Rating: 
Summary: too much of a good thing
Review: I've been a fan of Goldman's non-fiction since the original "Adventures in the Screen Trade", but I'm disappointed with his last two books. "Which Lie Did I Tell (More Adventures...)" paled in comparison with the original, but was still better than a lot of similar books. This one however is mostly a loss.I read many of these essays when they appeared originally in New York magazine. They cover the years 1990 through 1999 and appear chronologically. Most of them fall into a couple categories: 1) a prediction of how a summer's movie selection will fare 2) a re-hash of the same season a few months later 3) predictions about one year's Oscars 4) a re-hash of that year's Oscars (with a side-rant about making the vote tallies public) 5) a discussion of who is the biggest star in Hollywood The essays were great when they originally appeared, but now they lack (obviously) timeliness and uniqueness (since they all pretty much read alike). Goldman's near-copyrighted phrase is "No one knows anything." Better luck next time.
Rating:
Summary: too much of a good thing
Review: I've been a fan of Goldman's non-fiction since the original "Adventures in the Screen Trade", but I'm disappointed with his last two books. "Which Lie Did I Tell (More Adventures...)" paled in comparison with the original, but was still better than a lot of similar books. This one however is mostly a loss. I read many of these essays when they appeared originally in New York magazine. They cover the years 1990 through 1999 and appear chronologically. Most of them fall into a couple categories: 1) a prediction of how a summer's movie selection will fare 2) a re-hash of the same season a few months later 3) predictions about one year's Oscars 4) a re-hash of that year's Oscars (with a side-rant about making the vote tallies public) 5) a discussion of who is the biggest star in Hollywood The essays were great when they originally appeared, but now they lack (obviously) timeliness and uniqueness (since they all pretty much read alike). Goldman's near-copyrighted phrase is "No one knows anything." Better luck next time.
Rating: 
Summary: Thumbs Up
Review: This book isn't just informative, it's fun! I had read some of the essays when they were originally published in "Premiere," but there are enough essays in THE BIG PICTURE I hadn't read to make the book worthwhile. The other articles were all previously published in "New York" magazine, "Los Angeles Magazine" and "The Daily News." So, if you haven't read the articles in all those places already, I recommend this book to any movie fan. Goldman is as good a commentator/critic as he is a screenwriter (two time Oscar winner, incidentally).
Rating: 
Summary: Light and breezy, but also cynical and witty.....
Review: While Mr. Goldman is no Pauline Kael in terms of film analysis (he plays fast and loose with language rather than constructing fine-tuned essays), he does have a biting sense of humor and is more than willing to laugh at Hollywood, star power, and yes, even the average American filmgoer. The best essay in the book, "Who Killed Hollywood?," discusses not only the ageless conflict between art and commerce, but the eventual destructiveness of the Oscars, the dearth of talent both behind and in front of the camera (not to mention the corporate suite), and the inevitable nostaligia that creeps in whenever one compares the stars of today with those of the past. Goldman clearly loves the art of cinema and his passion shows at every turn, allowing the reader to have great fun with each successive essay. While the content is a bit repetitive at times (covering the 1990s, he returns again and again to "the biggest star" and Oscar notes), the overall tone is refreshing. Goldman is also willing to admit his love of less-than-noble films (he respects the high-brow, but is more of a populist than he might admit), and he does not shy away from puncturing the self-important and well-respected. A must for film buffs.
Rating:
Summary: Recycling day at the Goldman's
Review: William Goldman is a good screenwriter. When bad, he is awful. "The Ghost and the Darkness" was terrible, and "The Princess Bride" was so cutesy treacly sugary quirky sweet, I almost went on insulin. But his book here is deadly honest. I thought I was the only person in America who noticed the big breasted girl behind the old guy in "Saving Private Ryan." I thought I was the only person in America who kept wondering where the laughs were in "Shakespeare in Love." I, too, want to see vote totals for the Oscars. I disagree with many of Goldman's opinions of films: "As Good As It Gets" was so in love with its own ideas, it never let the audience in on the joke, "The Shawshank Redemption" is just a combination of every prison film since the 1930s' "The Big House," and Hugh Grant falling in love with the annoyingly insipid Andie MacDowell in "Four Weddings and a Funeral" showed what a dumb character he really was. But at least Goldman is brutally honest in his opinion of the films of the 1990's. This shows you can only take fluff entertainment shows like "Entertainment Tonight" with a grain of salt. Hollywood has been punishing the public for years with junk like "Independence Day" and "The Grinch," Goldman is leading the charge against the money men from Out There.
Rating:
Summary: Golden Goldman
Review: William Goldman is a good screenwriter. When bad, he is awful. "The Ghost and the Darkness" was terrible, and "The Princess Bride" was so cutesy treacly sugary quirky sweet, I almost went on insulin. But his book here is deadly honest. I thought I was the only person in America who noticed the big breasted girl behind the old guy in "Saving Private Ryan." I thought I was the only person in America who kept wondering where the laughs were in "Shakespeare in Love." I, too, want to see vote totals for the Oscars. I disagree with many of Goldman's opinions of films: "As Good As It Gets" was so in love with its own ideas, it never let the audience in on the joke, "The Shawshank Redemption" is just a combination of every prison film since the 1930s' "The Big House," and Hugh Grant falling in love with the annoyingly insipid Andie MacDowell in "Four Weddings and a Funeral" showed what a dumb character he really was. But at least Goldman is brutally honest in his opinion of the films of the 1990's. This shows you can only take fluff entertainment shows like "Entertainment Tonight" with a grain of salt. Hollywood has been punishing the public for years with junk like "Independence Day" and "The Grinch," Goldman is leading the charge against the money men from Out There.
Rating:
Summary: Golden Goldman
Review: William Goldman is a good screenwriter. When bad, he is awful. "The Ghost and the Darkness" was terrible, and "The Princess Bride" was so cutesy treacly sugary quirky sweet, I almost went on insulin. But his book here is deadly honest. I thought I was the only person in America who noticed the big breasted girl behind the old guy in "Saving Private Ryan." I thought I was the only person in America who kept wondering where the laughs were in "Shakespeare in Love." I, too, want to see vote totals for the Oscars. I disagree with many of Goldman's opinions of films: "As Good As It Gets" was so in love with its own ideas, it never let the audience in on the joke, "The Shawshank Redemption" is just a combination of every prison film since the 1930s' "The Big House," and Hugh Grant falling in love with the annoyingly insipid Andie MacDowell in "Four Weddings and a Funeral" showed what a dumb character he really was. But at least Goldman is brutally honest in his opinion of the films of the 1990's. This shows you can only take fluff entertainment shows like "Entertainment Tonight" with a grain of salt. Hollywood has been punishing the public for years with junk like "Independence Day" and "The Grinch," Goldman is leading the charge against the money men from Out There.
Rating:
Summary: Recycling day at the Goldman's
Review: Yes, William Goldman is one of the most renowned screenwriters around but no, these essays have not aged well. If you want to read about handicapping the oscar races from five and six years ago, buy this book. But if you want some real insight into Hollywood, start with any other of the non-fiction books Goldman has written over the years.
| 
