If I have any positive attributes as a writer, brevity is not one of them. I tend to write very long reviews which attempt to examine every aspect of a film. So with this in mind I thought I would set myself a challenge. The aim was three films in 1000 words. So you get my thoughts on three films in the number of words I generally write about one film (if you’re lucky). Could I get my views across in a much shorter space, and get my positive or negative thoughts across. No real thought went into the film choices. They were just a few I had to watch for uni that are on the list. Here we go. Wish me luck.

Fritz Lang’s M (1931) chronicles a city’s hunt for a heinous child murderer. The police are looking for him in force and are joined by the city’s gangsters annoyed at the increased police presence being generated. We are treated to masterful intercut scenes of both the cops and the crims formulating plans, with the editing making it hard to discern who are the law-enforcers and who the law-breakers. One of many pertinent and timeless social comments made by Lang throughout the film.

M features the greatest introductory shot for a villain I have ever seen. The murderer’s shadow ominously moving over a poster a young girl is throwing her ball against. It comes early in the film, but we instinctively know it’s our murderer, and that knowledge made my blood run cold. Lang continues to reveal aspects of him bit by bit, only revealing what he wants. Indeed we view him as a cold, ruthless, calculating supervillain until the film’s final scenes. Complimenting this approach by Lang is Peter Lorre’s performance. Quite simply it belongs in the top few performances ever. Only on screen for a short time, he makes it count. His childlike face invokes in the viewer a range of emotions, most of them very uncomfortable ones. Some find a measure of sympathy for him in the film’s final sequences. I personally didn’t. But it is a testament to Lang’s genius that sympathetic and non-sympathetic readings are equally valid.

Lang is a master of evoking emotion. The paced, waiting of a mother as she waits for her daughter’s return as the fear of the inevitable rises is felt by all. And the manner in which the murder of young Elsie is shown (or not) will make your jaw drop. Lang can compose a shot as beautiful as anyone, and he proves that in this film. But his genius as a filmmaker is proven by this one exercise of restraint.

I couldn’t do this film justice in 3,000 words let alone 300. Its a serial killer flick, a police-procedural, a heist flick, a social commentary and more. In short this is a masterpiece. If you or anyone you know doubt that film is an artform the equal of any other, watch this. In fact watch it right here:

Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

Some Like it Hot (1959) is the grandfather (mother???) of cross-dressing comedies extending through to such classics as Tootsie (1982) and Mrs Doubtfire (1993), and not-so-classics such as White Chicks (2004).

It kicks off with two broke and down on their luck musicians, played by Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon, witnessing a shooting in prohibition era America. After dismissing their first idea of “growing beards” they go on the run with an all girl band, disguising themselves as female. Before long they both fall for the charms of Sugar played by Marilyn Monroe. Here I was expecting the film to go into familiar, two guys chasing the one girl territory. But whilst it flirts with this briefly it is too clever to go down that predictable path.

Whilst some of the jokes, like pretty much any comedy, have dated somewhat, the situational aspects of the comedy still provide oodles of hilarity for a modern audience. See Curtis trying to bluff his way around Osgood’s boat that he has commandeered for a hot date with Sugar. For all the jokes however, the real treat in this film is the three wonderful central performances. Monroe despite starting slow oozes sex-appeal and surprisingly good comic timing. Curtis is similarly excellent as the smarmy brains behind the operation. But it is Jack Lemmon for me who is truly something awe-inspiring, delivering an all time great comedy performance. Anyone in need of proof of this man’s genius needs only check out the ‘maraca’ sequence where the audience can’t help lose themselves in the moment just as Lemmon has.

Some Like it Hot proves the benefit of having a talented director such as Wilder at the helm of a comedy. Its all tied together so beautifully. The gangster back-story that you can’t help feel would work in its own right, a cracking score and slick black & white photography all provide a wonderful canvas for the three leads and a humorous script to weave their magic.

Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny

The Blue Angel (1930) is generally considered to be an all-time great film. I struggle to see why. The film revolves around respectable college professor Immanuel Rath who falls in love with, and marries the (solely due to her profession) unrespectable cabaret artist Lola Lola. Following this he descends into destitution and a form of madness, ending up performing as a clown in Lola’s travelling company.

The issue is that the central romance the film depends wholly upon is rushed to the point of being unbelievable. Also, the wedding takes place over halfway through the film so the descent of this respectable man is barely chronicled at all. Instead director Josef Von Sternberg basically slaps a ‘Four Years Later’ sign on screen and everything has changed, without a whiff of satisfactory explanation. The formerly upstanding professor is now dishevelled whilst the once sweet Lola, who for some reason seemed to love the older man previously, now flirts overtly with others in front of him.

Marlene Dietrich who plays Lola Lola emerges from this the best. Hers is an excellent performance, and you can see why the professor falls for her character. She is also able to convey an excellent range of emotions, rising above material that provides no motivation for these shifts in character. The other performers are generally good, but not great and are clearly inhibited by the lopsided script.

Many much more insightful film commentators laud this film as a classic, so watch it for yourself and form your own opinion. But for me, despite a heart-wrenching final scene which illustrates what could have been, this was a bland and unbalanced experience.

Verdict: Schooner of Carlton Draught

That was an incredibly difficult exercise. And despite some doubts I would be able to do it, I scraped in with the three reviews amounting to 987 words. After watching M I was tempted not to include it here but devote a whole article to it, such is its brilliance. But I thought that defeated the purpose of this article and hopefully you get a sense of my wonder at this film, and my feelings on the other two as well.

Status: 11/1001

Wolfgang Becker’s Goodbye Lenin! (2003) is one of numerous films that deal with the period surrounding the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. However unlike most of this bunch, this film chooses a humorous approach to subject matter that is anything but (not just the wall, but familial abandonment, terminal illness and death of loved ones).

The film follows Alex, a teenager in the last days of the GDR. When she sees him being dragged off by soldiers at an anti-socialist rally, Alex’s loyal to the cause mother collapses. She has had a heart attack and as a result spends eight months in a coma, missing the fall of the wall and the accompanying social changes and opening up of the East. Interestingly for a film chronicling this time period in German history, the fall of the Wall itself is actually dealt with very fleetingly. Rather than dwelling on it Becker instead briefly flashes up some news footage accompanied by a joke referring to a new “recycling campaign.” In a way this is unsurprising given that what is important is not the physical barrier that falls, but the ideology of the East that falls with it, an ideology Alex’s mother believes in passionately. As a result of her heart attack, doctors advise that Alex’s mother should not be subjected to any great shocks. So Alex takes it upon himself to build a microcosm of the GDR in their apartment and deceive his mother regarding what has taken place while she was in her coma. It is really a wonderful premise. I am sure similar ideas have been seen in films both before and since, but I think what this plot has going for it is the sheer magnitude of the event they are trying to hide. This is not just trying to cover up the massive party you had on the weekend when your parents were away. To attempt to cover up such a monumental societal shift takes a lot of commitment. This all unfolds as a series of amusing vignettes, with little coherent linkage besides the common purpose they serve. But these also provide some of the film’s loveliest scenes. In one of my favourites which illustrates the depth of though Alex has to go to, he goes about finding old jars for his mother’s favourite pre-fall brands, and fills them with the new imported produce which is all that are now on sale.

Any film that uses humour to address subject matter as serious as this risks making light of it. Fortunately Goodbye Lenin! Is able to tread this rather fine line well and never comes across as trivialising the human rights abuses perpetrated in the socialist state (although it must be said these are dealt with pretty sparingly). As Alex goes further and further into creating a socialist dream world for his mother, he does seem to become more sympathetic to the society he lived in before the fall of the wall. Whether the film has any pro-socialist sentiment, especially toward the end is a question for individual viewers. Whatever the view on that formed, I think the focus is on the strange sense of melancholy and displacement that must have been felt by those from the East when the Wall fell. Outside of a more competitive football team, all the West seems to bring to Alex’s life is Burger King, Coke and a more accessible source of whipped cream related pornography. This does simplify it somewhat in that the freedom now allowed the characters is welcomed, but again is not a central focus of the film. There is an inner conflict within Alex, which is not really developed through the film in that whilst he comes to yearn somewhat for the pre-fall past he also has a hope for the future with its increased freedom and new girlfriend. It would have been interesting to how he reconciled these two differing ideologies going forward. The film however takes an almost universal light touch, with the only two scenes being exceptions to this are one brief, early appearance by the Stasi at the family home, and also the briefly confronting riot scenes.

When I heard this was a humorous take on the fall of the Wall, I was expecting subtle humour. That is not really found here, I found the humour trades predominately in quippy one-liners and slapstick (for the latter, see a plastered up Alex trying to get out of the bath after helping Lara practice for an upcoming exam). Some subtlety is injected into proceedings when Alex is forced to create fake newscasts to continue to trick his mother. These Be Kind Rewind (2008) esque set pieces are not as overblown or obvious as many of the other attempts at humour in the film. Alex’s partner in crime in creating these fake television newscasts is his work colleague Denis with whom he builds up a strong friendship throughout the film. Denis also delivers the films biggest laugh out loud moment when referencing probably the most famous film cut of all time from Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). Or maybe I just perceived this as the film’s biggest laugh out loud moment because I watched the film at uni with a bunch of like-minded film nerds who gave the joke a rather rapturous reception. The relationship between these two young men making their way in the new unified Germany is really interesting, especially given Denis hails from the West. Along with these the other aspects of humour which really worked for me were the scenes of Alex’s mother helping her friends draft complaint letters to the appropriate authorities regarding the quality and appropriateness of toasters, maternity wear and most memorably underwear. This humorous highlighting of East/West tension was both funny and illuminated this tension, whereas many of the other attempts were happy to settle for lowest common denominator belly laughs.

Another disappointment I did have with the film is that the supporting cast of characters are somewhat under drawn, with very little back-story. Apparently Lara is a trainee nurse from the U.S.S.R. But this is just mentioned and never delved into. I really wanted to no more about this fantastic woman who woos Alex and enjoys both death metal clubs and romantic sleep-outs under the stars. I wanted to know whereabouts in the U.S.S.R she was from, what she thought of the place, why she was in Germany and where she saw herself in five years. But unfortunately I got none of that. Obviously a film cannot be all back-story and there is a limit to how much delving can be done, but I would have been a lot more satisfied with a bit more. Technically I found the film rather run of the mill. Not every film needs to dazzle with technical flourishes but whilst reasonably done, its just all a bit average. This is strange seeing that Becker shows himself to have some real style when he opens up a couple of times toward the end of the film. This is best illustrated in the scene where Alex’s mother’s condition deteriorates and she is rushed back to hospital. The shots of the ambulance rushing through the streets and tracking shots of Alex’s ailing mother being rushed down hospital corridors; are intercut with ones of Alex’s sister frantically searching for the letters from her father that have been hidden from her all these years in a wonderfully affecting scene. I just wish that Becker had have trusted himself and been more willing to loosen up the filming style a little more throughout.

The ending of the film suggests that the whole charade has become much more important to Alex than to his mother. In filming a fitting farewell for the GDR he does do it out of love for his mother, but also ignores the effect that the whole exercise has on the other women he loves in his life. Both Lara and his sister warn Alex repeatedly against his ongoing crusade to deceive his mother. And it does appear that no one else is as passionate about it, or as desperate to make it work as him. The ending is also somewhat strange in the fact that it is a feel good one, whilst definitely not being a conventional ‘happy’ ending (I can’t really say more than that without giving away a big spoiler). However the reappearance of Alex’s father and the revelations it brings with it adds some intrigue and emotion into the last third of the film. I suspect that overall I have taken a rather shallow reading of this film. And no doubt there is deeper meaning here. I am not sure if it was too subtle, or my cultural background too lacking for me to quite grasp it. And I don’t mean to be too critical of the film throughout this review. This is still a very competently made film, and if you are looking for a fall of the Wall film to watch with your mates and some beers on a Saturday night this is probably your best choice. But if you want to be challenged, confronted and effected by similar events then give Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s Oscar winning cinematic tour-de-force (I’m pretty sure I once made a commitment never to use that term) The Lives of Others (2006) a shot.

Verdict: Stubby of Reschs

Progress: 8/1001

My myriad of readers will no doubt be reassured to know that I am still alive. Having left a number of massive uni essays til the last moment (as is the way of the uni student) I have been so caught up in the issues of Jain religious identity and representations of technology in Bret Easton Ellis’s Less Than Zero & Richard Yates’ Revolutionary Road that I haven’t had the chance to view many films let alone write about them. Also recent leisure time has been dominated by trips to Melbourne for Socceroos games and reading some of the awesome new books I scored for my birthday. Anyways I decided enough was enough and it was time to get back into it at least momentarily. So I took a little time out from the English essay (that I couldn’t really afford) and checked out a movie I have watched and loved before, Orson Welles’ The Stranger (1946).

Orson Welles is best known generally for making what is often called the greatest film ever Citizen Kane (1941). The Stranger is not conceived on as grand a scale. What it is though is fantastically enjoyable to watch. As I put the DVD on this afternoon, I was really excited to be watching this film again, remembering how much I had enjoyed it the first time I saw it. Usually when I watch a film I liked a second time there is trepidation that it won’t hold up to a second viewing, but I had no such qualms with this one. If you were to assign a genre to this film I guess it is somewhat of a detective film, with the plot essentially involving the tracking of a heinous criminal. It sees a war criminal being intentionally set free, in the hope that he will lead authorities (without his knowledge) to his dastardly Nazi commander Franz Kindler. The focus in on Wilson, the man charged with the responsibility of uncovering and unmasking Kindler in the small American town he has taken refuge in under a new identity. The plot reaches its tense climax atop a clock tower late at night after Wilson has befriended many of the town’s residents and discovered which one is really the fiendish Kindler. I will leave the plot description at that instead of going on my usual spoiler-laden rampage, because I would guess a lot of people would not have seen this film, and I don’t want to give it all away. But aplogies if a few more spoilers slip in later on.

Most of the action takes place in a small town in the United States. We know it is a small town in the United States cause it has a diner with a nosy know-it-all owner, a tendency for either autumn leaves or snowflakes to be falling, people on bikes dinging their bells in a friendly manner and a clock tower which becomes a focus for much of the action. The scenes in the clock tower were for me very reminiscent of Vertigo (1958) and I wonder if Hitchcock didn’t take at least a little inspiration from the high camera angles and dizzying depiction of height that Wells manages here. The town is brilliantly created and provides a sense of community and place for the film to fit into. Just as important to the success of this film is a range of really interesting characters conveyed by some excellent performances. Orson Welles, rocking an excellent moustache, has fashioned a truly memorably villain in his role as Rankin/Kindler. He is chillingly smug when outlining his fervent belief that there will be another Nazi uprising to the escaped Shayne. He then coldheartedly chokes Shayne to death whilst he is attempting to get him to repent from his sins in what is a scene of pretty brutal violence. The way in which he is able to delude the town’s residents, especially the young men he teaches, into thinking he is an ace guy makes his true nature all the more chilling. Indeed the performances in this film are almost universally good. Konrad Meinike in his small role as the escaped war criminal turned evangelist Shayne renders an incredibly sinister character. The innocent but brave Noah is expertly crafted by Richard Long and the tender relationship depicted between him and his sister in danger Mary played by Loretta Young is lovely. But the standout performance is undoubtedly Edward G Robinson as the investigator Wilson. According to the notes I made whilst watching the film, Robinson is “the fucking dude.” To add a little nuance to these sentiments (which I stand by wholeheartedly), Robinson’s performance is an incredible one and he portrays a very smart and incredibly likable character. Not exactly an archetypal hero (Robinson is a short, squat man), Wilson wins over the townsfolk with his charm and nature just as Robinson’s performance won me over as a viewer.

Despite the film well over 60 years old, it has aged remarkably well. A lot of this is due to the themes it explores. Some of which – how to deal with war criminals, how valid a defense is “I was only following orders – can be applied to conflicts which have continued to rage since the film’s release. Other more specific to WWII retain their resonance because of just how despicable the war was, most especially the holocaust which is often referred to in this film. This point is rammed home, when in an attempt to make Mary see sense, Wilson and her father show her some graphic footage from the concentration camps. I, like most others have seen similar holocaust images before. However they never fail to stop and make one think and make one want to weep. There is a wonderful scene of chatter around the dinner table with dialogue such as “No German in his right mind can still have a taste for war.” This scene encapsulates both of these points, obviously they are talking about WWII, but change a couple of country and villian names, and it could be a discussion happening in a pub right now. The other reason this film this film has aged so well is because it was made by Orson Welles so it looks absolutely amazing. The black and white photography is ultra crisp, this is one of those films you suspect would not look as good in colour. There is some wonderful use of shadow early in the film, prominently when portraying our war criminal on the run. In contrast the bright and sunny outdoor scenes such as Wilson and Noah’s fishing expedition are radiant and inviting.

I love this film. I am so glad it held up to another viewing for me. On a basic level it is an enjoyable romp of a chase film, but one which addresses some of what were undoubtedly the key concerns of an immediate post WWII world. Throw in two wonderful central performances from Wells and Robinson and you get a big winner. Here it is:

Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

Progress: 4/1001

For no real reason other than the fact it was lying in the huge pile of library DVDs besides my TV, the first film I have decided to check out is Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo (1958). Hitchcock is probably the most iconic director in cinema history but my personal experience with Hitchcock only extends to two films. I watched the first, Psycho (1960) for a high school English class quite a few years ago now. Whilst I haven’t seen it since then I remember being shocked (in my school boy innocence) that I could like an old film so much. I was also struck by the technical skill of Hitchcock and the manner in which each shot had something to say. Not to mention one of the most famous twists in all of cinema history. I saw my second Hitchcock film a month or two ago as part of a first year uni course. It was Rear Window (1954) and whilst again I was astounded by Hitchcock technical proficiency, I was somewhat underwhelmed by the film overall. For some reason the story just did not grab me and whilst the set was incredibly constructed, I felt the film at times constrained by its setting. It will be interesting to see if these sentiments hold up with a second viewing of these films (Hitchcock has a massive 18 films including these 2 on the 1001 list).

So now, after that rather longwinded intro, on to Vertigo. My film studies lecturer described this film as probably Hitchcock’s best and most well realised film. My knowledge of the director’s work is not sufficient to make any such claims but it is certainly an exceptional work. It opens with a long and beguiling credit sequence featuring extreme close ups of a face and whirling graphics. It really is a treat to watch in an age where credit sequences generally consist of a bunch of names over some average graphics that someone has slapped together at the last moment (Zack Snyder’s Watchmen (2009) is one recent film which bucks this trend). From here the film jumps straight into a chase scene across rooftops, accompanied by unrelenting music. The tension is high and we see a police officer plunge to his death whilst attempting to save the life of his colleague.

Finally the audience is able to draw breath. We are introduced to the police officer that watched the other one plunge to his death. His name is John ‘Scottie’ Ferguson and we learn that as a result of the incident he now suffers from extreme vertigo and has retired from the force. He has been told that only another shock to the system like the initial one he suffered will overturn the condition. My ears pricked on hearing this. I was certain at some stage we would see this second shock to his system. In this sequence Ferguson is chatting to his lifelong friend Midge. The relationship between the two is lovingly portrayed throughout the film. They have a believable rapport and inject some humour into the film. Personally my enjoyment of the film was at its greatest when these two characters were on screen together.

The major plotline of the film kicks off when Ferguson receives a call from an old college acquaintance who asks him to follow his wife. In the opinion of this college friend his wife has been possessed by a dead women. Scottie initially scoffs at this suggestion but reluctantly agrees to trail the wife. After saving the wife Madeline’s life when she jumps into San Francisco Bay, Scottie and her fall in love. It is an affair that seemed somewhat uncomfortable to me as a viewer. Not just cause she was a married woman but also because she was clearly mentally unstable and Scottie seems to have no qualms taking advantage of this. I was not sure why Scottie falls for Madeline, why he initially chooses to make a move on her. This initial plotline ends with Scottie’s vertigo coming back to haunt him as he watches his love plunge to her death from the roof of a church.

It is here that the film takes an unexpected tonal shift. Prior to this it has been a reasonably conventional (but brilliantly shot) thriller. The audience is subjected to a scary nightmare sequence into which Hitchcock inserts pieces of animation. This is a bold sequence which could easily have backfired and come off looking twee, or just downright laughable. But it works exceptionally well and it is on this sequence that the whole film turns. From here it is Scottie’s sanity that it in question. He tracks down and seduces a woman who he thinks looks somewhat like Madeline. He forces this woman Judy to buy clothes that match those Madeline wore and colour her hair the same striking blonde colour. These scenes, with Scottie forcing the increasingly uncomfortable Judy to do his bidding are exceptionally unsettling even to the modern viewer and really complicate ones feelings toward Scottie. These scenes reminded me a lot of a similarly unsettling scene late in James Ellroy’s classic crime novel The Black Dahlia which I have no doubt were heavily inspired by Vertigo. The film concludes with Scottie uncovering the film’s big twist, that he has been played and with Judy accidentally plunging to her death. The end of the film left me unsure as to how I was meant to view Scottie. His actions toward Judy in forcing her to dress like Madeline were clearly those of someone not of sane mind and this unnerving chronicle of his obsession really coloured my opinion of the film’s supposed ‘hero’.

The use of music by Hitchcock dominates much of this film in much the same way that the setting dominates Rear Window in my opinion. And the film is majestically shot and composed, with many scenes of the film being artworks in themselves. The high camera angle shot of Madeline’s body being discovered whilst Scottie flees the church springs to mind as a picture that would look pretty cool hanging on my wall. Like any film, this is an imperfect one. But to examine the films flaws – such as the character’s occasionally underdeveloped motives and the unsatisfactory tying up of the initial thriller plotline – in any great detail is really to quibble unnecessarily. It is a brilliantly made and at times exceptionally unsettling film.

Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny

Progress: 1/1001

I agonised for quite some time over whether I should use a ratings system for each film that I view. I didn’t feel particularly qualified to denote the ‘star’ value of films, but in the end decided it was important to grade them in some way. So in the end I came up with my own, more personal five-tiered system:

• Melbourne Bitter Longneck – The King of Beers. A title reserved for what are in my opinion the kings of movies. In a nutshell, this is a movie I think everyone should go out and watch straight away, no excuses (accompanied by a MB longneck of course)
• Pint of Kilkenny – There is very little better than one of these by the fire in a pub on a freezing Canberra evening. And there is very little better than these films. Denotes an excellent film which comes highly recommended and should be seen by everyone.
• Stubby of Reschs – A very good film. An enjoyable film which maybe didn’t entirely grab me. Reschs never fails to grab me and merely names this rating cause it’s a beer I enjoy a little less than a Pint of Kilkenny.
• Schooner of Carlton Draught – An average beer but one you will drink if there is nothing else going. Films earning this rating are ones that I am surprised were deemed worthy to be on this list, because in reality they do not stand out in any good way and more importantly are not particularly enjoyable.
• Schooner of Tooheys New – This movie, like this beer may induce vomiting on impact and should be avoided at all costs. I’m not really sure if any movies will ‘earn’ this rating, but if they do then you wouldn’t wish for your worst enemy to sit through it.

I would expect, seeing as these are supposedly all great or excellent films that I would tend to dish out more high ratings then generally seen. However time will tell.

I am aware that this is in no way an original idea for a blog. Its purpose is to chronicle my attempts to track down and watch the 1001 films I should apparently see before I kick the bucket. * I’m sure others have undertaken and chronicled similar quests. I also make no claim of being a film critic. Rather I will use this forum to share my views on what I liked and did not like in individual films. I will not be making any claims regarding the ‘greatness’ of films; rather I will be making comments on what amongst them are my ‘favourites.’ Two very distinct things. At the time of beginning this blog I have already seen somewhere around 70 – 80 of the films on this list. I will re-view them for the purposes of commenting on them here as I go along.

I was motivated to take the time to start commenting on these films for a few different reasons. Already in tracking down and viewing some of these films I have been exposed to filmmakers whose work I would never have seen otherwise. Orson Welles and Werner Herzog are two who spring to mind. Maybe by writing about these filmmakers others will be inspired to search out the films of directors such as these. Secondly is that hopefully by maintaining this blog I will be more motivated to keep up at watching these films and keep tracking down some of the more obscure works on the list. And lastly is that I, like many people I am sure have quite a poor memory. So hopefully by recording my feelings about these films I will have something to look back on when my memory of them fades somewhat.

Sourcing the films on this list, especially the earlier ones is not always easy. The main place that I source them from is the local library system here in Canberra which operates an excellent service. Other places I find them are in my own personal DVD collection, local video shop, university and through mates. I am sure that as I make my way through this list I will come across a number of films which elude me. So I will occasionally share with you my attempts to track down these hard to find films.

I would love to hear your comments and opinions on my posts. Let me know if you agree or (politely) disagree with my sentiments. But please also bear in mind that these are my personal opinions and personal opinions can never be wrong (unless you like Nickelback or Dan Brown books, in which case they are).

Thats it for now. Time that I started watching a movie rather than continued sitting in front of my computer writing about it. Stay well.

* My list is sourced from the widely available book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die edited by Steven Jay Schneider and published in Australia by Harper Collins.