damned thing was even considered to be too blunt by the US Army who refused to show it as a result. Anyway, even if the damned thing didn't really work for, it was still an interesting watch and it is definitely worth a look.

Notes: After hearing many great things about this flick, I was really eager to check it out. Personally, I was more familiar with Lean's later work, composed of great epic adventures such as 'Doctor Zhivago', 'Lawrence of Arabia' or 'The Bridge on the River Kwai'. Here, it is something quite different entirely, in fact, it is the complete opposite. Indeed, it is in black and white and it deals only with two characters, a man and a woman dealing with some rather mundane predicament. However, if the scale was smaller, the whole thing was nonetheless quite fascinating. Indeed, basically, it is a very simple story about love and adultery but so human, so recognizable and so relevant. Honestly, I can't pretend I was really familiar with the actors portraying the two main characters but they both did a really good job. Above all, I was really impressed by the directing by David Lean. Indeed, like I said before, we are here far from his epic work but he still managed to share with us the tormented life of those two lost souls and it was quite something to behold.

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

Notes: To be honest, with such a title, I was actually expecting something rather cheesy. Well, I have to admit that the end-result turned to be not so corny after all and, eventually, I wonder what they actually meant with this title. Still, even though they did give an interesting look on what it meant, and probably still means, to go back home for many soldiers, they didn’t cut really deep into this sensitive subject though. Indeed, not one of these soldiers suffered from debilitating PTST, not one of them did beat up their wife or girlfriend, not one of them became an alcoholic or a drug addict and not one of them went on a shooting rampage. Still, I still have to admit that they didn’t complete sugarcoat what they went through and their portrayals did feel truthful and convincing. The fact that these 3 men were basically some average guys and not some kind of perfect super-beings also really helped. On top of that, it was definitely courageous to take some distance from all these movies displaying war as such a great and honorable endeavor for all involved, especially only a few years after WWII ended. It was also a master move to cast Harold Russell, an actual wounded soldier, to play Homer Parrish and you can imagine that, nowadays, they would hire instead a famous actor and use some CGI but this approach was obviously much more naturalistic and simply better.