Rating: 
Summary: A misleading title for a critique book.
Review: This book was given to me for Christmas. I was ecstatic because I heard about David Thomson's "Dictionary" of film and being an aspiring filmmaker, it seemed like a book that belonged in my library. I was warned about this book beforehand because I intended to buy it, but I didn't really listen to my colleagues because I thought it would be a wonderful addition to my film book collection for reference.After a reading a whole lot, I started to realize that the title of this book is misleading. This is a person's opinion of people in film rather than a comprehesive biographical "dictionary." I was looking for the book equivalent of "The Internet Movie Database" and I thought it would be this. It's incomplete and uneven. It's not his opinions or his criticism that bother me, after all, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, right? It's the way this book is presented as a definitive must-own dictionary. Maybe I'm wrong but a dictionary should be more for reference and shouldn't be subjective. I know I'm going to get heat for this but this is my critique. The problem lies with how Thomson approached this book stating "I think I have learned that I love books more than films." Well, that's a troubling statement. Why write about film and the people in them if you learned you weren't a huge admirer in the first place? That's like a filmmaker making a film about a subject matter he's not even interested in which we all know, will turn out to be a mediocre film at best. There are far greater books and collections from film scholars his age who still have a passion for film. But if you're like Thomson and value opinions over facts, then this book is a great addition to your library. I recommend Halliwell's "Who's Who In Movies" for a far more comprehensive reference book. Thomson's is more of a critique. Thomson's book, in my opinion is a disparate, and more importantly uneven collection. Instead it has too much of the "cause-I-said-so" opinions. Too much, in fact that it shouldn't be called a dictionary at all but rather; "David Thomson: My Critique of People in Show Business." See, it's not his criticism, his biases or his opinions. He writes really well and we're all bound to run into an opinion we all agree with and disagree with. It's the way this book is being regarded. I felt very short-changed with a book that's titled to be a "dictionary" when it reality, it's not.
Rating: 
Summary: The New Biographical Dictionary Of Film by David Thomson
Review: This superb book is an absolute delight to read. I found myself going from subject to subject enthralled. Perhaps I am more easily pleased than some but for me the following passage about Clint Eastwood was alone worth the price of the book: "... For he has become an authentically heroic image, a man cast in Gary Cooper's rock. even if his eyes are still rather more self-satisfied than Cooper's...". I Found the author's opinions very interesting even fascinating. One may not agree with everything
but I found this dlightful book very helpful and full of new insights. This book along with Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video guide was all I needed to get a good grasp of the medium.
Rating: 
Summary: Very influential and enjoyable
Review: Thomson's tome was first published back in 1975 and it's fluent and informed assessments of hundreds of film careers put Thomson into the front rank of film writers along with people like Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris and Stanley Kauffmann. Like Kael, he was unafraid of critically examining the work of accepted "masters" such as John Ford, David Lean or Stanley Kubrick and his entries on these directors are three of the most interesting in the book. The directors he is most enthusiastic about such as Howard Hawks or Max Ophul's fully deserve the praise they get and hopefully will bring more people to the work who might not have been as familiar with otherwise. The book is superbly written and often very funny and the only reason I hesitate to give it a five star review is that I disagree strongly with some of Thomson's assessments.
His entry on Fellini (as an earlier reviewer noted) being the most notably unfortunate example. While he puzzlingly raves about such poor works as American Gigolo, Cat People(1982), Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive he proceeds to trash each and every Fellini film. He first cites I Vitelloni, La Strada, Il Bidone and (most unfairly) Nights of Cabiria and writes "This quartet needs to be put firmly in its place. They are slick, mechanical stories..." He then goes on to thrash La Dolce Vita and 8 1/2 and doesn't even bother addressing Fellini Satyricon, one of the most compelling excursions into 60's surrealism. La Dolce Vita is "dated" when of course every film eventually becomes dated, the question is whether the sensibilities and style dates gracefully and in the case of Fellini I believe it does. I simply cannot accept the view that American Gigolo or Blue Velvet are finer works of cinema than Nights of Cabiria or La Dolce Vita. It seems to me that Thomson harbors some big grudge against Fellini that completely obscures his assessment of his work. My few reservations are far surpassed by the many wonderful, accurate career biographies however. You'll see Thomson's writing quoted often in film books (and from Roger Ebert) simply because he is a superb, fluid, very observant viewer who's able to sum up films and careers with minimalistic prose.
Rating:
Summary: A great argument starter, if nothing else
Review: Yes: this book is going to tick off a lot of people. Thomson's style and criticism are an acquired taste. I bristle and shake my fist at a number of his opinions. I don't think Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson and Jim Carrey and Nicole Kidman are great actors; Thomson does. Thomson has contempt for many of the directors and actors I respect and love. He thinks Humphrey Bogart is "a limited actor, not quite honest enough with himself." He calls Orson Welles a "charlatan." He calls the incomparable Hitchcock "an impoverished inventor of thunbscrews who shows us the human capacity for inflicting pain, but no more." He idolizes lesser-known directors like Yasujiro Ozu and sniffs condescendingly at celebrated figures like Akira Kurosawa. Yet, Thomson makes no pretense that he's writing for everybody. Nor did Pauline Kael, for example, make such pretense. As Thomson himself writes, "Indeed, the stance taken here as your needling, provocative, argumentative companion at the movies takes it for granted that in the reading you will begin to compose your own response." That says it all. Some people read film critics because no matter how much you disagree with them, they have something worthwhile, witty, thought-provoking, or just plain infuriating to say. Why else read film criticism at all? This book is a nearly thousand-page rollicking journey through some of the major figures of film, and it belongs on every film lover's shelf. I pick it up and refer to it often, and want to throw it across the room almost as often.
| 
