You may have read Thomson's excellent movie reviews or his wonderful book on Orson Welles. If so, you know this guy is both a film scholar and a die-hard fan of the medium.

"Suspects" is a must-read for any film buff. Thomson goes back into movie history and writes short biographies of various film characters, starting early in their life and usually ending with their deaths. These extrapolated bios are fascinating alternative histories of the sort of movie characters whom you want to continue to get to know even outside the scope of the pictures they appear in.

So the book is vastly entertaining if you're the sort of person who wonders what "Chinatown"'s Jake Gittes' childhood was like, or whatever happened to George Bailey after "It's a Wonderful Life" ended.

But there's more going on in this book than the fantastical and fully imagined bios. Soon various characters from different movies begin appearing in other characters' bios, and the real-life bios of producers and actors and directors start to seamlessly creep into the text.

At some point you realize that the narrator is not Thomson but rather a famous movie character (I won't reveal who it is here). This narrator's presence ties the seemingly disconnected vignettes together, and gives the book a darker feel as it progresses.

In the end, you realize this is not just a whimsical book about the love of movie characters. It's ultimately an examination on how movies affect the way we think and how film not only shapes our perceptions and our memories but in some ways comes to stand in for them, both for the good and for the bad.

And that's why I love this book -- you can read it as an unsettling examination of identity and the construction of self through the medium of narratives, or you can read it simply as a fascinating take on movie fandom. Either way, it's fabulous.

Complete with 3-D glasses, this interesting book gives the reader a sampling of the variety of visual perceptual images that make the brain work in order to understand what we are seeing. Compact and brief, I believe Dr. Thomson illustrates how the eye and the brain make an effort to work together, yet sometimes face a battle! I recommend this enjoyable book, and plan to use it to introduce some of my students to how the eye see, and what the brain thinks.

David Thomson has an opinion on most things, from U.S. education (worst in the developed world)to Gwyneth Paltrow (maybe the public does not really like her). He prefers old movies and the stars of the Golden Age. The book is entertaining; but his views are a little outrageous and often unfair. His judgements on the current generation are too harsh.

Mr. Thomson has obviously watched a lot of movies, and has intellectual pretensions. One has to ask why he bothers writing about movies given that he is so often disappointed. Unfortunately not many films made by Hollywood stand up to repeated viewings. They are primarily designed as shallow - but emjoyable entertainments. You accept their limitations when you buy a ticket. That said it was a good and stimulating read. I have always thought Scorsese over-rated and it is good to find someone who has similar views. His view that Spielberg's Ryan is "a magnificent film" is hard to understand.

I have bought every edition of this book (this is the fourth) and find each one well worth the money. Thomson is the best writer among the movie critics, probably the best writer that has ever reviewed movies. His writing is so good, even when disagreeing with him, I still love reading the reviews or biographical sketches. He has a tremendous poetic economy with the English Language: consider the following:

About Bruce Dern in the film Coming Home:

". . . A rapturous embrace between Jane Fonda and Jon Voight was being watched by a wistful, suspicious Bruce Dern, his eyes lime pits of paranoia and resentment."

Or Basil Rathbone:

"The inverted arrow face, the razor nose, and a mustache that was really two fine shears stuck to his lip. Ladies looked fearfully at him, knowing that one embrace could cut them to ribbons."

Both these passages capture the essence of the star perfectly. Just perfectly. The book is full of this kind of superior writing.

The update has all the new stars, some who probably wish they were excluded. Who can not read a reviewer that says of Ben Affleck: ". . . Mr. Affleck is boring, complacent, and criminally lucky to have got away with everything so far."

As I say, Thomson has a way of capturing things perfectly in a few words.

This superb book is an absolute delight to read. I found myself going from subject to subject enthralled. Perhaps I am more easily pleased than some but for me the following passage about Clint Eastwood was alone worth the price of the book: "... For he has become an authentically heroic image, a man cast in Gary Cooper's rock. even if his eyes are still rather more self-satisfied than Cooper's...". I Found the author's opinions very interesting even fascinating. One may not agree with everything
but I found this dlightful book very helpful and full of new insights. This book along with Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video guide was all I needed to get a good grasp of the medium.

The author seems to me the greatest writer on film (and just about anything else that interests him). What makes Thomson so good is the style in which he writes is so succinct that even if (like me) at first you disagree, given time you soon come round to his opinion. Why? Because you realise he is a master - hes tough, independant, superbly knowledgable and educates you on what is GOOD and what isnt, based on admirable opinions of art and expression. More than anything this book is a wonderful education.

Thomson's gifts seem to elude many... No, this is not the foundation for a film library; it's a wholly biased supplement...)

Thomson is first and foremost the densest writer about film out there; his economy is unparalleled, and it often takes two or three readings just to figure out how much he's saying in a single sentence. Most people won't agree with Thomson often, but that's the point: He's provocative, contrary, and dogmatic, the latter characteristics redeemed by his incisiveness. The challenge is to read him openly, consider his analyses fully, and form an opinion only then.

It's easy to fault Thomson for his selectivity, and the lapses between editions of his Biographical Dictionary of Film. But that's akin to criticizing your favorite author for not writing enough books. Thomson should be treasured for what he does offer; the world of film criticism would be a far poorer place without him.

If you love good, pointed writing, writing that really goes to the heart of what we see on the big screen when we see certain film actors, this is your book. Really well-written, certainly opinionated (but justifiably, in all cases), thoughtful, insightful, amusing, witty. As you read each entry, you'll be saying to yourself, "That's EXACTLY how I feel about SoAndSo!," because the author expresses each film person's essence so aptly. The author has apparently known and/or met many of the entries, so is able to add personal experience with these people to his vast historical knowledge of their work. A wonderful work.

larwills stamina inreases with age, for a diminutive adult he bears the brunt of the hurricane of urban life. his pictorial sensibility remains intact despite many years of hard living that would maim an ordinairy man.his ouvre expresses a journey that permeates to places and lovers.his gentleness with figurative and abstract elements cringe from conventional technique though express a gentleness and expressivness parallaled in the light and feeling of a cottage rose garden.the colours and gesture express this certain type of freindliness and maternal manginess felt in the bones of young country squires.the book fills in much about the life of the man and to some small extent the varsity of the expressionist journey.there has always been an element to david of man and his dog viewing the superfluace nature of urban life,im getting lost here but a big part of david is the text and vibe of family and friends.the photographs interspersed in mcgregors text give revalation to this,how much further it goes im not sure,hanging out with larwill can be a vociferous experience, an unhinging,a dispersing and a comming together, and it is these moments that form a balanced surface tension in daves work.at last hes counting the money,though for all the entertainment hes produced and helped orchestrate theres none more deserving to do so.

If one needed a reminder that the Bloomsbury series of film monographs is not on par with the BFI series, one need look no further than this volume.

Thomson's book is characterized by sloppy writing and careless editing.

Recounting the plot of a film makes sense where exegesis is offered. As one review here notes, such exegesis exists during various places where Thomson recounts the plot of each film. Unfortunately, much plot summary appears without any analysis, meaning that if the reader is familiar with the films, it is possible to skip many pages without missing any of the books substance. (This was a useful practice in the days before home video. Today, however, especially with films as widely available on video as these, such practices are largely unnecessary.)

Exacerbating the annoyance of the tedious summaries: The summaries are not always correct! Witness the description of the end of Alien3, where Thomson describes Ripley's descent into molten lead [sic]. No, the liquid gray stuff is the lead, Mr. Thomson. Ripley dives into the fiery red furnace.

Better editing would have trimmed the plot summary portions that were not used in relation to the arguments the author puts forward. And/or better editing would have included additional fact checking.

In terms of the Thomson's analysis: There is quite a growing body of work in relation to science fiction film, including studies of "Alien." Annette Kuhn edited a volume of collected criticism on science fiction film called "Alien Zone" in 1990 (not to be confused with "Alien Zone II" from 1999) with three seminal discussions of "Alien." Each of these short articles contain more exacting, articulate, concise arguments than Thomson puts forward in his verbose volume.

In short: Wait for the BFI to do a volume on the series (or, at least, the first film).

There is a great book to be written about the Alien series. This is not it. It's not that the subject matter isn't up to the challenge - certainly a film series that spawns one of the strongest female characters in the history of film, guided by four of the finest directors in cinema today is worth exploring. Unfortunately, the author spends 80% of his time in a useless retread of the films' storylines. This is only useful if you haven't seen the films, and then why would you be reading this book? The author also tries desperately (and poorly) to examine the deeper meaning of these films. Unfortunately, one of his central theses (that the aliens have somehow "chosen" Ripley) is predicated on his misunderstanding of several plot points in Aliens, an inexcusable mistake in a film critic. Save your money and time - go watch the films back to back instead.

This is a work of criticism and focuses on all four Alien movies. I disagree with the author's analysis - especially his assessment of Alien Resurrection - but I found his theories very interesting. It certainly made me examine why I think that the quartet works so well, which I believe is the greatest strength of the book. Because I disagreed with Thomson I found myself examining my own views more closely than I ever have before, and this led me to a greater appreciation for the films. I thank Thomson for this, and this is the reason the book gets five stars.

To say that the book spends 80% of its time rehashing the plots is doing it disservice. True, it goes through each film in great detail, but it analyses as it does so. It's written for a general reader rather than a student of film in an engaging style.

If you want a behind the scenes look at the movies or interviews with the people who made them this is the wrong book for you. If you want to read someone's personal thoughts and, in doing so, come to a better understanding of the quartet then buy this.

While Thomson does give reasonable coverage to the history of Las Vegas, most of his book is about the rest of the state - places like Reno, Carson City, the not-so-secret "Area 51," and the sparsely-populated northwest corner of the state. Thomson's book is part history and part travelogue, although it is arranged in neither chronological order nor in any particular geographical sequence. If there is a theme to this book, it's the effect of atomic bomb testing and nuclear waste disposal on the state, a topic to which Thomson returns repeatedly. The book includes one map and about thirty photos. The book's drawback is that the author seems to be stretching for material to fill the pages. It's as though a student has to write a 5,000-word essay but has only 1,000 words of material. Thomson frequently lapses into empty rhetoric as though to meet some requirement regarding number of pages. Most travel writers interview local people to give their books a human tone, but Thomson seems to have talked to surprisingly few actual Nevadans. This is unfortunate, because Nevada is one of the more interesting states, and there should be no shortage of interesting characters and places to discover.

David Thomson's "In Nevada: The Land, The People, God, and Chance" was a disappointing read, owing only in part to its misleading title. The book consists primarily of parallel descriptions of the development of gambling & entertainment in Las Vegas and of nuclear-weapons testing at the Test Site. These are important topics, but their predominance is not suggested by the book's title. Substantial discussions of Lake Tahoe, Area 51/UFO-mania, and the Burning Man festival have very little to do with Nevada. Tahoe is geographically and culturally much more California than Nevada, and the Burning Man silliness and UFO-obsession have their origins outside of the state. Reno ("really the only city in Nevada," in Thomson's words) receives a scant 12 of the book's 320 pages. The treatment of the state's mining and political history is spotty and shallow. The author's sources are apparently restricted to a few standard references. There is no evidence of detailed research or thoughtful insight.

But the most disappointing aspects of this book are Thomson's descriptions (or lack thereof) of Nevada's rural interior (that 80% of the state that is neither part of a military reservation nor within 50 miles of the California line). He claims that this vast, sparsely populated region is his first love in Nevada, but if this is true, it is a strangely distant, sterile, and uncomprehending love. He provides vague and general descriptions of the landscapes, with mountain elevations seemingly taken from a road map. The only rural Nevadans that he describes in any detail are a young couple that he observed in a cafe in Fallon. He freely assumes that they suffer from sub-standard education and desperate isolation despite the fact that he has not spoken with either or them, or even overheard their conversation. In fact, Thompson reveals precious little evidence that he has ever spoken to ANYONE in rural Nevada, and his ignorance seems virtually complete in other ways as well. He relates a story of driving on I-80 toward Winnemucca, with the wind blowing "round balls of sage" across his path. He doesn't even recognize a tumbleweed, that icon of the American West, much less know that it is Russian Thistle, not sage. His descripion of Elko consists entirely of the menu of cable TV channels available in the Holiday Inn (along with a gratuitous swipe at Dave Thomas, of the Wendy's hamburger chain-What does this have to do with Nevada?). He was trapped in the motel at the end of March by a "late snow." Anyone who has spent any time in northern Nevada knows that snow is common and expected through Memorial Day. "Late snow" doesn't come until June. The author is simply oblivious to the many interesting aspects of the geography, natural history, industry, and people of northern and central Nevada.

In conclusion, "In Nevada" gives the reader very little insight into The Land, The People (other than Las Vegas mobsters and entertainers), or God. Chance (gambling) is pretty well covered. It reveals the author's fascination with Hollywood characters, distrust and loathing of the military, and ignorance & disdain for rural Nevada.

Granted Daid Thomson provides an entertaining read with "In Nevada" but I share some of the other reviewers' distastes. For instance, a couple of chapters (e.g., "Frankly and "In the Cards") felt completely out of place and off topic. One about Frank Sinatra and the other about a bridge tournament. Instead of Frank and bridge tournaments, how about covering the raging battles over land use and the constant clashes between Nevada's cattle ranchers and the U.S. Government? The author does a respectable job of stirring clear of most of the cliches that surround Nevada, but unfortunately not all.

The first half of the book is loaded with interesting and useful history like the finding of Spirit Cave Man. However, I got the feeling the author is fixated on moving the story's focus to Las Vegas. Like a first time tourist, he gave into the lure of the city's neon lights.