Customer Reviews

Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide 2004

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

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.

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!)

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.

I've been a regular buyer of MALTIN's book for many years.I usually buy it after my old copy wears out.I remember when LEONARD's only competitor was STEVEN SCHEUER who also had an annual guide.Nowadays,books of this type are legion.It is hard to put on the market a book like this for many reasons:taste is such a personnal thing;everyone's opinion can match a film critics most of the time.I admire MALTIN for persisting every year with a new édition.You may contest some of his reviews,but this guy sincerly love movies and wants you to do the same if possible.Imagine the time you save by skipping the bad movies.Thanks LEONARD.Keep on coming back to us and don't forget the FRENCH movies.

You might not agree with all his reviews, but you'll certainly appreciate his learned opinion. I love having this book near my tv so I can quickly gauge which movie on cabel is worth my time. Once you get to know Leonard's style, you can gauge it to your own and then be able to tell what movie you'll like based on what he says.

My friends love it too. Now when we're watching a movie, one of them will inevitably ask "What did Leonard say?" and we'll go look it up. I also love the adjectives he uses to describe movies like "stupefyingly unwatchable" and "So mesmerizingly awful it actually improves (so to speak) with each viewing."

My only criticism is actually with the book's format. The mass market edition is so thick and the type is so small, it's not as much fun to read. If available, I would recommend the larger format. Unless you're going to cart it around every day! Then you might want the smaller book.

I have used this guide for over 20 yrs. I have to get a new one every year or I'm lost. I trust Maltin and his crew more than any other critic group. His guide is complete and comprehensive and has provided me with the most accurate information I could probably find. I prefer the large size and keep it like a Bible within easy reach at all times when I'm home. The use it has given me over the years is invaluable. It has guided me in my search for movies for so long that I could never get used to using anything else. I don't always agree with the reviews but then they wouldn't be doing their job, would they? For my money, Maltin is the best and I will continue to be a faithful follower as long as his guide keeps coming out. I personally recommend this guide above all others to anyone looking for a reliable and indespensible resource and reference book.

If you followed the advice of Leonard Maltin's 2003 movie guide, choosing only to view movies the book scores three stars or higher, you would miss the following movies: Memento, AI, Donnie Darko, Ghost World, Run Lola Run, The Royal Tenenbaums, Bottle Rocket, The Fight Club, The Man Who Wasn't There, Boys Don't Cry, et al. Oh yes, and who can forget the slams of Blade Runner and Taxi Driver?

The guide does a decent job with older films (except does an outdated chestnut like W.C. Field's The Bank Dick really deserve four stars--even with its moment of blatant racism and fairly large number of failed jokes?).

However, when Maltin's guide calls the exciting and innovative Run Lola Run (two and a half stars) "wearying", misses the point of Spielberg's will-be-reassessed-in-the-future AI, and praises almost every aspect of The Man Who Wasn't There but slams it for having those usual Coen Brothers twists, you know it's time for Maltin to hire some new critics to tackle the more inventive new releases.

What's disturbing about Maltin's guide is it punishes a movie for being bold or different (look at its ** review of the haunting psychological study Donnie Darko, which is [URL's]Top 250 films of all time).

Even more frustrating is many of the guide's contributors seem to miss the point of the films they are reviewing. Watch Ghost World, and then read the capsule, and then ask yourself "did we see the same movie?". Ghost World is a sad, beautifully acted look at cynical outsiders, but the guide complains that you cannot care about such characters--I know many viewers who did care and loved the award winning film. Watch The Royal Tenenbaums and then see if you agree with the capsule's complaint that nothing happens.

As a reference tool for older films, the guide has some uses. But it's time to bring some fresh new talent to the project.

Until then, this movie lover will be consulting [URL] or [URL].

When I was a film student in 1969, there were three books which I kept close to my side, "American Cinema" by Andrew Sarris, Halliwell, and Maltin. Always picked a update every two or three years and in the last decade, the Internet Movie Data Base seemed to replace Sarris and Halliwell.

This book is useful for a singular purpose-raw information: Title, cast, director, year and logline. It is up to the viewer to rate a film, I believe...and though I don't necessarily share Maltin's and his teams taste (I am constantly checking for a revision on "Alphaville" which is my personal touchstone in this case), this book was and continues to be an important reference for the general viewer and serious scholar.

It was never intended to represent serious scholarship, nor does Maltin represent himself as the arbiteur of what is good. Occassionally, his team is able to be ahead of the pack on spotting little masterpieces. Quibble as you may with individual reviews, overall the entire body of work represents one of the most important efforts in cataloging the motion picture.

It was and continues to be the one resource which MUST be had and used by any film lover. Period.

I have been buying this book since the early 1970s and I'm a devoted fan. However, over the last 15 years or so Mr. Maltin has been eliminating hundreds of old entries with every new edition to make room for the new ones he is incorporating. These reviews are "lost". You'd have to keep every single annual copy of the book to have a complete record of its reviews. Mr. Maltin argues, not without reason, that he wants the book to maintain its format as a tome to keep next to your TV set.
But couldn't he at least publish a "special collectors edition" once every, say, five years? It could be a separate book, with a different title, in a larger format, maybe even hard cover, with ALL the reviews he ever included in the yearly editions.
I'm sure many of us would buy it!

There a lot of books on the market that have attempted to duplicate the success of Leonard Maltin's annual guide, but this one remains the most thorough and convenient. Rather than classify films according to genre as some of his competitors do (Where would you look for "Dr. Strangelove"? In Drama? Sci-fi?), the titles are arranged alphabetically making the search for a particular film fairly easy. The information provided (year of release, running time, cast, director, availability on DVD and video) is all relevant and useful.

Certainly, this book has its faults. The ratings are sometimes inconsistent, with some films mysteriously rising to three stars from one-and-a-half in a previous volume, and Maltin (or his co-writers) have their own tastes which may or may not reflect yours, mine, or the majority of his readers. Still, the capsule reviews are often witty, and whether or not you agree with the ratings, there is just enough pertinent information about thousands (and thousands and thousands) of movies to make it the most useful of these reference guides.

My only complaint is that though each year's edition is larger than the last, a lot of older films are tossed out to make room for the new. Some of the extras added in the last decade (the list of actor and director credits at the end of the book) should be eliminated instead. A complete list of films by a particular star or director can be found in other sources, and is not essential here.

Still, as a handy, easy to consult reference, Maltin's Movie and Video Guide serves its purpose very well.