Profil de Brian > Commentaires

Fiche d'identité

Contenu rédigé par Brian
Top Reviewer Ranking: 524,091
Helpful Votes: 15

Chez vous : découvrez nos services personnalisés en pages d'aide !

Commentaires écrits par
Brian (NYC USA)

Page: 1
pixel
In a Lonely Place
In a Lonely Place
VHS
4 used & new from CDN$ 24.99

1 internautes sur 4 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 Nicholas Ray never made a good film, Aug. 25 2003
Ce commentaire est de: In a Lonely Place (VHS Tape)
In the seventies Ray couldn't get work, so film buffs began to think that he was a rebel (unwarranted assumption number one; he could have just been a soak) and that his movies must therefore be too cool for the studio brass (unwarranted assumption number two; they may have just stunk) and if they were too cool for the studio brass they must therefore be great (unwarranted assumption number three; they're not). He also wore an eyepatch, and eyepatch directors are always cool, aren't they? Lang, Ford, Walsh, de Toth. This Ray guy? Nah. Make that unwarranted assumption number four.
This one mainly offends by its dullness. Slow, mushy, unstructured, cursed by a pillowy and nonstop score by George Antheil, free of any menace or suspense or villainy.
Bogart is accused of some crime or other and spends the rest of the movie futzing around his apartment. The neighbor girl, Gloria Grahame, falls for him but begins to question if he's really as innocent as he seems. That's all she does is question; she doesn't do much of anything about it.
This is one heck of a talky film.
As the cops - none of whom can boast even one personality trait among them - lackadaisically pursue their meandering investigation, Bogart and Grahame sit around and talk about not much of anything. The seconds tick by. The viewer listens to the tuneless score. The cleaning lady comes in and asks to vacuum. A washed up silent film star makes several unsuccessful bids for audience sympathy. (I wish he'd been the one who was murdered.) Bogart makes the dull cop act out the murder and Ray shines a little light into his face, I guess because he'd been impressed by Detour five years earlier. Time passes... The viewer realizes that since Bogart produced the thing himself he's not likely to be a bad guy anyway so what are we waiting around for? More time passes... "It's as much a part of him as the color of his eyes, or the shape of his head." That one jolts you awake: the shape of his head?!?! What's that supposed to mean? We go droningly onwards... The cop mentions the investigation has been going on for three weeks, and the snarky viewer says "So, it's filmed in real time then?" More of the lush score; sounds like the Jackie Gleason Orchestra. More dullness. Silent-film-actor-dude recites Shakespeare, though there's not much call for a silent film actor to have memorized Shakespeare, now is there. Drip... Drip... Drip... Like sands through an hourglass... The viewer reaches for the gin bottle with trembling hand.
I dunno if this is the worst film in Ray's unimpressive oeuvre - after all he made a lot of bad films - but I do know that except for Sirocco it's the worst film in Bogart's. Actually, Sirocco got itself quoted in a Dylan song one time, so Lonely Place wins the Razzie by a nose.
If you want to see the cast in movies that don't stink so bad you have to open all your windows to air out the place, then see Gloria Grahame in The Big Heat, Art Smith in Brute Force, Robert Warwick in Silver Lode. If you want a truly great and underrated example of late Bogart, check out his final picture The Harder They Fall.

V8 Tatum Group Masterpieces
V8 Tatum Group Masterpieces
Prix : CDN$ 16.01
21 used & new from CDN$ 8.76

1.0 étoiles sur 5 Judgment thou art fled to brutish beasts..., Nov. 8 2002
He just won't shut the hell up! My fondest wish during the highly aggravating job of listening to this album is that this Tatum character - who I've never heard before and, if a merciful God is willing, will never hear again - would shut up and maybe let some music happen. If I had a time machine I'd go back with a cleaver and lop off his fingers.
A good musician can take your breath away with a single note. Tatum it seems is too insecure to try this approach, and with good reason. He has no talent, no taste, no musicianship. I've never heard a more appalling racket. He's like a more flamboyant version of Liberace. The beautiful Jerome Kern standard All The Things You Are is reduced to a blur of staccato thirty-second notes; the man doesn't know a thing about playing ballads. I'm reminded of Salieri's remark in Amadeus: "Ten minutes of ghastly scales, whizzing up and down like fireworks at a fairground." Playing scales is no great achievement, you know. Most pianists I'm told are weaned on scales, but they move beyond them into the field of music. Tatum and his fans here don't seem to realize that there's more to music than just notes and chords. Sorry to sound like such an epiphenomenalist, but there you are.
This is an album without soul, without beauty, without anything to recommend it. Poor Webster tries to maintain a modicum of dignity, but when you're up against such a torrent of god-awfulness as that which is Art Tatum's playing, there's not much anyone can do. I was reminded of King Arthur's attempts to uphold tradition in the face of the anarchists peasant's attacks in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!" This album has that vibe of a dignified man (Webster, Kern, Rodgers, Hart, et. al.) being attacked, and it would be farcically comic if it weren't so damned embarrassing.

The liner notes call Tatum "one of the quickest minds in jazz". This is no compliment. When you're determined to play every last idiocy that comes into your head, INCLUDING the kitchen sink, without the slightest regard for musicianship or the boundaries of good taste, there no really limit to how much product you can churn out. But the big thing is whether or not it's listenable, and this album is not. It's not music, it's aural vulgarity.
I kinda suspect the people who praise it are just putting it on quietly in the background as sonic wallpaper to make them seem cool. Woody Allen used this album as a sort of theme in his underrated film September; I wonder if the characters' praising of it wasn't meant to suggest how deranged they all were.
Buy Soulville.

The Phantom of the Opera [1925]
The Phantom of the Opera [1925]
DVD ~ Lon Chaney
Prix : CDN$ 21.42
8 used & new from CDN$ 14.81

3.0 étoiles sur 5 I HATE this Image DVD, Oct. 24 2002
Ce commentaire est de: The Phantom of the Opera [1925] (DVD)
(Five stars for the film itself, though.)
When I was a kid I had a VHS copy of this film put out by "Goodtimes Video", one of those cheapjack public domain knock-off operations. There was no tinting, no technicolor, no score... but I loved it. Every Halloween I'd watch Dracula, Frankenstein, and Phantom before I went trick-or-treating. So I was eager to see what Image had done in this restored version.
In the opinion of this reviewer, it's bad news all around.
First of all, the Thibaudoux score is far from inspired. It's generically spooky and has little to do dramatically with what's happening on screen. There are a few gimmicky exceptions, which can cause much head scratching if you let them. We can hear the soprano singing, but why not the audience screaming? We can hear the Phantom playing his organ, but why not characters talking? Do you see what an aesthetic can of worms this opens up? And where's Carl Davis when you need him?
The score isn't continuous either. It seems to have been recorded in hunks and pieces, so every now and then the music just stops - I guess for the orchestra members to toss back a shot of something to help get them through the recording session - and we're left with twenty or thirty seconds of complete silence, oftentimes in the middle of a tense sequence.
Compare this to the score for The Unknown that TCM uses and realize what might have been.
The film is also projected too slow. Now, I realize that projection speed is a matter of fiery controversy. If you want to see a real bench-clearing brawl, just walk into a room full of silent film fans and shout "Metropolis should be played at 18!", then sit back and watch the carnage as they tear each other to pieces. But the much vaunted 20 frames a second on this DVD is way too slow for Phantom. People don't move, they just sort of ooze across the screen like chilled molasses. Frightened women don't peer around corners, they peeeeeeeerrrr arooouuuund coorrrrneeerrrs. The unmasking scene has you looking at your watch, when it should be violent. The ballet is slow, the chandelier takes forever to fall; it's just all wrong. (The final chase seems faster than the rest of the film, thank heaven.)
Silent films were usually projected faster than they were filmed. Look at the stuff with Snitz Edwards and the ballerinas. This is silent slapstick, and as Walter Kerr points out in his book The Silent Clowns, silent slapstick absolutely demands the abstractness that sped-up projection imparts. It requires that the performers be ultra-quick, ultra-light on their feet, and more real than reality. Sort of comic supermen. Otherwise their actions don't seem funny, they just seem odd. And that's just the way it is in this version of Phantom: a bunch of completely ordinary people behaving very strangely. Imagine Chaplin moving like a normal person and you begin to get the idea of what we've lost here.
And I don't think this is merely a matter of my personal taste. Back in my editing days I was told that the rule for showing text on the screen was to hold it there long enough that a normal reader can get through it twice. In Phantom a number of letters from the Phantom to Christine are held up for the viewer to read. On my old 24 fps tape I could read through the text twice, then just start on a third; on the image version I could read them FOUR TIMES. This is just too darn long and too darn slow.
Now here's the real kicker. Image decided in its wisdom to put black bands on all four sides of the screen.
ALL!
FOUR!
SIDES!
So we get a little postage-stamp-sized picture in the middle of a field of black. It's like watching the action through the door of a speakeasy.
Again, I realize the frames of silents were a bit more square than a TV, but really, how much picture would we lose if it were full-screen? A hair-thin strip along the top and bottom? I wouldn't complain, believe me. If Image gave you an option to view it full-screen, it would be alright, but I can't find this option anywhere in their bare-bones menu.
If the chug along score and tar-like pacing isn't enough to distance you from the action and keep you from getting emotionally involved, this masking should finish the job.
So what I'm saying is I'm disappointed. Once again purism has diminished a great movie in order to "save" it. If the cheap eighties knock-off is more entertaining than the twenty dollar high-brow edition, there's a problem.
NOTE: Some have said the transfer is out of focus...not so. There are few times when it is SUPPOSED to be out of focus - the point of view shots of the terrified Christine during the unmasking scene, for instance - but the image is sharp elsewhere. Occasionally there are hairs and junk at the edge of the frame. The technicolor is kind of faded compared to the pristine Ben Hur, but it's better than nothing.

Becoming a Writer
Becoming a Writer
by Dorothea Brande
Edition: Paperback
Prix : CDN$ 11.91
81 used & new from CDN$ 0.01

8 internautes sur 8 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
5.0 étoiles sur 5 What should I write about????, Oct. 24 2002
Ce commentaire est de: Becoming a Writer (Paperback)
A few of the reviews here are just sub mental. But anyway...
MAYBE: You're enrolled in a creative writing course, and the teacher says "Write a five page story for next week about the wind." You go home, look at that blank white page, say "The wind?!?", and freeze up.
OR: You want desperately to write a screenplay, you can sort of intuitively feel the final movie-going experience in your mind - the high passion, the breathless action, the laughter, the tears - but no sooner do you type "FADE IN", than it all goes blank.
OR: The boss wants a report a month from now, but you know you can only write when you have a deadline looming, so you wait until the last minute and hope that stress and coffee can succeed where self-discipline failed.
You need Becoming A Writer, the best book on the writer's creative process I've ever read. It should be the foundational book in your library, and the first thing you read starting out in the writing game. Gather up all your other books on technique and structure and character and prose - and I know you've got some, don't lie - put 'em up on the shelf for a while, and read this one first.
Her technique consists of two writing sessions a day.
Now, I know what you're saying: "Twice a day! I haven't got time for twice a month!" Take it easy. Two BRIEF sessions a day, even as little as fifteen minutes each. You can find the time. You write once in the morning - pre-coffee - to let your creative subconscious take flight unhindered. Then you write again later, at a specified time, to learn discipline. Thus both sides of the writer's personality, creativity and discipline, are trained first in isolation and then - and this is where it gets interesting - then they are gradually and carefully brought together, until you can pour out good writing like fine booze, any place, any time.
Consult Ms. Brande's book for details.
She also gives awareness exercises, techniques for "reverse engineering" the work of authors you admire, hints for catching the telling detail, and a thousand other tips for getting it out of your head and down onto the page where it belongs.
The other popular creativity books for writers are Writing The Natural Way by Rico, and Double Your Creative Power by Steibel. I've been through them all, and can confidently say that of the three Brande's book is the shortest, the simplest, the cheapest, the most concise, the friendliest, the easiest to understand, the best written, and the most effective.
If I were you, I'd buy it.
(By the way, if you're looking for a good one-stop volume on "classical" narrative technique, check out Jack Bickham's Writing And Selling Your Novel.)

John Ford, Revised and Enlarged edition
John Ford, Revised and Enlarged edition
by Peter Bogdanovich
Edition: Paperback
Prix : CDN$ 29.72
20 used & new from CDN$ 14.45

4.0 étoiles sur 5 kjh, Aug. 14 2002
Bob Dylan used to introduce his drummer as "the only drummer better than no drummer at all". That pretty well sums up this John Ford book.
What you can't see from home is that the book is truly tiny, about a quarter inch thick and six inches square. It's only 144 pages long; the last 35 of those pages are a John Ford filmography and the first 35 are a Bogdanovitch essay.
The interviews in between are similarly miniature, and in typical Bogdanovitch fashion they revolve more around anecdotes and personalities than film making and theory. For instance, here's what Ford says about my nominee for his best film, My Darling Clementine:
"I knew Wyatt Earp. In the very early silent days, a couple of times a year, he would come up to visit pals, cowboys he knew in Tombstone; alot of them were in my company. I think I was an assistant prop boy then and I used to give him a chair and a cup of coffee, and he told me about the fight at the O. K. Corral. So in My Darling Clementine, we did it exactly as it had been. They didn't just walk up in the street and start banging away at each other; it was a clever military maneuver."
And that's it. A good story. But a short one. Not much about the film itself, though, is there? The longest statements go on for about one full page.
Ford's thoughts on film making are scattered throughout, and it's good stuff:
-On his dislike of close-ups: "We've got this big screen - instead of putting a lot of pockmarked faces on it...play a scene in a two-shot. You see people instead of faces."
-On actors: "If you get the first or second take, there's a sparkle, an uncertainty about it; they're not sure of their lines, and it gives you a sense of nervousness and suspense."

-On film music: "I don't like to see a man alone in the desert, dying of thirst, with the Philadelphia Orchestra behind him."
Ford talks about almost every film he ever made, including most of the silents that no one's ever seen. You can read the book in one sitting, and by the end you'll have a sense of who John Ford was and what he was all about. Since Ford hated giving interviews, but was very patient with Bogdanovitch, this one is something of a standout.
It's a good book, I just wish there was more of it.
(A poster below slags the Hitchcock/ Truffaut book; don't listen to him, that book is marvelous.)

Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace
Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace
by Joseph M. Williams
Edition: Paperback
31 used & new from CDN$ 0.01

4 internautes sur 7 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
2.0 étoiles sur 5 Strunk and White for poindexters, May 30 2002
Strunk and White tell us to "omit needless words", and rely on taste to be our guide. The methodical Dr. Williams, viewing this as old-fashioned, sets out to define exactly what words are needless, and why, and how best to get rid of them. It's a worthy goal. Too bad the book stinks.
It's funny that Williams quotes H. L. Mencken's remark that most books about writing are badly written. He first quotes it, then goes on to prove it.
Normal humans from Planet Earth wouldn't say "stylistic infelicity" when they meant "bad writing". They wouldn't say "peripherally relevant" when they meant "closely related". And they wouldn't dream of saying "topicalize X", not even under torture, if what they wanted to say was "make X the topic of the sentence". (You read that right, the guy unashamedly says "topicalize".)
Want some idea of what you'll be getting yourself into? Check out this boner of a sentence, typical of the writing style of the whole book:
"But the object of our attention is writing whose success we measure not primarily by the pleasure we derive from it, but by how well it does a job of work."
Someone ought to tell this guy to omit needless words. The parallelism isn't parallel, the phrase "of our attention" is pointless, the phrase "whose success we measure" is awkward, and that "job OF WORK" is simply nauseating. An Earthling would write something like this:
"Our goal is not just pleasant prose, but effective prose."
So the whole book is written in turgid-ese, even while trying to speak out against it. It's all just an endless wearying slog through the mire. Not unintelligible, just not worth the effort. For what do we learn at the end of the Long March? We learn we should omit needless words.
Last but not least, the book is a typographical disaster, with everything jumbled together and packed into the page. Skimming is impossible.
Many of the five star reviews here are from technical writers, engineers, and so forth. I see a guy from MIT, another from Compuserve, and that's as it should be. They're enured to bad English already, and I'm sure that compared to an engineering textbook this is John friggin' Keats. But for the rest of us, it's just not good enough.
(It's by a linguist, after all, and what the heck do they know about language?)
So it's back to Strunk and White for non-fiction. If you're interested in clearing up confusion in your fiction, check out "Writing and Selling Your Novel" by Jack Bickham, especially chapters 4 and 6. Teachers should consider "Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student".

Hitchcock's Notebooks
Hitchcock's Notebooks
by Dan Auiler
Edition: Paperback
21 used & new from CDN$ 1.80

1.0 étoiles sur 5 Misleading and dull, May 20 2002
Ce commentaire est de: Hitchcock's Notebooks (Paperback)
First of all let it be known that the so-called ï¿notebooksï¿ of the title are a fiction. The title implies that during the making of his greatest films Sir Alfred sat down, licked the end of his pencil stub, and committed to paper all his magic in black and white for indy filmmakers everywhere to read and emulate.
Well, sadly, there are no long lost secret ï¿notebooksï¿. The creative genius of Hitchcock, much like the plans in The 39 Steps, resided in that little manï¿s head.
What we have instead is distressingly prosaic, and not very educational at all. We get memos, telegrams, more memos, lengthy side by side script draft comparisons, transcripts of conversations, still more memos, and a few storyboards that can be found elsewhere.

And if, upon hearing the name Hitchcock, you think of titles like Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, Rebecca, Notorious, and North by Northwest, then prepare to be disappointed. They arenï¿t discussed. Instead weï¿re referred to the authorï¿s other books for the first two films and the Criterion laserdisks for the rest. (Laserdisks! Do they even make those anymore? Thanks for nothing, guys.)
We do get a gobsmackingly large amount of stuff about Marnie, though.
But wait, thereï¿s more:
We get a thrilling exchange of telegrams discussing whether or not ï¿Suspicionï¿ is a boring title for a film. (Hitch says yes, his producer says no, then Hitch says yes again, and his producer repeats no. Howï¿s that for a look into the mind of a genius?)

We get lengthy memos from people like Hume Cronyn talking about how scene 423 of a second draft of a script that we never have seen nor never will see needs to be revised in some unspecified way.
We learn that the character development in The Birds was a little below par. Thereï¿s a series of four or five lengthy letters, all saying the same thing, and capped off with this brilliant editorial comment from our learned author: ï¿Of course, the consistent complaint here is the weakness in the character development, something that was never worked out.ï¿ Thanks, Professor.
We get fuzzy reproductions of the blueprints for the bookshop in Vertigo, if you want to build one of your own.
We get twenty pages of reproduced letters in Hitchcockï¿s illegible handwriting discussing whether or not 3-D is a good idea. At least thatï¿s all I could make out.
We get the first draft treatment of Shadow of a Doubt in Thornton Wilderï¿s handwriting. Alas, it too is illegible.

We get pages and pages and pages and pages of material about Marnie. It seems that half the damn book is about Marnie.
We get not one, not two, but three letters from some guy named Otis Guernsey telling Hitch heï¿s welcome to use his germ of an idea for North By Northwest.
We get not just the film related parts of letters, but the whole blessed thing: paragraph after paragraph of ï¿Howï¿s Alma?ï¿ and ï¿Drop by the next time youï¿re in townï¿ and letterheads for the Herald Tribune, all taking up valuable space.
We read that the dialogue in The Birds needs to be punched up "on pages 6-10, 27-29, 37, 40, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 65, 74, 132, 188, and 194."
And so on. Basically, the book seems to have been devised by dipping at random into Hitchcockï¿s old file cabinets, running every other scrap through a scanner, and then presenting the whole pile sans comment. Thereï¿s a definite rummage sale vibe about the whole thing: the very occasional gem amid lots and lots and LOTS of hooey.
I guess what Iï¿m trying to say is ï¿This oneï¿s for the completist.ï¿
Anyone who would like to get an insight into the creative thought processes of Hitchcock should get the Truffaut interview book, and anyone who's curious about a professional director's notebooks should read Harold Clurman.
As for the rest of you, well, I hope you liked Marnie.

George And Ira Gershwin Songbo
George And Ira Gershwin Songbo
Prix : CDN$ 46.72
16 used & new from CDN$ 29.99

2.0 étoiles sur 5 Good taste...to a fault., May 20 2002
I've got to chime in here to agree with the brave Samantha Jane.
Back in the day there was a silly idea that pop music wasn't art; producer Norman Grantz set out with the best of intentions to prove 'em wrong, and Ella's Songbook series is the result. The purpose of the project was to get all the best songs of all the best songwriters together, recorded with no frills, and present them to the highbrows. When the panjandrums of Culture saw all this music laid out with such scholarly thoroughness and solemnity, they'd be sure to recognize its greatness....and popular music would at long last be Taken Seriously.
Nowadays I find that most people are bemused by the faux-seriousness with which these songs are performed. Sure, critics like this sort of thing, but these are pop tunes for heaven's sake! Let's enjoy ourselves! Strike up the band! It's in perfect taste, but boy what a chore it all seems.
Of all Ella's records the Songbooks are the dullest, and of all the Songbooks this is by far the worst. Riddle's arrangements -- a brushstroke of strings here, a whiff of chimes there -- swing so gently that they come to a complete stop. Ella's singing scarcely ever deviates from the printed page, either melodically or rhythmically. And there's a definite sense of getting it all down on tape just to get it down; the whole thing feels more obligatory and dutiful than fun. It's only virtue is it's comprehensiveness, like an encyclopedia. But when's the last time you read an encyclopedia for kicks?
I'm not an Ella-phobe, by any means. Her records with Louis are magnificent, Ella and Basie is swing perfection, Intimate Ella, Jazz at the Philharmonic -- too marvelous for words. Heck, even the Cole Porter and Duke Ellington songbooks are good enough. But this one stinks. (Even my most fanatic Ella-phile friends agree.)
And I pray earnestly to God that I may never hear "Cousin From Milwaukee" ever again.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus - Indexed
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus - Indexed
by Inc. Merriam-Webster
Edition: Hardcover
Prix : CDN$ 19.16
28 used & new from CDN$ 0.78

5.0 étoiles sur 5 THE single best tool to improve your writing, July 7 2001
Most other dictionary-format thesauri (Roget’s II, for instance) simply won’t give you what you want on the first try. If, for instance, you want a more decorous word for “smelly” you’re brusquely told to “see MALODOROUS”. This means that most of the words you are likely to be looking up require a time-wasting two step process: first find the word you want to replace, then find the main entry for that concept. By the time you’ve finished flipping back and forth through the pages you’ve forgotten what it is your looking for.
The Webster’s version is a thousand times more convenient. If you look up a specific word you’re guaranteed to find about a dozen or so of the most common synonyms right there (funky, stinky, rank, etc.). This first entry is probably all you’ll need and it constitutes the main time-saving benefit of this edition. But there’s more. The real verbomaniacs among us get referred to the main entry of the concept. Here you’ll find the mother lode of words, often numbering into the dozens and ranging from the most commonplace to the ridiculously obscure (e.g. mephitic, olid, or stenchful). You’ll also find related terms (vile, rotten, pestilential), contrasting terms (deoderized, fresh, clean), and antonyms (fragrent, sweet) all in the same place, just as you would in Roget’s conceptually arranged International edition. Like I said, most writers are sure to find what they need on the first try.
The only other thesaurus that approaches this one is the Random House Collegiate, but I don’t think that one has definitions; this one does. I’m also pretty sure this one has more words than Random House, Roget’s 21st Century, or any other. It’s [inexpensive] for a hardcover, too,..., so how can you lose?
...

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus - Indexed
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus - Indexed
by Inc. Merriam-Webster
Edition: Hardcover
Prix : CDN$ 19.16
28 used & new from CDN$ 0.78

5.0 étoiles sur 5 THE single best tool to improve your writing, July 7 2001
Most other dictionary-format thesauri (Roget’s II, for instance) simply won’t give you what you want on the first try. If, for instance, you want a more decorous word for “smelly” you’re brusquely told to “see MALODOROUS”. This means that most of the words you are likely to be looking up require a time-wasting two step process: first find the word you want to replace, then find the main entry for that concept. By the time you’ve finished flipping back and forth through the pages you’ve forgotten what it is your looking for.
The Webster’s version is a thousand times more convenient. If you look up a specific word you’re guaranteed to find about a dozen or so of the most common synonyms right there (funky, stinky, rank, etc.). This first entry is probably all you’ll need and it constitutes the main time-saving benefit of this edition. But there’s more. The real verbomaniacs among us get referred to the main entry of the concept. Here you’ll find the mother lode of words, often numbering into the dozens and ranging from the most commonplace to the ridiculously obscure (e.g. mephitic, olid, or stenchful). You’ll also find related terms (vile, rotten, pestilential), contrasting terms (deoderized, fresh, clean), and antonyms (fragrent, sweet) all in the same place, just as you would in Roget’s conceptually arranged International edition. Like I said, most writers are sure to find what they need on the first try.
The only other thesaurus that approaches this one is the Random House Collegiate, but I don’t think that one has definitions; this one does. I’m also pretty sure this one has more words than Random House, Roget’s 21st Century, or any other.
(I’m glad the guy below got to know thesaurus.)

Page: 1