Rating: 
Summary: What did the Times think of your favorites?
Review: "The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made" is pretty much, as the title says, a book on 1,000 classics as reviewed by the New York Times. But these reviews aren't like those in Roger Ebert's "The Great Movies", which have the advantage of hindsight. These 1,000 articles were written fresh off the openings of the movies and show initial, at the moment reactions. Of course, in the years and decades since their releases, people's opinions may vary from those presented here. But you have to praise the Times for having the guts to republish their reviews to praise their correctness and admit their mistakes (In my opinion). The New York Times was the only newspaper I know of that praised "Citizen Kane" when it was first released in 1941. I like this because it showed that the most distinguished paper in the country wasn't going have their opinions decided by the Hearst Empire. They also knew "Casablanca" was something special when it premiered in 1942. There were also films, like "Gone With the Wind", "The Godfather", "West Side Story" and "Titanic" that the Times, along with much of the country, knew were instant classics. But they seemed mixed on now classic films like "Double Indemnity", "Laura" and "2001: A Space Odyssey". For the most part they found good things about them, but either didn't like the characters or, in the case of "2001", couldn't figure out what was going on. There was also a batch of films they were entertained by, but didn't think would be judged among the best movies in 2002. These include "Singin' in the Rain" and "The Third Man". And they were underwhelmed by "Dr. Strangelove" (Not so much underwhelmed as disturbed), "Psycho", "Paths of Glory", "Chinatown", "Bonnie and Clyde" and even "Lawrence of Arabia". While I don't exactly agree with them always, the critics argue their opinions well and one can see where they're coming from. After all, most of the country was shocked by "Bonnie and Clyde" or "Psycho" upon their debuts. But if a small town critic like Roger Ebert saw "Bonnie and Clyde" in a different light at the time, then why not a big town critic? And this shock must have eventually worn off, for they seemed to like "The Wild Bunch" just two years after "B & C". About the only compliant I had was some of the times reviewers seemed to be uptight or expecting too much while reviewing movies (What critic isn't?). For example, Bosley Crowther was the one who disliked "Lawrence of Arabia", yet was mesmerized by "Bridge on the River Kwai" five years earlier. This is understandable, since "Bridge" was almost impossible for any follow-up film by David Lean to have toppled. Yet, at the same time, many critics were bowled over by "Lawrence". Was Crowther the only one wrong or the only one right? His major complaint seems to be that we know little more about Lawrence at the end then we do at the beginning. But was Lean's point trying to be that Lawrence was a man that no one can ever fully know about or understand? If so, Crowther missed it. Otherwise, this is an interesting read that will leave you with various feelings. Some of total agreement, some of absolute disagreement, but often a mix of both.
Rating:
Summary: John Belushi deserves more respect!
Review: Animal House is clearly the best college movie ever made and many lines from the film are often quoted by all generations. Animal House deserves a place in the 1000 Best Films. In fact, no Animal House ripoff has been able to come close to capturing the overall success of all aspects of this movie. Even the soundtrack has gone down in movie history as one of the best ever. Who could forget the line: "Eight years of college down the drain", "Double secret probation", the cucumber scene or the Food Fight. Enough said.
Rating: 
Summary: well worth owning
Review: Give the Times credit for having the guts to reprint the original reviews. Several films that are regarded as classic today, such as "Psycho", received lukewarm responses in their original release. Most other music and movie review guides (The Rolling Stone guide for one) overlook their past 'mistakes'. Because the reviews were written at the movies' release, they rarely suffer from the stale air of reverence given to classic films. The length of the reviews is perfect. Longer than the 3 or 4 sentence plot summaries of most guides, they give the reader a better sense of the character of the film, while still remaining short enough to peruse the book before going to the video store. I recommend a Maltin guide to begin with, since it covers more films. I think this would be a fine second film guide.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad choices with some interesting reviews
Review: I found this book frustrating. I thought the selection of movies was sloppy and one-sided, but using text from the time of the movie's original release was sometimes interesting. Some very poor movies were selected to fill out the goal of 1000 titles. Some very good movies curiously failed to make the cut.
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: I would not waste my money (see RIP-OFF)
Review: I would give it fewer stars if I could. This is largely a collection of reviews that were written when the movie was theatrically released. That is, they contain phrases such as 'should get a large audience this weekend'. The authors clearly did not put much effort into this work. It contains a few hundred generally accepted great movies and the rest were obviously chosen as filler. Some are simply awful choices. If you have purchased this book, return it and demand an immediate refund.
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: good selection of reviews, but doesn't live up to name
Review: the biggest mistake was naming this book "The Best 1000 Movies Ever Made." Because these are definitely NOT the Best 1000 movies ever made. Along with almost no silent or very early talkie pictures (not even Birth of A Nation or The Crowd!) there is, as some others have noted, an extremely limited catalog of foreign films, most of which are French and/or date from after 1960. Also, there are some serious stinkers included! I really don't think of Victor/Victoria, Mad Max, or Naked Gun, decent films though they may be, as ranked in the class which includes Citizen Kane, The Godfather, and other classic, timeless films. Plus, it's hard to see how some made it in here judging from the reviewer's opinion of the film! The Dirty Dozen was called "preposterous" and "sadistic" by the critic, but there it is, basking in all its false glory right next to Diner and Dinner at Eight (and also Die Hard, another bizarre inclusion). All told, this is a decent, credible movie companion, but one with a serious identity problem. I suggest Halliwell's or Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever if you're looking for dependable movie watching suggestions, but for good armchair entertainment, this will do.
|
