1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (1950's)

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

Notes: By now, it was the 3rd movie I saw directed by Jean Cocteau and I guess I’m starting to get more familiar with his surrealist vibe. Recently, I also watched ‘La belle et la bête’ by Cocteau but, even if it did like it, to be honest, it didn’t really blow me away though. In fact, I thought this other directing effort by Cocteau was actually much more intriguing. Sure, visually speaking, it was less fancy than ‘La belle et la bête’ but Cocteau still had some neat tricks in this area but, as far as I was concerned, it wasn’t the most interesting thing about this movie. Basically, he took an ancient Greek myth and set it in a contemporary setting, which is basically what we often do with many classic Shakespeare plays. Anyway, it was above all quite fun to see that he really took some liberties with the classic mythological tale. Indeed, even though Orphée still did go to Hell to save his wife Eurydice, he seemed to be actually most of the time rather annoyed by her and, in fact, he seemed to be actually more interested by Death who herself was also in love with Orphée. It probably sounds pretty weird if you haven’t seen this movie and it was indeed weird but these unexpected turns were super interesting. Still, I have to admit I still struggled to get a good grip on this challenging material (the fact that I was really tired when I watched it probably didn’t help) and I should probably re-watch it at some point.

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

Notes: It is one of those movies I should definitely re-watch. Indeed, I saw it only once and it must have been something like 15 years ago. Still, I remember it as if it was yesterday. I was pretty young back in those days and after hearing so many good things about it, I thought I should give it a try. Of course, at first, I was a little bit worried, you know, a 60 years old movie, in black and white, in Japanese, I thought it might be boring. I think after 10 minutes, I was completely sold though. Indeed, it might be very old but at the same time I do believe it has actually a very modern structure. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of modern thrillers. I mean, some are really entertaining but I usually don't think that they are great because they always present a really preposterous plot and usually some ridiculous twist(s) at the end. This movie doesn't have this issue and basically gives a masterclass about how to properly create a thriller. Eventually, it is so pure, interesting and devilishly entertaining.

Notes: Eventually, I wasn't disappointed and the damned thing completely deserved its stellar reputation. Still, there was one thing that did prevent this movie from being completely amazing though. Indeed, I thought it was rather far-fetched that a big star like Margo Channing would hire such a total stranger to be her assistant just like that. I mean, it's not as if the girl was starving or living under a bridge. Fortunately, this small issue wasn't a deal breaker, not at all, and the rest of the movie was pretty much flawless. Indeed, I just loved the introduction, how all the characters were in fact pretty messed up and the whole thing gave a dark and fascinating look on the acting world. It shows how at least half of this world is in fact really superficial and hard work and talent won't be apparently enough, you would need to be also ruthlessly ambitious to succceed. Concerning Bette Davis, I have to confess that I haven't seen so much of her work so far but she was definitely impressive in this movie. Basically, it is a great classic and I really loved the damned thing.

Notes: To be honest, I’m not usually not a huge fan of such old Westerns but I have to admit that this one was not bad at all. Indeed, I really liked a how they mixed a rather generic vendetta with the odyssey of a precious stolen rifle. Indeed, while James Stewart’s character kept hunting for his nemesis, which was rather generic, it seemed that his stolen rifle was somehow cursed as every new owner managed to keep it only for a short while and most of them violently died in the process. As a result, it made the whole thing completely unpredictable and more entertaining than if it only focused on James Stewart’s character obsessively chasing some seemingly random dude. It’s too bad that they didn’t manage to do more with Shelley Winters’s character as she was such a charismatic actress. Indeed, in my opinion, she was more interesting than many pretty faces who were much more famous than her at the time. In fact, even Winters was not exactly impressed by what they had done with her character who basically waited on the side line until she could finally end up with the main character. Anyway, even if I don’t think that it was anything really ground-breaking, it was still a solid vintage Western.

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

Notes: Even though the directing by Billy Wilder was pretty impressive, Gloria Swanson was actually the one who really stealing the show with her powerhouse performance. It was quite amazing that even though some scenes in this movie were rather over the top, some other parts were actually really well nuanced and subtle. Personally, I have not always been a huge fan of Billy Wilder’s work, especially his comedies like ‘Sabrina’, ‘Some Like It Hot’ or ‘The Apartment’, but here, he delivered a really dark tale and it was just spellbinding to behold. You can say whatever you want about Hollywood but, from time to time, they do allow a great director to go really dark and, in this case, the end-result was just quite impressive and spellbinding to behold. On top of that, it works on so many levels, it tells a story about the characters, about the actors involved, about Hollywood in general and it goes on and on. Eventually, I really enjoyed this flick and it is a great classic.

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 ages since I have seen this flick and I should definitely re-watch it at some point. In fact, if I recall it correctly, I actually read this play when I was studying English in college. Anyway, it is such a fascinating tale and a major milestone in motion picture history. Indeed, not only Marlon Brando, probably one of the best actors that ever lived, got his breakthrough with this movie, but it was also the birth of a new acting method or, at least, it was with this movie that the mainstream audience first became acquainted with such a realistic acting style, a style which still inspires actors nowadays. Concerning the story, it is actually pretty basic and yet so spellbinding. Indeed, it deals with some average people but, like any average people, these characters were in fact seriously twisted and actually pretty messed up. As a result, it was some pretty dark stuff but the whole thing was actually quite relatable and I’m pretty sure I would enjoy it even more now since I’m older.

Notes: Even though this movie is usually very well rated, it is not one of those huge classics directed by Alfred Hitchcock like 'North by Northwest', 'Vertigo', 'Psycho' or 'The Birds', at least not in my mind. Anyway, it is in fact an awesome film noir/thriller which was a speciality of the great master. I mean, even though it is more than 60 years old, it is still so relevant and completely entertaining even nowadays. Basically, there was no chase, shooting or explosion but it was just very well directed and written. After watching so many ridiculous and far-fetched modern thrillers, it is so refreshing to see one which was so smart, clever and which totally made sense. The cast was not really made of big stars but it didn't matter at all since they all delivered some convincing performances. I know, it is black and white, I know, it is terribly old but if you manage to go beyond those futile elements, you will find a spellbinding feature and you'll remain on the edge of your seat from the beginning until the end.

Notes: Eventually, I really had a good time and I thought it was quite entertaining. Gene Kelly is definitely an amazing dancer (I always thought he was much more interesting than Fred Astaire) and there were indeed some impressive dancing numbers, probably the best I have ever seen in fact. Back then, there was a big controversy because ‘An American in Paris’ managed to sweep the Oscars while 'Singin in the rain' was snobbed when it was in fact considered a much superior movie by many. In fact, later on, I did watch 'Singin in the rain' and, in my opinion, I thought that the dancing scenes were actually much more impressive in this movie. Unfortunately, I really had a hard time to care for the story which was rather weak but I guess it is rather inherent to the genre. Anyway, even though I wasn’t completely blown away by the whole thing, it is still a classic and it is definitely worth a look.

Notes: To be honest, it has been a while since I saw this flick and I should re-watch it at some point. In fact, I was actually give this movie on VHS by a friend of my mother but, even though the guy was positive that this flick was a major classic, I was hardly convinced at the time. I mean, back then, I was maybe 15 years old and, to me, it seemed to be a rather old cheesy flick, especially with such a title. Well, I still gave it a try but, to be honest, I wasn’t really impressed, that’s for sure. Basically, it’s a movie that trying to mix a typical film noir with some fantasy elements but, as far as I was concerned, I didn’t care much for this mix. Still, I always had a weak spot for James Mason who was a fine actor, I have to admit that Ava Gardner was really gorgeous back in those days and this movie pretty much solidified her status as a rising star.

Notes: Recently, I have seen ‘The Treasure of the Sierra Madre’ which is arguably the best movie Humphrey Bogart and John Huston have made together. Eventually, they would make 5 movies and this flick was the last one they made together. Even though it is also considered as a classic, it didn’t have much an impact on me, at least not as much as ‘The Treasure…’ which was really amazing and the best thing starring Bogart I have seen so far. I mean, it was a solid and fun adventure and I had a good time watching it but there was not much depth whatsoever so it didn’t really blow me away. Still, Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn were some of the best actors of their generation and they made a great couple to watch. Eventually, Bogart would win the only Oscar of his career for this flick but it is rather discutable if it was indeed his best performance considering his work in ‘Casablanca’ and ‘The Treasure of the Sierra Madre’. Anyway, even though I don’t think it was really that amazing, it remains a decent classic.

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

Notes: Eventually, it turned out to be a decent comedy but, to be honest, not much more than that in my opinion. First of all, I saw the damned thing on the BBC without subtitles so I have to admit that I didn’t get all the jokes so maybe if I rewatch it with some subtitles, I might be able to enjoy it more. Still, it was a fun flick with another strong performance by Alec Guinness. Furthermore, I always had a weak spot for the heist genre, especially when the heist is actually quite realistic like it was in this case, at least, until the 3rd act. Indeed, at some point, the characters started to chase these little girls with their golden Eiffel towers and, in my opinion, even if it was maybe entertaining, the whole thing didn’t make much sense after that. Anyway, even if I wasn’t completely blown away by the whole thing, it was still a decent watch.

Notes: It was the first movie I saw directed by Robert Bresson and, as I expected, his work turned out to be quite challenging. Indeed, I’m not surprised that Andrei Tarkovsky was a huge fan of Bresson’s work and, to be honest, just like with Tarkovsky’s work, I did struggle to feel a connection with this movie. Indeed, even though the main character keeps telling us his feelings and thoughts mostly when writing in his diary, I was never really sure what I should think regarding the events displayed in this movie. I mean, you could argue that they tried to display the contradictions between what this community was expecting from their new priest and what he was expected to do according to his religious dogma. However, this theory completely clashed with the fact that the main character was heavily ill through most of the duration and, as result, the whole thing was rather murky, at least, to me. Still, Bresson had such a raw and realistic directing style, it made the whole thing rather ostentatious but also quite spellbinding to behold. It is also interesting to note that Bresson used to make takes after takes so that the actors would basically forget that they were acting but, to be honest, even if the performances were intriguing, I didn’t think that they were super realistic. Still, Claude Laydu, in his first acting part, was actually really good.

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

Notes: I had to admit it, I'm not really familiar with John Wayne's work and, in my opinion, he basically always portrayed typical tough guys so I was rather surprised to see him being cast in a such a romantic feature. And the best thing is that it actually worked. Basically, it is a rather simple and very old-fashioned romantic feature. Still, the fact that it was so old-fashioned made it, at the same time, very cute and charming but also sometimes rather annoying to watch. Still, I thought it was quite enjoyable to watch and the whole thing had an extra personal dimension (indeed, my own father moved from the Netherlands to live in France and I myself moved from France to live in the Netherlands). Eventually, it remains a harmless romantic flick and I thought it was pretty good, even if it was nothing really mind-blowing.

Notes: Eventually, it actually turned out to be definitely one of the saddest movies I have ever seen. First, they gave us this opening with this famous melancholic guitar tune which kept coming back throughout the whole thing. Then, in the very first scene, there was this 5 year old girl holding her dead dog while both her parents were being shot by a plane. I mean, it was just 5 minutes into the movie and I was already a total wreck... Then, they kept bringing again and again some heartbreaking scenes and, as expected, the end was also completely devastating. Around the same time period, I saw 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' as well and everybody seemed to think that it was a major tearjerker but even though it was indeed pretty heavy, compared to this feature, it was actually a piece of cake. A part from that, the acting by the kids was just really impressive and I also enjoyed the writing. Indeed, all the characters were three dimensional and felt really genuine in the sense that they were sometimes nice and sometimes pretty nasty, even this two children.

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

Notes: First of all, even though I never really cared for Fred Astaire, I always thought that Gene Kelly was very charismatic and he was, of course, a great dancer but, even though this movie was supposed to be his magnum opus, I have to admit that I had a rather hard time to really care about the damned thing. I mean, sure , I did like it but I can't say it really blew me away. Even though the story is usually the weakest point in most of the musicals I have seen, I actually enjoyed this plot but, to be honest, I expected more from the songs and dances. I know, it might sound surprising but most of these dance sequences didn’t really impress me and, eventually, I thought that the dance scenes in ‘An American in Paris’ were actually cooler than in this movie. Anyway, it probably had to do with the fact that I am not a fan of musicals and, at the end of the day, it remains a classic and it is definitely worth a look.

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

Notes: Well, even though I did like this movie, in my opinion, it turned out to be one of Akira Kurosawa's most difficult movies to grasp. It is not that it was really complicated, it was more that I’m not sure if I fully understood what Kurosawa was trying to achieve here. The best I can come up with was that we should all live as if today is going to be our last day on Earth but, eventually, very few people actually do it. Eventually, as a result, even though Takashi Shimura delivered a very strong performance, the other characters turned out to be actually more interesting. Indeed, even though we all wish to be like Kanji Watanabe, in fact, we act more like the other characters who are most of the time rather oblivious regarding Watanabe’s actions. The best example would be the final act taking place after his death during his wake. Eventually, it is one of these movies that I enjoyed more afterwards then when I was actually watching the damned thing but I should definitely re-watch it at some point. Anyway, even though I didn’t completely blow me away, it was pretty good and it is definitely worth a look.

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

Notes: To be honest, I usually have a hard time to care about those old classic Westerns. Indeed, even though I enjoyed such movies like 'Rio Bravo' or 'Shane', they didn't really blow me away. Fortunately, I liked this one a lot. The point is that it is not only a Western, it is also actually a nail-bitting thriller and, during the whole thing, you wonder how it will end up. Furthermore, it was also a very interesting character study. Indeed, Fred Zinnemann took his time to develop all the people in this town, not only Will Kane, who is basically your typical righteous sheriff. All the reactions of this common people felt really genuine and their reactions, even though it might seem cowardise, were actually rather understandable. As a result, you get a rather dark Western which clearly stands out from the other movies in this genre. I have to admit it, I was at first a little bit disappointed by the end (great, another shoot-out during which the hero kills all the bad guys and saves the day...) but the way he throws his star to the ground, looks disgusted towards his fellow citizens and leaves the town right away with this wife was just priceless.

Notes: There are apparently 3 versions of this movie (in French, in Italian and in English) but Jean Renoir apparently preferred the English version and, fortunately, it was the version that I saw. Well, it was definitely something completely different than the other movies directed by Renoir that I have seen so far and, above all, it was visually pretty neat (the restored version I saw on YouTube was pristine but it’s too bad there were some commercials every 5 mins). Still, to be honest, I actually had a hard time to care about the damned thing. I mean, what was actually the point of this movie? Apparently, it was supposed to be some kind of homage to the Commedia dell'arte, an early form of theatre originating in Italy, but beside this information, I have to admit that I didn’t know much about this Art form. At least, there is no doubt that Anna Magnani was super charismatic. I wonder if I ever saw her in another movie before but she was really the best thing in this movie. I really did appreciate the fact that even though she was attractive, she wasn’t your classic movie star, there was something really relatable about her which made her quite fascinating to behold. Still, did I really care about her character? Not really and the other characters were even less interesting, even if I have to admit that the Viceroy did have a couple of cool lines.

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

Notes: Well, it turned out to be a really solid film noir, that's for sure. In fact, the opening scene in the subway was just amazing and probably one of the best scenes I have seen in this genre. I liked as well the fact that there was no main character and also that pretty much everyone involved in this tale was actually pretty murky. The main issue, in my opinion, was that, even though it was fairly realistic how they found out who was the pickpocket, it happened really soon in the movie and, from this point on, the whole thing became rather repetitive. I mean, how many times did Candy or the cops eventually went to Skip's shack? Apparently, I did watch a version 20 mins longer than the official one and maybe it worked better with a shorter running time. Another thing that slightly bothered me was that, even though it made sense that Skip would fall for Candy (who wouldn't?) but, the other way around, it was harder to believe that she would fall in love with him. Anyway, even if it wasn't a real masterpiece, it was still really entertaining.

Notes: To be honest, I’m not a huge fan of musicals but I have to admit that this one was actually pretty good. Indeed, what I enjoyed the most was that Fred Astaire was playing a different character than usual, some kind of washed-up insecure veteran actor, and this character was much more interesting and entertaining than what I have seen him doing in his other movies. I think it was also the first movie I saw starring Cyd Charisse and not only she was quite gorgeous but she was probably the best dancer I have ever seen in such a classic musical. Especially the scene called ‘Dancing In The Dark’ during she was dancing with Fred Astaire was just downright amazing and probably one of the best musical scenes I have seen. It’s unfortunate that, even though Astaire and Charisse were some incredible dancers, in my opinion, they didn’t have much chemistry together when they were not dancing. In fact, except for Fred Astaire’s character, none of the other characters involved were really interesting or entertaining. Finally, I couldn’t really make head or tail out of the musical-within-the-musical. Indeed, I wish they displayed at least a bit of Jeffrey Cordova’s version, explaining why it was such a flop. At least, the rehearsal did display that this musical was a disaster in the making. Anyway, in spite of its flaws, it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Notes: Even though I did like this movie and even though it’s supposed to be be Jacques Tati’s best directing effort, I thought it was pretty good but still nothing really mind-blowing. I mean, sure, the whole thing was really sweet and clever but it was never really interesting or seriously entertaining. It is pretty obvious that Tati was some kind of French version of Charles Chaplin but the big difference was that Chaplin put so much poetry, drama in his stories and his characters, even if they were completely silent, were so much more developed than here. Indeed, Tati never really allows you to care about Hulot or the different characters involved and, as a result, I had a hard time to really care about what they were going through. Still, in contrary to ‘Jour de fête’ which I saw when I was a teenager, I was able to appreciate the tone delivered by Tati and the damned thing was also a great time capsule showing how it must have been to go on holiday in France back in the 50’s. Finally, it was pretty neat to see that this character was an obvious inspiration for Rowan Atkinson when he created his Mr. Bean.

Notes: Eventually, I really liked this movie and I thought it was much more enjoyable than 'Lola Montès', another classic from Max Ophüls which I saw already twice. The tricky thing with this director is that his movies are always visually so elaborate, they are always a marvel to look at, but, as a result, they might seem really superficial. In this case, the fact that it was dealing with the frivolous romances of the Aristocrats didn't help either. And, yet, even though I usually don't care much for this genre, this story did work very well. It mostly had to do with the stellar performances from Charles Boyer, Danielle Darrieux and Vittorio De Sica but their characters were also very well written. Indeed, they really evolved through this tale and I actually cared about what these characters were going through. I have to admit that my rating might be slightly too harsh and I will probably re-watch it at some point.

Notes: Eventually, even though some old classics sometimes don’t really live up to their reputation, this one certainly didn’t disappoint me. Indeed, even though the damned thing is almost 60 years old, it has aged very well and it is considered as one of the greasted classics produced in France. Well, it was definitely a fascinating picture. Back then, obviously, there was no CGI, no expansive special effects but still it really succeeds in being completely suspensful, in fact, it is much more exciting to watch than many recent Hollywood productions. Indeed, the directing by Henri-Georges Clouzot, probably one of the best French directors that ever lived was really impressive and Yves Montand, who was just starting at the time, delivered a really solid performance. A the end of the 70’s, William Friedkin who just had some massice success directing back-to-back ‘The French Connection’ and ‘The Exorcist’ decided to remake this but even though it might sound misguided and even though it turned out to be a flop, it still managed to have a decent reputation, especially for a remake. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, it is pretty much a classic and a must-see.

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

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

Notes: The point with this movie is that it is actually very simple and very complex at the same time. Indeed, it is simple in the sense that Ozu didn’t use any gimmicks or visual tricks to shot his movie as it was composed of static shots with minimal cuts. In a similar fashion, it was dealing with some average people with no secret agenda or deep secrets and nothing really extraordinary happened to any one of them through the whole duration. And, yet, it was such a complex movie in the sense that Ozu never tells you what the characters are actually thinking or feeling, he doesn’t tell you what he himself is actually thinking or feeling about what is showing you and is certainly not telling the viewers what they should be thinking or feeling. It is definitely a nice approach but it is also quite disorienting following years of watching rather dumb US movies in which every piece of information is pretty much spoonfed to the viewers. Still, what the hell did Ozu mean with his movie?!? The more I think about it, the more I believe that this movie was actually dealing with the meaning of life, no less than that. It might explain why it is still completely relevant even 70 years later for someone like me who was born in Europe and had no direct connection with Japanese culture. Indeed, basically, for the most of our lives, we will struggle some way or another to connect with other people, even with the people the closest to us. As a result, we are all pretty much very lonely and it is fitting that Noriko, the nicest person in this movie, is actually the loneliest.

Notes: Eventually, I thought it was pretty good, even if it was in fact the weakest movie directed by Fred Zinnemann that I have seen so far. The point is that the cast was indeed quite impressive (Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, Deborah Kerr, Frank Sinatra, Ernest Borgnine, Jack Warden) and the story was not bad but that was in fact the issue, it was not bad but nothing really amazing in my opinion. Apparently, the book from which it was adapted was a best seller at the time and it was much darker and displayed a rather negative view on the army. Indeed, the night club was in fact a brothel and the hostesses were prostitutes. It was also much more violent especially when displaying the treatment in the stockade and there was lot of profanity. Honestly, it did sound much more compelling to me but, at the time, there was a strict censorship and the movie was still a big success. It was also rather funny to discover that ‘Pearl Harbor’ pretty much took its whole plot from this flick.

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

Notes: Well, basically, even though the damned thing has a really solid reputation, I thought it was a rather standard Western story. Indeed, it was a generic tale about some simple farmers who are bullied by some evil cattle baron and, of course, a mysterious stranger passes by and saves the day. Seriously, it wasn’t original at all and it was completely predictable but I guess I shouldn't forget that this Western was made 60 years ago and it was made before many other Westerns would use afterwards the same template. Still, the directing and acting were solid and I did like the attention they gave to the details. It was also interesting to notice that there was barely any shooting during the whole thing, there was one big fight though. In fact, the main character was without a gun during the whole thing and it was a nice approach. Indeed, instead of making the shootings look cool like most other Westerns, they displayed here that, even though such shootings were sometimes inevitable, the consequences were usually dreadfull.

Notes: To be honest, I wasn’t impressed. Indeed, slowly but surely, I’m coming to the conclusion that Monroe was a more a star, a tabloid item, than an actual talented actress. I mean, for example, I have seen two of the three movies starring James Dean and it is pretty obvious that the guy was the real thing with an electrifying presence and some real acting skills. With Marilyn Monroe, I keep watching movies after movies and I’m always rather underwhelmed. It is not that she was really bad but I always have the feeling I’m watching Monroe, the mega-star, some kind of alter ego she and the media created, and never the actual character provided by the script. This movie is a perfect example. I mean, it was not bad and fairly entertaining but I really had a hard time to care about the whole thing. I mean, Monroe was definitely charismatic, Jane Russel as well, but the whole thing was just way too frivolous for my taste.

Notes: Since this movie is a classic, I was really eager to check it out. Eventually, even though I thought it was fairly enjoyable, I can’t say it was really my thing though. I think it has to do somewhat with my political beliefs. Indeed, I find it always difficult to care for the supposedly difficult romantic life of the rich and aristocrats. Sure, you could argue that since it is a romantic feature, I shouldn't take it so seriously but it is just too frivolous for me or maybe I'm just too cynical for this material. Eventually, the greatest thing about this flick was probably the fact that it introduced Audrey Hepburn to the world. Right away, she managed to win an Academy award for her performance and, above all, she became instantly one of the biggest movie stars in the world, a position she would keep during the following 10 years. Indeed, Hepburn was always nice to see in a movie, especially right there at the beginning of her career and she had some great chemistry with Gregory Peck.

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

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

Notes: Even though Marlon Brando’s career has always been rather inconsistent, I have always been a huge fan of the guy and since this flick is considered as one of his classics, I was quite eager to check it out. Man, at the time, he was really on fire and gave one of his best performances, arguably one of the best performances ever given by an actor. Personally, I still prefer ‘A Streetcar named Desire’ but this flick is definitely not far behind. Anyway, 3 years after making this seminal classic, Elia Kazan was working again with Marlon Brando and the end-result was once again quite impressive. Basically, contrary to most of the movies produced by Hollywood at the time and still nowadays, the main character was not some kind of almighty hero but an average man who was deeply flawed. However, even though the guy was not a real hero, he still showed some dignity but it didn’t mean that the whole thing would end up with an happy ending and the grim tone remained from the beginning until the end.

Notes: I have seen this movie a very long time ago but I was very impressed and I never have forgot it. To be honest, even though I have watched many other movies directed by Fellini, very often, it didn’t really connect with them, even some massive classics like ‘La Dolce Vita’ and ‘8 ½’. I mean, I did like them and I could see why they were considered masterpieces but they simply didn’t really blow me away. This movie was an exception though and it remains my favorite one from this director. Indeed, with this movie, you still had the poetic side of Fellini but this feature was also pretty realistic and I just loved this combination. I was also really impressed by Giulietta Masina. I mean, Anthony Quinn was really good as well but Masina really stole the show portraying some kind of female Charles Chaplin character. Anyway, even though it is more than 60 years old, it remains a great classic.

Notes: Apparently, it is a very popular story and they have made already 4 different versions with the latest one coming out in 2018 directed by Bradley Cooper and starring Lady Gaga. In fact, this latest version actually turned out to be a big critical and commercial success. Even though we are only talking about the official versions, they are also so many movies following the same template such as the infamous 'Showgirls'. Anyway, back to the movie itself, I know it is a beloved classic and, indeed, it was quite entertaining but I honestly didn't care much about the whole thing. I don't know, like I said before, it is a very old standard story and maybe I have seen some similar tales too often before. I have to admit it though, Judy Garland was pretty good but, in fact, I was more interested in James Mason who is such a fine actor and eventually, I would rather have had the movie focusing on him. Anyway, it is and remains a classic, a very well made musical with an ageless story so it is definitely worth a look.

Notes: To be honest, even though I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I must admit it, I was actually slightly disappointing. The point is that I wanted to watch this movie for so long and so badly that I had some massive expectations and I’m afraid it didn’t really fulfill those expectations. I mean, it is a very good thriller, no doubt about it, developing some interesting ideas around the fact we are all some peeping toms, especially us, the movie watchers. I also enjoyed the fact that the main character was pretty much an arrogant douchebag who can’t even be satisfied when the lovely Grace Kelly tells him that she loves him and wants to take care of him until the day he dies. The ending was also terrific and those last 10 minutes were completely nail-biting. Still, that’s the main issue, except for those last 10 minutes, there were a lot of unnecessary scenes distracting us from the obsessive behavior of the main character and the whole thing took forever to finally take off. Still, these were some minor flaws and even though it might not be the amazing masterpiece I was expecting, it remains an amazing thriller.

Notes: Even though Luchino Visconti started his career with ‘Ossessione’, the first Italian neorealist film, later on in his career he would become famous for his luxurious dramas involving the Italian aristocracy, the most famous one being ‘Il Gattopardo’. Surprisingly, I still haven’t watched ‘Il Gattopardo’ but I did watch his one which Visconti made 10 years after his directing debut. To be honest, I’m not sure if I really cared about the story. Basically, it was a rather standard doomed love story and the fact that I wasn’t really familiar with this time period didn’t help either. Eventually, what I really enjoyed about this movie was above all the mood created thanks to a gorgeous cinematography. On top of that, apparently, Visconti wanted Ingrid Bergman and Marlon Brando to play the lead roles but Alida Valli and Farley Granger were some great choices as well. Anyway, even though it might not be one of Visconti’s best movies, it was still a really solid period drama.