Customer Reviews

Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide 2007 (Plume Paperback)

5 star:		(45)
4 star:		(22)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Have you noticed? There are two versions of this book (the other is Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide 2008 (Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide)) and they seem identical except for the price. But there IS another difference: the size! This one is cheaper, but also smaller -- 7 inches tall instead of 8. That may not sound like much, but it really makes a difference. The two books have exactly the same pages, just at different sizes, and this one's reduced type is, to me at least, much harder to read. Unless you have perfect vision, I think you'll be happier with the other version.

Size aside, this is an exhaustive reference work. It lists every movie made from 1960 through early 2007, as well as most major films before then. Each listing has a star rating and short summary of its film as well as key specs (director, major cast, running time and year released) and icons identify whether each film has been released on DVD, videocassette or laserdisc.

There's also a list of mail order and online sources for obscure titles, and, on the last 57 pages, an index of actors. Want a quick list of every movie ever made by Humphrey Bogart? Reese Witherspoon? Jim Carrey? Here's where to find them.

Overall, this is a great book for any movie fan. The back cover features a recommendation by Roger Ebert.

Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide is one of four essential movie guide's on the market, the others being Halliwell's Film Guide, The Time Out Movie Guide and The Virgin Film Guide (which is actually an updated edition of James Monaco's Movie Guide and is available from Amazon.co.uk). Each of these books have their own particular strengths, The Virgin and Time Out Guide's with longer but fewer reviews and Maltin's and Halliwell's books with very comprehensive but brief entries.

My initial concern when I heart that Maltin was creating a separate Classic Movie Guide was that many earlier films would now only be available in that separate book. Of the hundreds of pre-60's films I looked up every single one was still included in this book, many of them far from standard classics. What Maltin has done is wisely weed out all of the obscure pre-1960's programmers that few people have an interest in seeing today in order to keep the book a maneagable size. Unless you have a need to research really obscure, generic fare (and it's going to have to be a lot more obscure than anything directed by Edgar G. Ulmer for example) you will be fine without the Classic Guide.

Regarding the print size, it is true that the type isn't much bigger than with the mass market edition but it IS slightly larger. I would still recommend sticking with the larger Plume trade size paperback.

As a faithful buyer of Mr. Maltin's guide for many years, I am disappointed in this year's offering. For one thing, possibly they "closed" their list earlier this year. In the past, when this book came out, it would have reviews of more movies that were released since the previous issue, closer to the publication date. In fact, they'd occasionally have a review included of a movie that was just ending its theater run at the time of publication of the book! This year, it seems they "locked" early. Among the movies not reviewed were: "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", "Knocked Up", "Live Free or Die Hard", "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer", etc. Maybe because Mick Martin's excellent book wasn't published this year, the pressure of competition was off.

Having the various lists in the back is helpful, but explain to me why it is so important to have all eight of John Belushi's films listed, while not having any of, say, Helena Bonham-Carter's?

This is still a valuable publication, but this edition is not up to snuff. My recommendation: If you bought the 2007 edition, skip this one and wait for next year's release.

Alright, there are some logical complaints here, but all easy to answer. First, this book IS available, as one reviewer mentioned, in large print(for those who need this). However, for others, like myself, just get this book. The descriptions of milestones, early appearances, etc. are well worth it. The facts here are much more numerous than any other guide. Included is a family guide-with a large quantity of great family pictures of the past and present(there's also a "Leonard Maltin Family Film Guide" on the market, if it's more of this you so desire), a mail-order video area, and a widescreen glossary(which I find very useful-and not a bad idea for others to use, too-especially when I read on Amazon that they need to release the widescreen version of "Shadow of a Doubt", et al., although this film was never in widescreen format).
As far as the comment on his TV movies, his TV guide has not been on the market for awhile(probably not a phenomenal sell-big shocker, huh?) This is why the more "important" TV films are still here. Although it appears that he's stopped adding recent TV movies(within the last decade or more), his main focus is on cinema, which is obviously the meat of this guide. If it's more depth in the TV area that interests you, you may need to look for a good TV encyclopedia. Also, where it might be a space saver for Maltin to remove the actors/directors guide in the back, this short directory comes in handy when looking for a quick reference on the bigger stars and directors, which is its focus. In fact, he's enlargened this section to include even more important/contemporary names. This section, which had always been available in the guide, had been lost in the early part of this decade. In fact, I know that the 2000 edition is worth finding for its "100 Must-See Films of the 20th Century", found in the front of the book, which is nice to own. At that time, it had swapped this for the actor/director directory. Now, if you're a real film buff(and, I mean, you take in all periods and types of films), then you're probably not going to miss the absence of some of the recent pop culture actors/directors, anyway. If you do, though, get one of the other guides, like Ephraim Katz's Film Encyclopedia(a great one for in-depth study).
Next year's edition of the Maltin Movie/Video Guide is always released in the previous August. So, as I write this-autumn 2006-the 2007 edition is now available. Just get this book!

The good news:
--Comprehensive, though by no means exhaustive (includes many films that have never appeared on tape or disc)
--Rational alphabetic listing system
--Reviews less quirky than other guides'
--Up-to-date

The bad news:
--Weak coverage before 1930 or so
--Spotty coverage of many foreign film traditions
--No coverage of miniseries such as those found on BBC or PBS
--Very little coverage of documentaries
--Judgments sometimes verge on the pedestrian, and are occasionally slanted against dark, edgy, or violent films

So why is this such a valuable tool?

It has this singular virtue: Almost no matter what the rating given, a typical Maltin staff review will likely end up giving you an accurate idea of whether or not YOU will enjoy the film. Since film is long but life is short, this is a useful achievement. In other words, it functions as a sort of super-preview, but without the bias and selectivity of the marketers yearning for your dollar, who show you the best bits and leave out the tedium.

Not the only guide to have, but the one to have if you have only one.

I love Leonard Maltin and I think this is by far the best of the movie review books, but each edition seems to be published earlier in the year. How can they call this the "2008 edition" when it doesn't include reviews of many 2007 movies. Want a review of the third Pirates of the Caribbean film? Not here. The fifth Harry Potter? Not here. Transformers? No. Ratatouille? No again. The only big summer movie I could find reviewed was Spiderman 3. Why publish the "2008 edition" in early August? Summer is prime time for movies and it seems reasonable to expect reviews of the 2007 summer movies in a "2008" book.

You may want to consider paying the extra four bucks for the larger edition. It's significantly easier to browse through. But do be warned that the typeface is really not all that much larger than in this edition. If you need an oversized font to enjoy a book, then, unfortunately, even the larger edition won't be much help.

I always buy Leonard Maltin's paperback Movie Guide every year. I have found that it contains a review of every movie I look for (except, obviously movies that were released after the publication date).

Years ago I bought two other rather large movie guide books, only to find that they were not nearly as complete and comprehensive as Maltin's Book.

My only complaint with the paperback version is the size of the print - a little small for my 70-year-old eyes.

Next year, I will visit one of the larger booksellers and ask if there is a version with larger print.

I have purchased Maltin's Movie Guide since 1994 when I first discovered it. What a wonderful find for us movie buffs. Since the 2008 version has appeared, I will now refer to it as the "short chubby" shape. Around 2005 Maltin's Guide became what I now call the "tall sleek" shape, until the 2008 edition appeared. What a Halloween surprise. When comparing the two shapes it became apparent that the tall sleek shape was easier to handle, not such a fist full, and, by having a wider page, it is easier to hold the particular page open. I'm sure nearly all of the users of the guide enjoy this feature. Admittedly, it weighs and therefore costs more for the paper and to ship, but does that need to "outweigh" the pleasure of using a guide that is comfortable to handle?

I understand that Amazon doesn't dictate what Mr. Maltin and his publisher wish to do, but I would like to have my thoughts on this topic conveyed to them.

Thank you,
Dale Fitzsimmons

The review and facts in this book are fine, but the editor should be fired. What good is movie review book if you can't find the reviews because they aren't alphabetized correctly?? Go ahead -- try to find "The Manchurian Candidate" in there. Let's see, that should be listed as "Manchurian Candidate, The" and that should come after all the titles that start with "Man" but NO -- it's in the middle of all the "Man" movies. What??

There is a standard method of alphabetizing that has been around for a long time and is well-accepted and understood. It's used in every phone book in the country and every other movie review guide that I've used, but for some reason this book decided to do something different. The standard method says that a space in a multi-word title is alphabetized before any letters. Thus "Man in the Iron Mask" comes before "Manchurian Candidate" because "man[space]" comes before "manc" at the beginning of the titles. This book decided to just ignore spaces and alphabetize only by the letters. It's almost like having a dictionary that's not in alphabetical order -- all the facts are in there, but they're kind of hard to find.

A great reference for when you're checking out movies in the last 60 years or so. Ratings (his own-I don't necessarily agree with all of them and you might not either) for movies, data on when they were made, who starred in them, plot summary. etc. If you are a movie buff but just don't have room in your brain for all the data, don't sweat it--this can be a handy book to have when you have a question about a movie and you need simple answers.