2024 the best movies ever made review
Price: $24.90
(as of Oct 20, 2024 01:06:13 UTC - Details)
In The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made, the film critics of the Times have gathered the original reviews of their list of the best. Covering every conceivable genre, from comedies, dramas, and science-fiction to foreign films, musicals, and others, this book provides the student with an essential resource. How were Psycho or Fantasia originally received? For movies that are often subsumed in their own legends, the original review is a corrective lens for a hindsight that is often anything but 20/20. This volume also includes and introductory essay by Janet Maslin and modern postscripts to movies that survived their original trashing to become classics.
Publisher : Three Rivers Press; 1st edition (November 1, 1999)
Language : English
Paperback : 1024 pages
ISBN-10 : 0812930010
ISBN-13 : 978-0812930016
Item Weight : 2.56 pounds
Dimensions : 7.5 x 1.25 x 9.25 inches
Reviewer: Marcelo Chaves
Rating: 4.0 out of 5 stars
Title: Good but not the best
Review: This book is very useful and interesting, but there's no pictures and the paper rips of easily. It has great reviews and a beautiful cover. Good choice, maybe not the best.
Reviewer: Randy Keehn
Rating: 5.0 out of 5 stars
Title: 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.
Reviewer: Gary E. Robbins
Rating: 2.0 out of 5 stars
Title: Um, there have been films released since 1998...
Review: This book is quite dated. It was published in 1999, and unless you want to focus on movies from 1931 to 1998, this is a poor choice.There is no good reason why this book has not be updated, such as "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" which has been revised, adding 17 newer movies, and deleting 17 of the prior 1001 movies. (I wouldn't have minded them simply adding the 17 movies, without deleting any older movies.)Another good choice is Peter Travers' new "1000 Best Movies on DVD."
Reviewer: Jim Warnke
Rating: 1.0 out of 5 stars
Title: Not worth it
Review: This book is a collection of reviews from the New York Times, containing many different writers. The book has a wide range of reviews, which is good, but you can find a good list of great movies in other, better books (and on the web too).The big problem I have with the book is with the critics. They're the most pretentious people I have ever read. They seem incredibly detached from all the movies they write about. They seem held back, as if they're almost afraid of liking the movie too much. I wonder if they would give their favorite movie of all time anything above a three out of ten.One of the reasons Roger Ebert is the best critic today is because, when he really loves a movie, you can tell, not by his star rating, but by how he works so hard to convey his admiration for it (or his disgust, in the case of a bad movie.) I don't quite see how the pressure of deadlines could force these writers to distance themselves from these films, but it would've been nice if they injected a little humanity into their reviews. Definitely not recommended.
Reviewer: Uitlander
Rating: 3.0 out of 5 stars
Title: The Gray Eminence Speaks
Review: There have been stretches of time in which I was almost oblivious to movies and recently I decided to repair my cultural lacunas. I signed up with Netflix, moved a recliner to the living room and stocked up on Diet Coke. Now, what to list on my queue? Most of those movie books have such abbreviated descriptions... If I'm going to wile away a couple hours, I need to be convinced it's time well spent. I spotted the updated and revised (through 2002) best 1000 movies according to the Times, and noticing the inclusion of a couple obscure favorites, bought the book. The movies are in alphabetical order with the personnel listed first and the date of the review at the end of the narrative. Twenty-nine critics lend their views about films going back to 1931. Hollywood productions dominate, though there is a good smattering of independents and foreign works.The reviews stand as they were written on opening night, without further comment- a very New York Times thing to do. Many of the reviews hold up as well as their subjects- "Casablanca", "On the Waterfront" and "Star Wars" were appreciated from the get go. However, many glossy Oscar winners are excluded: "Dances with Wolves", "Titanic" and "American Beauty" are absent. "As Good as It Gets" is not good enough, but "About Schmidt" is about as good a review as Nicholson can get- it's included. Is there a Merchant-Ivory film that was somehow overlooked? Highly unlikely.In the back of this compendium, the Times lists its 10 Best for each year. Quite a few of these movies do not have their review among the currently favored 1000, though their fall is not explained. Of course, the most striking contradiction is to find a movie that was condemned as irretrievable trash on release, only to have wormed its way up from the flotsam. "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is such a movie. R.A.'s review from 1968 will crack you up.I'm sure everybody will have a few favorites that didn't make the cut. How could a movie as hilarious as "A Fish Called Wanda" not be included? Kasdan's poignant "Grand Canyon" was somehow overlooked. Yet, a few great but obscure productions are recognized. The marvelous documentary "Brother's Keeper" is included.In the preface, A.O. Scott comments on the vagaries of cinematic appreciation. Most of us are more influenced by trends and buzz than we realize. And, if you are overdosed on a particular genre, the best of its kind may pass without notice. Still, I wish a current summation about the great classic movies had been included, even if it meant the Times had changed its mind. In conclusion, I'm still using my Guide, though if it persuades me to rent a movie, I'm not apt to admit it.