1001 Movies ... my own version (1970's)

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

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

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

Notes: Eventually, it turned out to be a fairly realistic but also really stylish crime thriller. Indeed, what I enjoyed the most was the expert directing of Jean-Pierre Melville who managed to deliver such a spellbinding mood without even using some music (except during the heist scene). Still, I have to admit that I did struggle with the story through. I mean, sure, it was entertaining but there were some stuff that kept bothering me. For example, why would Mattei go with Vogel by train all by himself? It didn't make much sense. Then, there was this combination of two completely different stories, the escape and the heist, which felt rather jarring to me. Finally, there was the fact that, even though you spend more than two hours with these men, you barely learn anything about them after all. I get that, as pointed out by Roger Ebert, all that really matters was that they behaved as men of honor in a world with a very specific code but, to be honest, I'm not so sure if I really cared though. Still, the damned thing was just so well made and it is pretty obvious that it must have been a major inspiration for many directors that came afterwards such as Quentin Tarantino for example.

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

Notes: Well, that was definitely a very intriguing picture. Basically, it was dealing with a talented man who made the decision to literally throw it all away and, in the process, he also decided to make a mess of himself and his life. Eventually, the guy didn't give a sh*t about anything or anyone else and it led to a rather destructive behavior. Who else than Jack Nicholson could play such a conflicted part?!? Not many actors, I guess. Following his guest part in 'Easy Rider', this movie definitely put him in the spotlights and he didn't leave the A list for the following 50 years. To be honest, the first half was in fact rather slow and I wasn't really interested by the whole thing but, during the second half, you finally get acquainted with his dual side and then the movie became a fascinating character study. Eventually, you come to the conclusion that this guy didn't fit anywhere. He despised the elitair crowd with which his family was hanging out but he despised just as well his working class ‘friends’. You really wonder what he will be doing with himself but you get the feeling he didn’t have a clue himself either.

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

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

Notes: I have to admit it, it is a pretty cool story, absolutely, I even think I read the book when I was a kid but, still, I wasn’t really blown away by this movie and I would say that I preferred Tim Burton’s version. Indeed, I forgot that it was a musical version and all those songs were pretty boring to me. Then, I’m sorry, but I wasn’t really impressed by Wonka’s factory. I mean, 40 years later, the scale was not really impressive and it didn’t look delicious (apparently, 1/3 of the set was actually eatable, even the chocolate river so they did actually try). Another thing that bothered me was that maybe half of the movie was about looking for those damned golden tickets and the rest of the movie felt pretty rushed. Finally, Gene Wilder gave a really good performance but I felt they only scratched the surface about this mysterious Willy Wonka figure and it would have been nice to learn a little more about him. Still, for a 40 years old feature, it still stand out from the other productions from that time.

Notes: Now, that’s what I call a weird movie. Indeed, I wasn’t ready at all to watch something like this and I was expecting actually something else. I thought it would be a movie about a walkabout done by an Aborigene but I was really mistaken. This movie is definitely something else entirely and I would have a rather hard time to explain what it was actually really about. First, you have about 5 minute of rather random scenes of urban life, then rather suddenly, you get a father and his kids having a picnic in the desert but that’s just the start. Indeed, the guy has an unexplained meltdown and tries to shoot his children before setting his car on fire and killing himself. So, the kids are left alone in the merciless Australian desert and you would think that they would panic but, no, they remain calm during the whole movie. That’s the one of the many things that flabbergasted me with this flick. How could they remain so calm in such circumstances? Anyway, when it seemed that they wouldn’t survive, they finally met this young man during his walkabout but the story didn’t stop getting weird. Indeed, there were tons of sexualized imagery, it was constantly intercut with some rather random stuff and I won’t even start with the ending. Later on, I discovered that Roger Ebert really loved this flick and he developed some interesting views about the communication issues between the 3 main characters but, personally, I had a hard time with those 3 characters, above all, with their numb behavior. Still, there was definitely something mesmerizing about the whole thing.

Notes: Back in the 90’s, I had the pleasure to discover Akira Kurosawa’s movies and I became overnight a huge fan of his work. Of all his movies I have seen so far, this must be the most underrated coming from this director but it is definitely one of the best he has made, at least, as far as I’m concerned. Indeed, I think it is an amazing movie dealing with the slums in Japan and, even though it might sound weird, I really loved its bleak and realistic approach. Indeed, all his famous samurai features such ‘Rashomon’, ‘Yojimbo’ and ‘Shichinin no samurai' were of course pretty awesome but I think it was really neat to see this director working on something contemporary. Unsurprisingly, even though the Japanese master had some big expectations, this movie turned out to be a big box-office failure which isn’t really surprising considering its massive depressing tone. At the time, Kurosawa was already struggling and the blow was so huge at the time that he even attempted suicide.

Notes: Even though I have a lot of respect for this flick, eventually, it didn’t really win me over though. That’s something that sometimes happen with old classics like this one. Indeed, at the time of its release, it must have been really groundbreaking but, during the following 50 years, they have made so many similar movies that it has lost some of its impact, at least, in my case. Still, there is no denying that it is really solid gritty thriller with a star-making performance from Gene Hackman. This movie will be also forever remembered for its amazing car chase which is still considered as one of the best ever made, even after all these years. A couple of years later, William Friedkin would come back with ‘The Exorcist’ which was another massive hit and definitely one of the most highly regarded horror movies ever released. Unfortunately, after making 2 classics back-to-back, the rest of his career turned out ot be rather underwhelming. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, even though I’m not exactly a huge fan, it is still a really entertaining classic.

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

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

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

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

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

Notes: To be honest, I'm not a huge of musicals but, still, I try to remain open-minded and, like any other genre, if you watch the very best of them, there is a good chance they will be something you like about them. So, indeed, I thought it was pretty good, even if I wasn't completely blown away. Basically, it was Bob Fosse's 2nd directing effort and it was probably his most successful movie, at least critically. Fosse himself was actually quite a phenomenon. Indeed, he was an actor, a dancer, a choreographer, a musical director, a screenwriter and a film director. He won an unprecedented eight Tony Awards for choreography and was nominated for an Academy Award four times, winning for his direction of 'Cabaret' (beating Francis Ford Coppola for 'The Godfather' no less). If you ask me Coppola should have won the oscar back then but still the directing was pretty solid. Above all, the thing I enjoyed the most was how dark and gloomy the whole thing was. Indeed, most musicals are really joyful which tends to get on my nerves but this one was actually really sad and I really liked this approach. However, I still have a hard time when once a while the actors stopped the flow of the story just to sing or dance along but without this, it wouldn't be a musical but something entirely different.

Notes: Honestly, it is a rather difficult movie to judge. Indeed, the animation is probably not the best you have seen (apparently, they had such a low budget that Bakshi didn't even use pencil tests so that's hardly surprising) and its artistical merit is rather dubious. Still, even though it might not be a masterpiece, I still believe it is a groundbreaking feature. Indeed, even if I have seen by now around 7000 movies, I have never seem something similar before or after. Indeed, a mainstream animated picture is hugely time consuming (especially 50 years ago when everything was hand-drawn) and costs a lot so the producers have always been focusing on some safe family features to minimize the risks. At least, Ralph Bakshi dared to take some risks and he was rewarded by the box-office as this movie was a huge success. Eventually, he would have much more problem in the the 80's and the 90's ('Cool World' was a massive flop at the time) and the guy is pretty much retired nowadays. As I mentioned before, the plot is not really great and it is definitely an acquired taste but I thought it was quite fun though.

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

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

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

Notes: In fact, I first saw the remake directed by Kenneth Branagh and, even though this remake didn’t get much love, I thought it was a decent watch. Well, I understand now why most of the viewers didn’t care for Branaggh's version though since this classic was indeed miles better. I’m also glad that I saw this remake such a long time ago because, this way, I didn’t remember some crucial details. However, I wish I did see the damned thing with some subtitles as the dialogues were amazing but sometimes slightly difficult to follow, especially since English is not my mother-tongue. Anyway, the whole thing was just fascinating with 2 great (or should I say 3) performances from Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine who were both at the top of their game. The only minor issue I had was that, while Michael Caine looked amazing as Inspector Doppler, I thought he didn’t conceal enough his voice and it was pretty easy to recognize him after all but it wasn’t a big deal. Eventually, even though you spend more than 2 hours with only 2 actors in one single location, it was yet just so fascinating and spellbinding to behold.

Notes: Back in those days, Marlon Brando’s career had already been rather chaotic and this flick must have been his most controversial one. Basically, it was really messed up, I have to admit that it is an acquired taste and if you are not yourself more or less twisted, there is a fair chance that you won’t like it whatsoever. Still, not everything really worked with this movie though. For example, the way the main characters actually meet each other was actually convoluted and unbelievable. Furthermore, everything involving Jean-Pierre Léaud was rather underwhelming and could have been left out. Anyway, in spite of its flaws, I thought it was still such a fascinating story and this movie was dealing with one of the most messed-up and destructive love stories I had ever seen. The point was that Marlon Brando’s character was pretty much a major frustrated manipulative douche-bag and, apparently himself and Bertolucci were really terrible towards the very young Maria Schneider and it is something that you have to be able to handle, otherwise, the whole thing will be pretty much unwatchable for you.

Notes: Even though some people believe this movie doesn't deserve so much praise, you can't possibly deny its huge impact on motion picture history. Basically, it is one of those flicks that you could/should watch every 10 years. Indeed, the first time I watched it, I was about 16 years old and, of course, I had some huge expectations and, to be honest, I thought it was slightly disappointing. Indeed, even though I did like it, it didn't really grab me like, for example, 'Goodfellas' did. The point is that Scorsese's masterpiece is full of energy, wildly entertaining, pretty much in-your-face and really accessible for younger viewers. Coppola's masterpiece, on the other hand, is a total different kind of ball game. Indeed, it is really subtle, quiet, slow paced, really meditative and, quite frankly, it went over my head when I was younger. So, I re-watched it, 10 years later, with my wife and this time, I was really blown away by the whole thing. Indeed, this time, I was able to appreciate this masterpiece in all its perfection. Basically, the story was just spellbinding, the cast was great and Coppola was absolutely at the top of his game (this guy basically ruled the 70's anyway).

Notes: Even though this movie is a huge classic, to be honest, I always had a hard time to really care for this movie. Basically, before I watched the damned thing, I was expecting something really scary but eventually I didn't think it was scary at all. As a matter of fact, the first time around, I thought it was actually even rather funny. My guess is that 40 years ago, when it came out, people were quite shocked and possibly scared but nowadays, there are so many movies which are really more disturbing. Seriously, when the girl is screaming, swearing, puking, playing with the crucifix, did you think it was really scary ? I did not. Still, it is far from being a bad movie. Indeed, I saw it again not so long ago and it definitely had some qualities. To start off, the directing was very good and the eerie tone of the whole thing was actually very well done. The main flaw, I guess, was with the story. Basically, you can feel that it was the first big movie dealing with Excorcism since they spent way too much time trying to 'scientifically' prove that the girl was not possessed. I mean, the most incredible things happened to this girl and you kept seeing again and again those scientists saying 'there is a perfect logical explanation for this phenomenon' and you could see the mother nodding 'yes, of course!'... As a viewer, it takes you about 5-10 minutes to figure out the whole thing, but it takes the movie about 90 minutes to get there so it gets really tiresome and really unbelievable after a while. But again, in my humble opinion, the least successful part was when the girl goes completely Lucifer on us. Most of the time I was actually shocked about how ridiculous the whole thing looked. Anyway, it is definitely not a bad movie but, in my opinion, it didn't grow old very well.

Notes: To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this movie and I should definitely re-watch it at some point. By now, I have seen most of the movies directed by François Truffaut but, even though it is his one of his most critically acclaimed features, I still had a hard time to connect with the damned thing. I mean, it was well done and fairly intriguing but I’m afraid it was still too abstact for me and, to be honest, it all felt rather pretentious to me. The other tricky thing with this rather artistic approach is that you never really get to know the characters involved and you don’t really get a plot to hang onto. On the other hand, I was really young when I first saw it so I should definitely check it out again at some point to make up my mind about the damned thing.

Notes: Since I saw again ‘How to Get the Man's Foot Outta Your Ass’ recently, I thought it was really time to see this notorious movie directed by Melvin Van Peebles. Well, basically, it was a similar situation that we had with ‘Ed Wood’ which was a great movie about the making-off of ‘Plan 9 from Outer Space’ which was pretty awful. I mean, this movie was not as bad as ‘Plan 9 from Outer Space’ was but, to be honest, it wasn’t really good either. Indeed, half of it was about Sweetback running around and the other half was pretty much impossible to follow. Furthermore, it was rather poorly shot with some weak performances. And, yet, while watching this flick, you shouldn’t forget that it was a huge milestone. Indeed, pretty much like ‘Black Panther’ released in 2018 displayed that there could be successful blockbusters with a all black cast and crew, this movie broke many stereotypes concerning the black folks and even launched the Blaxploitation genre. Furthermore, that was also the good thing about watching ‘How to Get the Man's Foot Outta Your Ass’, was that it made clear that making this movie was difficult, mostly on a financial level but not only, and this struggle also deserves some respect.

Notes: Even if I really liked this movie, to be honest, I have to admit that it didn’t really blow me away though. The main issue, I guess, was that there were some big chunks of time during which nothing much really happened. Still, there is no doubt that Nicolas Roeg delivered here a fascinating movie above all thanks to some stellar cinematography and editing. Indeed, the whole thing started with the most nightmarish intro you could imagine. Afterwards, Venice had never look so spooky before and the damned thing was just seriously ominous and unsettling. Of course, the fact that most of the action took place abroad also increased the sense of alienation experienced by the two main characters. On top of that, Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie also gave some of their best performances and got involved in one of the most notorious sex scenes ever made. It’s interesting that many viewers consider it as one of the best horror movies when in fact it is clearly really different than your average horror flick. Eventually, I think I should rewatch this movie at some point to make up my mind for good about the damned thing. Anyway, even if I wasn't completely sold, it was still a really strong psychological thriller though.

Notes: I'm a huge fan of animated features but it is sometimes rather frustrating that most of those features lack any sort of ambition and we usually end up with some children orientated flicks. Disney is the biggest culprit here. I mean, on the technical side, they have perfected their style and, after 60 years, the result is quite mind-blowing. Unfortunately, their stories are very often really tedious to watch with the usual talking animals. However, there are some brilliant minds in the animation world who did manage to break the old mold and this flick is a perfect example. Indeed, it is a really amazing Science-Fiction feature creating a fascinating but also at times quite distressing world. First of all, I really loved the animation. It had a very distinctive peculiar style but I thought it was quite beautiful. Furthermore, the combination with the mesmerizing music was just amazing, especially during the first minutes. The only low point would be the lack of plot or narrative structure. Indeed, there was not really a story and you jump instead randomly from one event to another without much continuity. It was also rather disappointing that they decided to spend more time with the humans than with the Draags which were much more interesting in my opinion. However, even if it isn't flawless, it is still one of the most original animated features ever made.

Notes: When I was a kid, I watched many movies starring Bruce Lee with my father and I thought they were really awesome. Eventually, about 20 years later, I ended up watching one of them (I’m not really sure which one it was) with my step-son and, to be honest, I thought it was rather disappointing. Obviously, Bruce Lee was just amazing, no doubt about it, but everything else (the acting, the dialogues, the story,…) turned out to be rather weak. However, this movie is still really cool, even after all these years. Indeed, even though the story was pretty straightforward and generic, I thought it was really entertaining and the whole concept was just perfect for Bruce Lee. On top of that, this movie was quite a milestone, it introduced the martial-arts genre to the mainstream audience and it has been a major inspiration to countless movies that came afterwards. Unfortunately, even though this movie was a hit, Bruce Lee died three weeks before the film's premiere so he never really enjoyed this massive celebrity status and one can only imagine the great movies he could have made afterwards. Anyway, I really loved the damned thing.

Notes: Basically, after struggling for many years, Martin Scorsese finally managed to get his breakthrough. Indeed, even though this movie was not his debut, it was here that he finally introduced his directing style and displayed his huge potential. Of course, Robert De Niro was involved and he would also get his breakthrough thanks to this movie. To be honest, I don't think it is one of Scorsese's best movies though. Indeed, there was basically no story and it was rather messy. Eventually, he would make ‘Taxi Driver’, ‘Raging Bull’, ‘Goodfellas’ and ‘Casino’ and those are only some of the movies he would direct with De Niro so that’s rather unfair to compare this movie to such impressive classics but it was still really solid. Above all, with this movie, you were able to witness the birth of one of the greatest American directors that ever lived. The most interesting aspect, in my opinion, was how gritty the whole thing was and how genuine it felt. Indeed, so far, most gangsters have been rather glamorized but, here, they were displayed as human beings, albeit twisted but still human which was really refreshing. This attention in constructing some well defined characters would then become a trademark in Scorsese's work.

Notes: If you are ever interested in Dutch movies, you must see this flick. It is the masterpiece that influenced every single Dutch movies that came afterwards. I mean, in spite of its highly sexual content, it was in 1973 the most successful Dutch film ever made and it's still the most attended Dutch film in the Netherlands, almost 40 years later! So, it is huge, the best movie ever made by Paul Verhoeven and I really loved it. Indeed, in my opinion, it is one of the best love stories I have ever seen. There is a one of a kind chemistry between Rutger Hauer and Monique van de Ven and they both gave some tremendous performances. Even though I'm usually not fond of randomness, I thought it was amazing how some small little events would happen on almost every single scene. It kept the whole thing so pure, fresh and much more spellbinding than any romantic feature you will see coming from Hollywood. The lovers basically do everything together, they make love like beasts, they fight, they laugh, they throw stuff at each other, they even have a car crash together on their first meeting, even when they are separated, they are still crazy about each other and, for the viewers, they are completely spellbinding to watch. Some people in the Netherlands argue that this movie is now old and has lost its edge but I completely disagree. 40 years later, it is still a massive piece of work and Dutch cinema is still waiting for something that good to come along

Notes: Sidney Lumet had a rather productive career managing to direct more than 40 movies, some major classics, some major bombs and a whole bunch of really obscure features. However, there is no doubts that this movie definitely belongs to his masterpieces. To be honest, I still think that 'Dog Day Afternoon', which Lumet made 2 years later also with Al Pacino, is superior but it is still a fine picture. To start up, it is rather fascinating story, albeit depressing, but still very interesting. It is basically what happens when you give an average guy a gun and some power, there is a fair chance that they will abuse it. In my opinion, the greatest asset in this movie is Frank Serpico himself. Indeed, he is such an interesting character, even if you would remove the whole corruption story, the guy would still be interesting and it is obviously thanks to a great performance by Al Pacino. Like Robert de Niro, I have been following Pacino for almost 25 years and, honestly, most of his recent work is just not worth your time and it is in fact much more rewarding to watch such old classics like this one.

Notes: I had actually already seen this flick and, if I recall it correctly, the first time I saw it was about 20 years ago when I was living in England. Back then, I wasn’t really familiar with Terrence Malick and I watched this flick because it was considered as a masterpiece. Nowadays, I have all the movies directed by Malick and I thought it was time to revisit his directing debut. Unfortunately, even this second time around, I wasn’t exactly blown away by the whole thing. The main issue I had back then and still have is that the characters are rather aimless, emotionless and filled with a guastly void. As a result, I had a hard time to connect with them and their boredom was actually highly contagious. Still, like all the work done by Terrence Malick, there is something quite fascinating about this flick. Indeed, I love the way he always challenges the typical narrative conventions and the photography was just superb with some amazing shots. Furthermore, even though I had a hard time to care about the characters, I don’t think Martin Sheen or Sissy Spacek should be blamed since they both gave some very good performances.

Notes: Well, it is probably Roman Polanski's most famous movie and, I think it completely deserves its stellar reputation. Indeed, it is basically a great mix of a traditional neo-noir feature with Polanski's dark and twisted directing style. I have to admit that the plot tends to be a little bit murky so it is definitely a movie that you can easily watch a couple of times just to fully understand all the details and what the hell is actually going on. Anyway, the murkiness of the plot was actually something really inherent to genre and I really enjoyed the fact that none of the characters were really good as they all seemed to be pretty messed up, something recurrent in Polanski's work. This movie is also one of the many classics starring Jack Nicholson and he was just great in this. Eventually, it would be the last picture Polanski made in the US as he had to fled the country following the neverending drama involved in his personal life. It's such a pity because, back then, he was one of the most successful and highly regarded movie directors in the world.

Notes: To be honest, even though I have seen almost all the movies directed by Mel Brooks, I'm afraid I have never been a really huge fan of his work. Anyway, since this movie is a huge classic, I was really eager to check it out. Following its reputation, I really expected the whole thing to be seriously hilarious but, to be honest, eventually, I thought it was indeed pretty funny but not much more than I’m afraid. For me, the best example is the scene around the fire where you get to see all these cowboys farting. Well, in my opinion, this scene was fairly amusing but also rather stupid as well and it shows the level of the humor displayed in this movie. It’s such a shame that Richard Pryor wasn't allowed to play Bart as he was supposed to be as the whole thing would have been much more interesting, at least, for me. Eventually, I thought that 'The Producers' was much better but it was still a decent watch though.

Notes: To be honest, I have to admit it that I haven't seen many movies directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder so I cannot really judge his work. Anyway, this flick is the one I have seen which made the best impression on me. Indeed, if I remember correctly, I saw it when I was living in England, I was following a movie class at the time and this feature was one we had to watch. The directing and acting were very sober and realistic and it made the whole thing rather fascinating to watch. To be honest, Fassbinder has a rather gloomy visual style, you have to really dig it, and his movies are not what you could call ‘fun’ to watch and it was therefore a rather depressing feature but, still, the guy definitely had some skills. Eventually, this movie would provide Fassbinder with international success for the very first time and it is usually consider as a masterpiece nowadays. Anyway, even if I wasn’t completely blown away by the whole thing, it was still an interesting drama.

Notes: By now, I have seen most of the movies directed by Mel Brooks and I'm afraid I'm not really a fan of his work, except of course 'The Producers' which is by far his best flick, in my opinion. Indeed, when watching this movie, I had about the same feeling that I had while watching 'Blazing Saddles'. Basically, with both movies, I was expecting to be blown away by some hilarious jokes but, eventually, even though I enjoyed those two features, I was just smiling from time to time and never really laughing out loud. So, I guess it is not my type of humor, unfortunately. Still, it remains a very well made feature by Mr Brooks and it was probably his most impressive movie visually speaking. Indeed, it really gave the feeling of those old horror movies from the 30's. Furthermore, it is actually a great idea to turn this classic story into a comedy since the plot is, when you think about it for a few seconds, actually completely preposterous and ridiculous. The cast was pretty good and even though Gene Wilder is the big star as the title character, I above all enjoyed Igor who was stealing the show every time he was on the screen.

Notes: First of all, you can say whatever you want but it is definitely a really bad-ass title. The first time I watched the damned thing, to be honest, I was actually rather apprehensive as I thought it would be really terrifying. Eventually, I thought it was not really scary, sure, it was unsettling but never really scary. To make up my mind for good, I even saw it again later on but I still had the same feeling. Another thing that always bothered me was the ending which is seriously a total mess. Eventually, I think it is a little bit outdated now and not really frightening anymore but you still have to keep in my mind that it was made almost 50 years old and it has been hugely influential on all the slashers that came afterwards. On top of that, they still managed to create a great mood and I still enjoyed the damned thing. Anyway, it is a solid horror movie and it is an absolute milestone for this genre.

Notes: In France, it is a huge classic and I definitely had to watch it at some point. Concerning the director, even though Bertrand Blier never really reached much recognition on an international level, he is definitely highly regarded in France where many of his movies have been some massive commercial or critical successes. Anyway, this flick was the start of a great career for Gérard Depardieu who would become an icone in French cinema for the following 40 years. And indeed, Depardieu and Dewaere were both awesome in this flick which was often quite hilarious. When I’m watching a movie like this one, it reminds me of the fact that in France it is possible to release a movie litterally called ‘The Testicles’ and you won’t get censored in any way. Anyway, I think it is a great movie which was also a lot of fun to watch. I mean, the whole thing was pretty chaotic and there was barely any plot, instead you get on this rather wild road trip with those misfits and I thought it was quite spellbinding to watch.

Notes: One of Louis Malle's most heralded movies must be 'Au revoir les enfants' but even though it is a great flick, I actually preferred this other movie he made also about WWII. Basically, it is another classic French movie but, in my opinion, it was actually much more original and quite spellbinding to behold. Indeed, like the Vietnam war for American directors, the WWII has always been an endless source of inspiration for the French directors. So, by now, I have seen my share of French movies dealing with the subject and it is very rare to see a director trying a really different approach about this material but it was definitely the case here. Indeed, instead of telling the usual story of a heroic resistance fighter, they decided this time to focus on a rather despicable young man who was pretty much anything but a hero. As a result, you get a rather dark tale which was just quite fascinating.

Notes: Every year, I organize a poll concerning the best movies according to the Listal members and even though ‘The Godfather part I’ usually wins or ends up in the top 3, this movie doesn't get much love. Indeed, in spite of its greatness, it will always remain a sequel, probably the best sequel ever made but still a sequel nonetheless. Anyway, the fact remains that it is a great flick, probably as good as the first one. The masterstroke was to continue the story with most of the same characters but it still stands on its own though. To do so, Coppola chose a different structure which was quite spellbinding. Indeed, not only you follow Michael Corleone in his rise (or fall, it depends how you see it) as the new godfather but you follow also Vito Corleone going from Sicily to New York with literally nothing and slowly climbing his way up in the mob hierarchy. To make things even more amazing, to portray a young Vito Corleone, Coppola picked up a then still unknown Robert de Niro so he had two acting giants at the top of their games to play 2 generations of Corleones. Honestly, it doesn't get much better than that.

Notes: To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this movie and I should definitely re-watch it at some point. It is apparently Francis Ford Coppola's personal favorite of his movies. Eventually, the only reason this movie didn’t get the love it deserved was probably the fact that Coppola was really on fire in the 70’s and all his movies turned out to be some huge masterpieces (‘The Godfather’, ‘The Godfather: Part II’, ‘Apocalypse Now’). Anyway, the whole thing was a raw and realistic feature, so much more spellbinding than the modern thrillers that we get nowadays. Indeed, for example, many years later, Tony Scott came up with ‘Enemy of State’ which was also focusing on some conspiracy theory, also starring Gene Hackman in a similar part, but even though it was fairly entertaining, most of it was seriously far-fetched and borderline ridiculous. In this movie, every thing was actually likely to happen (for example, they used in this movie the very same surveillance and wire-tapping equipment that members of the Nixon Administration used to spy on political opponents prior to the Watergate scandal) which made the whole thing much more fascinating to behold.

Notes: I’m always pretty excited when I’m about to watch for the 1st time a movie directed by a renown director and this flick was my first Dario Argento feature. So, you can imagine I had some rather high expectations. Eventually, I thought it was pretty good but I can’t say I was really blown away though. I mean, it was a solid thriller, definitely, but, in my opinion, it was just a little bit better than your average thriller, not much more. Still, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t an enjoyable flick. Indeed, Argento managed to create a great tense mood and I loved the soundtrack provided by some band called ‘Goblin’. Furthermore, ever since I saw David Hemmings in ‘ Blow Up’ , I had a weak spot for this actor and he was pretty good here, even though it was rather odd to choose a British actor to play the main character in this Italian production. However, at the end of the day, in my opinion, it remains one of those typically far-fetched plots inherent to the genre and I always have a hard time to enjoy a thriller when the whole thing gets too preposterous. Anyway, it is still a very well made and entertaining flick.

Notes: It was the Monty Python's first 'real' movie and it has been a huge classic ever since. I remember it very well, one of my oldest childhood friends was really a huge fan and wouldn’t stop telling me that it was one of the greatest movies ever made. I ‘m pretty sure I saw this flick with him the first time around. Eventually, to my surprise, I didn’t like it much. Basically, I was never able to really connect with the jokes and I always found them more stupid than actually funny. By now, I have watched this movie already a couples of times and I have never actually really enjoyed it. I don't know, maybe I should give it another try. If I’m not mistaken, it was the first movie made by the Monty Python that I saw and, except with ‘Life of Brian’ which is indeed one of the best movies ever made, I didn’t really love any of their movies so I guess their humor is not for me. Anyway, even if I’m not a huge fan, it is still pretty much a classic though.

Notes: I remember very well when I saw this flick. Indeed, it was a while back, I met this dude who was just as a crazy as I was about movies and when we met, we would be constantly talking about our various favorite pictures. At some point, we agreed that he should come over to watch some movies together and we ended up having my longest binge-watching night I ever had. Indeed, we watched, if I recall correctly, about 6 movies starting from 21.00 until 6 o’clock in the morning. It was pretty glorious and, at some point during the night, we ended up watching this cult-classic. According to my buddy, it was one of the best movies ever made and I just had to watch it. Eventually, I was indeed indeed quite impressed. Obvisously, I had never seen anything like this before and, only for that, it should definitely get some credit. Still, I have to admit that I wasn’t really blown away by the whole thing. I mean, basically, it is original, weird and quite fun but it is still quite an acquired taste and I didn’t find it really hilarious or massively entertaining to be honest. Still, there is no denying that it is a huge cult-classic.

Notes: To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this flick and I should definitely re-watch it at some point. Well, after all these years, I actually have some mixed feelings about the damned thing. I mean, on one hand, it was and has always been a massive critical success and it is considered as one of the best movies ever made. On the other hand, the more I think about it, the more I believe that this movie gave a rather romantic view of the life in a psychiatric hospital. Indeed, many years after watching this movie, I had some first-hand experience, professionally and personally, with this environement and it really changed my thoughts about this movie. Indeed, even if a psychiatric hospital might not be a great place, especially back in those days, in fact, many patients would need something else than a wacky convict to experience any kind of mental relief. Anyway, even if I’m not completely convinced anymore by the damned thing, it is still a strong drama with a really solid performance by Jack Nicholson.

Notes: It is obviously the first masterpiece directed by Steven Spielberg and also a huge milestone in motion picture. We all know the story by now, Spielberg didn't have such a huge budget back then but he still managed to make one of the most thrilling flicks ever made. Indeed, because the budget was so small, the shark really looked cheap and just plain terrible so Steven Spielberg decided to show the beast as least as possible but it turned out to be a blessing. Since then, virtually every year, you get similar movies but none of them has ever reached its sheer awesomeness. Back then, it was only Spielberg's 3rd directing effort but it became the highest grossing movie ever made at the time (he will beat his own record in 1982 with 'E.T.' and again in 1993 with 'Jurassic Park'). So, already very early in his career, starting with this movie, he had a huge influence on the movie world and he actually introduced to us the summer blockbuster, if you like it or not, and it is a concept which is still going strong 40 years later. To conclude, even though I’m not always a huge fan of Spielberg’s work, I have to admit it, this movie is quite awesome though.

Notes: Amongst all the tremendous masterpieces directed by the great Stanley Kubrick, I have noticed that this one seems to be slightly overlooked which is just too bad. Indeed, it is actually a fascinating picture and I would go as far as saying that it is probably the best costume drama I have ever seen. First of all, it is really a gorgeous movie. Seriously, virtually every scene, every single shot was some kind of painting and I had very rarely seen anything like this before. Furthermore, I thought that this tale was also quite spellbinding to behold. Indeed, I have to admit that I usually have a hard time to care for this genre because it usually deals with the so-called difficult love life of the aristocrats. However, in this story, they took a really different approach and, as a result, the main character was actually rather unlikable but, as a result, he became much more interesting to follow. However, it would have been nice if the other characters might have been a little bit more developed and I have to admit that it was rather slow, especially during the 3rd act. Anyway, it was still an amazing costume drama from this great master.