The Bicycle Thief (1948)

The Bicycle Thief (1948) ★★★★★ 5/5

Following World War II, Rome suffers greatly and poverty affects the population. Men gather in the morning to hear if they are selected to work. Antonio Ricci (Lamberto Maggiorani) is chosen for a job to hang movie posters throughout the city so long as he has a bike. Accepting the job, he rushes home to his wife (Lianella Carell) and tells her of the news. Yet there is a problem, he doesn't actually own his bike. He had pawned it off for food. In order to get the bike back, his wife pawns their linens. It seems to be a good exchange as the income Ricci will bring in with his new job will greatly make up for it.




While working one day, hanging up a poster of Rita Hayworth, his bike is stolen. Panic striken he tries to chase the thief down with no avial. Devastated, not by losing his bike, but at the realization he has no way of bringing in any income and supporting his family, he retreats home where he meets his son Bruno (Enzo Staiola ) and the hunt for the bike begins.

Rizzo, with help from his son, spend the following day looking for the bike. They see it at one point and track down the man riding it. A policeman is summoned to search the home of the accussed while an angry mob threatens Ricci for his claims. Ricci leaves, lost and bewildered at the thought of not having his bike. Eventually he is driven to theft himself and unsuccessfully attempts to steal someone else's bike.

Lianella Carell has a natural beauty to her which makes her moments on the screen joyous and life like. While the family suffers extreme poverty, there is no denying the relationship between her character and Ricci comes off as very real, and very loving. Enzo Staiola as Bruno steals every scene he is in. In fact, the movie subtly shifts it's focus on the bike and infuses the relationship between Bruno and Ricci into your subconcious. There are a lot of issues at hand in this film and one of the strongest is that between Father and Son. In one day, the two experience several emotions. One of the most touching scenes is when the two splurge at a fancy resturant and Ricci tries to explain what finding the bike and keeping his job will mean. Bruno knows the hardships they face. Bruno's frugality in this scene is tender. Ricci hits Bruno at one point out of frustration and magically we feel the same frustration as the two characters. one being frustration and the other a betrayal of sorts. Ricci hears news that a boy is drowning in the river and our hearts sink as he runs to the victim with Bruno being nowhere in site. In the finale, when Bruno sees his Father caught with a stolen bike, it arouses so many thoughts. Ricci, without saying a word, tells us of his humiliation and his shame for letting down his son. Bruno compliments the scene by showing us the pride and love he has for his Father. It is beautiful, emotional and magical.

This is a simple film about a man trying to get his bike back. But the underlying themes of the film make it one of the most complex films when analyzed. The relationship between a Father and son as Bruno and Ricci bond. Employment issues and the fact that to make money, you need money. Without a bike, Ricci has no way to make money, and he can't get a bike without money. Rich vs poor. This is clearly an underlying theme as Bruno and Ricci dine in a resturant as a wealthy family eats at a nearby table. It also comes into play in the irony of Ricci hanging up glamorous posters of Rita Hayworth throughout the deteriorating city of Rome.



The film is a beautiful one and evokes much emotion, particularily in the scenes involving Ricci and Bruno. It is much more then the story of a stolen bike. It is the story of a bond between a Father and Son and the unconditional love, respect and admiration the have for one another.

The Ox-Bow Incident (1943)

The Ox-Bow Incident (1943) ★★★★★ 4/5

This is a Western unlike any other Western. There are no sweeping landscape shot, there are no shootouts between the good guys and the bad guys and the headlining star Henry Fonda as Gil Carter is not the central character. A local cattle herder has been robbed and killed. The townspeople gather and form a mob to avenge the death of their fellow cattleman. The angry group finds three men asleep "near Ox-Bow" in the middle of the night. They awaken the men and immediately conclude they are the murderers. Donald Martin (Dana Andrews) is the soft spoken leader of the three. He is found with cattle which bear the mark of the deceased rancher. He claims to have paid for them but has no proof of sale. His fellow traveler Juan Martínez (Anthony Quinn) is found to have a gun on him . . . the same gun that belonged to the murdered rancher. Alva Hardwicke (Francis Ford) is the third in their party, and he is a mindless old man that only complicates matters by claiming Martinez is the murderer.

The "Major" Tetley (Frank Conroy) and his son, Gerald (William Eythe) lead the mob that has cornered the three accused of murder. Gerald is completely opposed to the whole situation, but the hard nosed major bullies him into lead the three men into execution. While the majority of the group is in favor of the "eye for an eye" attitude, Davies (Harry Davenport) is absolutely against any revenge and tries to sway the men into bringing the three to town for a fair trial. He allows Martin to write a letter to his wife, and he shares that letter to the Major in an effort to convince him for a fair trial. The effort is in vain, and while only 7 of the men are opposed to killing the three captured, it is not a majority and the men are ultimately hung.

Following the hanging of the three, the mob runs into Sheriff Risley (Willard Robertson) and finds that the man who was initially said to be dead was merely injured and recovering quite well. In addition, the men who really shot him were all in custody. Immediately, the men all realize they have themselves committed murder, and all will be dealt with except for the 7 who opposed the hanging.

This was quite a shocking movie as Westerns of that particular era were notorious for ending with the good guys riding off after defeating the bad guys and saving the town. In this instance, the good guys took action which in turn left them to be the bad guys. The good guys were hung and murdered. Although the intention of the townsmen was good, their actions were careless and lawless. This was a great twist and quite ahead of it's time. I also liked the relationships between the characters. The dynamics between the Major and his son, as well as Davies and the rest of the group. It is a movie that makes you think after it ends. There is a direct impact it has on the characters we have seen deal with the situation, as well as characters we were never even introduced to in the film.

To Be Or Not To Be (1942)

To Be Or Not To Be (1942) ★★★★★ 4/5

Carole Lombard and Jack Benny play a Polish husband and wife acting team who participate in a theater group during the height of Hitler's reign. Their theater group is actually performing a comical play about Hitler, but they find themselves switching to a Shakespearean play when the Polish government tells them that they can't perform the Hitler themed play they had rehearsed.

They, along with their acting troupe soon find themselves out of work as war breaks out. But before you know what happened, they are in a complete mad capped adventure. The two find themselves in the middle of a plot to thwart the war and murder Nazi informants. However their schemes go awry and when the informant the y are after is killed, they must take on him as a character to hide that they had murdered him. The film continues this way until they are actually impersonating Hitler himself.

Is it a film to see? Yes. There are several reasons to see this film. The first is because of Carole Lombard. This was actually the last film she made. In fact, the film was released after her tragic death. She was clearly at the height of her career and this film is a testament to her talent. Another reason you need to see this film is because if you are a movie lover, you probably watch current movies too. Although I have not seen anything that officially confirms it, this film has all the makings to serve as inspiration for Inglorious Basterds (2009). Much of that film can be seen in To Be Or Not To Be from the layout of the theater and the concept of tricking Hitler at the opening of a film. Both films feature our protagonists disguising themselves as Nazi's and infiltrating at the highest level possible. Of course this leads us to the third reason to see this film. It uses humor in the most unlikely context. Remember, this movie came out while Hitler was still alive. The sight of a Nazi uniform was offensive. Conceptually, at that time, actually still to this day, it is awkward to pair comedy and Nazi's together. That was quite a bold move in 1942. Yet at the same time, the humor is really poking fun at, and making the Nazi's look like fools. The tie in and use of the "To Be Or Not To Be" scenes are all quite well done and make for a great tie in of the films plots.

Comical scenes are performed well without any hokey qualities or over embellished lines. Much of the humor in the movie is subtle and needs to be picked up on by the viewer. As a viewer, you do also have to follow along to keep track of who is an imposter and who is not. There were some scenes that lingered, but not enough for it to be totally distracting to the movie. Part of that is also a positive remark as they do not force humor just to get a laugh. The humorous scenes are laid into the script appropriately.

Gaslight (1944)

Gaslight (1944) ★★★★★ 4/5

Paula Alquist (Ingrid Bergman) is witness to the murder of her aunt at a very young age. Her aunt is a huge star of the stage, and young Paula admired everything about her aunt. After the murder, she leaves the house where her aunt raised her and never planned to go back. However these plans change when she marries and her husband Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer) convinces her that they should move back into the house. Although a great deal of time has passed, Paula still can not forget the murder and is somewhat weary of living in the house. To help calm her nerves, he hires a cook (Barbara Everest) and a maid (Angela Lansbury) to help Paula tend to the home.

As soon as they move into the house, Gregory's behavior becomes off putting. He becomes frantic when Paula finds old letters from her Aunt. He monitors Paula's every move. He starts to subject her to a cruel psychological torture. He hides things and convinces her she lost them. He moves things about. He breaks her confidence and spirit. The house is lit by gas lighting, and when gas is turned up in one room, it dims the lights in another room. When the house is empty and Paula is home alone, she hears footsteps above her and watches as the lights go dim, wondering who is in the house with her.

Eventually it becomes apparent that he may have had a hand in the murder of Paula's aunt, and that he is after the aunt's personal belongings. With the help of the police, Paula eventually learns the truth and turns the tables on Gregory.

Bergman and Lansbury are the mainframe to this film. Both play their characters with great passion. Bergman has several scenes where she goes from being happy and charismatic to emotionally tortured in just a few frames. She oozes emotions and does so vibrantly. There is an absolute emotional connection between the viewer and Bergman. Without saying a word, she can emulate her inner transformation. Lansbury is quite remarkable as well. She is a sly little tart in this movie. She dates men and walks through town on her own. She is not concerned about danger and not afraid to use sexuality. Like Bergman, Lansbury mastered the act of acting with facial expressions and body language. On screen, the two are not fond of each other and the disconnect between the two is played out on screen perfectly. There is a very natural feeling to their disapproval of each other on screen that heightens the story.

This movie is almost worth of 5 stars just based on their performances alone, however I could only give it 4 stars because there were some drawn out moments which slowed the movie down. I also had a really hard time with Boyer's accent. It was very thick and very hard to interpret at times. There were moments where I was concentrating so hard on what he was saying the the movie became more of a struggle to watch then it was to enjoy. I think perhaps these were the moments where I felt the movie dragged on a bit. Other then this, the film was quite likable. Watching Bergman's psychological breakdown was quite enthralling.

Adam's Rib (1949)

Adam's Rib (1949) ★★★★★ 4/5

Amanda Bonner (Katharine Hepburn) and Adam Bonner (Spencer Tracy) are a husband and wife team who find themselves on opposing sides in a trial where a woman (Judy Holliday) has shot her adulterer husband (Tom Ewell). Amanda takes interest in the case when she reads about it in the paper and feels that the woman is being treated as a criminal while if it had been a man in her position the woman would still have been viewed as the criminal. Adam is a prosecutor and the case lands on his desk. It is his job to prove her guilty.

The movie starts off fast paced and fun. The two are seen at home, happy and in love. They have an ideal marriage and are quite happy in their lives. Their playful banter transcends time and is very easy to relate to even 70 years after the film's release. Even the themes of the movie hold relevant 70 years later. Equality between men and women has not changed all that much when it comes down to how each sex is perceived. While there have been changes in women's roles in voting, politics, work and so on, double standards still exist.

When watching the film however, some differences between 1949 and 2012 are nearly forgotten. Hepburn is well known for her feminist position in life. She was an avid sportsman (or sportswoman) and this is touched on in the film. She advocated woman's rights and demonstrated that women could do anything. In this case, she demonstrated that women could also hold prominent positions in the working world. During one scene in the courtroom, she brings other women on the stand to further prove the prominence of women. One was a renowned scientist, another a circus performer with the strength of a man, and a third with multiple degrees. This aspect of the film defies the notion that women of the 40's were confined to homemaking.

The tension of the case and the difference of opinions regarding the case begins to affect the couple and they almost end up losing each other. It doesn't help that their neighbor, Kip Lurie, (David Wayne) is in love with Amanda and writes a song that ends up being a huge hit on radio. Kip is most unlikable and obnoxious.

Hepburn and Tracy are delightful in this film, but Holliday is magnificent. She plays the blonde bombshell beautifully. One of the highlights for me in the film was when Amanda first met with her. Her naive attitude and retelling of how she shot her husband was flawless and far more gripping or smoothly portrayed then anything you would see on a current episode of CSI or Law & Order.

This film is worth seeing and is a fine look at the social dynamics of men and women in 1949. The story is well done and enjoyable.

Black Narcissus (1947)

Black Narcissus (1947) ★★★★★ 5/5

Far up in the most remote mountaintops of the Himalayas sits a run down temple. This temple soon becomes a convent of nuns brought in to teach and heal the poor people of the nearby Indian villages. The convent is run by Sister Superior Clodagh (Deborah Kerr) who is young and inexperienced. Her first obstacle is making the place operational. Locks are missing, the plumbing is bad, and the water is causing sickness. Her second obstacle is that she has discovered the people coming to the convent are being paid to do so. There is no interest by the people coming to the temple to learn or grow. They just want to be paid. Yet another obstacle is that these people are superstitious and there is a fear that if a sick person were to die under their care, the rest of them would see the place as cursed and leave immediately.

British agent Mr. Dean (David Farrar) is an ambassador of sorts who lives in the convent and in a sense oversees the nuns. He offers his services which include repairs and advice. The advice often delivered with a tone found offensive to the nuns. Mr. Dean also brings them Kanchi (Jean Simmons). Kanchi is a local problem girl. She is 17 and at the age where she should be married off. She speaks no English and is a little too sexy for the nuns liking. A Young Indian Prince (Sabu) comes to the Convent and pleads for the nuns to take him in and educate him. Dean fears that there may be issues with Kanchi and the Prince.

The Prince does indeed catch the eye of Kanchi, who seductively gazes at him and indulges in his scent. His scent is a cologne from England called "Black Narcissus." Narcissus is a species of plants which includes Amaryllis and Daffodils. The smell does not only affect Kanchi, but it also takes hold of Sister Superior Clodagh who begins to reminisce of her days before taking to the habit. Apparently in 1949 these scenes were considered inappropriate by the Catholic Legion of Decency and were removed for the film's showing in the United States. While they seem completely harmless, I would imagine at the time this was released the Catholic Church did not feel it appropriate to see nuns as anything other then spiritual and holy. My guess is that they did not a nun to be perceived as a typical woman longing for romance, jewels, and wealth. In remembering her past, Sister Superior Clodagh seems to miss some aspects of her previous life.
The memories are generally triggered by Mr. Dean and the Prince.

But Clodagh is not alone. The other sisters become swayed in their thinking. They begin to long for other things in life. They become confused about what they want and what they are there for. With clouded judgement, one begins to have impure thoughts about Mr. Dean, another requests a transfer thinking the place is having a negative impact on her thoughts, others lose their compassion, and one sister kills a sickly newborn baby to prevent him from a slow death. The death of the child was also the death of the convent. The villagers fled the convent and abandoned the nuns.

Sister Ruth (Kathleen Byron) eventually snaps. She defies the sisterhood by failing to renew her vows, then donning a somewhat sexy red dress, applying make up and hunting Mr. Dean down to confess her love. She sees red and blacks out in a crazed frenzy. When she awakens Dean sends her back to the convent and she attempts to murder Sister Superior Clodagh. It is a brilliant and suspenseful scene - the pinnacle of the movie.

Black Narcissus won 2 Academy Awards. One for Cinematography and one for Art Direction. That was no surprise as the landscapes shot in both the Himalayas and Ireland are of sweeping landscapes. There is a stark contrast between the two and each is beautiful in their own way. The imagery is bright and bold throughout the film and colors are used extensively through murals on the temple walls and clothing of the Indian people.

The film is worthy of the list and should be watched. It is suspenseful and dramatic. The musical score carries the plots and changes quite well. The dynamics between the nuns and the changes they go through is exciting. Initially I was not expecting much from the film. Seriously, how entertaining could a movie about some nuns be. But this is far more then a movie about nuns. It is about how these women deal with and respond to their environment and their suppressed desires. The breakdown of Sister Ruth is climatic and clearly an influential scene in the development of film as far as portraying and conveying a mental collapse. The film transcends from a film about nuns to a film about one woman's insanity. Everything changes in the film at that point. The angles from which the film is shot to the colors, sounds and music. Tension is heightened flawlessly. For this scene alone it is worth watching, but you should watch it as a whole of course to fully capture the emotion.

The Paleface (1948)

The Paleface (1948) ★★★★★ 1/5

With no question this is the worst movie I have seen in my journey through 1001 movies you must see before you die. I almost couldn't bear to finish it. The Paleface stars Jane Russell as Calamity Jane and Bob Hope as Painless Potter. Potter is a completely dimwitted, moronic dentist who gets caught up with Calamity Jane in a Western adventure turned comedy.

While I always held high regard for Bob Hope for his musicals with Bing Crosby, his USO work and his unparallelled gigs as the host of the Academy Awards, his performance in The Paleface was a complete let down. If you took Jack Black and threw him into a 1940's movie, it would be no different then Bob Hope's performance in The Paleface. The comedy was forced, over the top, and in no way funny at all, although you can tell Hope thought he was hysterical. There is no doubt in my mind that a lot of this film was ad-libbed and everyone working on the set laughed out of obligation and they kept it in the film. It was so ridiculous. You can even tell just by looking at the poster for the film.

Jane Russell on the other hand was brilliant in the film. She plays Calamity Jane, or a very loose adaptation of her. She is strong, confident and independent. Her character and performance breaks the genre's stereotype of the women being either victims or weepy, lovesick romantics. The film opens with a jailbreak. Jane is the one being broken out. It turns out the jailbreak is orchestrated by the Governor who requests Jane's assistance in preventing the sale of firearms to Indians in exchange for a pardon from a 10 years sentence.

Jane is smarty, savy and cunning agent. She works to figure out the plan to smuggle the arms to the Indians, and to fight them off. In all of her conquests, Potter comes out looking like a hero with growing confidence that only increases the unnecessary one liners.

If it was not for Hope this would have been a great movie. I just couldn't get past the stupidity of his character and the humor which was not funny in any way whatsoever. Interestingly enough, the film spawned Hope the biggest musical hit of his career. "Buttons and Bows" was not only a huge hit for him, but it also ended up winning the Academy Award for best song. The musical numbers in the film are sparse and done so in a way that they fit. Singing and dancing segments do not just pop up at inappropriate places. Hope sings "Buttons and Bows" while they ride along on a wagon trail. So it is not like they just break out into song and dance which would be somewhat unfitting for a Western. On another positive note, I will say that the use of Technicolor in this film makes it easy on the eyes. the colors of the sets and costumes work well in the film.

This is a movie that does not need to be on the list. The only reason to see it is to become better acquainted with Jane Russell. Of course there will be more to come from her in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953) - which incidentally does belong on the list.

Meet Me In St. Louis (1944)

Meet Me In St. Louis ★★★★★ 3/5

While I had previously known this film was a musical, I had no idea that is was the debut of the classic Christmas song "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas." Esther Smith (Judy Garland) sings the ballad to her little sister "Tootie" Smith (Margaret O'Brien) soon after learning that the entire family will have to pack up and move to New York City for their Father's (Leon Ames) job.

Although a musical in nature, the film carries on more or less like a drama about the American family in 1904. The musical numbers are subtle and more or less as music might have been used in 1904. In one scene, the family hosts a party where Esther and Tootie perform for the guests. Another scene involves the entire family coming together as their parents sing at the piano. The only true musical styled act that does not come across this way is the famous "Trolley Song" scene.

The essential plot is simple. The family is living their life. They are celebrating holidays like Halloween and Christmas. The older daughters are trying to find suitable boys to be courted by, the younger daughters are causing mischief through the neighborhood, and their Father is trying to find the best way to support his family.

Throughout the storyline, the topic of the World Fair arises. The town prepares for the fair in St. Louis and everyone is excited to attend. The fact that the Fair is coming becomes one of the reasons the family does not want to leave St. Louis for New York City. Tootie's breakdown after Judy Garland also is a major factor in the Father deciding finally that they will not be moving.

The character of Tootie is extremely bizarre in this film. Here is this upper class family in 1904 with a small girl who has the most morbid of fascinations. Although we do not see the ceremonies, we are made aware that Tootie regularly holds funerals and buries her dolls. There is an incident where Tootie and her older sister Agnes (Joan Carroll) almost derail a trolley. In the excitement, neighbor John Truett (Tom Drake), who is also Esther's love interest saves the girls from being caught as the ones who caused the incident. In explaining her injuries to her family, Tootie declares John tried to kill her. In the final scene of the film at the World's Fair, she is talking about dead bodies floating in the river. It's all a little awkward.

One interesting musical number seems to contain a mash up. "Skip To My Lou" and "Yankee Doodle Dandy" are blended as guests dance at the Smith home. It is actually quite hearing how these two songs were taken and blended to form one song. It's a wonder that the TV show "Glee" hasn't actually taken this song and improvised it. But then one must wonder if they were inspired to mash up songs in general from the performance in this film.

I was not taken by this film. It was entertaining. It also shows us that even in 1904 teenage issues were not that much different then today. The fear of going to a dance alone, the excitement of Halloween, the struggles a family faces when pressured to make a move because of a parent's job. The theme of the American family is carried out nicely. Personally I found the most intriguing part of the film to be that of the set and the imagery created. Among the film's 4 Oscar nominations was one for photography. George J. Fosley was the cinematographer and did a fine job. The interior shots of the home are beautiful. Even the outside shots are well done. Whether it be a scene with a buggy passing by, or a scene with children sledding down the hill, they are picturesque. For me it was this photography that made the most interesting aspect of the film.