Longshot features travel writer turned novelist John Kendall who, to make ends meet, accepts a commission to produce the biography of a race horse trainer. Kendall soon discovers, however, that a recent murder at the trainer's home is far from resolved, and unwittingly becomes ensnared in a web of deceit and danger. Kendall is forced to draw on survival skills honed in exotic locations in order to navigate these home-grown perils.

The book's strength, like most Dick Francis mysteries, lies in solid pacing and engaging characters. Francis juggles well a fairly large cast, all with realistic motivations and personal quirks; the only person who does not ring true, perhaps, is the police inspector who obligingly spills facts to Kendall as needed. Kendall himself is another well-crafted Francis everyman, at loose ends emotionally and personally while he tries to pursue a new professional calling. He stands out from other Francis heroes with his specialized knowledge of living off the land, rather hazardous traps, and survival against the elements. And who as a child didn't dream once or twice of surviving in the wild in such a manner? Francis offers, once again, a chance to experience someone else's livelihood and to puzzle together a mystery along the way.

I enjoyed this book enormously when I first read it and bought the audio version just for fun. Kenneth Branaugh really made this book a treat to listen to - fantastic voices and range without over doing it. Dick Francis fans - anyone really - will be thoroughly entertained with Longshot.

This is the first Dick Francis novel I've read. I originally purchased this novel because of my love of horses, and how he incorporates them into his writing. However, when reading, I realized that Mr. Francis' books stand on their own. This story was incredibly exhilerating, and well written. I had a hard time putting it down once I got into it. All the characters are interesting, and developed very well. I'm looking forward to reading another one of Mr. Francis' novels in the near future. I highly recommend this book.

The book to accompany the movie. There's nothing new here, really, although one can take the screenplay and check it against the play to find out the changes that were made to the text.

Branagh says in the foreword that having the American actors was his idea. Perhaps. I had heard a rumor that he had included them for a wider U.S. distribution. In any case, it's worth noting that the Americans, with the possible exception of Denzel Washington, just can't hold a candle to even the meanest bit parts played by the British. I still think Keaton was way too "Beetlejuice" for Dogberry, although the explanation for his interpretation herein gave me new insight into it. If you're a Branagh admirer as I am, you shouldn't pass this book up.

I just can't say enough good things about this book. The pictures are fabulous--I'd pay the price of the book for them alone! And for those curious about stage production and screenplays, this book is a MUST HAVE! Much Ado is definitely my favorite play by Shakespeare. Kenneth Branagh's movie version is the most fun version of Much Ado I've ever seen, and this book captures Branagh's magic. You will not be disappointed!

This film is Branagh's best ever. Easy to follow with excellent acting. Great casting of both English and American actors.

Relatively, the screenplay is 173 pages and the film diary by Russell Jackson (not Branagh) is 34 pages. Branagh does furnish a short introduction. In addition there are about 30 pages of absolutely beautiful stills from the film and the filming. There are certainly better reading versions of Hamlet available, the screenplay is the full Shakespeare play so there's not much to analyze as regards to editing, the diary is not from a prominent member of the cast or crew (a filmographer I think but I am not sure of his role in this specific film), the color photographs included are spectacular and leave me wanting more but they generally are on the small side. Maybe it is handy to mark lines or scenes that are of particular interest... Mostly, I like it more for the memory of the movie (spectacular!!!) than for the book itself so unless you are an equally avid fan the book may disappoint.

Hamlet is arguably the best play that Shakespeare ever wrote. This play has intrigue and misery and death everything that makes it Shakespeare but not only that it is more interesting not only in plot but in language than all the other plays. If you are not use to reading Shakespeare then you may have trouble understanding everything that is going on in this play.

The character of Hamlet is so interesting because his misery can be interpreted in so many different forms. Hamlet's misery can be construed as his frustration over his father's death or his love for Ophelia, or just adolescent misery in general. The fact that it can be all of these things just makes it more interesting because in each way the play can be read in different ways.

Hamlet seems so noble in his efforts to expose his uncle as a murderer but he is also a murderer because he murders Polonias. This event in turn makes Ophelia mad and she then commits suicide and therefore her brother blames Hamlet so there is double guilt for Hamlet.

In the end of the play I believe that Hamlet is so tortured not only with his own guilt but also his misery of all of the other factors such as his mother that he actually wants to die. But he had to kill Claudius in order to feel ready to die because then he would have done his duty and avenged his father's death.
My favorite part in the play is where Hamlet devises the play to his own benefit to confirm that Claudius is really the killer and that the ghost was really his father and not the devil.

This play is great fun to read and play out in your mind. If you want to see a good video version of this play rent the version that stars Mel Gibson. This is my favorite Shakespeare play and always will be.

This version of "Hamlet", brought to the screen (and page) by Branagh, is great fun to read, owing to the humorous "inner monologues" inserted by the author into the text. Although they do sound "twentieth century-ish", they fit perfectly between the lines. In this case, "reading between the lines" was most enjoyable!

The Folger Library series are your best Shakespeare source. They specialize in Shakespeares' greatest plays and are quality books that are perfect companion and translator to Shakespeare. It is loaded with page after page of translation from the Old English expressions that are no longer in use to our modern talk, and pictures as well as historic background information on th Elizabethan era and Shakespeares' life. Hamlet is without question Shakespeare's greatest tragedy, remaining in our theatrical culture to this very day. It has become a conversation piece for English professors, dramatists and screen actors (Mel Gibson tackled the role in 1991) and even psychologists, who claim that Hamlet had the Oedipal complex, especially when they read the scene in which Hamlet is in his mother's bedroom. What makes Hamlet so great ? Why does this old play still come alive when performed on the stage in the hands of the right actors ?

Shakespeare, believe it or not, was a people's person and knew about the human condition perhaps more than anyone in his day. Hamlet deals principally with obscession for revenge. Hamlet is a prince whose father has been murdered under the evil conspiracy from his uncle Claudius and even the support of his mother, Queen Gertrude. Depressed, wearing black all the time, and very much as solitary as any "Goth" would be in our day, Hamlet laments his situation, until his father's ghost appears and urges him to avenge his death. The mystery still remains, is this ghost real ? Is it, as many in Elizabetheans thought, a demon in disguise ? Or is it simply a figment of Hamlet's own emotions and desire for revenge. At any rate, Hamlet's father appears twice and Hamlet spends most of the play planning his revenge. His most striking line that reveals this consuming need is "The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king!".

Pretending to be mad, he scorns even the love of the woman he genuinely loves, Ophelia, whose mind is shattered and heart is broken and who has an impressive mad scene. The deaths of Hamlet's friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are also in Hamle'ts hands and a consequence of his revenge. The famous soliloquy in the play, is of course, "To be or not to be", taken on by such great actors as Lawrence Olivier and Orson Welles. Hamlet muses on the brevity of life and the suffering which can only cease through death, as he holds a skull and is evidently suicidal. Finally, the last scenes are the most dramatic. Hamlet duels with Laertes, Ophelia's brother, and with Claudius himself. The deaths of the main cast, including the Queen, goes to show how tragic the human desire for greed and revenge is.

This is Shakespeare's finest tragedy, and quality drama, best seen in a live stage performance, but that also works as a film. As for this book, as I said before, this is the Hamlet to have. You will become more acquianted with Hamlet and Shakespeare even more than taking a year's course with a teacher. This book itself is the teacher.

If you could read only one thing in your lifetime Hamlet should be that one thing. It is Shakespeare's best work by far, and within its pages is more meaning than you could find within the pages of an entire library full of books, or plays as the case may be. A mere review, a couple words, cannot do Hamlet justice. At times I realize that the language of Shakespeare can be difficult that is why I recommend the Folger version because it helps to make the images expressed by Shakespeare's characters clear to the reader, and allows them to get their own deep personal meaning from Hamlet, Shakespeare's greatest work, with out being bogged down in trying to decipher and interpret his antiquarian English. Don't just listen to what I say, or read what I write, read the play on your own outside the cumbersome restraints of a classroom and see for yourself what I mean.

Ah, yes. Hailed by many as Shakespeare's Magnum Opus (is that right?), this is certainly one of his most significant dramatic works. Hamlet is an atmosperic story of internalization - of feelings (guilt, love, hatred), of people, thoughts, and actions. Marked by indecision and a strong sense of self-pity and self-consciousness, Hamlet makes the slow transition from fear to determination in his quest to avenge his father's death. Oedipal complex, supernatural powers, royal incest, revenge - these are all explored in the play. Several famous questions are posed and thoughts explored - of existence, suicide, meaning, value. Hamlet is just packed with philosophy, psychology, and humanity. A must-read in which you will find many of the most famous soliloquies in all of Shakespeare. Thrown in Yorick's skull, poor Ophelia, good Horatio, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, you've got yourself one awesome play.

Okay, you're probably thinking that I'm just someone complaining about having to read it in my freshman year's honors English class. No, I was not forced to read this. I read it far before it was on the reading list. Just wanted to clear that up. Back to the review. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is an intriguing autobiography of a man obsessed with tampering with the laws of nature by reversing them. This novel shows how man deals with failure and loss. Unfortunatly, Victor Frankenstein dealt with failure and loss the wrong way and... Wait, I don't want to give away the ending. Anyway, Mary Shelley creates a clever plot and adds some gruesome happenings and romance, combining the three to make one of the most famous horror stories. Unfortunatly, for those of you still hooked to video games and fast-paced action, you may have a difficult time reading this for it tends to drag out at some points. But that's how literature is, you'll just have to deal with it. Apart from that, I would definitly recommend this book to just about anyone.

Victor Frankenstein's creation had murdered members of his family and strangled to death his fiance on their wedding night fulfilling his threat to "be with you on your wedding night" and warned Victor, "You are my creator but I am your master." As Victor centered his life around creating the monster, he would later center it around hunting down and killing his creation. This manhunt would expend Victor's life and prove his efforts futile to catch an untouchable and nameless monster. This novel is full of enduring themes of ambition, friendship, and the conflict between the two, psychology, oppression and rebellion, the dangers of scientific and intellectual advancement, and societal injustice. The writing itself isn't great but it's the story and the themes that make this a great classic.

Shelley wrote this book influenced by the period of time in which she lived, the Romantic Period. This was the response to the previous time, the Age of Enlightenment. In the Enlightened Age, reasoning was deemed of utmost importance and people thought that there were natural laws and that reason plus these natural laws would equal progress. By progress, they meant not only advancement, but unlimited advancement, that society would continue to move closer and closer to perfection. In Frankenstein, we see the result of so much logic and reason- the creation of a monster. In the story there seems to be no natural laws governing the world. The Romantic Period accounted for emotion like reasoning and logic cannot. The monster as the center of the novel shows us as his direst need a companion, as does Frankenstein himself.

When I think of what natural laws would govern the world, Justice comes to mind as the most important. Throughout this whole story, justice is so dearly lacking. Injustice leads to more injustice. The monster is born into unforgiving circumstances that were not his fault. His creator rejects him immediately. Throughout his life, the monster found himself rejected by everyone for the repulsive looks his creator gave him. The monster even suffered rejection of the impoverished family he ardently and sacrificially helped. When he saved a girl from drowning, her father shot him. The monster yearned desperately for a mate of his kind, which Victor denied him for fear the two would breed an entire race of fiends or that she, too would reject him and there would be two fiends. Decide this debate between the monster and Victor for yourself. Even if Victor was right to deny him a mate, it was still an injustice for the monster. After all, the monster could not help the disadvantages he was born into and he strove mightily to be virtuous. He exercised his will and responsibility strongly, but to no avail. The poor thing begs for just one friend and he is denied this. The innocent Justine (a play on the word "Justice") is executed for the monster's crime; the monster eventually slays several innocent people he doesn't even know. Injustice is what moves the plot of Frankenstein.

Shelley's novel disputes the importance and promise of natural laws, reasoning, and the idea of progress. It introduces emotion and intuition. Frankenstein studied laboriously but failed because he left the monster emotionally neglected and rejected. When Victor first learns of the murder of an innocent member of his family, he intuitively knows it was the doing of the monster- he offers no reasoning or deduction as to how he knows. The monster hounds Victor and seems to supernatually know where he is at all times.

One of the many interpretations of Frankenstein is that it was a product of the Romantic Period, which was a response to the Age of Enlightenment. My own evaluation of reasoning vs emotion is that our logic must be in control of us always but that emotions are a part of us too and must be satisfied.

This book is a great read. The main character is not the monster, but the scientist Victor Frankenstein who creates him. The story is told from his point of view, and reads wonderfully. It's a bit like a journal, beginning with a line something like 'I was born in..', and truly can be called a 'story'. It is not what I expected, not as scary as I thought it would be, and the monster is very different to the typical image most people have of him. Although, however, the author leaves a lot about his features to the imagination. The story takes place in Switzerland, England, the Arctic, and other places around Europe. Mary Shelley paints a beautiful canvas through her descriptions of mountains, rivers, the sky and sea, the sun and the moon, castles, towns and villages, relating human emotions to them. In different parts of the story, both Victor and the monster spend days and weeks in isolation to dwell on their troubles. Nature plays a role and has an effect on their thoughts and emotions. The monster often sees the sun, the shade of the trees, and songs of the birds as his only companions.

The monster torments Victor by murdering those close to him. The author leaves you to decide on these events, and sometimes you sympathise with the monster, sometimes you cannot accept any excuse for his misdeeds. The victims are as innocent as can be and poor Victor has to bear so much grief, but the monster is alone and repulsed by the whole of mankind. Both creator and creation suffer. I won't dwell on the themes of these points as I'm sure other reviewers can do better, I'll just say the book is wonderful. Read it if you like good stories with a nice unhurried pace, and if you don't mind getting a little depressed. And, even if you do mind, read it anyway, it's such a short book.

Hatchuel is a fan of Shakespeare, but even more, she is a fan of Kenneth Branagh. So she brings a devotee's spirit of enthusiasm to her study of Branagh's treatment of Shakespeare in three movie adaptations: Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing, and Hamlet. Like a good fan, she's obviously watched these movies a dozen times, as well as every other film Branagh has done. Like a good academic, she lists in the bibliography every review, book, and snippet ever written about the movies from either side of the Atlantic. The book is a light read, never profound or deeply analytical, it probes Branagh's choices of imagery and camera angle and text, much of which are related to his mission to make the plays accessible to the public. This is a fun read, and even useful if you've just seen the movies or are about to see them again. But it's also a bit repetitive. Hatchuel explains the book's outline and choice of themes in the Introduction, but the chapters read like a series of somewhat disconnected observations, so that it's difficult to discern the functional difference between the last chapter and the first. The absence of any conclusion leaves the reader hanging a bit. The conclusions are in the Introduction, so the book's squishy organization is felt most acutely on the last page when the expected concluding remarks never materialize. This is an interesting and quick little book for those who enjoy Shakespeare and Branagh, but it's a lot of trees without much forest.

Sarah Hatchuel's Companion is an insightful tribute to Kenneth Branagh's work. In the Forward, Hatchuel states "Kenneth Branagh's Shakespearean movies occupy a very peculiar cultural position. As Shakespearean works, the participate in an 'elite' culture, often rejected by the young. Yet by their well-paced and sensuous cinematic treatment, they participate in the world of Hollywood movies, often scorned by scholars."

If you agree with Hatchuel's statement, you will love this book.

Hatchuel covers Branagh's first three Shakespeare films: Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet. In Hatchuel's first chapter, "Branagh's Mission of Accessibility," she draws a relationship between Branagh's report of his emotional response to Derek Jacobi's Hamlet in Oxford and Branagh's screen style. Hatchuel describes this experience as "an emotional shock, a sensory experience, almost a musical sensation, and not an intellectual or literary discovery." Hatchuel ably make her case that it is this reaction that inspires and informs Branagh's work.

In the second chapter, "Theatrical Influences," Hatchuel argues that Branagh's source of inspiration for many of the elements in these films can be traced directly to theater productions in which he participated. Hatchuel makes an excellent defense and since the productions are fairly recent, the reader will be familiar with most of the names in this chapter. The second chapter has 60 reference notes, giving you an idea of how carefully Hatchuel documents and supports her statements.

In Chapter Three, "Hamlet: A Long Way," Hatchuel documents the roughly twenty year odyssey that culminated in Branagh's masterpiece. According to Hatchuel, Branagh's journey began with the Derek Jacobi Hamlet mentioned above and traveled through a variety of stage productions. Hatchuel presents Branagh's Hamlets in chronological order and shows how each of the productions influenced his decisions in the film. She includes the BBC audio production as well as the stage plays.

The fourth chapter, "From Shakespeare's Text to Branagh's Script," explains Branagh's text arrangement and deletion decisions in Henry V and Much Ado About Nothing. The fifth and sixth chapters cover cinematic elements, including Patrick Doyle's film scores. It is interesting to read Doyle's objectives for his themes and his inspirations. These chapters also discuss sets, perspective, pacing, lighting and Branagh's choices of cutaway shots.

Not only does Hatchuel raise interesting points, she supports her arguments with a variety of interesting sources, all carefully documented and including helpful endnotes for each chapter. As delightful as the book is, it would have benefited from some still photographs. On the other hand, you get a 23 page Bibliography which is probably as at least as beneficial as photos from movies you've already seen.

Due to the price tag, I recommend purchasing this book only to readers who already know they love Branagh's Shakespeare films. You'll find reading this book as interesting as discussing these films with like-minded friends.

Stephens is a bit much as Richard (does he have to yell so often?) but the supporting cast, with Michael York in a multitude of roles, Dame Peggy Ashcroft as Margaret, Glenda Jackson as Lady Anne and Jeremy Brett as the Earl of Clarence (for once, the part is done right--Brett comes off as believable, not as a whiny brat as in many portrayals) is fantastic. Unabridged, as another reviewer noted, and digitally remastered, this recording is the best I've come across so far. Highly recommended!

This is a terrific version of Shakespeare's play, starring Robert Stephens as the wicked King Richard in a deliciously "over the top" performance. Audio book lovers should take heed: this is the *unabridged* play, on three cassettes and clocking in at approximately four hours! And indeed some of the more formal lamentation scenes do tend to grow tiresome (but that is a feature of the play and not the performers' fault); however, the vitality of the Richard scenes amply outweighs this. The supporting cast, including Glenda Jackson, Dame Peggy Ashcroft, and Cyril Cusack, is uniformly excellent, but top honors must go to Stephens. The recorded sound (digitally remastered from a 1967 recording) is very good. Highly recommended.

As a Kenneth Branagh fan, I fin this book rather interesting but now is antiquated.

This is not one of Greene's best books, but it is worth a read if you are a fan of his works. About a third of the way through this book I was ready to chalk it up as a major disappointment. The payoff comes late, and when it does it makes the read well worth the time. The last third of the book is a marvelous sketch of relationships and love. Greene really knows how to put the subtleties of life into words.

This isn't a "buyer beware," it's just a "buyer be patient!" The Greene touch is here, you just have to get to it.

Novel explores the universal human need to be loved and to be able to give love through the eyes of a lonely boy. The book does not make clear the nature of the relationship of the man (who is called "the Captain") and woman with whom he comes to live as a surrogate son. However, this lack of clarity become the focal point of the story. We, the readers, are invited to share boy's thoughts and feelings of not only the boy's perception of what this couple mean to each other, but also whether they love or even care for him. After all, the Captain is frequently absent and then, seemingly, abandons them. The boy even questions if he has ever been loved by anyone or if he is capable of loving another human being. Years later, when he travels to Central America to meet with the long absent Captain, he uncovers not only the type of work that kept the Captain so often away from home, but also how love and deep feelings for another person may exist without ever being expressed aloud. How sad that so many of us can only see this in retrospect, when it is too late.

One of the last novels by Graham Greene, "The Captain and the Enemy" was written in 1988, just three years before the death of the master. Although his prose is as always enjoyable, a little detached and sentimental at the same time, in the novel there seems to be an indication that Greene was aware of the shortcomings of the old age. The books is written in a form of a careless memoir with too many holes in it, no doubt intended ones, considering the contents, but now and then Greene ventures into the reflexive mode of general narration, and I couldn't help but have an impression that I listened to an old man's voice of admission. For a writer, it must not have been easy, but then Greene kept writing all his life, and virtually all of his literary heritage has been revered to this day; a wonder the man had never won the Nobel Prize for literature - another proof that one should not hold too much value in such awards.

In a way, "The Captain and the Enemy" is full of contradictions, whether intended or not, but on the other hand, this small book incorporates all lifelong passions of Graham Greene, where yet again he touches the multidimensional subjects of interest from yet another viewpoint. The book starts in a humorous way, to quickly transform into a good-natured and intriguing story of a small boy whose life is one great patchwork, him not having a fixed place in the world, with all family connections never materializing themselves. The mother - dead as long as he remembers; the father, or 'The Devil' as everyone is fond of saying - loses the boy in chess, or was it backgammon? The boy never seems to unveil that mystery which no one bothers to tell him. Then there is the Captain, the winner of the game, whatever it was, and his woman, Lisa. As you shall see when you read the book, there is no other way to call her, but the woman. Never in the center of the storyline, although incredibly essential for one's understanding of the novel, Lisa enters the story as abruptly as she does exit, leaving us virtually scratching our heads. Such is the whole novel, in fact, full of mysteries, secrets, blanks spaces, only some of which shall be filled in eventually.

One of the greatest strengths of the novel is the portrait of the pair, Lisa and the Captain. Although Greene takes infinite care to never really show us them both, or none of them separately for that matter, it seems to me that the key to understanding "The Captain and the Enemy" lies in letting go of the reader's routine, and the yearning for the full explanation, resolution of all threads, explanation one is used to be spoon-fed with. If you accept the fact that the story leaves much to you, all of those blanks to fill in, patchwork to sew together - you are already well-prepared. However, as much as the details are important, the key is to adopt the narrator's viewpoint, or better, the Captain's, if you dare. Why did they live apart from each other all their life, and why it seemed they loved each other dearly, although there's never any real sign of it? Greene was capable of writing a great love story without having his characters ever mention the subject, nor mouth the four-letter word themselves, for that matter. So far away, and so close.

"I brought up the forbidden word. 'Does he love you?'

'Oh, love. They are always saying God loves us. If that's love, I'd rather have a bit of kindness'" [p. 84]

I finished this four-part novel in one day. At first I enjoyed it immensely, but as I read on, I had more and more trouble understanding its real meaning. As the book progresses, we change the scenery and land in Panama of the late 70s, where another part of the Captain's life is revealed, and the book adopts the flavor of an espionage thriller. As I closed the book, I had mixed emotions, and needed to air my head a bit to at least attempt to grasp the full meaning of this novel. Good literature makes you think, and that we can't deny Greene. His novels slowly grow on you, and leave a long-lasting impression and a desire to come back, one day. Which I shall do, and I wish you the same, dear reader.

The story by Mary Shelling has made another big screen debut almost 60 years later then the original one. They movies about the same old frankenstein getting loose in the village and terrorizing everyone only this is 20 times more gory! Changed a little bit for the better but all the same a great horror movie. Frankenstein doesn't have the bolts coming out of his neck. Rated R: for graphic violence