Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!
Sorry, this movie sucks
It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.
In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.
Having seen Anne Frank's house in Amsterdam, I felt disappointed by this 'classic' film. It does just not stand up and at one point I felt it inspired Mel Brooks 'The Producers.'Anne Frank recorded her story of hiding in a loft with her family as well as others, living for several years in cramped harsh conditions hoping to evade the Nazis. What we get is an overlong, mawkish film that wants to concentrate more in the love interest between Anne and a boy called Peter from the other family. We get little of the terror that these families would had felt. The film lacks the claustrophobia that should be presented to the audience. It really is a film of its time stripped of all the harshness of war.Worse the actress playing Anne looks too old and is rather bland.
This was an amazing movie. It's long almost 3 hours but so worth it. You really feel the terror,paranoia and tension. Your heart breaks with them. It's not too accurate in regards to the book but if you can get past that it really is an excellent film. The movie is not too violent for a film that takes place during the war. Anne while going through an unimaginable situation still remains mostly positive. Her quote "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart" really captures that.Anne's story and so many others like her must continue to be told. This movie really shows what it must have been like to stay in hiding for years. Never being able to go outside,have a breath of fresh air. This is a movie I think everyone needs to see at least once.
I just finished reading the diary of Anne Frank and was moved. As you probably already know, Anne Frank was a German-born Dutch Jewish girl who went into hiding with her family and another family during the Holocaust. The majority of the movie takes place in their hiding spot. There are also added post-war scenes at the beginning and end of the movie that Anne of course couldn't have written, because she didn't survive.I was curious to see this movie, which I had only seen two scenes of on TV- Anne not throwing away her yellow star because it's a Star of David, and Mr. Van Daan drawing fury for stealing food. Neither scene is from the actual diary. There's the rub- the best parts of this movie are lifted directly from the book, but what's added, changed or left out is no improvement. Anne's diary reads as good as fiction already, so I don't think there was much need to "dramatize" it. Some scenes- like the characters confessing their sins on D-Day- come close to sappy, and Anne never really reconciled with her mother. I also wasn't very impressed with the actress playing Anne in this film. By all means, see the movie- but don't see the movie instead of reading the real thing.
Some stories are simply begging to be told. Since the end of World War 2, the conflict had provided inspiration for hundreds of motion pictures, and most of these were for the purposes of gung ho entertainment rather than poignant reflection. There's nothing shameful in that. It is just the case that with some of the more horrific aspects of the war, we needed more time to come to terms with them and understand them. And with a story like this, it was also essential that it be handled by a team who could get it exactly right.The picture was based on an earlier stage play by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, not too especially well-known names in filmdom, although they were responsible for some of the best screenplays of Hollywood's classic era, including It's a Wonderful Life. As such it should come as no surprise then that their dramatization of Anne Frank's diary is bursting with tenderness, frank humanity and above all a reverence for human life. They have often condensed several significant events into the same scene, and possibly exaggerated a few characters, but this is the way it must be to make it work as a play, and no disservice has been done to Anne's work (As a side note however, I would recommend everyone read up on Fritz Pfeffer, the real name of the Alfred Dussel character, as his story is far more complex and tragic than what we see here). This screen version of the Goodrich-Hackett play was produced and directed by George Stevens, and there may have been no better man for the project. Stevens's method in his 1950s pictures was to shoot from every conceivable angle, and have the perspective sometimes change jarringly from shot to shot. This may seem confusing at first, but it makes the audience lose track of the size and shape of rooms, and focus totally on the actors. However, he does things slightly differently for this picture. He begins by making us very much aware of the space, with lots of foreground clutter, and doorways leading off in the background. It is as if we are somehow being held back from the action, as if we are looking in on it from outside. Then gradually, around about the time Anne begins her diary, the camera begins to move inside the space. As we get to know the characters, the camera becomes more intimate, and as usual with Stevens he makes us forget the place and remember the people.And this is an appropriately memorable cast. Originally Audrey Hepburn was sought for the lead role, and while she would surely have been excellent, her substitute Millie Perkins is perhaps a better yet for this role. She has a kind of genuine youthful exuberance to her, and is able to appear much more like a real teenager. It is also appropriate to have an unfamiliar face for the part. An equally young Richard Beymer (better known as Tony in West Side Story) is also ideal for the same reasons. The supporting players are a delight. People like Josef Schildkraut and Shelley Winters are like a mark of quality on any picture. They did not have egos, they did not want to steal the show or upstage anyone; they simply undertook each part with sincerity and played it to the best of their abilities. The real surprise however is Ed Wynn, a daffy comedy actor, but here playing it mostly straight and even eliciting some sympathy for a character who is basically the fall guy in the absence of any tangible villain. But why is Anne Frank's story so important? It is not of great historical value. It does not make for an unflinching account of Jewish persecution by the Nazis. What it is, is an incredibly touching and insightful narrative by someone in a trying and excruciating situation. It is astonishingly well written, and as such has at times been denounced as a hoax, although its authenticity has now thankfully been proved. Anne unwittingly made herself a spokesperson for a generation and for a people. Her story is one we are lucky enough to have handed down to us, among the millions that can never be told, and as such it should become known and spread. Anne herself may not have survived, but her diary
her diary is life after death.