Customer Reviews

The Sundance Kid: A Biography of Robert Redford

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Wow, I do not know where to begin on this one. Robert Redford has always fascinated me from the time I was a child. Especially since I grew up in Utah, and part of my childhood was spent growing up on the slopes and mountains of Sundance. I saw his activism first hand, and also the evolution of the Sundance Film Festival,and his resort in Utah, which is somewhat frozen in time. On top of that, I'm a huge film buff, and some of his films have entertained me, and some have not. So, I was really looking forward to this book. What a disappointment. Written in a timeline based on his film chronology, which isn't altogether bad, but the author takes constant swipes at Redfords persona and attitudes, while not really examining why he may have been that way, and why altogether it may not be such a bad thing. Poorly written as a bio, and even worse as a movie critic. The opinions given on each particular film are not insightful, nor innovative. They lack true analysis, and are based upon heresay, and different reviews from periodicals of the time. Plus, I would wager that many would disagree with the reviews of certain films here. It also just glosses over Redfords passion of activism involving the environment. Why is he so passionate about it? We never really find out. Was it that he was a child in a desolate urban sprawl of LA, or what? I could go on and on about how poorly written this is as a bio, but I won't. It is even poor at developing a extensive filmography of Redford. this book falls short in so many ways. I do not recommend you waste your money on this book.....if you must, then buy it in six months on the discount shelf, because thats where it will end up. Honestly, I got more insight into Redford watching Iconoclasts on IFC in an hour than I did from this book, and it was infinitely more entertaining. I do not recommend this book.

This book is a disappointment. It provides little insight into the life or personality of Robert Redford, the actor or the person. The book is basically a chronicle of the movies RR has directed or in which he has appeared as an actor. But even as a filmography the book fails. The reader learns little about the creation of each movie or the relationships among the actors beyond the anecdotes that have been repeated numerous times on TV or in the press. In addition, the authors have the annoying habit of consistently putting down Robert Redford with snide remarks. There must have been something about the actor other than his white teeth and good looks that made him an international superstar. For sure, it must be difficult to write a biography of such a private person as Robert Redford. However, it is the responsibility of biographers to gather information and gain an understanding of their subject, and if they can't do so, then there is no book.

I just finished reading the book, and my suggestion is: skip it! Really! No way Redford contributed to this. The authors have used some well-known circulating interviews Redford gave throughout his carreer, with -even for casual fans- well-known quotes.

The authors contribute nothing new, there are no revelations of any sort, no funny bits. It's a rehash of public knowledge. And besides all that, the authors don't seem to like him very much. They are very critical of Redford, even negative and at times sarcastic. I was wondering why someone would want to write a book about a person they don't like and don't think is very special. They do compliment him on his acting here and there, and more so on his directing abilities, but it just doesn't balance out.
It's mostly about his movies, with tiny segments in between about his personal life. The book is poorly written. The authors state opinions and assumptions as facts on every other page, they contradict themselves on several occasions and they also repeat themselves, in almost the same words and sentences throughout the book. The last part, let's say from after Horse Whisperer to now (Unfinished Life) is rushed and the movies he did in that timeframe are a lot less detailed in description than his older projects.
Also, they go into the ups and downs of the Sundance Institute, festival and related organisations, but it's fragmentary. Every time I felt we were getting somewhere, the subject was over abruptly.

The book left a bad taste in my mouth.

Okay, this isn't a superficial fan's look at the life of Robert Redford, but a full-blooded account, good and bad, of the actor's life, career, and films. I found the book gave me good insight into the mind of this superstar, and there were plenty of behind the scenes details about his movies and co-stars, as well as numerous interviews. I think the authors were as objective as possible, and tried to explain his actions and see things from his point of view. They don't sugarcoat some negative opinions or make Redford out to be Laurence Olivier -- that's not the job of a biographer. They explain how Redford stayed on top for so many years and what got him there in the first place. Superficial fans who only want to read the positive may be disappointed, but this is a strong and serious biography of the actor-director.

As others have said rather consistently, 'disappointing' is the best description because the book was sold on the basis of it being new ('the first in two decades!'), unique ('based on extensive interviews with friends and colleagues!'and 'unauthorized' ('with assistance of Redford himself!'). The authors of this 'extensive' biography do three things very well indeed: They tear their subject largely to pieces, ignore most of the attributes that have made Redford and his films memorable, and finally, not least, suck dry every other well known book and interview that has been previously published. It appears they only really did 'extensive' interviews with unnamed individuals who, for the most part, have nothing decent to say about the man. Of Redford's 40 odd films, I dare say five escape a good beating. So, the reader often asks themselves, why did the authors even bother writing a book about such a talentless also-ran? To be fair, the authors do drop into some praise and half decent handling of the actor (if the piece is honest and includes some less than glowing reviews and stories, then so be it, a puff piece would have been equally wasteful), but these writers find so little to recommend in the man's life or work, that the praise is soon squashed by a careless and shallow approach to everything else. They do defend Redford after he's interviewed by a disappointed journalist who found the man didn't live up to expectation, but then they go back into lengthy explainations of how they find Redford disappointing as man and performer.
According to this book, the relationship between Redford and director Sidney Pollack was based on argument, competition, and jealousy, not to mention it appears their somewhat unique, longstanding record of making successful films was apparently an artistic failure. As it's for sure these two authors never went anywhere near Pollack or Redford, anything of historical value and interest in this book was lifted word for word from James Spada's book, 'The films of Robert Redford', which is still the only interesting biography of this actor, which was written many years ago. As I said, I borrowed my copy from the library, so I couldn't really ask for my money back.
The Films of Robert Redford

The first 40 pages of this book was somewhat interesting. However, everything else was repetitious. Almost the entire book was about every film he starred in or directed......nothing new!

I was extremely disappointed with this book. It seems like the author had a real dislike for Redford and his comments were mostly sarcastic and snide. I've read another biography of Redford and many of the comments in this book are opposite those in the other biography and opposite from things I've actually heard Redford say in live interviews, so it's the same as calling him a liar. His dislike of the man really comes through in this book. I can easily see why the book is called an "unauthorized" biography. I guess I have to give the book at least 1 star, but I would give it none if I could
Sue Wells