In the introduction, the authors advise that it is necessary to use a map to find the "natural wonders". The authors even tell the reader how to obtain a map. Question: Why isn't there a map in the book? Just a simple map of Ohio with dots numbered to match the places mentioned.

In "Necessities: Chicago," author Kathy Kaplan takes readers on the tour of the service industry in Chicago -- from pet sitters to where to buy special gifts. The purpose is to allow the reader to be their own concierge and gofer. The inherent problem of the book is that, published in 1998, many of the service companies may not still be in business, thus making this as dated (or outdated) as a 1998 phone book. The author has, however, picked the "exclusive" cream-of-the-crop businesses for this compelation. Someone desiring the most personal $ervices money can buy should definitely look here. However, these same listings (sans the author's comments) can be found in the latest Yellow Pages, and definitely be more up-to-date.

This book was a huge disappointment. Extremely overpriced---much of the book consists of obsolete lists of restaurants, veterinarians, campgrounds, etc. Lots of generic, re-hashed information on things like dogs and guns and decoy layouts, with very little in the way of helping nonresidents understand the unique habits and habitats of North Dakota game birds.

This book contains bad writing and has absolutely no focus, The Manchurian Candidate is an important film and the BFI film classics should be the highpoint of film criticism. This book wanders all over the place and cannot focus on the film. Coupled with some of third rate writing and muddled thinking, the book should only be bought if you must have all the books in the series. Don't buy it.

The BFI editors should be embarassed for having released it.

What a waste. Whoever thought Griel Marcus had anything of value or merit to add to the lexicon of film artistry - much less one of the great works of film artistry - completely missed the boat - or doesn't care to see this film get the passionate discussion it deserves. BFI Film Classics have issued an incredible set of books devoted to individually worthy films - such as this one. But this must be the worst book in a truly great series. Honestly, this must be a joke. It's got to be. I don't care if Griel Marcus is a professor, esteemed or respected, outré-hip or passé-hip. This guy has no business talking about, reflecting on or wasting anybody's time with his useless commentary on film. He was the wrong man for the job. This is a book about film as cultural signifier - and little else. Kennedy and Oswald. Columbine and George Bush. Kennedy and Sinatra. Who cares. The book, the film, and ultimately, the meaning of "The Manchurian Candidate" has nothing whatsoever to do with Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin or any of the endless quotes Marcus pulls from a library trip's worth of newspaper articles that refer back to the film. If you had no other point of reference other than this book, Marcus may convince you that this film is more symbolic than meaningful - and even hollowly symbolic. This is not a book about film, the art of film, the art of this particularly magnificent film or the artists who had anything to do with this film. It's about Marcus and the way he views the world - or the way he views the world through the lens of this film. Again, who the hell cares? This film is far too important to be left to someone whose trite aphorisms are as meaningless as those of Griel Marcus - an alleged writer who seems awfully damned confident to write his subject off so easily. Proof that you just can't hide behind other people's quotes - or your own cleverly-worded turns of phrase that have little to do with the subject at hand.

Griel Marcus is so out-of-sync with "The Manchurian Candidate" that he has absolutely nothing interesting or informative to say but manages to make his fifty-five page essay sound like one long run-on sentence. Each chapter is further padded with desperate introductory quotes -anything vaguely referencing the film- as Marcus belaboredly tries to build a case for - What? He has no point of view other than "The Manchurian Candidate" is the single best film between "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather"; though is knowledge of film is questionable. He wildly overpraises the casting of a black actor as a psychiatrist, a professional, and asks, "How many other American movies use a black actor to play what audiences expect to be a white character without patting themselves on the back to congratulate themselves?" I guess he never saw Sam Fuller's 1951 film "The Steel Helmet".

This book isn't so much a commentary as it is a rant. Rob White, the series editor, seems to have let this slip into print with no concern for it's complete lack of content and deleriously circuitous writing "style". It's a shame because, as usual, the book is generously illustrated with stunning B&W stills from the film.

I have over two dozen commentaries from the BFI Modern Classics Series, each filed along side the DVD or VHS of the film itself. This book has no place in anyone's library. The definitive analysis of this classic has yet to be written, and but Marcus and BFI have misfired with this one.

I wanted a general introduction to the War of 1812 and I bought this book without researching other available books on the subject. The best part of this book is its attactive glossy hardcover.

The author's writing style is very poor. In fact, I found myself repeatedly reading passages trying to determine the author's meaning. For example, page 19 contains the following two paragraphs:

"Difficult times were also plaguing the settlers between the Mississippi and the Appalachian Mountains. The closing of continental ports by the British blockade and excessive production by the farmers. Prices fell in New Orleans because of the glut from upriver and the lack of opportunities for sale on the continent. Many a farmer reached New Orleans to die of yellow fever or took their scant earnings over the Nachos [sic] Trace where they were robbed.
Meanwhile the exhaustive methods of the farmers created the need of new lands. The plains of the Louisiana Purchase did not yet tempt the Americans, but Canada and Spanish Florida did. American [sic] seized Baton Rouge and declared that East Florida from the Mississippi to the Perdido River now belonged to the United States. President Madison soon back them up. In all this lies the reasons for western support of war with Great Britain in the next few years."

Unfortunately, this was typical of the first 19 pages of the book, and I was so distracted trying to interpret the text, I totally lost interest in the book. Other random reading selections in this book presented the same poor writing style.

The text also included numerous mispellings and apparent typographical errors. For instance, on page 7, the author writes "...he sailed through college and went to Litcihfield's [sic] law school." Three sentences later, he properly spells the name as "Litchfield". Such errors also created the overpowering impression that I could not trust the acuracy of his presentation of the historical events.

In conclusion, I would not recommend paying one tenth of the suggested ... price printed on the back cover. It would have been very helpful if I could have previewed some of the pages before making the decision to purchase this book. ...

If you're buying this book, chances are that it is the mandatory text for a class and you have no choice. It's one of the necessary evils of education. But...it gets worse. This book is not even a true history book. It is a social commentary losely laced with historic facts, as the authors see fit. So much opinion drowns the chapters that the validity of any fact is virtually negated.

The intent was good. The result is terrible. It was the authors' intent to write a broader history of America that encompasses the many cultures and historical events that led to the founding of our country, rather than merely presenting the white/European history that we're accustomed to. A good deal of historical background is given regarding African and native American tribes and cultures. That alone would have been wonderful, not to mention needed. But, the authors spend so much energy injecting their opinions into the text (rather than the opinions of the people at the time), that it is very difficult to sift through and learn the basic events that one must learn for a history class. Any civilized person knows that inexcuseable events took place in our nation's history (i.e. slavery, forcibly taking land fron Native Americans, etc, etc.). I don't know anyone today that would defend these actions, yet throughout the text, we basically beaten over the head with how evil the white Europeans/colonists were.

A real history book, in a free society, should present all the facts possible and allow the readers to come to the rational conclusion themselves. As an example, this book even picks sides on a war between Spain and England. Spain "unfortunately" failed at its attempt to invade and Catholicize England. I don't even know how they came up with this stuff, or how they have the courage to present it as unbiased. I'm embarrassed that we have allowed this sort of material to filter into our schools and be taught as truth.

If you have any way around it, do not buy this book.

This is actually a very good, informative book in many ways. The problem is in one respect that it's not what its title purports it to be, and it also failed to include photographs--a feature that would be an invaluable addition to a work of this quality. I reside in Brown County--definitely in north-central Texas, but this book's jurisdiction doesn't even come close to where I live. Rather, this book focuses on the Metroplex (DFW) and surrounding environs. Any real Texan knows that the Metroplex isn't even in Central Texas; it's in North Texas. Had this book been properly entitled to indicate that it covers North Texas, and had pictures been included, I would've given it a rating of five stars, despite the fact that it's inappropriate for my locale. As matters stand, I wasted my valuable time and money.

This book should have been titled " The US Constitution - A socialist's viewpoint" because thats what it actually contains.

He rambles on about the 2000 presidential election, how Bush did not win the popular vote. Does this info belong in a book about the inner workings of the constitution? I don't think so.

Mr Cooke also does not recognize our form of government as a Federal Republic. He refers to it in other terms.

He completely neglects to mention that the main source of ideas for the US Constitution was Christian beliefs as interpreted by John Locke, an English Philosopher and Scholar, although he mentions John Locke in passing.

Don't waste your money. Amazon has much better material on our country's great documents than this. Keep looking.

Most of this material can be found in more detailed books with more pages, and at a much lower price. It is hard to determine what the focus of the book is. It starts out a history and ends up as a statistical list of urban changes, listed in a dry style. There is little to no mention of groups such as gay men and lesbians, who have played a huge part in shaping New York City in this century.

This is a very disappointing book. It tries to cover a very broad and very disconnected area of the United States. There are nine states crammed into its pages and each state hardly gets any coverage. A lot of great attractions, restaurants and lodgings are missed as this book tries to cover from Oregon to Iowa! In order to be a helpful travel guide, it should be split into a least two volumes. As it is right now, it is not worth the money.