Movies Books

Once again Charlotte saves my behind by keeping my kids busy through a chaotic weekend. With the latest book, we are actually stopping the kids from reading to go outside and play !

What's more is that Charlotte, the author actually emailed the kids !!!! Having been huge fans of Charlottes for years now, my kids went crazy when an email arrived from Sonic's Author. Charlotte thank you so much for paying attention to my kids -- The Best of Luck to You !!!!!

Sonic and Chris and the gang are on a super snowy planet, searching for another Chaos Emerald. Standing inn their way are the hilariously evil Dr. Eggman and his inept robot henchmen, Rouge, and the usual cast of Metarexes. The puns are marvelously awful ("there's no business like snow business" and "ice to meet you"), and the author really captures the excitment and action of the Sonic Series.

Veramente un bell libro. Lo consiglio a grandi e piccini , ben scritto . Non vedo l'ora che esca la versione Italiana.

I laughed. I cried. And then I laughed some more and peed a little. It was a movie that came to life right in front of me!

much better than that ice-laden James Bond movie with the bad theme song...

Beauty and the beast is a wonderful story where a unique twist in fairytales comes to play. Most fairytales of this era portrayed women as inferior characters that are weak, stupid and easily manipulated by male characters in the story, but beauty and the beast is just the opposite, where the woman,(Beauty), is smart, intellegent and strong. This story gives young children good values, such as beauty is on the inside and not the outside, not to judge a book by it's cover, and that women are a strong and equal counterpart in society.

Beauty and the Beast is a great story about a girl named Belle who lives with her father Maurice who was an inventor. When one night Maurice gets lost and ends up at this castle and what he doesn't know is that a beast lives there. I liked this story because it's very entertaining and interesting. A good part in the story was when Belle made the decision to live with the Beast. The lesson this book gives is don't judge anything by its appearance, it might be something completely different on the inside. The age level for this book would be ages 4 and up.

I love this book! Even though I am in the seventh grade,I read the book all the time, and all the other classics Disney makes.Fairytales-I love them especially when everything come out great! Buy this book well it last cause it is sure worth it! ô¿ô @-}--

This book is a classic tale of love and devotion. Belle gives up her freedom for her father, and is willing to do it again for the Beast whom she once hated. A woderful retelling of the French folktale.

Walt Disney?s Beauty and the Beast Read-Aloud storybook is one of the best I?ve seen. Not too long and not too short ? this story is great to read at bedtime or anytime. Illustrations are taken directly from the Disney movie. My preschooler and toddler love the enchanted objects in the castle (especially when I try to sing ?Be Our Guest?). I love the message is presents ? loving someone for his inner beauty. I highly recommend it for little princesses ? and princes - everywhere.

This was the first scriptbook I bought and I was really excited to read it. Some of the dialouge was wrong but most of it was correct. The episodes were spectacular and immediatly I got my freinds togethar and we acted it out.

Its been about 3 months and my script book is starting to curl at the ends. :( But thats alright because its still in good condition .... I dont know why I'm telling you this ...

If you love to act this is for you!! This is ALL SCRIPT!! Unlike, Once More With Feeling -- this is a bit of a better buy. :)

This was the first Buffy script book I ever bought and I thought it was pretty good. I could now act it out with my friends (I was always Buffy he he ) and stuff. The only problem was that it was the original script and some of the dialouge wasn't right. (as you will see with all the other Buffy scripts) but I think its totally worth your money!! Its brilliant! Awesome! Amazing! You'll capture Buffy, Drusilla, Spike, Angel, Kendra, Willow, Xander and GILES' humor, peronsality and everything that makes Buffy great!! BUY IT BEFORE THE RUN OUT!! ITS THE BEST!!!

Although BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER had been a first rate show from its inception, it was during the shows based upon the scripts that it started moving towards something approaching genuine greatness. Before these shows, it had been a superb series, but after these it became something considerably more. The most unbelievable thing is that as great as these six episodes (well, five of them anyway) are, the ones following were even greater, so great as to place Buffy among the greatest shows in the history of the genre, and arguably the greatest. The two episodes following these six would be ?Surprise? and ?Innocence,? and from that moment on Buffy would exist on an artistic level unmatched on television.

?Lie to Me? was written by Joss Whedon, and as fine as many previous shows had been, it is one of the first truly great moments in the series. Billy Fordham, played by Jason Behr (who would shortly after this achieve television stardom playing an alien in ROSEWELL), an ex-boyfriend of Buffy?s from L.A., shows up unexpectedly in Sunnydale. Eventually we learn that he is, in fact, dying, and has cut a deal with Spike and his crew to turn the Slayer over to them in exchange for being made a vampire. The episode has many funny moments (such as when Angel, Xander, and Willow go to a faux vampire club, and Angel remarks that none of them know anything about vampires, including how they dress, when a wannabe walks by dressed exactly like Angel), but even more poignant moments, like when Ford explains to Buffy his reasons for betraying her.

?The Dark Age? was written by Dean Batali and Rob DesHotel, who co-wrote a number a number of episodes of Buffy during the first two seasons. This is the best script they produced. Ethan Rayne, to whom we were introduced in ?Halloween,? makes his second appearance in the series. By far the most interesting aspect of the show is the way that we manage to learn more about Giles background, all the way to learning that his former mates had called him ?Ripper.? I enjoyed the few episodes that featured Ethan Rayne, and was always perplexed that he appeared in only four shows??Halloween? and this episode in Season Two, ?Band Candy? in Season Three, and ?A New Man? in Season Four. There was talk on a couple of occasions of Anthony Stewart Head doing a show set in England based on ?Ripper,? and if he had, I?m sure Robin Sachs would have been his ?Lex Luthor.?

?What?s My Line?? is a phenomenal two parter, and is notable not merely for introducing Kendra, the second slayer, but for the writing debut of the great Marti Noxon, who would become one of the greatest writers in the run of the show as well as co-executive producer, eventually running things when Joss Whedon ceased the day-to-day overseeing of the show. She co-wrote the first half with Howard Gordon, and then wrote the second by herself. One of the major themes of Buffy during the first two seasons was her hesitancy to embrace her calling as slayer. Although she wouldn?t fully accept the role until the first show of the third season (?Anne?), these two episodes stress her reluctance to be the Slayer more than any other shows prior to them (and even after ?Anne,? although she has accepted who she is, she struggles against her fate). These are exceptionally well-written shows, and one can engage in endless discussion the Kendra/Buffy relationship. Kendra, unlike Buffy, has completely accepted her fate, and while Buffy can never be like Kendra, she does learn from her to accept her calling.

?Ted? (written by David Greenwalt and Joss Whedon) is not as strong on paper as it ended up being onscreen. Although it is a first rate script, John Ritter absolutely nailed the part of the psychotic robot Ted, and turned in one of the most memorable guest appearances in the entire history of the show. This is the episode that contains Giles famous quote about subtext rapidly becoming text. No other show in the history of TV has ever contained lines as clever as that one.

?Bad Eggs? was Marti Noxon?s third contribution to the show, and unfortunately perhaps the weakest script she ever did. One of the most amazing thing about the Second Season is that while the strong episodes established it as one of the great shows in the history of television, it nonetheless had a surprising number of pretty rotten episodes. Also, some of the strongest shows are preceded by the weakest. Just as ?Becoming? would later be preceded by ?Go Fish,? so ?Surprise? is preceded by ?Bad Eggs.? This might be an accident, but I doubt it. I suspect they realized it was a weak script, and wrapped the season-long story arcs around it. After this season, each season had considerably fewer weak episodes.

These six scripts show Buffy, which was already a very good show, in the process of becoming a great one. The scripts that immediately follow the ones in this collection are arguably as strong a group of scripts as any show in the history of television.

This book is great for fans who haven't seen the first six episodes of the second season. It gives the lines and stage directions to them so you feel like you've seen the actual episode. It even includes scenes which may have been removed from the original episode.

This book chronicles the first arrival of Spike, whom is now an important character. It also has "Halloween" which includes some funny stage directions from Joss Whedon.

If you haven't seen the beginning of the second season of Buffy or if you want in-depth information on the episodes' scripts, you should definately buy this book.

I happen to like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and I love reading through the scripts when I'm bored with watching the same episodes over and over. Its just nice to be able to read.

I love this book and I'm so glad I found it again.I had one when my son was little (18 now!) and we lost it so I was thrilled to find it on Amazon since I have a toddler once again!It's so sweet and the little rhyming page is adorable.Who doesn't love Kermit?

We tried for a long time to get our daughter to give up the bottle at nap time. Since she never took a pacifier or had a special toy or blanket, this was very hard for her to give up as it was her only "comfort" for nap times. She loved this book, having me read it to her again and again. We followed saying bye, bye to the bottle just like they did in the book - making an event of boxing them up and saying bye, bye. She felt very proud making the decision that she was a big girl and it made what had been a such a hard thing, much easier!

I bought this book for my daughter who is 191/2 months old. She was still taking a nightime bottle. The day this book came we read it several times. The next day I asked her if she was ready to say "Bye Bye Bottle" and she said she was. We packed up the bottles as Kermit does in the book and said bye bye to each one. She has not had a bottle in almost three weeks!

For a long time "Bye Bye Diapers" was my favorite Muppet Babies story (I could recite it in at least three languages) but this book has grown on me until it threatens to overtake that tale.

"Bottle" features Kermit, who--although Ms. Piggy would no doubt argue the point--has always been the leader of the late Jim Henson's muppets. Kermit loves his bottle, and although the motivation seems a bit shallow, he has an epithany of sorts midway through the book and decides to try drinking from a glass. Realistically, it would be wise proceed slowly, perhaps moving up to a sippy cup, but of course Kermit is a dreamer and, by the end of the story, imagines that soon he will be drinking from any cup he chooses. Don't each of us have these kinds of simple, distilled dreams? When I think of my own personal quest to become a top-ranked reviewer at ..............--how impossible that seems at times, particularly since my reviews don't seem to get published--the story of the little frog who dares to dream of drinking like a grownup never fails to inspire me to charge on toward that distant horizon!

I bought this book and read it to my 26 month old daughter. She only took a bottle at night and I told her she was a big girl now and she needed to say bye bye to the bottle. I read her this book twice and handed her a bottle of water instead of milk and she looked at me and I said bye bye bottle. She said bye bye and has never had one since that night. It was so easy I wish I had done it long ago. Now she even sleeps all night!

My grandaughter, under 2, wants me to read it everyday. The pictues in the text teaches her the beginning skills to reading. The stickers are rewards when she is able to read the picture.

My daughter, Skyelar, spent all morning putting little red polk a dots all over Caillou! She thought it was so funny-anything that encourages my child to read, it's so important!

Most American kids won't ever get this disease now that it's part of routine immunization, so it does make the book seem a little dated. But the kids don't know that, and they certainly can relate to being sick. Caillou comes down with a fever, followed by chicken pox and lots of hot baths. Mommy puts red stickers on his dinosaur so that it "has chicken pox too." At the end, Caillou gets better and gives his dinosaur to his sister Rosie, who of course has caught the chicken pox from him. This is a sweet, real story that even a young child can enjoy...my son is two and he loves it. The stickers are unnecessary...the age of kids who would enjoy this book won't be putting them in the "right" places (but they can be a fun art project).

My daughter sleeps with this book every night. I've had to repair the cover and pages so many times that I've lost count because she's worn it out so fast! A nice story that helps kids get over some of the fear of being sick.

My 2 yr. old daughter loves Caillou and was very happy with this book when she opened it on Christmas. She loves the stickers but has taken them off the correct spots and placed them in other areas. I wish they stayed where you put them the first time.

gave this book to my 30-month old nephew, and he had me read it to him at least 7 times the first day. he absolutely loves this book, and will not look at other books while this is in his view.

If you are like me, you'll be humming the theme song of Sesame Street to yourself as you read this book. The book provides a remarkable set of images about finding Sesame Street that will be conjured up every time you hear the theme song. The story provides great support for the fun of books, and trusting to your purpose despite apparent hurdles to overcome. As such, it will be an important contribution to your library of beginning reader books. The book's fine illustrations help reinforce the words in the story, to make learning to read easier, and to make the story more fun to read.

The book opens with Elmo surrounded by books.

"Elmo likes books."

"Fat books. Funny books. Bat books. Bunny books. Bear-in-the-chair books. Kite-in-the-air books."

With this beginning, the story quickly takes Elmo on a wonderful kite adventure. I liked this approach very much because it shows how books can be the launching pad for many interesting thoughts and experiences. Further, you can use your imagination to build on what's in the books. The bulk of the story then involves what happens when Elmo's kite pulls him off the ground and into the air. How will he get back to Sesame Street?

By suggesting that this could be a pretend adventure, it also takes the potential fright out of the story for many children. If your child is easily upset by danger, you may want to wait until she or he can be more objective before introducing this story.

In the course of the adventure, many strange and unexpected things occur. But Elmo is always flexible and imaginative. As a result, the results of challenges turn out well. You can use this story as a metaphor for how life tends to be in talking with your child. We all have to realize that the unexpected is usually just around the corner.

After you have read the book several times, encourage your child to read the repeated words like "books" aloud when they appear. This will help with decoding words and letters. Like many excellent beginning readers, this book features lots of that valuable repetition. There are a number of situations where only one letter is different (as in "there" and "where"). When your child is ready, help him or her to differentiate between them and to then read the two aloud to you when they appear in the story.

Build reading skill through repetition within the context of an interesting and entertaining story like this one!

My son (30 months old) falls in love with this book. He loves to know about the adventures of Elmo, pretend the animals in the book, such as duck, frog, elephant to tell Elmo how to get to Seseame Street. This book captures the imagination of the my little boy.

Both my two year old and 4 year old love this book. Elmo's kite adventure keeps little ones turning the pages. My kids just love Elmo and loved this simple fun and easy to read book.

This adorable learning book opens with Elmo surrounded by many books and we read one statement on the first page.
"Elmo likes books."
He then goes on to tell us what kind of books he likes,
"Fat books. Funny books. Bat books. Bunny books. Bear-in-the-chair books. Kite-in-the-air books."
This is great, as it shows children books are wonderful and since Elmo likes books, just maybe they should like them as well. Good beginning.

Elmo decides to go fly a kite, but when the kite takes him up in the air, the adventure begins. How will he get back to Sesame Street? Elmo looks up and down and what does he see? Finally Elmo lands in the back of the truck and meets many wonderful characters, and shows his imagination in the events that follow on his journey back to Sesame Street.
Great illustrations and an adventerous read.One your children will enjoy over and over again.

Tommy-a brave born leader., Chuckie- a causios scardy-cat., Sussie-akind and smart helper., Angelica-a bossy spoiled brat., Phil-a disgusting baby who eats worms and dirt., Lil-a disgusting baby who eats worms and dirt., Dil-anoying,yet playful young baby. Tommy, Chuckie, Phil, Lil, Sussie, Angelica, and Dil are hunting for gold! They started off in Tommy and Dil's backyard but when they crawl through some bushes and suddenly appear in California where there is a huge gold rush. They meat new friends and work together to try and find the gold to buy Reptar Bars they want. Do you think they can find the gold? Read this book and find out! I give this book a five star rating because it has really funny parts including one where Angelica say she hates bossy people.

Tommy-a brave born leader., Chuckie- a causios scardy-cat., Sussie-akind and smart helper., Angelica-a bossy spoiled brat., Phil-a disgusting baby who eats worms and dirt., Lil-a disgusting baby who eats worms and dirt., Dil-anoying,yet playful young baby. Tommy, Chuckie, Phil, Lil, Sussie, Angelica, and Dil are hunting for gold! They started off in Tommy and Dil's backyard but when they crawl through some bushes and suddenly appear in California where there is a huge gold rush. They meat new friends and work together to try and find the gold to buy Reptar Bars they want. Do you think they can find the gold? Read this book and find out! I give this book a five star rating because it has really funny parts including one where Angelica say she hates bossy people.

Tommy-a brave born leader., Chuckie-a causios scardy-cat., Sussie-a kind and smart helper., Angelica-a bossy spoiled brat., Phil-a disgusting baby who eats worms and dirt., Lil-a disgusting baby who eats worms and dirt., Dil-an anoying, yet playful young baby. If you like a book that has a lot of adventures this is the book for you. In this book Tommy and his gang are hunting for gold. They start off in Tommy and Dil's backyard, but when they crawl through some bushes they find themselves in California where there is a huge gold rush. The gang ends up getting half of a map after Angelica sings a song very badly. Then they find some people who have the other half of the map. Do you think they can work together to find the gold? Read this book and find out. I give this book a five star rating because it has funny parts including one where Angelica says she hates bossy people.

Tommy and Dil, their cousin Angelica, and their friends Susie, Phil, Lil, and Chuckie all listen to Grandpa Lou tell a story about prospecting for gold. The kids decide to search for gold, Angelica so she can buy Cynthia play sets, and the others so they can buy lots of Reptar Bars. Before they know it, they travel back in time to 1849, during the days of the real California Gold Rush. The babies team up with some locals to follow a map to a lost gold mine. Along the way they face steep hills, dangerous beasts, raging rivers, and terrible rain storms. But they are determined to continue on to find the gold. This was a cute and funny book that I reccomend to all Rugrats fans, young and old.

Tommy, Chuckie, Phil, Lil, Angelica, Susie, and Dil (along with Spike) are off on one of their biggest adventures yet. They're travelling back in time to 1849, the time when everyone was talking about going to California to hunt for gold. And when Tommy and the rest of the crew get a hold of half a map to the "mother lode" (the largest amount of gold all in one place, up in the mountains where all the gold in the rivers come from), they know that they have to find the other half if they're ever going to be able to buy tons of Reptar Bars (or in Angelica's case, the Cynthia Skiing Set, the Cynthia Supermall, the Cynthia Jet, the Cynthia....you get the picture). When their map is stolen and it leads them to the other half of the map, they make new friends who will help them find their treasure. But with mountain lions,grizzly bears, rapids, and theives, the question is not only "Will the get the gold?". It's "Will they get the gold...and survive?" Join your favorite cartoon characters in this hilarious and adventurous book! I recommend it for fans of the Rugrats cartoon, no matter what age they are.

REVIEWED BY PROFESSOR WILLIAM DOTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA:

A disclaimer at the beginning: I have been in touch with the author for several years, counseling and advising as his analytical genius has ripened into the fabulous array of learning in this book. It is so stunning that it has led me to reconceive totally my own approaches to what is slightingly termed "popular culture" (we so need a better term -- one sees the dilemma especially in that wicked nineteenth-century distinction between "high" and "low" -- yet this distinction is now outgrown as our mass-mediated culture finds elegant waiters at toney restaurants dressed in the cowboy blue jeans that were prohibited at public schools in my childhood in high-mountain New Mexico).

Ebert's scope/s must be emphasized at the outset. I have never read an analyst who -- in the most brilliant chapter of the volume -- shows how Spielberg and Kubrick have been filming cosmologies, cosmogonies that rival Hesiod's, and are further complicated in that they are -- pace Ebert -- strongly influential upon one another. Were I more "with it," I could imagine teaching chapter 12, "Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg: A Study in Polarity," in my course on Origin, Emergence, and Creation Myths.

Displaying an amazingly comprehensive compass from Spengler to Campbell and Margulis, Ebert may be one of the few cultural analysts around who can blithely skip from supposedly "Celtic" materials to Egyptian, Assyrian, and even Paleolithic analogues to celluloid fantasies of the master filmmakers of our era. The Spielberg-Kubrick chapter alone is adequate reason to own this book. Ebert sees the two of them as, in effect, writers of our contemporary Zeitgeist-ial scriptures, contributors along with many other filmmakers to contemporary mythic expression.

Personally rather ignorant of cinema, I often had to grab my huge film compendia to figure out who various characters named were, and I haven't a clue as to the reference to "Maxwellian demons" (221). But the author is clear that "our contemporary situation involves the challenge of living in a society dominated by machines, and our psyche's response to this challenge is expressed by the myths of our popular culture, in which machines are personified as living beings" (222). "And so the problem of living in a mechanical/electronic society is what the new myths coming to us in celluloid form are attempting to deal with, for it is a problem that has been appearing with more and more obsessive frequency since the 1960s, and shows no signs of abating" (223). His first sentence asks "What are the new myths?" (1), and after expositing just how they appear in many films, he concludes that the auteurs are "busy dreaming up myths to hold our society together for a little longer" (223).

Such "conscious use of myth" (5) is what makes directors such as Kubrick and Lucas differ from Modernist authors and artists: Joseph Campbell, for instance, saw James Joyce and Thomas Mann, Paul Klee and Pablo Picasso as providing the new myths of his own time, completely ignoring film, which he considered "a decline into realism" (3). Quite in contrast, Ebert proposes that "Film [...] is a Gesamtkunstwerk [an all encompassing artistic product] that has taken up the frayed threads of the drama, novel, classical music, symbolist poetry, painting and acting, and woven them together into a new integral art form" (4).

This author's penchant for inserting all sorts of sources into one of his thematic nets is remarkable. In commenting on our culture's phenomenon of gigantism ("an attribute of both cultural and biological forms signaling that they are about to vanish" (196), he refers to the eighteenth-century Great Chain of Being, Darwin's theory of evolution, the temples at Luxor and Karnak, and the gigantic arches of decaying Rome. Then we have the Paleolithic, the Eleusinian mysteries, the Mesopotamian New Year's Festival, and monastic activities of Lindisfarne and Iona, before reference to the ouroboros in Kekulé as well as Homer, Tibetan sandpaintings, Dante, Jung, Milton, Mann, the Byzantine iconoclasts -- alongside the films Close Encounters, Star Wars, and The Lord of the Rings (196-98).

"These films are fulfilling an unconscious yearning of the public for connection with a vanished mythological tradition that is no longer taught in schools, which have shifted over to a largely vocational and technological, rather than humanistic curriculum" (198) -- part of Ebert's repeated sermon about the dangerous loss of human culture and history before the increasing onslaught of applied technology and commercialism, a theme as well in his book of interviews, Conversations on Science and Spirituality at the End of an Age, 1999.

The author is most exercised by the "visionary" filmic tradition established by George Melies at the dawn of cinema (as opposed to the "realistic" projections of the Lumières brothers; 19). Many enormously important artists such as Werner Herzog and Akira Kurasawa surface often in the book, as classical masters of modern film. What is so useful about this book is the ways Ebert -- who must have an astonishingly rich ability to remember scenes and themes and perspectives -- elucidates influences and revisions of the giants' productions. That of course is what makes traditional culture, folklore, mythology alive, as in Campbell's most famous citation: "The latest incarnation of Oedipus, the continued romance of Beauty and the Beast, stand this afternoon on the corner of Forty-second Street and Fifth Avenue, waiting for the traffic light to change" (The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 1968-2nd ed., 4).

So far as I am aware, no one before Ebert has attempted to read the entire sweep of contemporary cinematic productions (or at least those he most admires) with respect to the levels of mythical consciousness they represent. Nor have they patiently tracked, as this author displays in a marvelous appendix, "The Evolution of Visionary Cinema Since 1968" (227-55), the lines of the direct cinematic inheritances and influences of key films (such as Planet of the Apes, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather, Aguirre: The Wrath of God, Jaws, Star Wars, Close Encounters, and many others).

In some ways a rather cranky book: Ebert is sharp-tongued especially about the ways the humanities are by-sided in the massive onslaught of applied technologies in our time. But as an academic "on his side," I can only cheer fervently the ways he shows how contemporary films are replacing the traditional scriptures of our cultures. This volume will be an important reference tool for some time to come.

--William Doty, author of Mythography: The Study of Myths and Rituals

John Ebert's remarkable book, Celluloid Heroes & Mechanical Dragons, does to movies what Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces did to myths. This is a mouthful, I know, but Ebert delivers. Armed with vast knowledge of our cultural past and a profound understanding of our present, he ventures into the world of "celluloid myths" (that Campbell pretty much dismissed until, as pointed out in the book, George Lucas turned him on to his Star Wars trilogy) and comes back with the boon. And what an incredibly rich and enriching boon it is.
Ebert uses his vast knowledge of myths, and practically everything else, to reveal the mythic dimension of some our most popular movies. As he maintains in the book, the first conscious incorporation of myths in movies, what he calls celluloid myths, was initiated by Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which (according to the author) was inspired by Campbell's Hero. All the films discussed in the book are heirs to Kubrick's 1968 masterpiece: "2001 was the first major presentation of a theme that would come to be reiterated in film over and over again, namely that of the battle of an individual human being against an impersonal system that is threatening to dehumanize him, whether that system is defined as the megalopolitan city, the meta-national corporation, or technology in general . . .All are reworkings of Bowman's battle with HAL."
What I really liked about the book is that it doesn't dissect the movies to death, but rather provided enough insight so that I wanted to see many of these movies again. Before finishing the book, I couldn't wait to get the DVD's of the first two covered movies, Apocalypse Now (Redux) and 2001. The "guided tour of the films of David Cronenberg" even got me to the point where I want to take a second look at his movies, which (the ones I saw) I generally find hard to watch. I guess this best describes what the book did for me. Somewhat like the shield in Perseus and the Gorgon Medusa, it functions as a mirror that allows us to see the Mechanical Dragons that have become such a prevalent part of our movies (and our lives) and how they're slain by our Celluloid Heroes. It updates many of our most popular myths as never before.

With a white-hot strike to the center of the frozen, sterile and inert films that typifies modern Hollywood, John David Ebert reignites the passion, grandeur and vision that make film the most compelling, and relevant form of mass entertainment today. By distilling the great films of yesterday and today, Ebert manages in clear, distinct and entertaining prose to explain and explore why film has surpassed the novel as the preeminent purveyor of myth and wonder in our society.

His journey is precise and with an overall purpose, however, one may skip to chapters that hold special interest, for me, I found that reading the entire book was far more satisfying, even when I arrived at dissimilar conclusions than Ebert. For example, Ebert has long been an admirer of David Croenenberg, a director I find distasteful and vulgar in many respects, but in reading Ebert's exploration of Croenenberg's films, I found a new prism in which to view the director, and upon seeing his latest work A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, watched the film with a deeper sense of what he was trying to achieve.

For me, myth has always been the cornerstone of all great art, whether it be visual art (painting), films, novels, I find that all such works are enriched by a foundation that embraces the great mysteries and universal connections which are the lynchpin of myth. Ebert's gift is the uncanny ability to take interesting films and dissect them at a historical, mythological and sociological level, deepening our understanding and appreciation of what makes certain films imprint the mind with images that recur and haunt and amaze us. What's even more interesting is that many of us watch these films with only a subconscious understanding of why they grip us in their web, which is actually the point. Myth is anything but conscious, it's wellspring is the imagination, the realm of dreams and nightmares and visions, and as such, need not be fully understood to be effective. Ebert's gift is to be able to show us all the facets that arise from the world's myths, whether rooted in Western or Eastern culture, his erudition, knowledge and ability to make them all cohesive is amazing. He's a good writer, a better thinker, a good critic, a better scholar.

One would assume that such an examination of myth and films would be dry and turgid, but just take a look at chapter 3, which is an interview Ebert did for a magazine. The discussions range from APOCALYPSE NOW to GODFATHER 3 to 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY, and the way Ebert breaks them down is incredible. On APOCALYPSE NOW, he describes the film as a hero's descent into the underworld, mirroring some of Dante's INFERNO, and then in the same sentence, makes a segue to the Egyptian Book of the Dead, where the sun god Ra, journeys down a river through a kingdom of the dead, encountering obstacles until he reaches the Lord of the Dead, Osiris. Sounds convuluted? You're wrong. Ebert makes the transition so seamless and obvious that I actually started laughing with sheer intellectual enjoyment at what he was saying. In the same chapter, Ebert takes on the notion that many of these mythological symbols are accidental and not planned by the creative artist, and again provided brilliant analysis. For some, Ebert agrees, these symbols are certainly not always intentional, but he goes on to say that they spring for a universal source of creativity that is tied directly into the mythological wonder that occurs when the creative spirit is open to anything. So, though Kubrick certainly knew what he was doing when the ape throws the bone that becomes a spaceship, other artists arrive at the same powerful symbols through their own inward journey, which manifests itself as something that has existed for thousands of years. If you're confused by this, don't worry. Ebert breaks it down far more eloquently than I can, that's why he writes about myth and I try to tap into them in my day-job as a screenwriter.

A few nitpicky comments so as not to give the impression that I agree with EVERYTHING Ebert writes, that would make me a less-than critical thinker, which I hope I will always be. I wish he'd gone more into the Western and its mythic underpinnings, specifically films like THE WILD BUNCH, THE SEARCHERS, RED RIVER, ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, and THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, all of which seethe with classical mythological symbols and images (John Wayne standing in the open doorway at the end of the Searchers as civilization occurs within the house, while he's forever isolated from such comforts). Also, Ebert has a list of films he considers notable, and while "best ever" lists are always subjective, it's still a fun way to measure your tastes against others to see what you have in common and more importantly, what you don't agree on. Ebert has a top 16 of his generation, topped by 2001, and including JAWS and TITANIC. Every film on the list has been at least tangentially or substantively discussed in the book, but as with any list, there are some head-scratchers for me. I wouldn't include all 3 original STAR WARS films, I would only include EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, and leave it at that. I would drop VIDEODROME, AI, and SCHINDLER'S LIST (Ebert has a great affinity for SPIELBERG, a director I think is visually brilliant, but intellectually facile). Other than that, the list isn't bad, considering Ebert limited himself to "my generation" freeing himself from having to go back to a number of other great films. He pretty much starts his list from 1968 and moves forward, leaving the omission of WILD BUNCH (1969) as a puzzler, but subject to lively debate. That's what makes the book great, Ebert lays out the foundation of these visionary films and their directors and then invites you to do your own investigation and arrive at your own conclusions. His, he states with force and logic and conviction, no getting around that. But the whole point is for you to leave the book wanting more and going back to favorite films and having a second, third of fourth look, seeing new symbols, new connections, previously unnoticed.

The idea that visionary films have replaced great novels as the preeminent creative force of our time is one that bears more exploration. In the old days, you had great writers like MANN, JOYCE, PROUST and HESSE. Now, you have prose stylists masquerading as "serious" writers, with nothing visionary and interesting to contribute. they write mostly to impress their brethren, the audience be damned. I'm no Thomas Wolfe fan, but I agree with his manifesto years ago, that today's writers have abandoned great, realist stories in favor of fancy prose and post-modern angst that makes for empty reading. Films admittedly have their share of bad writers and bad directors, but on the other hand, there are more interesting and talented and risk-taking artists in filmmaking today than in literature. You have SPIELBERG, TYWKER, VINTERBERG, CUARON, SALLES, COPPOLA (he has one last masterpiece, trust me), SCORSCESE, JACKSON, CARO, CAMERON, et al. They represent a vital, powerful force that is driving the great films of today and tomorrow. If nothing else, Ebert's book leaves you awaiting the next, great work of these artists, knowing it will draw on symbols and touchstones that go back thousands of years, to our universal connection. And that's all we really care about when we view art. We want to be moved, touched, transported, entertained, frightened.

Awed.

Ebert knows this.

So should you

In the introduction to his "Understanding Media," McLuhan wrote that his editor "noted in dismay that `seventy-five percent of your material is new. A successful book cannot venture to be more than ten percent new.'" Ebert's "Celluloid Heroes & Mechanical Dragons" presents a lot of new material, but when the world has changed and few have noticed, there's a lot to cover.

To understand Ebert's book we have to address change, as in technology (biotech, computing, nanotech, quantum theory, etc.) is about to change us as a species. And a lot of the traditions that used to help us with change, like European intellectuals, the literary novel, and academia, are nowhere to be found.

Europe has left the scene. Today, looking at European/American culture wars, one is tempted to think of a quiet retirement community disturbed by rowdy teenagers with noisy motorcycles. The bikers can be dangerous, but we are not going to hear anything new from the retirees.

Academia has collapsed. We might have hoped that in a period of profound change academia would be on the case. Not. The contemporary PhD thesis, article, and book in cultural studies is typically written by putting poststructuralist jargon in a word randomizer and printing out the results to signal that one is a member of the tribe. (One such randomizer, Pixmaven's Instant Art Critique Phrase Generator, is available online) Which leaves it to the nonacademic "independent public intellectual" to analyze our culture. John Ebert is a leading member of this vital group.

And the literary novel has ended. Myers' "A Reader's Manifesto" looks at the state of the contemporary literary novel, the pretentious kind that wins awards and gets reviewed in literary magazines, and finds that it has degenerated into gibberish-"some of the most acclaimed contemporary prose is the product of mediocre writers availing themselves of trendy stylistic gimmicks." Ebert makes a related point at the beginning of "Celluloid Heroes" where he writes: "Surveying at a glace the current states of western literature ... compared to its state in, say the first half of the twentieth century, what strikes one is an appalling decline in overall quality."

Ebert's conclusion? A culture chooses an art form in which to invest its energy. That art form has a period of vitality and then falls into decline. The literary novel has fallen into such a decline, and has been replaced by movies.

Ebert's interest is in what he calls the "visionary movie" since 1968 (think Speilberg, Kubrick, Coppola, Lucas, Cronenberg, Tarkovsky, Scott, Cameron, etc.), and its focus on the impact of technology on our culture and ourselves as human beings. His approach is to treat movies as mythologically informed literature.

Despite the rejection of mythology in much of academia, it appears that our filmmakers have retained their mythological literacy, whether through subliminally absorbing the classics, or actually reading them. Ebert observes that in "Apocalypse Now," Coppola shows Kurtz reading Eliot's "The Hollow Men," which was inspired by Conrad's "Heart of Darkness," also the source of the plot of the movie, while the camera picks up Frazer's "Golden Bough" and Weston's "From Ritual to Romance" on Kurtz's desk.

What do we mean by mythology? We might describe a mythological position, particularly as taken by Joseph Campbell, as the notion that the structures and patterns of the energies of the cosmos that pour into the phenomenal realm are revealed in our myths, literatures, and arts.

Ortega y Gasset wrote:
"[T]he political or cultural aspects of history are... the mere surface of history; that in preference to, and deeper than these, the reality of history lies in biological power, in pure vitality, in what is in man of cosmic energy, not identical with, but related to, the energy which agitates the sea, fecundates the beast, causes the tree to flower and the star to shine."

It is this cosmic energy that Ebert identifies in the great visionary movies of our time. Thus Visionary movies are mythologically based and assume that there are archetypal patterns in the course of empires and nations, in our becoming fully human, in the human/technology interface, and in the cosmos itself. Academia today, with its poststructuralist viewpoint, takes Locke's "tabula rasa" position and is profoundly anti-essentialist, vehemently denying transcendence and archetypal patterns. Ebert's book is a refutation of this position.

From Ebert's point of view, the role of the movie critic becomes to approach movies with a background of literacy adequate to unpacking them and helping us in our readings of them. Ebert does this. Few other movie critics can.

So, should you buy this book? Here is how to decide: Write down a list of your top sixteen films. If five or more overlap with Ebert's list, order the book immediately. Here is Ebert's list.

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Apocalypse Now
3. The Star Wars movies
4. The Godfather movies
5. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
6. Alien
7. Blade Runner
8. Videodrome
9. Raiders of the Lost Ark
10. The Shining
11. The Exorcist
12. A.I,
13. Schindler's List
14. The Road Warrior
15. Titanic
16. Jaws

Another test is that if you enjoy the books of Joseph Campbell or William Irwin Thompson, you will love this book. You can see more of Ebert's work at the website, CinemaDiscourse.

John Ebert's book is essential reading for anyone even slightly interested in "visionary" film-- that genre of film that explores the imaginative and mythic possibilities of film, pioneered all the way back with George Melies, and carried on by such modern proponents as Kubrick, Coppola, Lynch, etc (where Ebert's focus predominates). He offers his keen scholarly insight into the mythic and sociological undercurrents of this still-evolving trend, which I found to be fresh and original. While one will inevitably disagree with some of his assessments ("The Matrix" as garbage?), that's actually some of the fun--and value--of works like this, since it forces one to formulate one's own views in response more clearly, and stimulate one's thinking in ways that straight consensus wouldn't.

There are a few notable omissions from his overview---horror films and experimental cinema surely deserve an seat at this visionary table--but then, a work covering every conceivable facet of this subject would have required a series of volumes rather than just one, so that may actually be a blessing in disguise. All in all, an important work on the premier art of our time--cinema.

This is a beautifully written book on the portrayal of New York City in the movies. The author is extremely knowledgeable about the architecture of NYC (in fact, he is a New York architect), about the geography and history of NYC, and about film, both in its historical and technical aspects. The writing is imaginative, lyrical, thoughtful, and intelligent--this is a labor of love that took 15 years to complete. If you have any interest at all in New York City or in film, do yourself a favor and buy this book. It made me want to go out and rent at least 60 of the films discussed in it, and it reminded me of many great films set in NYC that I've enjoyed in the past and will want to see again to note some of the characters, themes, landmarks, or stage sets that Sanders describes.

If there was ever a book that really needed to be written, and was then executed nearly flawlessly, this is it. Documenting the multi-threaded releationship of New York City and Hollywood (the movie biz began in NYC, and the studios' financial offices remained there; much of the writing/directing/acting talent came to Hollywood from NYC; Hollywood's backlot NYC was the setting of thousands of films; the ideas of the Hollywood versions eventually changed the real thing; etc.), this is a heckuva fun and interesting read.

Among its most fascinating parts are information on the techniques used to create believable NYC settings by the studios (e.g., the most detail I've ever seen on Hitchcock's enormous Rear Window set), examples of the vast amount of architectural and local-color detail contained in the studio's art department photographic files (more than in some of NYC's museums!), and its general architectural analysis of NYC's major iconic structures: skyscrapers, rowhouses, tenements, train stations, nightclubs, etc.

But of even greater interest are the detailed treatments of how NYC was SHOWN in films (both well-known classics and obscure titles) of different genres and eras, and how the IDEA of NYC affected the world audience, and eventually changed the city itself as new generations flocked to their city of dreams... A flip through the photographs alone is a total pleasure.

This is a great book for film buffs, fans of NYC, architecture students, and those interested in 20th century social history. (I'm all of those things, and I LOVED it!)

If you have an interest in films, architecture or New York City then the purchase of this film is a no-brainer. The book is packed with photographs of movies and film sets that feature the buildings of New York. Another reviewer mentioned the Alfred Hitchcock set shot from the film Rope. I would add the shots from Fountainhead and Week-end at the Waldorf as being special and stunning.

James Sanders said that he spent 15 years writing and researching this book and it shows. His points are well written and quite informative.

I would strongly suggest the hardcover edition for its slightly larger size and the quality of the Knopf binding.

First editions can be purchased used at a very attractive price. Like I said, no-brainer.

This fascinating exploration of the interrelationship between the city of New York as an urban center and its portrayal throughout the history of moviemaking is filled with perceptive insight and thoughtful analysis. Highly recommended.

How New York is seen (figuratively and literally) by the rest of the world has been influenced more by Hollywood than anything else. James Sanders brilliant "Celluloid Skyline: New York and the Movies" explores the relationship among Gotham, Hollywood, and the rest of the planet. There's a lot here, and a lot of material that has never been presented before.

Each section offers specific insights into the cinematic image of New York: its icons, its myths, its realities. What is also intriguing is how Hollywood's directors manipulated actual city locations to make it look "more like New York". One of my favorite essays has to do with the "domestic" look of New York: its mansions, row houses, and tenements. Also fascinating is the section called "Nighttown"--Hollywood loves the dangerous flavor of New York's streetlife.

This is a marvelous book with a marvelous look. Take one of the other reviewers' advice, however, and get the hardcover. The size makes a big difference.

it came in good condition.havent had a chance 2 read it but i'm sure its good like the least of the books.

I love the show, love the book, love 'em all!!
I loved the detail of the book, made me feel like i was there.
for sure I'm ordering more books from charmed. love this!!!!!!

Leo can't find the Charned ones, he has Wyatt and newborn Chris. I read slow.

GREAT READ - IN TRADITION OF THE AWSOME SERIES THAT SADLY ENDED IN 2006. THIS IS A GREAT ADVENTURE AND KEEPS YOU INTERESTED. I DEFINATELY RECOMMEND TO ALL PIPER AND LEO FANS. WOULD HAVE LOVED TO SEE THIS AS ONE OF THE EPISODES IN SEASON 7 OF CHARMED.

I've read my fair share of spin-off novels in order to get an extra taste of a favorite movie or TV series. You take them with a grain of salt, knowing that they won't exactly be Shakespeare or even up to par with the original work. So, imagine my delight when I picked up this book (the first I've read of the Charmed series), and discovered a very well-written novel that is incredibly faithful to the canon (most delicate of all being the characters and the Charmed universe). Leo (my favorite character) is newly mortal and dealing with Piper's over-protection, when the sisters are kidnapped by a mad scientist. Leo summons his adult sons from the future to help him unravel the mystery and rescue the Charmed Ones. It's a story with enough character and mystery that it could easily have been a strong episode of the series. It could have used more drama and play between Leo, his sons, and Piper. But still, an excellent spin-off. Grade: A-