Movies Books

I enjoyed the book start to finish and the mystery bit at the end was a nice edition to an already funny parody of the typical travel memoir. I think my favorite character in the book was the prince. The accidental confrontation between him and Haverford made me laugh.

this book is fantastic. the masterpiece theatre production was awesome too. i would like to buy a copy of the video if anyone has one. this is definitely worth reading - and watching too!

The book is set in Tuscauny, where an English family is renting a home. Odd things happen, water disappears, and then someone dies. The mother, Molly Partiger, becomes obsesses with getting to the heart of these mysteries, and with meeting her mysterious landlord. It is a particular pleasure to see Mortimer's love of Shakespeare come through in Molly's Falstaff of a father, and the Hamlet-like play-within-a-play which gives Molly the final clue to the murder. Interwoven with the plot is an homage to Piero della Francesca (although it has been written that Mortimer gets everything wrong about Piero's Flagellation). The book ends with typical Mortimer poigniancy. Summer's Lease is light in the way that a Tom Stoppard play is light -- an intelligent guilty pleasure.

This is a quaint and entertaining novel. The characters are interesting and carry the story well. The plot is simple, but not boring and certainly not bad. The introspective thoughts and actions of Molly the forty year old protaganist who looks for love in all the wrong places, Hugh her "successful" attorney husband and Havorford Downs, Molly's rogue father are most captivating.

It's a lighthearted mystery in which the writer allows the reader to participate at any depth the latter prefers.

Descriptions of Tuscany are well done to the point that this reader could almost see lines of slim cypress lining a dirt road and smell the pungent aroma of a bottle of black rooster labeled Chianti. There were times while reading that I couldn't help but laugh out loud. There are some really funny moments in the tale.

Brits who read the novel will, I feel certain, fall right in line with the story. We Yanks, on the other hand, need a little time to acclimate ourselves to British verbal nuances. Surprisingly, though, it didn't hinder the reading enjoyment even a little bit.

This novel is one for a summer's day, with a glass of tea (forgive me, but iced tea) in hand. While the book will not be ranked with the geat ones of western civilization, it is fun. Truly a delightful experience.

I read this book because I saw the Masterpiece Theatre production on TV in the early nineties and fell in love with the characters and the story. This is the type of detective mystery novel where one can truly relate to the detective as she is an average person with a highly developed sense of curiosity. While I shared Molly's intense curiosity about her absent landlord and her outrage at the so called "water racket", I would not have gone as far as she did to satisfy that curiosity. Molly is rather reckless (if not stupid) towards the end and doesn't realize the consequences of her actions until too late - and even then chalks it up to coincidence. All in all the book is a quick and delightful read that will have you longing to travel to those Tuscan hills. I wish Masterpiece Theatre would rerun the film or make it available on video. You've got to see the film. The cast was so well chosen and the locations are beautiful, especially the terrace on La Felicita.

this was the best. it really tells you what its like to be in bording school. marykate and ashley have a dance and they have to ask the boys. they ask there boy cousin if he knows any good boys and he tricks them and marykate gets a dork and ashley gets the popular girl's boyfriend and if you want to know more read it!

That is like my favorite book. I read it over and over again. Even though I am only 8 I hope some day I own it. I also hope you like it too!!!

This one is a great. you realy should buy this book. It's a book were they go to boarding school.

This book is great. I collect Mary-Kate and Ashley books and I have 15 of their Two of a Kind and I think I liked this one the best! It is a great book. Even though i'm 13 years old, I love reading and they are awesome books! If you have never read their books before, I recommend you do so now!!

I have read almost all their books and this one was really great! I loved how it was in the form of their diaries while they're away at White Oaks Boarding School for Girls.

This is a 100% recommended novel! Especially if the movie is not available in your area, this is to die for!

I devoured this in under two hours! Not only do you get a wonderful read, and stunning photographs...you get a terrific interview with Mr. Haynes. Real insight into the world of glam! If you loved this film half as much as I did, you must have this. It is fantastic!

I read the screenplay in one sitting, it's just as engrossing as the movie! What I really loved was seeing some of the parts that were edited in the movie version and seeing some of the written words. The screenplay also helped to answer some questions and made things more clear; everytime I watch the movie or read the screenplay I see something new - it's amazing. The screenplay also includes quite a few black and white stills as well as a few color stills.

The interview with Todd that is included in this book provides tremendous insight into the creative process that took place when he was writing this film. I loved the movie before I read this......now I'm awestruck.

The screenplay leaves you almost more empty and desperate than the movie.

I love it.

This screenplay illuminates many details in the movie that are sometimes missed by the bright glittering images. It is busy, no doubt. In reading the screenplay, it is much easier to slow down and read through pieces overlooked in the movie, no matter how many times you watch it. Somehow reading it, not just hearing it, will completely shatter your heart. This was definitely done beautifully. Vision can be distracting when played against such poetry. Watch The Velvet Goldmine, read this screenplay, and watch the movie again. You will be completely sucked in, and transformed for that period of time. The movie was fun; the screenplay will break your heart.

I highly, definitely, suggest this piece of art to you.

This is a great reference movie/DVD book for all those far out films of the Psychedelic Era. From GET SMART to AUSTIN POWERS. A little flare for the 50's and 60's, CASINO ROYALE, Peter Sellers, VALLEY OF THE DOLLS and BEYOND...If you collect films from the likes of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S or IN LIKE FLINT, you'll need this reference book to see what you're missing.

Fantastic! Haven't been able to put it down.

I keep this book near. Its a great read front to back, or to just randomly flip through. Lots of insight into the wonderfully weird world of film. A must for all cinephiles.

I was attracted to this book after recognizing the author from his movie reviews on the radio. It is the perfect beach companion. I was amazed at the movies Mr. Slifkin included, many obvious selections with new insight. Others were obsure titles that I had all but forgotten seeing. Perhaps best are the movies that I have never seen, but feel compelled to do so after reading this book. Any fan of this era will love this book. In addition it introduces the unique charm of these groovy pics to a whole new audience who weren't even around the first time they hit the screen.

This book is so Groovy! If you lived through the Psychedelic era or would have loved to, this is THE GUIDE to those movies that were the center of it all. From Bond to Shaft to 2001, from Fearless Vamipre Killers to Top Secret it has it all. This book not only has those movies from the 60's and 70's but those that spoofed that Far-out time. 5 Stars

As a person who has a relative dealing with Alzheimer's, I
think this is a great book. The movie was great also.
We all need our family and friends to help us during hard
times but we need God the most.

A Vow to Cherish touched me deeply--for many reasons. To me, this story is about having no regrets and allowing God to work things out in our lives with His perfect timing. I remember seeing the movie when it first came out and holding my breath as I watched John fall in love with Julia. I recall the same conflicting feelings when I read this book. Part of me wanted John to be happy with Julia. I truly felt for the guy. Part of me also cared deeply about his commitment to his wife.

The author did a fabulous job taking a difficult situation and covering it with flesh. The emotion and the loneliness were real as was the temptation both John and Julia experienced. Many people would justify John and Julia's relationship outside of marriage--especially for John. I hurt for the man. My mother was bedridden with MS for twenty years and my father cared for her until the very end. He cherished her and remained faithful when so many men in the same situations dumped their spouses when they could no longer perform their wifely duties.

John Brighton honored his vow to cherish his wife until they parted at her death. I'm convinced it made all the difference for his enduring happiness. John could then marry Julia free from guilt and knowing he gave his wife his undivided love and attention to the very end--once he overcame the temptation to vault his flesh into a forbidden zone that he would end up regretting later.

I've never read a book that more vividly portrays the deep pain of loneliness and all of the issues that go with it. My heart swelled and my throat tightened more than once through this beautiful story. I loved it!

Not often does an author have the chance to go back and rewrite her first book, but Deborah Raney had that opportunity. I read the original edition, saw the movie inspired by her book, and now I've read the new one. She has updated numerous things and added more depth, making an already good novel hauntingly beautiful.

John Brighton's wife has Alzheimer's, a cruel disease that afflicts entire families. I know. My mother died of Alzheimer's. I found Raney's book to be healing for me. With deep understanding and compassion, she exposes layer after layer of emotion a husband feels when his wife leaves him a bit at a time.

More cruel than sudden death or divorce, Alzheimer's robs the patient of their dignity as it robs the family of their loved one. After my mother died, daddy said he felt as if a weight had been lifted from his shoulders. That hurt and I couldn't understand how he could say it. Until I read A Vow to Cherish. As Raney reveals John's deep love for his wife, she also discloses how the disease wore him down. No one suffers Alzheimer's alone.

Beautifully written and filled with credible characters, Raney once again demonstrates why she's an award winning author. A Vow to Cherish stands on my all-time-favorites book shelf.

John and Ellen Brighton attend the high school graduation of their youngest child. The nest would soon be empty and they were looking forward to having time for each other. They plan to travel and just enjoy themselves. Then something started to go horribly wrong. Ellen began having periods of confusiion, saying things that didn't make sense. She gets lost and can't find her way home. A doctor gives them the shattering news. Ellen is in the early stages of Alzheimers. Nothing can be done to help her and the situation will gradually get worse.

In Chicago, Julia Sinclair has lost her husband and after years of sending her sons to St. Mark's private school, which she can no longer afford, she is desperate to get out of Chicago. She applies for a job at the Parkside Manor, a nursing home in the same town where John and Ellen live. When Ellen moves to the Manor, Julia meets John and they are attracted to each other. She can provide the companionship he misses so much. Someone to talk to, someone who understands. But John still loves Ellen, and he made a vow to cherish her in sickness and health on their wedding day. How can he go back on that vow just because she no longer knows him? A Vow to Cherish is a touching story of love and commitment and is an honest portrayal of the destroying disease of Alzheimers. The characters are so real you'll feel you know them. This book will touch your heart

Loved the first one, but with Raney's matured writing the edited reissue is even more poignant and relevant.

There's quite a debate going on in these reviews, so let me return to the main point of these reviews and state that this is an excellent story and well worth reading. As others have pointed out, in adapting the book to a movie, Barbra STreisand made substantive changes in the story, changes that Singer himself did not approve of. It's definitely worth going back to the original text and reading the story as written.

The story is not only a moving tale of the bind a Jewish woman of late 19th or early 20th century Poland puts herself into in order to fulfill her need to study and learn, but a rich portrayal of both the joys and strictures of that society that is now gone (as are so many of Singer's stories). It helps to know something of Judaism to understand many of the references in the story but it is not critical to the reader's empathy with Yentl/Anshel's position.

And yes, the character as portrayed in the book is undoubtedly portrayed as what we would now call transgendered. It is not simply that Yentl wants to study Torah, because if that were the case she could marry Avigdor and continue to study with him; Avigdor offers her this option. She herself says she is not one or the other. I also love Singer's implied explanation for transgender identity as being that of a soul of one sex incarnated in the body of the other. It makes a deep kind of sense to me in both a spiritual and experiential way, and adds another dimension to this story.

This book is very short, really a novella, and is illustrated with interesting woodcuts that portray both moments from the story, and various Jewish ritual objects like spice boxes and the pointers used to read Torah scrolls. Do seek this book and other works of Singer's out, you won't regret it!

I first read this story way back when it first came out -- long before Streisand turned it into a third-wave feminist polemic. (Which, by the way, upset the author, I.B. Singer, so much that he tries to stop production. Unfortunately, he did not have artistic control over the film rights to his story, and so this travesty of his work was produced and lives on in infamy.) Upon re-reading it, I still think it is about a transgender person, not a feminist.

The reviewer here who said that another reviewer "should be shot" (such violent intolerance!) for claiming that Yentl was transgender by making a reference to "even heaven makes mistakes" obviously did not read the book -- because that's word-for-word what Yentl's father tells her on page 8. The story also clearly states that Yentl has "the soul of a man." (page 8 also). So, I suggest ignoring those PC polemicists who are talking about the movie only, which is VERY DIFFERENT from the book, and has ITS OWN PAGE for reviews! (If you haven't read the book, why are you reviewing here in the first place?)

Singer was writing in the 1960s. He wrote respectfully of Jewish culture in this story. He did not mock it the way Streisand later did in her movie. The book has no barkers shouting "Story books for women, holy books for men," and as far as I know, nobody even did that in real life. The line is anti-Hasidic propaganda, as is much of the movie. Streisand's film is a comedy. Singer's story is serious drama.

In the book, When Yentl says, "I wasn't created for plucking feathers and chattering with females," (page 47) is she really speaking like a radical 20th-century feminist about social roles -- or is she speaking literally, on a mystical spiritual level? If she were merely objecting to "plucking feathers" (woman's work) why does she also object to "chattering with females" -- and why use the word "females," as if to stress this is about GENDER? I think she means that she was not created to be a woman, period, regardless of roles. She certainly does not object when her father tells her that she has a man's soul and that "even heaven makes mistakes."

She reaffirms this transgender identity on page 49, where Avigdor asks her, "Tell me the truth, are you a heretic?" Yentl answers, "God forbid!" Clearly, she believes in Orthodox Judaism and respects it, IN SPITE OF her personal dilemma. As their discussion continues: "... All Anshel's [Yentl's] explanations seemed to point to one thing: she had the soul of a man in a woman's body." How much plainer can you get?

But today, in the 2000s, being a female-to-male transgender person is no longer politically correct in the feminist movement. Since the days when Singer wrote this story, the radical feminists have trashed and reviled female-to-male (FTM) transgender people for being "politically incorrect" to the point that they (the feminists) simply cannot stomach the idea that THIS IS WHAT SINGER WAS WRITING ABOUT!!!!!

Yentl doesn't act like a feminist in the book. She doesn't go out campaigning for women's rights. On the other hand, she does enjoy cross-dressing: "On Sabbath afternoons, when her father slept, she would dress up in his trousers, his fringed garment, his silk coat, his skullcap, his velvet hat, and study her reflection in the mirror." (page 8) She also secretly smoked her father's pipe. These are not feminist behaviors, they are transvestite / transgender behaviors.

Yes, there were restrictions against women in the 1850s (which, by the way, is the time frame for this story. Keep in mind that gentile universities didn't accept women back then, either.) But that is NOT the reason that Yentl crosses over to live as a man. If she were merely a disgruntled woman wanting "male privilege," why did she choose to live as a man even after divorcing Hadass? In the Streisand movie she goes back to dressing as a woman and takes a ship to America where, presumably, she will be "free." But that scene IS NOT IN THE BOOK! In the book, she lives out her life as the man, Anshel. Exactly as an FTM transgender person would do.

Regarding the debate here about whether Yentl was a feminist or a transsexual, I weigh in on the transgender side -- for all the reasons other reviewers have already listed here, and which I have also discussed on my Hasidism FAQ website. So I won't reinvent the wheel in this review. I agree that the movie was definitely a feminist statement, but the book, well, that's another story altogether.

We should remember that before the movie, there was the stage play. It followed the book pretty closely, (which the movie did not!) and was very popular in lesbian and avant garde theaters. When I saw the play performed in the 1970s, Yentl was played as the Jewish version of a "butch" lesbian. (In terms of social roles, not machismo. The ideal Jewish male in the timeframe of this story was a scholar, not a redneck.) In the play, like in the book, Yentl remains living as the man Anshel in Eastern Europe. In the movie, Streisand changed this very important point and had Yentl revert to wearing women's clothes and then going to America.

So nu, what was the relationship between Yentl/Anshel and Avigdor? They were study partners -- chaverim in Hebrew -- a relationship that doesn't seem to exist outside of the Orthodox Jewish community, so here's some background. The Talmud is written in dialogue mode with different rabbis agreeing and disagreeing on various points of Jewish law and theology. Talmud is traditionally studied out loud, by two people hotly debating, going point-by-point over the discussions on the page together. In the traditional yeshiva world -- even today -- the schools are not co-ed. So naturally, your study partner is going to be the same sex as yourself. And very often, your study partner is also your very best friend. You not only sit together in school, you confide in each other, hang out together, encourage each other in life's struggles, etc. And this can be a very close relationship. But it's not sexual. It's male bonding. If Anshel had joined the army, then he and Avigdor would have been "buddies" who fought battles together.

Anshel loves Avigdor, yes. But as a study partner, not a lover. What Anshel misses in Avigdor when he changes study halls is not sexual attraction, it's their learning together. Nobody else in the yeshiva is as serious or as brilliant a student as Avigdor. Nobody else is an intellectual match for Anshel -- and so, he studies alone.

When Anshel reveals to Avigdor that s/he is really the woman Yentl, Avigdor suggests that they could get married and still study together -- but Yentl/Anshel says no. S/he tells him that s/he is "neither one [sex] nor the other" and that s/he has "the soul of a man in the body of a woman." This teaches us that Yentl DID INDEED have a gender identity crisis. If she had just wanted to study Talmud, if she were in love with Avigdor, she could have married him and that would be that. But she chose instead to remain living as Anshel for the rest of her life, even without Avigdor. In other words, she chose loneliness and loss of friendship over going back to living as a woman -- a choice that many a real transsexual has also made.

Now, one issue that has not come up yet in the debate here is this: What exactly did I.B. Singer mean by "the SOUL of a man in the body of a woman?" Is this used figuratively, i.e., with "soul" meaning interests, ideas, disposition? Or did Singer mean it literally -- that the eternal soul of Yentl was male, trapped in a female body? If it was figurative, then why does Yentl's father explain it by telling her "even heaven makes mistakes?" I think it is meant literally -- that a male soul has incarnated in the female body named Yentl. Perhaps it was reincarnation (Singer did believe in that.) This was/is one explanation in kabbalah (Jewish mysticm) for what we now call, in scientific terms, "gender dysphoria."

When Singer was writing in the 1960s, "gender dysphoria" was assumed to be caused by a mismatch of social roles, such as a girl being raised as a tomboy. And that's how Singer portrayed Yentl, with her father teaching her "male" things. But even today, when women are free (in Western countries at least) to openly pursue any type of studies or career or lifestyle they want, there are STILL female-to-male (FTM) transsexuals who claim to have male souls trapped in female bodies. Many of them were NOT raised as tomboys, either. The issue for them is not social roles, it's gender identity.

Recent research seems to indicate that this inner conflict is caused by a difference in brain structure. (Nature, not nurture.) Apparently, there is a part of the brain that is hard-wired to "feel" male or female -- and if this is out of sync with the rest of the body, you have a transgendered person. Had Singer known this in his day, he might have focused less on Yentl's dislike of sewing and cooking (the so-called "women's work"), and more on her inner identity crisis about feeling male. But he was a man of his times and he used the literary devices available then. When he wrote this story in 1962, DNA had not even been discovered, and there were no MRI machines to map the activities of the living brain. He assumed (wrongly) that a Yentl became what s/he was because of how she was raised. 21st-century readers need to keep this in mind when they read this story.

The movie does attack the issues of feminism - albeit somewhat unrealistically. Yes, as one reviewer put, there are many restrictions on Chasidic women (and men!), but not necessarily in an oppressive manner. The laws of Judaism are really quite complex (and no I am not orthodox). Nevertheless, I believe the book is a story about s transsexual, Yentl (Anshel) who felt as though she were a man in a woman's body. Incidentally, she was brilliant and capable of the complex studies of the Talmud, but the book has very little to do with feminism or oppression of women.
Nevertheless, it is an excellent read, highly recommended. For the period on which it was written, Singer was very much ahead of his time in tackling such an issue.

The IBS short story (but not the movie) certainly IS about a transsexual. Tha character, Yentle/Anshel, is a woman who wants to be a man, and the study of Talmud is a major part of it only because Singer used 19th-early Eastern Europe as a setting. While Yentl is briliant and enjoys studying the Talmud this is not why she gets into her situation. Rather it's a literary mechanism. Singer clearly describes Yentl as a man inside a woman's body, and the reason why Talmud is emphasized is because of the setting in an eastern european jewish community. That is what the most respected men did in that culture; in modern Israel, it would be piloting an F-16 in the air force.

Although Yentl had studied secretly with her father, there were things that she had been hiding even from him: while he slept on shabbat afternoons she would dress up in his clothing, and smoke his pipe. She had not one female friend, then on the morning after the night when Anshel had married Haddass, the parents of Haddass held of the bed sheet and saw the blood. Singer writes that "Anshel had found a way to deflower Haddass", and that Haddass being so innocent and in love with Anshel hadn't realized that what was supposed to happen had not happened. IN OTHER WORDS...something happened SEXUALLY between Yentl/Anshel and Haddass, such that Haddass' hymen ruptured. Singer leaves the precise mechanism to the imagination, but it stands to reason that it was not the spilling of wine on the sheet as occured in the movie. It the short story it is actual blood. It seems hard to imagine but keep in mind that it is a culture wherein young women might never be told much if anything about sex before their marriage, the expectation being that they would find out from their husbands. Moreover the marriage goes on for several months with Haddass believing that her marriage is within a standard deviation of the norm.

It's just not conceivable that Yentl/Anshel is doing this -being intimate with Haddass via petting or whatever for several months - because of a heterosexual attraction to Avigdor. Then finally when she reveals herself to him and he suggest that they (Avigdor and Yentl) marry she says it wouldn't be good and that she's "neither one [gender] nor the other". And so she continues dressing as a man. She does not take a ship to another country as in the movie which would have been the right thing to do had she wanted to live as a woman and study the Talmud. She could have done that in western europe or america, but in the book she didn't and went on living as a man.

My newly discovered hobby is tucking this book under my arm, stuffed with an array of bookmarks, old business cards and straw wrappers -- to help seek out these cinematic gems when I enter my video store. Author DiLeo has unearthed a wealth of fantastic performances in films that I never would've thought to view or even knew existed! I actually called in sick to work one day after viewing three of his recommended classics back-to-back till the wee hours. What a glorious night! Mr. DiLeo... you're gonna cost me my job! BUY THIS BOOK!

John DiLeo's opinions and quips are quick, tart, and fun. But this book wouldn't be as fascinating if that was all that was going on. The depth of his film knowledge, his obvious love of movies, and the acuteness of his recommendations make this a wonderful book for anyone--from cinemaniac to cultural reader.

My newly discovered hobby is tucking this book under my arm, stuffed with an array of bookmarks, old business cards and straw wrappers -- to help seek out these cinematic gems when I enter my video store. Author DiLeo has unearthed a wealth of fantastic performances in films that I never would've thought to view or even knew existed! I actually called in sick to work one day after viewing three of his recommended classics back-to-back till the wee hours. What a glorious night! Mr. DiLeo... you're gonna cost me my job! BUY THIS BOOK!

Anyone who loves watching classic movies should buy this book! The author gives thorough reviews of all one hundred movies. He doesn't focus on just one genre and there is a good mix of comedic, dramatic, and musical performances. Some of my favorite performances are here including Jeanette MacDonald in Naught Marietta, Vivien Leigh in Waterloo Bridge, and William Powell in Libeled Lady. After reading this book there are many more films I want to see.

Overlooked performances from the movie stars of old or the present crop, take your pick. Whichever you prefer make sure you read John DiLeo's book. He captures the performances in such a way that you feel you are watching the film while reading his eloquent, captivating description. It is an absolute joy for any movie buff.

This is going to be short because english is not my first language.

This is an excellent study on the action genre. I never thought somebody could analize action movies like this.

Lichtenfeld has worked both in making films and as a film critic and commentator, including doing extra features for DVDs of several action films. He sees this popular film genre as "derived from the Western, film noir, and the police procedural (with special guest appearances made by the disaster film and others [with an evolution] quite analogous to the horror film." Though many films depict violence and mayhem, the action film is distinguished in that it ushered in a "new violence [which] would be deployed more to pleasure audiences than to jar them." This "new violence" came about from a shift in standards marking a "New Hollywood" and related changes in structures and pacing of films and cinematographic techniques such as lingering on the violence by slow-motion and close-ups. It is these and other elements, not merely the violence and plotting, which account for the new genre of the action film. The cluster of elements reflected changes in the culture's psychic relationship with violence and what it looked for in entertainment. Bonnie and Clyde is pointed to as a seminal action film, with the films Billy Jack, Shaft, and The French Connection closely related to it in paving the way for the action film by demonstrating its popularity and giving guidance for filmmakers. Advertising, publicity, and marketing of action films has as much a part in the author's multifaceted study of this major contemporary film genre as film history, film editing, and cinematography. References to numerous action films over the past couple of decades make for enjoyable as well as engaging and stimulating reading.

Useful because it shows there is a deeper level of impact than just the shoot 'em up bang-bang to the typical action picture.

Lichtenfeld's book is required reading for anyone interested in the contemporary action film. Beyond its obvious merit as the best book available on the genre, I can recommend it as a model of genre criticism. I've used this as a text in my course on action cinema at Wesleyan where I teach it as an exemplar of genre studies. Lichtenfeld offers a compelling thesis about the genre's popular/cultural appeal without losing sight of industrial imperatives. This book does much to balance to often overly theoretical writing on the subject by offering a grounded, historically-minded account. Moreover, Lichtenfeld's critical observations are spot on, and his descriptions of scenes and sequences will send you back to the films again and again. The additions to the new edition further shore up his argument and expand the scope of films. It is also a fun read!

Being both a lover of film and a student of history, you can imagine my interest in this book. Who can deny the impact movies have had on the 20th (and now 21st) century? And what type of film most exemplifies what movies are capable of? Action, brother. Action.

I was introduced to this book and this author through a radio talk show I heard recently. Mr. Lichtenfeld came across as extremely intelligent, likeable and very knowledgeable about his subject matter. I immediately ordered the book from Amazon.

I read it through in one weekend (it's so accessible to even non-film students) and I couldn't believe how much I learned about movies that I had watched over and over again all my life. Mr. Lichtenfeld treats the topic with reverence without once losing the joy of what makes these movies great: the characters, the chases, the explosions and, of course, the lines. His breakdowns of each landmark film and his separation of them into specific categories makes it so easy to follow the development of the action genre over the last half century.

Even the bad films (my apologies, Mr. Seagal), of which there are many, are used as examples of the importance and social influence this genre has had on recent generations. They're all in here: science fiction, superhero actioners and even westerns, of which I have a particular fondness, are discussed.

I will pass this book on to my other film-loving friends with my highest recommendation. And now I'm off to watch 'Lethal Weapon' for the 56th time, albeit with a new outlook.

Finally action movies get their due! It's about time.

If you don't know this book, buy it immediately. It takes American film criticism up to about 1970 and coincides with the time Sarris was involved with the (real) Village Voice, Jonas Mekas, American Cahiers,and the founding of the NY Film Festival and the national society of film critics. It took me about five years of reading his reviews until I finally got it - Sarris had understood that the most profound thoughts and themes were played out with style and panache by genre filmmakers with personal obsessions and ideas that did not require Western Union to spell it out.

There's some things to quibble about (I never could see why he thought so highly of Blake Edwards, but I keep trying because I trust his insight. Even Sarris can change his mind as he did on Billy Wilder a few years back).

If you are a film buff and have not discovered his work (also recommended:
Confessions of a Cultist; The John Ford Mystery Book; You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet are among the best) start here. That goes double if you experience guilty pleasure and see things no one else does in people like Anthony Mann, Michael Powell, Sam Fuller, Max Ophuls, Budd Boetticher or James Whale. I have often given this book as a gift to film loving friends. It opens a world of discovery and rapport when a friends "gets it" and suddenly, you both have a shared sensibility and frame of reference.
Also, check out his website for yearly top ten lists and also the work of his wife Molly Haskell (especially good on Howard Hawks).

This volume parses the good guys from the bad guys, tells you whom you should love and why, and summarily dismisses the ones not worth taking seriously. In other words, for good or bad, it arms you, as will no other film book ever written, with a set of eloquently-stated prejudices that may seal off certain directors from your serious consideration for all time. (It would be too glib to say that this is the books best and worst point.) Suffice to say, it has taken years for me to tear down the wall Sarris built between me, as a budding cinephile, and William Wyler, Billy Wilder, John Huston and even John Frankenheimer, for that matter. (These are just a few of the ones I think he was, or may have been, wrong about.)

But I love this book and always find it worth picking up to reread a few entries, for two or three reasons that never grow old:

1) Sarris IS an absolutely remarkable writer. His prose bristles with alternately apt and acid phrases and insights. The parallel between Ambrose Bierce and Sarris has grown on me through the years. (I think it was Sarris who brought currency to the word "pretentious"-- possibly THE serious put-down word from the 70s to the 90s, possibly to the present-- by the way. He used it with unerring surgical delicacy, as a bludgeon.)

2) He is hard to argue with in his negative evaluation of certain other respected directors. Thirty-five years ago, Sarris renounced Kubrick, noting, in typical form, that the very fact that he made one film every 5 years seemed to be all the proof his advocates needed of his integrity. Ouch! And he said that Kubrick is the director of the best coming attractions in the business.

This last is highly prophetic of the present general situation, when Hollywood has made a sort of science of over-selling weak films with absurdly hyperbolic trailers that often have little to do with the tone or experience of the films they advertise. This comment indicates also how much of Sarris is audaciously arguable, and out of synch with conservative academia re Kubrick and just about everything else. --Not a bad thing, as far as I am concerned.) And I think he was also decades ahead of the curve in recognizing Keaton as Chaplin's better.

3) He has been, for decades, an antidote to Pauline Kael. Period.

If you know the directors covered well enough to take it all with a grain of salt where needed, this book is probably the best read on movies and their directors from the second and third quarters of the 20th Century that will ever be written. THE great mapping out of this seminal period by the auteur theorys chief surveyor-- and a fun and drolly amusing place to pick up your snazzy-looking anti-philistine, anti-pretentious attitude off-the-rack.

There are few books on cinema that are more important than this title. To any serious student of film this book is perhaps the only book that you will refer to as long as you watch films.

Extolling the virtues of The American Cinema would be too hard. Beside being an invaluable reference for cinema between 1929-1968, it also contains wonderful peices of film theory. Because of this The American Cinema can be read a few pages at a time or you can completely dwelve into the material. No matter the method, Sarris will engage you in a meaningful dialogue of film. Film literature is rarely able to be this give and take. Those with an above average inclination toward cinema should purchase.

When it first appeared in the late '60s, Sarris' book was literally memorized by critics, students and teachers. It provided a root approach to discussing film, quickly absorbed, and readily shaped to one's personal tastes. A beautiful combination of reference and aesthetic, it ushered in the era of "the director as superstar," and was completely absorbed by everyone in film. Unfortunately, its absorption was so complete, the author, Mr. Sarris, was for the most part uncredited and unrewarded.

My boyfriend bought this book for me 22 years ago and it has followed me around through seven changes of address. I can honestly say that but for this book, I don't think I would have read Crime and Punishment or The Grapes of Wrath. I wanted to be sure I was getting all the jokes. It was funny in 1984 and it is still funny.

To save the Cleavers from the network axe, past and contemporary literary giants pour forth their own "episodes" for the Beave and crew. Everyone's character --including Eddie Haskell--gets fleshed out in ways you'll never see on Nickelodeon. Personal favorites include Tennessee William's turn on Miss Landers and June. Brilliant and absurdly funny blend of high prose and Americana 50's schmaltz. Made me laugh out loud at every read.

When I first read the Dostoevsky episode ("Hey, Wally, do you think it's OK to kill an old lady?" "I don't know, Beav. We haven't gotten that far in civics."), I was in convulsions. This is the funniest book in the history of Western Civilization, even funnier than "The Lazlo Letters," and that's saying something. That it is out of print is some kind of culture crime.

In an attempt to save "Leave It To Beaver" from going off the air in 1963, famous authors submit scripts hoping their influence will persuade the network from dumping the show. Scripts include "Lady Cleaver's Beaver" by D. H. Lawrence, "Beavermorphosis" by Franz Kafka (where Theodore actually transforms into a giant beaver), and my personal favorite "And Thus Spake Beaver" by Nietzche ... "And Beaver descended alone from the house encountering no one, and all at once there stood before him Larry Mondello who bit into an apple. And thus spake Beaver unto Larry Mondello, 'Shared cookies make a friend, not getting in trouble together', and he punched Larry Mondello in the stomach." If you love the Beave and love Literary Parodies, you'll love this book.

Wow -- it's nice to see that there are other people out there who have read this book and loved it as much as I did. I bought the book when it first came out in 1985 and I was in college. I almost peed my pants reading it in the bookstore, so I figured I'd better buy it before they threw me out. I still have it on my shelf, and it's provided countless hours of amusement ever since. About the only books I would consider funnier than this one are George Ade's "Fables in Slang" and "More Fables in Slang", which are sadly almost unknown today. They should really reprint this, because it's as hilarious today as it was almost 15 years ago.