I thought that the book was rather stupid and based on false informatio

I thought this book was very one-sided. I am a history major and non mormon but have studied actual events and this book is obviously meant to push an anti-mormon agenda. There is no proof that Brigham Young was ever a murderous person, or would have any reason to orchestrate such a terrible event. I don't think its a good idea to look to disgruntled ex-members of a religion (like previous reviewers) to get information on such sensitive subjects as this one.

A publisher will usually print the most glowing and/or most prestigious reviews of a book on the outside back jacket. The fact that those willing to be quoted in review of this book should have led me to look elsewhere for a beter account of this terrible event.

The emotive loading of descriptions of "stares" and "looks" by Mormons as these poor souls made their way from Salt Lake City to Mountain Meadows is but one example of poor hyperbole (with no adult survivors, you have to wonder where these, and other, descriptions came from).

Did the LDS members participate in these murders ? Absolutely. Did the LDS Church do anything to prevent the event or to investigate it afterwards ? Certainly not. Did the LDS Church order these murders ? The consensus of mainstream historians is probably not but you wouldn't know that by reading this book.

This book is more about the author's concerns with the LDS Church and less about the actual murders at Mountain Meadows. The LDS have much to be ashamed for relating to the murders without having someone "piling on".

I would suggest Juanita Brooks' book on this subject for a better read.

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.