Rating: 
Summary: A story well written, albeit somewhat disappointing
Review: Like the other reviews, the story starts out well and like the other reviewers, I believe it is well written throughout. It's too brief, however, to have justified the actions of the two protagonists. I felt disappointed at the end. Why, I asked myself? And to receive a prize? Now, that's a premise for an interesting story. Anyway, "Amsterdam" is worth the read because it is so short and it gives you a clue into 21st Century solipsistic behavior.
Rating: 
Summary: Why an award?
Review: I don't understand why this book won an award. In an effort to find "good" reading material I have turned to award winning titles. In this case I was disappointed. The book lacked depth and character development. The plot, if I may so generously call it, was weak. Good thing it was a short novel or I probably would not have made it to the end.
Rating: 
Summary: Exceptional attention to detail
Review: Once again Ian McEwan has written a piece that is beautifully crafted with an exceptional attention to detail. While other reviewers have commented on the disappointing conclusion, it is the way that McEwan writes about people rather than plot that makes his novels so wonderful. His understanding of so many different occupations and pastimes made the book so much more pleasurable than the usual plot driven drivel. To all those people who had difficulty with the ending, remember that people rarely act rationally.
Rating:
Summary: Overall, a disappointment
Review: In an effort to broaden my literary horizons and to convince myself that I have a little more depth than the typical "beach read", I purchased this book. I was engrossed at the beginning and the prose was delightful, but what a let down at the end. Worthwhile overall due to short length, prize-worthy questionable.
Rating:
Summary: quick read
Review: I was really enjoying the book up to the ending. I was thoroughly disappointed.
Rating: 
Summary: A Book Worth Reading
Review: I love this book, for its crisp and wickedly funny but frank exploration of moral duties, frienship and politices(literally, as well as office politics). I was especially tickled by the part where no one from Vernon's office dare claim personal responsibility after their scoop backfires into their face and start to find nitty-gritty reasons and excuses to protect their own skins. Also worth the read for its unexpected twists and explosive finish. This is definitely an interesting read. but the grand finale leaves me wondering: how could Clive's and Vernon's friendship have survived thru the years in the first place, as the ending seems to indicate that both are pretty intolerant of each other. Nevertherless, do not bypass this book just because it does not have too many pages. This book is definitely an example which tells us that a good story need not be a long one.
Rating: 
Summary: Amsterdam sunk
Review: Having thoroughly enjoyed the God of Small Things (Booker Prize winner 1997), I bought Amsterdam (Booker Prize winner 1998) thinking that I will get the same value for money. Boy was I wrong!! The novel reads like a 'the turning tide of public opinion' and even the 'preoccupation with becoming senile' are all terribly familiar subjects that are not presented with any new insight by McEwan to justify their parade before the reader. Contrast this book for example with Tom Wolf's bonfire of the vanities (which also relies heavily on journalism) and you will see just how flawed 'Amsterdam' is. Also contrast it with the God of Small Things, which although was about the lives of Indian peasants (amongst other things) yet felt more plugged into the world than McEwin's book about the lives of the over-privileged in Britain. Is this a reflection of Britain's diminished status in the world? Or have the English elite become so drained of humanity, they fail to engage the rest of us? Or has McEwin simply lost the plot?Draw your own conclusions.
Rating:
Summary: Worthy of the Booker? Definitely not.
Review: Ian McEwan is undoubtedly an excellent writer. His sentences are beautifully crafted and the pace of this story never falters. But my overwhelming feeling at the end was, "So what? Why should I care about these people"? And why, frankly, did Mr McEwan feel this was a story that needed to be told? Maybe I'm missing something profound, but to me, Amsterdam is nothing more than a well crafted story about a lot of pretentious, vapid, self absorbed losers. Worthy of the Booker? Definitely not.
Rating:
Summary: Not great, but not a total waste of time and energy
Review: I'll admit that I bought this book because it had won the Booker. For that reason, I found it somewhat disappointing. However, as a un-lauded work of political fiction, it really isn't that bad. Admittedly, the plot is, prehaps, predictable in parts, but it has enough twists to keep the reader interested. And while the characters are, at times, quite soulless, it has to be remembered that this is a book about horrible, shallow men, and McEwan's bland character outlines suit that purpose. I am also somewhat glad that the author did not fall into the typically Booker-winning tactic of damning conservatives and 'right-wingers' as evil while glorifying the left. Instead, McEwan dishing out the malice on both sides, and consequently most of the characters in this book are pretty dispicable. Which is as it should be when one if writing a somewhat satirical novel about journalists and politicans... Altogether, not a great book, but not terrible, and a pretty good read given that it'll take the average reader only a couple of hours to finish.
Rating:
Summary: one star is generous
Review: How to make a laughing stock of literary awards? What possessed the Booker committee to award this unoriginal, lightweight collection of unthoughtful rambling their top honour?? Mr McEwan may well have a better body of work to his credit, but I bought this book since "Winner of the Booker prize" usually affords me unabridged reading pleasure. Instead I feel cheated - you get a predictable and downright dull regurgitation of the old Tory-baiting, kneejerk-reactionary 1980's backlash. Set in the mind of a conceited composer and populist broadsheet editor we are not even afforded the luxury of character depth to paint over the lack of a biting storyline. And the prose is tired, jaded and doesn't know where to jump and bore the reader next. Oh yeah - the ending is so predictable. Perhaps I'll have to be more selective in judging Booker prize winners in the future, but I'll allow anyone one such glaring error.
| 
