Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Seraherrera The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

ewgers It must be one of hollywoods travesties that Milly wasn't recognised for her fantastic performance in this movie . It proves that these Oscars were handed out to favourable characters rather than based on actual acting in the given movie Considering this was her first big acting role. Milly completely makes this film worthwhile and believable . To the fools in the academy that never recognised her superb performance back in 59' "Quack Quack"

JohnHowardReid A George Stevens Production. Copyright 1959 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Palace: 18 March 1959. U.S. release: March 1959. U.K. release: July 1959. Australian release: 1 October 1959. Running times: 170 minutes (USA and UK), 178 minutes (Aust).NOTES: First published in 1952, the book became an almost immediate best-seller and was translated into 21 languages. The play opened on Broadway at the Cort Theatre on 5 October 1955 and won the Pulitzer Prize, the New York Drama Critics Award and the Antoinette Perry Award. It was produced by Kermit Bloomgarden and directed by Garson Kanin; Susan Strasberg was Anne, Dennie Moore was Mrs. Van Daan and Jack Gilford was Mr. Dussell. In the film, Schildkraut, Huber and Jacobi are repeating their original Broadway roles... Stevens reportedly screened 10,244 applicants for the role of Anne before deciding on New Jersey-born model, Millie Perkins. The film won three Academy Awards: Best Supporting Actress, Shelley Winters, Black-and-white Cinematography, William C. Mellor (only — the 2nd unit scenes photographed by Jack Cardiff were presumably thought to be inferior to Mellor's studio work), and Black-and-white Art Direction, defeating "Career", "The Last Angry Man", "Some Like It Hot", and "Suddenly Last Summer".On the year's "Ten Best" lists, number 2 on the Film Daily annual poll of American film critics, number 5 on New York Journal American, number 10 for Gerald Pratley, number 4 for the National Board of Review, number 1 for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, number 3 on The New York Daily Mirror, and tied with The Nun's Story for 2nd place on the Filmfacts composite listing. In alphabetical lists figured on Time, John Springer, New York Times, New York World Telegram, Milwaukee Journal.Although the play ran a highly successful 717 performances, returning its astute backers something like ten times their original investments, the film did far less well. Including the cost of the screen rights and being aware of Stevens' ultra-expensive working methods, you'd be looking at a negative cost of at least $3 million — probably a lot more. Perhaps the story was better left to the East German DEFA's 20-minute 1958 "A Diary for Anne Frank" which packs an enormous amount of actuality background material (stills, newsreels, documents) into its well-researched account.COMMENT: Slow-moving, but inspiring. Very much a filmed stage-play, rather blandly directed, yet somewhat heavily theatrical. Despite her stunning movie debut in the title role, Millie Perkins' subsequent career — "Wild in the Country" (1961), "Ensign Pulver" (1964), "Wild in the Streets" (1968) — didn't capitalize on her potential. Miss Perkins is a Jean Seberg in reverse.The other players try hard (perhaps too hard) to gain dominance over the central character. Shelley Winters come off best, and Diane Baker impresses in a small role, but Schildkraut, Wynn and Jacobi act as though they were treading the boards on Broadway instead of miming in front of a movie camera.OTHER VIEWS: A masterpiece. — Time. A surprisingly ordinary movie. — Films In Review. Profoundly moving... A film for which the industry can take a prideful bow. — Variety. Often magnificent. — Saturday Review. A masterpiece. — New York Herald Tribune. Shows Hollywood at its most honorable and least imaginative. — Monthly Film Bulletin. Easily the finest film 20th Century-Fox ever made. — Samuel Goldwyn.

kenjha The famous story of the Jewish girl hiding in an attic in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam receives an impressive screen treatment. Pretty much the entire film takes place inside the cramped attic, and it's a credit to Stevens that a three-hour film in a confined setting manages to remain engaging. Perkins has been unjustly criticized for her performance. She is perhaps a bit too perky in her film debut, but she mostly does well with her expressive face and charming manner. Schildkraut is fine as the father, as are Winters and Beymer as members of another family sharing the attic. In fact, all the acting is good with the exception of Jacobi and Wynn, who come off as rather cartoonish.

Steffi_P 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.