The concept of the book, explaining philosophy through sci-fi films sounds good, especially to me as it combined something I knew well (sci fi) with something I wanted to learn about (philosophy).
In the actual course of the book, the chapters begin with a retelling of the film's story, then analyse some philisophical theme that the author has decided is related. In actuality, the discussion usually strays far from the film and one wonders what the point of the 'schi-phi' gimmick was; however the films do serve as useful examples for Mark's discussions and get one thinking in the right frame of mind beforehand. (It also pointed me towards some good films.)
The book, however, is excellent as an introduction to philosophy. I was a veteran 'armchair philosopher' beforehand but reading this book got me to think my ideas through in a more consistent fashion, and introduced me to the major ideas and characters of philosophy. It covers most of the major questions in philosophy (the ones that actually interest people, anyway) and goes over the basic arguments for the different views surrounding them. It's a credit that Mark makes his writing so clear, to the point and is low on any technical terms, making this a very easy read and allowing the basic ideas to be understood very easily.
Obviously not every point of view can be adressed, and in a book of this size he must gloss over the counter-arguments and answers to his claims. It's very likely that the reader will disagree with some of his conclusions, however one gets the feeling from reading this book that this is encouraged, and not that Mark is in possesion of some divine, inarguable wisdom. One is instead inspired to do some more research on points one finds interesting in the book (I thought Mark hadn't given a good answer to compatibilism, and reading more about it, i think it's a better answer than his of determinism, for one.)
The last word I can say about this book is: Sometimes I see on the internet some 'philisophical' debate or dissertation, where the author seems completely oblivious to some contrary argument or POV, and I think 'Hey! That was in the first book on philosophy I ever read!'
