So why buy the book (which lists for about $16) when the text can be had for free at the Sun-Times website? The reasons (which I also offered in defense of my own book) are simple. The length of his 3000-plus word essay, by far the longest in the tome, bears this out. Because these are part of an on-going series, one can safely expect a Volume 2 of The Great Movies in about another two years, after the total number of titles exceeds 200.Įbert makes it clear in the introduction that these are not "'the' 100 greatest films of all time." He goes on to write that "all lists of great movies are a foolish attempts to codify works which must stand alone." (This is precisely the reason why my own Top 100 represents my list of favorite films, not a catalogue of greatness.) For this reason, the titles do not have numbers, although we know from experience that Ebert's #1 movie is Citizen Kane. The titles include the expected ( Citizen Kane, 2001, Casablanca), the offbeat ( Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, Peeping Tom), and the less-serious ( Star Wars, Pulp Fiction, Some Like It Hot).
Clearly, a great deal of thought and craft has gone into every one of the essays.
And, in short order, all 100 are behind you and you're on the web looking for more. Once you have read one review, you compulsively want to move to the next one. And, surprisingly for something that is so fragmentary, The Great Movies is a page-turner. The reviews frequently exceed 1200 to 1500 words, which is more than double the length of a day-of-opening Ebert review. He brings a great deal of knowledge and background to this book, and, although you may not agree with his assessment of certain films, you're guaranteed to understand why he holds a particular opinion. Nevertheless, I will admit that naming a volume "Roger Ebert's The Great Movies" sounds better than "Roger Ebert's Favorite Movies."Įbert's style, as always, is comfortable and friendly - more than conversational but less than formal. under the umbrella of greatness? No, and there might be arguments about other titles, as well. Would everyone agree to the inclusion of Bride of Frankenstein, Todd Browning's Dracula, and E.T. In reality, these are movies that Ebert believes to be great. The word "great" (something I carefully avoided for my own recent Top 100) has an objective connotation which implies that all 100 titles in this book have been agreed to as masterpieces by some sort of critical consensus. In fact, my only real quibble with the book is the title. Originally released in hardback during 2002, the volume (which is a compilation of retrospective reviews previously published in The Chicago Sun-Times) is now available as a trade paperback, which makes it a little less bulky (although, at over 500 pages, it still has heft). There's something daring - almost pompous - about calling a book The Great Movies, but that's precisely what Roger Ebert has done.
0 kommentar(er)
