what this book is, really, is the world’s best jerk-off mag for cinephiles. david thomson is a british writer on film (and also shares a name with the shadowy figure investigating the meaning of ‘rosebud’ in welles’s masterpiece!), a great one, and this book is his ever-evolving masterpiece. but the title is kind of a lie. sure,the biographical dictionary of film includes some biographical & dictionarical (<-- good word, eh?) information, but mostly it functions as a kind of film journal by one

following on from Kirk's 6 month roundup which is herehttps://www.goodreads.com/review/show...here is my 6 months of 2017MODERN MAINSTREAM STUFFThe BestHidden Figures – this really does look like the Well Meaning Liberal Film of the Week but it gets past all that and is just altogether a delightT2 Trainspotting – another one which had to overcome a lot of instant prejudice – how dare they! Etc etc – but they did, and it was a moody melancholic meditation on middle age in the rackety-but-lovely D...

I have the Fifth edition in hardbound format and it is sufficiently large and heavy to hold any door wide open. I grabbed the ebook sixth edition for my travelling convenience. Will either suit you? Please read onThomson is articulate, opinionated and often controversial. This book is organized by the individual's name and covers the whole spectrum of film-makers from actors to directors to executives, etc. While it is gives the impression that it is definitive, it really contains only those tha...

Following on from 2016, again here is my state of movie watching for the first half of 2017. Documentaries, foreign cinema, and horror did pretty well, older classics got a bit neglected. 48 films seen January thru June.bold = five stars or nearly so(r) = a rewatch; all others seen for the first timeDocumentariesTowerWho thinks of making an animated documentary about the 1966 sniper attack at the Univ. of Texas Austin? But it's brilliant, riveting from beginning to end. I'm not even sure why/how...

This is an extremely irritating book. Read the entry on Bernard Herrmann if you want to see what I mean. In this entry the author, a mysteriously well-respected film writer,describes why he doesn't bother in his 1000-page biographical reference to film people, to include cinematographers, composers and scriptwriters! Discounting the importance of "the subsidiary arts, he sniffs "The best cameramen know that many millions can make good pictures." He does, however, have a lengthy entry on Johnny C...

As a cinephile who has perhaps seen at least 2000 films predating 1970 alone, I felt like this volume should be in my small collection of books on film. My approach has been to read it as one would a book, starting at page one. It being the work of a single film critic, it is subjective — one man’s opinion. What I found is that Thomson can write well with considerable insight one moment, only to be bafflingly ignorant the next. His style also relies heavily on the rhetorical question. By the way...

What is and what is NOT a reference book? And is this one? I'm disinclined to say yes. It's closer to Kenneth Anger than to any kind of "dictionary."But why do I feel uncomfortable calling this opinionated listing of star bios a "reference" when I don't feel so hesitant to class as references, say, Leonard Maltin's or Leslie Haliwell's or George Sadoul's opinionated movie guides?It might have to do with the greater comprehensiveness in titles covered in the others, but also perhaps there's a ten...

Excellent writing and infuritating opinions. Well, about half of them. I'm pretty sure just about anyone into film would disagree with a lot of what Thomson says, likes or dislikes. He trashes five of my top film heroes -- Huston, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Tarkovsky and Fellini. His comments on the Marx Brothers are bizarre, almost coming off like a personal vendetta. He pens an elegy to W. C. Fields that suggests he admires the performer more than the films, which, in many cases may be a correct assig...

Perhaps you have wondered "How could I ever possibly know as much as Mr. Jones does about film? And who is the one critic he respects even when he thinks the critic may be allowing their strange obsession with Nicole Kidman to override their critical thinking ability?"This is the book by the critic David Thomson, the best film journalist I have ever read. Funny, acerbic, passionate about the medium and possessing poet's skill in expressing his opinions, Thomson is someone I don't always agree wi...

I'm going to pretend I finished, but keep reading for as long as I have the loan of the book. Best bit so far: Thomson writes 'em like he sees 'em. He appreciates intelligence in woman; always the sign of an intelligent man. Emily Blunt - "It's been a long time since an actress made a career for herself because she was smart and funny and so mocking of second-rate material." Brenda Blethyn. Cate Blanchett. Joan Blondell. He wonders if Gena Rowlands may have been the true talent in the Cassavetes...

I discovered David Thomson through reading Roger Ebert's 'Great Movies' review of the Italian Neo-realist classic 'Bicycle Thieves', in which Thomson was quoted. He was critical of the film, as he is of many classic films and filmmakers who are generally held in high regard. This may be his greatest work, a film dictionary consisting largely of actors, actresses, and directors, with a little bit of biography for each one, accompanied by Thomson's own critical insights and provocative opinions. T...

I may as well review this book now, since I think I will keep reading it forever. The most charming, exasperating, wistful dictionary to wander through--the entries are pretexts for David Thomson's now cantankerous, now luminous memories of fleeting pleasures, sustained grudges, unanswerable loss.

The New Biographical Dictionary of Film is a series of biographical entries on major figures in cinema, including directors, producers, writers, and (of course) actors. The first edition was written in the 70s, the most recent edition came out in 2014. The entries cover the whole of film history, from DW Griffith to Emma Watson. They are organized alphabetically.Entries range from a short paragraph to near essay-length for the important (or controversial) figures. Entries vary in quality. Some a...

I have no way, and quite frankly, no desire to rank this not only because I just leafed through it, but because it is entirely one man’s opinion and who am I to judge it? It is extensive and well-researched, surely, but Thomson also has a real knack at finding ways to decimate some of America’s most beloved Hollywood figures. It’s p. entertaining because of how casually it is done, but it also leads me to believe he is a highly pretentious hipster prick. I received the fifth edition through ILL

I'm not sure how many versions of this huge book there are, but I've pretty much read all I need from the 2002 edition and the 2013 edition. I think Thomson can be kind of mean sometimes when giving his opinion on actors/actresses, but I sometimes memorize what he has to say about people I love, so I guess I shouldn't be a hypocrite. I recently got out the 2013 version, and kind of liked that more, maybe because I've owned the 2002 version since it became available and wanted more. However, he a...

Excellent as a reference for finding lesser-known films/filmmakers, but less-than-good as a source of critical insight. Thomson comes from an older age of film criticism, and he wants us all to know that his opinions are more pure, more accurate, less controlled by zeitgeists than anyone else. Would be more enjoyable if Thomson seemed to enjoy watching films rather than see films as some sort of holy cross for him to bear.