EXCELLANT IF YOU HAVE RESEARCH TO DO ON BRAIN TUMORS OR THEIR TREATMENT

Every critical care resident wishes to solve clinical problems which do not happen every day. He wishes to solve these problems in a way the patient profits from and in reality he often wishes to have sufficient time to do so. This excellent book indeed has all the stuff to please the residents needs: Fascinating problems, easy to read and helpful advice on improving your clinical skills

This book, by the editors of the Washington Post, does a good job of describing the events which led to the deadlocked 2000 Presidential election. In addition to detailing the paths which led to the deadlock, the book discusses all the post-election issues in a very readable format. Surprisingly, the books editors seem only slightly tilted towards Gore (especially considering it is the Washington Post, which is noted for its liberal bias), so no matter who you voted for, there is much to be found here for anyone with an interest in contemporary politics.

Two things struck me while reading this book, the first is that I doubt there is a book out there that is truly balanced and not somewhat biased. The second thing was that Gore really got the shaft, not so much by the recount wars, but by the election official that came up with the Butterfly Ballot. In the history of the USA this decision ranks up there with new Coke and the XFL, what a mistake. As far as the reporting in the book it was not bad for a review of all the articles they had in the paper, but it did not really dig into the particular issues very deeply. I wanted more detail and behind the scenes with both the candidates. I also wanted more details on the court cases; I felt like the sky-high overview of the issues of the cases did not do such an important issue justice.

In reading the book I think a little bit of a democratic bias comes out, just a little, but enough to notice. I also thought it interesting that they had far more details of the Gore group then the Bush camp, it follows the perception that the Post is somewhat liberal in its views. The book is an overview that came out almost 10 minutes after Gore hung up the phone on the second concession call so there are a few more details out now that they did not get in the book. Overall it is a good effort and a readable book, but not the end all be all on the subject.

This book recounts the nation's closest election with fascinating detail. The authors' genuine style of storyweaving lends the impression that the fly on the wall must have had a Washington Post tape-recorder implanted in it's wing. Deadlock was not at all like re-reading the same old newspaper articles again; this book casts a fresh look at the dramatic strategy game that took place in Florida. I enjoyed it as a self-professed political junkie and my husband found it equally readable as a historical account of remarkable events.

ive read this book in 1986 , this writings really show a kind of pscicodelic spiritual journey just like Castaneda that i would also recomend to anyone to adults and children ,, is like all this indian children stories dealing between the earth and the spirit world and making the medium thru life in a very significant way you wont forget.

I thought this was a really interesting book, but I have to admit I had a hard time following it at times. Overall, I thouht he had some very interesting things to say about redemption and grace.

Well, it was a good idea, but...There are far too many omissions to make this book worthwhile. I can understand why genre novels made into genre films could be excluded--after all, how many people know or care that SOYLENT GREEN was based on a Harry Harrision novel titled MAKE ROOM, MAKE ROOM? Or that the movie COP was based on James Ellroy's BLOOD ON THE MOON? Or that DARK OF THE SUN was based on a Wilbur Smith novel of the same name? But at the same time, how could the authors of NOVELS INTO FILM fail to make reference to Lew Wallace's BEN-HUR? Or Howard Fast's SPARTACUS? Or Jack D. Hunter's THE BLUE MAX? Or Eugene Burdick's and Harvey Wheeler's FAIL-SAFE? Or Pierre Boulle's PLANET OF THE APES and THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI? Or Edison Marshall's THE VIKINGS? Or choose to talk about a failed Richard Matheson adaptation like WHAT DREAMS MAY COME, but leave out THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN? Or forget to include..well, never mind. The list of omissions goes on. Yet the above works were all major mainstream novels of their eras, novels that were made into much-beloved and/or critically-acclaimed movies. These novels into films should have been included--especially since the authors of this so-called "Encylopedia" saw fit to pencil in adaptations of currently-popular--but hardly literary--authors such as Stephen King and John Grisham. I bought the book sight unseen--more fool me. I was cheated. Don't get cheated yourself.

Like other reviewers, I bought this without actually looking at it and I agree that it could have been done much better. It's a very good idea which seems to have fallen down in the execution. To the list of serious omissions I would add: The Ice Storm, The Godfather (!!) Rosemary's Baby, Midnight Cowboy, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Primary Colours, Lady In The Lake, Fear & and Loathing in Las Vegas (if we are talking about Hollywood here.) National cinemas other than American are very poorly represented. The book does acknowledge that it's the 'abridged' edition, and I would not have liked to have to choose what went in and what got left out, but still. The individual essays vary a great deal in usefulness and quality, with some being really very good and others abysmal. In future editions I would like to see more attention given to non-US filmmaking.

It is interesting if you like to read. It is also interesting to see how what were once thought as interesting and new stories are old, recycled from novels that few knew existed.