The Great Movies

First, I must admit that I'm not always Ebert's biggest fan. He tends to review films with an overly favorable eye. His year-end summary books always get me arguing with his points-of-view. Therefore, I was completely surprised when, after receiving this book as a gift, I fell completely in love with this book. This book shows an author completely in love with the movies. Here's a man who just wants so badly to share his favorites with his readers. The reviews are beautifully written and completely engaging. Instead of arguing about his point-of-view, I was again reminded of what a great writer Ebert is.While this book is written so that it can be picked and put back down as a reference, I found myself tearing through it in one sitting. I've referred back to it countless times. This goes up on the shelf with Pauline Kael's works.

It's a real pleasure (and a rare one) to see an individual that gets carried away in his work. You know after reading just a few pages of 'The Great Movies' that Roger Ebert is such a person. Ebert examines what he believes to be not the BEST 100 films of all time, but simply 100 great films. There are certainly more than 100, and I hope Ebert will write about many, many more of them. Read the book with an open mind. After reading Ebert's essays, I was persuaded to at least consider viewing some of the films that I never would have considered before. I imagine that it was somewhat difficult for Ebert to limit himself to a 3-4 page essay per film. You can tell that he could have gone on and on with his comments and still not even scratched the surface of evidence explaining why the film is great. His expertise and enthusiam are obvious and compelling. Of course, people will argue over why Ebert chose this film and not that one, but isn't that half the fun of such a book? I guarantee that if you set this book between any two film lovers and hang around long enough, you're going to experience some great film conversation. I suspect that's one of the reasons Ebert wrote the book - to get people talking/discussing/arguing about great movies. Thanks, Roger, and bring on the next 100.511 pages

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

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 Evi

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!