The Great Movies [Import] [Unbound]

Roger Ebert (Author)

Product Details

• Unbound
• Publisher: Broadway Books (April 2002)
• ISBN-10: 0767910451
• ISBN-13: 978-0767910453
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (40 customer reviews)

More About the Author

Roger Ebert is the Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic from the Chicago Sun-Times. His reviews are syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and Canada. The American Film Institute and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago have awarded him honorary degrees and the Online Film Critics Society named his Web site (rogerebert.com) the best online movie review site

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

144 of 149 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Let the debate begin!, May 19, 2002

By 

Christian Wheeler "Husband/Father/Gamer/Proud... (St. Louis) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: The Great Movies (Hardcover)

This new book, by prominent movie critic Roger Ebert, is likely to ignite discussion and debate over his 100 selections. The debate shouldn't be over whether or not these are the 100 greatest movies ever, since the author establishes in the introduction that these are simply 100 great movies, and not necessarily what he considers the best. The debate, then, will likely be over why he considers some of the films to be great. Some of the choices will brook little argument: "Casablanca," "Citizen Kane," "Gone With the Wind," "Battleship Potemkin," "The Godfather," and many others profiled are often at or near the top of most "great movies" lists. Even some of the more "obscure" entries, such as "Woman in the Dunes" and "Gates of Heaven" are generally known to most film buffs and accepted by critics as fine filmmaking. Ebert's intent, it seems, is to make people aware of WHY "The Godfather" and other well-known films are so imbued into our consciousness, and to raise awareness of other, often forgotten classics. Terrence Malick's often overlooked "Days of Heaven" is just begging to be rediscovered, as is Fassbinder's haunting "Ali: Fear Eats the Soul," Powell's frightening "Peeping Tom," and Lang's wrenching "M." Ebert gives each film a two or three page review, explaining many things of interest, including casting problems (Orson Welles over Noel Coward in "The Third Man", for example), production difficulties, and sometimes, each film's immediate or long-term impact (such as how "It's A Wonderful Life" rose from obscurity to become a holiday classic, or the resurrection of "The Shawshank Redemption" on home video). In addition, there are discussions of symbolism, controversies, directorial styles and quirks, and much more. This is a very informative book, great for film buffs like me (who became more aware of some wonderful films) and for the casual moviegoer. The writing is engaging, witty, and never technical. Ebert's love for film is present on every page.

As I looked over the list, I realized that I had few arguments with Ebert's choices--virtually everything listed qualifies as a great movie. I did wonder why he chose some films from certain genres and not others. "Red River" is a great Western, but why not "Stagecoach," which invented the modern Western, or "The Searchers," which perfected it? What about the iconoclastic "Shane"? Silent films seemed to come up a bit short; one could ask why not Chaplin's "Modern Times," Griffith's controversial "Birth of a Nation," or one of the last great silents, Sjostrom's "The Wind," starring Lillian Gish? Certainly, "Modern Times" and "Birth of a Nation" have been profiled dozens of times over the years, but it would have been nice to see Ebert's opinion of them. Also, what about Richard Rush's brilliantly subversive "The Stunt Man," starring Peter O'Toole? "A Hard Day's Night," over "Yellow Submarine?" (Granted, his explanation about why "Night" was selected made prefect sense). And, it seems that some directors received more attention than others (Hitchcock, for example, though I am a fan). ONE David Lean? What about Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky? Chinese director Zhang Yimou? Preston Sturges' brilliant satire "Sullivan's Travels?" Welles in "Touch of Evil?"

But I'm quibbling. When a prominent critic like Ebert publishes a book like this, the end results can only be positive. For one, it will start debate and discussion among critics, film buffs, and casual fans, and second, it will raise awareness of great films so often forgotten by our society in the wake of the endless clones churned out by the modern Hollywood machine. I have made it my goal to see every film on the list (I had seen a number of them before it came out) and have managed to take in five of them just in the past two weeks, with another two or three on the way. (Home video is great!!). But, sadly, I have been unable to locate a few of the more obscure ones, especially the foreign classics. Video stores have ten or twenty copies of the latest release (forgotten in a year, if not sooner), but almost no classics and virtually no foreign films. (A hint: If you have access to a large university or public library, try there). This is not only a profile of good films, but also a look into the times, places, cultures, and individuals that produced them. Excellent work.

27 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Nice Intro to 100 Great Movies -- Something New for All, March 18, 2002

By 

Dan Sherman (Alexandria, VA USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: The Great Movies (Hardcover)

Any sort of list of "great" movies (or anything else for that matter) is surely going to raise questions of what is included or what is excluded. This is an excellent book, and my guess is that most readers who like movies (and not just what has played in the past five years or so) are going to find many of their favorites here, along with some movies that they have never seen or perhaps even heard of. Ebert is an excellent writer, and with a 3-4 page discussion for each movie, he concisely sketches the plot of each film and really tries to identify what makes the movie worth watching -- the script, the performances, the look of the film, etc. His chapters (really short essays about individual films) are much more than "book reports" and really bring out what there is to love about these films. For me, reading this book was like getting reaquainted with some old friends and getting to know some new ones. This is a nice book that can be happily dipped into many times -- the only complaint about the book is that it is too short, both in terms of the length of writeups and the number of films it covers. I suspect Ebert could write another book to describe what is worthwhile about 100 other films (great of near great)-- Let's hope he does!

21 of 23 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars What makes a movie great?, April 20, 2002

By 

"weirdo_87" (Rancho Cucamonga, CA USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Great Movies (Hardcover)

As I was reading some of Roger Ebert's essays in this book, a thought occurred to me: All the movies in this book could have been failures for one reason or another. "Apocalypse Now" was very costly and troubled and could have been easily ruined. "2001" might have been too different for audiences to handle. "Psycho" might have been too much for them to stomach. And some of these movies in the book were not as renowned upon their original release and seemed doomed for obscurity. And so on. Yet, after years of research and analyze by critics, all of these are now acclaimed films.

The reason is not due to a memorable scene or a witty catchphrase (Which all the above-mentioned films have). It is because of the passion involved in making them. Many of the people working on these movies became so involved in them that they would die just to finish the film, and would drive others mad in the process. Many of them were also willing to try something new or not give in to peer pressure or criticism. And some, like the late Billy Wilder, said they only made films that they wanted to see. The involvement in the film extends beyond the director and into the actors. The actors have fun with their roles, trying out new techniques and becoming so involved with the character that they become him. Let's take for example a catchphrase, such as "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse". The line has entered largely into our lives so much that we take it for granted. Yet I am still moved whenever I hear it said by Marlon Brando. Yet, had it not been for the correct timing, tone of voice, rate of speech and pronunciation (All due to acting and direction), it could have been easily wasted.

Ebert never really states this in his book, but he seems to be making that point across just by glancing at any review. He shows that same involvement in his writing. Some critics when they write reviews only outline the film's plot and say things like "Good acting" or "Great music" and that's it. Many also have that star rating system. Ebert does away with that ridiculous system, thus leaving the films open to balanced reviews, and tells about more than the events. In some of his reviews, he points out about a certain method an actor is using on screen or about how this scene is lit or filmed or what the director is doing to us in here or how sound and music are used. It may seem like overkill, but it sure shows that he was really paying attention.

The Great Movies does have two problems though, both of which have ups and downs.

1. Naturally, one would have disagreement with the selections. Ebert not only makes predictable and defined choices (Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Godfather) but also unexpected ones (Gates of Heaven, Night of the Hunter, My Life to Live). I must also say that I hadn't heard of many of these movies before getting this book. However, this also shows how more balanced the list is than say the AFI's Top 100 (Though I would have included films like "Touch of Evil" or "King Kong"). As explained above, the fact Ebert writes with enthusiasm would make people want to see them more.

2. The reviews are very well written and accessible to the public and are arguably the best of Ebert's career. But they are not brand new. In fact, they can be obtained free off the Internet at the Ebert Page of the Chicago Time website, along with dozens of other reviews for the "Great Movies" series. Many of them have been available in this capacity for years. Certainly, Ebert could have written at least some reviews exclusive to the book to compensate for this. However, one must admit that it's easier to bring a book to the video store to look for movies than to haul your computer or laptop. Ebert also somewhat makes up for this by having a film still from each movie in his essays. There are also two introductions: One by Mr. Ebert and the other by Mary Corliss (Operator of the Film Stills Archive of the Department of Film and Media at the Museum of Modern Art in New York).

Overall, with its wide variety of film genres, balance of contemporary and vintage films and the well written and easy to read reviews, this is a very good book. ...