Many reviewers here have expressed the same feelings of frustration that I had experienced during and after reading this book, so I won't repeat what has already been written. At one point early in the book, the authors dismissed Christina Crawford's "Mommie Dearest" as being untrue simply because of what they claimed were various inaccuracies in her story. The authors further went on to say that if Christina had factual inaccuracies in her story (and they felt that much--if not all--was inaccurate), then her entire story should be considered to be untrue. As I continued to read Quirk and Schoell's book, I noticed their inaccurate reports on several situations in Joan Crawford's life and career. Their rather acidic judgment of Christina's story kept running through my mind...and so it seemed only fair to place the same criteria upon their work...and it became difficult (if not almost impossible) to place any stock in what they had written.

I was disappointed in my purchase. I should have saved my hard-earned money to buy something else. Reader beware!

I just finished reading this "essential" biography and am so disappointed. To me, one of the authors seems to feel a saintliness toward Joan while the other goes from liking her films to trying to like her films. As I read this book, I felt like Quirk and Schoell were trying to convince me about aspects of Crawford's personality and events in her life and believe about them as they do. The job of a biographer is to write an objective narrative of someone's life. It is enjoyable reading but unfulfilling given the subject. One annoyance is encountering the phrase "chewing up the scenery" way too often. Then, there's the bombshell finale chapter in which Christina is put in the pan and roasted. The writing is almost like Faye as Joan - out of control!

I have been a Crawford fan all my life and am fascinated watching her in films, looking at her photographs and reading about her. If only someone in modern times would...could write an accurate objective biography that delves more into the woman, what she was about, what made her tick and NOT try to make her a saint or crucify her. Joan Crawford truly was one of the most fascinating personalities of the Twentieth Century. She deserves that much.

So, I guess we'll have to stick with JOAN CRAWFORD, A BIOGRAPHY by Bob Thomas or JOAN CRAWFORD: THE LAST WORD by Fred Guiles in the meantime. These two biographies are really good, and I highly recommend them.

While I enjoyed this book's thorough discussions of Crawford's films, I found much to be annoyed by. The authors portray Crawford as nearly a saint--and while I know she was capable of great kindness, I don't believe her motives were ALWAYS pure, and the one-sidedness of this book makes it difficult to swallow. EVERY SINGLE TIME the authors bring up a dispute or spat or negative information from a Crawford rival, they dismiss that person as jealous or washed up or a has-been. Similarly, they dismiss her "jealous" daughter's claims of child abuse as some kind of good old-fashioned "discipline." I don't claim to know whether Mommie Dearest contains a shred of truth or not, but this book does nothing to prove it as inaccurate as they claim. The main source of information here is Lawrence Quirk's own conversations with Joan in her elder years, and let's face it, anybody who's ever read Joan's "My Way of Life" knows that truth-telling is not her forte.

A more balanced biography is Fred Lawrence Guiles's The Last Word (1995). Guiles, at least, is not afraid to discuss unpleasant incidents in Crawford's life from several different viewpoints, and he refrains from opinionizing whenever the truth is unclear.

Like many I am happy Mr. Hope made it to 100. Like many, I grew up watching his specials - like many I wanted to read more about this man. My mistake was getting this book. Naturally, it does cover his career; albeit, I think Mr. Quirk really couldn't find any true "dirt" so he implies alot. I think Mr. Quirk is more hung up on the homosexuals of the industry and how hard they had it that he makes out Mr. Hope to be some homophobe. Not a very good read, not really enjoyable. I do not find that I am a fan of Mr. Quirk's "writing" style. In all fairness he does make some interesting points, but they are not worth the read in what could have been a potentially good book.

If you want to read a really good biography on Bob Hope, read 'A Life In Comedy' by William Faith. This biography was not very impressive.

This book is testimony to that fact. And it's common knowldege in the entertainment world that the real Bob wasn't exactly a sweetheart. But be that as it may, this book gives Bob his due. Not terribly well written, but there's a terrible dearth of material in print on Bob. Writers seem to be waiting for his death so as to maximize interest, which is a shame. He deserves the tribute during his life. Hero he may be, icon he certainly is, but perfect he is not.

What is the matter with this man? If he dislikes Paul Newman so much, why did he even bother to spend time and energy to write this book? Perhaps he should just take out an ad in the newspaper to show the world his disdain for the actor. This biography is by far the worst, most subjective of all the biographies I have ever read. Please stay away from this book, whether you're a Paul Newman fan or not. If you're a fan, you will most likely want to call up the author and demand an explaination and perhaps moeny back for the crap you've just read. If you're not Paul's fan, you shouldn't even read this book because it is full of personal prejudice and thin evidence.

If you are looking for an objective account of Paul Newman's life and work stay far away from this book. Quirk takes every chance to discredit Newman's acting ability and personality. At the begining of each paragraph, you begin to anticipate another stab at Newman and without fail it would come in one form or another. Quirk over and over again reveals his disdain for the actor when he should of been more concerned with the facts and the story.

Quirk, the author of more than 20 film-star biographies, reveals a Newman that might be unfamiliar to his adoring fans. Book reveals something of Newman's dark side and takes a sharp look at his acting as well. Hard-hitting and not written for members of Newman's cult following. A must-have for the Newman completist.

The best thing about the book are definitely its photographs. They at least pay tribute to Warren Beatty. Otherwise I feel a bit disappointed about the unambitious way the book treats Beatty's film carreer. The basic impression one gets when reading the book is that Warren Beatty hasn't done much and what he's done he could have done better. "Splendor in the Grass", "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Reds" which are terrific movies are reduced to Beatty's good looks, which in Quirk's opinion do not qualify him for the roles. The same criticsm appears for Beatty's political ambitions. So the whole book has a "Who does Beatty think he is" notion which does not in any way give credit to the beauty of the movies and the courage and efforts that are behind them. But once again: beautiful photographs!

The blurb on the cover of THE RAT PACK says "They had fun" but there's precious little fun to be found here. This book is a tedious listing of (mostly negative) events. It lacks any sparkle and vigor, and if I believed half of it, I'd have to wonder just what the appeal of this group of overgrown adolescents could be. There had to be more.

The Chairman of The Board is the centerpiece as an egomaniacal bully who uses his star power to make the world feel indebted to him. His reported temper tantrums seem utterly absurd. Anyone who used his fists or threats of mob violence as much as the authors claim Sinatra did, should have and would have been locked up, "different era" or no. The Frank Sinatra in these pages wouldn't be a "King of Cool". He wouldn't be anything much.

The rest of the boys orbit around Frank like some kind of an inebriated solar system. The boozing and skirt-chasing is leaden, so where's the thrill? Where are the laughs? If this book is at all accurate (and it isn't, listing Dean Martin's date of death incorrectly), it means that this group of supremely talented entertainers valued nothing, not even themselves.

The bulk of the book is made up of mostly scathing summaries of the Rat Pack movies. Nary a word is said about either Frank or Dean's musical careers. Sammy Davis Jr. is dismissed as little more than the Rat Pack houseboy. Peter Lawford is depicted as a sexually confused drug addict craving the attention of the others. Joey Bishop is virtually forgotten. The Rat Pack Mascots (Shirley MacLaine and Angie Dickinson) get barely honorable mentions (MacLaine far more than Dickinson). One has to wonder why Shirley MacLaine would continue to associate with The Rat Pack after being assaulted by mobster Sam Giancana twice in their company. The book begs an answer. MacLaine is no slouch, so obviously more and better was happening with the "Clan" than this sordid book deigns to tell us. (...)

I gave this book 2 stars,because I didn't think it was quite as bad as some of the other reviewers did.(Apparently,some people don't want to hear anything negative about "MR.Sinatra".Still,this was a pretty shallow book.It wasn't anywhere as good as Shawn Levy's book.In fact,I can't say that I learned anything about the Rat Pack that I didn't already know.If you're already pretty familiar with the Rat Pack,you can safely skip this one.

Here is the deal. If you are just starting to get into the Rat Pack or any of the players individually. Then this book is a good start. I would call it the Cliff notes of the individuals and their movies. If you have seen all the movies including the Matt Helm movies or if you have already read books on Dean, Frank, Sammy's biography then you are way ahead of this book and pass it by.

But if you have not seen the movies and want to learn the basics of each man and then from there search into each one of them seperatly then this is a good starter. There are some great books on all the guys but you will finded Sammy's Biography to be the most fun. Remember to check out deanmartinfancenter.com for more info on the Rat Pack. For the guys who wrote this you could have given us some fun facts or answered some questions, instead they read everyone else book and put together their own version.

Oh! At last a James Stewart biography...No, just a piece of sensational pulp from a man who can neither spell, nor construct complete sentences. I hate this book!

I fortunately did not spend any money on this piece of garbage. I do find it amusing that this author, who claims (in several lines on the back cover) to have spent "years researching the true story," and had "many interviews with the family and the man himself," never bothered to learn the correct spelling of Mrs. James Stewart's maiden name! Everywhere throughout the book is Mrs. Gloria McLean Stewart's name and the names of her 2 sons misspelled! Surely with all of the biographies written (both worthwhile and mediocre reads) Mr. Quirk could have glanced at the spelling. We are talking about the one great love and the two sons in this superior actor and father's life! What an atrocity to attempt to mar the image and memory of such a fine, giving, and reputable man. Shame on you, Mr. Quirk. You obviously have done nothing worthwhile in this life and must degrade the work and life of another to boost youself. Post Script: I would have given this zero stars had that been an option.

I saw this book and got excited because I didn't know there was a biography out about Jimmy Stewart. Had I known of Mr. Quirk's reputation for sensationalistic biographies, I would not have gone near this book and I'm sorry I did. He continually and unabashedly from page one infers that Mr. Stewart was as at best a bisexual and he implies much worse. He derides his values, his war record and his movies. I guess since there has never been a hint of scandal about the man, Mr. Quirk decided to invent some. Of course, AFTER Mr. Stewart is no longer with us to defend himself. He spends a paragraph in the last chapter trying to say that Jimmy more or less gave him permission to write a book about him. I doubt this is what he would have in mind. He makes fun of his later movies, primarily it seems because they were "family films". He blisters him for a book of poems he released not even mentioning how well it did or how his reading one in particular about his dog brought the usually unemotional Johnny Carson to tears on THE TONIGHT SHOW in the late 1980's and Johnny showed it every year thereafter on his anniversary shows. I could say much more but the bottom line is if you want to read something real about Jimmy and you don't like wasting money, avoid this book like the plague. I wish I had.