What do you think?
Rate this book
Great Movies #3
The Great Movies III
Roger Ebert has been writing film reviews for the Chicago Sun-Times for over four decades now and his biweekly essays on great movies have been appearing there since 1996. As Ebert noted in the introduction to the first collection of those pieces, “They are not the greatest films of all time, because all lists of great movies are a foolish attempt to codify works which must stand alone. But it’s fair to If you want to take a tour of the landmarks of the first century of cinema, start here.Enter The Great Movies III, Ebert’s third collection of essays on the crème de la crème of the silver screen, each one a model of critical appreciation and a blend of love and analysis that will send readers back to the films with a fresh set of eyes and renewed enthusiasm—or maybe even lead to a first-time viewing. From The Part II to Groundhog Day, from The Last Picture Show to Last Tango in Paris, the hundred pieces gathered here display a welcome balance between the familiar and the esoteric, spanning Hollywood blockbusters and hidden gems, independent works and foreign language films alike. Each essay draws on Ebert’s vast knowledge of the cinema, its fascinating history, and its breadth of techniques, introducing newcomers to some of the most exceptional movies ever made, while revealing new insights to connoisseurs as well.Named the most powerful pundit in America by Forbes magazine, and a winner of the Pulitzer Prize, Roger Ebert is inarguably the most prominent and influential authority on the cinema today. The Great Movies III is sure to please his many fans and further enhance his reputation as America’s most respected—and trusted—film critic.
417 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 15, 2010
156 people are currently reading
855 people want to read
About the author
Roger Ebert
91 books405 followersRoger Joseph Ebert was a Pulitzer Prize-winning American film critic and screenwriter.
He was known for his weekly review column (appearing in the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967, and later online) and for the television program Siskel & Ebert at the Movies, which he co-hosted for 23 years with Gene Siskel. After Siskel's death in 1999, he auditioned several potential replacements, ultimately choosing Richard Roeper to fill the open chair. The program was retitled Ebert & Roeper and the Movies in 2000.
Ebert's movie reviews were syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and abroad. He wrote more than 15 books, including his annual movie yearbook. In 1975, Ebert became the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. His television programs have also been widely syndicated, and have been nominated for Emmy awards. In February 1995, a section of Chicago's Erie Street near the CBS Studios was given the honorary name Siskel & Ebert Way. Ebert was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in June 2005, the first professional film critic to receive one. Roger Ebert was named as the most influential pundit in America by Forbes Magazine, beating the likes of Bill Maher, Lou Dobbs, and Bill O'Reilly.[2] He has honorary degrees from the University of Colorado, the American Film Institute, and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.
From 1994 until his death in 2013, he wrote a Great Movies series of individual reviews of what he deemed to be the most important films of all time. He also hosted the annual Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival in Champaign, Illinois from 1999 until his death.
He was known for his weekly review column (appearing in the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967, and later online) and for the television program Siskel & Ebert at the Movies, which he co-hosted for 23 years with Gene Siskel. After Siskel's death in 1999, he auditioned several potential replacements, ultimately choosing Richard Roeper to fill the open chair. The program was retitled Ebert & Roeper and the Movies in 2000.
Ebert's movie reviews were syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and abroad. He wrote more than 15 books, including his annual movie yearbook. In 1975, Ebert became the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. His television programs have also been widely syndicated, and have been nominated for Emmy awards. In February 1995, a section of Chicago's Erie Street near the CBS Studios was given the honorary name Siskel & Ebert Way. Ebert was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in June 2005, the first professional film critic to receive one. Roger Ebert was named as the most influential pundit in America by Forbes Magazine, beating the likes of Bill Maher, Lou Dobbs, and Bill O'Reilly.[2] He has honorary degrees from the University of Colorado, the American Film Institute, and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.
From 1994 until his death in 2013, he wrote a Great Movies series of individual reviews of what he deemed to be the most important films of all time. He also hosted the annual Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival in Champaign, Illinois from 1999 until his death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
April 25, 2020
"I believe good movies are a civilizing force. They allow us to empathize with those whose lives are different than our own. I like to say they open windows in our box of space and time. Here's a third book filled with windows."
How do I review a collection of movie reviews? How do I write about writings of the best movie critic ever? A movie critic whose reviews were not only deep, thoughtful, and incisive, but also beautifully written. This review mainly quotes passages from The Great Movies III by Roger Ebert, his third set of reviews of movies that made the strongest impression on him. I selected only four of the hundred films praised by Mr. Ebert in this collection, the four that I like the most. In fact, the first three would place among the Top Twenty Movies I have ever seen, were I to venture compiling such a list.
First, 3 Women:
Four stars.
How do I review a collection of movie reviews? How do I write about writings of the best movie critic ever? A movie critic whose reviews were not only deep, thoughtful, and incisive, but also beautifully written. This review mainly quotes passages from The Great Movies III by Roger Ebert, his third set of reviews of movies that made the strongest impression on him. I selected only four of the hundred films praised by Mr. Ebert in this collection, the four that I like the most. In fact, the first three would place among the Top Twenty Movies I have ever seen, were I to venture compiling such a list.
First, 3 Women:
"Robert Altman's 1977 masterpiece tells the story of three women whose identities blur, shift, and merge until finally, in an enigmatic last scene, they have formed a family, or perhaps have become one person. I have seen it many times, been through it twice in shot-by-shot analysis, and yet it always seems to be happening as I watch it. Recurring dreams are like that: we have had them before, but have not finished with them, and we return because they contain unsolved enigmas."Yes! An absolutely stunning movie: enigmatic yet beautiful and so very human! I could say exactly the same about The Double Life of Veronique (1991). Kieslowski's film is beautiful and impenetrable, yet resonates deeply with human subconsciousness - perhaps "not-quite-consciousness" would be a better phrase. Here's how Rogert Ebert explains it in one of the best passages of movie criticism that I have ever read:
"Here is a film about a feeling. Like all feelings, it is one that can hardly be described in words, although it can be evoked in art. It is the feeling that we are not alone, because there is more than one of us. We are connected at a level far, far beneath thought. We have no understanding of this. It is simply a feeling that we have."Then comes Mike Leigh's (see my review of The World According to Mike Leigh) masterpiece Secrets and Lies (1996). Full psychological truth about "regular" people who suddenly find themselves in an unusual situation. Phenomenal acting and direction. Mr. Ebert writes
"The kind of fascination Mike Leigh generates is unlike almost anything else in the cinema, because it takes such chances, goes so deeply, explores the human comedy for its tears."And finally Martin Scorsese's After Hours (1985), to me a totally underappreciated gem, little known but great black comedy. Mr. Ebert, as usual, masterfully explains his fascination with the movie:
"After Hours approaches the notion of pure filmmaking; it's a nearly flawless example of -- itself. It lacks, as nearly as I can determine, a lesson or a message, and is content to show the hero facing a series of interlocking challenges to his safety and sanity."All 100 reviews in the book are wonderful! A great read! I will soon read and review the two previous volumes in the series.
Four stars.
April 30, 2020
I used to be an avid watcher of the Laurel and Hardy movies. The laughter they brought me was wonderful, always picking me up whenever trying moments set in, and rewatching them felt like coming back to visit with an old friend. Then, they almost dropped away from my viewing list entirely. Today, I will still look at two or three of them a year, but not nearly in the quantity of years ago.
I mention this because I had a similar experience reading THE GREAT MOVIES III. Roger Ebert has always been my “go to” movie critic ... I didn’t always agree with him, but he gave me food for thought. When he was putting together this third collection, he was engaged in his extended battles with cancer. He stated that he had no idea if there would be a fourth collection (There would), but that his viewing tastes had changed. In all of this volume, there are only two comedies included. Most had something of a dark, ironic, or existential predilection. Consequently, there are many more challenging and less crowd-pleasing titles such as “Babel,” “El Topo,” “Pixote,” and “Santa Sangre.”
There were more titles included in this book that I questioned having them designated as a Great Movie. Some had descriptions that seemed as if they would be an ordeal to watch, either because of content or tedium. Others, such as “Triumph of the Will” and “WR—Mysteries of the Organism” barely seemed to qualify as entertaining or enlightening at all. Naturally, the purpose of labeling something as a Great Movie is not because of universal acclaim, but because something about them “spoke” to Ebert. That is a valid reason to include them.
Once more, I found films that I’d never seen before that are now on my Watchlist:
* Ace in the Hole
* Cabiria
* The Long Goodbye
* Paths of Glory
* Playtime
* Ripley’s Game
* Vengeance Is Mine
* Woodstock (extended version)
* Yojimbo
There were also films that I had seen before that I want to see again based on Ebert’s perspective:
* Adaptation
* Cool Hand Luke
* Crimes and Misdemeanors
* Groundhog Day
* My Man Godfrey
* The Prairie Home Companion (which I didn’t enjoy when I first saw it)
The major problem with Ebert’s book is the abundance of Spoilers. If he doesn’t give away the ending, he provides enough information to allow the Reader to guess what it might be. Similarly, major plot points abound. This is a much better book for the student of film who has seen these productions and now wants to consider a more scholarly appreciation.
At the end of the book, he lists the films covered in the previous two books. It was an eye-opener to see how many titles I’ve sampled based solely on his recommendation. Of those, there were only three or so that I had to say, “We’ll agree to disagree on that one.” For the others, he had opened my horizons.
I’m looking forward to reading THE GREAT MOVIES IV ... and I’m sure there will be a certain melancholy on finishing it.
I mention this because I had a similar experience reading THE GREAT MOVIES III. Roger Ebert has always been my “go to” movie critic ... I didn’t always agree with him, but he gave me food for thought. When he was putting together this third collection, he was engaged in his extended battles with cancer. He stated that he had no idea if there would be a fourth collection (There would), but that his viewing tastes had changed. In all of this volume, there are only two comedies included. Most had something of a dark, ironic, or existential predilection. Consequently, there are many more challenging and less crowd-pleasing titles such as “Babel,” “El Topo,” “Pixote,” and “Santa Sangre.”
There were more titles included in this book that I questioned having them designated as a Great Movie. Some had descriptions that seemed as if they would be an ordeal to watch, either because of content or tedium. Others, such as “Triumph of the Will” and “WR—Mysteries of the Organism” barely seemed to qualify as entertaining or enlightening at all. Naturally, the purpose of labeling something as a Great Movie is not because of universal acclaim, but because something about them “spoke” to Ebert. That is a valid reason to include them.
Once more, I found films that I’d never seen before that are now on my Watchlist:
* Ace in the Hole
* Cabiria
* The Long Goodbye
* Paths of Glory
* Playtime
* Ripley’s Game
* Vengeance Is Mine
* Woodstock (extended version)
* Yojimbo
There were also films that I had seen before that I want to see again based on Ebert’s perspective:
* Adaptation
* Cool Hand Luke
* Crimes and Misdemeanors
* Groundhog Day
* My Man Godfrey
* The Prairie Home Companion (which I didn’t enjoy when I first saw it)
The major problem with Ebert’s book is the abundance of Spoilers. If he doesn’t give away the ending, he provides enough information to allow the Reader to guess what it might be. Similarly, major plot points abound. This is a much better book for the student of film who has seen these productions and now wants to consider a more scholarly appreciation.
At the end of the book, he lists the films covered in the previous two books. It was an eye-opener to see how many titles I’ve sampled based solely on his recommendation. Of those, there were only three or so that I had to say, “We’ll agree to disagree on that one.” For the others, he had opened my horizons.
I’m looking forward to reading THE GREAT MOVIES IV ... and I’m sure there will be a certain melancholy on finishing it.
March 31, 2023
To be clear I DID NOT read every essay in this book.
Ebert is my FAVORITE film critic and I have read a lot of his writings over the years. His writing on cinema is so prodigious that I chose to read ONLY the essays on films I have seen.
The Foreword by DAVID BORDWELL explains it perfectly.
“From this perspective, movies are more than entertainment, more even than exalting or disturbing works of art. Taken in all their variety, films can shape our most fundamental feelings and guide us toward a deeper understanding of the world and our place in it. Movies constitute a shared culture, a kaleidoscopic filter through which life takes on fresh meanings. This is the sensibility that, in my opinion, forms the framework of the Great Movies collections.”
That framework is great and of course the insight Ebert gives on each film is on point.
Below are the films I have seen as of March 2023 and essays read. I look forward to reading more as I see more films.
•BLADE RUNNER: THE FINAL CUT
•COOL HAND LUKE
•DOG DAY AFTERNOON
•GROUNDHOG DAY
•KILLER OF SHEEP
•L.A. CONFIDENTIAL
•PAN’S LABYRINTH
•RIPLEY’S GAME
You can read my GOODREADS Reviews of some of his other volumes.
THE GREAT MOVIES (I) https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... 📚
THE GREAT MOVIES IV https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... 📚
Ebert is my FAVORITE film critic and I have read a lot of his writings over the years. His writing on cinema is so prodigious that I chose to read ONLY the essays on films I have seen.
The Foreword by DAVID BORDWELL explains it perfectly.
“From this perspective, movies are more than entertainment, more even than exalting or disturbing works of art. Taken in all their variety, films can shape our most fundamental feelings and guide us toward a deeper understanding of the world and our place in it. Movies constitute a shared culture, a kaleidoscopic filter through which life takes on fresh meanings. This is the sensibility that, in my opinion, forms the framework of the Great Movies collections.”
That framework is great and of course the insight Ebert gives on each film is on point.
Below are the films I have seen as of March 2023 and essays read. I look forward to reading more as I see more films.
•BLADE RUNNER: THE FINAL CUT
•COOL HAND LUKE
•DOG DAY AFTERNOON
•GROUNDHOG DAY
•KILLER OF SHEEP
•L.A. CONFIDENTIAL
•PAN’S LABYRINTH
•RIPLEY’S GAME
You can read my GOODREADS Reviews of some of his other volumes.
THE GREAT MOVIES (I) https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... 📚
THE GREAT MOVIES IV https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... 📚
June 10, 2025
Favorite reviews:
After Hours
Blade Runner
Dog Day Afternoon
Fitzcarraldo
Samurai Rebellion
Pan’s Labyrinth
Yojimbo
Found out two or three Bunuel reviews are in the 1st edition which are the exact essays I wanted to read😭Guess that’s what I get for going to III first.
After Hours
Blade Runner
Dog Day Afternoon
Fitzcarraldo
Samurai Rebellion
Pan’s Labyrinth
Yojimbo
Found out two or three Bunuel reviews are in the 1st edition which are the exact essays I wanted to read😭Guess that’s what I get for going to III first.
March 6, 2020
With the 3rd volume of Ebert’s Great Movie picks I score a 56% of Movies Seen.
Sadly the photos were not included for this volume, which was a nice touch to the first two, as they were rarely seen shots. Bad move by Ebert and/or the publisher.
With what I did see on the list, I’d highly argue with Magnolia being included, one of the few movies I’ve walked out on, and I question Ebert including a Director’s Cut to the list.
Additionally, including 3 cartoons (Duck Amuck, One Froggy Evening, What’s Opera, Doc), while amazing cartoons, they are not “movies”. So should not be included in the list of 100 (have them as an Opening Feature, sure. Like the old days…).
Also, Groundhog Day is not even vaguely funny, or meaningful, and should hardly be included...
Out of the Past is sub-par at best, noir. hardly "great".
Also, My Fair Lady is a mediocre musical. Audrey Hepburn cries, shrieks and annoying for the first hour and 15 minutes, then provides horrid lip syncing. Aside from the film itself being way too long, the overly long musical numbers are not as memorable as Ebert seems to think.
The Long Goodbye? Elliot Gould, in anything, let alone as Phillip Marlowe, is highly questionable. Far, far too much Altman Love on this list...
3 Women
Ace in the Hole
Adaptation
After Dark, My Sweet
After Hours
The Age of Innocence
Army of Shadows
Atlantic City
Au Revoir les Enfants
Babel
The Band Wagon
Baraka
The Battle of Algiers
Bergman’s trilogy Through a Glass Darkly
Bergman’s trilogy : Winter Light
Bergman’s trilogy The Silence
The Best Years of our Lives
The Big Red One
Blade Runner: The Final Cut
Cabiria
Cat People (1942)
Chimes at Midnight
Chop Shop
Chuck Jones: 3 cartoons
Cool Hand Luke
Crimes and Misdemeanours
Crumb
Dark City
The Dead
Diva
Dog Day Afternoon
The Double Life of Veronique
Easy Rider
El Norte
El Topo
The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser
Exotica
Fanny and Alexander
Faust
Fitzcarraldo
Forbidden Games
The Godfather, Part II
The Great Dictator
Groundhog Day
Howards End
Inherit the Wind
Johnny Guitar
Juliet of the Spirits
Killer of Sheep
La Belle Noiseuse
L.A. Confidential
The Last Picture Show
Last Tango in Paris
The Last Temptation of Christ
Late Spring
Leolo
The Long Goodbye
Magnolia
The Marriage of Maria Braun
Mephisto
Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters
Mon Oncle Antoine
Moolaade
My Fair Lady
My Man Godfrey
Nanook of the North
Ordet
Out of the Past (1947)
Pan’s Labyrinth
Paths of Glory
The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
Pixote
Playtime
A Prairie Home Companion
Rebel Without a Cause
The Red Shoes
Ripley’s Game
The River (le Fleuve)
Rocco and His Brothers
Safety Last
Samurai Rebellion
Sansho the Bailiff
Santa Sangre
The Scarlet Empress
Secrets & Lies
The Shining
The Terrorist
The Thief of Bagdad (1940)
Top Hat
Triumph of the Will
Vengeance is Mine
Waking Life
Werkmeister Harmonies
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?
Withnail & I
A Woman’s Tale
Woodstock
WR – Mysteries of the Organism
A Year of the Quiet Sun
Yojimbo
Sadly the photos were not included for this volume, which was a nice touch to the first two, as they were rarely seen shots. Bad move by Ebert and/or the publisher.
With what I did see on the list, I’d highly argue with Magnolia being included, one of the few movies I’ve walked out on, and I question Ebert including a Director’s Cut to the list.
Additionally, including 3 cartoons (Duck Amuck, One Froggy Evening, What’s Opera, Doc), while amazing cartoons, they are not “movies”. So should not be included in the list of 100 (have them as an Opening Feature, sure. Like the old days…).
Also, Groundhog Day is not even vaguely funny, or meaningful, and should hardly be included...
Out of the Past is sub-par at best, noir. hardly "great".
Also, My Fair Lady is a mediocre musical. Audrey Hepburn cries, shrieks and annoying for the first hour and 15 minutes, then provides horrid lip syncing. Aside from the film itself being way too long, the overly long musical numbers are not as memorable as Ebert seems to think.
The Long Goodbye? Elliot Gould, in anything, let alone as Phillip Marlowe, is highly questionable. Far, far too much Altman Love on this list...
3 Women
Ace in the Hole
Adaptation
After Dark, My Sweet
After Hours
The Age of Innocence
Army of Shadows
Atlantic City
Au Revoir les Enfants
Babel
The Band Wagon
Baraka
The Battle of Algiers
Bergman’s trilogy Through a Glass Darkly
Bergman’s trilogy : Winter Light
Bergman’s trilogy The Silence
The Best Years of our Lives
The Big Red One
Blade Runner: The Final Cut
Cabiria
Cat People (1942)
Chimes at Midnight
Chop Shop
Chuck Jones: 3 cartoons
Cool Hand Luke
Crimes and Misdemeanours
Crumb
Dark City
The Dead
Diva
Dog Day Afternoon
The Double Life of Veronique
Easy Rider
El Norte
El Topo
The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser
Exotica
Fanny and Alexander
Faust
Fitzcarraldo
Forbidden Games
The Godfather, Part II
The Great Dictator
Groundhog Day
Howards End
Inherit the Wind
Johnny Guitar
Juliet of the Spirits
Killer of Sheep
La Belle Noiseuse
L.A. Confidential
The Last Picture Show
Last Tango in Paris
The Last Temptation of Christ
Late Spring
Leolo
The Long Goodbye
Magnolia
The Marriage of Maria Braun
Mephisto
Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters
Mon Oncle Antoine
Moolaade
My Fair Lady
My Man Godfrey
Nanook of the North
Ordet
Out of the Past (1947)
Pan’s Labyrinth
Paths of Glory
The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
Pixote
Playtime
A Prairie Home Companion
Rebel Without a Cause
The Red Shoes
Ripley’s Game
The River (le Fleuve)
Rocco and His Brothers
Safety Last
Samurai Rebellion
Sansho the Bailiff
Santa Sangre
The Scarlet Empress
Secrets & Lies
The Shining
The Terrorist
The Thief of Bagdad (1940)
Top Hat
Triumph of the Will
Vengeance is Mine
Waking Life
Werkmeister Harmonies
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?
Withnail & I
A Woman’s Tale
Woodstock
WR – Mysteries of the Organism
A Year of the Quiet Sun
Yojimbo
July 12, 2011
Mr. Ebert's reviews are little gems in their own right. He explains exactly why he thinks each movie is great... both technically and dramatically.
In some cases, Ebert explains why he thinks some of the films aren't that great, even though other reviewers might have told you that they are. Also, some of the films Ebert included in this volume were violent in ways I could have lived without. For those two reasons only, I'm lowering my rating to four stars. (I would have given it five, because it's a good read.)
In some cases, Ebert explains why he thinks some of the films aren't that great, even though other reviewers might have told you that they are. Also, some of the films Ebert included in this volume were violent in ways I could have lived without. For those two reasons only, I'm lowering my rating to four stars. (I would have given it five, because it's a good read.)
November 13, 2019
This final entry of The Great Movies by Roger Ebert has the distinction of having the least amount of movies on it that I have seen. Those movies are Cool Hand Luke; El Norte; Groundhog Day; and The Shining. While it is somewhat disappointing, I will remind the reader that I don’t watch movies all that often. I spend far more of my time reading.
Cool Hand Luke is a movie I only saw because of its similarity to One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest. I had to watch it for a Literature Class. El Norte is a movie I would not have heard of except for the fact that I took Spanish in High School and this was a movie we had to watch. Groundhog Day is an excellent bit of fun that I bought recently and The Shining is a classic of horror with an unreliable series of narrators.
The book is similar to the other previous two in that it is a collection of essays on movies that Ebert found to transcend to the sphere of Greatness. This entry is unique in that it doesn’t seem to have movie stills as the others did.
This book series has certainly spiked my curiosity in certain films, but I don’t really know how many movies I will take my time to check out. In any case, this book was enjoyable enough and I found the essays to be very well done.
Cool Hand Luke is a movie I only saw because of its similarity to One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest. I had to watch it for a Literature Class. El Norte is a movie I would not have heard of except for the fact that I took Spanish in High School and this was a movie we had to watch. Groundhog Day is an excellent bit of fun that I bought recently and The Shining is a classic of horror with an unreliable series of narrators.
The book is similar to the other previous two in that it is a collection of essays on movies that Ebert found to transcend to the sphere of Greatness. This entry is unique in that it doesn’t seem to have movie stills as the others did.
This book series has certainly spiked my curiosity in certain films, but I don’t really know how many movies I will take my time to check out. In any case, this book was enjoyable enough and I found the essays to be very well done.
August 14, 2020
This wonderful series of essays continues in a 3rd and penultimate volume as Roger Ebert tells about movies that he finds important - either because they are masterfully made, are important in the history of film, or simply because they do what they do better than any other movie that's trying to do the same thing.
Ebert is at times snobbish - he REALLY doesn't like shaky cam, and he is a bit derisive of "genre" movies, although to be fair, if they are great examples of their genre, he will include them. However, most of the time, he is reminiscent, remembering how a particular film has made him feel, and wishing to spread that feeling to as many people as possible.
I watch a lot of movies, and while a smile would appear on my face any time I came to a movie I loved and that Ebert loved, too, I also found a large number of films that I've never seen, and due to weird streaming access, might have to wait a while to see. The hunt is on!
Ebert is at times snobbish - he REALLY doesn't like shaky cam, and he is a bit derisive of "genre" movies, although to be fair, if they are great examples of their genre, he will include them. However, most of the time, he is reminiscent, remembering how a particular film has made him feel, and wishing to spread that feeling to as many people as possible.
I watch a lot of movies, and while a smile would appear on my face any time I came to a movie I loved and that Ebert loved, too, I also found a large number of films that I've never seen, and due to weird streaming access, might have to wait a while to see. The hunt is on!
November 23, 2022
I’m rating this 2 stars for 2 reasons:
1. I feel like I have a pretty extensive knowledge of films and I hadn’t heard of most of these movies, which makes the book less interesting.
2. Roger has an abominably bad take on the Godfather part 2, he doesn’t seem to like it and only includes because other people rank it as the best sequel (true) and one of the best movies of all time
Bonus reason: now that I’ve read all 4 of his books and none of them contain Empire strikes back, I’m let down.
1. I feel like I have a pretty extensive knowledge of films and I hadn’t heard of most of these movies, which makes the book less interesting.
2. Roger has an abominably bad take on the Godfather part 2, he doesn’t seem to like it and only includes because other people rank it as the best sequel (true) and one of the best movies of all time
Bonus reason: now that I’ve read all 4 of his books and none of them contain Empire strikes back, I’m let down.
April 9, 2021
I understand why Roger Ebert's Great Movies reviews remain his most read books/work, but the more I explore his catalog the clearer it becomes that they're not him at his best. These are leisurely, repetitive pieces best read before or after viewing the movie in question. When read back-to-back-to-back, they suffer in a way Ebert's daily criticism doesn't. He often referred to himself as a "newspaperman," after all, and it was in grinding out those reviews that he shone.
January 7, 2022
"The Great Movies III" is Roger Ebert's 3rd collection of essays, much more eclectic mix of films than in his previous 2 volumes. The critical appreciation in which Ebert writes makes each film feel like "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather".
June 16, 2017
Excellent like the first 2.
September 8, 2020
Fun read.
October 3, 2020
A must for movie fans
Terrific in depth reviews of classic films by the best critic. Ebert and his great work is very sorely missed.
Terrific in depth reviews of classic films by the best critic. Ebert and his great work is very sorely missed.
December 19, 2021
nice to get some background to expand one's watchings
October 23, 2025
Ebert is always entertaining to read, although I skipped some of the foreign film reviews.
July 27, 2012
I’ve never been super excited about the possibility of reading a Roger Ebert movie critique, but he does have insight and he is capable of putting his insight into words in a way that is not real difficult to understand and, at the same time, he doesn’t appear to be talking down to people, which is probably why he is the most popular and well known movie critic of maybe the last half century (I’m serious, who else is so well known among the general population?). And I do like his “The Great Movies” book series. I’ve seen 75 of the 102 movies listed in “The Great Movies III” and some are among my favorites, which I read about first (i.e. “Ordet”, “Magnolia”, “Duck Amuck”, “Exotica”, “Sanso the Baliff”, “The Scarlet Express”. . .). Then I read, pretty much in alphabetical order, the ones I’ve never seen or have only seen once or twice, some of which I’ve decided, since reading this, need a revisiting on my part (i.e. “L.A. Confidential”, “Atlantic City”, “The Dead”, “Babel” . . .) and I’ve come upon 27 movies -- movies I’m ashamed to say I have not seen, movies I would not be qualified to address myself as a “movie geek” without having seen -- that I have begun to put in my Netflix and library requests.
I might have more to add later.
I might have more to add later.
July 13, 2016
Amazing as it sounds, the writing in this volume is even better than that in the previous volumes, though lacking the movie stills that adorned them. Ebert had lost his voice by the time this volume came out, and particular reviews (like SANSHO THE BAILIFF) show the deeper wells of empathy he drew from once his only voice came from his writings.
Still intact are his ability to delve into details (his insights concerning one particular musical motif in AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS), comment on the entire oeuvre of a particular director (most helpful when dealing with less-famous directors, such as the recently departed Paul Cox), and describe the experience of a film so vividly that I wanted to immediately go out and see most of these films.
And yet, the secret to his writing talent is that he feeds both the head and the heart, with particular attention to the heart. And when he writes for the head, he writes like an intelligent man watching a movie, not like a professor lecturing on it.
If you love movies, pick up all three volumes, and lament that there isn't a THE GREAT MOVIES IV, though enough reviews exist on his website to make it a future reality.
Still intact are his ability to delve into details (his insights concerning one particular musical motif in AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS), comment on the entire oeuvre of a particular director (most helpful when dealing with less-famous directors, such as the recently departed Paul Cox), and describe the experience of a film so vividly that I wanted to immediately go out and see most of these films.
And yet, the secret to his writing talent is that he feeds both the head and the heart, with particular attention to the heart. And when he writes for the head, he writes like an intelligent man watching a movie, not like a professor lecturing on it.
If you love movies, pick up all three volumes, and lament that there isn't a THE GREAT MOVIES IV, though enough reviews exist on his website to make it a future reality.
December 26, 2010
This book gets high marks from me for not being merely a republishing of old reviews but a collection of completely new thoughts and insights on films Ebert feels has withstood the test of time. In keeping an open mind and revaluting these movies within the context of all that's come after their original release, Ebert even sort of revises and upgrades his opinion of a few works (like discovering the profound implications beneath "Groundhog Day's" bright comedy or the eventual realisation of the necessity of "Godfather II").
I have not agreed with all of Eberts opinions and verdicts over his 40-year career but no one can deny the historic importance of his accessibilty of writing style and doing more to bring film criticism to the masses than any critic before himself or since. The guy obviously loves film and we'll all be a little poorer when he's no longer around.
I have not agreed with all of Eberts opinions and verdicts over his 40-year career but no one can deny the historic importance of his accessibilty of writing style and doing more to bring film criticism to the masses than any critic before himself or since. The guy obviously loves film and we'll all be a little poorer when he's no longer around.
July 26, 2021
The third and last in a series, and the least engaging. Ebert wrote this on borrowed time, and the list strikes me as more of an afterthought, a very lengthy postscript. It's likely the man decided to take stock of all those movies that made an impression on him all these years (and there must have been so many), but this time, he very consciously chose the non-mainstream movies. Note that he's very honest in his reviews: he did not necessarily enjoy some of the movies on the list. Instead he sings praises to a movie's particular style, a director's audacity, or an actor's maverick performance. Which explains why, among all three books, this one has the most oddballs and curiosities. It gets three stars because of his conversational, between-you-and me style of writing, and the added trivia I always look forward to in an Ebert book.
October 25, 2011
Everybody knows Ebert writes film reviews for the Chicago Tribune of currently released movies or movies he's seen at film festivals (some never getting distribution). But he convinced his editors to allow him to write reviews of films he considers great (e.g., City Lights with Charlie Chaplin).
These reviews appeared in the paper and online and eventually collected into books--so far three volumes. If you use the IMDB web site, you'll find a link to the review as it appears in the books. Along with a series of photos.
For some films, the web site will show his review when the film was released and the second review of these great movies. His initial reviews aren't in the books.
These reviews appeared in the paper and online and eventually collected into books--so far three volumes. If you use the IMDB web site, you'll find a link to the review as it appears in the books. Along with a series of photos.
For some films, the web site will show his review when the film was released and the second review of these great movies. His initial reviews aren't in the books.
March 9, 2013
Here are some of the movies Ebert covers here and hence really likes--and I do too!
Blade Runner
Cool Hand Luke
Dark City
Easy Rider
Groundhog Day
Last Picture Show
Rebel Without a Cause
The Shining
About the only movie in here that I did not find at all "great" is Juliet of the Spirits, a 1965 Italian production that I saw for free at my college during my freshman year (1967). I still remember my reaction was "what a terrible waste of time when I could have been viewing something more entertaining, like my Feynman Physics textbook!"
Blade Runner
Cool Hand Luke
Dark City
Easy Rider
Groundhog Day
Last Picture Show
Rebel Without a Cause
The Shining
About the only movie in here that I did not find at all "great" is Juliet of the Spirits, a 1965 Italian production that I saw for free at my college during my freshman year (1967). I still remember my reaction was "what a terrible waste of time when I could have been viewing something more entertaining, like my Feynman Physics textbook!"
March 29, 2016
I find Ebert not simply a movie reviewer of the first order, but one of our generation's best essayists. Several of the movies he addressed in this volume I have seen, and I feel he brought new insights into production values, plot devices, portrayals of character and so forth. The greater portion of the volume addressed movies I have not yet seen. For these I found some recommendations for films to investigate later, but more so gained an appreciation for what Ebert finds worthwhile in a movie. It is as though by reading his writing, one becomes a better participant in the movie experience.
January 4, 2011
One of the joys of reading the erudite reviews by the incomparable Ebert is to relish the workings of his reflective and brilliant mind. It is always most interesting to read reviews of films one has already viewed, yet reading the others can impel one to seek out an enriching film. Ebert makes the valid point that his books (this is No. 3 of the Great Movies series) don’t seek to list films according to their worth, but to review those that made an unforgettable impact.
April 16, 2014
The worst part about finally finishing Ebert's Great Movies book series is that I appear to be reliving his death. Ebert was the critic I always read first when a new movie came out. He is one of the most influential individuals in film in the last 50 years, and it is his wit, his humanity that made him such a joy to read. I keep hoping that one day his family will unearth the unpublished manuscript to The Great Movies IV. Now that would make a great movie.
August 18, 2011
I don't always agree with Ebert's choices of great movies (The Shining, for example), but his enthusiasm for film is contagious. Since his first two volumes covered most of the obvious choices of time-honored greats, many of the films here are ones I'd never heard of or forgotten gems. I recently watched four of these and have many more in my queue. Hey, Roger - get to work on Vol. IV!
October 21, 2011
I enjoy all of Ebert's books, especially his Great Movies which is now a trilogy. It's an incredibly quick read as each review is only about two or three pages long and the movies all sound great. I trust Ebert completely and my Netflix queue is filled with movies he's recommended. A must-read for any cinephile.
August 18, 2014
I have all three of these books. Just got this one for my birthday. We recently watched Ebert's "Life itself" and I fell in love with his writing again. Have been reading the entries for all the movies I've seen. I have been watching all these movies and then I read the entries afterward.
I admire Ebert's writing immensely.
I admire Ebert's writing immensely.
January 27, 2016
I was a little disappointed in this installment of Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" series because Ebert himself seemed to have a lot of complaints about many of these "great" movies. I did appreciate the inclusion of movies such as "My Fair Lady" and "Top Hat".
May 28, 2013
Not much more to add about Ebert. Maybe not always the best film critic, but definitely the most passionate. I learned a lot about movies I thought I knew everything about. The only problem with this book is that it kept making me want to stop reading and watch every movie he discusses.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews