Rating: 
Summary: Valiant is the Word for Curly
Review: A msjor big budget studio pick of the mid-30s was called "Valiant is the Word for Carrie." Of course, those fantastic guys who wrote the titles for the Stooge pictures hijacked the name and gave it to one of the best shorts the Stooges mdae: "Violent is the Word for Curly." The short wasn't that violent, actually, and had a coherent plot and structure. The thing was, however, Funny, with a capital "F!" A lot of comics today make fun of the Stooges in an ironic way by saying "Oh, and you can enjoy the comedy on so many levels." Of course their point is that there AREN'T any levels upon which to place the one you see on screen. I beg to differ.To me, the Stooges are funny because they have immaculate timing, they are spontaneous (the things were shot almost always in one take -- they HAD to bget it right!), and they are masters of slapstick. But, even more (and here's where those levels come in to play), what's funny is that three guys would act that way! And that the people with whom (or under whom, in the case of work) simply accept their behaviour! And, on yet another level, they woudld occasionally spoof themselves, several times by alluding to the ridiculousness of the gags they were performing, other times more blatantly ("Such levity! You men remind me of the Three Stooges!" "Hey, Hey -- that's an insult! "). And then there's the ridiculous ways they try to extricate themselves from simple situations, like usuing tire irons and extra large mallets to remove a sweater that Curly can't remove because he "might've put on a few pounds" since he first donned the thing. Fleming has written a pretty good book about the Stooges. He tells of their early days, their period with Ted Healy, when they were probably the highest-paid act in vaudeville, he talks of inter-Stooge problems, and he examines their widespread popularity. He doesn't really try to ask why the Stooges appealed to so many, both in the days that the pictures were new, and today, on television, and all the times in between. I think that's a big minus for the book. He also makes a lot of mistakes in names, dates -- you know, factual material. This I found disappointing. He did get some big (and medium) sized names to contribute to the last chapter, and their insights are interesting. But it still would've been nice to know more about the films themselves, things like what iot was like working with Jules White at Columbia, and h0ow the STooges felt as budgets forced them to make more and more modest-looking films. But all in all, I'd recommend the book, because there's just not too much out there giving you and insiders view of this wonderful comedy team. Maybe, someday, someone will undertake an analysis of the Stooge films (much like the one that's been done on Laurel and Hardy). There's a lot more there than people think. Get this book. It's well written, and it tells an interesting story. If you like Hollywood bios, you can't go wrong.
Rating:
Summary: Valiant is the Word for Curly
Review: A msjor big budget studio pick of the mid-30s was called "Valiant is the Word for Carrie." Of course, those fantastic guys who wrote the titles for the Stooge pictures hijacked the name and gave it to one of the best shorts the Stooges mdae: "Violent is the Word for Curly." The short wasn't that violent, actually, and had a coherent plot and structure. The thing was, however, Funny, with a capital "F!" A lot of comics today make fun of the Stooges in an ironic way by saying "Oh, and you can enjoy the comedy on so many levels." Of course their point is that there AREN'T any levels upon which to place the one you see on screen. I beg to differ. To me, the Stooges are funny because they have immaculate timing, they are spontaneous (the things were shot almost always in one take -- they HAD to bget it right!), and they are masters of slapstick. But, even more (and here's where those levels come in to play), what's funny is that three guys would act that way! And that the people with whom (or under whom, in the case of work) simply accept their behaviour! And, on yet another level, they woudld occasionally spoof themselves, several times by alluding to the ridiculousness of the gags they were performing, other times more blatantly ("Such levity! You men remind me of the Three Stooges!" "Hey, Hey -- that's an insult! "). And then there's the ridiculous ways they try to extricate themselves from simple situations, like usuing tire irons and extra large mallets to remove a sweater that Curly can't remove because he "might've put on a few pounds" since he first donned the thing. Fleming has written a pretty good book about the Stooges. He tells of their early days, their period with Ted Healy, when they were probably the highest-paid act in vaudeville, he talks of inter-Stooge problems, and he examines their widespread popularity. He doesn't really try to ask why the Stooges appealed to so many, both in the days that the pictures were new, and today, on television, and all the times in between. I think that's a big minus for the book. He also makes a lot of mistakes in names, dates -- you know, factual material. This I found disappointing. He did get some big (and medium) sized names to contribute to the last chapter, and their insights are interesting. But it still would've been nice to know more about the films themselves, things like what iot was like working with Jules White at Columbia, and h0ow the STooges felt as budgets forced them to make more and more modest-looking films. But all in all, I'd recommend the book, because there's just not too much out there giving you and insiders view of this wonderful comedy team. Maybe, someday, someone will undertake an analysis of the Stooge films (much like the one that's been done on Laurel and Hardy). There's a lot more there than people think. Get this book. It's well written, and it tells an interesting story. If you like Hollywood bios, you can't go wrong.
Rating: 
Summary: Middling
Review: A nicely packaged book. If you're new to Stooge fandom, then this is a good book for you. But, if you're a longtime fan who wants to read and learn... MOE HOWARD AND THE THREE STOOGES (by Moe Howard himself) *
THE THREE STOOGES SCRAPBOOK (co-authored by Moe's daughter) *
CURLY (again, co-authored by Moe's daughter) *
THE COMPLETE THREE STOOGES (by Dr. Jon Solomon)... Those are the books you should buy! If you decide otherwise, this book is a nice simple read, with nothing new to offer. There are better ways to learn about the Three Stooges.
Rating: 
Summary: The Comprehensive History of the Stooges
Review: A thoughtful and thoroughly researched work, Fleming has taken on the difficult task of detailing the history of the Stooges in a serious manner, no simple feat considering the public perception of these performers. His considered development of their individual, as well as group evolvement, in addition to the detailed episode guide, makes this the definitive Stooges treatment. A first rate book.
Rating:
Summary: Not much here
Review: Fleming's illustrated history isn't much more than a glorified magazine article. There's a factoid here and a factoid there: Moe was a Shakespearean actor on the Mississippi river boats. Larry could've been a concert violinist. Curly had four wives. Shemp was a hypochondriac. The Stooges' father, Solomon, had a bit part in one of their shorts.
The truly interesting stuff--Ted Healy's murder, Curly's stroke, Shemp's sudden death--is given short shrift. The Stooges were in their thirties when they began to make the shorts. I would have liked to know more about their vaudeville careers. Moe's daughter is still alive. I don't think Fleming made full use of her as a source.
Fleming spends a chapter trying to explain why men and boys love the Stooges; whereas, women seem to hate them. Guys like violence. Slapping people is funny. "The Stooges were a beacon of hope to the average underachieving male who could watch a trio of homely midgets with comical haircuts romance stunningly beautiful platinum blondes a foot taller than they, even though they were either unemployed or absolutely incompetent in menial jobs."
Mel Gibson wrote the foreward for the book and Mel Brooks tries to explain Stooge appeal, as does Danny Jacobson, co-creator of MAD ABOUT YOU. The text is complete by page 138. Part three is a capsulization of the 190 shorts the Stooges made. They don't make a whole lot of sense; I don't know if that's Felming's fault or the cobbled together plot lines. All I know is they were really hard to read.
As the title indicates, this is an illustrated history; unfortunately, the illustrations are mainly professional. There is one nice one of the Horwitz brothers' parents, Jennie and Solomon (She looks like Curly, he resembles Moe), but not much else.
Rating:
Summary: I see nothing wrong with it
Review: I can't compare this book with others written about the Stooges, because it's the only Stooge book I've ever read. I'm a fan, but not a huge fan. Possibly the book is inaccurate, like some reviewers say, but I thought it was a great book. I don't read a heck of a lot, and I easily fall asleep while reading just about anything. This book kept me awake and interested. I would actually read more than one chapter at a time, and that's the highest rating I can give a book. It's a behind-the-scenes type story, but it is a good story. I really felt sorry for the Stooges. They were missed treated. I'm not interested in reading the filmology at the end of the book that describes every short film they did, but some may find it entertaining and/or helpful. It's just a good book to read and I would recommend it, plain and simple.
Rating:
Summary: Very good of kind
Review: I recall reading in my youth Parent magazine movie reviews in which one of the ratings was "Good of kind"; by which I understood that a film could be (say) of the horror genre and not quite up to a Greer Garson or Bette Davis glitzy soaper, but could still be a very good horror film. Now the Three Stooges were certainly "good of kind." They never could have done Oscar Wilde (or perhaps they could have?)or even rise to the level of Laurel and Hardy (again, perhaps...). But what they did, they did for the most part well. The original theater company that did "Lysistrata" would have welcomed them, as would some medieval troupes that toured the provences with less than high-tone routines. Mr. Fleming's book was given to me as a Christmas gift from my daughter on New Year's Eve, just in time for me to start taping AMC's Three Stooges marathon. Since a good percent of this book is a series of resumes of each Stooge short from the very first "Woman Haters" to the 190th "Sappy Bullfighters," this gift could not have been more opportune. (Would you believe that each episode has appended to it a count of how many slaps, head conks, and pie throwing took place in each film?) This section provides me with a wonderful checklist to see which ones I am still missing. But even before that, we have the wonderful account of how these three/four got to be the mainstay of the Columbia lot and how they kept that position without ever knowing about it, since their bosses kept their value a secret from them. The saddest part is certainly the section about Curley's growing deterioration leading up to his collapse in the film #97 and Shemp's replacing him in film #98. The only error I can find (other than a disputed number of pies thrown in an episode here and there) is misnaming "Mutts to You" as "Nuts to You." So if this topic is for you, this book certainly is. As much fun to read as to use as a reference tool for all Stoogephiles.
Rating:
Summary: Very good of kind
Review: I recall reading in my youth Parent magazine movie reviews in which one of the ratings was "Good of kind"; by which I understood that a film could be (say) of the horror genre and not quite up to a Greer Garson or Bette Davis glitzy soaper, but could still be a very good horror film. Now the Three Stooges were certainly "good of kind." They never could have done Oscar Wilde (or perhaps they could have?)or even rise to the level of Laurel and Hardy (again, perhaps...). But what they did, they did for the most part well. The original theater company that did "Lysistrata" would have welcomed them, as would some medieval troupes that toured the provences with less than high-tone routines. Mr. Fleming's book was given to me as a Christmas gift from my daughter on New Year's Eve, just in time for me to start taping AMC's Three Stooges marathon. Since a good percent of this book is a series of resumes of each Stooge short from the very first "Woman Haters" to the 190th "Sappy Bullfighters," this gift could not have been more opportune. (Would you believe that each episode has appended to it a count of how many slaps, head conks, and pie throwing took place in each film?) This section provides me with a wonderful checklist to see which ones I am still missing. But even before that, we have the wonderful account of how these three/four got to be the mainstay of the Columbia lot and how they kept that position without ever knowing about it, since their bosses kept their value a secret from them. The saddest part is certainly the section about Curley's growing deterioration leading up to his collapse in the film #97 and Shemp's replacing him in film #98. The only error I can find (other than a disputed number of pies thrown in an episode here and there) is misnaming "Mutts to You" as "Nuts to You." So if this topic is for you, this book certainly is. As much fun to read as to use as a reference tool for all Stoogephiles.
Rating: 
Summary: Badly written, full of mistakes, devoid of depth
Review: Just because a person decides to write a book on the Three Stooges does not mean he understands the Three Stooges - or even has a feel for the subject. This book is riddled with factual errors and reeks of a person who couldn't hold his own in a casual discussion with Stooge fans. Nearly all of the (correct) information in the book is available plenty of places elsewhere, and by authors who truly know the subject.
Rating:
Summary: Tempted to give it three stars, but no.
Review: Michael Fleming admits that this is his first book, and even though this book is quite an endeavor, it has its short comings, mainly in the organization of the material. Most of the material that was gathered for the book came from court documents and testimonies from the stooges that pertained to their dealings with the motion picture industry. Well, this is nice since we get a close look at their relationships and finances, but the writing becomes repetitious as the "testimonies" are repeated over and over. I became quite bored reading about their salaries. Once is enough; I thirsted for more. What is missing is more personal detail about behind the scenes, things that most stooge fans more or less ponder. For example, who chose the opening music? Why? Details such as this would have been a bit more absorbing. For the synopsis of the episodes, I was hoping for more trivial behind the scenes happenings. There are some, but they are few and far between. Why four stars and not three? Since I live in Europe and the closest Blockbuster is an 11 hour plane flight away, it was a joy to read each synopsis of the shorts. I've seen all of the stooge shorts over and over and over again as a kid, and reading these they played out in my mind; Larry's matter-of-fact drone, the Moe snarl, the whoop whoop whoops. If you buy this book, you'll probably end up looking for more.
| 
