Needs to get back on track , 29 Apr 2008
As someone who has been buying and devouring Halliwell's since the first edition back in 1977, I find it disappointing to see Walker requesting that his name is removed from the credits - almost as disappointing as the disdain with which the publishers increasingly treat this once great movie bible. The two elements that set Halliwell's apart from the rest are the star rating system and the use of italics to denote outstanding performance. In the latest edition, the former is ill-used and the latter is dispensed with altogether.

Yes, Leslie Halliwell was a reactionary old grump who hated pretty much everything post 1969, but that was part of his charm, bless 'im. History has shown that he unfairly undervalued much of the 70s/80s output and John Walker's revisions were pretty welcome after Halliwell's untimely death. As an example, it was Walker who converted the superb 'Southern Comfort' from 0-star to 4-star rating, thus restoring some sanity. Like Halliwell, Walker's reviews were sharp and pithy and, other than the aforementioned sensible revisions, he tried to keep the spirit of Halliwell alive. The new reviewer is far more verbose and some of his decisions are questionable but I guess that's his prerogative.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem is that recent editions have tinkered with the format feverishly and taken away much of what made this guide something to be eagerly anticipated each year. The silly introduction of coloured film titles, the unhelpful addition of character names after each actor's name and the italicisation of the review section to distinguish it from the plot paragraph are all gimmicks too far. None have added any real value - quite the opposite.

But, above all, italicisation to reward outstanding performances by actors or creators is something that defines Halliwell's. With the 2008 edition, it appears even that sacred cow can be put out to pasture.

After thirty years, it could be time to find a new guide.


real signs of improvement, 05 Jan 2008
I think Halliwell's is gradually starting to move with the times. Having had the latest edition now for a fortnight, I like the slightly longer reviews for the more important new films. The new editor writes well enough, and he even has a sense of humour which was never evident in this guide before. His introduction is sound, and he gives the impression of having seen every film he writes about. My reservation about the volume is the opinions expressed by the great Halliwell himself, many of which seem dismissive, reactionary or just plain out of date. He under-valued so many significant films from the 70s and 80s.

Misleading reviews and descriptions. Needs a total re-write, 16 Dec 2007
Each listing includes title, year, abbreviated credits, the film's plot in one sentence, and a review of the film in one sentence.
You should see this before you buy it and make your own mind up.

As a basic listing book it is fine . It contains thousands of entries. But other basic information is welcome. For example, how much did the film cost on the balance sheet? Notable facts like that.

As a film guide [i.e. what it claims to be] it is thoroughly apalling and needs a thorough rewrite. The italicised reviews and the plot summaries are so misleading they are sometimes wrong. The original review of Jaws (1976) is typical. Try to read this slowly: `...despite genuinely suspenseful and frightening sequences, it is a slackly narrated and sometimes flatly handled thriller with an over-abundance of dialogue and, when it finally appears, a pretty unconvincing monster.' What does it mean to 'slackly' narrate a film? The authors can't tell you what they mean either cos it doesn't make any sense! How is it possible to 'flatly handle' a film? As opposed to do what? The pretentious criticism of films throughout the book, shoved down your throat, is off putting.

It does not seem to do what I thought it would, which is enlighten readers and give an insight into the 'construction' of each film listed. That is my definition of a good film guide, so I was very disappointed.

It should speak in plain English and not be so pretentious. Throughout Halliwell's there is overembellished language. It appears the authors merely want to be provacative for their own reputational gain, but they merely baffle and confuse readers with their comments which are almost always off the point and shoved down your throat.

Of course, some like having loads of dumb puerile comments shoved down your throat in a somewhat patronising way. But the approach is totally unecessary. The author should consult the Radio Times Film Guide to see one way how Halliwell's could be bettered.

In short, "totally absurd, poorly contrived, hilariously overwritten".

The juries still out on this one., 08 Dec 2007
As a massive fan of the Halliwell's Film, Video and DVD Guide series, when I saw the slap-dash black sticker bearing David Gritten's name hastily stuck over former editor John Walker's name, I opened it with a certain sense of trepidation. Upon reading the introduction I was somewhat nonplused to see Babel and The Last King of Scotland cited as movies of the year, two films that I had found somewhat disappointing; yet pleasantly suprised to see Children Of Men and The Departed get a mention. As I turned to the back pages to see the three and four star films listed alphabetically my bemusement grew. Seeing The Good Shepherd amongst the three star films was the biggest shock, as this was a film that, although interesting and well shot, was in dire need of better editing and more suitable casting. Other suprise recipients of the three star award include Meet the Robinsons and The Host, perfectly good films on their own terms, but of great historical significance? I think not. While some films were rightly lauded: The Lives of Others is deservedly awarded the sole four star rating, and Pan's Labyrinth, Little Miss Sunshine and Volver all get the three stars that they merit; some of the most remarkable films of the year get sadly overlooked: Apocalypto, 28 Weeks Later and Zodiac share only two stars amonsts them. Further to this, Gritten has failed to honour stand-out performances by representing the actors name in italics.
Yet despite these criticisms, I feel that Gritten has managed to retain in some measure the essence of what makes Halliwell's a superior film guide. The list of noteworthy movies of the year is characteristically short, the intoduction is interesting and relevant and the reviews, although not always as pithy, are informative and well written. To his credit Gritten justifies the length of some reviews in the introduction and I feel the lengthier reviews for notable movies may well prove a notable addition to the guide.
A final word on John Walker. While it was apparent that his tastes were becomming slightly broader in the last two editions, with the suprise three star awarding of Peter Jackson's King Kong, and over-generous revisions of Leslie Halliwell's reviews; he was for the most part consistent and reliable in his assessment of the numerous films reviewed and for this reason he will be sorely missed by lovers of the guide. It remains to seen whether or not the new look guide is in safe hands, but lovers of the old guide will be hoping that a "Johnn Walker's Film Guide" won't be too far away.

Orange?, 11 Nov 2007
I usually update my Halliwell's film guide every two years. Haven't seen the 2007 edition but I hope the 2008 edition hasn't persisted with the orange lettering for the film titles! Ever tried reading entries in a subdued, film viewing, evening light? Near impossible. Is there a better guide out there though?

Needs to get back on track , 29 Apr 2008
As someone who has been buying and devouring Halliwell's since the first edition back in 1977, I find it disappointing to see Walker requesting that his name is removed from the credits - almost as disappointing as the disdain with which the publishers increasingly treat this once great movie bible. The two elements that set Halliwell's apart from the rest are the star rating system and the use of italics to denote outstanding performance. In the latest edition, the former is ill-used and the latter is dispensed with altogether.

Yes, Leslie Halliwell was a reactionary old grump who hated pretty much everything post 1969, but that was part of his charm, bless 'im. History has shown that he unfairly undervalued much of the 70s/80s output and John Walker's revisions were pretty welcome after Halliwell's untimely death. As an example, it was Walker who converted the superb 'Southern Comfort' from 0-star to 4-star rating, thus restoring some sanity. Like Halliwell, Walker's reviews were sharp and pithy and, other than the aforementioned sensible revisions, he tried to keep the spirit of Halliwell alive. The new reviewer is far more verbose and some of his decisions are questionable but I guess that's his prerogative.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem is that recent editions have tinkered with the format feverishly and taken away much of what made this guide something to be eagerly anticipated each year. The silly introduction of coloured film titles, the unhelpful addition of character names after each actor's name and the italicisation of the review section to distinguish it from the plot paragraph are all gimmicks too far. None have added any real value - quite the opposite.

But, above all, italicisation to reward outstanding performances by actors or creators is something that defines Halliwell's. With the 2008 edition, it appears even that sacred cow can be put out to pasture.

After thirty years, it could be time to find a new guide.


real signs of improvement, 05 Jan 2008
I think Halliwell's is gradually starting to move with the times. Having had the latest edition now for a fortnight, I like the slightly longer reviews for the more important new films. The new editor writes well enough, and he even has a sense of humour which was never evident in this guide before. His introduction is sound, and he gives the impression of having seen every film he writes about. My reservation about the volume is the opinions expressed by the great Halliwell himself, many of which seem dismissive, reactionary or just plain out of date. He under-valued so many significant films from the 70s and 80s.

Misleading reviews and descriptions. Needs a total re-write, 16 Dec 2007
Each listing includes title, year, abbreviated credits, the film's plot in one sentence, and a review of the film in one sentence.
You should see this before you buy it and make your own mind up.

As a basic listing book it is fine . It contains thousands of entries. But other basic information is welcome. For example, how much did the film cost on the balance sheet? Notable facts like that.

As a film guide [i.e. what it claims to be] it is thoroughly apalling and needs a thorough rewrite. The italicised reviews and the plot summaries are so misleading they are sometimes wrong. The original review of Jaws (1976) is typical. Try to read this slowly: `...despite genuinely suspenseful and frightening sequences, it is a slackly narrated and sometimes flatly handled thriller with an over-abundance of dialogue and, when it finally appears, a pretty unconvincing monster.' What does it mean to 'slackly' narrate a film? The authors can't tell you what they mean either cos it doesn't make any sense! How is it possible to 'flatly handle' a film? As opposed to do what? The pretentious criticism of films throughout the book, shoved down your throat, is off putting.

It does not seem to do what I thought it would, which is enlighten readers and give an insight into the 'construction' of each film listed. That is my definition of a good film guide, so I was very disappointed.

It should speak in plain English and not be so pretentious. Throughout Halliwell's there is overembellished language. It appears the authors merely want to be provacative for their own reputational gain, but they merely baffle and confuse readers with their comments which are almost always off the point and shoved down your throat.

Of course, some like having loads of dumb puerile comments shoved down your throat in a somewhat patronising way. But the approach is totally unecessary. The author should consult the Radio Times Film Guide to see one way how Halliwell's could be bettered.

In short, "totally absurd, poorly contrived, hilariously overwritten".

The juries still out on this one., 08 Dec 2007
As a massive fan of the Halliwell's Film, Video and DVD Guide series, when I saw the slap-dash black sticker bearing David Gritten's name hastily stuck over former editor John Walker's name, I opened it with a certain sense of trepidation. Upon reading the introduction I was somewhat nonplused to see Babel and The Last King of Scotland cited as movies of the year, two films that I had found somewhat disappointing; yet pleasantly suprised to see Children Of Men and The Departed get a mention. As I turned to the back pages to see the three and four star films listed alphabetically my bemusement grew. Seeing The Good Shepherd amongst the three star films was the biggest shock, as this was a film that, although interesting and well shot, was in dire need of better editing and more suitable casting. Other suprise recipients of the three star award include Meet the Robinsons and The Host, perfectly good films on their own terms, but of great historical significance? I think not. While some films were rightly lauded: The Lives of Others is deservedly awarded the sole four star rating, and Pan's Labyrinth, Little Miss Sunshine and Volver all get the three stars that they merit; some of the most remarkable films of the year get sadly overlooked: Apocalypto, 28 Weeks Later and Zodiac share only two stars amonsts them. Further to this, Gritten has failed to honour stand-out performances by representing the actors name in italics.
Yet despite these criticisms, I feel that Gritten has managed to retain in some measure the essence of what makes Halliwell's a superior film guide. The list of noteworthy movies of the year is characteristically short, the intoduction is interesting and relevant and the reviews, although not always as pithy, are informative and well written. To his credit Gritten justifies the length of some reviews in the introduction and I feel the lengthier reviews for notable movies may well prove a notable addition to the guide.
A final word on John Walker. While it was apparent that his tastes were becomming slightly broader in the last two editions, with the suprise three star awarding of Peter Jackson's King Kong, and over-generous revisions of Leslie Halliwell's reviews; he was for the most part consistent and reliable in his assessment of the numerous films reviewed and for this reason he will be sorely missed by lovers of the guide. It remains to seen whether or not the new look guide is in safe hands, but lovers of the old guide will be hoping that a "Johnn Walker's Film Guide" won't be too far away.

Orange?, 11 Nov 2007
I usually update my Halliwell's film guide every two years. Haven't seen the 2007 edition but I hope the 2008 edition hasn't persisted with the orange lettering for the film titles! Ever tried reading entries in a subdued, film viewing, evening light? Near impossible. Is there a better guide out there though?

The ultimate guide to jazz on CD., 14 Nov 2008
The 9th edition of the 'Jazz Bible' maintains the high standards of previous volumes. Its 1600-plus pages contain perceptive, witty and knowledgeable reviews of 14,000 jazz CDs including 2000 new discs in this 2008 edition. There is also a moving tribute to the late Richard D. Cook(1957-2007) who gets awarded the highest accolade of a 'crown' from his co-author, Brian Morton.
The hours of concentrated thought and hard-listening that's gone into this monumental series from the two authors since 1992 is awe-inspiring and the latest, endlessly browsable edition is an indispensable guide for any serious jazz collector.

Needs to get back on track , 29 Apr 2008
As someone who has been buying and devouring Halliwell's since the first edition back in 1977, I find it disappointing to see Walker requesting that his name is removed from the credits - almost as disappointing as the disdain with which the publishers increasingly treat this once great movie bible. The two elements that set Halliwell's apart from the rest are the star rating system and the use of italics to denote outstanding performance. In the latest edition, the former is ill-used and the latter is dispensed with altogether.

Yes, Leslie Halliwell was a reactionary old grump who hated pretty much everything post 1969, but that was part of his charm, bless 'im. History has shown that he unfairly undervalued much of the 70s/80s output and John Walker's revisions were pretty welcome after Halliwell's untimely death. As an example, it was Walker who converted the superb 'Southern Comfort' from 0-star to 4-star rating, thus restoring some sanity. Like Halliwell, Walker's reviews were sharp and pithy and, other than the aforementioned sensible revisions, he tried to keep the spirit of Halliwell alive. The new reviewer is far more verbose and some of his decisions are questionable but I guess that's his prerogative.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem is that recent editions have tinkered with the format feverishly and taken away much of what made this guide something to be eagerly anticipated each year. The silly introduction of coloured film titles, the unhelpful addition of character names after each actor's name and the italicisation of the review section to distinguish it from the plot paragraph are all gimmicks too far. None have added any real value - quite the opposite.

But, above all, italicisation to reward outstanding performances by actors or creators is something that defines Halliwell's. With the 2008 edition, it appears even that sacred cow can be put out to pasture.

After thirty years, it could be time to find a new guide.


real signs of improvement, 05 Jan 2008
I think Halliwell's is gradually starting to move with the times. Having had the latest edition now for a fortnight, I like the slightly longer reviews for the more important new films. The new editor writes well enough, and he even has a sense of humour which was never evident in this guide before. His introduction is sound, and he gives the impression of having seen every film he writes about. My reservation about the volume is the opinions expressed by the great Halliwell himself, many of which seem dismissive, reactionary or just plain out of date. He under-valued so many significant films from the 70s and 80s.

Misleading reviews and descriptions. Needs a total re-write, 16 Dec 2007
Each listing includes title, year, abbreviated credits, the film's plot in one sentence, and a review of the film in one sentence.
You should see this before you buy it and make your own mind up.

As a basic listing book it is fine . It contains thousands of entries. But other basic information is welcome. For example, how much did the film cost on the balance sheet? Notable facts like that.

As a film guide [i.e. what it claims to be] it is thoroughly apalling and needs a thorough rewrite. The italicised reviews and the plot summaries are so misleading they are sometimes wrong. The original review of Jaws (1976) is typical. Try to read this slowly: `...despite genuinely suspenseful and frightening sequences, it is a slackly narrated and sometimes flatly handled thriller with an over-abundance of dialogue and, when it finally appears, a pretty unconvincing monster.' What does it mean to 'slackly' narrate a film? The authors can't tell you what they mean either cos it doesn't make any sense! How is it possible to 'flatly handle' a film? As opposed to do what? The pretentious criticism of films throughout the book, shoved down your throat, is off putting.

It does not seem to do what I thought it would, which is enlighten readers and give an insight into the 'construction' of each film listed. That is my definition of a good film guide, so I was very disappointed.

It should speak in plain English and not be so pretentious. Throughout Halliwell's there is overembellished language. It appears the authors merely want to be provacative for their own reputational gain, but they merely baffle and confuse readers with their comments which are almost always off the point and shoved down your throat.

Of course, some like having loads of dumb puerile comments shoved down your throat in a somewhat patronising way. But the approach is totally unecessary. The author should consult the Radio Times Film Guide to see one way how Halliwell's could be bettered.

In short, "totally absurd, poorly contrived, hilariously overwritten".

The juries still out on this one., 08 Dec 2007
As a massive fan of the Halliwell's Film, Video and DVD Guide series, when I saw the slap-dash black sticker bearing David Gritten's name hastily stuck over former editor John Walker's name, I opened it with a certain sense of trepidation. Upon reading the introduction I was somewhat nonplused to see Babel and The Last King of Scotland cited as movies of the year, two films that I had found somewhat disappointing; yet pleasantly suprised to see Children Of Men and The Departed get a mention. As I turned to the back pages to see the three and four star films listed alphabetically my bemusement grew. Seeing The Good Shepherd amongst the three star films was the biggest shock, as this was a film that, although interesting and well shot, was in dire need of better editing and more suitable casting. Other suprise recipients of the three star award include Meet the Robinsons and The Host, perfectly good films on their own terms, but of great historical significance? I think not. While some films were rightly lauded: The Lives of Others is deservedly awarded the sole four star rating, and Pan's Labyrinth, Little Miss Sunshine and Volver all get the three stars that they merit; some of the most remarkable films of the year get sadly overlooked: Apocalypto, 28 Weeks Later and Zodiac share only two stars amonsts them. Further to this, Gritten has failed to honour stand-out performances by representing the actors name in italics.
Yet despite these criticisms, I feel that Gritten has managed to retain in some measure the essence of what makes Halliwell's a superior film guide. The list of noteworthy movies of the year is characteristically short, the intoduction is interesting and relevant and the reviews, although not always as pithy, are informative and well written. To his credit Gritten justifies the length of some reviews in the introduction and I feel the lengthier reviews for notable movies may well prove a notable addition to the guide.
A final word on John Walker. While it was apparent that his tastes were becomming slightly broader in the last two editions, with the suprise three star awarding of Peter Jackson's King Kong, and over-generous revisions of Leslie Halliwell's reviews; he was for the most part consistent and reliable in his assessment of the numerous films reviewed and for this reason he will be sorely missed by lovers of the guide. It remains to seen whether or not the new look guide is in safe hands, but lovers of the old guide will be hoping that a "Johnn Walker's Film Guide" won't be too far away.

Orange?, 11 Nov 2007
I usually update my Halliwell's film guide every two years. Haven't seen the 2007 edition but I hope the 2008 edition hasn't persisted with the orange lettering for the film titles! Ever tried reading entries in a subdued, film viewing, evening light? Near impossible. Is there a better guide out there though?

The ultimate guide to jazz on CD., 14 Nov 2008
The 9th edition of the 'Jazz Bible' maintains the high standards of previous volumes. Its 1600-plus pages contain perceptive, witty and knowledgeable reviews of 14,000 jazz CDs including 2000 new discs in this 2008 edition. There is also a moving tribute to the late Richard D. Cook(1957-2007) who gets awarded the highest accolade of a 'crown' from his co-author, Brian Morton.
The hours of concentrated thought and hard-listening that's gone into this monumental series from the two authors since 1992 is awe-inspiring and the latest, endlessly browsable edition is an indispensable guide for any serious jazz collector.

Their History, 19 Nov 2008
I first got into Led Zep somewhere between their third and forth album, reading music magazines `Sounds` and `New Musical Express for years I knew almost everything about the group even though , they didnt talk to the press unless they had something big to discuss! I stopped buying the press weekleys after `Sounds` scribe Geoff (deaf) Barton started Kerrang!. so back to this book, yes its good and although I have seen 95% of the photos and read 95% of the interviews etc . there is a comprehensive review of each album and lots of informative information. still good to have this kind of scrap book style large heavy book! there are a lot more bands out there that should follow this format..Its also great to see a lot of bootleg covers, albums I know about but have never seen. Heard about five and some are great some are a waste of vinyl...This is a very good history Not the heaviest, they at the time were the BEST

Beautiful.........for the coffee table, 03 Nov 2008
Great book. Great pictures. Some pretty rare ones. Only the occasional mistake usually in the dates/venues for the pictures. Good text covering the essentials of the bands history.
After a run of poor books on the band I would recommend this to the whole fan spectrum, from casual to serious.

Needs to get back on track , 29 Apr 2008
As someone who has been buying and devouring Halliwell's since the first edition back in 1977, I find it disappointing to see Walker requesting that his name is removed from the credits - almost as disappointing as the disdain with which the publishers increasingly treat this once great movie bible. The two elements that set Halliwell's apart from the rest are the star rating system and the use of italics to denote outstanding performance. In the latest edition, the former is ill-used and the latter is dispensed with altogether.

Yes, Leslie Halliwell was a reactionary old grump who hated pretty much everything post 1969, but that was part of his charm, bless 'im. History has shown that he unfairly undervalued much of the 70s/80s output and John Walker's revisions were pretty welcome after Halliwell's untimely death. As an example, it was Walker who converted the superb 'Southern Comfort' from 0-star to 4-star rating, thus restoring some sanity. Like Halliwell, Walker's reviews were sharp and pithy and, other than the aforementioned sensible revisions, he tried to keep the spirit of Halliwell alive. The new reviewer is far more verbose and some of his decisions are questionable but I guess that's his prerogative.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem is that recent editions have tinkered with the format feverishly and taken away much of what made this guide something to be eagerly anticipated each year. The silly introduction of coloured film titles, the unhelpful addition of character names after each actor's name and the italicisation of the review section to distinguish it from the plot paragraph are all gimmicks too far. None have added any real value - quite the opposite.

But, above all, italicisation to reward outstanding performances by actors or creators is something that defines Halliwell's. With the 2008 edition, it appears even that sacred cow can be put out to pasture.

After thirty years, it could be time to find a new guide.


real signs of improvement, 05 Jan 2008
I think Halliwell's is gradually starting to move with the times. Having had the latest edition now for a fortnight, I like the slightly longer reviews for the more important new films. The new editor writes well enough, and he even has a sense of humour which was never evident in this guide before. His introduction is sound, and he gives the impression of having seen every film he writes about. My reservation about the volume is the opinions expressed by the great Halliwell himself, many of which seem dismissive, reactionary or just plain out of date. He under-valued so many significant films from the 70s and 80s.

Misleading reviews and descriptions. Needs a total re-write, 16 Dec 2007
Each listing includes title, year, abbreviated credits, the film's plot in one sentence, and a review of the film in one sentence.
You should see this before you buy it and make your own mind up.

As a basic listing book it is fine . It contains thousands of entries. But other basic information is welcome. For example, how much did the film cost on the balance sheet? Notable facts like that.

As a film guide [i.e. what it claims to be] it is thoroughly apalling and needs a thorough rewrite. The italicised reviews and the plot summaries are so misleading they are sometimes wrong. The original review of Jaws (1976) is typical. Try to read this slowly: `...despite genuinely suspenseful and frightening sequences, it is a slackly narrated and sometimes flatly handled thriller with an over-abundance of dialogue and, when it finally appears, a pretty unconvincing monster.' What does it mean to 'slackly' narrate a film? The authors can't tell you what they mean either cos it doesn't make any sense! How is it possible to 'flatly handle' a film? As opposed to do what? The pretentious criticism of films throughout the book, shoved down your throat, is off putting.

It does not seem to do what I thought it would, which is enlighten readers and give an insight into the 'construction' of each film listed. That is my definition of a good film guide, so I was very disappointed.

It should speak in plain English and not be so pretentious. Throughout Halliwell's there is overembellished language. It appears the authors merely want to be provacative for their own reputational gain, but they merely baffle and confuse readers with their comments which are almost always off the point and shoved down your throat.

Of course, some like having loads of dumb puerile comments shoved down your throat in a somewhat patronising way. But the approach is totally unecessary. The author should consult the Radio Times Film Guide to see one way how Halliwell's could be bettered.

In short, "totally absurd, poorly contrived, hilariously overwritten".

The juries still out on this one., 08 Dec 2007
As a massive fan of the Halliwell's Film, Video and DVD Guide series, when I saw the slap-dash black sticker bearing David Gritten's name hastily stuck over former editor John Walker's name, I opened it with a certain sense of trepidation. Upon reading the introduction I was somewhat nonplused to see Babel and The Last King of Scotland cited as movies of the year, two films that I had found somewhat disappointing; yet pleasantly suprised to see Children Of Men and The Departed get a mention. As I turned to the back pages to see the three and four star films listed alphabetically my bemusement grew. Seeing The Good Shepherd amongst the three star films was the biggest shock, as this was a film that, although interesting and well shot, was in dire need of better editing and more suitable casting. Other suprise recipients of the three star award include Meet the Robinsons and The Host, perfectly good films on their own terms, but of great historical significance? I think not. While some films were rightly lauded: The Lives of Others is deservedly awarded the sole four star rating, and Pan's Labyrinth, Little Miss Sunshine and Volver all get the three stars that they merit; some of the most remarkable films of the year get sadly overlooked: Apocalypto, 28 Weeks Later and Zodiac share only two stars amonsts them. Further to this, Gritten has failed to honour stand-out performances by representing the actors name in italics.
Yet despite these criticisms, I feel that Gritten has managed to retain in some measure the essence of what makes Halliwell's a superior film guide. The list of noteworthy movies of the year is characteristically short, the intoduction is interesting and relevant and the reviews, although not always as pithy, are informative and well written. To his credit Gritten justifies the length of some reviews in the introduction and I feel the lengthier reviews for notable movies may well prove a notable addition to the guide.
A final word on John Walker. While it was apparent that his tastes were becomming slightly broader in the last two editions, with the suprise three star awarding of Peter Jackson's King Kong, and over-generous revisions of Leslie Halliwell's reviews; he was for the most part consistent and reliable in his assessment of the numerous films reviewed and for this reason he will be sorely missed by lovers of the guide. It remains to seen whether or not the new look guide is in safe hands, but lovers of the old guide will be hoping that a "Johnn Walker's Film Guide" won't be too far away.

Orange?, 11 Nov 2007
I usually update my Halliwell's film guide every two years. Haven't seen the 2007 edition but I hope the 2008 edition hasn't persisted with the orange lettering for the film titles! Ever tried reading entries in a subdued, film viewing, evening light? Near impossible. Is there a better guide out there though?

The ultimate guide to jazz on CD., 14 Nov 2008
The 9th edition of the 'Jazz Bible' maintains the high standards of previous volumes. Its 1600-plus pages contain perceptive, witty and knowledgeable reviews of 14,000 jazz CDs including 2000 new discs in this 2008 edition. There is also a moving tribute to the late Richard D. Cook(1957-2007) who gets awarded the highest accolade of a 'crown' from his co-author, Brian Morton.
The hours of concentrated thought and hard-listening that's gone into this monumental series from the two authors since 1992 is awe-inspiring and the latest, endlessly browsable edition is an indispensable guide for any serious jazz collector.

Their History, 19 Nov 2008
I first got into Led Zep somewhere between their third and forth album, reading music magazines `Sounds` and `New Musical Express for years I knew almost everything about the group even though , they didnt talk to the press unless they had something big to discuss! I stopped buying the press weekleys after `Sounds` scribe Geoff (deaf) Barton started Kerrang!. so back to this book, yes its good and although I have seen 95% of the photos and read 95% of the interviews etc . there is a comprehensive review of each album and lots of informative information. still good to have this kind of scrap book style large heavy book! there are a lot more bands out there that should follow this format..Its also great to see a lot of bootleg covers, albums I know about but have never seen. Heard about five and some are great some are a waste of vinyl...This is a very good history Not the heaviest, they at the time were the BEST

Beautiful.........for the coffee table, 03 Nov 2008
Great book. Great pictures. Some pretty rare ones. Only the occasional mistake usually in the dates/venues for the pictures. Good text covering the essentials of the bands history.
After a run of poor books on the band I would recommend this to the whole fan spectrum, from casual to serious.

Yet more tripe from those who do it best, 08 Nov 2008
As if those terrible Best of Decade lists weren't innacurate enough, RichDork now decide that it's time for the world to know what they say are the best songs from the past 30 years or so. In book form.

I don't think I'd have had as big a problem with this had they just published it on their site. I don't own it -- it's easily viewable on the net -- but I'm well aware that there are hipsters out there gullible enough to buy what is essentially nothing more than one great big mass self-indulgent by a group of obsessive rock and pop fans with severe ego problems.

The one thing that earns this its one star is its eclectism. Talk Talk, The Pop Group, Dizzee Rascal and Autechre each make appearances on here, among many others. However, the list is formulaic to the point that I could have guessed at least 10% of their picks before reading, had I the thought or effort to do so. What's worse is that the list is primarily made up of artists who made it onto the 70s/80/90s decade lists previously. This means that not only are the lists obnoxious on Pitchfork's part, but any use that they may have served ignorant music fans looking to delve a bit further into rock music is eliminated.

Not recommended by any means, but the sites worth checking out if you're tired of the current British mainstream, choc-full indie-pop, post-punk rehash guitar bands; dull, disco-never-died rn'b and whoever it is that won X Factor -- or whatever it's called as of your reading this -- most recently. Compared to that, this is a damn masterwork.

Needs to get back on track , 29 Apr 2008
As someone who has been buying and devouring Halliwell's since the first edition back in 1977, I find it disappointing to see Walker requesting that his name is removed from the credits - almost as disappointing as the disdain with which the publishers increasingly treat this once great movie bible. The two elements that set Halliwell's apart from the rest are the star rating system and the use of italics to denote outstanding performance. In the latest edition, the former is ill-used and the latter is dispensed with altogether.

Yes, Leslie Halliwell was a reactionary old grump who hated pretty much everything post 1969, but that was part of his charm, bless 'im. History has shown that he unfairly undervalued much of the 70s/80s output and John Walker's revisions were pretty welcome after Halliwell's untimely death. As an example, it was Walker who converted the superb 'Southern Comfort' from 0-star to 4-star rating, thus restoring some sanity. Like Halliwell, Walker's reviews were sharp and pithy and, other than the aforementioned sensible revisions, he tried to keep the spirit of Halliwell alive. The new reviewer is far more verbose and some of his decisions are questionable but I guess that's his prerogative.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem is that recent editions have tinkered with the format feverishly and taken away much of what made this guide something to be eagerly anticipated each year. The silly introduction of coloured film titles, the unhelpful addition of character names after each actor's name and the italicisation of the review section to distinguish it from the plot paragraph are all gimmicks too far. None have added any real value - quite the opposite.

But, above all, italicisation to reward outstanding performances by actors or creators is something that defines Halliwell's. With the 2008 edition, it appears even that sacred cow can be put out to pasture.

After thirty years, it could be time to find a new guide.


real signs of improvement, 05 Jan 2008
I think Halliwell's is gradually starting to move with the times. Having had the latest edition now for a fortnight, I like the slightly longer reviews for the more important new films. The new editor writes well enough, and he even has a sense of humour which was never evident in this guide before. His introduction is sound, and he gives the impression of having seen every film he writes about. My reservation about the volume is the opinions expressed by the great Halliwell himself, many of which seem dismissive, reactionary or just plain out of date. He under-valued so many significant films from the 70s and 80s.

Misleading reviews and descriptions. Needs a total re-write, 16 Dec 2007
Each listing includes title, year, abbreviated credits, the film's plot in one sentence, and a review of the film in one sentence.
You should see this before you buy it and make your own mind up.

As a basic listing book it is fine . It contains thousands of entries. But other basic information is welcome. For example, how much did the film cost on the balance sheet? Notable facts like that.

As a film guide [i.e. what it claims to be] it is thoroughly apalling and needs a thorough rewrite. The italicised reviews and the plot summaries are so misleading they are sometimes wrong. The original review of Jaws (1976) is typical. Try to read this slowly: `...despite genuinely suspenseful and frightening sequences, it is a slackly narrated and sometimes flatly handled thriller with an over-abundance of dialogue and, when it finally appears, a pretty unconvincing monster.' What does it mean to 'slackly' narrate a film? The authors can't tell you what they mean either cos it doesn't make any sense! How is it possible to 'flatly handle' a film? As opposed to do what? The pretentious criticism of films throughout the book, shoved down your throat, is off putting.

It does not seem to do what I thought it would, which is enlighten readers and give an insight into the 'construction' of each film listed. That is my definition of a good film guide, so I was very disappointed.

It should speak in plain English and not be so pretentious. Throughout Halliwell's there is overembellished language. It appears the authors merely want to be provacative for their own reputational gain, but they merely baffle and confuse readers with their comments which are almost always off the point and shoved down your throat.

Of course, some like having loads of dumb puerile comments shoved down your throat in a somewhat patronising way. But the approach is totally unecessary. The author should consult the Radio Times Film Guide to see one way how Halliwell's could be bettered.

In short, "totally absurd, poorly contrived, hilariously overwritten".

The juries still out on this one., 08 Dec 2007
As a massive fan of the Halliwell's Film, Video and DVD Guide series, when I saw the slap-dash black sticker bearing David Gritten's name hastily stuck over former editor John Walker's name, I opened it with a certain sense of trepidation. Upon reading the introduction I was somewhat nonplused to see Babel and The Last King of Scotland cited as movies of the year, two films that I had found somewhat disappointing; yet pleasantly suprised to see Children Of Men and The Departed get a mention. As I turned to the back pages to see the three and four star films listed alphabetically my bemusement grew. Seeing The Good Shepherd amongst the three star films was the biggest shock, as this was a film that, although interesting and well shot, was in dire need of better editing and more suitable casting. Other suprise recipients of the three star award include Meet the Robinsons and The Host, perfectly good films on their own terms, but of great historical significance? I think not. While some films were rightly lauded: The Lives of Others is deservedly awarded the sole four star rating, and Pan's Labyrinth, Little Miss Sunshine and Volver all get the three stars that they merit; some of the most remarkable films of the year get sadly overlooked: Apocalypto, 28 Weeks Later and Zodiac share only two stars amonsts them. Further to this, Gritten has failed to honour stand-out performances by representing the actors name in italics.
Yet despite these criticisms, I feel that Gritten has managed to retain in some measure the essence of what makes Halliwell's a superior film guide. The list of noteworthy movies of the year is characteristically short, the intoduction is interesting and relevant and the reviews, although not always as pithy, are informative and well written. To his credit Gritten justifies the length of some reviews in the introduction and I feel the lengthier reviews for notable movies may well prove a notable addition to the guide.
A final word on John Walker. While it was apparent that his tastes were becomming slightly broader in the last two editions, with the suprise three star awarding of Peter Jackson's King Kong, and over-generous revisions of Leslie Halliwell's reviews; he was for the most part consistent and reliable in his assessment of the numerous films reviewed and for this reason he will be sorely missed by lovers of the guide. It remains to seen whether or not the new look guide is in safe hands, but lovers of the old guide will be hoping that a "Johnn Walker's Film Guide" won't be too far away.

Orange?, 11 Nov 2007
I usually update my Halliwell's film guide every two years. Haven't seen the 2007 edition but I hope the 2008 edition hasn't persisted with the orange lettering for the film titles! Ever tried reading entries in a subdued, film viewing, evening light? Near impossible. Is there a better guide out there though?

The ultimate guide to jazz on CD., 14 Nov 2008
The 9th edition of the 'Jazz Bible' maintains the high standards of previous volumes. Its 1600-plus pages contain perceptive, witty and knowledgeable reviews of 14,000 jazz CDs including 2000 new discs in this 2008 edition. There is also a moving tribute to the late Richard D. Cook(1957-2007) who gets awarded the highest accolade of a 'crown' from his co-author, Brian Morton.
The hours of concentrated thought and hard-listening that's gone into this monumental series from the two authors since 1992 is awe-inspiring and the latest, endlessly browsable edition is an indispensable guide for any serious jazz collector.

Their History, 19 Nov 2008
I first got into Led Zep somewhere between their third and forth album, reading music magazines `Sounds` and `New Musical Express for years I knew almost everything about the group even though , they didnt talk to the press unless they had something big to discuss! I stopped buying the press weekleys after `Sounds` scribe Geoff (deaf) Barton started Kerrang!. so back to this book, yes its good and although I have seen 95% of the photos and read 95% of the interviews etc . there is a comprehensive review of each album and lots of informative information. still good to have this kind of scrap book style large heavy book! there are a lot more bands out there that should follow this format..Its also great to see a lot of bootleg covers, albums I know about but have never seen. Heard about five and some are great some are a waste of vinyl...This is a very good history Not the heaviest, they at the time were the BEST

Beautiful.........for the coffee table, 03 Nov 2008
Great book. Great pictures. Some pretty rare ones. Only the occasional mistake usually in the dates/venues for the pictures. Good text covering the essentials of the bands history.
After a run of poor books on the band I would recommend this to the whole fan spectrum, from casual to serious.

Yet more tripe from those who do it best, 08 Nov 2008
As if those terrible Best of Decade lists weren't innacurate enough, RichDork now decide that it's time for the world to know what they say are the best songs from the past 30 years or so. In book form.

I don't think I'd have had as big a problem with this had they just published it on their site. I don't own it -- it's easily viewable on the net -- but I'm well aware that there are hipsters out there gullible enough to buy what is essentially nothing more than one great big mass self-indulgent by a group of obsessive rock and pop fans with severe ego problems.

The one thing that earns this its one star is its eclectism. Talk Talk, The Pop Group, Dizzee Rascal and Autechre each make appearances on here, among many others. However, the list is formulaic to the point that I could have guessed at least 10% of their picks before reading, had I the thought or effort to do so. What's worse is that the list is primarily made up of artists who made it onto the 70s/80/90s decade lists previously. This means that not only are the lists obnoxious on Pitchfork's part, but any use that they may have served ignorant music fans looking to delve a bit further into rock music is eliminated.

Not recommended by any means, but the sites worth checking out if you're tired of the current British mainstream, choc-full indie-pop, post-punk rehash guitar bands; dull, disco-never-died rn'b and whoever it is that won X Factor -- or whatever it's called as of your reading this -- most recently. Compared to that, this is a damn masterwork.

Useful, Entertaining, Insightful... need I go on?, 05 Jul 2008
Given this as a Christmas present, I was not immediately inspired, however I did dip into it and found myself rather hooked!
As a reference book it is wonderful- all those little things that you weren't sure about... all those things you were wondering...
How does that work?
Who was he?
How did he do that?
Which episode did that happen?
What does a Compact Laser Deluxe do? Who had one, and, you know... Where?!
Get all your questions answered and more in this neat, beautifully illustrated guide to the world that is uniquely Doctor Who!
The entire book it dedicated to every useful, and er, not so useful fact that is Doctor who. Who knows what happened in 1336 with the doctor, Rose and Captain Jack? What was the doctor planning for the year 5006 on a Tuesday in October at 6pm? What are the co-ordinates 761390 for?
It's all in this marvelous book! *****

FILLS IN THOSE MISSING BITS, 15 May 2008
A well produced hardback with excellent photographs, visually arresting layout and eminently readable text, THE DOCTOR WHO ENCYLOPEDIA is a worthy addition to any fan's collection. GARY RUSSELL has clearly done his research and the finished result is perfect for the Target Audience which, in theory, must reach into the millions.

Pretty much everything to do with the last three seasons is covered from major characters to major events with direct and indirect references and links, but there's still no avoiding the plot holes, contradictions and contrivances found in most DOCTOR WHO episodes - that sort of thing simply goes with the territory, especially shaky science, which has been elevated to almost art-form status since the show's rebirth. What this encyclopedia attempts to do, however, is fill in some of the more "Eh...?" gaps with solidly thought-out explanations which weren't always made clear in the original broadcasts, the result of (presumably) lazy or fuzzy scriptwriting. As you no doubt already know, Exec Producer RUSSELL T DAVIS is no stranger to this particular phenomenon.

But, hey, now we can all understand the Master's plan for the Toclafane in UTOPIA or the effects of The Paradox Machine from THE LAST OF THE TIME LORDS; the method by which the Weeping Angels steal people's futures from BLINK or how The Beast came to be held captive and the engineering of his subsequent destruction from THE SATAN PIT. Presented in paragraph or short caption form it all appears to make perfect sense now (within some seriously barmy parameters, that is). The introduction even manages to include names or words that might feature in a future revised edition, including Adipose, Rattigan, Mrs (!!), Vespiform...and so on. A neat bit of foreshadowing there, Gary.

Whatever the case, when the time comes, let's ensure this Doctor Who product enjoys a full and happy regeneration.


HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

So good I bought it twice!, 11 Dec 2007
I bought this for my son for Xmas, but with a last minute birthday party invitation I had to give it away to his friend. When my son saw it he was absolutely rapt and said "I wish I'd put that on my list for Santa". Little does he know that Santa already knew he'd like it and is about to order a replacement for him. ;o) The book itself is nice and big and full of in depth detail which will keep Doctor Who fans engaged for hours. There's lots of full colour illustrations and, as the title suggests, it is laid out like an encyclopedia, so it's easy to look up those facts that may have slipped your mind. Well worth the money (and absolutely essential at £3.99!!).

I'm Sorry!, 04 Dec 2007
I'm sorry, I really am. I'm about to insult a hell of a lot of people. But I have to say it. This book is just...unnecesarry! And the fact that I can't spell makes the insult even worse!
I can't believe I'm saying this, I really can't. I'm talking about the writer from The Inside Story, who I've just given a 5 Star Rating.
This book is so detailed, so well written, packed with facts, and yet I don't know anyone who's spend higher thann ten pounds on a book, that's useless, contributes nothing to the DW world, and has information that isn't going to benefit anybody. There, I've said it. Now, here come the insults...

FANTASIC, 17 Nov 2007
This book is packed with information and definetly worth the price. A must-have for only £14.99!!! You can get it for £3.99 delivered...somewhere...

Needs to get back on track , 29 Apr 2008
As someone who has been buying and devouring Halliwell's since the first edition back in 1977, I find it disappointing to see Walker requesting that his name is removed from the credits - almost as disappointing as the disdain with which the publishers increasingly treat this once great movie bible. The two elements that set Halliwell's apart from the rest are the star rating system and the use of italics to denote outstanding performance. In the latest edition, the former is ill-used and the latter is dispensed with altogether.

Yes, Leslie Halliwell was a reactionary old grump who hated pretty much everything post 1969, but that was part of his charm, bless 'im. History has shown that he unfairly undervalued much of the 70s/80s output and John Walker's revisions were pretty welcome after Halliwell's untimely death. As an example, it was Walker who converted the superb 'Southern Comfort' from 0-star to 4-star rating, thus restoring some sanity. Like Halliwell, Walker's reviews were sharp and pithy and, other than the aforementioned sensible revisions, he tried to keep the spirit of Halliwell alive. The new reviewer is far more verbose and some of his decisions are questionable but I guess that's his prerogative.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem is that recent editions have tinkered with the format feverishly and taken away much of what made this guide something to be eagerly anticipated each year. The silly introduction of coloured film titles, the unhelpful addition of character names after each actor's name and the italicisation of the review section to distinguish it from the plot paragraph are all gimmicks too far. None have added any real value - quite the opposite.

But, above all, italicisation to reward outstanding performances by actors or creators is something that defines Halliwell's. With the 2008 edition, it appears even that sacred cow can be put out to pasture.

After thirty years, it could be time to find a new guide.


real signs of improvement, 05 Jan 2008
I think Halliwell's is gradually starting to move with the times. Having had the latest edition now for a fortnight, I like the slightly longer reviews for the more important new films. The new editor writes well enough, and he even has a sense of humour which was never evident in this guide before. His introduction is sound, and he gives the impression of having seen every film he writes about. My reservation about the volume is the opinions expressed by the great Halliwell himself, many of which seem dismissive, reactionary or just plain out of date. He under-valued so many significant films from the 70s and 80s.

Misleading reviews and descriptions. Needs a total re-write, 16 Dec 2007
Each listing includes title, year, abbreviated credits, the film's plot in one sentence, and a review of the film in one sentence.
You should see this before you buy it and make your own mind up.

As a basic listing book it is fine . It contains thousands of entries. But other basic information is welcome. For example, how much did the film cost on the balance sheet? Notable facts like that.

As a film guide [i.e. what it claims to be] it is thoroughly apalling and needs a thorough rewrite. The italicised reviews and the plot summaries are so misleading they are sometimes wrong. The original review of Jaws (1976) is typical. Try to read this slowly: `...despite genuinely suspenseful and frightening sequences, it is a slackly narrated and sometimes flatly handled thriller with an over-abundance of dialogue and, when it finally appears, a pretty unconvincing monster.' What does it mean to 'slackly' narrate a film? The authors can't tell you what they mean either cos it doesn't make any sense! How is it possible to 'flatly handle' a film? As opposed to do what? The pretentious criticism of films throughout the book, shoved down your throat, is off putting.

It does not seem to do what I thought it would, which is enlighten readers and give an insight into the 'construction' of each film listed. That is my definition of a good film guide, so I was very disappointed.

It should speak in plain English and not be so pretentious. Throughout Halliwell's there is overembellished language. It appears the authors merely want to be provacative for their own reputational gain, but they merely baffle and confuse readers with their comments which are almost always off the point and shoved down your throat.

Of course, some like having loads of dumb puerile comments shoved down your throat in a somewhat patronising way. But the approach is totally unecessary. The author should consult the Radio Times Film Guide to see one way how Halliwell's could be bettered.

In short, "totally absurd, poorly contrived, hilariously overwritten".

The juries still out on this one., 08 Dec 2007
As a massive fan of the Halliwell's Film, Video and DVD Guide series, when I saw the slap-dash black sticker bearing David Gritten's name hastily stuck over former editor John Walker's name, I opened it with a certain sense of trepidation. Upon reading the introduction I was somewhat nonplused to see Babel and The Last King of Scotland cited as movies of the year, two films that I had found somewhat disappointing; yet pleasantly suprised to see Children Of Men and The Departed get a mention. As I turned to the back pages to see the three and four star films listed alphabetically my bemusement grew. Seeing The Good Shepherd amongst the three star films was the biggest shock, as this was a film that, although interesting and well shot, was in dire need of better editing and more suitable casting. Other suprise recipients of the three star award include Meet the Robinsons and The Host, perfectly good films on their own terms, but of great historical significance? I think not. While some films were rightly lauded: The Lives of Others is deservedly awarded the sole four star rating, and Pan's Labyrinth, Little Miss Sunshine and Volver all get the three stars that they merit; some of the most remarkable films of the year get sadly overlooked: Apocalypto, 28 Weeks Later and Zodiac share only two stars amonsts them. Further to this, Gritten has failed to honour stand-out performances by representing the actors name in italics.
Yet despite these criticisms, I feel that Gritten has managed to retain in some measure the essence of what makes Halliwell's a superior film guide. The list of noteworthy movies of the year is characteristically short, the intoduction is interesting and relevant and the reviews, although not always as pithy, are informative and well written. To his credit Gritten justifies the length of some reviews in the introduction and I feel the lengthier reviews for notable movies may well prove a notable addition to the guide.
A final word on John Walker. While it was apparent that his tastes were becomming slightly broader in the last two editions, with the suprise three star awarding of Peter Jackson's King Kong, and over-generous revisions of Leslie Halliwell's reviews; he was for the most part consistent and reliable in his assessment of the numerous films reviewed and for this reason he will be sorely missed by lovers of the guide. It remains to seen whether or not the new look guide is in safe hands, but lovers of the old guide will be hoping that a "Johnn Walker's Film Guide" won't be too far away.

Orange?, 11 Nov 2007
I usually update my Halliwell's film guide every two years. Haven't seen the 2007 edition but I hope the 2008 edition hasn't persisted with the orange lettering for the film titles! Ever tried reading entries in a subdued, film viewing, evening light? Near impossible. Is there a better guide out there though?

The ultimate guide to jazz on CD., 14 Nov 2008
The 9th edition of the 'Jazz Bible' maintains the high standards of previous volumes. Its 1600-plus pages contain perceptive, witty and knowledgeable reviews of 14,000 jazz CDs including 2000 new discs in this 2008 edition. There is also a moving tribute to the late Richard D. Cook(1957-2007) who gets awarded the highest accolade of a 'crown' from his co-author, Brian Morton.
The hours of concentrated thought and hard-listening that's gone into this monumental series from the two authors since 1992 is awe-inspiring and the latest, endlessly browsable edition is an indispensable guide for any serious jazz collector.

Their History, 19 Nov 2008
I first got into Led Zep somewhere between their third and forth album, reading music magazines `Sounds` and `New Musical Express for years I knew almost everything about the group even though , they didnt talk to the press unless they had something big to discuss! I stopped buying the press weekleys after `Sounds` scribe Geoff (deaf) Barton started Kerrang!. so back to this book, yes its good and although I have seen 95% of the photos and read 95% of the interviews etc . there is a comprehensive review of each album and lots of informative information. still good to have this kind of scrap book style large heavy book! there are a lot more bands out there that should follow this format..Its also great to see a lot of bootleg covers, albums I know about but have never seen. Heard about five and some are great some are a waste of vinyl...This is a very good history Not the heaviest, they at the time were the BEST

Beautiful.........for the coffee table, 03 Nov 2008
Great book. Great pictures. Some pretty rare ones. Only the occasional mistake usually in the dates/venues for the pictures. Good text covering the essentials of the bands history.
After a run of poor books on the band I would recommend this to the whole fan spectrum, from casual to serious.

Yet more tripe from those who do it best, 08 Nov 2008
As if those terrible Best of Decade lists weren't innacurate enough, RichDork now decide that it's time for the world to know what they say are the best songs from the past 30 years or so. In book form.

I don't think I'd have had as big a problem with this had they just published it on their site. I don't own it -- it's easily viewable on the net -- but I'm well aware that there are hipsters out there gullible enough to buy what is essentially nothing more than one great big mass self-indulgent by a group of obsessive rock and pop fans with severe ego problems.

The one thing that earns this its one star is its eclectism. Talk Talk, The Pop Group, Dizzee Rascal and Autechre each make appearances on here, among many others. However, the list is formulaic to the point that I could have guessed at least 10% of their picks before reading, had I the thought or effort to do so. What's worse is that the list is primarily made up of artists who made it onto the 70s/80/90s decade lists previously. This means that not only are the lists obnoxious on Pitchfork's part, but any use that they may have served ignorant music fans looking to delve a bit further into rock music is eliminated.

Not recommended by any means, but the sites worth checking out if you're tired of the current British mainstream, choc-full indie-pop, post-punk rehash guitar bands; dull, disco-never-died rn'b and whoever it is that won X Factor -- or whatever it's called as of your reading this -- most recently. Compared to that, this is a damn masterwork.

Useful, Entertaining, Insightful... need I go on?, 05 Jul 2008
Given this as a Christmas present, I was not immediately inspired, however I did dip into it and found myself rather hooked!
As a reference book it is wonderful- all those little things that you weren't sure about... all those things you were wondering...
How does that work?
Who was he?
How did he do that?
Which episode did that happen?
What does a Compact Laser Deluxe do? Who had one, and, you know... Where?!
Get all your questions answered and more in this neat, beautifully illustrated guide to the world that is uniquely Doctor Who!
The entire book it dedicated to every useful, and er, not so useful fact that is Doctor who. Who knows what happened in 1336 with the doctor, Rose and Captain Jack? What was the doctor planning for the year 5006 on a Tuesday in October at 6pm? What are the co-ordinates 761390 for?
It's all in this marvelous book! *****

FILLS IN THOSE MISSING BITS, 15 May 2008
A well produced hardback with excellent photographs, visually arresting layout and eminently readable text, THE DOCTOR WHO ENCYLOPEDIA is a worthy addition to any fan's collection. GARY RUSSELL has clearly done his research and the finished result is perfect for the Target Audience which, in theory, must reach into the millions.

Pretty much everything to do with the last three seasons is covered from major characters to major events with direct and indirect references and links, but there's still no avoiding the plot holes, contradictions and contrivances found in most DOCTOR WHO episodes - that sort of thing simply goes with the territory, especially shaky science, which has been elevated to almost art-form status since the show's rebirth. What this encyclopedia attempts to do, however, is fill in some of the more "Eh...?" gaps with solidly thought-out explanations which weren't always made clear in the original broadcasts, the result of (presumably) lazy or fuzzy scriptwriting. As you no doubt already know, Exec Producer RUSSELL T DAVIS is no stranger to this particular phenomenon.

But, hey, now we can all understand the Master's plan for the Toclafane in UTOPIA or the effects of The Paradox Machine from THE LAST OF THE TIME LORDS; the method by which the Weeping Angels steal people's futures from BLINK or how The Beast came to be held captive and the engineering of his subsequent destruction from THE SATAN PIT. Presented in paragraph or short caption form it all appears to make perfect sense now (within some seriously barmy parameters, that is). The introduction even manages to include names or words that might feature in a future revised edition, including Adipose, Rattigan, Mrs (!!), Vespiform...and so on. A neat bit of foreshadowing there, Gary.

Whatever the case, when the time comes, let's ensure this Doctor Who product enjoys a full and happy regeneration.


HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

So good I bought it twice!, 11 Dec 2007
I bought this for my son for Xmas, but with a last minute birthday party invitation I had to give it away to his friend. When my son saw it he was absolutely rapt and said "I wish I'd put that on my list for Santa". Little does he know that Santa already knew he'd like it and is about to order a replacement for him. ;o) The book itself is nice and big and full of in depth detail which will keep Doctor Who fans engaged for hours. There's lots of full colour illustrations and, as the title suggests, it is laid out like an encyclopedia, so it's easy to look up those facts that may have slipped your mind. Well worth the money (and absolutely essential at £3.99!!).

I'm Sorry!, 04 Dec 2007
I'm sorry, I really am. I'm about to insult a hell of a lot of people. But I have to say it. This book is just...unnecesarry! And the fact that I can't spell makes the insult even worse!
I can't believe I'm saying this, I really can't. I'm talking about the writer from The Inside Story, who I've just given a 5 Star Rating.
This book is so detailed, so well written, packed with facts, and yet I don't know anyone who's spend higher thann ten pounds on a book, that's useless, contributes nothing to the DW world, and has information that isn't going to benefit anybody. There, I've said it. Now, here come the insults...

FANTASIC, 17 Nov 2007
This book is packed with information and definetly worth the price. A must-have for only £14.99!!! You can get it for £3.99 delivered...somewhere...

Too many omissions but still the bible, 09 Nov 2008
I have to agree with the previous two reviewers. I have been buying the Penguin Guide since the early 1980s and have become increasingly disappointed. I also bought the 2008 edition and hoped that important recordings that had been omitted would be included. Abbados Mahler 6 and 7 recordings with the Berlin PO- surely among the primary recommendations and cornerstones of my collection- are omitted! And what about Simon Rattles recording of Szymanowskis Harnasie? And Chailly's wonderful Leipzig recordings of the Mahler editions of Schumann's symphonies- not everyone's taste I know- but perhaps the most frequently played of all my new CDs in the past year. I also wonder whether the reviewers hearing is quite what it used to be. I invested in the four star-rated recording of Messiaens Turangalila Symphony on RCA by Ozawa "..comes from 1967, but you would never guess that from the brilliantly atmospheric sound"- I agree that the performance is seminal, but the sound is uncomfortably distorted and glassy at times and falls far short of what we would expect nowadays- so much so that I have never got through it in one sitting, even in the car. All this having been said- I have got Greenfield, Layton, and March to thank for intoducing me to some wonderful recordings over the years, and I still agree with most of their recommendations (such as Richard Hickox's new Elgar 1- one of the greatest ever in my opinion, and with stunning sound). For anyone new to classical music who wants to build a collection-this guide is still like the bible, but it needs some more careful editing as the market beomes ever more saturated with reissues and new recordings.

Slight improvement, sloppy editing, 06 Nov 2008
I reviewed the previous edition and remarked on the poor editing. There has been a slight improvement here but not enough to save the Guide from a so-so rating. Some CDs are noted but not rated, the text has not been updated so that "recent releases" are sometimes 10 years old and some new releases are bizarrely ignored altogether. This is the last edition I will ever invest in. I suggest that other readers think very carefully before they part with their cash.

If you have the 2008 guide, don't waste your money on this, 17 Oct 2008
When the 2008 Penguin Guide appeared, I wrote that the main problem was the sheer number of good CDs omitted. I had hoped that with the 2009 Guide, important releases missed out previously would be included.

Not a chance. As I browsed through this latest edition, I kept thinking 'but this is the same as the 2008 edition'!. I got the previous Guide out, and there is precious little difference. All those excellent classical CDs and SACDs released over the last twelve months - so few reviewed.

Just to give a couple of examples; there has been an avalanche of fine Shostakovich recordings over the last year. How many make it into the Guide? Five. Take Mahler symphonies- there's always a steady stream of recommendable new releases; just three new releases are included (and one DVD). I could go on, but you get the point.

I have been buying the Penguin Guide for years, but have never been so disappointed as by this edition. If there is not space for more releases (and it is the sheer number of excellent releases from the last 12 months omitted that annoys me) then either we should have a two volume edition, or Penguin should just call it a day. It's not as though it's cheap either. I actually took my copy back to Waterstone's (sorry Amazon) and got a refund. And the new system, introduced last year, of giving up to four stars, putting shaded boxes around some recommended recordings, a rosette for some others, a 'key' symbol for others....this must be a little confusing for newcomers.

The one guide to classical compact discs which I now find indispensible is '1001 Classical Recordings You Must hear Before You Die', which is much better than it sounds. But I think the Penguin Guide has just had its day.

Sad.

Needs to get back on track , 29 Apr 2008
As someone who has been buying and devouring Halliwell's since the first edition back in 1977, I find it disappointing to see Walker requesting that his name is removed from the credits - almost as disappointing as the disdain with which the publishers increasingly treat this once great movie bible. The two elements that set Halliwell's apart from the rest are the star rating system and the use of italics to denote outstanding performance. In the latest edition, the former is ill-used and the latter is dispensed with altogether.

Yes, Leslie Halliwell was a reactionary old grump who hated pretty much everything post 1969, but that was part of his charm, bless 'im. History has shown that he unfairly undervalued much of the 70s/80s output and John Walker's revisions were pretty welcome after Halliwell's untimely death. As an example, it was Walker who converted the superb 'Southern Comfort' from 0-star to 4-star rating, thus restoring some sanity. Like Halliwell, Walker's reviews were sharp and pithy and, other than the aforementioned sensible revisions, he tried to keep the spirit of Halliwell alive. The new reviewer is far more verbose and some of his decisions are questionable but I guess that's his prerogative.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem is that recent editions have tinkered with the format feverishly and taken away much of what made this guide something to be eagerly anticipated each year. The silly introduction of coloured film titles, the unhelpful addition of character names after each actor's name and the italicisation of the review section to distinguish it from the plot paragraph are all gimmicks too far. None have added any real value - quite the opposite.

But, above all, italicisation to reward outstanding performances by actors or creators is something that defines Halliwell's. With the 2008 edition, it appears even that sacred cow can be put out to pasture.

After thirty years, it could be time to find a new guide.


real signs of improvement, 05 Jan 2008
I think Halliwell's is gradually starting to move with the times. Having had the latest edition now for a fortnight, I like the slightly longer reviews for the more important new films. The new editor writes well enough, and he even has a sense of humour which was never evident in this guide before. His introduction is sound, and he gives the impression of having seen every film he writes about. My reservation about the volume is the opinions expressed by the great Halliwell himself, many of which seem dismissive, reactionary or just plain out of date. He under-valued so many significant films from the 70s and 80s.

Misleading reviews and descriptions. Needs a total re-write, 16 Dec 2007
Each listing includes title, year, abbreviated credits, the film's plot in one sentence, and a review of the film in one sentence.
You should see this before you buy it and make your own mind up.

As a basic listing book it is fine . It contains thousands of entries. But other basic information is welcome. For example, how much did the film cost on the balance sheet? Notable facts like that.

As a film guide [i.e. what it claims to be] it is thoroughly apalling and needs a thorough rewrite. The italicised reviews and the plot summaries are so misleading they are sometimes wrong. The original review of Jaws (1976) is typical. Try to read this slowly: `...despite genuinely suspenseful and frightening sequences, it is a slackly narrated and sometimes flatly handled thriller with an over-abundance of dialogue and, when it finally appears, a pretty unconvincing monster.' What does it mean to 'slackly' narrate a film? The authors can't tell you what they mean either cos it doesn't make any sense! How is it possible to 'flatly handle' a film? As opposed to do what? The pretentious criticism of films throughout the book, shoved down your throat, is off putting.

It does not seem to do what I thought it would, which is enlighten readers and give an insight into the 'construction' of each film listed. That is my definition of a good film guide, so I was very disappointed.

It should speak in plain English and not be so pretentious. Throughout Halliwell's there is overembellished language. It appears the authors merely want to be provacative for their own reputational gain, but they merely baffle and confuse readers with their comments which are almost always off the point and shoved down your throat.

Of course, some like having loads of dumb puerile comments shoved down your throat in a somewhat patronising way. But the approach is totally unecessary. The author should consult the Radio Times Film Guide to see one way how Halliwell's could be bettered.

In short, "totally absurd, poorly contrived, hilariously overwritten".

The juries still out on this one., 08 Dec 2007
As a massive fan of the Halliwell's Film, Video and DVD Guide series, when I saw the slap-dash black sticker bearing David Gritten's name hastily stuck over former editor John Walker's name, I opened it with a certain sense of trepidation. Upon reading the introduction I was somewhat nonplused to see Babel and The Last King of Scotland cited as movies of the year, two films that I had found somewhat disappointing; yet pleasantly suprised to see Children Of Men and The Departed get a mention. As I turned to the back pages to see the three and four star films listed alphabetically my bemusement grew. Seeing The Good Shepherd amongst the three star films was the biggest shock, as this was a film that, although interesting and well shot, was in dire need of better editing and more suitable casting. Other suprise recipients of the three star award include Meet the Robinsons and The Host, perfectly good films on their own terms, but of great historical significance? I think not. While some films were rightly lauded: The Lives of Others is deservedly awarded the sole four star rating, and Pan's Labyrinth, Little Miss Sunshine and Volver all get the three stars that they merit; some of the most remarkable films of the year get sadly overlooked: Apocalypto, 28 Weeks Later and Zodiac share only two stars amonsts them. Further to this, Gritten has failed to honour stand-out performances by representing the actors name in italics.
Yet despite these criticisms, I feel that Gritten has managed to retain in some measure the essence of what makes Halliwell's a superior film guide. The list of noteworthy movies of the year is characteristically short, the intoduction is interesting and relevant and the reviews, although not always as pithy, are informative and well written. To his credit Gritten justifies the length of some reviews in the introduction and I feel the lengthier reviews for notable movies may well prove a notable addition to the guide.
A final word on John Walker. While it was apparent that his tastes were becomming slightly broader in the last two editions, with the suprise three star awarding of Peter Jackson's King Kong, and over-generous revisions of Leslie Halliwell's reviews; he was for the most part consistent and reliable in his assessment of the numerous films reviewed and for this reason he will be sorely missed by lovers of the guide. It remains to seen whether or not the new look guide is in safe hands, but lovers of the old guide will be hoping that a "Johnn Walker's Film Guide" won't be too far away.

Orange?, 11 Nov 2007
I usually update my Halliwell's film guide every two years. Haven't seen the 2007 edition but I hope the 2008 edition hasn't persisted with the orange lettering for the film titles! Ever tried reading entries in a subdued, film viewing, evening light? Near impossible. Is there a better guide out there though?

The ultimate guide to jazz on CD., 14 Nov 2008
The 9th edition of the 'Jazz Bible' maintains the high standards of previous volumes. Its 1600-plus pages contain perceptive, witty and knowledgeable reviews of 14,000 jazz CDs including 2000 new discs in this 2008 edition. There is also a moving tribute to the late Richard D. Cook(1957-2007) who gets awarded the highest accolade of a 'crown' from his co-author, Brian Morton.
The hours of concentrated thought and hard-listening that's gone into this monumental series from the two authors since 1992 is awe-inspiring and the latest, endlessly browsable edition is an indispensable guide for any serious jazz collector.

Their History, 19 Nov 2008
I first got into Led Zep somewhere between their third and forth album, reading music magazines `Sounds` and `New Musical Express for years I knew almost everything about the group even though , they didnt talk to the press unless they had something big to discuss! I stopped buying the press weekleys after `Sounds` scribe Geoff (deaf) Barton started Kerrang!. so back to this book, yes its good and although I have seen 95% of the photos and read 95% of the interviews etc . there is a comprehensive review of each album and lots of informative information. still good to have this kind of scrap book style large heavy book! there are a lot more bands out there that should follow this format..Its also great to see a lot of bootleg covers, albums I know about but have never seen. Heard about five and some are great some are a waste of vinyl...This is a very good history Not the heaviest, they at the time were the BEST

Beautiful.........for the coffee table, 03 Nov 2008
Great book. Great pictures. Some pretty rare ones. Only the occasional mistake usually in the dates/venues for the pictures. Good text covering the essentials of the bands history.
After a run of poor books on the band I would recommend this to the whole fan spectrum, from casual to serious.

Yet more tripe from those who do it best, 08 Nov 2008
As if those terrible Best of Decade lists weren't innacurate enough, RichDork now decide that it's time for the world to know what they say are the best songs from the past 30 years or so. In book form.

I don't think I'd have had as big a problem with this had they just published it on their site. I don't own it -- it's easily viewable on the net -- but I'm well aware that there are hipsters out there gullible enough to buy what is essentially nothing more than one great big mass self-indulgent by a group of obsessive rock and pop fans with severe ego problems.

The one thing that earns this its one star is its eclectism. Talk Talk, The Pop Group, Dizzee Rascal and Autechre each make appearances on here, among many others. However, the list is formulaic to the point that I could have guessed at least 10% of their picks before reading, had I the thought or effort to do so. What's worse is that the list is primarily made up of artists who made it onto the 70s/80/90s decade lists previously. This means that not only are the lists obnoxious on Pitchfork's part, but any use that they may have served ignorant music fans looking to delve a bit further into rock music is eliminated.

Not recommended by any means, but the sites worth checking out if you're tired of the current British mainstream, choc-full indie-pop, post-punk rehash guitar bands; dull, disco-never-died rn'b and whoever it is that won X Factor -- or whatever it's called as of your reading this -- most recently. Compared to that, this is a damn masterwork.

Useful, Entertaining, Insightful... need I go on?, 05 Jul 2008
Given this as a Christmas present, I was not immediately inspired, however I did dip into it and found myself rather hooked!
As a reference book it is wonderful- all those little things that you weren't sure about... all those things you were wondering...
How does that work?
Who was he?
How did he do that?
Which episode did that happen?
What does a Compact Laser Deluxe do? Who had one, and, you know... Where?!
Get all your questions answered and more in this neat, beautifully illustrated guide to the world that is uniquely Doctor Who!
The entire book it dedicated to every useful, and er, not so useful fact that is Doctor who. Who knows what happened in 1336 with the doctor, Rose and Captain Jack? What was the doctor planning for the year 5006 on a Tuesday in October at 6pm? What are the co-ordinates 761390 for?
It's all in this marvelous book! *****

FILLS IN THOSE MISSING BITS, 15 May 2008
A well produced hardback with excellent photographs, visually arresting layout and eminently readable text, THE DOCTOR WHO ENCYLOPEDIA is a worthy addition to any fan's collection. GARY RUSSELL has clearly done his research and the finished result is perfect for the Target Audience which, in theory, must reach into the millions.

Pretty much everything to do with the last three seasons is covered from major characters to major events with direct and indirect references and links, but there's still no avoiding the plot holes, contradictions and contrivances found in most DOCTOR WHO episodes - that sort of thing simply goes with the territory, especially shaky science, which has been elevated to almost art-form status since the show's rebirth. What this encyclopedia attempts to do, however, is fill in some of the more "Eh...?" gaps with solidly thought-out explanations which weren't always made clear in the original broadcasts, the result of (presumably) lazy or fuzzy scriptwriting. As you no doubt already know, Exec Producer RUSSELL T DAVIS is no stranger to this particular phenomenon.

But, hey, now we can all understand the Master's plan for the Toclafane in UTOPIA or the effects of The Paradox Machine from THE LAST OF THE TIME LORDS; the method by which the Weeping Angels steal people's futures from BLINK or how The Beast came to be held captive and the engineering of his subsequent destruction from THE SATAN PIT. Presented in paragraph or short caption form it all appears to make perfect sense now (within some seriously barmy parameters, that is). The introduction even manages to include names or words that might feature in a future revised edition, including Adipose, Rattigan, Mrs (!!), Vespiform...and so on. A neat bit of foreshadowing there, Gary.

Whatever the case, when the time comes, let's ensure this Doctor Who product enjoys a full and happy regeneration.


HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

So good I bought it twice!, 11 Dec 2007
I bought this for my son for Xmas, but with a last minute birthday party invitation I had to give it away to his friend. When my son saw it he was absolutely rapt and said "I wish I'd put that on my list for Santa". Little does he know that Santa already knew he'd like it and is about to order a replacement for him. ;o) The book itself is nice and big and full of in depth detail which will keep Doctor Who fans engaged for hours. There's lots of full colour illustrations and, as the title suggests, it is laid out like an encyclopedia, so it's easy to look up those facts that may have slipped your mind. Well worth the money (and absolutely essential at £3.99!!).

I'm Sorry!, 04 Dec 2007
I'm sorry, I really am. I'm about to insult a hell of a lot of people. But I have to say it. This book is just...unnecesarry! And the fact that I can't spell makes the insult even worse!
I can't believe I'm saying this, I really can't. I'm talking about the writer from The Inside Story, who I've just given a 5 Star Rating.
This book is so detailed, so well written, packed with facts, and yet I don't know anyone who's spend higher thann ten pounds on a book, that's useless, contributes nothing to the DW world, and has information that isn't going to benefit anybody. There, I've said it. Now, here come the insults...

FANTASIC, 17 Nov 2007
This book is packed with information and definetly worth the price. A must-have for only £14.99!!! You can get it for £3.99 delivered...somewhere...

Too many omissions but still the bible, 09 Nov 2008
I have to agree with the previous two reviewers. I have been buying the Penguin Guide since the early 1980s and have become increasingly disappointed. I also bought the 2008 edition and hoped that important recordings that had been omitted would be included. Abbados Mahler 6 and 7 recordings with the Berlin PO- surely among the primary recommendations and cornerstones of my collection- are omitted! And what about Simon Rattles recording of Szymanowskis Harnasie? And Chailly's wonderful Leipzig recordings of the Mahler editions of Schumann's symphonies- not everyone's taste I know- but perhaps the most frequently played of all my new CDs in the past year. I also wonder whether the reviewers hearing is quite what it used to be. I invested in the four star-rated recording of Messiaens Turangalila Symphony on RCA by Ozawa "..comes from 1967, but you would never guess that from the brilliantly atmospheric sound"- I agree that the performance is seminal, but the sound is uncomfortably distorted and glassy at times and falls far short of what we would expect nowadays- so much so that I have never got through it in one sitting, even in the car. All this having been said- I have got Greenfield, Layton, and March to thank for intoducing me to some wonderful recordings over the years, and I still agree with most of their recommendations (such as Richard Hickox's new Elgar 1- one of the greatest ever in my opinion, and with stunning sound). For anyone new to classical music who wants to build a collection-this guide is still like the bible, but it needs some more careful editing as the market beomes ever more saturated with reissues and new recordings.

Slight improvement, sloppy editing, 06 Nov 2008
I reviewed the previous edition and remarked on the poor editing. There has been a slight improvement here but not enough to save the Guide from a so-so rating. Some CDs are noted but not rated, the text has not been updated so that "recent releases" are sometimes 10 years old and some new releases are bizarrely ignored altogether. This is the last edition I will ever invest in. I suggest that other readers think very carefully before they part with their cash.

If you have the 2008 guide, don't waste your money on this, 17 Oct 2008
When the 2008 Penguin Guide appeared, I wrote that the main problem was the sheer number of good CDs omitted. I had hoped that with the 2009 Guide, important releases missed out previously would be included.

Not a chance. As I browsed through this latest edition, I kept thinking 'but this is the same as the 2008 edition'!. I got the previous Guide out, and there is precious little difference. All those excellent classical CDs and SACDs released over the last twelve months - so few reviewed.

Just to give a couple of examples; there has been an avalanche of fine Shostakovich recordings over the last year. How many make it into the Guide? Five. Take Mahler symphonies- there's always a steady stream of recommendable new releases; just three new releases are included (and one DVD). I could go