Big Screen

Oh my goodness what a lot of movies (and television). I knew about DW Griffiths. I've seen M and TRIUMPH OF WILL. The first hundred pages went along swimmingly for me.Then I pretty much skipped the next hundred as Thomson takes us into 1930s Hollywood and French and English films I never heard of. I'm sure I skimmed another hundred pages out of the remaining three hundred. I go to fewer movies than average, I suppose. If you were only half-literate in Edouard Manet, say, you could be swept along on a book about him with the help of some reproductions of his paintings, but not so much in a book about movies.Sometimes you get a few pages about one film. TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT. But nothing about the story of Hawks and Hemingway agreeing that Hawks would do a film on Hemingway's (self-chosen) WORST novel. Or maybe Hawks chose it.Casablanca, Godfather, Chinatown, Spielberg, Lucas. I LOVE LUCY. These and others also get more than drive-by treatment. Thomson writes some wonderful passages. For example, he has a few great paragraphs about whether violence in the movies has any responsibility for violence in the culture. He's a philosopher of the meaning of the viewer in the dark, the screen. He makes some great observations about Ronald Reagan and politics. (FYI he calls Reagan a bit player, but the guy had the first million dollar contract, according to a book I read about his screen career. This was before the war. His best performance--I don't mean being president!--is in KING'S ROW. Worth checking out.)Anyway a mixed bag, and an unusual experience to be skimming over prose that is just fine except you haven't got the reference point. The Wall Street Journal had a review of this book that tempted me. I'm not sure you can call this a book for a general audience.

I tried i really tried to like this book alot.This book had alot from a few things i didnt know about films to alot i already did. Old news in other words. Very few photos which made it a less then good book. (I love books with pictues).His going from era of film to another era made it kind of ago to sleep book. Only three of the films he mentions are some of my favorites. It seems that he liked older films better. I love some to , but this kind hopping around was bad. I would rather he did each of the films he mentions, its history ect. That would pleased me more.That all being said i did kind of liked it. but i would'nt make it known anywhere,Maybe i can find better books about what i like the best ,movies.C- from me...

David Thomson has looked long, lovingly and, at times, warily at the development and, perhaps used here ironically, the evolution of the moving image on screens large and small from the very beginning. Part history, part criticism, part warning, he reveals a lifelong love affair with film/ movie/ cinema coupled with a deep concern for its effect on us. A landmark work. Should be required reading for students of film, amateur or otherwise.

The BIG SCREEN is one of the best critical histories of the motion picture arts I have read. Mr. Thomson loves his subject, but he is not in love with it. This is a history with warts and all. His concept includes all the visual arts from Eadweard Muybridge and the birth of photography to the iPhone. If it can be projected or viewed on a screen, it's in this book.

David Thomson's writing is so beautiful, it makes reading about the history of cinema a double pleasure. I am only two chapters into the book so far and I am loving every bit of it. I will be very sad when it's over. I am going to continue reading it, but slowly so that I can cherish the writing and the story longer. Excellent!

Purchased for a gift for a movie buff. Book arrived in good condition exactly as I expected it would be and on time for Christmas. Gift was enthusiastically accepted .Thanks.

Very interesting. A bit too detailed for me, however.

David Thomson knows more about films, and writes with both authority and person bias in a way no one else is doing (or capable of doing). This book is a home run.

The coverage of this book is overwhelming: from the start of cinema until it was published (2012), in a highly readable style. My only criticism is that it is weak on the latest developments in third world and LGBTQ cinema. It is also amazingly cheap for the amount of information it contains.

Thomson's depth of knowledge is quite incredible - his ability to connect biographical detail to critical insight is convincing...and I usually take some convincing of that (I'd be more of the Deleuze/Cavell inclination). The chapter on "State Film - Film State" is particularly good.My own problem with this book is nothing to do with the content, it's the publishers. Allen Lane seem to have skimped on the binding - I've had my copy for less than a week and already the pages are falling out - and I'm careful with books. Seems a shame that such a work is marred by cheap and faulty binding.

I am a life long movie enthusiast, and end enjoy retrospective and analysis of film in general. This book was way over the top for me. While there was one or two gold nuggets in there, the rest was a lot of pretentious tosh.

i was so sad when this ended (it was a bit rushed at the end too) - well-judged assessments, and mini-stories of people involved as he moved region by region and era by era - a true lover of film, and a light engrossing author - i was sorry to finish it.

Good read