Very disappointed :(

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

After all the glowing reviews, I guess I'm a contrarian, but I found the 8-minutes maddening. But what's to be expected from 10 decades of movies crammed into the space of a TV commercial. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn't anything that literal. Each entry gets the space of an eye-blink, and while that's still enough to label some icons (Maltese Falcon; Public Enemy, et al.), the overall effect can be frustrating. I'm not sure what the producers at TCM had in mind, but maybe the best way to take it is as a flash card test on steroids.

One of my favourite short films of all time is 'Precious Images (1986),' an unforgettable montage tribute to nearly a century of American cinema. After winning an Oscar for his efforts, director Chuck Workman updated the film to coincide with the centenary of American cinema. Indeed, his supreme editing skills were in high demand during the mid-1990s, when many film associations – AMPAS, AFI, TCM – were celebrating one hundred years of movies. '100 Years at the Movies (1994),' commissioned by Turner Classic Movies, is a roughly-chronological nine-minute tribute to American movies. Whereas 'Precious Images' was an indiscriminate barrage of moments from any era, though typically tied to a central theme or genre, here Workman's chronology allows the viewer to appreciate the aesthetic and thematic progression of the medium; for example, the abrupt transition from the silent slapstick farce of Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd, to the quick-witted screwball comedy of Mae West, Cary Grant and the Marx Brothers. Most of all, however, it's about reliving all those wonderful memories.Each regular viewing of 'Precious Images' usually moves me to tears, such is the flood of emotions that accompanies each cinematic image. '100 Years at the Movies' doesn't cover as much ground as its predecessor, offering only a snapshot of the landmark pictures of the twentieth century, and perhaps unduly ascribing more screen-time to some movies over others. The various diverse film clips are generally integrated beautifully, especially a transition from Fred and Ginger in 'Swing Time (1936)' to Gene and Leslie in 'An American in Paris (1951).' Perhaps the only misstep in Workman's editing is his decision to synchronise a clip from 'Lawrence of Arabia (1962)' with Monty Norman's James Bond theme from 'Dr. No (1962)' – same year, but different genre! Nevertheless, the film is a treasure of memories for anybody who calls themselves a film buff, resurrecting all those moments whose emotions you had almost forgotten. Additionally, the film served as inspiration for me to see those classics that I haven't gotten around to yet – 'Greed (1923)' and 'The Crowd (1928),' for example.

No great theories to spin here, or trends to notice, or criticisms to unload. Quite simply, this is the most carefully chosen, best-edited, most entertaining montage/tribute to the cinema ever put together. Covering, as it says, the whole first century of the cinema, it consists entirely of clips from a cavalcade of box-office favorites and historically-significant films, edited in roughly chronological order, accompanied by equally-well chosen scores. Some excerpts are as short as two or three seconds, sometimes just a word or a gesture from a film, sometimes a famous line, sometimes a look on a beloved movie star's face, but always one of those indelible moments, those "pieces of time," as Jimmy Stewart called them, that are the shared heritage of everyone who loves movies.

The first time I watched "100 Years at the Movies" was a few years ago when it was shown during the Academy Awards. It is fast paced using not only great film clips but famous lines and music. In a film such as this it is easy to say what one could have done differently; but try a make a list of what you would include and try and not forget somebody or something. Contrary to what someone commented before "Citizen Kane" and "Some Like It Hot" are both represented in this film. The only major omissions I noticed (and maybe I missed them) were "The African Queen" and "My Fair Lady" (although both Humphrey Bogart and Audrey Hepburn are shown in other films). I will agree some titles in their timeline are questionable ("San Francisco" and "Red River") these points do not and should not take away from the masterpiece this short film is. My only real complaints are the massive gap they started with (starting with "The Birth of a Nation") when if they used the real father of the movies Georges Melies films ("A Trip to the Moon") they could have easily filled the gap. "100 Years at the Movies" is a moving film that one could watch time and again and still love it. Thank you Chuck Workman for this awesome gift you have given every film lover.