Horton's book provides an invaluable introduction to the work of a master of modern cinema. He identifies the major themes that emerge in Angelopoulous' work, and then looks at some of his movies in great depth, including a detailed account of the narratives in each. This is meant to allow the reader that has not seen any of the films to gain an insight into the work.

There are two major problems with the book. The first is that it should have included more images from his films since Angelopoulos' work is so dependant on the composition of the frame etc. Also, there could have been room for a more critical approach to his work. As it stands, it feels like not enough questions were asked of an artist whos work ought to provoke more than mere reverance from those familiar with his work.

Otherwise, this is a stong into to A's work which, hopefully, will be added to as his career continues.

MANY OF THIS MAN'S FILMS ARE NOT AVALIBLE IN THE U.S. THOSE THAT ARE ARE "ULYSEE'S GAZE" AND " LANDSCAPES IN THE MIST",THESE ARE BOTH ON TAPE. WATCHING THESE IS AN AMAZING VIEWER EXPERIENCE.WATCHING THEM WITH THE AID OF MR. HORTON'S BOOK MAKE THE EXPERIENCE SOME OF THE BEST FILMGOING I HAVE EVER DONE. HIS WRITING IS CLEAR AND ENLIGHTNING WITH OUT A DOSE OF ACADEMIC MUSCLE FLEXING THAT IS SO MUCH A PART OF BOOKS ON CINEMA. I HOPE YOU HAD AS MUCH FUN READING AND WATCHING AS I DID.

The nineteen essays collected here (along with introduction and afterword) grapple with various aspects of cinematic "remakes", and while most have something to offer the general reader, many get bogged down in attempting to find a definition or critical space for remakes. In other words, to get to the good stuff, you're going to have to wade through a lot of critical jargon from psychoanalytic film theory and cultural studies'words such as "intertextuality," "oedipal" and "postmodernity" pop up a lot. That caveat aside, there are plenty of nuggets to reward the patient reader.

Albert Kolker's "Recalculating the Hitchcock Formula" is an intriguing analysis of Martin Scorcese's Cape Fear, in which it is proposed that Scorcese remade Cape Fear by simultaneously remaking Hitchcock's Stage Fright, I Confess, and Stranger on a Train. Dan Georgakas's essay on Robin Hood effectively shows how the 1938 and 1991 versions each embodied the cultural and political trends of their time. Michael Brashinsky's considers Bergman's Virgin Spring and Wes Craven's The Last House of the Left in an examination of how a to remake a European "art" film into a low-budget slasher picture. In "The Superhero With A Thousand Faces," Luca Somigli provides a cogent analyses of the relationship of superhero film franchises such as Batman and Superman to their comic-book sources. His elegant conclusion is that such projects are based on the accumulated myth of the characters and setting, rather than being remakes. My favorite essay is Elisabeth Weis's exploration on how the film M*A*S*H was adapted for television and managed to continually reinvent itself while maintaining audience loyalty. Other essays have their moments, but the ones above will be the most accessible and interesting to the general reader.

This book provides some marvelous exercises for learning to think comically, which Horton claims is essential to writing good comedy. He also provides a rich history of comic traditions in many genres, which adds to the book's usefulness. He does, however, manage to skim both subjects too lightly in his attempt to put both in the same book. Thus, those who are looking for a how-to book will be dissatisfied, and those who are looking for an academic book will be dissatisfied. His treatment of comedy as a genre is too light to be considered anything other than watered down for screenwriters who are supposed to care. Did *I* enjoy the book? In most instances, yes. However, I found it too selective of what Horton considered good examples of comedy.

The subtitle of this book is "Writing the Comedy-Centered Screenplay". It should be "A History of Comedy".

I found this book very dry and difficult to get through. Most of the useful information is found in the first chapter of two. What follows is a detailed history of comedy starting with Aristophanes and such hilarious examples of anarchistic comedy as:

"Come at once to supper And bring your pitcher, and your supper chest, The priest of Bacchus sends to fetch you thither. And do be quick: you keep the supper waiting."

Pretty funny stuff, huh? As an earlier reviewer commented, leave this one for the academics.

Andrew Horton destroys the myths about sitcom and comedy writing with Laughing Out Loud. Those who believe that a writer doesn't need theory or a history of comedy lesson shouldn't write. Do us the favour and resist the temptation. Some sitcoms and comedies coming from the USA are witnesses to terrible writing. Laughing Out Load will help any comedy writer to at least get the comedy right. It helped me as a documentary filmmaker to look at serious subjects with a bit of humour. Even if you never write a comedy screenplay, Laughing Out Load will help you understand why you laugh at certain jokes and groan at others.

Horton's well-thought-out book is more than a simple "how-to," or list of "tricks of the trade," it is an exciting blend of theory and instruction. Building on Aristotle's classic three-sided definition of drama, Horton defines the "character-centered" screenplay and leads the reader through a thought-provoking analysis of the workings of this sub-genre. He goes on to explain structure, give tips and even a writing schedule that is adaptable to the aspiring screenwriter's needs. Critics have long lamented the lack of believable characters in American film; Andrew Horton is doing something about it. For me personally, it redefined how I watch movies.

Don't waste any time like I did reading catchy titles like "Writing Screenplays That Sell." If you are serious about writing screenplays, you MUST read "Writing the Character-Centered Screenplay." It is the BEST book out there. It may be difficult to get through, only because it's so thick with good information, but it will give you a solid understanding of how to write great characters. I have serveral books on screenwriting, but this is the only one that has any real value. Sorry Syd.

I couldn't put this book down. If I thought this book was boring (as one reader claims), I wouldn't be able to finish reading it, much less finish it in one sitting! Horton delves into subject matter that every screenwriting class I've taken seems to skip. These classes (mostly plot-centered) teach that the "Hollywood" script should have a theme, but that theme is usually the main character's transformation from one end of the spectrum to the complete opposite. Horton assures us that this does not have to be the case for a well-written, character-centered screenplay. Rather, different aspects of a character appear at different times, under different circumstances, much like real life! In other words, the protagonist does not need to be "transformed" in order to be dimensional. Horton's examples are wonderful and he is inspiring.

Read the other one star review. It was being kind

Please, please, please avoid this book. If it was possible to give it NO stars, I would have done so. It is the most turgid academic bilge I have read in years. Why is there so much drivel written about Keaton? You are better off searching out David Robinson's KEATON, the best critial analysis of his films. Check this out on OOP booksearches instead; it probably costs the same as this wretched book and it is at least worth it.

I don't think this book is bad at all! It has a lot of interesting things to say about Sherlock, Jr. I really think the past two reviewers were way too harsh!