Top 10 Films of the 1950s

I added Animal Farm and Vera Cruz to my 1954 list. I just plum-forgot-'em.
I also added Death of a Cyclist to 1956.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Although I'm not really a big 1950's movie fan per se, here are my top films:

On the Waterfront

Bridge on the River Kwai

Sunset Boulevard

North by Northwest

Some Like It Hot

__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

Just for the sake of conversation, what didn't you like about The Men?

I wasn't necessarily trying to compare him to Brando but rather looking at both of them along the lines of the real motorcycle gangs of that period. Brando was dressed like a model for the Harley Davidson catalog, very upscale with the black leather jacket and matching black leather cap, very expensive items back then. Marvin, on the other hand, had his gang colors on a worn, sleeveless denim jacket (or vest, it's been a long time since I last saw the film). He also wore a cap that looked like a war-surplus flyers cap with the straps that would have covered his ears and fastened under the chin pulled up on top of his head. Pulled up on front of the cap was what looked like army-surplus goggles worn by flyers in World War II.

The biker gangs came along after WWII primiarly as the result of ex-fliers' continued need for speed. Motorcycles were cheaper than aircraft and could be operated by non-pilots. The whole thing about gang colors and jackets started with the fad among Air Corps bomber crews of duplicating the nose art of their aircraft on the leather jackets issued them for high altitude flying. Marvin's cap and goggles fit right in with that reality. On the other hand, Brando had a really nice pair of shades that looked like those issued to pilots and flight crews during the war.

On top of which, Marvin looked dirty, groaty, and needed a shave like he had been on a bike trip for a few days. Brando looked awfully clean, no grease stains on his jeans, no food or other stains on his T-shirt.

The film just didn't captivate me in any real way. I found it to be unintresting in a subject I thought would make for a great film. Maybe my expectations were too high i'm not sure with Fred Zinnemann directing and a main cast of Brando and Wright with other great character actors, Stanley Kramer Producing, music by Dimitri Tiomkin. The Men left a feeling of dissapointment thus reflecting my disliking it. I'd rather not compare it to Oliver Stone's Born on the fourth of July yet here I am, and with reason. Even though the war each main character plays in is different the material has defiant similarities and themes. I watched Born on the fourth of July first not sure if that had anything to do with it. I mean, a good film is a good film regardless and thought it handled the material better in every above mentioned attribute. I think most important is that at the end of the day I just didn't connect with Brando's character. why did you like it ?

I don't know if this was aimed at me, but if so, you're preaching to choir. I have no doubt Pike could crank out a longer list than most of us would have time to read. I'm second to none in my astonishment at the amount of movie data he has stored away.

I still need to rewatch a lot of movies from the 50's but for now:

The Seventh Seal (1957, Ingmar Bergman)
North By Northwest (1959, Alfred Hitchcock)
The King and I (1956, Walter Lang)
Alice in Wonderland (1951, Disney)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957, David Lean)
Cinderella (1950, Disney)
The Seven Samurai (1954, Akira Kurosawa)
Rebel Without a Cause (1955, Nicholas Ray)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, Don Siegel)
Vertigo (1959, Alfred Hitchcock)

__________________

Yeah, I think it's some the best work Brando ever did. It must be hard as hell to play a paraplegic as well as he did and keep it in character all the way through. The scene when he's alone with his new bride and develops those leg trimors was extremely impressive because it looked like tremors rather than some guy just patting his foot, which it could have turned out like.

I also liked the fact it is one of the few films from that period that addressed the problems of wounded veterans after WWII and Korea, which made it a very different kind of "war" movie. In fact, I was young enough that at first I was disappointed that it wasn't going to be another Sands of Iwo Jima or The Steel Helmet, but the script and Brando's performance soon won me over. It had a great cast, particularly with Jack Webb's performance, and it was shot on location in a real VA hospital, so some of those guys you see in the halls, beds, and playing water polo are real veterans with real injuries. And you know how I am about realism!

I suspect the fact that you saw Born on the Fourth of July prior to that film probably did influence you to some degree. I on the other hand saw The Men when it was still being played in movie theaters, and it was something quite different from anything I'd ever seen before. For my money, it's much more interesting than The Wild One.

But I know what it's like when you just can't connect with an actor's performance. I have the same problem with Born on the Fourth of July.

Let me suggest that you read the book of the same title before you watch the movie again. It will give you some insight and you'll be amazed at how different some characters--and the ending--are.

I also suggest you do the same for The Shootist.

I strongly agree with you on Chuck Jones--he produced a magnificient body of work!

Another movie similiar to The Men from the 1950s that is very well done is Bright Victory starring Arthur Kennedy as a blind WWII veteran.

I like Between Heaven and Hell because watching Broderick Crawford chew the scenery always interests me and this is one of his most off-the-wall roles, which is saying a mouthful! I also liked his two hopped-up bodyguards with the homosexual undertones, which was pretty daring for a film years before don't ask-don't tell. But mostly I like the film because it underlines something I learned as an enlistedman in the Army--those damn officers will get you killed if you aren't careful!!!

Well, as I recall, the film follows the book pretty closely and I like the fact that Hollywood resisted giving all the characters names and instead stuck with the book's identification of the young soldier, the loud soldier, the happy soldier, etc. But the main thing I like about the film is that its depiction of battle is probably the most accurate of any film ever. Again I'm drawing on my own Army experience in this: I've never been in a battle myself, but I've been in lots of simulated battles, and the thing that always impressed me is that it's hard as hell to figure out what is going on! You hear gunfire, but where is it coming from? Is it friend or foe? In basic training when I was serving as an acting corporal in charge of an 8-man rifle squad, I was assigned one time to take my bunch up a wooded hillside in an imitation battle. At the foot of the hill, we could hear firing but couldn't see anyone or anything. Five steps into the trees, and I lost my whole squad! A simulated artillery round went off near me and when I wiped the dirt out of my eyes, not one of those boys were around sight! You couldn't find a jumping jackass in those woods. I didn't see them again until the exercise was over.

The movie was right on when after the battle as two different groups of infantry come together, one says to the other, "You should have been here, this was where the real fighting was." And the other replies, "Nothing of the sort! The real attack came right at us down there by the river."

The truth being that each soldier sees only a small part of the battle that he's closest to, and it always seems like the biggest fight ever, owning to a large part to all the confusion.

Certainly Red Badge of Courage is not your normal war film, but it works for me because it's so realistic. Plus you have Audie Murphy, the most decorated hero of World War II, playing a coward. The loud soldier is played by Bill Mauldin, also a WWII rifleman who drew the famous Willie and Joe cartoons for Yank magazine.

Yeah, that's a great film, one of the few that also dealt with racial prejudice in that era.

There was another, I think the title was Pride of the Marines with John Garfield portraying a real Marine machinegunner who was blinded by a grenade.

Later, there was a really good movie starring Gregory Peck about men who suffered mental problems in war, Captain Newman, M.D. Bobby Darin was nominated for an Oscar for his performance as an Air Force gunner with battle trauma. The film included a nice mix of comedy and pathos in dealing with the mentally disturbed soldiers, including a really good early performance by Robert Duval.

The 50's is starting to become a more favorite decade of mine (next to 00's and 90's of course)

This is how I would rank what I've seen so far:

1. Rear Window
2. Some like it Hot (or tie for #1, hard to decide which one I like better)
3. North by Northwest
4. Dial M for Murder
5. The Bridge on the River Kwai
6. 12 Angry Men
7. Vertigo
8. Strangers on a Train

Thanks for reminding me. I saw it as a kid on TV in the 60s, and can still remember that scene where Bobby Darin finally has his "breakthrough" during therapy. (It was "later" indeed, 1963.)

__________________
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain ... only straw. Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain? Scarecrow: I don't know. But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they? Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

The African Queen is way overrated in my opinion. It bored me and nearly put me to sleep. Does anyone else agree?

Yes, I think it's a little overrated, but then I think the performance of Bogie is hugely overrated. I'm convinced his Oscar was one of those, "Better do it before he dies" Oscars.

I agree it's talky and no masterpiece, but it's interesting to see two actors together you wouldn't expect to see. But then Hepburn did the same routine with John Wayne. Her most bizarre pairing, a movie very hard to find and I never saw, is Hepburn and Bob Hope.

I agree with Bogart's performance. He was better in The Maltese Falcon and Treasures of the Sierra Madre for me. However, I find it weird that I haven't been a fan of all 3 of Huston's highly acclaimed movies.

As for Hepburn, this was my first Hepburn film that I have seen and I don't get what all the fuss is with her based off of that movie. I'll have to see some of her earlier works to make a final judgement though.

I for one would certainly recommend her earlier work over this. Not that The African Queen is bad or anything, but she's certainly done far better, IMO.

I'd say "a little" overrated. I give it . No, I don't agree. You believe that Eastwood is a better director than Huston at this point, so what should I expect? You do realize that Clint made his own homage to this flick, White Hunter, Black Heart?