In a review for another book (1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) I wrote "I will not waste your time by expressing outrage over titles that should or should not have been included. Everyone has their own opinion and finding out what is and isn't written about is part of the fun." While I still feel that this sentiment is a wise one, I have to break it for this book because some of their choices are objectively ridiculous. Now, as the title of this review implies, by and large the book is pretty good. The factoids are interesting, as are the tidbits about films that never ended up being made. The reviews leave something to be desired, as the majority of them have little room for anything beyond plot summary, but they write one large review per year and the selections are largely good ones. But then the 90s happen and everything begins to tumble. Home Alone is apparently worthy of movie of year for 1990, Hook and Judge Dredd actually get articles written about them, as do The Cable Guy and the live action 101 Dalmations. Alien Resurrection gets an article, the Spice Girls are described as "naturals under the camera" in SpiceWorld, "one of the best pop films since A Hard Day's Night." As if that weren't bad enough, Godzilla is chosen as the *movie of the year* for 1998. Other dubious inclusions from the year include Armageddon, Scream 2, The Avengers, and Lost in Space. Obviously other people presumably have different opinions than I do, but do we really wish to extoll the virtues of The Avengers (currently sporting a 3.3 rating on IMDB) while omitting American History X, Shakespeare in Love, and other worthy picks? In what universe does Godzilla deserve twice as many words as Saving Private Ryan? Maybe the fact that the book was penned in 1999 left the writers with no perspective for the 90s, because something weird happened and it marrs the conclusion of the book.