Movies Books

At over 500 pages long this is a fine book which you could quite easily read from cover to cover or dip in and out of when you want to decide whether a watch a particular film or not.

The book divides the films into 10 categories:
Action/Adventure
Comedy
Drama
Horror
Musical
Romance
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Mystery & Thriller
War
Western

There is a page (a few have 2) for each film, normally with a photograph as well, and they are in chronological order within category. You certainly won't agree with all the selections but most of the films are either potential or acknowledged classics. The writers generally present easy to read assessments of each film, and only on the odd occasion do there reviews drift towards the highbrow.

This is a much nicer volume to own than say a Halliwells film guide as the reviews are longer and better to read and the quality of the printing/paper is of an equally high standard.

Any book which claims to list the "best of" anything is usually in for a lot of trouble right out of the gate, and motion pictures are a truly contentious subject; every fan becomes a critic and works to second guess the author and editors. But quite frankly, even the most uncritical of fans could probably do a better job than 501 MUST-SEE FILMS, which might be better titled ABOUT 200 MUST-SEE FILMS WITH A LOT OF ALSO-RANS.

For one thing, the break-out into genres is frequently quite bizarre. I don't know about you, but I was unaware that IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT would be described as a love story. True, the plot does involve a love story, but that's just the plot; it's a comedy through and through. I suppose you could call VERTIGO and SLEUTH dramas, but don't you really think--just at a gut level--that they'd be better off listed under suspense? And would you really list A CLOCKWORK ORANGE under science-fiction and fantasy?

And then there's the designation of "must-see." It's a fun movie, very entertaining, very well done--but would you really describe THE TOWERING INFERNO as a "must-see" film? What about GREMLINS, a considerably less well-made film, although still entertaining in its own way? Would you, as a film fan, consider your credibility undermined if you had somehow managed to get by all these years without sitting through TRON? I rather doubt it. And the perversity is compounded by the fact that this text leaves out a lot of movies that COULD very well be described as must-see in order to include such titles.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that the text actually tells you very little about the films themselves. There is a very brief notation about the film--date, director, major stars--followed by a rather plushly worded but surprisingly sparse abstract of the plot. Don't think you will settle an argument about who the art director was on A PLACE IN THE SUN from this tome; not only does it not include A PLACE IN THE SUN, it doesn't list such information.

I give the book two stars instead of one for the simple reason that there actually is one section the book does quiet well: Musicals, a section created by Ann Loyd. I personally would have cut PAL JOEY for COVER GIRL and YOU NEVER WERE LOVELIER in favor of THE BARCLAYS OF BROADWAY, and I'm certainly no fan of MOULIN ROUGE--but that's really a matter of opinion; there's nothing here that simply screams "how could you be so stupid?" the way that other entries in other sections do.

Musicals aside, the absolute best I can say for 501 MUST-SEE MOVIES is that it has some good pictures, and if you are into making colages or doing decopague you might want pick up for that. And at more than 500 slightly oversized pages it would also make a good door stop. In fact, it might serve a lot of interesting purposes... except that of a book. Don't get it for that.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Here is yet another entry in the best/essential/great/must-see films book category. In this case, it's a nicely illustrated, wide-ranging, 540+ pages-long British import highlighting great movies of the past 90 years.

Most of the "usual suspects" are here along with some more recent "kids on the block" (i.e., Gone with the Wind, Phantom of the Opera, Fargo, The Searchers, The Odd Couple, Forbidden Planet, Meet the Parents, North by Northwest, The Mummy, Mister Roberts, Fish Called Wanda, Love Story, Aliens, South Pacific, Pulp Fiction, Little Big Man, etc.) and some foreign-language titles from France, Hong Kong and Russia as well. Divided into ten categories such as Action/Adventure, Comedy, Drama, Horror and Musical, each film gets one - sometimes two - pages and one or more photographs.

Books like this are useful and entertaining to novice and experienced film fans alike. Chock full of facts, figures, history and opinion, 501 MUST-SEE MOVIES is a treat - and a steal at $5.00!

I was given this book as a Christmas present from my well-meaning sister who knew I was a filmbuff and thought it would make a good gift. But when I actually came to browsing through it, I think she chose this book based solely on the iconic photo of Audrey Hepburn on the cover. This book, though nicely organized with colorful photos and awards/cast/crew information, goes solely with films that were either huge hits or are already huge classics. Every film that made over $100 million or won Best Picture is here, but I opened this book wanting to be reccomended films I hadn't already seen. This book actually reccomends "Independence Day", "Men in Black", "Romeo +Juliet" (Baz Lhurman version), and "While You Were Sleeping" yet it denies gems "Almost Famous", "Requiem for a Dream", and "The Royal Tenenbaums" among others. The only smaller film noted was "Lost in Translation", though I'd doubt it would be on the book had it not been nominated for Best Picture among other things. Sometimes the authors have a hard time justifying their choices, saying about Independence Day that a scene is "sure to offend anyone brighter than a glass of water", yet they still reccomend it. The real mistake about this book is the fact that it has an editor who didn't check its Oscar facts (Morgan Freeman, NOT Tim Robbins, was nominated for Best Actor for The Shawshank Redemption), remember the controversy (Mia Farrow was married to Frank Sinatra--NOT Roman Polanski--during the filming of Rosemary's Baby when Sinatra ordered her to not chop off her hair for the film and divorced her shortly after), or even categorize the films right (saying that Doctor Strangelove is a sci-fi/fantasy is like saying Schindler's List is the funniest film since "Some Like it Hot").

This book is riddled with mistakes and consists of 501 movies I feel I've already seen. Film buffs should stay away from this book.

For starters, it's a mix of "very short stories" and "very short excerpts" from longer works (such as "Winesburg, Ohio"). Personally I find that when you get samplings of long works served to you in this way, you lose the larger context that surrounds the piece.

The exercises are disappointing - it's just a list of single sentences prompts for writing about common life events. "Write about an argument," "write about going to college, either deciding to go or not go."

Most of the stories feature commentary at the end of each one, but it's not doled out evenly for each story. It's a mixed bag of literary cricism and/or author insight that may be a little or a lot, depending on the story.

The stories themselves are laid out alphabetically by author with a second table of contents where they're grouped by things like voice, point of view, etc.

I was looking for very short stories with more discussion on techniques and concepts specific to short-shorts. It's more like a literary sampler with a side of literary criticism and a dash of instruction.

This was a required text for a college course. It has been like visiting old friends. The "classic" authors and others I'd never heard of provide a very good read, and the insights into writing by some of the authors is helpful.

While looking for an anthology of short stories, I came across this "textbook" and the most diverse assortment of short story writers I have ever seen. For those who appreciate the poetry of judicious prose this is a find.

Also liked the sections categorizing voice, point-of-view, and setting. Great technical examples that show rather than tell you the differences. Bought it, kept it, still using it, and now even recommending it. Respectful creative writing that will help keep the genre thriving.

If you are looking for tips to improve your writing, look elsewhere.

The 'instructions' could all fit on one page and consist of such helpful hints as "choose your voice, point of view, and setting...the choice is entirely up to you". "Write a rough draft..." "Edit your draft for logic, clarity, and plausibility." "Continually read excellent fiction."

The section of exercises is simply a list of 20 topics with this instruction: "Write a very short story about one of the following:"

The glossary is less than two pages long and has no examples.

I was expecting each story to have an introduction that told me why it is a masterpiece and what to look for. There is an index of stories by voice, point of view and setting. Those are fairly obvious.

Another sad lesson in not judging a book by its cover.

This writer is so over-enamoured of Anne Rice's books that he uses them as the touchstone for everything in modern popular culture. His views on Hammer films are ludicrous at best, as well as the unique phenomena that was Dark Shadows. Written in a condescending, fuss-budget style, this book isn't worth the trouble.

There's just too much competition from some of the writers at McFarland and Scarecrow Press for this to be in the top ten. As with the other reviewer's points on what Mr. Wright missed, several Hammer films are rated one or two 'skulls' too low, and his views on Robert Wise's THE HAUNTING are just incorrect for that wonderful, terrifying film. Although Hammer Films trumped the Universal classics (sorry, folks!) he's a bit too dismissive of what Universal accomplished. However, the book is well written and a fun read for the most part, and one that belongs on every genre enthusiasts shelf, despite its drawbacks.

In NIGHTWALKERS, Wright takes us on a tour of the "modern Gothic" period of horror films, spanning the years from 1957 (the release of Hammer's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN) to 1976 (the collapse of Hammer). In addition to the Hammer films, he also looks at other, similarly-themed movies of the same period: Roger Corman and "AIPoe"; William Castle's gimmick-driven thrillers; the occasional Continental item (e.g. BLACK SUNDAY); and a few stand-alone pieces such as THE HAUNTING. In addition to brief synopses and critical commentary on the films themselves (including, unfortunately, a silly and unnecessary "4-skull" rating system), he goes behind the scenes to examine the personalities and studio politics involved in the various productions. While he likes some of these films more than I do, and vice versa, at least none of his opinions are downright perverse (he doesn't, for instance, claim that SCARS OF DRACULA is an undiscovered masterpiece). There are some puzzling oversights: he points out that KISS OF THE VAMPIRE was extensively tampered with for American TV, but neglects to observe that the same was true for THE EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN... and for Hammer's PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, which he does not review at all! He also omits, in his chapter about Poe adaptations, both THE OBLONG BOX and THE CONQUEROR WORM (retitled British import though it was). Overall, though, his bibliography is extensive, his research is impressive, and his knowledge of, and affection for, these films is obvious. Pity he's not a very good writer. In addition to niggling little errors in spelling and punctuation (which, in all fairness, are also at least partly the editor's and publisher's fault), he indulges in such amateurish techniques as pointless hyperbole (it isn't enough, for example, to say that a certain film has a continuity error; Wright has to refer to it as a "howling goof"), and peppering his commentary with entirely too many instances of "(!)" to indicate surprise on his part. (Sometimes he carries this tendency as far as "(!!)" or even "(!!!)".) He seems to have little or no familiarity with the folklore underlying these films, which leads him, as it has led other erroneous writers before and since, to object to the famous scene in DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE, wherein the Count pulls the stake out of his heart. Worst of all, he tries too hard to be cute and clever: the book is permeated with such an arch, "hip" jokiness that at times it's like listening to a morning DJ discussing these films. I wouldn't mind this tone if Wright (a fellow Texan) and I were discussing these flicks over a beer; but it tends, in writing, to call attention to himself, and, to that extent, away from the subject matter at hand, these wonderful, terrible movies. Read it anyway. It's flawed but informative, and a center section of color pictures, including some wonderful film posters, makes up for a mulititude of minor sins.

This is an excellent book for those who want a snappy and accurate summary review of the book's reception and the associated films'impact.Enables a synoptic overview and a gives an indication of the cultural climate at the time of the book's writing and the films being first distributed.

It is interesting if you like to read. It is also interesting to see how what were once thought as interesting and new stories are old, recycled from novels that few knew existed.

Like other reviewers, I bought this without actually looking at it and I agree that it could have been done much better. It's a very good idea which seems to have fallen down in the execution. To the list of serious omissions I would add: The Ice Storm, The Godfather (!!) Rosemary's Baby, Midnight Cowboy, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Primary Colours, Lady In The Lake, Fear & and Loathing in Las Vegas (if we are talking about Hollywood here.) National cinemas other than American are very poorly represented. The book does acknowledge that it's the 'abridged' edition, and I would not have liked to have to choose what went in and what got left out, but still. The individual essays vary a great deal in usefulness and quality, with some being really very good and others abysmal. In future editions I would like to see more attention given to non-US filmmaking.

Being more of a "browser book," I did not feel the need to read the entire thing to get a glimpse into its quality. Instead, I read its comparisons of three novel-film counterparts in which I was especially familiar--_Frankenstein_, _Jurassic Park_, and _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz_. None of these comparisons contained much substance and were frequently loaded with factual errors. At least the writer of the Oz essay was familiar with Baum's other works, although there many factual errors about them, including the first, as there were for _Frankenstein_ and _Jurassic Park_. The comparisons were very simplistic, and the Oz entry in particular argued for the superiority of the film to the novel, referring mainly to another essay to explain why. While even the best argument probably could not convince me, if it had been better thought out I could at least understand why the writer felt that way. Alas, I could not, as so much of the argument was based on severe factual errors suggesting a very poor memory of the literary counterpart. The Oz entry even cited the Henry Littlefield Populism analogy as fact, despite Littlefield retraction and strong evidence about L. Frank Baum to the contrary.

Using only three entries may seem an unfair litmus test for the book, but my justification is as follows: if the books I'm familiar with are discussed with gross errors about the facts of the texts, how am I supposed to know that other essays, for films and novels I am not familiar with, don't contain erroneous junk that negate their usefulness?

I would love to see a new edition of the book with much more well-thought out essays. Granted, this is published as a "popular" text, but even a popular text should be credible, and this, alas, isn't.

I got the 1996 edition of this book from the library that is somewhat shorter than the 2002 edition. This book is a great beginning - sharing enough to get a good feel for the humanity of Spielberg.

Details on the process of Schindler's List, the most impacting film I have ever experienced, I was great full to learn. Birthing the Shoa Foundation, what a magnificent thing to learn Spielberg is the catalyst, via Schindler's List. Also editing Jurassic park while shooting Schindler's, I found a powerful view of massive endurance.

Of people I have studied, Churchill is one of my favorites. In the film arena I am sure Spielberg is up there with Churchill in significance. However, Churchill is a pinnacle reason Hitler failed. There are massive numbers of books on Churchill's life, some more enjoyable than others. I am sure there are many more books on Spielberg- this one is a good beginning.

I caught the tail of an interview on television called "Spielberg on Spielberg." I was `wowed' with how tender Steven Spielberg presented himself and wanted to catch the whole piece. I could not find it anywhere. Calling my library this book was one of the few books they had. It's a great fast balance read.

I generally limit my reading to biographies, history, business, and data I have involvement. This biography is refreshing and easy. I have no doubt for the volumes of actions Steven Spielberg has made- no book of roughly 300 pages can make a dent in details. This book is a fine overview.

I read the critics of this book- oh well. The speed, balanced and endearing view of Steven Spielberg, a multifaceted gift to our world - this book has been well worth my time, even the 1996 edition. This book certainly reads smoother than half the biographies I've read.

THIS BOOK SUCKED. the first ten pages were worth reading the rest of the book is not. The other two reviews hit the nail on the head. he repeats himself over and over after the first couple chapters and tells nothing more than the dates of his movies and divorces.DO NOT BUY!!

I'm not quite sure what Sanello was thinking, but his biography, SPIELBERG is the biography equivalent of a one-hit-wonder. The most significant part of the book is the first few chapters that deal with Spielberg's early life. I learned some things I didn't know before. However, I guess after Sanello finished talking with a few old friends and family, he figured that was all the real research he needed to do because the rest of the biography reads like an extended version of PEOPLE magazine. There are no juicy tidbits and no in-depth research or even assumptions about how Spielberg is able to do what he does. The few times that Sanello discusses skirmishes that Spielberg had with former cast members, a short ancedote is given about their careers after the film and that is about all. Not only that, but several times throughout the book, Sanello quotes himself verbatim from previous chapters; sounding more like a freshman college student taking Lit 101 than the famed biographer he is supposed to be. Overall, SPIELBERG was a major let down. It's worth reading for the first couple chapters about Spielberg's early days, but the rest of the novel you can read yourself in the trades, newspapers, and magazines.

Unlike weightier bigraphies like Kevin Brownlow's terrific "David Lean" or Simon Callow's 'Orson Welles-The road to Xanadu," this book feels like author Sanello didn't look much further than magazine articles and trade clips for research. According to the dust cover, he had over half a dozen interviews (7? that must have been exhausting!) with the director himself and a handful of stars (though never really truly substantiated), but it doesn't seem like he thought about interviewing parents, siblings, co-workers, crew members, etc. for any more details or elucidations about this icon of American pop culture. His obvious admiration and fawning over his subject distracts from any possible objectivity and also grows tiresome. The book offers a basic overview of the director's life and work but not much in terms of how he works, communicates, or thinks. For example, there's almost nothing about his relationship with pivotal Amblin producers Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall. Didn't they ever argue, or disagree about anything? How were projects brought in to the company and what was Kennedy and Marshall's thoughts about their boss? There is also no insight from production designers or cinematographers or writers or producers he worked with. For more than just a cursory look at this director's career (up to 1995) look elsewhere.

I used Yahoo to see about this book initially. Wow, out of 9 reviews two gave it 5 stars but oddly had the same 4 words "I liked this book" and nothing more. The rest were a single star with one 3 star. Lots of misspellings and incorrect grammer, or just plain jibberish (the three star one was just a joke, I take it). I looked here to see if I could get any more than just one person saying they liked this book. I liked getting her past reviews for free on Yahoo earlier in 2007, but now they are hoping for book sales and won't let you look at her opinions for anything that is not recently playing. Because of this I was tempted to buy, but at $30+, I'm waiting to hear a lot more positive feedback before I purchase this item.

Decent up to a point. In discussing "The Hero Within," when the subject of autism arises, this author calls autism a disease which it most emphatically is NOT. Autism is a neurobiological condition that affects sensory input and processing and communication to varying degrees based on the individual. I also didn't like the R*** M** reference because the title character Dustin Hoffman played in that 1988 movie is not representative of people who have autism. Less than 10% of the autistic population are prodigious savants and the very term R*** M** is extremely offensive in autism circles and is always best avoided. I for one am quite sick and tired of that savant stereotype being so readily applied to people with autism.

All in all, this is a decent book that serves its intended purpose of providing synopses of movies that are suitable for family viewing, but that inaccurate definition of autism and the quick rush to the crutch of R*** M** cost it one star.

Her radio show is great, but this book is even better. The Moviemom is smart and funny and not afraid to cross swords with Hollywood in the interests of common sense and good taste. This is a great book.

Max Morteman is a different individual - read for yourself is all I can say!

Max Morteman transcends normalcy with this writing of popular fiction. His flip flop personality is a unique blend of reality and borderline weirdness.

Max Morteman transcends reality through this premier writng. The flip flop personality of this unique personality is one that should not be missed.

Not a bad little book, The Rough Guide to Comedy Movies gives heavily opinionated commentary on a heap of movies, actors and the different decades. It is a long way off being a comprehensive list and there are a lot of seriously funny movies and actors not in here. Like with the Rough Guide's travel guides a lot is missing. Where is UHF, the sensational National Lampoons Vacation trilogy and many other classics? It lacks the comprehensive coverage of rival books such as 1001 Movies to Watch Before You Die. However what is covered in here is interesting, will bring back memories and is certainly educational on the realm of comedy movies. It definitely inspires me to go and rent some of older movies I haven't seen for a while and even check out some I had never previously thought of watching.

I suppose an argument can be made for other genres as well, but I've always thought the comedy film doesn't get the respect it deserves. For examples, when they're handing out Oscars, comedies rarely get Best Picture; the last one to win was Shakespeare in Love, and even that was an atypical comedy because it was also a period piece. I think the last straight comedy to win was Annie Hall nearly three decades ago. This is in spite of the fact that comedy is often tougher to do than drama; after all, when a dramatic moment doesn't work, it may not even be noticed, but when humor fails, it is not only evident but almost painful to watch.

The Rough Guide to Comedy Movies is a passable reference book on the comedies that succeeded and a few that didn't do quite as well. As with the other "Rough" movie guides, it is broken into certain sections: a history of film comedies, the "canon" of the 50 great comedies, a look at certain icons of the field, a discussion of international comedies and a guide to other sources of information.

Of course, a book like this is largely a matter of opinion, so one should not consider this a completely objective source. No where is this more evident than author Bob McCabe's choice of the canon. While certain choices are ones that would make most lists, like Airplane, Blazing Saddles or Some Like It Hot, others are a little more dubious. For example, I enjoyed Dodgeball and Shaun of the Dead, but I don't know if they are among the top 50 of all time.

While the opinions in this book will differ from yours (or mine), they do provoke a deeper look at genre. In addition to the canon films, there are many other films referenced, usually favorably, so this book can offer a lot of ideas for movies to watch. As stated before, as a reference source, this book is merely passable, but it is a good introduction that can point you to a few good movies and some better sources of information.

It claims that Doctor in the House is referred to on page 29. Actually DITH (which I don't care for) is written about only on page 28.

But this is no CLASSIC MOVIE COMEDIANS. And it can't hold a small candle to Brownlow's THE PARADE'S GONE BY... either. However, if you are a fan of silent movies you may enjoy some of the coshured information about classics, but this is a turgid and flawed effort.

Yes, this is a flawed effort that pales badly besides a couple of his others, but fun and entertaining nonetheless. Fascinating stills taken from 1928's WAXWORKS.

This is a wonderful book for the fabulous colour and black and white photos, but there are errors in the text. The information is general and nothing new or enlightening.

In a book of 239 large pages, it's simply not possible to write a complete list of Winning Pictures, Favorite Films or any other Western category. All an author can hope to do is to spread out a representative selection. However, a cover that presents John Wayne on horseback and William Boyd as "Santa Fe Marshal" indicates to me a book obviously strongly angled on "B" movies. Which it is. But very few of these I would describe as "obscure". In fact, I saw just about all of them within the last two or three years either on cable TV or DVDs like "The Great American Western" series. My chief worry was that the book covered comparatively few lesser known titles but concentrated on those that were readily available. I like to draw attention to "new" old movies that will delight fans. "Big Timber" with Roddy McDowall, "The Dalton Gang" with the lovely Julie Adams, and "The Daltons Ride Again" are three such splendid movies that jostle for attention in the book among the series pictures of Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, Bill Boyd, William Elliott, Tim Holt, etc., and the big "A" productions that I presumed we all know and love: "The Big Sky", "Cheyenne Autumn", "Duel in the Sun", "The Fighting Kentuckian", "Frankie and Johnny", "The Gay Desperado", "Go West", "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral", "How the West Was Won", "In Old Oklahoma", all three versions of "Law and Order", "My Darling Clementine", "Pirates of Monterey", "The Plainsman", "Rangers of Fortune", "Roseanna McCoy", "Rose of the Rancho" (both versions), "The Round-Up", "Texas", "The Texas Rangers" and its sequel, "They Died With Their Boots On", "To the Last Man", "The War Wagon", "When the Daltons Rode", "Winchester '73", etc.

Although the book title certainly sounds promising, the content and presentation is very disappointing. First, the author displays extreme laziness by not even providing a coherent list of the films that are discussed (even something as simple and useful as a listing by decade, actor, or director is not provided). Second, if you draw up a list of your ten favorite westerns, or films that someone might actually suggest you would be interested in viewing (e.g. Red River, The Westerner, Man who Shot Liberty Valance, High Noon, Destry Rides Again, Naked Spur, Shane, Once Upon A Time in the West, The Searchers, Ox-Bow Incident), you would be lucky to find information about even one of them in the book (incredibly, none of the films above are included). The title of the book suggests that "winning pictures", "favorite films", AND "B" movies will be discussed. I wrongly assumed that refers to at least a few films that the average western movie buff has heard of. However, does anyone really care about knowing what the author's endless list of favorite "B" westerns are? The obscurity of many of the films discussed should be properly reflected in the book title (perhaps a title such as: "Westerns I Like That You'll Never See). Third, the blurry black and white "movie posters" section provides reproductions that were apparently produced by a scanner that has the lowest resolution on the planet (the lousy stock of the paper used in the book also doesn't help). Unless you are really looking for information only about a small number of "B" western movies that you will never actually be able to purchase for viewing, then you should quickly "Hopalong" and "Hopaway" from this book.