What do you think?
Rate this book
The New York Times Book of Movies: The Essential 1,000 Films to See
A collection of reviews for the 1,000 most important, popular, and influential movies of all time.
While critiques of beloved Hollywood milestones from Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock, and Orson Welles are all included, this book is notably a resource for the modern cinema buff and student. Nowhere else can one find this curated collection of reviews with such special features as lists of best films by category and year, as well as unique recommendations and sidebars for the modern viewer--including what to watch and from DVD and Blu-Ray to streaming platforms.
In an era when most students and fans of film simply rely on the Internet for information, this category killer will prove its worth as a relevant and indispensable gift and reference.
While critiques of beloved Hollywood milestones from Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock, and Orson Welles are all included, this book is notably a resource for the modern cinema buff and student. Nowhere else can one find this curated collection of reviews with such special features as lists of best films by category and year, as well as unique recommendations and sidebars for the modern viewer--including what to watch and from DVD and Blu-Ray to streaming platforms.
In an era when most students and fans of film simply rely on the Internet for information, this category killer will prove its worth as a relevant and indispensable gift and reference.
1296 pages, Hardcover
Published October 1, 2019
12 people are currently reading
274 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
September 19, 2022
While there are many places to find streaming movie content, there is a lot of garbage out there. Thank goodness for sites like IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, etc to help get some judgement. Here is another - the NY Times.
They nicely admit this book is 'a suggested starting point rather tan a comprehensive list. It is also an unapologetically subjective collection.' Conversation about movies is encouraged!
"The vast majority of reviews in the book were written at the time of a movie's original theatrical release. As a consequence, there is a wonderful spontaneity and lack of self-consciousness to these deadline-driven dispatches."
I've only scratched the surface of reading this volume. I hope no one at my local library wants this returned anytime soon!
This is the third edition. I found that someone had entered the 1000 movies from a prior 2014 edition on IMDb (https://www.imdb.com/list/ls058705802/). I did a comparison and found that 153 of these movies got 'demoted' out of the third edition (that I'm reviewing) and replaced. I made a list of the replacements at https://www.imdb.com/list/ls561233629/
It has a great mix of:
Action (~20, like Close Encounters, Goldfinger);
Animated (~15, like Chicken Run, Spirited Away);
Comedy (~150, like Airplane!, Groundhog Day, MASH);
Crime/Mystery/Suspense (~115, like Dial M for Murder, High Sierra, M);
Documentary (~40, like Boat People, Hoop Dreams);
Drama (~650, Au Revoir Les Enfants, Breaking Away, The Graduate);
Horror (~20, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Frankenstein, The Shining);
Musical (~35, Cabaret, Marry Poppins, West Side Story);
Sci Fi (~10, Aliens, E.T., Metropolis);
Westerns (~20, High Noon, The Ox-Bow Incident)
Each of these categories has the movies listed alphabetically in the appendix.
There is also an appendix by country of all the foreign films here. I think over 300 movies are officially 'foreign'.
Easy 5*
They nicely admit this book is 'a suggested starting point rather tan a comprehensive list. It is also an unapologetically subjective collection.' Conversation about movies is encouraged!
"The vast majority of reviews in the book were written at the time of a movie's original theatrical release. As a consequence, there is a wonderful spontaneity and lack of self-consciousness to these deadline-driven dispatches."
I've only scratched the surface of reading this volume. I hope no one at my local library wants this returned anytime soon!
This is the third edition. I found that someone had entered the 1000 movies from a prior 2014 edition on IMDb (https://www.imdb.com/list/ls058705802/). I did a comparison and found that 153 of these movies got 'demoted' out of the third edition (that I'm reviewing) and replaced. I made a list of the replacements at https://www.imdb.com/list/ls561233629/
It has a great mix of:
Action (~20, like Close Encounters, Goldfinger);
Animated (~15, like Chicken Run, Spirited Away);
Comedy (~150, like Airplane!, Groundhog Day, MASH);
Crime/Mystery/Suspense (~115, like Dial M for Murder, High Sierra, M);
Documentary (~40, like Boat People, Hoop Dreams);
Drama (~650, Au Revoir Les Enfants, Breaking Away, The Graduate);
Horror (~20, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Frankenstein, The Shining);
Musical (~35, Cabaret, Marry Poppins, West Side Story);
Sci Fi (~10, Aliens, E.T., Metropolis);
Westerns (~20, High Noon, The Ox-Bow Incident)
Each of these categories has the movies listed alphabetically in the appendix.
There is also an appendix by country of all the foreign films here. I think over 300 movies are officially 'foreign'.
Easy 5*
February 8, 2021
the best thing about this book compiling the original nyt reviews for 1,000 unquestionably significant movies is how many of those reviews are SCATHING. I love how often nyt got it wrong and totally panned a movie, only to have it become one of the most important and beloved movies of all time.
I wouldn't read it start to finish, but flipping through this book to read reviews at random is fun. I want to buy this as a holiday present for everyone I know.
I wouldn't read it start to finish, but flipping through this book to read reviews at random is fun. I want to buy this as a holiday present for everyone I know.
April 1, 2020
As I read the NYT Book of Movies ('read' it, as if reading most of a reference book is something I'd do and an insane person would never do, since I'm obviously not insane; so let's just say 'looked at some of'), I kept thinking about the big multi-part Google Doc I have of all my film reviews (mostly via Letterboxd but some before; 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5). Unpublished scraps of stream-of-consciousness from one amateur voice is obviously much different (and some, like me, might even stress that it's quote-unquote 'a whole lot better') than decades of various, professional, newspaper-article-length reviews from a whole bunch of respected critics. And inside a book, whatever that is. But the similarities are still pretty remarkable, ha. Alphabetical list of films, sure, kind of long, kind of unreadable all at once, sure.
(By the way, according to the list at https://letterboxd.com/seanmay/list/t... , I've seen 463 of these 1,000! On one hand disappointing (when 90% of a basically-no-work decade has this for output, and in 2016 or something (when basically everything's supposed to be available) vs. 1965 or something) but on the other hand kind of impressive I guess (compared to one-per-weekend perusers, amateurs, or something; and next to 30 critics or so a single individual) etc.! But let's not compare. No. No comparison at all here. Comparison's so gauche in general)
First of all, the explanatory preface, written by Dargis and Scott, is a nice overview of the whole collection. "Even the most casual movie fan will quickly notice missing favorites and puzzling inclusions"… Not a canon, just a starting point, not necessarily even 'best', yada yada, the usual business; but it's good, a nice and modest introduction to a hefty volume.
Puzzling inclusions, though? Haha. Some are just curiosities, obscurities, maybe like Major Barbara (or, hehe, like Le Boucher, The Bride Wore Black, The Garden of the Finzi-Continis, Guelwaar, The Ipcress File, Lacombe Lucien, like Mayerling, One Hour With You, The Rose Tattoo, or Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here: dreadful titles, maybe unwatchable, like they shouldn't be listed let alone examined much further, not that there's anything wrong with any of them necessarily!). Is there time enough for these?
I know there's time enough for ones spanning time itself, haha! From silent film to hot-off-the-presses movies of today. Pollyanna from 1920 to Lady Bird from 2017. Yada yada.
And there are of course many New York Times distinctions in this book, besides loyalty to Woody Allen that might look a little out of step eventually. Carefully noting which NYC theater(s) is/was (are/were) engaging the film in question, in nearly every review. Sometimes-slightly-incongruous Mr. Lastname, instead of just Lastname. Covering every element like it's an obligation (since often it probably was): auteur and lead at the opening, screenwriter and story in the middle, support and music and other elements at the close. It's almost like there's sometimes kind of a rough formula, at least sometimes.
The critics themselves -- V.C. is Canby, B.C. is Crowther, M.D. is Dargis, S.H. is Holden, S.K. is Kauffman, D.K. is Kehr, J.M. is Maslin, E.M. is Mitchell, A.O.S. is Scott, etc., totaling 34 -- are recognizable and memorable just in glimpses. I appreciate that theoretical anonymity. It's all in effect under the New York Times, where individual voices get kind of a shrug. Kind of comforting in a strange sense.
Sometimes, there's praise I agree with (Casablanca) or praise I don't (Blazing Saddles), or praise for ones I haven't seen yet but I'm intrigued by (Black Girl); sometimes, there's lukewarm reaction I agree with (Chinatown) or lukewarm reaction I don't (Days of Heaven) or lukewarm reaction I'm still kind of intrigued by (Diva).
I dislike a lot of what I read by Crowther (especially when he's slamming the good Cléo from 5 to 7 or celebrating the bad Dumbo), and Canby, whose reviews are usually dry and workmanlike. But I know it's all just part of the game. And Canby correctly hates The Exorcist. And Scott btw was correctly amused by Faces Places, but I might have been a little more effusive.
However, Crowther to my appreciative surprise correctly appreciates Man Hunt, and Canby correctly appreciates Fanny and Alexander. Surprisingly and dismayingly, Roger Greenspun didn't like Five Easy Pieces, though. Wattup with that?
Contemporary critics' reviews here (especially Dargis's review of Monika or Scott's of Moonlight) definitely seem longer, more elegant appreciations, compared to shorter, more clipped, probably more rushed dispatches from decades in the past. That's true. But to me still, there's rarely the perfect balance I need: thoughtful and relaxed (but not as long) yet short and well aimed (but not as dashed off). Perhaps if the New York Times hired me, an unproven, unprofessional, non-journalistic writer (who btw does not live in New York or see many films or even like cinema that much), I could supply the style of prose I mean.
Honestly, I hardly need reviews at all: just the list of movies is interesting enough. And by that same token but opposite, a lot of the reviews are good in and of themselves. As just reads, without the films behind them (if that were ever even possible). In this listing, when they're arranged alphabetically; or by chronological time; or by distinct critic; or however. I don't know. No one's paying me enough to know; or do they ever pay anyone enough to know, or do they do it for other reasons, and if so why and who; etc., etc.
(By the way, according to the list at https://letterboxd.com/seanmay/list/t... , I've seen 463 of these 1,000! On one hand disappointing (when 90% of a basically-no-work decade has this for output, and in 2016 or something (when basically everything's supposed to be available) vs. 1965 or something) but on the other hand kind of impressive I guess (compared to one-per-weekend perusers, amateurs, or something; and next to 30 critics or so a single individual) etc.! But let's not compare. No. No comparison at all here. Comparison's so gauche in general)
First of all, the explanatory preface, written by Dargis and Scott, is a nice overview of the whole collection. "Even the most casual movie fan will quickly notice missing favorites and puzzling inclusions"… Not a canon, just a starting point, not necessarily even 'best', yada yada, the usual business; but it's good, a nice and modest introduction to a hefty volume.
Puzzling inclusions, though? Haha. Some are just curiosities, obscurities, maybe like Major Barbara (or, hehe, like Le Boucher, The Bride Wore Black, The Garden of the Finzi-Continis, Guelwaar, The Ipcress File, Lacombe Lucien, like Mayerling, One Hour With You, The Rose Tattoo, or Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here: dreadful titles, maybe unwatchable, like they shouldn't be listed let alone examined much further, not that there's anything wrong with any of them necessarily!). Is there time enough for these?
I know there's time enough for ones spanning time itself, haha! From silent film to hot-off-the-presses movies of today. Pollyanna from 1920 to Lady Bird from 2017. Yada yada.
And there are of course many New York Times distinctions in this book, besides loyalty to Woody Allen that might look a little out of step eventually. Carefully noting which NYC theater(s) is/was (are/were) engaging the film in question, in nearly every review. Sometimes-slightly-incongruous Mr. Lastname, instead of just Lastname. Covering every element like it's an obligation (since often it probably was): auteur and lead at the opening, screenwriter and story in the middle, support and music and other elements at the close. It's almost like there's sometimes kind of a rough formula, at least sometimes.
The critics themselves -- V.C. is Canby, B.C. is Crowther, M.D. is Dargis, S.H. is Holden, S.K. is Kauffman, D.K. is Kehr, J.M. is Maslin, E.M. is Mitchell, A.O.S. is Scott, etc., totaling 34 -- are recognizable and memorable just in glimpses. I appreciate that theoretical anonymity. It's all in effect under the New York Times, where individual voices get kind of a shrug. Kind of comforting in a strange sense.
Sometimes, there's praise I agree with (Casablanca) or praise I don't (Blazing Saddles), or praise for ones I haven't seen yet but I'm intrigued by (Black Girl); sometimes, there's lukewarm reaction I agree with (Chinatown) or lukewarm reaction I don't (Days of Heaven) or lukewarm reaction I'm still kind of intrigued by (Diva).
I dislike a lot of what I read by Crowther (especially when he's slamming the good Cléo from 5 to 7 or celebrating the bad Dumbo), and Canby, whose reviews are usually dry and workmanlike. But I know it's all just part of the game. And Canby correctly hates The Exorcist. And Scott btw was correctly amused by Faces Places, but I might have been a little more effusive.
However, Crowther to my appreciative surprise correctly appreciates Man Hunt, and Canby correctly appreciates Fanny and Alexander. Surprisingly and dismayingly, Roger Greenspun didn't like Five Easy Pieces, though. Wattup with that?
Contemporary critics' reviews here (especially Dargis's review of Monika or Scott's of Moonlight) definitely seem longer, more elegant appreciations, compared to shorter, more clipped, probably more rushed dispatches from decades in the past. That's true. But to me still, there's rarely the perfect balance I need: thoughtful and relaxed (but not as long) yet short and well aimed (but not as dashed off). Perhaps if the New York Times hired me, an unproven, unprofessional, non-journalistic writer (who btw does not live in New York or see many films or even like cinema that much), I could supply the style of prose I mean.
Honestly, I hardly need reviews at all: just the list of movies is interesting enough. And by that same token but opposite, a lot of the reviews are good in and of themselves. As just reads, without the films behind them (if that were ever even possible). In this listing, when they're arranged alphabetically; or by chronological time; or by distinct critic; or however. I don't know. No one's paying me enough to know; or do they ever pay anyone enough to know, or do they do it for other reasons, and if so why and who; etc., etc.
December 3, 2022
I wish there was a bit more 'feminine' presence here, but I found this movie dictionary to be a must-have for my library. We get all our movies from the library, and this will help me find some buried treasures.
May 28, 2020
Okay, it's almost 1300 pages of first-rate reviews but I have to confess that I didn't read it word for word, but certainly enough to rate it an excellent source of film criticism. Lots of movies here to put on your must-see list and no one beats the Times critics for accuracy...though I think they have improved greatly from the Bosley Crowther days. Darghis and Scott are top-notch.
July 21, 2024
The New York Times Book of Movies is a massive compendium of 1000 movies listed alphabetically. The book is critic reviews of movies as they came out in the New York Times newspaper. It lists all of the crucial information about the film, from the cast to the crew.
I do not watch movies frequently. Starting with 1000 movies may seem impossible, and you would be correct. I have no intention of seeing every piece of cinema on the list. Some of the films are shoo-ins. Airplane, Spirited Away, Jaws, Rebecca, Rear Window, The Shining, and more fill the book's pages.
The book isn't only about Hollywood movies. There are foreign films in here, as well.
The book has some surprises in it. The critics did not like every film in this anthology. I heard people didn't enjoy "It's A Wonderful Life" at first due to its maudlin sentimentality, but it grew on audiences over the years, and now it is a classic. If you like, you can see the review for yourself.
Another review that surprised me is the one for "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." The critic despised the movie since he thought it was too gratuitously violent. Meanwhile, Pulp Fiction received a glowing review. I guess that's what 25 years will do to a cultural sensibility.
The book is not perfect. The way I see it, the book has three flaws. The first flaw is the size of the book. It's the sort of book you can use as a blunt weapon, and that is not convenient. The second flaw is inherent in its nature as a printed material. The third flaw is a difference of opinion. I don't know anything about many of these movies, but I feel some movies should have had a position.
I enjoyed the book. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
I do not watch movies frequently. Starting with 1000 movies may seem impossible, and you would be correct. I have no intention of seeing every piece of cinema on the list. Some of the films are shoo-ins. Airplane, Spirited Away, Jaws, Rebecca, Rear Window, The Shining, and more fill the book's pages.
The book isn't only about Hollywood movies. There are foreign films in here, as well.
The book has some surprises in it. The critics did not like every film in this anthology. I heard people didn't enjoy "It's A Wonderful Life" at first due to its maudlin sentimentality, but it grew on audiences over the years, and now it is a classic. If you like, you can see the review for yourself.
Another review that surprised me is the one for "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." The critic despised the movie since he thought it was too gratuitously violent. Meanwhile, Pulp Fiction received a glowing review. I guess that's what 25 years will do to a cultural sensibility.
The book is not perfect. The way I see it, the book has three flaws. The first flaw is the size of the book. It's the sort of book you can use as a blunt weapon, and that is not convenient. The second flaw is inherent in its nature as a printed material. The third flaw is a difference of opinion. I don't know anything about many of these movies, but I feel some movies should have had a position.
I enjoyed the book. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
January 30, 2023
Original reviews by Times movie critic. These reviews, written at the time of the movie's release is a wonderful tool for adding appreciation of these films selected as "essential". To fully appreciate a great or any film, it should be viewed from both today's vantage point as well as the vantage point of the time it was made and released.
March 7, 2023
I didn't really expect much from this book, not a fan of foreign movies so I kinda skimmed, HOWEVER, when I did not see "Neil Simon's Odd Couple" listed anywhere I quit. REALLY? DO YOU EVEN HAVE A PULSE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD!
So yeah, there are two stars but to be honest, it is more like one and a half.
So yeah, there are two stars but to be honest, it is more like one and a half.
July 15, 2022
I love movies, it’s of my favourite hobbies and I watch movies almost every day, so getting to read this book was amazing, even though I spent 2 months of my life in it. I’ve learned a lot about different movies and it’s as an amazing trip.
It’s s a must have to every movie lover out there.
It’s s a must have to every movie lover out there.
September 12, 2024
This is not only a list of the 1000 "best films" it also includes all the original NYT reviews. The reviews are fairly short, so the 1000 films are covered in about 1200 pages.
The reviews themselves are a mixed bag. Bosely Crowther did almost all the reviews from 1940 to 1968. After that we get A.O Scott, Vincent Canby, and a host of others. Crowther stands out for his well written style and unique views. A bit of a middle-class prude. Crowther disliked excessive violence and vulgarity. And he was a sucker for "Oscar Bait" movies like "Judgement at Nurenberg" or "West Side Story". Needless to say, he was the frequent target of Pauline Kael.
The reviewers after Crowther, dont make much of an impression for good or for ill. Just the standard sophisticated, philosemitic, liberal/left film critics. They're mostly interchangable, despite being of different sexes, creeds, and colors.
As for the films selected, its hard to complain, since if you pick 1000 its hard to leave anything of worth out. But as normal in these sorts of books, there is a bias toward Mainstream Hollywood and the great foreign films are somewhat underrepresented. We also get lots of films after 1990, whether they deserve it or not.
A nice reference book to dip and in and out of.
The reviews themselves are a mixed bag. Bosely Crowther did almost all the reviews from 1940 to 1968. After that we get A.O Scott, Vincent Canby, and a host of others. Crowther stands out for his well written style and unique views. A bit of a middle-class prude. Crowther disliked excessive violence and vulgarity. And he was a sucker for "Oscar Bait" movies like "Judgement at Nurenberg" or "West Side Story". Needless to say, he was the frequent target of Pauline Kael.
The reviewers after Crowther, dont make much of an impression for good or for ill. Just the standard sophisticated, philosemitic, liberal/left film critics. They're mostly interchangable, despite being of different sexes, creeds, and colors.
As for the films selected, its hard to complain, since if you pick 1000 its hard to leave anything of worth out. But as normal in these sorts of books, there is a bias toward Mainstream Hollywood and the great foreign films are somewhat underrepresented. We also get lots of films after 1990, whether they deserve it or not.
A nice reference book to dip and in and out of.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews