Customer Reviews

The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This book is terrific for what it is - a collection of 1,000 extremely well written reviews. As a Top 1000 list it is limited - no silent films (a fact the back cover seems to boast about!); not even Chaplin's sound era masterpiece CITY LIGHTS gets in and only two hundred of the films are foreign language films. However once you ignore these flaws the book offers a wealth of cinema joy.

All the reviews (bar a few foreign films released in the US a few years after being made) are from the time of release. This must be one of the few times you can read about CASABLANCA and CITIZEN KANE without them being referred to as the greatest films ever. Or read a review of TITANIC that isn't fogged by blacklash. References to the culture of the time and the critical perceptions of the filmmakers are common place and give a lovely insight into cinema history.

As a book of recommendations it too is hard to fault. There are many films here I haven't even heard of, and although a biased towards post-1970s cinema suggests the inclusion of average/oddball modern choices over hidden gems of early cinema so many bases are covered I'm sure anyone, regardless of personal taste, will uncover a few gems with this book. Highly recommended.

"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.

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.

This collection makes for hours of great reading. Despite some glaring ommissions, Orson Welles' "Magnificent Ambersons", to mention just one. This should be an essential addition to anyone's film library.