Rating: 
Summary: Recommendation *****
Review: I really recommend this book. You can follow steps and seek to buy prominent films. In the era of DVD and DivX you really need it's point of view.
Use it!
Rating: 
Summary: A total waste of money
Review: If you are looking for a serious discussion of 1,000 classic films, perhaps as a starting point for your own voyage of discovery, this book is a total waste of money. Spend your money on "1001 Films You Must See Before You Die" and Roger Ebert's Great Movies series instead.
Here are some of the reasons why I do not like this book:
1--The reviews begin in 1931, which means that the book completely ignores the silent era. No book pretending to discuss the 1,000 greatest movies ever made can ignore that era. How can you ignore the best work of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd? How can you ignore the work of David Wark Griffith, such as "Birth of a Nation" and "Intolerance"? How can you ignore Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin" or Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan Of Arc," which many would rank among the 10 greatest films of all time?
2--The book covers only films that were reviewed in the New York Times. Thus it is limited in its scope. It ignores a large body of great films that were not reviewed in the Times for whatever reason.
3--The reviews were all written under deadline pressure, with little time for reflection and perspective. In the days before television, when the newspaper business was very competitive, many large papers published multiple editions each day, and deadline pressure was very tight. I was a newspaper reporter in my early days, and I know what it was like.
In addition, these reviews were written on typewriters, not computers. There was little opportunity for revision. The way that the page came out of your typewriter the first time around was the way that the review appeared in print.
It's only fair to point out that many of today's newspaper-based film critics, such as Roger Ebert, are able to write thoughtful reviews under deadline pressure. However, I suspect that they have more resources available to them, and more options as well, than the critics who wrote most of the reviews in this book.
The bottom line is that in most cases, the thoughtfulness and reflection are not there. Most of the reviews seem to be geared toward answering the reader's simple question, "Is the movie any good?" The reviews are more akin to Ebert and Roeper's "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" television reviews than to the far more thoughtful ones that Ebert writes for his newspaper. Any serious discussion of 1,000 great films deserves much better than that.
Rating:
Summary: Great gift idea!
Review: If you have any film buffs on your Christmas/Hanukkah/Kwanzaa shopping list, buy them this book and wait for the gratitude. Of course no one's going to agree on every movie included, and everyone's going to be angered by some omissions... But that's what makes this book so much fun. Film buffs (like me) love getting all riled up over these kinds of things.But the reason this book is really essential is that, rather than explaining why each included film is great or "important", the editors chose to include the original reviews printed in the Times when the films were released. Seeing how some of these classics were reviewed in their own time is a real kick. Some, like "Casablanca", were rightfully praised. But check out the scathing review of "Dr. Strangelove", which was clearly ahead of its time. Of course there will never be a definitive list of 1,000 best movies, but a book like this is really more of a jumping off point for discussion. Personally, I admire a list that's willing to put well-made genre flicks like "Nightmare on Elm Street" alongside classy Hollywood landmarks like "Sunset Boulevard". Not everyone will agree. But they'll definitely enjoy the debate.
Rating: 
Summary: A Question of Inclusion and Balance
Review: Other reviewers have pointed out the problem of this volume being biased toward more recent films and the omission of genre and lower budgeted classics and some have (wrongly, in my opinion) protested that it is just a collection of reviews written at the time of the films' release (surely that was the intention and not an unworthy one as the reactions of past reviewers build a bit of historical-cultural perspective into the readings.) The main offense of this volume (again probably by design, but in no reasonable way defensible) is the exclusion of the entire silent film era and thus the best films of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin to select only two of the most obvious. While interest in silent film seems to be a bit on the upswing, with a great many titles available on DVD and pretty regular exposure on Turner Classic Movies, more needs to be done to spread the word that there was great stuff to see out there before the coming of sound. Let's hope the next edition of this book doesn't limit itself only to films made in color, or the version after that only to films made in color and widescreen. While excluding silent film is easier, more or less by date, it is an exclusion no more logical or justifiable than the two at the beginning of this paragraph.
Rating: 
Summary: Times' Film Reviews
Review: The book is really a compilation of reviews by NY Times film critics of what they feel are the 1000 best movies ever made. The films inclusions were based on not only quality, but on inventiveness and influence. The films are not ranked, but merely presented in alphabetical order. The real interest of the book is that the reviews are reprints from their actual newspaper appearances. You get the first impressions of the reviewers and they are not diluted by the hindsight that you get in other film review compilations. Vincent Canby practically invented the role of the film critic and to read his reviews are a real treat. Even with 1000 movies, there are some omissions like Jaws, but overall, the book is an interesting read for anyone who is a film buff.
Rating:
Summary: Accurate, yet curiously biased...
Review: The The New York Times Guide to the Best 1000 Movies Ever Made, is not only a lengthy book to go through, but also seems like a list of good movies from a college student who thinks he will be heir to criticism fame, once Ebert dies... The first mistake of the book is by only including films that were reviewed by the New York Times, which leaves out excellent films such as "Pandora's Box", "Metropolis", various Chaplin classics, "Intolerance", "Birth of a Nation", and on a subtler note, "Nanook of the North"... Now, I understand that the primary reason for exlcuding these films is the fact that the Times did not have reviews to go along with them, since the book's secondary purpose seems to be learning what it was like to see these films at the time of release... Yet, they could have easily listed these pre-Times films in the back of the book (they seemed to have no trouble at all putting films like "Closely Watched Trains" over there with no review)... Next are the curious picks for the "best" 1000 films of all time... Does anyone REALLY think that films such as "10", "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song", and "Heavy Traffic" belong in this book with no mention of "Terminator 2", "Dances with Wolves", or the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy? Surely the Times has some critics that can say that the first two LOTR films were better than "A.I." or "About Schmidt"... Now, I thought the latter two films were excellent, but a book that is clearly saying that the 1000 best films of all time are in this book, they would have to save themselves from a mass disagreement from the public (all 3 LOTR films are in the top 10 on the IMDb, where mostly ordinary people rate films)... However, this book does bring to light classics and foreign films that are otherwise never published in books like this... I would have never been granted to joy of seeing "L' Atalante", "Close-Up" or "Heimat", had they not been included in this book... Another reviewer complained about the fact that some films are not in print on VHS or DVD, but this is a stupid thing to whine about... The Criterion Collection does a good job of releasing films that are in this situation... And some films are in fact, available on VHS, but many believe they do not exist if amazon.com does not list them... One of the films in this book, "L' Age d'Or" is available on VHS through the New York Film Annex (NYFA), and can be ordered through the movies unlimited website at www.moviesunlimited.com... You can probably find more films in this book at that site as well... Overall, this book is helpful in finding films that are excellent, but are usually kept as low-profile, and hidden away from film buffs, but film buffs will all the same, be scratching their heads at the listing of "Beetlejuice" in this book...
Rating:
Summary: The new Golden Age of Cinema
Review: This book is an excellent resource for those who are looking for a good movie to watch. Like any other "list" it has its' limits. No two peoples likes and dislikes are exactly the same. Thus there will be disagreements over what is included in the "Best 1000 Movies". Frankly though, the disagreements will probably be over what was included in this book rather than what was excluded; the top 1000 certainly covers a lot of ground. As I came across a movie I thought was undeserving, I thought to myself, "How could they include this movie and leave out..." Strangely enough, every movie I thought to finish the sentence with turned out to be in the book. OK, so it IS short on some of the great comedy of the past; I believe "Duck Soup" is the only Marx Brothers entry. But, then, I didn't need this book to tell me how good the Marx Brother movies are. What is has done for me, once I stopped gawking and started to put it to work, is introduce me to a lot of good movies that I would have missed otherwise. I've been going to the video stores lately looking for the "older" movies of the 80's and 90's rather that the meager selections of new releases. Agreed, most of the ones I've checked out have not been on anyone's top ten list. However, they have been enjoyable and better than most of the movies I've seen on TV of late. I do have a couple of mild criticisms of this book. The first thing I would "criticize" is the format. (It may also be its' strength so I proceed caustiously along this line). The format is to list the movies with their original New York Times review. That's very well except that the "Times" panned a number of these movies in their reviews. "Bonnie and Clyde" comes to mind as a movie that received a particularly bad review. Now we all know that "Bonnie and Clyde" is a deserving member of the Top 1000 because we've either seen it or know its' reputation. But what about the lesser movies that we've neither seen nor heard much about. How are we to be inspired to go out and watch based solely on a negative review. Some historical perspective could have helped. However, if that were the case, they'd probably still be writing the book. Another "criticism" I have is how I was struck with the notion that most of the movies are of a more recent vintage. I actually sat down and totalled the number of movies in the list by decade (yes, I DO have other things to do with my life). I had always heard that the 1930's were the Golden Age of Cinema but the results suggest otherwise (at least in the eyes of these NY Times editors). There were two movies in the 1920's (kudos to "Disraeli" and "The Jazz Singer"), 92 in the 30's, 129 in the 40's, 146 in the 50's, 150 in the 60's, 156 in the 70's, 200 in the 80's and 128 in the 90's (the latest movies I noticed were in 1998). Thus the new Golden Age would seem to be the 1980's. Why doesn't seem that way in reality? There was an art to movie-making in the pre-1970's that challenged the productions to use more symbolism. Now that we have the technology and lack of inhibitions to show just about anything and everything on film, there seems to be little reason to be suggestive rather than blunt. I suspect that the reason the number are so slanted towards recent vintage may be the failure of the editors to have seen more of the great movies of the past. Having said that, I close with thanks for the effort that went into this book and the excellent resource it will serve for anyone who's looking for a good movie to watch.
Rating:
Summary: Not what it claims to be!
Review: This book is not what it claims to be i.e. " . . . the best 1,000 Movies Ever Made". It is merely a collection of all the reviews they could get their hands on presumably for free. Thay have some attrocious movies in it. And don't take my word for it - their own reviewers pan them mightily! Many of the reviews are decades old. Given that taste and opinions change that makes them of lesser interest. Find another book on the movies not this.
Rating:
Summary: Why include unavailable movies?
Review: This is going to be the shortest review I've ever written. I checked out this book from the library and photocopied the "by genre" list in the back. I checked off the ones I had seen (suprisingly few considering how long I've been an avid film fan.) Anyway, as I was going through the list I found the 1950's version of "Death of a Salesman" listed. Now, everyone who has ever looked for that film will tell you it's not available on home video. So, why include it? Anyone who dared to try and tackle watching even a fraction of the movies listed here would have to use another guide such as Leonard Maltin's just to ascertain wheather or not the film is available. I am thinking of looking into "The best Films to Rent you've never heard of" Its actually an achievable goal and at the very least you know the films are available.
Rating:
Summary: ok
Review: this was a pretty goo book i was just did not understand why stand by me was to in it i mean that movie is a huge classic made in the 1980's.
|
