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: Totally fascinating
Review: The coolest thing about this book is that the Times reprinted all of their original reviews of the movies. I've read many books that go into a detailed dissection of a given movie, but I've never read someone's immediate reaction to, say, "Citizen Kane." I really admire that the Times would be so forthcoming in showing us how they trashed, or misunderstood some of the greatest movies of all time. For example, "The Godfather, Part II" gets a *bomb* review, (the quote was something to the effect of "The only notable thing about the movie is how much better the first one was by comparison.") and "Kane" is criticized for not fully explaining Kane's character. Of course, one of the major themes of "Citizen Kane" is that no man can be fully explained, a point is made clearly and directly by the reporter in the finale, but somehow the critic missed this. A very interesting part about movies is how they were received at the time they were released, and how that perception has or hasn't changed over the years. This film gives you that, plus you're bound to find movies that you haven't seen or even heard of, and will wind up with some great rentals. My only quibble is with some of the movies that weren't in the book, for example, "The Color Purple," and the recent and hilarious "Flirting with Disaster." Both, if I remember correctly, made it into their top ten of their respective years list, which is in the back of the book.
Rating:
Summary: Essential for the Film Enthusiast
Review: The New York Times has always been a fairly reliable source for film criticism, but like all of us, their reviewers sometimes make mistakes. The great thing about this collection is that great movies that got bad reviews are still in the book. For example, "Night of the Living Dead" and "Psycho" were panned by The New York Times in their original reviews, but they are included in the book because the films are revered now. The reviews are well written and concise, and the list includes foreign and silent films--something the AFI top 100 list ignored. If nothing else, the book is a great place to go when you are at a loss for a rental in the new release section. Check out the "Citizen Kane" review to see just how good The New York Times is at film criticism. My only gripe is that some excellent films are missing from the book, but nobody's perfect.
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: Is this the best 1000?
Review: The Times critics' compilation of the 1000 best has left me bewildered. First, they should have changed the title to add the words "...in hollywood" at the end. Then they could have left out the meagre number of films from abroad (almost of half of which are French) that they have included, and could have focussed their attention on Hollywood films which they are familiar with. As it has been said by other reviewers earlier, there are some glaring ommissions and some which leave you perplexed by their appearance in this collection. But, I guess everyone has their own biases and they have to be respected. Personally, I have always liked the film critics from The New Yorker much better than their Times counterparts. This collection just reinforces my opinion. I gave this a 4-star, because for film buffs like me, the book is worth having so that, if not anything, we can discuss their critiques and selections. However, if you are just a casual filmgoer, you can do without it.
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: 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: 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: A Great Read !
Review: This collection is simply terrific. Nice to read full length reviews written just as the films first opened. I have to agree that there are some glaring omissions,as others have pointed out where is The Color Purple, and Magnificent Ambersons? And of course there are films included that make you shake your head and wonder why. Hence the 4 star rating. It is fascinating to see the reviwer's style of writng from Hollywood's Golden Years. I hope that NY Times will have another volume of original reprints. How about a CD version of those huge tomes found in libraries... The New York Times Film Reviews? I also bought and highly recommend Agee On Film, James Agee's fascinating columns and reviews from the 1940's. I love this stuff!
|
