Customer Reviews

Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide 1999 (Serial)

5 star:		(28)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(48)

 

 

The most complete and accurate movie analysis out there. Though I do not agree with every review of every movie, no one can. My experience with every addition of this book since 1990 has been that it is a genuine help in determining which films are four stars and which films are bombs. An additional feature of the 2000 edition is the list of Leonard Maltin's must see movies of the 20th century. As he noted at the outset, no one is going to completely agree with this type of list, but I also must say that in my opinion there is no movie on that list that is not worth seeing, and most are must see for the genuine movie aficianado(though there are a few surprisingly not on the list i.e., Touch of Evil). Additionally, if you need Leonard Maltin's book to tell you whether or not you want to see Titanic then you really can't be helped. Also if your taste is in bad movies, you probably won't like the book because they are routinely panned. Finally, as to Roger Ebert, though I find his advice helpful in choosing new movies, I think he is under too much pressure to recommend some film for people to see every week, which can affect his objectivity. Leonard Maltin, on the other hand, works woth an editorial staff, and can determine each review based upon a number of opinions. In any event, it is difficult to give too much credence to a reviewer such as Ebert who gave "thumbs up" to Home Alone 3.

Maltin rocks. He gives the best capsule reviews in the world. Pithy, brief, colorful. Time and again I've seen a movie and thought, "Wow, he hit the nail on the head."

Merely because he points out a film's weaknesses as well as his strengths is no reason to hate him. I like a reviewer who is hard to impress; high praise SHOULD be reserved for greatness.

Here's the meat of his commentary on FORREST GUMP: "Either you accept Hanks in this part and go with the movie's seriocomic sense of whimsy, or you don't (we didn't) -- but either way it's a long journey, filled with digitized imagery that puts Forrest Gump into a wide variety of backdrops and real-life events." That seems both thoughtful and accurate. And he's right: it's a 2.5 star movie, not a 4 star movie.

Maltin is the best movie guide reviewer we have. Buy this book.

Leonard Maltin has, within most of these articles, received criticisms that reflect a level of intelligence and sophistication that would (and should only) please the pre-pubescent maneurisms of a 4-7 year-old child. Films are, quite simply, the products of different minds and cannot be judged only by their emotional content. If a film is uneven in any aspect, despite your "emotional" opinion towards it, it has failed its goals or structure in some way. Although I often disagree with some of his reviews, I see that Leonard Maltin is a highly educated man (much more than I) whose love for the cinema should be evident to all those who have viewed his movie guide just for the fact that he has written and constructed it for the common people (and movie buffs alike). To judge Maltin for not including every movie, documentary, short, or foreign endeavor into the art of filmmaking is absolutely ludicrous. How many films can anyone expect to see in a world plagued by made-for-tape cheapies, unnecessary follow-ups and sequels, box-office contenders, and (now) independent sleepers? The answer to that question is as visible as the solution: add each year only the most recently significant, important, controversial, praised, and/or "popular" films. Older films are included more because of two basic principles: 1. Fewer (a large understatement) movies were made in the past, so there is a more reasonable amount to deal with, and 2. Once held high standards in filmmaking have diminished (in most cases) as the entertainment industry has given new support to quantity instead of quality - money often replaces art. Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide is, as with any movie or video, imperfect. Readers should understand that the highest rating suggests only that its receiver "is of the best". The guide is an invaluable resource of information regarding actors, directors, nostalgia, and most importantly the films themselves. As for Leonard Maltin, he does not have to worry about relying soley on the public's interest in his movie guide. His career provides him with vast number of jobs ranging from his own radio show to his known postions as the chief film critic for Entertainment Tonight and Playboy magazine. In regards to his written resource to films, however, "I Recommend Leonard Maltin's Guide, which has become a standard." - Roger Ebert (and so do I).

The Good: MORE STUFF TO REVIEW AND READ.

The Bad: Maltin STILL doesn't know how to review films. It's VERY apparent. In the review for "Aliens", he gives it ***1/2 and calls it non-stop action. Then he TOTALLY contradicts himself and steps all over "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", giving it **/12 or **. Why? Because according to him, the movie is non-stop and never gives you enough time to breath. HUH?!?!!? Oh, and my personal favorite is "Gremlins 2: The New Batch", in which he gave it ***. What is wrong with that, you ask? Well, it just so happens...THAT MALTIN HAS A CAMEO IN THE FILM, PLAYING HIMSELF!!!

The Just-Not-Right: Maltin doesn't know how to compare films. ** for "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" and **1/2 for...LASERBLAST?!?! That movie was on MST3K for crying out loud!! Oh, and that isn't the end of it...*1/2 for BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA. **...FOR ISHTAR?!?!? Am I missing something here? I think you get the point.

The only reason this book gets three stars is because love him or hate him, Maltin has the most prolific and complete review book on the market, although he has to start to learn to be fair...just check out when he first reviewed "A Fish Called Wanda" and then changed it up 1/2 a star because he thought it was a Monty Python flick...

***SIGH***

--Matt

Reading these reviews is hilarious!

People who want a popular movie need not ask a critic what is good. Just buy a book which rates on the order of popularity. You can love and appreciate a painting by your high school art teacher, but it will not find its way into the Museum of Fine Art. And most people who have not been trained in "The Arts" would not be able to spot it in there if it were.

There are 75 billion Big Macs sold compared to "haute cuisine" and either can taste good at the right moment. But if I'm looking for something special, it won't be the winner of a popular culture's popularity contest. I want DISCRIMINATING TASTE, and I'll agree with Maltin most of the time and listen to him.

A 2-star movie is just great on a rainy sunday afternoon with a big bag of buttered popcorn and 6-pack of beer. I'm sure Maltin will agree. It doesn't have to have 4 stars to be fun.

If Mr. Maltin manages to read this, then I say, "Thanks. And please don't lower your standards for the people who buy their fine art on the street corners of Tiajuana."

The hostility here is quite overwhelming. The object isn't to always agree with a critic it is to yield insight from him or her. The main problem with this book is that Maltin has all these editors working with him and they obviously write a great deal of the reviews. Since none of the reviews are credited all we're left with is a false homogenity of opinion that has no consistency. My personal favorite gaffe is Coppola's 'The Godfather' possibly the greatest American film getting 3 1/2 stars while De Palma's 'The Untouchables' an enjoyable, tongue-in-cheek pastiche and nothing more, getting 4!

I can only speak for my own work, but in my movie, he not only got the plot and character names wrong - he missed the point. It was a historical fiction and he apparantly thought it was a true story. He didn't like it and blamed the pedestrian script, which (I must confess) I wrote. That's his perogative but there are no balancing references. The review could have mentioned the awards the movie won. (The pedestrian script by the way was nominated for a Cable Ace and was strongly reviewed in People, USA Today, the LATIMES, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. I strongly suspect that Mr. Matlin didn't actually watch the movie. He just didn't like the subject matter. And so this makes him a great reference?

I'm really sick of people who give hate the book because their favourite movie is not given four stars. Maltin deserves praise for his honesty and overall accuracy.

Leonard Maltin is a good movie critic. He may be off on some films (eg- Shawshank Redemption, Taxi Driver, Usual Suspects) and may not take the time to understand or appreciate some eccentric cult gems (eg- Four Rooms, Badlands), but c'mon he's reviewing thousands of movies. I'd say 85% of his picks are right on even though I disagree with him on some basic movie preferences (eg- French Films, Spielberg, Terrance Malick... all of his films deserve four stars). Maltin knows what's good (eg- Cuckoo's nest, Raging Bull, Deerhunter, Third Man, Citizen Kane) and what's hyped up garbage, not counting Spielberg (eg- Forrest Gump, Unforgiven). If you want someone to agree with you on all points, have a kid and stop bitching. If you want a good overall guide for picking movies, this is a book to buy. I just have one message for Mr. Maltin... Stop pointing out to us that and ending can negate and entire film (eg- Usual Suspects, Jacob's Ladder), we all know and don't care.

I've purchased Leonard Maltin's book annually as long as I can remember and find it to be an invaluable resource. I am a fan of Mr. Maltin's, and find his reviews to be interesting, well-thought out and, occasionally, hilarious. That he gets blasted by some for his reviews is amusing; all criticism is ultimately subjective. Because he doesn't like 'Blade Runner' doesn't make him an idiot; I didn't like it, either! The best film critics give the prospective viewer enough information to draw their own conclusions from the criticism; Mr. Maltin and Roger Ebert are both experts at this. I highly recommmend books by either of these film critics.