<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The Most Astute Celebrity Biographical Dictionary Around
Review: If you love good, pointed writing, writing that really goes to the heart of what we see on the big screen when we see certain film actors, this is your book. Really well-written, certainly opinionated (but justifiably, in all cases), thoughtful, insightful, amusing, witty. As you read each entry, you'll be saying to yourself, "That's EXACTLY how I feel about SoAndSo!," because the author expresses each film person's essence so aptly. The author has apparently known and/or met many of the entries, so is able to add personal experience with these people to his vast historical knowledge of their work. A wonderful work.
Rating:
Summary: The Most Astute Celebrity Biographical Dictionary Around
Review: If you love good, pointed writing, writing that really goes to the heart of what we see on the big screen when we see certain film actors, this is your book. Really well-written, certainly opinionated (but justifiably, in all cases), thoughtful, insightful, amusing, witty. As you read each entry, you'll be saying to yourself, "That's EXACTLY how I feel about SoAndSo!," because the author expresses each film person's essence so aptly. The author has apparently known and/or met many of the entries, so is able to add personal experience with these people to his vast historical knowledge of their work. A wonderful work.
Rating: 
Summary: Clarification
Review: Not your typical film encyclopedia. Instead of general-information blurbs, Thomson offers a critical assesment of the actors, directors, producers and other filmic figures he references. The best entries attempt to come to terms with their subject's meaning, his or her importance to the development of cinema as an international and a local/national artform -- and this describes virtually every entry in the book. Be aware, Thomson has very definite opinions and no fear of sharing them, but don't let that turn you off. Even if you disagree with his appraisals, his criticism is founded on sound reasoning, and presented in dense, articulate prose. The book does have its faults, of course; Thomson offers only a cursory treatment of contemporary cinema -- he has substantive comments for Tom Cruise and Speilberg, but other contemporary figures receive little more than a filmography. Still, this book should be useful to anyone interested in film history and criticism, or arts criticism in general.
Rating:
Summary: Clarification
Review: RE: Previous review stating "Thomson is also not bashful about leaving out important contributors to cinema to include seasonal celebrities that were mostly popular in the early nineties". This title was originally published in 1975, then reprinted in the U.S, as hardback in 1976 and paperback - 1979. One should hardly fault the author for not including personalities who would experience their fame 10-20 years into the future.
Rating:
Summary: The best book ever written on film
Review: The author seems to me the greatest writer on film (and just about anything else that interests him). What makes Thomson so good is the style in which he writes is so succinct that even if (like me) at first you disagree, given time you soon come round to his opinion. Why? Because you realise he is a master - hes tough, independant, superbly knowledgable and educates you on what is GOOD and what isnt, based on admirable opinions of art and expression. More than anything this book is a wonderful education.
Rating:
Summary: The best book ever written on film
Review: The author seems to me the greatest writer on film (and just about anything else that interests him). What makes Thomson so good is the style in which he writes is so succinct that even if (like me) at first you disagree, given time you soon come round to his opinion. Why? Because you realise he is a master - hes tough, independant, superbly knowledgable and educates you on what is GOOD and what isnt, based on admirable opinions of art and expression. More than anything this book is a wonderful education.
Rating:
Summary: An eccentric, beautifully written and fun book.
Review: This book is not encyclopedic; personal favs like Donald Pleasence and John Carradine are omitted despite hundreds of credits. Thomson apparently wrote about just those who interested him. He expresses himself beautifully. He has a real gift for finding just the right words to convey his ideas. As always with critics, one remembers the opinions that seem loopy because he differs with everyone else. The revered directors like Kubrick he hates. The veteran actors I like he dismisses. His weird essays on comedians in which he treats being funny as of secondary importance. But he is always entertaining, and I found his attacks on some of my favorite actors (George Raft, Anthony Quinn) hilarious. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Maddening and Essential
Review: Thomson's gifts seem to elude many... No, this is not the foundation for a film library; it's a wholly biased supplement...)Thomson is first and foremost the densest writer about film out there; his economy is unparalleled, and it often takes two or three readings just to figure out how much he's saying in a single sentence. Most people won't agree with Thomson often, but that's the point: He's provocative, contrary, and dogmatic, the latter characteristics redeemed by his incisiveness. The challenge is to read him openly, consider his analyses fully, and form an opinion only then. It's easy to fault Thomson for his selectivity, and the lapses between editions of his Biographical Dictionary of Film. But that's akin to criticizing your favorite author for not writing enough books. Thomson should be treasured for what he does offer; the world of film criticism would be a far poorer place without him.
Rating: 
Summary: IT DESERVES BEING OUT-OF-PRINT
Review: Why does this thing get all the great scores? Doesn't anyone else see that Thomson's "Dictionary" is mean spirited and condescending? Ok, maybe a couple of others. I guess you could use this snob's eye view of the movie industry for a laugh at the brilliant putdowns with no substance to go with them. For example, Thomson dismisses George Brent because he considers him overweight but spends a lot of time fawning over Johnny Carson. (Johnny Carson?) Like his book about Nevada, Thomson's book about movie people seems to be an exercise in showing everyone how culturally superior David Thomson is. So, Nevada is a "blank," and American filmmakers barely adequate, unless they're the artsy type? Well, behind the words, David Thomson is also a blank, barely worth notice. But he can still get published by the likes of Knopf. Shows how low Knopf has sunk.
<< 1 >>
|
