I am VERY disappointed!

...with the standard of posts on this forum!

Clearly we not only have interlopers who don't like David at all (so what are you doing here? David would never interject himself in this way!) but we have people who actually feel lukewarm towards Mr Bret and his achievements. I don't know how that's possible really, he's very much a Marmite sort of man isn't he?

In any case, it has been brought to my astounded attention that there are people on Amazon who feel that David has been childish, stupid and even cruel over some things he said about them, and they are giving him the cold shoulder! They must have simpy misunderstood his humour. But I am asking everyone here to take no notice of this distraction, carry on posting and we can drown out the negativity!

I am looking for some really good reviews of David's books to post here, so we can all see how admired he is.
I'm looking for them by fellow authors really, that's always the litmus test isn't it?

This is by a real, proper author:

(Shooting David Bret's biography of Flynn, August 13, 2005)

“I never have insulted man or woman in my life but if you knew what a wholesome regard I have for damn liars and rascals they would be liable to keep out of my way.”

- J.B. Hickok, from a letter to the Missouri Democrat, March 26, 1873

It was a hot, languid summer’s day at the lake when I said to my wife, “We’re about to shatter the day’s tranquility with the sound of gunfire and the acrid smell of gunsmoke.” She tossed me a smile. The screen door slammed behind her as she went to retrieve her gun. I followed her into the cabin and we emerged armed with our rifles and revolvers. We set our targets up between two small hills along a stretch cleared for power lines. This path borders a hundred yards of marsh, followed by a ring of hills thick with trees. The date was August 13, 2005. That was the day I shot David Bret’s book, Errol Flynn: Satan’s Angel, a piece of hackwork. I blasted six holes through the book which littered the forest with thousands of snippets of Bret’s Hollywood fantasy.

Over the years many people have asked me about David Bret’s book about Errol Flynn. This is natural since I am one of Flynn’s biographers. Bret’s many celebrity biographies have been universally reviled as trash and he is the constant focus of both angry fans and scholars alike. I have read two of Bret’s books – the Flynn book and his biography of Clark Gable. Both books were poorly written, historically inaccurate and rife with gossip and innuendo. The late scholar Lincoln Hurst held Bret accountable for what Dr. Hurst believed was one of the worst biographies yet published in the English language. As bad as the Flynn book was, Bret’s biography on Gable was worse. The Gable biography was a tortured, hateful affair.

David Bret is publicly antagonistic against anyone that criticizes him. Since a great many people have criticized him you can well imagine how busy he is ranting and raving. To this effect he has created multiple blogs where his venomous diatribes are on display for all the world to see. I won’t bother linking them here. Just google him and you’ll be knee-deep in this madman’s virulent world soon enough. He can publish what he wishes, and some people will believe his lies and innuendo. That’s their privilege, too. But recently I realized I shouldn’t remain silent about Bret. I think most reviewers see through his lies and this is the reason why most of his books are so poorly received. He is not well respected, and more than a few people regard him with contempt. I harbor no personal ill-will toward him, but I also have no sympathy for him. He has earned his reputation as a writer of garbage. David Bret appears to enjoy rolling in sewage the way farmyard animals root about in their own muck.

In a recent discussion with some friends via another blog Bret was mentioned again, and the bottom line is people seem to be horrified by him. He does cause a ruckus when he’s pissed off, which is often. But I have changed my mind about being silent because history does indeed matter, and David Bret is not an historian. Nor is he much of a writer. He’s pretty good at typing. Of course, having read only two of his books I’m guessing that his other books stink, too. It’s not a stretch to fathom that I’m right. If he ever publishes a book that garners widespread critical acclaim I will be happy to congratulate him. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. So for those who have brought up the subject with me this essay answers the question – what do you think about David Bret’s books?

As a writer my impression of David Bret is that he doesn’t work very hard. I am reminded that scientists once taught a chimpanzee to type. The chimp typed all day. They fed him bananas. And Bret is fixated on sexual matters. He can’t type a paragraph without mentioning sex. He wallows in homosexual innuendo. But finally, the reason I find him contemptible is his blatant lack of honesty. His books are filled with lies, gossip and hearsay. No effort has been made to adhere to the rules of objective journalism. The two books I read were an insult to intelligent, educated readers who deserve a writer’s best effort. And a good effort that fails is preferable to no effort at all. Bret is contemptible because he takes his readers for granted and revels in his role as a purveyor of trash. Deep down inside I suspect he knows he can’t go the distance, but he struck a goldmine by catering to the baser instincts of willing participants who most assuredly tell him how wonderful he is.

Writing is a privilege. I write honestly and passionately and do my best to get it right. I’ve made my share of errors, too. I spent a decade on the material that I published about Errol Flynn. The book is over-priced by the publisher and far from perfect. But it’s still damn good. Some time ago Bret re-published his Flynn book with a new title. It’s re-packaged garbage. I can’t remain silent and allow David Bret to get away with biographical homicide. And I’m not alone in my feelings. Bret has made many enemies and I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes. More than a few of the people and families of those he’s smeared are not going to let it go.

So I shot David Bret’s book. That’s my version of a review. As Humphrey Bogart once said in The Maltese Falcon: “When you’re slapped you’ll take it and like it.”

Errol Flynn; Satan's Angel (Hardcover)

SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!!!, Jan 8 2004
By Palmer Woodrow "P Woodrow II" (Hollywood , CA United States)

This David Bret should be a fiction Author. This was the biggest waste of money. Where were the wive's interveiws, old studio execs and his children when this pile of rubbish was being written? It is really easy to write of man who is gone over 40 years and make up as you go along. I worked at Warner Bros. for years and have followed Flynn's life to great extent. This garbage should have been pulled from the shelves long ago!!!!

This is not a biography, this is a piece of fiction!, Jan 7 2004

David Bret's book on Errol Flynn is in the guise of a biography when in fact its a real piece of fiction with nothing but lies, lies and more lies. Errol Flynn is portrayed as one of the sickest people imaginable. Bret didn't take the time to interview Flynn's two surviving wives or look at the Warner Bros. studio records. Some of the stuff in here is really sick, and clearly meant to be: Flynn liked to break wind in front of the entire cast on the set of "Captain Blood", he liked to use mortuary instruments for cutlery, that he masturbated in omelets and then served his guests them...it's nauseating and clearly meant to be nauseating. Do NOT read this book if you want any kind of information on Errol Flynn. Do NOT!

AMATEURISH RUBBISH ABOUT A GREAT HOLLYWOOD STAR - BEWARE !!!, Jan 1 2003

By Brett Halsey (Cleveland, Ohio)

The art of popular biography has for a long time been in trouble, but now it has officially sunk to its lowest possible level when works of prurient fiction masquerading as biography can get published. A case in point is David Bret's miserable ERROL FLYNN: SATAN'S ANGEL. This book is so badly researched, amateurishly written, and lackadaisically edited it is amazing that a reputable publisher would have the nerve to charge for it. The seemingly endless procession of blunders, distortions, and outright lies about Errol Flynn is mind-boggling. David Bret's goal is clear from the outset: to portray Errol Flynn as a sick, conscienceless pedophile and sexual predator who used people of both sexes mercilessly to slake his insatiable, selfish thirst for more and more sexual gratification. The number of men (including young boys) which the allegedly bisexual Flynn had affairs with in this book is too ridiculous for words. Others are also said, without any evidence at all, to have been gay or bisexual - even Flynn's nemesis in THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, Basil Rathbone. In this connection an unforgivably lewd comment is attributed to Rathbone on the set of one of Flynn's films. Such a vicious slur against the memory of Hollywood's greatest film villain, Its finest Sherlock Homes, and a truly great gentleman is nothing short of despicable.

This, of course, is just one of the most recent installments in the disturbing trend that has been dominating popular culture now for over two decades: the bringing down of our national icons, demonizing them, smearing them with as much vile and unsupportable innuendo as the market will allow. And why not? These people cannot hit back from the grave. Hence distortion, defamation, and outright lies that serve further to incite media bias are routinely accepted as the norm.

ERROL FLYNN: SATAN'S ANGEL is the worst sort of hack-job. And, as with most hack-jobs, its modus operandi is to provide no documentation of where the author has found his information. The author gives no evidence of having interviewed Flynn's family, close friends, or those who worked with him in his films. Nor, would it appear, has he taken the trouble to consult the Warner Brothers' studio files housed in Hollywood, Wisconsin, and New Jersey. Had he done so he could not have related the ridiculous and perversely outlandish incidents he claims took place on the sets of Flynn's films. The bulk of the book is made up of long conversations, mostly of an explicitly sexual nature, which are made up out of thin air. The apparent goal is to disgust the reader. On that count, Bret has succeeded admirably. But the disgust attaches to the author of this mess, not to Flynn. The number of spelling and factual mistakes is also appalling. A partial list was made on the first reading: The name of Flynn's trial lawyer Jerry Giesler is misspelled 32 times. "The Garden of Allah" is five times "Garden of Alla." Costume designer Orry-Kelly is repeatedly "Orry-Kerry" (pp. 84, 232-4, 269). The last name of Flynn's lawyer Justin Golenbock is "Golenblock" (pp. 190, 222, 264). Blanca Rosa Welter (Linda Christian) is "Bianca Rosa Welter" (p. 108). Screenwriter Howard Koch (who co-wrote "Casablanca") is "Howard Kock" (p. 236). Veteran Life photographer Peter Stackpole is "Peter Stackmore" (p. 120). Cinematographer Tony Gaudio is "Tony Gaudlo" (p. 234-5). Character actor G. P. Huntley Jr. is "G. P. Hartley Jr." (p. 232). Joan Blondell is "Jean Blondell" (p. 259). Flynn's 1945 film "Objective Burma!" is "Operation Burma!" (p. 136). Flynn is said to have appeared at the 6th Malvern Festival in July/August 1935 (p. 229); in fact it was a year earlier, in 1934. And on and on. Even the subject of the book is spelled Erroll (twice on p. 252!) and "Flyn" (p. 82)." As mentioned, this is only a partial list. Many more absurdities could be provided, but the reader by now should realize that this book was done in considerable haste, not to mention total confusion. It is sloppily researched, carelessly written, and just as carelessly edited. Blame for the disaster must be shared equally by Bret and the editors at Robson. The author's acquaintance with the life of Errol Flynn is little short of horrendous.

Certainly such shoddiness in dealing with facts and details falls well below the standards of professionalism which the public has come to expect from an established publishing house. At some point in the process, the brakes should have been applied, and a responsible person should have advised Robson's that this is one typescript that should never see the light of day. Where the editors at Robson's asleep?

What we have here, in short, is biographical ineptitude at its worst; it will be detested by all true admirers of Errol Flynn. It is a bizarre mixture of fact, innuendo, clouded judgement, and propaganda and smear-fiction at its meanest. Errol Flynn struggled with (and suffered from) his flaws throughout most of his life, and he left more than his fair share of human damage in the wake. But does Flynn deserve this? The answer is a resounding no. Whatever the case, he will continue to fascinate millions for the foreseeable future, long after David Bret and works of despicable rubbish such as this have exhausted their precious fifteen minutes of fame.

No surprises - unfortunately, 17 Aug 2000
By Maris Crane "Maris" (Devon)
Marlene Dietrich, My Friend: An Intimate Biography of the Real Dietrich (Paperback)

I looked forward to this book as I always like reading biographies of famous women, particulary film stars of a time gone by.I had read Maria Riva's account of her life with her mother, Marlene Dietrich, and was hoping to read something with some inside information given Marlene's help with this book. But what I have read here is a sanitized account of her life,a whitewash almost.The affairs with women and men, the cruel way she treated her husband's mistress, Tami,these facts have been ignored or dismissed in one sentence...I would like to know what her daughter thinks of this account of her mothers life. I think if you are to buy only one book about Marlene Dietrich then it shouldn't be this one. Sorry.

Let's look at a few quotes from various reviews of Bret's books:

.... as with most hack-jobs, its modus operandi is to provide no documentation of where the author has found his information.

The apparent goal is to disgust the reader. On that count, Bret has succeeded admirably. But the disgust attaches to the author of this mess ....

Certainly such shoddiness in dealing with facts and details falls well below the standards of professionalism which the public has come to expect from an established publishing house.

This garbage should have been pulled from the shelves long ago!!!!

A laughingly bad work, on a par with any supermarket tabloid. Therefore, I beg you to save your money and buy the National Enquirer.

how about this one then?

Cut and paste approach and padding insult movie legend,
27 April 2006

David Morley (Brighton, UK)(REAL NAME)

This review is from: Joan Crawford: Hollywood Martyr (Hardcover)
I was really looking forward to reading this biography but please, don't waste your time on this tedious, dull book.

It promises to be the first complete bio of Joan Crawford (whatever that means) but makes no attmept to get under the skin of what drove this amazing woman, who with the longest career of any Hollywood star, to become a legend.

David Bret catalogues her life with no attempt to analyse anything or quote many sources. Big films are given the same amount of space as forgotten ones and little information or context is given about them beyond a bit of behind the scenes tittle tattle.

If Mr Bret is to be believed virtually every Hollywood actor in the twenties onwards was gay or bisexual and yet little real evidence is given for this. I guess as all the men in question is dead you can say what you like about them without the threat of lawyers? Also what annoyed me was that whilst this seems to be a bit of the theme for the author there is no attempt to go beyond reminding us that X supposedly slept with Y and had been with Z in the past. Is this meant to count as "the full, uncensored story"? The author also aserts that Hollywood was homophobic. Yes, the Hollywood system controlled the public lives of many of its gay stars but it did this of most actors, not just the gay ones.
Finally, the most tedious thing about this book is the padding. Every film (and there were a lot) gets a plot summary, in some cases of a few pages.

brets reply

50,000 Readers Cannot Be Wrong, 5 Oct 2008
By
David Bret "david bret" (England)

I guess the heading says it all. Take away the sex and the drama, and there would be nothing left but Crawford the great actress, which I think I hilight on any page. And anyone who condones the dreadful ways in which Maria Riva and Christina Crawford trashed their own mothers cannot be a good person to know. What is important of course is that long after these nasty, ungrateful daughters are in their graves, the lodestars of Dietrich and Crawford will still be burning brightly in the heavens. THIS was the reason for my book.

on his blog bret says maria riva should have been drownd at birth at least it did until he 'removed' the complete page and quotes about maria riva. but however i am sure someone took a copy seems to be summat people would want to make sure stayed for all to reed.

on his blog bret says maria riva should have been drownd at birth at least it did until he 'removed' the complete page and quotes about maria riva. but however i am sure someone took a copy seems to be summat people would want to make sure stayed for all to reed.

He did, but maybe someone complained and that's why he removed it.

That's a horribele thing to say about her daughter and how would he like it if someone said that about him.

another review this time for 'Diana Dors: Hurricane in Mink' and guess what, bret has also slaggd of her son, Jason Lake.

Dont read this drivel.., 2 Nov 2010
By Mrs M. Revelle "Millie" (Guildford. Surrey)
This review is from Amazon: Diana Dors: Hurricane in Mink (Hardcover)

I have never been so disgusted in my life and poorly written and a poorly researched book.. I would be embarrassed to even publish this book.. How can someone write a biography when they have taken extracts from other Diana Dor's biographers and used it in their book and only use newspaper cutting as information to use within the book and not interviewed any of Diana's family or friends E.g., Freddie Star.. Jess Conrad.. and even Jason Lake.. etc This man has a fixation with gay people every other film star Diana came in to contact with was either gay or having an affair with Diana or that gay person decides to become straight for a while so he can have an affair with her the so called Biographer even makes Diana out to be an homophobic old tart which she was not far from it.. It interesting to see that Mr. Bret only writes about dead stars and funny enough accuses them of being gay too. I hope Tommy Yeardye's daughter has got wind of it and will sue this parasite. The only reason he writes about dead stars is because they can't answer back and defend themselves.. He is renowned for attacking people who stand up for the said person he has written about and slandered and will try to make their lives hell you only have to Google his name and you then find out about his disgusting and perverted blogs he writes and also the boycott blogs against him. When I read this book I was hoping that I would find out more about Diana than I had already knew but it was just fabricated lies and also it was just like reading Damon Wise's book as he has copied quite a lot from Damon's book. I have read Damon Wise's book and it is brilliant and I recommend reading that than Hurricane In Mink otherwise you are just going to be reading a load of fabricated stories about Diana that are not true. Even one of the photos of Diana says Peeping Tom when she never even stared in a film of that name it was actually a photo from her Film West 11 directed by Michael Winner!! He will also have my comment removed once he knows that a review has been written and will also write his own glowing review by pretending to be someone else so I don't know how long this will be on here but I hope I get the message across and I really am sorry for all the people he has lied about in Hurricane In Mink.. It won't be long before this book will be in the bargain bucket at your local book store..! The description that Amazon give the book quotes that the book is 'Told with compassion and vigor' it is.. not Diana and all of the other victims in the book must be turning in their graves such a shame when somebody cannot be bothered to write a well researched biography and more fool me for buying the trash.

amazon reveiws by ordinary posters.

AMATEURISH RUBBISH ABOUT A GREAT HOLLYWOOD STAR BEWARE !!!, Jan 1 2003
By Brett Halsey (Cleveland, Ohio)
This review is from: Errol Flynn (Hardcover)

The art of popular biography has for a long time been in trouble, but now it has officially sunk to its lowest possible level when works of prurient fiction masquerading as biography can get published. A case in point is David Bret's miserable ERROL FLYNN: SATAN'S ANGEL. This book is so badly researched, amateurishly written, and lackadaisically edited it is amazing that a reputable publisher would have the nerve to charge for it. The seemingly endless procession of blunders, distortions, and outright lies about Errol Flynn is mind-boggling. David Bret's goal is clear from the outset: to portray Errol Flynn as a sick, conscienceless pedophile and sexual predator who used people of both sexes mercilessly to slake his insatiable, selfish thirst for more and more sexual gratification. The number of men (including young boys) which the allegedly bisexual Flynn had affairs with in this book is too ridiculous for words. Others are also said, without any evidence at all, to have been gay or bisexual - even Flynn's nemesis in THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, Basil Rathbone. In this connection an unforgivably lewd comment is attributed to Rathbone on the set of one of Flynn's films. Such a vicious slur against the memory of Hollywood's greatest film villain, Its finest Sherlock Homes, and a truly great gentleman is nothing short of despicable.

This, of course, is just one of the most recent installments in the disturbing trend that has been dominating popular culture now for over two decades: the bringing down of our national icons, demonizing them, smearing them with as much vile and unsupportable innuendo as the market will allow. And why not? These people cannot hit back from the grave. Hence distortion, defamation, and outright lies that serve further to incite media bias are routinely accepted as the norm.

ERROL FLYNN: SATAN'S ANGEL is the worst sort of hack-job. And, as with most hack-jobs, its modus operandi is to provide no documentation of where the author has found his information. The author gives no evidence of having interviewed Flynn's family, close friends, or those who worked with him in his films. Nor, would it appear, has he taken the trouble to consult the Warner Brothers' studio files housed in Hollywood, Wisconsin, and New Jersey. Had he done so he could not have related the ridiculous and perversely outlandish incidents he claims took place on the sets of Flynn's films. The bulk of the book is made up of long conversations, mostly of an explicitly sexual nature, which are made up out of thin air. The apparent goal is to disgust the reader. On that count, Bret has succeeded admirably. But the disgust attaches to the author of this mess, not to Flynn. The number of spelling and factual mistakes is also appalling. A partial list was made on the first reading: The name of Flynn's trial lawyer Jerry Giesler is misspelled 32 times. "The Garden of Allah" is five times "Garden of Alla." Costume designer Orry-Kelly is repeatedly "Orry-Kerry" (pp. 84, 232-4, 269). The last name of Flynn's lawyer Justin Golenbock is "Golenblock" (pp. 190, 222, 264). Blanca Rosa Welter (Linda Christian) is "Bianca Rosa Welter" (p. 108). Screenwriter Howard Koch (who co-wrote "Casablanca") is "Howard Kock" (p. 236). Veteran Life photographer Peter Stackpole is "Peter Stackmore" (p. 120). Cinematographer Tony Gaudio is "Tony Gaudlo" (p. 234-5). Character actor G. P. Huntley Jr. is "G. P. Hartley Jr." (p. 232). Joan Blondell is "Jean Blondell" (p. 259). Flynn's 1945 film "Objective Burma!" is "Operation Burma!" (p. 136). Flynn is said to have appeared at the 6th Malvern Festival in July/August 1935 (p. 229); in fact it was a year earlier, in 1934. And on and on. Even the subject of the book is spelled Erroll (twice on p. 252!) and "Flyn" (p. 82)." As mentioned, this is only a partial list. Many more absurdities could be provided, but the reader by now should realize that this book was done in considerable haste, not to mention total confusion. It is sloppily researched, carelessly written, and just as carelessly edited. Blame for the disaster must be shared equally by Bret and the editors at Robson. The author's acquaintance with the life of Errol Flynn is little short of horrendous.

Certainly such shoddiness in dealing with facts and details falls well below the standards of professionalism which the public has come to expect from an established publishing house. At some point in the process, the brakes should have been applied, and a responsible person should have advised Robson's that this is one typescript that should never see the light of day. Where the editors at Robson's asleep?

What we have here, in short, is biographical ineptitude at its worst; it will be detested by all true admirers of Errol Flynn. It is a bizarre mixture of fact, innuendo, clouded judgement, and propaganda and smear-fiction at its meanest. Errol Flynn struggled with (and suffered from) his flaws throughout most of his life, and he left more than his fair share of human damage in the wake. But does Flynn deserve this? The answer is a resounding no. Whatever the case, he will continue to fascinate millions for the foreseeable future, long after David Bret and works of despicable rubbish such as this have exhausted their precious fifteen minutes of fame.

This is not a biography, this is a piece of fiction!, Jan 7 2004
By A Customer
This review is from: Errol Flynn (Hardcover)
David Bret's book on Errol Flynn is in the guise of a biography when in fact its a real piece of fiction with nothing but lies, lies and more lies. Errol Flynn is portrayed as one of the sickest people imaginable. Bret didn't take the time to interview Flynn's two surviving wives or look at the Warner Bros. studio records. Some of the stuff in here is really sick, and clearly meant to be: Flynn liked to break wind in front of the entire cast on the set of "Captain Blood", he liked to use mortuary instruments for cutlery, that he masturbated in omelets and then served his guests them...it's nauseating and clearly meant to be nauseating. Do NOT read this book if you want any kind of information on Errol Flynn. Do NOT!

SAVE YOUR MONEY!!!!!, Jan 8 2004
By Palmer Woodrow "P Woodrow II" (Hollywood , CA United States)

This review is from: Errol Flynn (Hardcover)
This David Bret should be a fiction Author. This was the biggest waste of money. Where were the wive's interveiws, old studio execs and his children when this pile of rubbish was being written? It is really easy to write of man who is gone over 40 years and make up as you go along. I worked at Warner Bros. for years and have followed Flynn's life to great extent. This garbage should have been pulled from the shelves long ago!!!!

Bret knows hes a fraud as he's copying othr peoples work. I think he gets angry at other people cuz hes scared of having his covers pulled.

mrs wu wrote:Bret knows hes a fraud as he's copying othr peoples work. I think he gets angry at other people cuz hes scared of having his covers pulled.

Evening Mrs Wu, that's somne good stuff Bosie has posted, isn't it? And I betthere may be more to come!

After Bosie reminded me of the Dietrich post I did some emailing around and lo and behold, one of my contacts had this, the original comments from his blog, the page that got removed, I wonder why?

David Bret's Blog: Beware, he is opinionated!!!
The Spite Of Marlene Dietrich's Relatives
Posted on Tuesday Apr 19 16:42:00 BST 2011

Marlene Dietrich told me several times that she lived for her daughter, that she loved her daughter, but that in the end she did not like her. She also told me how she positively loathed her grandson, Peter Riva.

Maria Riva--unaffectionately known amongst some of Marlene's friends, myself included, as "Maria Rivachefolle", published a rather nasty book about her mother. I cannot comment on Maria's childhood, because I was not there. Were I able to go back in time, I would have suggested to Marlene to drown her at birth.

Myself and several others, including Norma Bosquet who died a few weeks ago, penned books about our time with Marlene. To a man--or woman--we have been mcked and condemned by this greedy pair. Riva at first declared that I had never known Marlene, and that the voice on her taped interviews was not her. When she learned that it WAS Marlene, she demanded that I return the tapes, photographs, etc which I had in my possession. Politely, she was told to mate with herself.

Neither Riva nor her obese son owns copyright to anything that I and any of the other writers friends have--copyright of the pictures belongs to those who took them, copyright of the tapes belongs to those who recorded them. Maria Riva has not even had the decency to wait until Norma Bosquet, Marlene's close friend and secretary, is cold in her grave before mocking her. "She got the sofa," Fatso Peter says, "And she tried to sell it."

These buffoons do NOT own Marlene Dietrich. She belonged to the world, a world which will still love and cherish her memory long after her mean, money-grabbing daughter has shuffled her mortal coil--which incidentally should have been years ago.

I asked a French-speaking pal to translate for me the word 'Rivachefolle'and she said the nearest she could come to it was Mad Cow Disease. What a nasty, foul minded and mouthed creep he is.

Hiya WM. That's what that funny wordmeans. Dont understand why he shouldbe so nasty at her daughter as her mother wouldve loved her. Dont think he ever spokke with her mother once.

mrs wu wrote:Hiya WM. That's what that funny wordmeans. Dont understand why he shouldbe so nasty at her daughter as her mother wouldve loved her. Dont think he ever spokke with her mother once.

Hi Mrs Wu. He claims they were very close personal friends but Maria wrote a book about her mother and that's what he hates, competition of any kind. Funny how many of his 'personal' friends just happen to be pushing up the daises, isn't it? And how he can't bear their relatives - he's had a go at Marlene's daughter, and Diana Dors' son - I wonder how many more he's rubbished?

Here's a link to the Dusty Springfield forum - just read what they have to say about his book on her:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

mrs wu wrote:That's a horribele thing to say about her daughter and how would he like it if someone said that about him.

You mean nobody ever has?

Poor man, he is so obviously suffering from rejection, probably many times. We all ought to be behind him.
Much the safest place.

PS. The French don't have Mad Cow's Disease. They only have the occasional sick cow.

Poor David would know this if he hadn't been so cruelly adopted by an English couple.

Wish you were here, David. Fortunately France is a very big place. Loads a room about 1,000 kilometre from here. Perhaps we can meet up one day for a Plat de Mardi. You will love my mushroom stew. All collected by my own fair hand. No Beef included since you don't appear to like competition.

Tuesday wrote:

mrs wu wrote:That's a horribele thing to say about her daughter and how would he like it if someone said that about him.

You mean nobody ever has?

Poor man, he is so obviously suffering from rejection, probably many times. We all ought to be behind him.
Much the safest place.

I would love to be behind him.....with a colt 45

new york times sundy review

Frankly, My Dear ...

By ADA CALHOUN published: March 30, 2008

David Bret’s angle on Clark Gable is this: Gable was “gay for pay” and “rough trade,” and he enjoyed having sex “for bucks.” In addition, he “would sometimes scrub his penis until it bled” and used a device to prolong erections. If these tidbits from the book’s first few pages aren’t too much information for you, you’re in luck. This breathtakingly trashy biography does not skimp on sordid anecdotes.

How does Bret, the author of numerous celebrity biographies, know so much about Hollywood stars’ sex lives? Judging by this new book’s convoluted wording, he really doesn’t. “Clark Gable: Tormented Star” hedges its bets with lines like “Indeed, unlikely as this seems, the two may even have been lovers,” and “It was alleged that a threesome took place.” The effect is “Hollywood Babylon” lite.

For all its smut, the book is painfully unsexy. Bret accuses Gable of having had halitosis, hepatitis, rotting teeth and “shovel-like” hands. With clear disgust, he also calls Gable a hypocrite for maintaining a macho sex-symbol image and for engaging in “homophobic rantings,” even though he’d slept with men.

And yet Bret undermines his own arguments. Why would Gable have been “tormented” by his bisexual past if Hollywood were as overrun by gay stars as the book implies? If Gable used gay sex for career advancement, why would he have bedded men like the aspiring actor Earle Larimore, who had no more than an aunt on Broadway to his credit, and the “slab of beefcake” Rod La Rocque, hardly a studio bigwig? If a voracious Gable had such “overworked genitals,” why should it be so shocking that there were some men among his countless conquests?

“Clark Gable” teems with innuendo and exclamation points, but still presents a thoroughly joyless view of old Hollywood. When Bret looks at Fred Astaire, he sees “long, bony legs.” When he writes of Marilyn Monroe, it’s to say she “never wore panties, even during her menstrual cycle.” And when he considers Gable, it’s only as “the archetypal repressed bisexual,” a “testosterone-charged stud” or — as the introduction’s clunky title has it — “A Hunk of Rough.”

Bret doesn’t just disapprove of Gable as a man; he finds him lacking as an actor, and even offers this condescending note on Gable’s style: “He would quite unnecessarily overplay the machismo and take immense pains to conceal a feminine side that if brought to the fore would have made him a great actor instead of an inordinately good one.”

But Bret has even less regard for Gable’s fans. Who among us requires an eight-page plot summary of “Gone With the Wind”? (Sample line: “For once Scarlett is innocent, yet Rhett insists on her wearing a scarlet — in other words, a whore’s — dress when they attend a party at Twelve Oaks.”) And who among us could love Clark Gable only if he’d never kissed a man?

Ada Calhoun is the editor in chief of Babble.com, a blogger for AOL News and a frequent contributor to the Book Review.

Profiler wrote:

Tuesday wrote:

mrs wu wrote:That's a horribele thing to say about her daughter and how would he like it if someone said that about him.

You mean nobody ever has?

Poor man, he is so obviously suffering from rejection, probably many times. We all ought to be behind him.
Much the safest place.

I would love to be behind him.....with a colt 45

Ive read that forum about Dusty and they arent half angry at Bret.

A person wrote this and shes not happy.

This is the long winded newbie again. I thought I would tell you about diva Dusty's trip to Memphis as Bret describes it. First on her agenda is to have bassist Tommy Cogbill fired from the sessions. Why? Well, it seems she wanted John Paul Jones on bass instead and despite the fact he is one of the Memphis Cats she feels he has been forced on her. Wexler refuses to fire him and Dusty gets angry. She pleads with Atlantic executives, but Cogbill remains. To appease Dusty Atlantic agrees to sign Led Zepplin to a huge contract. Can anyone imagine Wexler agreeing to this?! How would signing Zepplin make her feel better about Cogbill? He calls Wexler obnoxious and claims he and the Cats let Dusty know she is not as good as Aretha. Did you know her backup singers were known as the Sweet Temptations? I 've never heard them called that before, have you.Bret comments on some of the songs. Arif Mardin loves her vocals on "The Wind Mills of Your Mind." Bret says Dusty copies French chaunteuse Frida Boccara for her vocals. I checked the book by Paul Howes and can find nothing to back this up. How about "In the Land of Make Believe." Burt Bacharach loves her on this. Bret says she is copying Blossom Dearie and her voice is squeeky. Later on Dusty in an "expletive filled tirade, turns on Wexler when he suggested another session in Memphis." He claims Dusty tells Wexler she will not work with the Memhis Cats again because they are homophobes. Would this not be an admission of her being gay?



I love Led Zeppelin and this isnews to me and Ive read loads about them. Has he never heard of Ahmet Ertegun? He should know and this is what he has to say.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In the '60s, we had started to make records in England as well as here, and one of our legendary producers, Burt Burns (who wrote one of Janis Joplin's songs) was raving about session players Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones. In those crazy days of the London madness, Barnaby Street, the angry young men, the nightclubs, the Speak-easy and the Revolution, I had run across and met both Jimmy and John Paul Jones. When Peter Grant, manager, and Steven Weiss, lawyer, came to see us about a new group formed by Jimmy Page, ex-Yardbird, we were very excited about the prospect of this new group, the new Yardbirds. They told us, however, that the group would be called Led Zeppelin. They were Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, and from the Birmingham area, Robert Plant and John Bonham. From the first time I heard the first cuts of their first album, I knew we had something that was undeniably great. Robert Plant was a revelation - a singer who had his own style of singing great old blues as well as new songs. John Bonham, a drummer without equal.


Etc.

Hes got everything wrong. He doesnt now what he's talking about so I think thats what he does about everything.

Rock Hudson this time:

good intentions,interesting, but a number of inacuracies, November 30, 2007
By Anthony A. Nelson "fabulous film fan"

Rock Hudson by David Bret is interesting but poorly reserched and edited.Bret's book features glairing inacuracies such as stating that James Dean was nominated for best supporting actor oscar when in fact he was co-nominated for best lead actor along with Rock for this film. Bret states that Robert Stack won the oscar for Written on the Wind when in fact he lost to Anthony Quinn! How sloppy these mistakes are. In his plot description of The Mirror Crack'd he states that Elizabeth Taylor is playing Elizabeth the Great and Kim Novak Mary Queen of Scotts in the movie within the movie when in fact it is the other way around!
If Mister Bret can't even get the most obvious facts straight so to speak how is one to take or trust all the gossip about the many loves and lovers of Rock? The book is readable and entertaining but disapointing due to so many mistakes. As was stated by a previous reviewer, this book is filled with many plot summaries of Hudson's films, love it or hate it, I for one like it in my film star bios but once again, sloppy and inconsistant. Bret goes into great depth about "Embryo",totally ignores "Avalanche",and doesn't do "Pretty Maids All In A Row" justice.
David Bret has fifteen other biographies listed to his credit beware of this hack, I'm sure he has more on the way.

Another little gem, this time a blog about bret's behaviour to anyone wo upsets him. And he wants a couple of people dead.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Enjoy the blog, I'm out now for a pint or two, it being Friday night. See you Mrs Wu.

Am shocked MW. Theres something not right with his head. He must be mentally ill to say such things.

Enjoy your pints and ave one on me.

Well, it seems that the OP has gone. And there we were, me and Bosie, putting up reviews as requested. Problem though was I couldn't and it also looks like Bosie couldn't either, find any good ones.