Review by Brian Jay Jones:

This is a big, sprawling, initially intimidating (mainly because of its heft) but ultimately rewarding read — a journey that follows several British families, from all walks of life, through 2,000 years of London’s history. You’ll start with the Druids and Caesar’s crossing of the Thames, and finish with The Blitz and a bit of modern arachaeology. In between, you’ll watch history come to life (each chapter revolves around a major event in British history), with the usual artistic embellishments expected of historical fiction. But it’s all in the name of good fun, so don’t be a stickler — sure, modern-day English didn’t come out of the mouths of the Tudors, but who cares? Rutherford is, for the most part, faithful to reporting events As They Really Happened and to Life As It Really Was. While it’s the Ducket/Doggett/DuQuette family that serves as the focus of the book (keep looking for those folks with the webbed fingers and the shock of white hair as you read), it’s the City of London itself (and, arguably, its architecture) which is the book’s real showpiece. Be prepared to stick an extra bookmark at the front of the book where the maps are, because you’re going to need it. If there was a Roman road leading out a City gate, Rutherford has marked it in the text and you’re going to walk down it eventually, so get your bearings early. The cast of characters also grows exponentially through the years, as family trees are wont to do, so keep the page of the family trees marked as well.This isn’t a novel (as the cover proclaims) so much as it is a series of vignettes linked by a constant (and consistent) narrative and cast of characters, and Rutherford makes the most of it. There’s some laugh-out-loud bawdiness in here, a dash of The Classic Chase (a la Keystone Kops), a bit of high drama, a few nods to Shakespeare, and even a bit of the Prince and the Pauper. Rutherford makes good use of his time, but there ARE instances when things seem to get wrapped up rather too quickly and too neatly in order to clear the way for the next chapter.The middle sections of the book seem to move the fastest, which makes sense, given the historical period this portion of the book covers — the Glorious Revolution, the Civil War, the War of the Roses, and a peek at a Henry VIII who’s the biggest skunk you’ll ever see this side of Richard III. There’s also some real beauty in here, and Rutherford doesn’t skimp on the details of British life and living that really make the book come alive.It’s going to take some time to get through, and you WILL find yourself thumbing back and forth between chapters, maps, and family trees to keep everything sorted out, but it’s well worth it. Set aside a week or so, put aside nitpickiness, and just enjoy watching Rutherford go to work.

Review by Bruce Kendall:

Rutherford takes on the formidable task of relating 2,000 years of London history and must be given some credit for the result. He has obviously done a great deal of research of his subject and doesn’t overburden the reader with an overly detailed , dry, scholastic recounting here. Considering the amount of ground he covers, (taking us from the period of Roman occupation to the German Blitzkrieg), he does so rather economically. The problem lies in his failure to provide us with a coherent narrative. His framing device of a hidden hoard of gold Roman coins comes off as contrived. His method of detailing generational threads leaves a lot to be desired. Though he strives for at least a quasi-realistic approach, how often, in real life, do succeeding generations mirror their ancestors to a degree they do here? Rutherford’s approach is in fact anti-Darwinian. There is very little in the way of variation as one generation succeeds another. The offspring are practically clones of their forbears, with the same attitudes, attributes and overall composition. The bad seeds spawn more bad seeds. The good, honest, simple folk likewise pass on their exact characteristics to their children. Normally, in family trees, there is at least nominal deviation. Not so in Rutherford’s London. The device makes it easier for the reader to make connections as the eras pass forth, but true history, we remind ourselves, doesn’t happen this way. The book, therefore, succeeds as a primer in the history of a city. We are given the relevant details of the Roman conquest, medieval revolt, the defeat of the Spanish Armada, the Great Plague, followed shortly thereafter by the Great Fire, etc., etc. Keep in mind, however, that it is a primer only. In some respects the drawbacks are similar to those faced by Lady Antonia Fraser in her book, The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England. Just as the reader becomes engrossed, or at the least engaged, in the period depicted, the author skips on to a different era and a new story. Of course, in Fraser’s defense, she does treat the Royals in much more depth in all of her other books. If you enjoy Rutherford’s accounts, please look to authors such as Daniel Defoe (on the Plague), Samuel Pepys (The Plague, the Fire and the Resoration in general). For amusement, as well as insight, you can’t go wrong with Boswell’s London Journal or his life of Samuel Johnson. For a compelling account of the Wat Tyler revolt in medieval London, turn to Tuchman or Froissart. A better contemporary novel depicting Restoration London is Rose Tremain’s book, Restoration, which can be found here on Amazon. For the most vivid account of London in the 18th century, turn to Jonathan Swift’s poem, “A Description of a City Shower.” If you want the history, without the fiction, there have been at least four full-scale London histories written in the past decade, most notable among them is Stephen Inman’s A History of London.

Review by Eileen J. Samberg:

I enjoy Rick Steves’ books and always pick one up when I travel. I enjoy his ‘back door’ comments and suggestions and self-guided tours, and find them helpful. But depending on your type of trip, London 2010 might not be a sufficient guide on its own. This book concentrates on excellent self-guided walks outside — Westminster, West End, City Walk, Bankside — and MANY inside at the different museums and churches– British Museum, British Library, both Tate museums, Victoria and Albert, National Gallery, National Portrait, Courtauld Gallery, Westminster Abbey, St. Paul’s, Tower of London. If you are not planning to spend a lot of time in these museums and churches, to which a large part of the book is devoted, this book is not the best choice. His sections on eating and sleeping are limited to a few neighborhoods. There are also no specific sections describing the different neighborhoods and the flavor of each. Of course, there are many excellent websites for eating and sleeping advice these days, and they can be more current, so maybe people don’t expect a lot of help from books anymore. Perhaps a book with more sections would become too cumbersome to walk with, so the choice was made to gear this book towards a size that would be good on the many walks.

Review by Carolyn Schneider:

Some parts of me do not want to like Rick Steves, but the fact is HE IS REALLY HELPFUL. Some of the basics are solid for folks who have not traveled, and for those who have traveled, the specifics of changing a train, tube stops, etc. are VERY helpful.

The down side is that the value of his books manifests itself in legions of humanity, Steves’ guides in hand, go to all the places he suggests. The places he says ,”EAT” or “STAY” get swamped. The up side is that his recs. are good. Example : Rodin Museum in Paris, which is not a MAJOR site, but due to his rec. brings many people there. And it is worth the visit.

All that said, one must keep in mind his MAIN travel advice: try to be a local. Try new things. Try to get off the beaten path–and I think he would agree that path now includes (ironically) HIS path! That is, some of the stuff–esp. restaurants and hotels–are now VERY popular. However, his book can serve as enough of a confidence builder on the basics of London that even on a first trip, you might feel comfortable enough to go off that beaten path–and (for example) instead of going to Buckingham Palace for the Changing of the Guard (crowded, crowded, crowded and a tad overrated), you might wander down a side street and find a great local restaurant or funky SOMETHING to visit, tour, experience that will live in your memory forever.

Review by Joshua Miller:

“London” reunites almost the entire cast of “Cellular” (Chris Evans, Jessica Biel, and Jason Statham) as well as Isla Fisher (Wedding Crashers) and Kelli Garner (Thumbsucker) for this underappreciated and, in my opinion, very well done movie. The movie got terrible reviews and was even called “boring” by Richard Roeper. When a film critic calls a movie boring, you know there’s something up. I knew I would like this movie, but I saw myself giving it a B- or even a C. Oddly enough, I loved this movie. The movie stars Evans as Syd. Syd is a cokehead who is suffering from the breakup of his girlfriend of two years, London (Biel). They’ve been broken up for a little over 6 months and Syd has become a sort of empty shell; He frequently dreams about her and such. Then, Syd recieves a phone call and finds out that London is having a going away party…Apparently, she’s moving to L.A. to live with her new boyfriend. Shocked by the news, Syd meets up with a guy named Bateman (Statham) who sells him some blow and Syd insists that Bateman tag along with him to the party. When they arrive, Syd and Bateman head up to the bathroom and talk about their problems, God, and love. This is pretty much what 3/4 of the movie is. The other 1/4 of it is the flashbacks Syd has about London and when he finally confronts her at the party. The biggest complaint from critics was the bathroom scene…It was too long and the conversations were dull. Well, if you’re going to see it and don’t know about the long bathroom sequences…Yes, maybe they are long and dull. If you’re going to see and know about these scenes, however, they might not be as bad. I found the scenes to fit perfectly in the movie. The dialogue in the film is really good and has an improvised feel to it. Statham and Evans are great and really get to show off their acting skills. Even Biel is good as London. The end of the movie isn’t necessarily what you hope for, but it’s realistic and in that sense is perfect. I’m not guaranteeing everyone will like this movie, most people will agree with Ebert & Roeper. I’m not using this review to convince anyone, but am merely sharing my opinions. Hope you like it.

GRADE: A-

NOTE TO JESSICA BIEL FANS:

There is sex scenes in the film, but as far as showing Jessica Biel naked; The director teases you. The camera will move upward right as she gets out of bed or the place she’s standing will be darkened. So, if you’re renting this movie for the sole reason of catching a glimpse of a nude-Jessica Biel. This movie is definitley not for you.

Review by -*-Miss Lady-*-:

I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. It was about a guy who was in a relationship with a girl for 2 years and then gets dumped and can’t move on. Then she ends up getting ready to move in with her new beau 6 months later, and the entire movie consists of flashbacks of the good and bad of their relationship. It also has some excellent supporting characters with some interesting stories. My favorite is the main character’s dealer, who is mentally scarred over losing his wife because of things that are beyond his control.

The movie makes you walk away with several things to think about. First of all, you’re not the only one who knows pain, everyone has their own story and your personal hell is no more painful than the next guy’s. Secondly, it shows you that whatever you’re going through, chances are you’re not going through it alone. Sometimes you have to reach out to that other person so that they can hear you say I need you. Or, I love you. And the most important lesson of all is that Life will move on with or without you, and sometimes the best thing you can do for yourself is to just let go.

I loved this movie. I loved everything about it. Watch it. You will too.