20 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good guide, September 1, 2003
Of all the movie guides that I looked at, Leonard Maltin's is thje most thorough for the price. The movies are rated from four stars to bomb. TV movies are rated above average, average and below average. Each review contains a synopsis of the movie as well as its good and bad points. There is a cast list as well as the running time. Leonard Maltin also contains information on the various hollywood film series such as Andy Hardy, Blonde and Tarzan. He also has a list of sources for ordeing videos.
People have complained about the alphabetized listings. The movies are listed as if their is no space between words. Maltin explains this in the begining of the guide.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
22 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Solid, learned, and complete, January 1, 2003
I love Leonard Maltin's movie guide. I had a 1998 edition, which was probably one of the most thumbed books in my house, and finally rewarded myself to upgrading to the latest, 2003 version. What inevitably happens is this: I go to look up one film, and on the way, flicking through the pages, see another. That makes me think of a third which I then start to look for, but then I see a fourth... and before you know it, and hour has passed and I've completely forgotten which movie it was I was looking up in the first place. A very organic way of reading, and thoroughly, personally recommended as a way of passing the time waiting for your two-year old son to fall asleep!
This is a terrific resource: Maltin and his team of editors have a huge knowledge of the history of cinema, and the small amount of text which is afforded to each entry (by necessity - there are something like 14,000 movies reviewed - is unfailingly to the point - curt, in many cases - and gives a very good flavour of the reviewer's view of the movie.
The reviews, and star ratings, are very tough indeed, and in no sense does Maltin concede to public (or fashionable) opinion: if he doesn't like a film, no matter how well regarded it may be, he'll mark it down. Blade Runner, for example, gets just two stars our of four, while Memento, in my view a fantastic film and one which I've never heard a bad word said against, avoids the dreaded "BOMB" rating by just half a star. While often times you may not agree with this rating, you do have to respect Maltin's integrity.
There are one or two items I would mention (although, as Maltin would say, why carp?) which probably add up to imperfections, but which don't rob the book of my five stars:
In terms of its judgments, Maltin is guilty of the "They Don't Make Them Like They Used To" complex: there is a rather pompous introduction which says as much, and I have not been able to locate one film released since 1998 which has been awarded the full four stars. On the other hand, the top rating is liberally thrown about for films made in the forties or before: Adam's Rib: ever heard of that? Me neither. It may be true that there is a lot of commercial rubbish around now, but no more so than there ever was, and I think Maltin should be courageous enough to say at the time of release (rather than waiting for a film to pass the test of time) to pronounce a film a four star effort.
In much the same vein, Maltin seems to be no great fan of comedy. Having looked through all the greatest comedy films I could think of, only two have been awarded four stars, and both of those by the Marx Brothers: Duck Soup and A Night At The Opera (oh, and Adam's Rib is a comedy too, apparently). I think there is some cinema snobbery going on here. Films should be judged according to their genre, and the fact that none of Zucker & Abrahams, Monty Python, the Coen Brothers, or Rob Reiner has had any of their comedies credited as four star movies is a little telling.
A couple of nit-picks: I think a star system of up to five would give a little more room for flexibility in ratings, and I don't understand why TV Movies aren't subjected to the same regime (again, I think this is a little cinema snobbery: TV Movies, apparently, can only be "average", "above average" or "below average".)
Lastly, the indexing is pretty meagre: If you can't remember the titled of the movie, then unless it starred a major league actor, you are staring at one big haystack in which to find your needle. I guess space prevents anything more, but I would have thought an index of Directors wouldn't have hurt - or indeed a list of all four star (and BOMB) movies. In fact would be great to be able to get this book on CD-ROM so you could search on any name (or, indeed, sort by rating!)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Leonard Maltin has guts and sees through pretentiousness, November 11, 2002
I have been buying Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide for quite some time now. While not as articulate as say, Roger Ebert or the late, great, Pauline Kael and James Agee, he is highly readable, and occasionally, very funny. He does show a marked partiality, as I do, for old films and for the great stars of the Golden Age of the '30's and '40's, as well as for shorter films vs. longer ones. (It was common in those days for films to run 90 minutes or less, to accomodate a double feature. This made it necesary for storylines to move faster, of course, and that is what appeals to Maltin, with a few exceptions---he gives high marks to the 1935 "Mutiny on the Bounty" and "David Copperfield", among others).
While I find his negative reviews of the excellent "Amadeus", the 1984 "Carmen", "The Red Violin", and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" hard to stomach, it is blatantly unfair to slam Maltin for not liking your favorite film. That is the right and privilege of any critic, and if others don't share his opinion, that's just too bad. I often, but not always, agree with his judgements--"Lord of the Rings" deserved a higher rating, and the latest "Count of Monte Cristo" a lower one, IMHO. However, Maltin seems to be completely free of that self-importance that afflicts so many major film critics, who try to prove that they are oh-so-trendy and intellectual. His reviews are direct and honest, and he is not afraid to puncture holes in recent independent films that gain ardent followings simply because their pseudo-intellectual posturings impress critics. For example, he is the only major critic who gave "The Cider House Rules" four stars, and he gives the recent "Memento" (a film with an ardent following just because it deliberately leaves the viewer baffled no matter how carefully he or she follows it) only one-and-a-half stars, labeling it "pretentious pap", a verdict with which I heartily agree.
He may not be the most profound critic working today, but Maltin is the critic I usually turn to if I want an honest review with no pretentiousness.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
