Too many fans seem to be blown away

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

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.

I do not know why you insist on listing Gusti Huber as Mrs. Frank when Joan Plowright is the obvious actress. If you look at Ms. Plowright's credits you will see she played Mrs. Frank. Joan did an amazing job with the role. I always knew it was her. So in watching it today again, after so many years and seeing ms. Huber listed, I am very confused. She was even listed in the opening credits of the actual movie. Does anyone know what happened? Of all the versions of this movie, this one was the most profound and left the longest lasting effects. I have watched every version of the movie, play , even a dance rendition and nothing can compare to this movie. I feel sad for anyone who does not catch this one first.I always thought it so kind and generous that Mr. Frank shared this very personal part of his life with us and wish I had a chance to thank him before he died.

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.

This was very accurate, Anne and The VannPells/VanDaans were given 5 minutes to get all of their possessions together. They were given this time because Otto Frank Anne's Father was in WWI and the soldiers were trying to still give him respect.Was it ever discovered who turned the family in? Was it The thief? Anne Frank was a very bright and intelligent young woman, it is so amazing to see a actual account of the Holocaust. Please read the novel and then watch the movie. Your Perspective of everything would be different after seeing the stage directions which show each characters personalities through movement.