Customer Reviews

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die

5 star:		(40)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Although this book provided an acceptably organized compilation of movie classics, I was bugged by the fact that reviews/thoughts included spoilers, or revelations of the movies' endings.

I purchased this book in order to discover movies I knew not of previously or had heard of and was interested in seeing. The occasional spoilers are given without warning and made me read with caution to those movies that I did not yet know the outcome of, which was quite tedious.

Overall, the reviews were convincing and thoughtful when not completely blatant, but do proceed with caution.

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die could be a great film guide. It is loaded with both well-known and obscure films, many of which I have sought out and enjoyed after reading about them in the book. I've really started to enjoy noir films because of this book's recommendations.

The fatal flaw in 1001 Movies is that they frequently give away the endings! For example, they often tell you when an important character dies at the end of the movie -- what is the point of that? Look for a different guide that doesn't spoil the endings.

As soon as I saw this book on the shelf I knew it was for my ever-expanding collection of cinema sources & the selection contained herein did not disappoint. Except maybe for the alarming number of errors I found. ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN did not win best picture in 1976; as the next page testifies, ROCKY did. THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW was not narrated by Dr. Everett Scott; it was narrated by The Narrator(Charles Gray). DANGEROUS LIAISONS did not win Best Picture in 1988; a few pages later it states,correctly,that RAINMAN did. In the piece on Charles Chaplin's brilliant MONSIEUR VERDOUX, the end result of his work & the sentiments expressed in his film made him the target of the political right which led to his permanent departure from the United States in 1952. He returned in 1971 & was presented with a lifetime achievement award at The Academy Awards.

With the amount of junk that Hollywood feeds us these days, you need a source to help you find the good stuff. This book helps in the search for quality. It simply and briefly lets you know why these films are worth seeing. I have found many films from years past that I would've never seen if I hadn't read about them here first. Just about every great film from the silent era to the present is in here. Hopefully, more people will start paying attention to the good films of the past. Once you start watching these films you'll notice just how bad most of the the current blockbuster studio releases are. If we keep paying to see bad movies, the studios will keep making them.

For the casual film fan this book provides an excellent overview of the cinema for the past century. In order to fit in the large number of mini reviews and commentaries for the selected entries the editors had to omit a good number of films that many would have deemed worthy of inclusion. The most egregious omissions were of silent films, of which only a relatively small number were included from the many years before the beginning of sound films. Film buffs may argue with some of the selections, but the inclusion of "small" and cult films alongside the well-known Academy Award winners is to be applauded. The editors, though, were often sloppy with the sidebar award section, giving a film credit for an Oscar win when only a nomination was received. There are several instances when at least two films from the same year were cited as winning the same Oscar. For those like myself who can recite year-by-year the Oscar award winners and nominees, the sidebar errors detracted from the scholarship of the work.

The issue with this book isn't that there are factual errors or that its list of movies isn't what you would pick. The big problem with this book is that the writers frequently spoil the movie for the reader. The most blatant example I've found is the review of "Don't Look Now", where the third paragraph recounts what is probably the entire last five minutes of the film. The writer then has the audacity to add, "It is no exaggeration to say that few scenes in the history of cinema have proven as effective at sending chills up the spines of viewers as this one." Also, I recently watched "Oldboy" and followed it up by reading the review in this book. The second sentence of the first paragraph, if fresh in a person's mind, would definitely have given away an important plot development. I'm glad I didn't read it before watching the movie.

Please, do yourself a favor and don't buy this book. Or if you feel you still want to, watch the movie before reading the review.

I think this is a great book and I really enjoy reading through it's pages, but that is not the main point of my review. I want to clear up what I see as a misconception of the book that I see in a lot of reviews. This is not the "1001 Greatest Movies Ever Made" or "1001 Most Important Movies Ever Made"; it's 1001 movies you should (must) see to get a very well rounded sense of movies and their history. Some movies in the book are included just because they are great, others because of their historical niche in movie makeing, some because they illustrate a certain style, and some for pure entertainment they give. Movies with different types of animation are included and well as a broad spectrum of foreign movies. Think of this book as a watch list for a very in depth cinema appreciation class. Some of these films may not be great, some may not even be entertaining, but all are important, or illustrate an important part of cinema history.

First of all let me begin by stating that I've put off reviewing this canon for some time. I see no justification to review a book like this until one has consumed most of it. At present I have seen 823 of these films and feel now that a review is justified.

I believe that of all the books in this series this is the strongest entry although not gospel. This canon or list of films is an excellent introduction to cinema, it gives you the basics to develop a well rounded appreciation of all cinema beginning in 1902 with George Melies' "Le Voyage Dans La Lune" right up to the present day. As would be expected in concentrates a lot on American cinema when it was a force to reckoned with. It does not overlook all the important movements like German expressionism(1920s), Socialist realism (1920s), French poetic realism(1930s), Italian neo-realism(late40s-early50s), Film Noir and all the New Wave movements in the 1960s from Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Eastern Europe. It continues in the 1970s where there is a lot of attention to New Hollywood directors as well as New German cinema which were making a massive impact at the time. After that it moves into blockbuster territory in the 1980s which is to be expected. It was a period which is not held in much regard by cineastes but is a part of cinema's development. From the 1990s onward one begins to notice how important films seem to come from all over the world and not concentrated in one area. As would be expected the last few years are open to debate, evidence of which can be seen in the fact that every time the book is revised it's those last few years that are shuffled around.

So what you got is a skeletal view of cinema which allows you to flesh it out. This book is the introduction to cinema, the yellow brick road to the Emerald city if you will, to becoming a film buff. Once you've seen 50% of these you'll already be an above average film fan. After you've completed this list it's time to move onto the Jonathan Rosenbaum 1000 which I believe will take you way way beyond.

There is however one serious flaw with the book in that it is jam packed with spoilers. So proceed with caution.

This book is COMPLETELY awesome. It's 940 pages with great color pics on almost every page, and 1001 short essays by leading critics. The selection is listed chronologically, and it's almost perfect - lots of world cinema, lots of weirdo classics, lots of cool stuff. There are 10 movies by Bergman on the list, 5 by Capra, 10 by Kubrick, 9 by Spielberg, 4 by Tarkovsky, 4 by Von Trier, 2 by Miyazaki, 6 by Kurosawa, 6 by Antonioni 18 by Hitchcock, 3 by Cronenberg, 3 by Kar-Wai etc, etc. And it was released recently, which means that it also includes fairly new movies like "City of God" and "Far From Heaven". Highly recommended! It may very well be the only movie book you'll ever need, and it could be the best book about movies ever. It's literally a lifetime of wonderful viewing.

(A few missing films that I would welcomed: Lassiter's "Toy Story II", Romero's "Martin", Jodorowsky's "Santa Sangre", Bogdanovich' "Paper Moon", Cronenberg's "Dead Ringers", Miyazaki's "My Neighbor Totoro", Greenaways' "Drowning By Numbers" and a few others. But that's silly nitpicking. This book is great!)

With this kind of concept book there is always some doltish nitpicker who comes along and says: "Why wasn't so-and-so included?" Unfortunately, this time that person is me. As fun and absorbing as this book is to read, and as gratifying as it is to find many of the films I thought belonged in such a book had indeed been included, I'm afraid my thoughts started echoing David Stratton's in the Foreword when I found some glaring omissions. If such a book is going to include Tim Burton's "Batman" (which this does) surely Richard Donner's superior and groundbreaking "Superman: The Movie" also belongs. Such an omission grates simply because similar films of lesser historical importance and quality ARE included. What the heck is disposable rubbish like "Strange Days" doing here for instance? Or for that matter, Spielberg's lamentable "A.I."?
And where is the Coen brothers' "The Big Lebowski"? My thought was that this book would be the sort of tome that lets readers in on the "secret language of movies". "The Big Lebowski" is one of those films that have found their way into pop culture references, yet this book overlooks it. Perhaps the authors thought that the inclusion of the Coens' "Fargo" and "Oh Brother, Where Art Though?" was enough. But how will the reader ever know who "The Dude" is if such books don't point them in the right direction?
Stratton laments the omission of Phillip Noyce's excellent "Newsfront" in the Foreword, and you could also certainly claim that that director's "Rabbit Proof Fence" is also conspicuously missing. Many other quality Australian movies are given entries however including, much to my gratification, Fred Schepsi's "The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith".
All this being said, as I mentioned earlier, it is always gratifying to find that so many favourite movies make it to the list ("In the Mood for Love" being one of these happy examples). I can easily be happy with not seeing other favourites, since such choices are so often based on individual tastes. But the omission of movies that so obviously seem to fit the criteria of the book is annoying.
The pictures that accompany the entries are illuminating and interesting. My only criticism of these would be that the book certainly could have fitted more of them in the blank spaces, and that there are some strange choices for some entries. The authors seem to have had a strange obsession with Robert Mitchum's Love/Hate tattoos form "Night of the Hunter", illustrating them on two pages. And why include a full-page picture of young, naked boys eating from dog bowls from Pasolini's "Salo"?
The entries themselves are illuminating and usually well written. Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton mention a few good examples of the clarity and evocativeness of the entries in their chatty Foreword. Personally, I found entries such as the one on Carol Reed's "The Third Man", Rob Reiner's "This is Spinal Tap" and even Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly's "On the Town" interesting and exhilarating to read, because the authors of these entries seemed to be able to evoke the mood of the movies. The entries are marred, however, by some pretty awful grammatical and spelling errors in places. And any filmgoer knows that it was the wonderful Charles Gray who Narrated "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" and not, as this book goes to some effort to claim with authority, Jonathan Adams. Others mention the factual errors in the book in these reviews and I must agree with their sentiments.