1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (1980's)

Notes: Honestly, I always thought it was rather difficult to judge this movie. Indeed, back in those days, the best movie released at that time was obviously ‘Raging Bull’ so the fact that this movie eventually won the Best Picture Academy Award was always quite controversial. And, yet, I still think it is actually a really good drama though. Indeed, for some various reasons, I always thought that psychology is a rather fascinating subject but not only you don’t get many movies dealing with this topic but most of them give a rather unrealistic and colorful image of such patients (see for example ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest’ or ‘Girl, Interrupted’). Well, this movie gave one of the most convincing and compelling depictions of depression that I have ever seen. Indeed, the directing was solid without being too flashy and there was a really good cast. At the time, it launched the career of Timothy Hutton who became one of the youngest winners of an Academy Award ever but this guy never really fulfilled those great expectations.

Notes: It is usually considered as the best installment of this whole saga and I believe it really deserves this status. Indeed, even though it still remains a seminal piece of popcorn entertainment, this time, it was quite darker than its predecessor and towards the end, it almost became some kind of Greek tragedy. Indeed, the climax with the duel between Skywalker and Vader has become pretty much the stuff of legends, it is still thrilling after all these years and I would be really surprised if they would ever manage to top that in the upcoming sequels. Sure, 35 years later, it seems pretty cheesy to discover the truth about Luke's father but it is because it has been copied and parodied so many times afterwards and, in fact, it was terribly effective. The good stuff didn’t stop there though. Indeed, you also had the enigmatic Boba Fett whose backstory would be really messed up in the prequels and, of course, the all mighty Yoda who would become one of the most beloved characters in this franchise.

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

Notes: I have to admit it, it has been a while since I saw this movie and I should probably re-watch it at some point. Since this movie is a huge classic in France and the last big critical and commercial success for François Truffaut before his untimely death, I had some rather huge expectations towards this movie but, to be honest, I had actually a hard time to really connect with the damned thing. I mean, sure, it was a decent watch and the cast including such actors like Catherine Deneuve and Gérard Depardieu was really neat but the story didn’t really blow me away. I don’t know, for me, it was just another tale about how courageous the French people was during WWII, I’m afraid I have seen too many movies like this to care anymore and I think I’m in fact more interested in the movies telling a more ambiguous tale like the fascinating ‘Lacombe Lucien’ for example. About the same topic, I also preferred ‘Mephisto’ which gave a much darker and spellbinding approach about the subject.

Notes: Well, pretty much like anything else coming from this director, it is basically another huge classic but, to be honest, it doesn't really belong to my favorites. But even so, it is seriously entertaining, I think it is probably the most accessible movie directed by Stanley Kubrick and, once again, the directing was just amazing. On top of that, Jack Nicholson gave one of his best performances and the whole thing was indeed just spellbinding to watch. And, yet, somehow, it was still missing something to become truly amazing, at least, that’s my opinion. Eventually, the main issue was probably the fact that this movie is and remains a Stephen King story and, to be honest, I have never been a real fan of his work. Still, I have always been amazed about how Kubrick has managed to lift up this material to such heights and among all these Stephen King books that has been adapted to the silver screen, it is easily one of the very best ones, even if King himself didn't like it at all.

Notes: I have to admit it, it has been a while since I saw this one but I will definitely re-watch it as soon I get the opportunity. When talking about Lynch's career, it seems that this movie has been a little bit forgotten. Indeed, if you compare it to the movies more faithful to his directing style such as 'Blue Velvet' or 'Mulholland Dr.', it seems to be like a rather straightforward drama. Indeed, it is rather straightforward but still quite fascinating to watch in my opinion and after directing only 2 movies, David Lynch was already regarded as one of the most promising American directors at work. The best thing in this movie was that even though the story was rather predictable, Lynch preserved his own rather dark directing style and it made the whole thing quite sinister but so spellbinding to watch. Another thing that I appreciated is that, for once, he allowed us to get acquainted with the characters, to get to know them and eventually to care about them.

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

Notes: Even though Maurice Pialat is not really well known in Listal, he was (and still is actually) a very highly regarded director in France. Honestly, I haven't seen many movies directed by Pialat but considering his reputation, I was really eager to watch this flick which was starring Gérard Depardieu and Isabelle Huppert who are both two of the best French actors for already the last 3 decades. Well, they were both really impressive. The story was dealing with one of those rather convoluted and messed up relationship that you only get to see in French movies. In my opinion, the plot was rather far-fetched and even depressing but thanks to the tremendous work of the actors involved, it was still a nice watch.

Notes: Basically, it is just really a really spellbinding story and easily the best sport movie ever made. I mean, even though 'Ordinary People' was a very good flick, this masterpiece was just from another level and should have won the best picture academy award back in those days. In my opinion, if there is a time when Scoresese should have won the big prize, it was at that moment and not with 'The Departed' which was the only way the Academy could possibly apologize to this great master. Anyway, this movie is the stuff of legends. Indeed, In 1978, when Martin Scorsese was at an all-time low resulting from a cocaine addiction, Robert De Niro visited him and told him that he had to clean himself up and make this movie. Thanks to De Niro, Scorsese was back in the game and directed one of the best movies ever made and continued to make incredible movies for the next 3 decades. Of course, we shouldn't forget De Niro who gave one of the best performances which has been a reference for many actors afterwards.

Notes: Even though it might not be the first parody ever made, it was and is the best one ever made. So, if you watch this flick and you think it stinks, you can skip directly everything in this genre because nothing else that came after was remotely better than this. For me, this test worked pretty well and I know where I stand now. Indeed, I thought it was pretty good and there were many many good jokes but that was about it, I'm afraid. Indeed, in my opinion, even though it was supposed to be that way, it all remains pretty stupid and stupid humor is not really my thing, I'm afraid. After this, the directing trio (Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker) spent much of their career milking dry this genre and I didn't care much for it. Anyway, even though I'm not a huge fan, it is definitely a pretty good comedy.

Notes: We don't hear much from John Landis nowadays but, back in the 80's, he was one of the most successful directors at work. One of his biggest success was this werewolf flick which has now reached a cult status. To mix comedy and horror is a tricky challenge and many movies fail miserably but Landis did a good work and sometimes you wonder if you should be laughing or be horrified by the whole thing. I must say, like most of movies about this subject, it takes like forever until the main character finally becomes a werewolf. But, honestly, the end result was quite mindblowing. No CGI but pure awesome make-up which still stands up 30 years later but that's in fact another issue with this flick. Indeed, the make-up was actually so impressive that it kind of upstaged the whole story which was rather pedestrian when you think about it.

Notes: To be honest, it has been a while since I have seen this movie and maybe I should give it another chance at some point. Back in the 80’s , there was a new French wave of directors called the ’Cinéma du Look’ with Luc Besson, Léo Carax and Jean-Jacques Beineix. Besson is obviously the one who had the biggest critical and definitely commercial success and Beineix probably the one who got the least success of the trio. Anyway, since this directing debut had a solid reputation, at least, in France, I was quite eager to check it out. Well, eventually, even though it was visually pretty neat and even though I did like the tone, I had a rather hard time to care about the story and the characters involved. That was apparently the main thing about the ’Cinéma du Look’, those filmmakers apparently put the focus more on the style than on the narrative and I thought it was pretty obvious with this movie. Later on, Beineix would come up with ‘37°2 le matin’ which would be one of the biggest French cult-classics released in the 80’s but the rest of his career would turn out to be rather underwhelming. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, even though I thought it was rather disappointing, it was still a decent watch.

Notes: Since I'm a huge fan of Indiana Jones, of course, I just love this flick. Even though it is not my favorite one in this franchise (that would be the 3rd installment), it is still quite awesome. Indeed, when I was a kid, I saw it so many times with my father but even twenty years later, I keep watching it from time to time and it is still so damned entertaining. Basically, with this movie, Steven Spielberg set up the golden rules for this mighty franchise and he introduced to us one of the greatest most iconic characters in motion picture history. Indeed, even though Harrison Ford was not even their first choice, he completely nailed this part and managed to create a character who was even more awesome than Han Solo which was quite an achievement. Anyway, not only it is technically pretty much flawless, it is also just a plain fun movie and it is completely entertaining from the very first minute until the very last seconds.

Notes: Well, I thought it was quite amazing and it was much better than anything directed before or after by Wolfgang Petersen. Anyhow, I always thought that there was something fascinating about movies dealing with submarines and this one is by far the best one. Indeed, since then, it has been imitated numerous times but this feature remains the reference in its genre and I will remain so a for a long time. Basically, the directing was amazing and, like I said before, you could argue that Wolfgang Petersen never reached these heights again in his career. In my opinion, the mood was intense, there was a completely nail-biting tension and I was on the edge of my seat from the beginning until the last seconds. At the end of the day, it is not only a great submarine movie, it is basically one of the best war features ever made.

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

Notes: Even though it was a decent watch, I can’t say I really loved the damned thing though. I mean, it definitely has its charms and they definitely don’t make such movies anymore. Indeed, it is basically a moral tale dealing with such old fashioned elements like chivalry and piousness and, if you are into this kind of things, you will love the whole thing but, if you are not, it might rather bore you. Personally, I have always been more attracted towards dark and conflicted characters, so, I had a rather hard time to connect with such virtuous semi-gods. And, yet, it is always neat to immerse yourself in a different time period during which the norm and values were drastically different than ours. On top of that, there is no denying that the iconic soundtrack by Vangelis was really uplifting and effective. Eventually, this movie won the Best Picture Academy Award but, in my opinion, the competition was rather weak for that year (‘Atlantic City’, ‘On Golden Pond’, ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’, ‘Reds’).

Notes: Back in the 80’s, not only Lawrence Kasdan had some major success as a screenwriter, he developed also a solid career as a director and all his movies were acclaimed. Indeed, his directing debut was a definitely critical and financial success. Basically, it is a pretty solid néo-noir, almost a remake of ‘Double Indemnity’ (which I still need to watch) and not only did it launch Kasdan’s directing career but also William Hurt and Kathleen Turner. So, it was a pretty steamy affair and, personally, I really enjoyed the mood provided by the competent directing. Hurt and Turner were really good as well, they had some great chemistry and after this movie, they would both become major players in Hollywood in the 80’s. Unfortunately, I was still not completely blown away by the whole thing. Indeed, like in most of the néo-noir features I am familiar with, the plot was pretty pedestrian and all the characters were really stereotypical. I know, it is something inherent to the genre but I always find it rather frustrating. Still, even though I don’t think it is really a masterpiece, it still remain a really solid erotic thriller.

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

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

Notes: For some reasons, I actually saw this movie as last in this trilogy. Obviously, it has become since then a major cult-classic but, to be honest, even though I did like it, I have never been a really huge fan. I mean, sure, it was a fun horror-comedy, no doubt about it, but, at the end of the day, I think it is just a cheap flick that Sam Raimi made to start up his career. Eventually, after all these years, if you look back at his legacy, it still is pretty much his most acclaimed directing effort which is at the same time pretty neat but also pretty sad, when you think about it. Anyway, the fact that I saw it after the sequel which was made years later, when they all had more experience and a much bigger budget, didn’t help either, I guess. Still, I will definitely check it again at some point in the future.

Notes: Even though I grew up watching many movies, this flick was not one of those that I saw thousand times like many other people from my generation. I mean, I did see it back then when I was very young and even though I thought it was pretty neat, it didn't really blow me away like some other movies like 'Star Wars' or 'Indiana Jones' . Eventually, I saw it again as a grown-up and, still, it remains a pretty good flick, no more no less. In my opinion, it is a rather typical Spielberg picture, with its positive and negative aspects. The positive aspects are that it was very well done with some great shots and special effects and even though it is now almost 30 years old, it is still entertaining from the beginning to the end. Some of those scenes or the score have become just really iconic. On the other hand, the negative aspect is that it tends to be overly sentimental in my opinion, it is a very moral tale and it has a rather black and white psychology about the good guys and the bad guys.

Notes: Since it is a huge classic, I was really eager to check this flick and I had some really high expectations before watching it. Eventually, even though I did enjoy it, it was not good as I expected it to be. I mean, it is a decent flick, entertaining and funny but I didn't see anything great about it and I was definitely not blown away by the whole thing. Still, it was quite awesome to see Sean Penn at the beginning of his career playing a stoner but, thank god, he managed to escape typecasting. It was also fun to see a whole bunch of actors at the beginning of their career (Sean Penn, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Judge Reinhold, Phoebe Cates, Vincent Schiavelli, Forest Whitaker, Eric Stoltz, James Russo, Nicolas Cage, Anthony Edwards). I guess, it is basically a matter of taste, and if you are into this kind of comedies, you will probably love it but otherwise, you won't see what so awesome about it (for example, Roger Ebert really despised it). Anyway, I don't think it is a masterpiece but it is still a good movie.

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

Notes: Even though Tobe Hooper had some major success with 'The Texas Chainsaw massacre', his following features never had much critical or financial success. The only exception would be this feature but many argue that this movie belongs to Spielberg (He produced, wrote the thing and some says that he cast the film, directed the actors, and designed every single storyboard for the movie himself.). But how was it eventually? It was not bad at all but I can't say I was really blown away by the whole thing. Of course, I thought that the special effects were pretty impressive, even more when you think it is a 30 years old feature. However, if some scenes worked pretty well, some others didn't and the whole thing was not really well written (I mean, I'm not an expert whatsoever but I really wonder if Spielberg did any research on poltergeists before writing this flick). Above all, even though the whole thing was rather entertaining, it wasn't really scary and it was probably what I was missing the most. Still, it remains a classic.

Notes: First of all, I think it was the first Turkish movie I have ever seen and only therefore it was a really interesting watch. Concerning the movie itself, it was actually quite strong and I don't think it has lost much of its impact after all these years. In my opinion, this movie was about the fact that the Turkish people was and maybe still are too much focused on punishment and vengeance when they should try to be more compassionate and forgiving towards other people and it's an universal message that is still topical nowadays for everyone. Concerning the fact that they chose to tell the stories of 5 different inmates, to be honest, I'm not so sure if it was such a great idea. Sure, on one hand, they were then able to be more diverse and show more ways to handle such a situation but, on the other hand, if they would have gone for just one or two characters, they could have expanded their tales and go much deeper. As a result, the end-result felt slightly shallow. Still, it remains a really strong movie.

Notes: I just love this movie and it is easily one of my all-time favorite movies. Basically, the look and the mood were great, the story was just plain fascinating and the cast was also pretty awesome. Back then, Harrison Ford was in the zone, and everything he touched turned into gold and it is hard to believe that, when this movie was released, it was actually a flop. You could blame the marketing but I'd rather believe that it was just way ahead of its time and nowadays it has reached a huge cult status which is totally deserved in my opinon. I guess it is/was maybe too slow for some viewers but it didn't bother me, in the contrary. Eventually, after 35 years, they will finally come up with a sequel and even though you might wonder if this movie really needed a sequel, since it will be directed by Denis Villeneuve, one of the best directors at work nowadays, there is a chance that it could turn out to be pretty awesome. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, even if you don't like it, you would have to at least recognize the fact that it has influenced all the SF movies that came afterwards.

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

Notes: To be honest, I always had some rather mixed feelings about this flick. Indeed, it is supposed to be a massive 80’s classic but I always thought it was fairly entertaining but not much more than that, I’m afraid. Basically, even though it is definitely better than ‘Mrs. Doubtfire’, the concept is actually really similar and it is so preposterous, it is actually really difficult to take the whole thing seriously. I mean, is it really believable to think that a guy won’t get any acting jobs as himself but would manage to be hired instantly as soon as he dressed up in drag? Sure, Dustin Hoffman was at the top of his game, he gave a really solid performance here and the whole thing was enjoyable but I was never able to shake the idea that the whole thing was actually rather stupid. On the other hand, it has been a while since I saw it and I should probably re-watch it at some point but I doubt that it will really blow me away.

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

Notes: Even though I did like this movie, somehow, it didn’t completely win me over. I mean, it has nothing to do with Gandhi, the guy was just amazing and one of the most aspiring human beings that ever lived and Ben Kingsley was just really impressive in the best performance of his career and yet the whole thing was still missing something in my opinion. I don’t know, maybe I was too young when I first saw it but, at the end of the day, even though it was really respectful, which was fine, it was also too straightforward, at least, that’s my opinion. I guess it goes with the territory though. Indeed, with such a beloved man, there is not much actual space to be really creative. Anyway, eventually, even though it didn’t completely blow me away, it was still a decent biopic about a fascinating historical figure.

Notes: The whole thing started out with a very typical ominous score which, for once, was not written by John Carpenter but by the great Ennio Morricone. From there, it became a chilling horror flick with some rather gruesome special effects. Even though it was actually never really scary, there was still loads of tension since you never know for sure, except for MacReady, who could be infected or not. I also appreciated the downbeat ending with no survivors, even the last 2 guys were left alone in the snow to die without a rescue team. I was rather amazed to read that this movie was a flop and was critically panned when it was released. Anyway, nowadays, it is rightfully considered by many as the best movie directed by John Carpenter and it is another great example that you can take an old movie, give it a fresh look and modify the story to fit our modern world with some tremendous results.

Notes: Even though this movie is obviously considered as a massive masterpiece, to be honest, I really hard time to care for the damned thing and, I guess, this one belongs to the category 'misunderstood masterpiece’. What I mean by that is that I was able to see all the craft behind it, I could see it was obviously a work of Art but I'm afraid I didn't really get it. Basically, it was not really my cup of tea. Indeed, it was very bleak and there was a lot of weird stuff and symbolism that went just way over my head. I mean, during the whole thing I was scratching my head thinking 'What did he mean with all this?' and, honestly, at the end of the movie, I didn't get many answers. Still, such a challenging movie should always be praised when you see how simplistic and moronic are the movies produced by Hollywood and I will not a blame a movie because I just didn't get it. Furthermore, even though, I missed many things, it remains such a well done flick and the whole thing was still quite fascinating to look at. Maybe I'll re-watch it again in the future to make up my mind for good.

Notes: A long time ago, when I was a student, I spent a year in Cambridge and, when I was there, I had the pleasure to follow a course about film history. The goal with this course was to start from the very beginning and go slowly up to the 80’s, if I’m not mistaken. Well, from all the movies we saw, this movie was probably the one which had the least impact on me. In fact, it was not the worst movie I saw. Indeed, ‘Cabiria’ was for example borderline unwatchable and I really didn’t care much for ‘The Searchers’ (I should give this classic a second change though). This movie directed by the Taviani brothers was actually pretty good, that’s for sure, but I can’t it really blow away and, to be honest, I actually forgot most of it which is never a good sign.

Notes: Well, even though it is a visually rather ugly movie, the material turned out to be however really unique and quite fascinating to behold. Indeed, I think it was the most feminist movie I have ever seen and it was clearly made by a woman, about women, for the women. Of course, you might argue that what happens in this movie was rather far-fetched but, what was more interesting, was the underlying message. Basiucally, it boils down to that, in this man dominated world, women have always been, oppressed might too strong, but at least undermined, undervalued, vastly misunderstood and definitely not treated as equal. The downside of this approach was that, while all the women were quite complex and interesting to behold, the male characters were on the other hand barely developed whatsoever and were reduced to pretty much some clueless sexist morons. On top of that, I was not really sure about the beehive behaviour displayed by all these women. Indeed, to be honest, I have some doubts that the female community is so harmonious and that they have such a great understanding of each other with some seemingly telepathic powers. Finally, we are obviously supposed to be rooting for these 3 women but imagine if 3 men would kill a woman so randomly and so violently? I’m pretty sure that they would be considered as ‘monsters’. On the other hand, you might argue that white straight men will probably never have a reason to lose their sh*t like that. Anyway, it has been a while since I have seen something so original and so thought-provoking.

Notes: I wonder how I ended up watching this movie but I think it was because the critic in the TV mag was pretty good. Anyway, even though I didn’t really expect it, it turned out to be a major milestone in my movie watching. Indeed, back then, I was much younger, I had never seen anything like this before and I was seriously blown away by the whole thing. I think that the first thing that impressed me with this movie was its visual aspect. Basically, it deals with art and painting and it is probably the movie which made the best connection with the painting art I have ever seen. Furthermore, there was also a mesmerizing surrealist vibe with this movie and even though the plot and the characters were rather murky, it was one of the most spellbinding movies I have ever seen. Concerning Peter Greenaway, it was his breakthrough feature film, it would be also his first movie I managed to watch and I became right away a big fan of his work.

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

Notes: Among all the masterpieces Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese made together, it is one of the least appreciated ones and it was a flop when it came out which is not really surprising. Indeed, it is a comedy but the whole thing is just so dark, so sardonic, it can't be compared to your average commercial comedic feature. That's probably why I enjoyed it whereas I usually don't care much about comedies. Once again, the directing was really awesome with here and there some pacing issues but nothing major and some amazing performances. It is also gives a grim and, I'm afraid, realistic view on the whole fandom/stalker concept. The great thing about this movie is that you never know if you should laugh or be afraid by the whole thing which is probably why the average audience dimissed it and it is exactly why I actually enjoyed it so much.

Notes: To be honest, I’m not a huge fan of such Christmas flicks but I have to admit that this one was not bad at all. There has been some discussion about when the damned thing was actually taking place and I was myself struggling to figure it out but, apparently, it took place at some point in the 40’s. Well, the US audience has always been so fond about looking back on how everything was great back then in the 40’s-50’s-60’s but, to be honest, it’s not a fascination/obsession that I really share with them. Anyway, the damned thing didn’t really have a real plot, it was more a succession of small stories/anecdotes involving the main character and it was, a result, rather episodic. Anyway, as far as I was concerned, the end-result was rather hit-and-miss. Still, I have to admit that some bits were actually quite pitch perfect. Indeed, they really captured the feverish obsession I used to have around the same age when I was thinking about my next Christmas present and the moment when this kid get to open the gift of his dreams was just pure gold. I also enjoyed the scene during which this young boy was convinced that his school essay would be rightfully judged as the next literary masterpiece, another situation that happened to me so many times when I was a kid. Concerning the cast, there is no doubt that Peter Billingsley was quite charismatic and the kid gave here a really solid performance.

Notes: This movie seemed to have such a decent reputation as it had been nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award and according to Roger Ebert, it was even the best movie made in the 80's, only behind ‘Raging Bull’. Well, eventually, I thought it was actually a rather weird movie. The beginning, focusing on Yeager, was actually quite awesome and uplifiting thanks to a fine performance by Sam Shephard. But, for some reason, this awesome character was somehow dropped after 45 minutes and the movie focused above all on the first American astronauts. The story, at the same time, became some tribute to these American heroes but it also made fun of the whole endeavour and the whole thing pretty much looked like a circus. So, you had some action, drama and also some satirical comedy but this mix didn’t always work in my opinion. Eventually, I don't think it was great but the whole thing was sometimes quite spellbinding.

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

Notes: Back in the 80’s, Lawrence Kasdan was really on fire. Not only he wrote some of the biggest box-office successes of the time, he managed also to launch a very successful directing career as well. Unfortunately, later on, his movies were honestly not that good and it has been at least 20 years since he has written or directed something really worthwhile. Anyway, this movie was his second directing effort and, even though it is nowadays pretty much forgotten, it was critically heralded when it was released. Indeed, there was quite an impressive cast and they all delivered some solid performances which were probably the most attractive aspect of this flick. There was even Kevin Costner who was unknown at the time but his scenes were cut eventually. Personally, I enjoyed above all William Hurt who was one of the best actors at work in the 80’s. Such a shame his career didn’t keep up later on as he is definitely one of the most underrated actors at work nowadays.

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

Notes: After all these years, it is still usually considered as the weakest installment of the original trilogy. Even though you could blame the Ewoks, I thought they were actually pretty cool but they were definitely another piece of evidence that this trilogy is actually pretty childish. It is not necessarily a bad thing but I just believe the whole thing is much more enjoyable when you watch it the first time when you are around 10-12 years old. No, the main issue in my opinion is that this sequel is almost a remake of the first movie. Indeed, the main plot is basically to destroy another death star against all odds. Sure, it was handled differently but the goal and outcome were pretty much the same. Still, it doesn't mean it was not a really entertaining flick though. Indeed, in my opinion, the Ewoks were childish but pretty cool, the whole extended intro with Jabba the Hutt was just really awesome and I really liked the way they developed the complex relationship between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.

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

Notes: Since I kept hearing some pretty good things about this movie, I was quite eager to check it out. Indeed, it is pretty much a classic from the 80’s and it managed at the time to win 5 Academy Awards including the Best Picture Academy Award. Well, to be honest, even though it turned out to be a decent watch, I can’t say it really blew me away though and I think the whole thing didn’t grow old very well, I’m afraid. For example, something that bothered was the terrible soundtrack. Indeed, it was really cheesy and something typical from the 80’s. Still, it was a pretty good story and, above all, the acting was really strong. I remember above all this one scene when you get to see Shirley MacLaine bursting at the reception of the hospital shouting ‘Give my daughter the shot!’. Eventually, even though not everything did work in this movie, this was and remains one of the most powerful scenes I have ever seen in a drama.

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

Notes: This movie would be the last one directed by Paul Verhoeven before he left the Netherlands and it is my favorite one from this period just behind 'Turks Fruit'. Above all, I thought that the story was just fascinating and, in my opinion, I believe it was in fact a better version of 'Basic Instinct'. Indeed, to be honest, I always had some mixed feelings about 'Basic Instinct' because, even though the set-up was great, the plot was after all really far-fetched and rather half-baked. Here, Verhoeven gave us another erotic thriller about a man falling in love with a seemingly dangerous woman but the end-result was this time much more rewarding, at least, that’s my opinion. Instead of Rutger Hauer, the lead was played this time by Jeroen Krabbbé and he gave a really solid performance. Above all, Paul Verhoeven was just at the top of his game at the time and delivered a steamy dark and spellbinding thriller.

Notes: It is definitely a typical Cronenberg feature and I thought it was pretty good. At the time, Cronenberg was still transitioning to some more commercial features easier to digest for the mainstream audience but there were still many of his famous trademarks that you could find in his rather gross horror features he made at the end of the 70’s. As a result, even though the whole thing was quite accessible, it was still pretty weird and sometimes a little bit hard to follow but there was definitely something quite spellbinding about the whole thing and there was no denying that it was visually quite impressive. James Woods, one of the most underrated actors that ever lived, was a perfect choice and he delivered one of his typical hysterical and over-the-top performances which fit really well in Cronenberg’s demented world. To be honest, I actually preferred ‘eXistenZ’ which Cronenberg made much later on his career as it was more compelling to watch in my opinion but I still enjoyed this one and I will definitely check it again in the future.

Notes: When I was a teenager, I started to watch many classics but some of them didn’t really blow me away and this movie is a good example. I don’t know, back then, I thought it was entertaining but the operatic over-the-top feeling didn’t really appeal to me at that point. Eventually, I had to watch this movie a second time (with a gap of 14 years if I’m not mistaken) to really appreciate it. Basically, it is pretty much the story of a loser from Cuba who tries to make it big in America but ends up still a loser. To start with , the makers were pretty prestigious as it was actually directed by Brian De Palma and Oliver Stone wrote the screenplay. Indeed, many tend to forget it, but before launching his own directing career, Stone did write this massive classic. In the same genre, it is definitely really different than 'The Godfather' or 'Goodfellas' but I thought it was really awesome. Even though Al Pacino plays again a gangster, his Tony Montana was completely different than his Michael Corleone and the guy was just spellbinding to watch .

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