The author not only takes a stand and expresses an opinion, he backs up his views with specific examples. He dispels many myths about individual liberties and makes a convincing argument why liberty is so essential to our existence. It is somewhat frightening to learn about the very real errosion of our liberty. This book brings all of this to light is a very readable and interesting presentation.

This book is indeed a masterpiece and it is great for someone who is studying to be an engineer or is interested in architecture. It is fantastic and has everything from the Lovely Louvre to the palace at Petra, from the Great Golden Gate to the construction of the Chrysler. It shows fine examples of art deco, modern, classical, Greek, Muslim etc. architectural wonders. It not only explains and shows the construction of these great buildings, but for certain buildings it also shows their plan, it's legends, along with information about who built it, why did they build it, whom did it build it for, when was it built, and where it is. It also has sections showing the greatest styles of architecture ever used along with a series of historic sites in the world. All in all this is a fantastic and very useful guide to the masterpieces of Architecture and Engineering.

-------------------------AHMED MASHHOOD--------------------------

This book is commendable for its conception but is flawed in its premise and execution. The problem is there are too many fingers in the pie. I would have liked to read about one historian's perspective on all the films reviewed. Instead, each film was addressed and compared to historical recollections by a different author. There is no uniformity of thought or perspective. For instance, I am sure that if Stephen Ambrose had reviewed TORA! TORA! TORA! he may have seen that film in a much more favorable light than did Akira Iriye. One can speculate to infinitum. It is possible to find and read countless books on a given historical topic. The point I am making is that each author has the ability to bring different perspectives or interpretations of historical record that may result in different conclusions of events or more importantly ideas. If you were to ask an auditorium full of historians what was the most important factor contributing to the start of the Civil War I am sure you may get at least five good answers. Perhaps the idea that a film conveys is more important than the accuracy of each step that led to that idea. I think that SPARTACUS is an important film not as a representation of a historical record but for the idea that the inherent rights of human beings to live free is a notion worth dying for. Kirk Douglas as SPARTACUS stated something to the effect that he would never stand by and see two men battle and die just for the amusement of other men. There is something very noble about that statement and to the visuals on the screen that precipitated that assertion. To touch a chord of emotion from the audience is really the magic of the cinema. I never once ever thought that the purpose of the cinema was to teach history. For the audience the main purpose of the cinema is to be entertained and if you take it a few more steps perhaps come away with an idea or spark of imagination. That's the beauty of the cinema.

This is a very interesting and useful book but I don't exactly like the overall point of view that it takes on motion pictures. It takes many historically based films and critiques them by comparing what is on the screen to actual historical events. Each chapter is devoted to one film (in most instances) and is critiqued by a different authority. The one constant that I see running throughout this book is that history does not make for good motion pictures if you are gazing through the eyes of the historian. That disturbs me. Motion pictures are a business as well a legitimate art form. If a historically based movie gets your interest as well as entertains you then perhaps that movie has fulfilled its purpose. The movie is the catalyst. It is up to you to dig up the history book and see what was recorded. And if you dig up a second history book it is very possible that those same events may be recorded slightly different. I liked the critique by Sean Wilentz on "THE BUCCANEER: Two Films" where he states that they stand somewhere in between fact and fiction. Akira Iriye is too critical of TORA! TORA! TORA! When you recall that particular motion picture, that's the one that stands out as a film that tried to get all the facts correct. Americans and Japanese respective of their home countries directed it. Iriye's criticism is almost ludicrous trying to state that inflections in the voices of some of the actors actually distorted the true meaning of their words. In light of PEARL HARBOR (2001) Akira Iriye is way off mark. Marshall De Bruhl's words about THE ALAMO are redundant and superficial. THE ALAMO was John Wayne's screen fulfillment of the legend. THE ALAMO is a great American film and it perpetuates that legend till this day. I liked what Stephen E. Ambrose had to say about THE LONGEST DAY. Ambrose recognizes that half the duality of filmmaking is a business. His approach and comments are very insightful and well written. As seen by James H. McPerson GLORY comes off best. It deserves it. "PAST IMPERFECT" is a good book but I just wish there were more input from the filmmakers.

When you're both a student of history and a movie buff, as I am, it can be difficult to sit and watch a film that presumes to have an accurate historical context without fighting the urge to evaluate it and pick holes in it. And I'm not the only one. This is a collection of analytical essays, most of high quality, by experts (not all of them historians) analyzing and critiquing individual films: Stephen Jay Gould on _Jurassic Park,_ Antonia Fraser on _Anne of the Thousand Days,_ Thomas Fleming on _1776,_ Dee Brown on _Fort Apache,_ William Manchester on _Young Winston,_ and numerous others. Sticking to those films about which I have some knowledge of the historical events they claim to portray, most are right on the money. James McPherson, commenting on _Glory,_ points out that while the context and general atmosphere are very well done, and the costuming and so on are exact, there are still deliberate historical errors for the sake of drama; none of the soldiers in Col. Shaw's 54th Massachusetts were ex-slaves, for instance, all of them having been recruited from among the state's free black population. And Catherine Clinton does an excellent job taking the wind out of _Gone with the Wind_'s mythical sails. There's a great deal of good information and criticism here and it's a compliment to say that nearly any of these essays will start an argument.

Mapping America's Past is an attempt at using maps to portray American social, economic, military, and political development. The maps that are included are excellent, but what was included is somewhat puzzling. The general analysis of wars, expansion, and elections are useful, but maps of political party development in the Cleveland area or prostitution in New York City are not entirely relevant to the general American history student. Similarly, many of the accompanying texts offer little detailed insight into the topics the maps cover.

This book should be considered a general resource, but for an in-depth historical atlas, the reader must look elsewhere.

A highly satisfying review of historical topics.I'm often able to read only in 20-minute bites; every spread of this book is a self-contained history lesson, accessible in 20 minutes but worth revisiting many times. Most important topics and events of American history are covered well, and the rendering of complex information (e.g. the six gauges of railroad in 1850 and how this incompatablity affected commerce, population and political power) is truly inspired. This is a superb gift for an American history buff.