Great Film overall

A Masterpiece!

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

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 movie was the first film ever made that dealt with the Holocaust, and is one of the best films in its genre along with Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List" (1993), and Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" (2009). The film is also the only Hollywood film to deal with the two years where Anne Frank her family, and two other families are hiding in an attic from the Nazis. At the time the film was being made George Stevens who directed and produced the movie took a big gamble with casting an unknown actress in the title role, that actress was Millie Perkins. Despite being 21 years old when she was making the movie Perkins shines in her film debut as Anne Frank a young teenage girl who writes a diary of the events that happen during her time hiding from the Nazis. During the film we get to know each of the characters thanks to a well-written script, and William Mellor's excellent cinematography. One thing that I've noticed while watching the movie was this movie was a more family oriented movie than any other Holocaust movie I've ever seen, and it was still effective. George Stevens was one of the most ambitious filmmakers of his generation along with other legendary directors like John Ford and Howard Hawks and Stevens' direction for this movie is no exception to his greatness as a filmmaker. Also I was also on the edge of my seat because of Alfred Newman's haunting and Oscar nominated score which I felt my hairs raising. Though movies set in different countries during World War II that were made during the "Golden Age" of Hollywood is that none of the actors use accents which made me feel like I was watching American Jews hiding from the Nazi army in Holland, thanks to mostly lackluster performances which is very disappointing for A George Stevens movie. Diane Baker is very good here as Anne's sister Margot, as well as an excellent supporting cast including Joseph Schildkraut (who won an Oscar for his performance in "The Life of Emile Zola") as Anne's father Otto, Shelley Winters won an undeserved Oscar for her performance as Mrs. Van Daan, Gusti Huber as Anne's mother, Lou Jacobi as Mr. Van Daan, Ed Wynn's Oscar nominated performance as Mr. Dussell I found to be annoying and mean spirited. Also Richard Beymer is also very good as the only child of the Van Daan family Peter who happens to be Anne's love interest. Though this is one of the finest films of 1959 it isn't a great film because I feel it would have been a much stronger and much more effective film if the actors had put more dedication and effort into their performances. But it was still emotionally effective as a movie.

The Diary of Anne Frank is a film based on the Pulitzer Prize winning play of the same name, which was based on the diary of Anne Frank. It was directed by George Stevens, with a screenplay by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett.It is the first film version of both the play and the original story, and features three members of the original Broadway cast.The movie was based on the personal diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish girl who lived in a hiding place with her family during World War II. All her writings to her diary were addressed as 'Dear Kitty'. The diary was published after the end of the war by her father Otto Frank. By this time all his other family members were killed by the Nazis.This is the autobiographical drama of a young Dutch Jewish girl hiding from the invading Nazis during World War II. Anne and her family share a claustrophobic attic with another family. Tension is often unbearable, as the people hiding know that their discovery by the enemy could lead to almost certain death at the hands of their captors. They also must contend with the Dutch Gestapo or "Green Police," who will turn them over to the Nazis if discovered. Dutch nationals risk their lives by hiding the family for two years. The group, despite the horror and crowded conditions, still find time for celebrations of Hanukkah and rejoice quietly in the small attic that has become their world. The story is told from the narrative perspective of Anne, a young girl hoping to live to womanhood. A poignant drama bringing us into the lives of Anne Frank, whose diary inspired millions seeking to understand why such a sweet, innocent child could be murdered in the Holocaust.It remains a potent statement about the horrors of war and a valid testament to the girl who could answer them by writing, 'I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are really good at heart.' Also,Mr. Stevens has done a superb job of putting upon the screen the basic drama and shivering authenticity of the Frances Goodrich-Albert Hackett play, which in turn caught the magnitude of drama in the real-life diary of a Jewish girl.

George Stevens' 1959 Classic, 'The Diary of Anne Frank,' is unique among the array of Holocaust pictures made over the years. Not only was it the first major, big-budget production to touch upon the subject (except for perhaps 'The Great Dictator,' which did not approach the subject directly), but it is directed from the point of view of a man trying to come to terms with the unspeakable horrors he was unprepared for upon the day of the liberation of the Nazi Concentration Camps. It is told from the point of view of a man who witnessed the aftermath of genocide, but who still sought to believe that there was still good in the world.Stevens could have taken many approaches to making this film, but he chose to approach it with optimism, a decision derided, it seems, from all sides. Most recently, books such as Francine Prose's 'Anne Frank: The Book, The Life, The Afterlife' and Carol Ann Lee's 'Hidden Life of Otto Frank,' have taken negative approaches to the film, as if the film's sole purpose had been to discredit and vandalize the Anne Frank story. They cite with dismay the footage of Millie Perkins in Auschwitz that trial audiences found distasteful, as proof of the film's inadequacy, never mind the fact that such footage, if it exists at all, cannot be viewed today.To address this point, let me remind those concerned that the war had ended not even fifteen years before the film went into production. Many Holocaust survivors were beginning to start new lives for themselves, including Otto Frank and his new wife. To think that the filming of the camp scenes would not have rekindled memories of such horror is simply unrealistic. And, although Otto Frank would neither see the play nor the film, were he to have seen it, why would he have wished to see a reenactment of his daughter's humiliation, degradation, and eventual death? Never mind the fact that they could never have filmed on-location at this time, and that there could not possibly have been a soundstage large enough to capture the daunting horror of Auschwitz and Bergen Belsen.Rather, over fifty years later, after the Holocaust had been successfully explored in other mediums, after the full impact of the Nazi atrocities were realized, and after an appropriate amount of Post-War time, the world was ready for the camp scenes, which were heartbreakingly conveyed in 'Anne Frank - The Whole Story.' Like Jean Marie Falconetti in 'Passion of Joan of Arc,' Hannah Taylor Gordon would agree to have her head shaven, to illustrate the suffering of an innocent, young heroine, which brings me to my next point.. the choice of Millie Perkins as Anne.The most widely ridiculed part of this film, Millie Perkins never seems to get a break. To contrast her with Gordon may perhaps be unfair, and Perkins herself would be liable to conced that Gordon's is superior, if only given the nature of her performance, which may be one of the finest ever recorded on film. The difference between Millie and Hannah would seem to be that while Millie was playing Anne Frank and playing her very well, Hannah seems to have become Anne for a brief period of time and lends her soul to the part, as if they were linked for a moment.But, nevertheless, Millie stands on her own. Stevens' choice was widely criticized, and still is, for his choice of an American girl, but the search itself was authentic as could be. "We're looking for an actress who hasn't found out that special secret about herself yet," Stevens declared at the press conference. To view her old screentest, why Millie was chosen is not obvious at first, but to look closer, she exhibits a quirkiness, fascination with small things, and detailed memory that was associated with Anne Frank. Perkins had not yet seemed to have discovered her "special secret." But, perhaps the reason for an American girl to portray her was the need to drive home the point to the American audiences, who, unlike Europeans, had largely been unaffected by the realization of the Nazi atrocities. No doubt they felt for the victims, but could not identify with them. If one allows themselves to become so absorbed in the fate of these characters that every time a Gestapo siren wails in the background, their heart pounds as theirs would, and to refocus one's attention on the child-like Millie trying to lighten the situation, one can appreciate the depth of her levity, only to be brought back to earth with the realization of what her fate will be. We are supposed to believe that whatever happened to the real Anne will happen to her. We may find this Anne annoying, whiny, or brattish, but never so deserving of the cruelty she would encounter in her last seven months. Perhaps Stevens understood this.