Well, it was a good idea, but...There are far too many omissions to make this book worthwhile. I can understand why genre novels made into genre films could be excluded--after all, how many people know or care that SOYLENT GREEN was based on a Harry Harrision novel titled MAKE ROOM, MAKE ROOM? Or that the movie COP was based on James Ellroy's BLOOD ON THE MOON? Or that DARK OF THE SUN was based on a Wilbur Smith novel of the same name? But at the same time, how could the authors of NOVELS INTO FILM fail to make reference to Lew Wallace's BEN-HUR? Or Howard Fast's SPARTACUS? Or Jack D. Hunter's THE BLUE MAX? Or Eugene Burdick's and Harvey Wheeler's FAIL-SAFE? Or Pierre Boulle's PLANET OF THE APES and THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI? Or Edison Marshall's THE VIKINGS? Or choose to talk about a failed Richard Matheson adaptation like WHAT DREAMS MAY COME, but leave out THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN? Or forget to include..well, never mind. The list of omissions goes on. Yet the above works were all major mainstream novels of their eras, novels that were made into much-beloved and/or critically-acclaimed movies. These novels into films should have been included--especially since the authors of this so-called "Encylopedia" saw fit to pencil in adaptations of currently-popular--but hardly literary--authors such as Stephen King and John Grisham. I bought the book sight unseen--more fool me. I was cheated. Don't get cheated yourself.

Like other reviewers, I bought this without actually looking at it and I agree that it could have been done much better. It's a very good idea which seems to have fallen down in the execution. To the list of serious omissions I would add: The Ice Storm, The Godfather (!!) Rosemary's Baby, Midnight Cowboy, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Primary Colours, Lady In The Lake, Fear & and Loathing in Las Vegas (if we are talking about Hollywood here.) National cinemas other than American are very poorly represented. The book does acknowledge that it's the 'abridged' edition, and I would not have liked to have to choose what went in and what got left out, but still. The individual essays vary a great deal in usefulness and quality, with some being really very good and others abysmal. In future editions I would like to see more attention given to non-US filmmaking.

It is interesting if you like to read. It is also interesting to see how what were once thought as interesting and new stories are old, recycled from novels that few knew existed.

I agree with D. Breckey's suggestion that this book is not what it seems to be. Its grammatical usage ticks me off. If you want to earn a MCSE cert., hunt around! It is not worth all the papers that it's printed on, and I already recycled it.

It is very, very rare that an instructional text will actually upset me. Actually, before picking up this book I would have said it was not possible. I unfortunately had to use this text for a course I was taking or I never would have read it cover to cover. Because I actually read the entire book, I feel I can honestly and completely say it is the most unfortunate book purchase I have ever made. While reading through the book, I kept having to check other sources to validate the accuracy of the data that was included. Often when something seemed to be inaccurate I found that upon referencing M'soft text or resources, that it indeed was or that it was described so poorly that it was more confusing than helpful. This was the biggest problem with the book, that things were so insufficiently described at times that I felt I was reading a summary instead of a book that was dedicated to detailing one product. The frosting on the cake was the non-standard grammatical usage that littered the text. It was enough to make the tedious task of reading it almost unbearable.