I have quite a few of the Virgin Film director books; Spielberg, Stone, Coens, Kubrick, and this one on Ridley Scott. This volume is by far the worst, it is inconsistent, badly written and in a couple of instances plain wrong. I don't care how much of a film geek you are, but listing Citizen Kane as being made in 1951? That this got past the book's editors is shameful. There are other gaffes too, inconsistent references to Scott's collaborators, missing trivia like the fact Scott's wife has appearead in several films (instead listing her as an actress), given the amount of insight available on DVD when this book came out, it is really disappointing that this author did not do his research.
Compared to Ian Freer's peerless volume on Steven Spielberg, James Clarke's insight and summation of one of Britain's greatest living directors feels more like a student text run amock. I ended up flicking through this book looking for tidbits of info. And even then it comes up short.