Mr. Shipman has put together the definitive guide to the stars that made their mark before WW II. From Abbott and Costello to Roland Young this book covers most of the major stars. If you buy only one reference book on vintage Hollywood's greatest make it this one. You won't be sorry

This book covers bone biology, bone structure and function (particularly useful are the drawings of muscle attachments), and the interpretation of bones (age, sex, race, stature, trauma, disease, etc.). A very good book to gain understanding of why bones have the morphology they do.

This huge book isn't really the story of cinema -- it's Mr. Shipman pouring old wine (his years of movie-watching, already distilled into the capsule reviews of "The Great Movie Stars") into a new jug. It's comprised almost entirely of short comments (from a sentence to a paragraph) on each of about a gazillion individual films, arranged in handy sections. Shipman seems to have seen everything, although that was the case with the first edition of "Great Movie Stars" and yet he later recanted and rewrote after actually seeing the films he wrote about. And some of his personal obsessions -- the Garbo and Judy Garland worship, the attempt to rewrite film history by harping on the faults of Griffith and Chaplin -- get very old. Sample weird opinion: On Frank Capra, who made entertaining adventure-and-sex movies before he became a self-important windbag... "it was he who taught movies to think." This book has value for its research into some obscure areas, but 2,000 pages of snotty and sometimes ill-informed opinion don't make a history of cinema... sorry.

Let me put it this way - I don't like Shipman's tastes. He knocks just about every great film from the 60s and 70s in a way that definitely sounds like a generational difference in tastes. He knocks Hal Ashby, he knocks Godard, he knocks Truffaut, he knocks Coppola, he knocks Altman. Basically, he attacks any who differed from the traditions in classical studio cinema up till that time.

Okay, it's subjective you say. It's opinion. Yes. But his reasons for dismissing these filmmakers feels like rationalization, not sound reasoning. Shipman comes off as someone resistant to change, to evolution, and it makes his book a somewhat annoying endeavor.

That said, any book this big on cinema is not bad to have around the house, if only to flip through for fun now and then.

Bravo ! Whether you agree with all the writing in this often opinionated movie survey book, you cannot help by being struck with the accomlishments of Shipmans work. Shipman has his critical eye out for posterity and he takes an historical perspective in his descriptions of movies from the early days till the mid 80's.You may not agree with all of his opinions- he doesn't seem to like critical darlings like Raging Bull or Fassbinder much- but any reader will appreciate Shipmans love -or should I say devotion to the "popular" art of cinema.Unlike the writings of another talented Britisher-David Thompson, Shipman is neither anti Hollywood nor is he a snide about popular tastes. In fact, Shipman rightly commends the public for their rejection of the pretentious and the phony. Shipman is himself an unabashed movie lover and that is what makes the book such a treat. I find myself dipping into it every now and again to see what Shipman has said about something, and then before I look up, at least one hour has gone by! There are a few minor errors I discovered, but in all a remakably, readable tour de force. M. Lamb

"The Great Movie Stars--The Independent Years" was written in 1991, so it only covers a period of about 10 years, where Shipman's "TGMS--The International Years" left off. It is the third of Shipman's film-book trilogy: "TGMS--The Golden Years" is about films between the two World Wars; "Internat'l" from post WWII to the late 70's. So "Independent" is the movies of the 80's. Shipman did a lot of guesswork in naming future super- stars. Who remembers Marianne Sagebracht? I thought so. And many of today's megastars(Julia Roberts, Jim Carrey)are mentioned in passing or not at all. Shipman tends to look down on popular movies(some now cinematic legends like E.T. and Star Wars) and exalt artier, often more boring films. But despite some lack of insight on the future of film(e.g. his treatment of Spielberg as an untalented upstart)his writing has clarity and wit, serving as an interesting document on who was hot in the 80's. All this, and Rob Lowe & Shelley Long, too!

Although Shipman was quite good when writing about her performances when it got to her as a person he seems to hate her. Just a few examples which got me shaking my head and saying how stupid does he think we are, is his version of her reason for not showing at Liza's off-broadway debut. He wants to imply it is her selfishness and jealousy of her daughter, (how stupid can you get, Shipman). Anyone really understanding the enormous heart of Judy Garland knows she didn't want to draw attention away from her daughter's debut, which of course she would have been unable to avoid, and suffered for her daughter's sake missing what she would have absolutely loved to have been able to attend. There are so many of these examples throughout the book. When before an interview with Jacqueline Suzanne before the making of 'Valley of the Dolls' she insists Suzanne proceed her, he again wants to say it was to draw attention to herself. As if she needed to draw attention to herself! Of course that was just what she was trying not to do but of course couldn't stop it. There are so many good books about Judy, don't read this one, unless you want to just concentrate on Shipman's good reviews and ignore is absolutely stupid interpretations of her motives.

One reviewer says this book to be "The truth"! Ha! Hey, how about actually reading most of the books ever written on Judy Garland, as I have, and then you will disagree with your own statement!
This piece of filth has many facts completely wrong! What is it with English writers hating Judy Garland?! This book even dares to state that Judy was bisexual! She may have had two bisexual husbands, and father, but Judy was normal! Yes, Judy was by no means perfect! She was a smoker, but she was no alcoholic! She did have problems with perscrption drugs, but that wasn't her falt! She was given drugs by her mother before she could talk, to wake up, to sleep, whatevr she felt they needed them for. Yes, Judy Garland was addicted to "pep-up" pills, and "downers", but she did try various times in her life to get off them, but she never quite could, her body needing more and more of them.
contray to manys' beliefs, Judy did not commit suicide, or intentionally overdose on sleeping pills. She had said herself in life that sometimes it was hard to remember what pills she had taken when, and would on occasion accidently overdose, which is what happened on the night/morning she died.
This book, should be titled "The Totally False Rumors of Judy Garland", becouse that is what it is! This book is not the truth anymore than is the fact we live on Pluto! It is not worth the paper it is printed on!
If you want the truth of Judy Garland's life, I recommend "Judy" by Gerold Frank or "Me and My Shadows: Living with the Legacy of Judy Garland" by Judy's daughter Lorna Luft. By one of those!
Don't waste your time with this trash!

Although this book is well written and endearing, i have readthat shipman wa sued by a few people in contrast to trhe contents. if you aree a judy fan to my extent then you will realise that some of the points in the book are muddled or untrue. It displays a bad example of the relationship between her and her children, which infact is untrue. i would read it if you are a fan, but dont take it as gospel.

It absolutely amazes me how bad this book is. Especially when the AP European History book published by REA is so good. DO NOT BUY! The book has absolutely nothing to do with the actual AP test. In fact, it's probably detrimental if you even try to go through it. Why? Here are just a couple reasons -

1. It's funny because when you open it up to the cover page, it lists all these PHD's and all, and you're thinking, well, these people know what they're talking about, right? Wrong. The whole book reminded me of myself, trying to b.s. my way through an essay on a topic that I had absolutely no clue on. Seriously, these people use like this language that is so frustrating that not only does it take forever to read a single page, but I'd catch myself going, "what?" Other times, I'd seriously feel like throwing the book across my room.

2. The information covered in the book has absolutely nothing to do with the actual test. Well, it talks about C++ and all, but it's too short where it needs to be longer and too long where it needs to be shorter. And all in all, the topics were just totally off.

3. The questions are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the ones on the real test. And I mean it too. The questions on the test are totally different from the questions in this book.

4. The case study is wrong!

It's a good thing that I decided to get this book earlier because I had time to get a different book. I know someone in my class who did some last minute studying with this book and was basically screwed for the test. Don't let this happen to you! Stay away from this book! It was a complete waste of time and money. Buy Maria Litvin's 'Be Prepared for the AP Computer Science Exam'. Now THAT was a good book.

Oh yeah, I've been telling you all this, but you're probably wondering who's telling you all this. I had a horrible teacher that didn't teach us anything(we did nothing for like 2 months before the test and we never reviewed) so like I tried to study on my own with this book. Bad idea. I didn't get Maria Litvin's book until a week before the test and basically I tought myself everything I was supposed to learn during the year in a week(without sleeping, of course). I ended up with a four, which is pretty good, since just a week before, I basically knew nothing. But I'm telling you, if I had started with Maria Litvin's book instead of this stupid book, I probably could have gotten a five.

A review manual for the AP test could reasonably be expected to at least mention the *existence* of the five C++ AP classes. This book does not.

It could also be expected to do more than mention that there is a College Board case study and then phrase its study as something *optional*. (The case study is the subject of at least one of the four extended response questions, and a good handful of the multiple choice.)

In glancing at the book, I was shocked to find that, although it gives a thorough-but-terse overview of theory, it seems to have little actual relation to the exam itself.

This book is considered as a pretty good review book forstudents who are taking the AP computer science test 'A'. It coversmost of the stuffs throughout the one semester class. However, it doesn't cover all the materials for students who are taking AP computer science test 'B'. Therefore, I would only recommand to people who are planning to take the form 'A' test. Try "Be Prepared for the AP Computer Science Exam by Maria Litvin" (which is also avalible on Amazon.com) to get a better prepare! But afterall, it consist clear and easy understanding words and concise programing codes plus four pre-Exam which will help to boost up your score to a 4 or even a 5!

All the nasty anecdotes Mr. Shipman didn't have room for in the nasty re-writes he did of his (excellent) "Great Movie Stars" books. His vendettas against certain stars and critics (Ginger Rogers, Charlie Chaplin, Pauline Kael) are as bewildering as his blind admiration of others. Skip this and hunt for the first editions (circa 1970-72) of the Movie Stars books.