Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
One of the most poorly researched books I have ever read..., 14 Aug 2008
Having heard nothing but praise for this book, and being a massive film fan, I was really looking forward to reading Blockbuster. However, no sooner had I started than I found myself having to resist the urge to throw the thing out of the nearest window - this has to be one of the sloppiest, most poorly researched books I have ever read.
As pointed out by a previous reviewer, the author states that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was released in 1989. It wasn't. It was released in 1984. Shone also states that Radio Flyer was never made and never released. It was. But even worse is that Shone develops an entire argument based on glaring factual inaccuracies, therefore making a stance I am somewhat supportive of seem ridiculous.
"Blockbusters do not win awards", Shone laments, pointing out that Jaws lost out in the major Oscar categories to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. This, he reasons, is because Academy Award voters don't like to reward money makers and instead choose to reassure themselves that they are making art by backing smaller, more worthy films. Hence, blockbusters lose out. However, just four pages later he prints a list of the top ten box office performers of 1975. Can you guess which film nestles in second place on that list behind Jaws? That's right, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, with total US takings of over $60,000,000, a figure that would also have made it the top earning film in three of the previous five years. Thus, by attempting to provide evidence to support his position, Shone only succeeds in contradicting himself. So although I agree that some of the best blockbusters have been unfairly overlooked come the awards season, reading Shone's argument is like watching the author take this sound logic outside and shoot it through the head. But, staggeringly, it gets worse...
Shone then manages to work himself into a rage about how Raiders of the Lost Ark was defeated at the Oscars by Ordinary People, something which he describes as "as fine a series of upper-cut injustices as can be imagined... Ordinary People having long since ascended to the ranks of the Great Unwatched in the sky". Just one slight problem - these films were nominated in different years. That's that, Ordinary People won best picture of 1980. Raiders wasn't released until 1981, and in fact lost out to Chariots of Fire. An injustice perhaps, but also quite an incredible demonstration that Mr Shone not only has little grasp of his subject matter but also has problems supporting his own arguments.
In short, if a child had written something this poorly researched for a school project, their teacher would draw a big red line through it and tell them to take it away and start again. Surely it isn't too much to expect that a film writer should have a basic knowledge of film? However, what's more worrying is how something of such low quality has managed to make it through the publication process and into print. I guess there's hope for all of us... Avoid.
|
|
|
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Pretty Good, 6 Dec 2005
Before I start of criticise, it should be noted that this is actually a rather good book. It is one of the best and most accessible books about film written in recent years; almost anybody with any interest in film of the last thirty years will find this book interesting and often entertaining.The book is essentially a monologue (although Shone readily admits that it is the product of many conversations) expounding his thesis that blockbusters, starting with Jaws and Star Wars, saved Hollywood. Actually, it is not a particularly sophisticated thesis: he simply takes the opposite view to a very simplistic interpretation of the thesis expounded by Peter Biskind in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls that blockbusters killed Hollywood. There is a good deal of Biskind baiting in the early chapters of his book (although Shone seems to lose interest in this as the book progresses) and Shone’s makes some interesting points. However, he invites comparison between the two books and these comparisons are inevitably unfavourable to Shone. Although there are lots of good and interesting sections, overall the book is a bit of a mess and there are some odd things about it. Shone seems strangely distant from the subject matter in the sense that this feels like a book written by a cinema goer rather than somebody with real inside knowledge and insight. Often he simply repeats well-known or previously published anecdotes. There is much less insider gossip (than the Biskind book), which some readers may approve of, but it also means that the characters are flat and uninteresting. It is also rather confusing that he wants to have his common man cake and eat it with a side order of rather esoteric, post-modern film criticism. At times it reminded me of an intellectual undergraduate post-pub rant. Perhaps the biggest problem Shone faced is that his subjects Lucas, Spielberg et al, are dull (deathly dull in comparison to the characters in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls). Many of them appear to have no interest other than making profitable movies; this does not make them interesting characters to read about. One other thing bothered me: the seriously over laudatory praise verging on hyperbole, from a group of people I suspect are his friends, which adorned to book cover. Despite all my issues with the book I still enjoyed it. It is an enjoyable and interesting read.
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Good... but not that good, 20 Jan 2006
As a riposte to ERRB, BB is not bad. As a piece of film history, it’s not bad either, though most of it has been told before elsewhere. The book fails in the end though because not enough thought has been put into it. Is this a book about how some people changed Hollywood, or is it a history, coupled with some “making-of” sections and some reviews? Also, the bibliography does not include all the texts mentioned in the book itself. For example, in the section about Blade Runner he mentions a couple of essays which are not referenced in the bib and so we have no idea where they were published, when they were published, etc. Not helpful. Shone repeats himself quite a lot, too, either because he likes the sound of his own voice or because he knows his book needs padding-out. Or both. So yes, it’s not bad, but it’s no masterpiece. ERRB is one of those film books that became essential because there hadn’t been a book quite like it before. BB is a mish-mash of enjoyable personal reminiscences, making-of stories, box office figures and anything else Shone can cram in. Not unenjoyable, but hardly essential.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Julian Stringer
by William Goldman
by Edward Epstein
