The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made, Updated & Revised (Film Critics of the New York Times) |  | Author: The New York Times
Publisher: St. Martin's Griffin
Category: Book
List Price: $24.95
Buy New: $6.71
as of 11/21/2009 02:50 MST details
You Save: $18.24 (73%)
New (24) Used (23) from $6.40
Seller: bookcloseouts_us
Rating:  33 reviews
Sales Rank: 115056
Media: Paperback
Edition: Rev Upd Su
Pages: 1200
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 3.3
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 7.3 x 2
ISBN: 0312326114
Dewey Decimal Number: 791.4375
EAN: 9780312326111
ASIN: 0312326114
Publication Date: February 21, 2004
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com Review
Everyone knows that a good canon debate doesn't get interesting until you reach the realm of the top 100. But by listing the top 1,000 movies, as the editors of The New York Times have done with this fat, readable collection of reviews, you get to skip all that huffing and puffing about quality and head straight for the fun. With a little elbow room, there's space for ineffable stuff like Mr. Hulot's Holiday and The Match Factory Girl. Room, too, for the nuance-free Mrs. Doubtfire and the free-falling Die Hard (which makes it, yep, right next to Diner). Pillow Talk squeezes in just one down from The Piano. What's really new about this book, though, is that the reviews have been culled from the Times's archive--reaching back to 1931. So you can read Vincent Canby reacting to Taxi Driver in 1976, just days after first seeing it: "The steam billowing up around the manhole cover in the street is a dead giveaway. Manhattan is a thin cement lid over the entrance to hell, and the lid is full of cracks." Not bad for a guy on deadline. Bosley Crowther, who preceded Canby, fares less well, waving off Rear Window as Hitchcock's "new melodrama, " and Psycho with, "It does seem slowly paced." By contrast, Janet Maslin's more recent reviews hum and gush, unraveling the merits of Pulp Fiction and Lone Star. At collected-Shakespeare size (999 pages), the title is probably too vast for schlepping around, but go ahead, try reading just one. With plenty of international selections, including usual suspects from France (Truffaut), Italy (Fellini), and Japan (Itami), as well as some unusual ones from Brazil, Mexico, India, and Czechoslovakia, there's enough canon fodder here for at least five "Top 100" books. --Lyall Bush
Product Description
From the film critics of The New York Times come these uncut, original reviews of the most popular and influential movies ever made -- from the Talkies to blockbuster megahits like Chicago and The Wizard of Oz; from timeless classics like Casablanca and Notorious, to beloved foreign films by Truffaut and Kurosawa, Fellini and Almodovar.
The reviews, eloquent, incisive, and intuitive, reflect Hollywood history at its best -- must-have reading for movie lovers or Students.
In addition, this essential volume includes:
* Full cast and production credits for every movie
* The ''10 Best" lists for every year from 1931 to the present
* An index of films by genre, and an index of foreign films by country of origin.
This edition is thoroughly updated to include all the important movies of the past several years, as well as a new introduction by A Times film critic, A. O. Scott.
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 33
 A pre-Internet book December 8, 2008
Jackal (Singapore)
3 out of 4 found this review helpful
If you want lists of the best films, I would suggest you do a search on google. You will find many good lists, including this list from New York Times's reviews. The NYT list is biased towards US films but that is obvious since it is an American newspaper. This book would have been very useful before the age of the Internet.
 What!? Where's BEACH BLANKET BINGO??? August 4, 2007
Gregor von Kallahann
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
You've got to hand it to the New York Times film critics. For one thing, they have the absolute best NAMES of anyone in the cine/crit biz. Can you ask for better monikers than Vincent Canby, Bosley Crowther, Hilton Kramer or(my favorite) Mordaunt Hall? More recent critics like Janet Maslin, Stephen Holden or A.O. Scott (not included here, he's so new) may not have such professorial sounding handles, but they more than make up for said lack in their actual writing, which in all their cases generally reflects a critical sensibility which is both casual and scholarly. They likely benefit from the increased seriousness with which the artform itself has been taken over the past century and from simply having a sense of film history that their critical forebears could not have possessed. (They know that the movies are NOT some passing fancy that in time may go.) And stylistically, they tend to be leaner, meaner and much less flowery than,say, the aforementioned Mr. Hall.
But times do change, and critical writing styles along with them. What makes this book so fascinating is that its editors have seen fit to re-print the original reviews, unedited and unannotated (although editor Peter M. Nichols notes in his preface, that almost every film's "cast box" has been expanded and terminology, in some instances, changed). If the reader, takes in Mr. Nichol's preface and/or Janet Maslin's introduction, he or she won't be surprised to learn that many of the actual reviews included in this volume are indifferent or downright negative. Browsers casually thumbing through this reference work on the "thousand best movies," however, are likely to be a bit more puzzled to find one negative review after another.
It happened to me, I opened the alphabetically arranged volume to the "D's" and immediately found a fairly negative critique of DIVA and a fairly lukewarm one of DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES. That's when I opted to read the introductory remarks, but even then it wasn't quite clear just how these 1,000 best were picked or just who did the picking.
Yes, aside from the actual reviews, there are Top Ten Lists for the years 1931-1998 (the volume itself was published in '99 and is thus about due for an update), but these don't necessarily correspond to the selections either. For instance, the 1967 John Boorman film POINT BLANK gets a so-so review from Mr. Crowther, and is not included in the list of the year's best (suggesting that his colleagues were similarly unmoved by the film). So who decided, in the interim, that it really IS a gem (rough and uncut though it may be)? Editor Nichols? Janet Maslin? General critical consensus (which seems doubtful in this case).
Nichols explains in the preface that we can expect such turnabouts "for films that have risen in common estimation..." since their initial reviews were published. That's certainly true in the cases of BONNIE AND CLYDE, CHINATOWN and GRAND ILLUSION (to cite his own examples), but again I ask you, how to account for the inclusion of POINT BLANK?? Or--to go from a Lee Marvin vehicle to a Lee Remick starrer--why is even a good, solid drama like the above mentioned DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES included? That film is something of a sentimental favorite of mine, since I was 13 when I first saw it and felt very grown up indeed to be able to "understand" this obviously adult drama. But objectively speaking, can one really include this relatively modest revision of a TV drama on a list of the all-time greats of CINEMATIC history.
Well, not to worry. In the last analysis, one man's canon is another man's fodder, so it's probably best to not fret too much what's included or not included on this or any "best of" volume. What you get, if you're lucky, are some good tips on things you might otherwise have missed. Taken in that spirit, the NYT guide joins many others in aiding movie lovers of all stripes to make some intelligent selections. In this case, you just have to keep in mind that the significant factor is not the actual review but the fact that someone somewhere along the line ultimately saw fit to include the movie in this esteemed reference guide of record.
As far as the actual 1,000 best films ever made. You could argue about that until the cows come home...from the movies.
 The Gray Eminence Speaks May 12, 2007
Uitlander (Upstate New York)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
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.
Time to update January 20, 2007
Matthew C. Gray (Sydney, Australia)
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
A notoriously contentious activity, this book is sure to start a few arguments. Picking 1,000 movies to label "best ever made" is not easy and will create some surprise at omissions and inclusions. For instance, the inclusion of "Face/Off" - which initiated my Nicholas Cage veto - and the omission of Princess Bride, is indefensible. It is a parochial list also with Hollywood movies reigning supreme. However, I love the use of contemporary reviews for each movie. Reading Frank S. Nugent's response to opening night at The Wizard of Oz in 1939 is magical and gives the movie fan a nostalgic experience. You may guffaw at some of the preposterous choices and wish for a more current update (1999 version) but you will enjoy these critical reviews of your favourite movies.
 Before the Rain must be Macedonia's greatest film, EVER January 6, 2007
Aco
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
I won't say this is an indispensible book. Swap one film reference book for another and you're likely to learn about films and directors you otherwise wouldn't. The operative word there was likely. I've had Ebert books, Pauline Kael books, VideoHound's books, Entertainment Weekly references, etc. They are all good, but the critics works especially.
As opposed to getting a shortened synopsis and rating system, you can get a critical eye, with contextual perspective and a detailed analysis. The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made offers that. And not from one voice but from over a dozen NYT critics over the decades.
I don't abide by those who call this dated. It was published when it was, and though there may be updated editions, this is still a fantastic book to have. After all the majority of films made were in the 20th century, and the influence those films and filmmakers have resonates now. Including the archived reviews, which feature the NYT tradition of refering to people as Mr., Mrs., Ms. etc., each films leading castmembers, their characters, the lead production credits and film lengths are given. Plus a year-by-year list of the paper's Top 10 films, and an index of the films featured categorized by genre and country of origin.
Oddly enough though is that there are reviews in this that are negative and sometimes scathing. Perhaps this is because the films were appreciated by other Times critics, enough to place them on the Top 10, or the films themselves have proven better than initially thought. Neither Bonnie & Clyde or Chinatown made the Top 10 list.
But this is a trifle, and enforces the critical need that films, as art & commerce require.
If you are a devoted film lover as I am, this book is a terrific member of any collection.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 33
|
|
|
