JefCostello

Favorite and most beautiful are different things. I'll go by thread title. 20's - Garbo 30's - Vivien Leigh. 40's - Hedy Lamarr, Gene Tierney 50's - Liz Taylor 60's - Bardot After that, things drop off for me.

I think The Conformist and Le Samourai are two really good starting places as well.

Good luck. I had seen tons of classic Hollywood films before I ventured into foreign films, but didn't know what I was missing until I did. Some foreign classics you'll love, and others you'll hate, but in the end you'll feel enriched by the experience and it will increase your knowledge of cinema and the many great world classics out there.

I get aggravated watching her early films, because she has so little airtime in those movies. Her screen presence is so great that you want to see her all the time, but she only has cameos here and there.

Anatomy of a Murder is the best trial movie ever, in my opinion, albeit way over the top at times. 12 Angry Men isn't a trial movie, but is a legal drama, and probably the best of all time in the genre of legal dramas. Other great ones are The Verdict, Inherit the Wind and Judgment at Nuremberg.

Don't get me started on this damn film First two hours of the movie was the best film of the decade. Then Lynch steps in, and like some mad genius destroys his own masterpiece. He should of done it just like Lost Highway and not tried to make sense of things. Ruined the whole movie. I'll never forgive Lynch for that.

Very good list. I do have some reservations, but only a few. Breathless is the most important film in the 60's, but if you're only looking at American films, then I can't disagree with your choice. However, Citizen Kane is the most important film of the 40's, due to its effect on later cinema. I know it didn't win many Oscars and all, but if we're looking at things in retrospect, that's what I'd choose. Also, for the 50's, I'd pick a Streetcar Named Desire, due to its effect on "method acting" and the wave of actors who would follow in Brando's footsteps. (Pacino, DeNiro, Nicholson, etc)

William Powell steals the show in Libeled Lady. In retrospect, he's the 4th biggest star in the film, but has all the best moments. Also, Nicholson steals the show in Reds. His brooding portrayal of Eugene O'Neill was the best thing about the film, and left me wanting to see more. Unfortunately, the film isn't about him, so he's written off about midway through. How about Edward G. Robinson in both Double Indemnity and Key Largo?

Well, then she could have died at the end or something. It's just not a film I see myself wanting to ever view again.

Spencer Tracy coined Bogart with that nickname. Don't know when it caught on with everyone else.

Having Kim Novak die midway through the film was a mistake. I stopped caring at that point. Maybe if the film was better on its own, I wouldn't have needed her in order to keep watching.

Unusual noir in the sense that the couple actually cares about each other, and they never betray each other. Totally different than other noir affairs.

I'll always envy him for getting to kiss Audrey Hepburn in the rain, in one of the greatest scenes in film history.

Then in that case, the two films are nothing alike. In this film, Holden plays an oilman, who the Allies use as a sort of spy to infiltrate the Germans, while posing as a Nazi sympathizer. The title has nothing to do with counterfeit money.

No, but it may be based on the same story, since it was a true story. I'm not surprised you've never heard of it. I hadn't either prior to seeing the film. That's what made it so special. TCM should play it more often.

Well, I guess I am the only person who saw this film.

To put it simply, his performance in Sweet Smell of Success is my favorite performance in movie history.

George Lucas would sleep with one legged midgets if it meant making more money for himself. Just look at that last Indiana Jones movie.

Actually, both me and the poster below have given exact explanations for why we didn't like this film. How much more specific should we get? Yeah, I think it's cheesy to see Granger and other stars trying to be Egyptians or what not, with totally absured makeup. Also, seeing Vivien Leigh running around and screaming in histrionics for the first 40 minutes of the film also comes off as campy. It may be what Shaw intended, but that doesn't excuse it for not coming together well on the screen. Maybe like you, I'll change my mind on a second viewing, but right now I'm having a hard time thinking of a reason to view it again other than to laugh at its camp.

Saw this film for the first time last night, after wanting to see it for a long time. What an awful film! I realize it's supposed to be a more comedic rendition of the story, based on a popular play, but the whole film was horribly campy and could have been better made. Vivien Leigh overacts throughout the entire movie in an annoying way, the sets look phony as hell, the costumes and makeup look bad, and the film has an odd uneven feel about it. On top of that, Stewart Granger shows up in ridiculous outfit and makeup midway through the film, and makes things even more silly. Talk about being miscast. I can't believe this film was made in England, in the middle of the War no less. What were they thinking? Oh and I should say I found Claude Rains to be the best thing about this film. He was the only character in the film that didn?t overact and say stupid lines throughout the movie. I can't say it matches my image of Caesar, but it was an interesting portrayal of the character nonetheless.

Had a chance to see this film recently, and thought it was wonderful. I had hardly even heard of it prior to that, but decided to watch it because Holden was in it. What a payoff. Tremendous location shooting and cinematography, great use of sets to re-create the WWII period in Europe, and one of Holden's best performances. It was also more grizzly, uncompromising and suspensful than any other Hollywood films set in the war, which were being made at that time. Most films showing things from the German standpoint of the war were nowhere near as good as this, and were usually filmed in some fake Hollywood sets, with cheesy depictions of Germans. So why is this film not better known or shown more frequently? I thought it was fantastic and it should get more attention as a genuine spy film and one of Holden's best works.

I only have Contempt, which is one of my favorite movies. Next, I'm going to get Le Samourai, L'Avventura and The Seventh Seal. Overall, though, there's about a hundred films I'd like to buy from them, but they are too damn expensive. I suggest buying from Amazon instead of directly from Criterion's website.

How can you not like To Catch a Thief? Grace Kelly and Cary Grant in Technicolor on the French Riviera, shot by Hitchcock. I could watch that film everyday just for the things I've mentioned above. Not many Hollywood movies were actually filmed in Europe at that time.

I believe that Robert Taylor was a staunch conservative, so I don't see any surprises here.

I've never understood the fascination with Altman. I know his films are not the typical Hollywood films, but I've just never found anything special with his work up to this point. I haven't seen all of his stuff, but some of his most heralded films I have already seen, and didn't like. As for Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, I did see the most faithful version, but found it to be a self righteous flick, almost as if Peckinpah thought we'd find these characters and this odd story cool, just because he directed it. Both Kristofferson and Dylan seemed miscast, and I couldn't help thinking Coburn was playing the same man he played in Leone's Fistful of Dynamite. Characters kept showing up out of nowhere, and the music seemed inappropriate and poorly chosen. Like I said, Peckinpah directed it as if he could get away with anything. Bananas is a good film for the first half, but then gets totally stupid and annoying at the end. I've seen it several times, and never seem to understand its popularity. One of Allen's worst films.