Customer Reviews

Halliwell's Film & Video Guide 1999

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

"Halliwell's Film & Video Guide" has always been my favorite guide to films since the first edition came out many years ago. The first thing I noticed about Halliwell was that he used the entire 4-star scale in a consistent way. Most other film guides, while they purport to rate movies on a scale of 0 to 4 stars, really just use 2.5 to 4. It takes some getting used to, but once you see the value in his system (if you give it enough time), the pay-off is worthwhile.

After Halliwell died, John Walker took over. He almost immediately 'updated' many of Halliwell's ratings (e.g., "Persona," which used to rank a 2-star rating, was upgraded to 4-stars). I agree with most of Walkers updates, though he has a slight tendency to over-rate.

This is a thoroughly enjoyable, incredibly well-researched book. Worth every penny. But stay with it -- it's a goldmine if you take the time to delve in. Judging by some of the other reviews I've read here, many people gave up (perhaps too soon).

If you think Steven Segal or Demi Moore can act, The Phantom Menace and Titanic are great movies and James Cammron and Steven Spielberg are the best directors in history, Look elswhere for film guides written by people who don't know a good movie from their backside. Halliwells reviews are still the most thoughtful in the industry, not likely to over praise the latest hollywood "classic' and make you think about some of your favorites in a new way.. Even when I disagree with his rating, I find his reviews thoughtful and still enlightening. Even though the quality and style have slipped since his death, the all overwork is excellent. To those who only think that Halliwell liked Citizen Kane or Casablance, Look a little further and you will find a treasure trove of wonderful films that you may never heard of. And if you don't want to do that, just curl up with the latest Adam Sandler movie and ask someone to help you with the big words.

I grew up with this book and it taught me a lot about cinema, life and values. There's that saying "I know life, I've been to the movies", that came to life to me with this Guide. It's not only a book of reviews, it educates the reader in different ways. Unfortunatly, since the the death of Leslie Halliwell, the quality dropped a bit, but at least the later editions include better ratings for films after the 1960s, which were overdue, but delightfully typical of the Mr Halliwell and his way of looking at the world and cinema. (Johnny Walker did a nice job, nevertheless.) Everybody who read his article on "The Decline and Fall of Cinema" (very important writing and included in one of the first editions of the Guide) has to confirm that. You can argue on the authors' taste, but you can't deny its stringency. What I love most about it, is that it makes its points in a short, striking and very enjoyable manner. To me, it's always up the point. I strongly advise everybody with the slightest interest in films to read this book. Life will never be the same.

Halliwells is without competition my favourite filmguide. Starting to research unknown movies because of their age or because of the genre, Halliwells gives you an overview of the best movies. Only approx. 1-2% of the movies get maximum rating (4 stars) and about 50% gets no star at all. Halliwells filosophy was that a 4-star-movie was an all time milepole in movie history and a movie with no stars could be watchable, but at least equally missable. I pretty much agree after reading a lot of other guides where virtually all movies get 2-3 stars. What's the point in rating if everything gets the same rating. One movieguide rates Lethal Weapon III 2,5, where as Taxi Driver gets 2. What sort of rating is that. That guide actually states that Lethal Weapon III is a better movie than Taxi Driver. Isn't a filmguide supposed to "guide" you through thousands of movies. I do not think Lethal Weapon III will be considered a classic in 20 years.

Old Leslie Halliwells might punch you in the stomach with some of his reviews on your favourite movies, but then just remember this: Liking a movie is a subjective, and very personal, experience. What you like, nobody can take away from you.

If you want a guide that can guide through the best movies through the ages Halliwells is the guide for you.

One more thing though: I saw some of the other reviews on this book at this homepage and I would like to inform you of this. Halliwells comments in his guide are one of a kind. He has first one comment which is objective, giving you an idea of what the movie is all about. (yes, sometimes this comments are pretty short), Then follows a subjective comment where he actually says what he thinks about the movie. No other guide I have seen does this. All the others mix subjectiveness and objectiveness in one big comment. Sometimes that might be hard to follow.

The simple reason why Halliwell's gives movies such as "Casablanca" and "The Godfather" four stars is because they deserve it. Most of the movies that don't even get a star don't get one for a reason: they STINK. Halliwell's plainly tells one which movies are works of cinematic masterpiece as indicated by ****, those that are excellent by ***, Those are still good at **, those that are fair at *, and those that aren't even worth a watch at none. One has got to readjust one's self from other rating systems to realize that one or two stars sometimes is a decent rating.

Without a doubt, this is the very best film guide available anywhere. Unlike those other, mediocre guides that give at least two stars to any film, this guide specifies that a film must be somewhat out of the mundane and routine to even earn one star. A uniquely excellent film guide which stands alone.

I have been following Halliwell for years, through a series of different editions. There is no reference like it. It is reasonably complete, at least with respect to English and American films (I have found over the years only a few omissions). And you get not only the basic information (cast, credits, running time, date), but also often a useful rating and a few opinions from reviewers or others -- either contemporaneous or later. Highly recommended.

I can hardly believe it, but someone can write worse reviews than those in Maltin's Guide. However this is not the worst Film Guide on the market. That prestigious title still belongs to Leonard Maltin, because unlike his Film Guide that is riddled with factual errors, Halliwell's is probably the best researched guide out there. All Oscar Awards and nominations plus Bafta Awards are carefully charted, there are often details on the films' budgets, stars' saleries and memerable quotes. However these are all sunk by the appalling style comments that accomanyn the entries. "Brief and to the point", is how the introduction describes them. I'll say. Sometimes all they have to say about a film is as little as two or three words. "Effectively suspenseful" was all that was written about "Dead Calm". It is impossible, as this guide is living proof to write a fair, well rounded review on any film, no matter how good or bad it is. One gets the impression that these are very old school style reviews. They review the films on how they are made, rather than how entertaining they are. There is also little sense of the viscereal. Reviews are almost entirely based on superfical qualties rather than how they appeal to one's inner self, which accounts for such films like "Contact", "Legends of the Fall" and "Blade Runner" getting less credit than they truly deserve. The star system is one of the worse around. Whilest the rest of us rate films from 0 or 1 to five this one goes from 0 to four, often making them far to extreme. The way they are worked out is hopelessly inappropriate as well. Since when was any film the subject of "a totally routine production", which is what 0 stars mean. Very misleading, leaving you to ponder whether a film is worth watching or not. The impersonality of this guide is perfectly illustrated by the authors introduction being a general ramble about DVDs, rather than what makes a good film to him. And where are all the censors' ratings...

I have long been searching for a good film guide, and this is definitely not it. First of all, the editor's introduction is an updated listing of the retail prices of DVD players and DVD videos! Excluding the opening sentence, the intro does not contain one comment about the book that it is introducing! Also, the author's reliance on the social and critical acceptance of the films blinds him to the true works of genius in the under-appreciated. The work is as bland as possible, the writing dry, and the reviews without conjecture. If you want a cynical compendium of overdone epithets by the author and other stuffy critics, than this book might be for you. Otherwise, if you enjoy movies like me, I advise you to stay away.

Looking to rent a movie to watch with the kids? Well, this book will fill you in on such crucial information as production company, writer, and photographer, but won't give you a clue as to plot, sexual content or violence. It rates a large percentage of decent movies with zero stars (out of four), leaving you to guess if they're worthwhile. (Meanwhile, apparently every film out of France is a can't-miss.) The supercilious tone throughout is irritating. Sample tidbits: the jazz-related "'Round Midnight" appeals only to "minorities" (what is THAT supposed to mean?!) and let's see, "Wizard of Oz" rates 3 stars. This book is for cinema snobs only...average filmgoers will find it less than useless.