What do you think?
Rate this book
The Film Writings
5001 Nights at the Movies
Smart, funny, and unforgettable, Pauline Kael is the most interesting and influential film critic in America. Her ability to skewer an actor or director and her wit, insight, and thorough knowledge of the film business make her by far the most rewarding regular observer of the movie scene. This new collection covers films that have come out since the previous 1985 edition.
960 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
155 people are currently reading
1023 people want to read
About the author
Pauline Kael
65 books188 followersPauline Kael was an American film critic who wrote for The New Yorker magazine from 1968 to 1991. She was known for her "witty, biting, highly opinionated, and sharply focused" movie reviews. She approached movies emotionally, with a strongly colloquial writing style. She is often regarded as the most influential American film critic of her day and made a lasting impression on other major critics including Armond White and Roger Ebert, who has said that Kael "had a more positive influence on the climate for film in America than any other single person over the last three decades."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
October 20, 2023
A slow and delicious read. You have to be cloistered, like me, to keep returning to Ms. Pauline. Her strong opinions are worth the journey. Pro Bon Publico: Kael always hated Stanley Kubrick, particularly 2000: SPACE ODYSSEY. "Kubrick doesn't simply present any old disaster but a $20 million jerry-built disaster". She's right on target in dismissing Joseph Manwietz's Western, THERE WAS A CROOKED MAN, with Henry Fonda and Kirk Douglas, as "pop nihilism". When Kael praises, the song hits high heaven. On THE GODFATHER: "Coppola is the heir to not only cinema but grand opera". 5001 serves as the perfect introduction to American cinema of the Golden Age, 1950s to 1970s; short punches aimed at the best and worst of Holywood.
January 31, 2009
She writes reviews that are alternatively scathing or hilarious, and often completely unpredictable. I do not remember when I first encountered her reviews, but once I did I was hooked. It is impossible to predict what she'll say about a movie. For example, a few first lines:
Man of La Mancha (1972): "The lyrics still sound as if they had been translated from Esperanto,"
La Grande Illusion (1937): "In form, La Grande Illusion is an escape story; yet who would think of it in this way? It's like saying that Oedipus Rex is a detective story."
Keeper of the Flame (1943): Tracy and Hepburn, but not a comedy, and not good, either."
Glorious! Love her or hate her, sing her praises or disagree with every word she writes, you won't find Kael's reviews dull. What impressed me was how often she was dead-on right about each movie.
Man of La Mancha (1972): "The lyrics still sound as if they had been translated from Esperanto,"
La Grande Illusion (1937): "In form, La Grande Illusion is an escape story; yet who would think of it in this way? It's like saying that Oedipus Rex is a detective story."
Keeper of the Flame (1943): Tracy and Hepburn, but not a comedy, and not good, either."
Glorious! Love her or hate her, sing her praises or disagree with every word she writes, you won't find Kael's reviews dull. What impressed me was how often she was dead-on right about each movie.
April 22, 2018
The idea of an extensive edition of Kael reviews is seducing, but it doesn't work here.
If you cram 5 001 reviews, ranging from 50 to 300 words (magazine length) and from early century to 1990, you will hit two hurdles: 1) most readers won't have seen or care about most of the movies discussed and 2) the pieces won't be long enough to render them interesting. I love Pauline Kael, but she can't convince me to watch a 1938 movie starring Lauren Bacall in 112 words. I've skimmed to the titles I already knew or cared about during a lengthy road trip, otherwise I would've DNF'ed the crap out of this.
Not good, but not quite Kael's fault. Someone put their greasy paws on her and offered a quick cash-in.
If you cram 5 001 reviews, ranging from 50 to 300 words (magazine length) and from early century to 1990, you will hit two hurdles: 1) most readers won't have seen or care about most of the movies discussed and 2) the pieces won't be long enough to render them interesting. I love Pauline Kael, but she can't convince me to watch a 1938 movie starring Lauren Bacall in 112 words. I've skimmed to the titles I already knew or cared about during a lengthy road trip, otherwise I would've DNF'ed the crap out of this.
Not good, but not quite Kael's fault. Someone put their greasy paws on her and offered a quick cash-in.
August 4, 2008
I learned that Pauline Kael is not as sentimental as I am, and is less forgiving,too, of sappy movies. She sees the good with the bad, and while I don't always agree with her, her tart reviews of stinkers make for some great reading. Her criticisms often surprised me, which was fun.
The main thing this book does is make me wish I'd seen more of the movies reviewed.
The main thing this book does is make me wish I'd seen more of the movies reviewed.
October 12, 2014
This is a big book, which is a bit cumbersome when you drag it out to check on a movie. And it is a bit dated. If you want a 21st Century compendium look elsewhere.
Having said that, what we are presented with is magnificent. Kael is acknowledged to be in the first circle of all movie critics. She is opinionated, whimsical, funny and understands the technical challenges of making movies. Her reviews for The New Yorker, created new ways of discussing motion pictures. Those reviews, many collected in other books, were at greater length than what we have here.
What we have here are reviews distilled down to a few well-chosen sentences. Like sipping a fine cognac rather than drinking a bottle of good wine. And, while enjoying each sip, discovering that instead of a glass, we have a barrel of this fine stuff.
If you are a devote of TCM, this is a book to have handy. If you are old enough to have seen the movies of the 1960s, 70s and 80s when they first came out, this is a bedside pleasure to match against memories. There is plenty here to consider, rail against, or chortle in delight.
Having said that, what we are presented with is magnificent. Kael is acknowledged to be in the first circle of all movie critics. She is opinionated, whimsical, funny and understands the technical challenges of making movies. Her reviews for The New Yorker, created new ways of discussing motion pictures. Those reviews, many collected in other books, were at greater length than what we have here.
What we have here are reviews distilled down to a few well-chosen sentences. Like sipping a fine cognac rather than drinking a bottle of good wine. And, while enjoying each sip, discovering that instead of a glass, we have a barrel of this fine stuff.
If you are a devote of TCM, this is a book to have handy. If you are old enough to have seen the movies of the 1960s, 70s and 80s when they first came out, this is a bedside pleasure to match against memories. There is plenty here to consider, rail against, or chortle in delight.
Read
July 10, 2024I love
December 24, 2022
Who's idea was it to edit Pauline Kael reviews so they read like Félix Fénéon stories? Did Kael herself sign off on this?
Pauline Kael's original review of Martin Scorsese's Mean Streets (titled "Everyday Inferno") is 3,122 words long. It ponders the nature of Catholicism. It psychoanalyses the characters. It includes a strange and sort of racist diatribe about how Black people loiter differently than Italians. It draws comparisons between Scorsese's work and that of Fellini's, the New Journalism movement, and uses about 23 different movies as reference points in its discussion.
Pauline Kael's abridged review of Mean Streets in this book (titled... "Mean Streets") is 118 words long. For those keeping track at home, that would be approximately 4% of the original review. Considering that 63 of those words are just an added list of the cast and crew, that would make the actual review part in fact 55 words long, and so more accurately 1-2% of the review. Not only is the colour leeched out almost entirely from Kael's reviews, I would hardly say that what remains is even sufficient insofar as portraying an opinion beyond "good" or "bad," and even that is pushing it. Pauline Kael was inarguably one of the greatest film critics of all time, and this book renders her less interesting than the blurbs you find on Rotten Tomatoes.
Here's my version of Moby-Dick: Call me Ishmael. I met a Pacific Islander. We got a job on a boat. Captain was crazy. The colour white is neat. There's various kinds of whales. Anyway, everyone died.
Here's my version of Ulysses: Two men meet on a walk.
I don't think abridgement has to always be considered a sin — I find I agree with Denny, in his translator's note to Les Miserables, that there really are sections in the book which are almost entirely skippable. This is not "abridgement." I'm not even really sure what this is. Preserving one-hundredth of something "abridges" a book the way that a wood chip is an "abridgement" of a pine tree. This book is extremely abysmal. Avoid at all costs.
Pauline Kael's original review of Martin Scorsese's Mean Streets (titled "Everyday Inferno") is 3,122 words long. It ponders the nature of Catholicism. It psychoanalyses the characters. It includes a strange and sort of racist diatribe about how Black people loiter differently than Italians. It draws comparisons between Scorsese's work and that of Fellini's, the New Journalism movement, and uses about 23 different movies as reference points in its discussion.
Pauline Kael's abridged review of Mean Streets in this book (titled... "Mean Streets") is 118 words long. For those keeping track at home, that would be approximately 4% of the original review. Considering that 63 of those words are just an added list of the cast and crew, that would make the actual review part in fact 55 words long, and so more accurately 1-2% of the review. Not only is the colour leeched out almost entirely from Kael's reviews, I would hardly say that what remains is even sufficient insofar as portraying an opinion beyond "good" or "bad," and even that is pushing it. Pauline Kael was inarguably one of the greatest film critics of all time, and this book renders her less interesting than the blurbs you find on Rotten Tomatoes.
Here's my version of Moby-Dick: Call me Ishmael. I met a Pacific Islander. We got a job on a boat. Captain was crazy. The colour white is neat. There's various kinds of whales. Anyway, everyone died.
Here's my version of Ulysses: Two men meet on a walk.
I don't think abridgement has to always be considered a sin — I find I agree with Denny, in his translator's note to Les Miserables, that there really are sections in the book which are almost entirely skippable. This is not "abridgement." I'm not even really sure what this is. Preserving one-hundredth of something "abridges" a book the way that a wood chip is an "abridgement" of a pine tree. This book is extremely abysmal. Avoid at all costs.
June 29, 2008
Around 10 years ago I started enjoying the colorful movie reviews in National Review and, after a little digging, found out that Pauline Kael is the crowned queen of movie reviews. Got a good laugh out of some of her assessments of old classics (e.g., Sound of Music, Wizard of Oz, North by Northwest) that always just seemed like old movies to me--not anything susceptible to review. Pretty entertaining writing. If you're an old movie buff (which I'm not, particularly) and a person who enjoys colorful prose, I would think this book would be a grand slam.
June 12, 2008
it's like an endless buffet of gourmet treats, each small enough to pop into your mouth whole.
A wonderful book to have lying around for those restless times when you want to read something without making a big commitment.
A wonderful book to have lying around for those restless times when you want to read something without making a big commitment.
July 11, 2017
Withholding personal movie opinions is brutal while reading Kael, but necessary. Yet for pure spirit, invented vocabulary and hilarious (and extremely personal) observations, nobody writes like Kael about movies. The adventurous nature of her writing is as joyful as it is caustic. She hates some of my favorite film-makers, yet I still read her remarks. This entertaining collection of blurbs only inspires you to read the full length reviews.
February 20, 2018
Spectacular reviews
...by the first lady of film commentary. This edition sadly marred by typos and some poor typesetting, but by and large this collection will give you some ideas on what classics to see, what to miss, and why.
...by the first lady of film commentary. This edition sadly marred by typos and some poor typesetting, but by and large this collection will give you some ideas on what classics to see, what to miss, and why.
August 17, 2019
Lecturas condensadas de Kael que sirven para un registro rápido y como valor frente a un estándar de publicación de gaceta, ya si uno desea profundizar - que sí es necesario para entender a la crítica más notoria del siglo pasado--los textos indican en qué libro se pueden encontrar.
April 11, 2020
From The Godfather to Night of the Living Dead, film critic Pauline Kael wrote the most thought-provoking reviews of all time. Reading Kael is like having a heroin addiction. Once the addiction occurs, there is no turning back.
September 29, 2021
Kael is excellent as a critic, and even better in this very short format. These are the unsigned capsule reviews that appear in the front of the New Yorker.
Warning: the ebook is riddled with typos
Warning: the ebook is riddled with typos
November 6, 2021
Kael’s work is invaluable to cinephiles and writers alike. Some reviews are tweet-length and others full articles. All are insightful to learning to write about film.
January 12, 2024
To save time, I only read the reviews for the films I've seen, and Pauline gets it.
April 21, 2024
As others mentioned, the reviews are too short for their own good, but there still are good lines here and there. Ideal for toilet reading, but you had better skip those thirties titles.
October 30, 2015
This book took me over a year to finish (slow and read in fits and starts) and it was time well spent on all those short subway rides.
I love reading good film criticism. In this age there is an inundation of viewpoints and critiques but rarely are there any worth actually reading. Most are sound bytes without any real bite. Not so with Pauline Kael.
Kael is considered one of the most influential film critics and for good reason. Her opinion might not be the most popular, pc or even match my own but reading her views is always fascinating. There was an edge to her writing. A sharpness to her.
Her reviews contained in this book are of varying lengths but they're concise, funny and never without point of view. Even when she is merely lukewarm, you can feel the disinterest. In the best possible way.
But above all else, regardless of her joy or disdain for any movie you sense the love affair that she had w the movies. The love affair I connect to and what drew me to read the book and why I was determined to read it cover to cover.
Did I agree with all her assessments? No. But it was always fun to read. Did I see most of the movies mentioned? Honestly I think I've seen close to and maybe over half. The reviews were interesting if I never saw the movie (sometimes piquing my interest) and a bit inside baseball if you had and knew any film history. Basically right up my alley.
Considering how long I took to read it, I was simultaneously excited and sad to be so close to the end. Nevertheless I will consider reading this cover to cover as one of the big reading achievements of my life as a cinephile and reader thus far.
In short I recommend this to anyone that has any curiosity about Kael. To anyone who wants a bit of film history or just simply to read what good criticism is and what separated her from the pack.
I love reading good film criticism. In this age there is an inundation of viewpoints and critiques but rarely are there any worth actually reading. Most are sound bytes without any real bite. Not so with Pauline Kael.
Kael is considered one of the most influential film critics and for good reason. Her opinion might not be the most popular, pc or even match my own but reading her views is always fascinating. There was an edge to her writing. A sharpness to her.
Her reviews contained in this book are of varying lengths but they're concise, funny and never without point of view. Even when she is merely lukewarm, you can feel the disinterest. In the best possible way.
But above all else, regardless of her joy or disdain for any movie you sense the love affair that she had w the movies. The love affair I connect to and what drew me to read the book and why I was determined to read it cover to cover.
Did I agree with all her assessments? No. But it was always fun to read. Did I see most of the movies mentioned? Honestly I think I've seen close to and maybe over half. The reviews were interesting if I never saw the movie (sometimes piquing my interest) and a bit inside baseball if you had and knew any film history. Basically right up my alley.
Considering how long I took to read it, I was simultaneously excited and sad to be so close to the end. Nevertheless I will consider reading this cover to cover as one of the big reading achievements of my life as a cinephile and reader thus far.
In short I recommend this to anyone that has any curiosity about Kael. To anyone who wants a bit of film history or just simply to read what good criticism is and what separated her from the pack.
Want to read
July 19, 2009This book is sort of legendary and yet, somehow I've never really referenced it. I was under the impression that it was just reprints of Kael's mag essays, but actually it's a collection of pithy capsule reviews, very much like all the other alphabetized movie guides out there but with Kael's incomparable and sharp wit and unique insight. And it's a big sucker. I'll give this a rating after I've read through some of the reviews.
March 17, 2013
Hard to dispute Kael's standing as a premier movie critic though, of course, one can always dispute her opnions of particular movies. A great book to keep around for quick browsing. At times, Kael comes off as condescending but overall her insights, even when I disagree, were valid and well written.
January 1, 2016
Well, I've sort of read it all, in the spirit that Kael sort of wrote it all (as she owned up in the introduction). The film review shorts here were in many cases hers, but not all. And I've probably read them all, or nearly all, by now. But it's great to pull out for a quick, but often authoritative take, when watching an old movie.
May 11, 2016
I may not agree with Kael a lot of the time (though sometimes she gets it very right - she recognized the greatness of Pennies from Heaven when most critics were dismissing it), but she's one of the most entertaining critics to read, her withering critiques never feeling gratuitously mean, and her comparatively rare raves making for irresistible recommendations. It's a damn shame she's gone.
February 25, 2015
Can't claim to have read every single review, but it is pretty addictive. Pauline Kael's understanding of art and cinema is deeply perceptive and enlightening which somehow becomes entertaining to read. I did make a letterboxd list of her best and most positive bits: http://boxd.it/cCpy
December 11, 2013
So great that all other film writing seems even more pointless than it already is.
February 10, 2015
Great stuff here. She was really great.
March 16, 2025
This is the only Kael book I bought. It has plenty of SHORT movie reviews giving us the essence of Kael's opinion without the often verbose padding and unneccessary details.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews