Rating: 
Summary: Good photos but...
Review: I like the feel of the book, but I have to agree with the reviewer who said better research was needed. I have only started to read the first few chapters and those sidebars of trivia are full of mistakes. For example, it says that director Frank Lloyd was most famous as a physical comedian. Sorry, that was Harold Lloyd who was a comedy star. Another section mentions silent film stars who didn't make it into talkies, one of which was Gilbert Roland. Sigh, that should be John Gilbert. Gilbert Roland continued making movies his whole life. More than anything, the asides seem to be Hollywood rumors in many cases. In some ways, it feels like the publisher had two books in his hands, one that was the main part of this book, great pictures with historically correct facts, and the other was a scandalous gathering of hearsay. Unfortunately, they combined them into one volume. Still, I can recommend it for the main portions.
Rating: 
Summary: Worthless
Review: I love reading about the Oscars and but this book is pretty much worthless. It is riddled with errors. There are some nice pictures, but the people in them are frequently mis-identified. For instance, Rita Moreno is called Chita Rivera, Richard Dix is called Warner Baxter, and so on. The authors say that Citizen Kane was a 1940 release, when it was really 1941, and they also have the wrong year for Alfred Hitchcock's Lady Vanishes.The authors also attribute Bette Davis's famous quote about wanting to be the first to win 3 Oscars, and being sure that she would be, to Katharine Hepburn, who never much cared about the Oscars. I'm sure there are plenty of other errors, but I've put the book away in exasperation and disgust. Considering how expensive it is, there should have been a copy editor. Some of the pictures are interesting, but you can get them in a better package in Robert Osborne's books, and you can get all the stories about the Oscars in the Wiley/Bona Inside Oscar (and they're accurate there).
Rating:
Summary: buying this book was a mistake
Review: I spent a lot of money to buy this book when it was new. I feel totally robbed. I wanted a comprehensive guide to all oscar winners loser and nominees. I don't feel I can trust this book because it is so full of spectacular errors. If you just want some pretty pictures and don't care about information, then this may be the book for you. ... Well - what's the point of writing an Oscar book and listing every nominee if you aren't going to fact check your book and print correct information? Why not just concoct all your information from scratch and just slap names on photos at random? Did the authors research the book at all or even check their info? Or did they do the whole thing from memory in one long night before their deadline? The errors in this book are so shocking that it makes me think the book was put together very quickly by people who knew nothing about the Oscars at all. The book contradicts itself on several points. It is just unreliable - and useless. What a waste, what a waste. Heartbreaking.
Rating:
Summary: Link to this book and truth...Warts!
Review: Listen, books like this need to feature more pictures of me! I don't understand this tide in the human after. peeples who are ready for stunts and mack don't interest me. Trample the awards to finish. Aipe trop and the shirts hyple. ALL THE TIME!
A state of what? Don't wrestle!
That's the lesson of this book.
Cank.
Done.
Rating: 
Summary: Critics should get THEIR facts correct
Review: Scott Prendergast in his scathing review of the book corrects the authors about their Judy Holiday information.
The exact quote on page 99 is "Listed by Madonna as one of her biggest influences, Holliday co-wrote and performed songs with jazz legend Gerry Mulligan for the album Holliday with Mulligan." That information is CORRECT. Holliday was married to Mulligan and was an accomplished jazz singer with a few well regarded albums under her belt. As for Billie Holliday being an influence on Madonna, I DON'T THINK SO. So Mr. Prendergast, you might want to brush up on some of your facts before you claim your movie expert title,
Also in regard to Gail Peylun's unfortunate aspersion that confusing Rita Moreno and Chita Rivera was "racist", the error was probably wishful thinking rather than any racism.
As any informed movie goer knows, Chita legendarily created the role of Anita on Broadway and was robbed of the opportunity to play her in the movie. Perhaps the authors were attempting to right an aggregious wrong. So enough was this nit picking. THIS BOOK IS FUN. It is beautifully written and great to look at.
Rating:
Summary: worth every penny!!
Review: Some of the other reviewers need to get a life. Perhaps there are a few factual errors ( I don't know because I wasn't hunting for them) but this book is a joy. The writing is jazzy and clever and its look is terrific. Most of the other Oscar books are stuffy and over reverential but this one and Inside Oscar hit just the right tone. They give you all the dish with a lot of stories you've never heard. (The Frank Capra mixup is a gem). Since this one is a really great coffee table book with wonderful pictures and a very rich look, I'd recommend it over Inside Oscar. It's definitely worth the money!
Rating:
Summary: Correction to my review
Review: Sorry...I was typing a bit quickly. Katharine Hepburn has won four Oscars, not three as I had written in my review.
Rating: 
Summary: Good looking book, but some mistakes
Review: This is a handsome book with fascinating pictures, however, some of the data is incorrect. For example, the authors list Vivien Leigh as the first non-American to win Best Actress, when in fact, Luise Rainer, an Austrian, was the first actress to do this, in 1936 and 1937; Vivien was Best Actress of 1939. One thing about the book I like is the birth/death dates of the winners, although my 20+ years of collecting Oscar data sometimes diagrees with the authors' dates, all in all, they are pretty correct. Also, this is not the fault possibly of the authors but the publisher, but some of the yearly categories list the nominees but no winner is highlighted, and some of the categories are run together typographically in the book. Just small quabbles, this is a nice book and even nicer photos.
Rating:
Summary: Great photos BUT........
Review: This is a nice looking book filled to the brim with great-looking photos. However, starting with the pages devoted to this past years awards and working my way backwards only about a quarter of the way through the book so far, I have been disappointed to find numerous errors already. For instance, Philip Seymour Hoffman is listed as a sinful omission for failing to score a nomination in 1999 for "The Talented Mr. Ripley", which is valid, except he is listed as Seymour Philip Hoffman. In summarizing 1994, it is noted that Dianne Wiest won her second Academy award under Woody Allen's direction, the first being for 1982's "Hannah and Her Sisters", which of course happened in 1986. I realize this might seem like nit-picking, but there are a number of small errors like the examples I've given, so it's just a little disappointing, that's all.
Rating:
Summary: JAW-DROPPING ERRORS THROUGHOUT
Review: Well, it's a nice big book and there are great pictures. But this book is filled with amazing and laughable ERRORS. Most Spectacularly: West Side Story Oscar Winner for Best Supporting Actress RITA MORENO is identified as CHITA RIVERA. Pg 144 In a blurb about JUDY HOLLIDAY, in the section about her Oscar Win for Born Yesterday, the book tells us that Madonna lists Holliday as one of her biggest influences and that Holliday recorded many great jazz albums with many jazz greats. HELLO? Madonna is talking about BILLIE HOLLIDAY. Pg 99 Trust me, this is JUST THE TIP OF THE ICE BERG is this ERROR-RIDDEN book. What is fascinating is that this book made it to press at all with these GLARING mistakes. Who wrote this book? What could possibly be wrong with them? These mistakes aren't typos - the are major errors committed by someone who obviously came to film study by way of sheep grazing. Fascinatingly wrong, but by no means a reliable reference. I feel completely cheated, but mysteriously entertained. HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
| 
