Customer Reviews

Leonard Maltin's 2001 Movie & Video Guide (Signet)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

Maltin's approach and format are superior to any of the other movie guides I've encountered. His capsule reviews are a study in conciseness and they give you a very good idea whether you would want to see a particular film or not. Best of all, his reviews discuss the movies *without* running through the plot (whereas the overlong and rather poorly written reviews in Videohound's Guide almost inevitably revert to plot summarizing).

Maltin's rating system (ranging from BOMB to four stars) manages somehow to surprise without being inconsistent. After a while you'll be able to determine in what ways your tastes diverge from the Maltin staff's and thereby know whether a two- or two-and-a-half star movie may be exactly what you're looking for. In general, the staff's taste is a tad mainstream & uninspired, but their ratings and evaluations are almost always well substantiated.

(Incidentally, you will find yourself spending hour upon hour browsing through this book, looking up every movie you've ever seen in order to find out "how many stars Maltin gives it." )

Unfortunately, this 2001 paperback edition seems to have been rather hastily thrown together. The print on certain pages is so light & thin that it can really strain already overworked eyes. Also, the 2001 lacks an Index of Directors at the end (my 1999 had this right after the Index of Stars). Also, the list of "100+ Recommended Family Films" toward the front of the book is fairly unsurprising, unhelpful and uninteresting.

So, for indexes of directors, actors, etc., your best bet by far is Videohound. (Videohound also has a list of suggested movies at the front that provides a good combination of the quirky and the classic.) For unbeatably useful and interesting reviews, however, get Maltin (preferably a slightly older edition if you're not overly concerned with movies made in the last couple years). On the other hand, get both Videohound *and* Maltin... and then you'll be set! The two sources complement each other remarkably well. It's a shame the merits of each can't be combined into a single volume.

Thanks to handy internet resources like the IMDB, Leonard Maltin's Movie Video Guide has become passe. IMDB and similar sites provide not only the cast credits for each film (AND the names of the characters they played), but also the names of the director, the screenwriter(s), the production crew... sometimes even the names of the stunt men involved! They also provide the film distributor's name, overseas running times, video availability info, and much more.

What do you get in Maltin's book? Some of the actors (never all of them), no list of characters, the director's name but never the writer (unless it's someone famous like Neil Simon or David Mamet), no production credits to speak of, and outdated video info. (Example: Maltin lists "Dirty Mary Crazy Larry" as being on video. News alert, Leonard: "Dirty Mary" hasn't been on video for almost ten years and is so hard to find that most video stores don't even have it for rent anymore.)

So what is Maltin's book good for? Well, if you're searching for a "guide" to which movies to rent, I humbly recommend you look elsewhere. Note that Maltin doesn't actually write all the reviews himself. Most are penned by his ghost writers (listed as "contributing editors"). As a result, the reviews are inconsistent and often ridiculous.

I mean really... is there anyone out there besides Maltin's gang who thinks that "Streets of Fire" was better than "The Matrix"? Or that "Ssssss" was better than "Alien"? Similarly, Maltin's crew gives thumbs down (**1/2 rating or less) to "The Usual Suspects", "The Truman Show", "The Shawshank Redemption", "Forrest Gump", "Unforgiven", "The Mask", and "Liar Liar" while heaping praise on such cinematic greats as "Blacula", "Quigley Down Under", "A Man in Love", "Count Yorga, Vampire" and "Back to the Future 3".

Bottom line: Maltin's book is OK for referencing such topics as what year "Old Yeller" was released or who directed "Muscle Beach Party". Aside from that, you're better off searching elsewhere.

Maltin seems to know what he's talking about most of the time, but misses the mark on many classics. First of all, look at his review on "The Shawshank Redemption" - he gave it ** 1/2 and called it "hollow". Today, it ranks second on the IMDB movie list, right under "The Godfather". Thousands of movie goers can't be wrong. Then there's the length factor - he simply cannot stand to sit through any movie over two hours. And one thing that completely caught me off guard was his PERFECT (!) four star review for "The Cider House Rules". Yes, it's true. It was one of the longest, drawn out and boring films I've ever seen. I expected him to [put it down] , but he thinks it's brilliant. Another sign of him missing the mark. However, on the flipside, he does creit brilliance where it exists most of the time. Overall, give him some credit, but don't take his reviews as the ultimate word on the film. My advice? ROTTENTOMATOES.COM - it gives the averaged score for a film from some of the best critics.

With the burgeoning number of films now available for everyone's enjoyment, it's hard to know what's hot and what's not; what's good and what isn't; what's suitable for children, and what should remain "adult only" entertainment.

That's why "Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide 2001" has become such an indispensable tool for me. I bought this book, along with several videos, late last year. I now have at my fingertips a concise, clearly written, judicious, and authoritative reference book that catalogs and provides essential information about films from every historical era.

"Leonard Maltin's 2001 Movie and Video Guide" is a wonderfully comprehensive reference book designed as much for occasional moviegoers as it is for hardened film addicts like myself. It's hard to believe that between the covers of this 3-inch thick paperback reside over 20,000 entries!!

The book is very simply and effectively organized. All entries are listed in alphabetical order. Each of the book's entries contains the following information: the movie's title; the year it was released; whether it's black-and-white or color; the film's length (in minutes); the director and cast; a short, informative review of the film; the aspect ratio in which the film was shot (e.g., Widescreen, Panavision, CinemaScope; etc.); and the MPAA rating (G, PG-13, R, NC-17).

What really makes this book an essential reference for movie lovers is the ratings and reviews included in each listing. Films are rated from BOMB to 4 stars, in half-star increments. Each review, usually only a few sentences long, shows excellent judgment in most cases. Each review is just enough of a "teaser" to give readers an idea of what they can expect from the movie from the standpoint of the film's plot, its quality, and its entertainment value.

The ratings/reviews section form the core of "Leonard Maltin's 2001 Movie and Video Guide" but there's a lot of additional useful information included in this volume. In it, you'll find: Maltin's list of "100+ Recommended Family Films;" a reasonably inclusive list of places from which you can rent or buy videos through the mail; a glossary of widescreen formats; and a cross-reference listing of every major star named in the book, along with the movies in which they appeared.

"Leonard Maltin's 2001 Movie and Video Guide" has consistently been a great help to me in selecting videos and DVDs to rent or buy. I suppose it's slightly less effective at assisting moviegoers in choosing which movie to see at the theater, mainly because modern-day theater "runs" are usually of such relatively short duration . Still, it's been much easier for me to select films on video and DVD according to my preferences. Using this book has helped me save a lot of money, because I now have a good idea of what I'm going to buy or rent long before I plunk my money down.

I've been buying each edition of this book since the 1979 edition and I never felt disappointed. I was surprised at the amount of bad reviews this book got, although some seemed to be written by some weird psychos who can't get over that Maltin's given their trashy horror film favorites a bad rating. Maltin says in his introduction that his rating is suppose to be taken as a guideline and not a gospel. Ofcourse it's all based on personal opinion of his crew but I've made the experience that I could mostly rely on that opinion. I also sometimes disagree with some ratings but what do you expect? Atleast I get all the information I need for a quick use. It doesn't tell me the name of the writer of each entry(like one reviewer complained), but if I really want to know the name of the "Gopher" of every production, I look in other resources because it would be impossible to cover everything in one paperback edition. It's not true that Maltin only gives the mainstream good ratings. It's the opposite, he also gives lesser known international films no one's ever heard of good ratings if they're good movies. A lot of people complain that he has given the usual cliché favorites like Bladerunner, Taxi Driver and so on bad ratings, but so what? Just because a lot of people liked it. I mean a lot of people had bad hair-cuts in the eighties... All in all, this book is a good resource for films and you can mostly rely on the information, a definate must for every film buff.

This is a book I would never purchase. If the editorial reviews by Maltin that are shown on this website are any indication of the book then I would say that Leonard Maltin is an over-rated windbag. It seems that any movie that is not "Oscar material" gets a proverbial thumbs down. Whatever happened to watching a fun movie for the sheer entertainment value. I pity him because it seems in the critic business that everyone is racing to put their seal of approval on the "Oscar" performances in order to prove their own legitimacy in the public eye. I think that he like other critics have become so involved with disecting a movie that they have forgotten how to just enjoy a movie for what it is. Yes, there are some stinker movies out there and Maltin should save his diatribe for them. Otherwise, Lighten up 'Francsis'!

I have always relied on Leonard Maltin's Video Guide for older movies. It is REMARKABLY accurate and consistent in its ratings for films up through the '70s, both American and foreign. For newer films, he is dead-on most of the time. Actually, I find myself consulting both Maltin and Roger Ebert for more recent films. For example, I prefer Eyes Wide Shut and American Beauty (both new masterpieces) to The Cider House Rules.

One suggestion: Amadeus is every classical musician's favorite film -- much better than Impromptu, Immortal Beloved, and all other preceding film-bios of classical composers. (The recent Topsy-Turvy is nearly as good.) It is profound and unforgettable, all the way up to Salieri's haunting closing line, and while taken from a stage play, does not resemble one in the least. The abundance of music is a PLUS, in my book, and the film captures time and place beautifully. To dismiss it as "fatally overlong" is ironic, and reminds me of the Emperor's admonishment to Mozart of "too many notes -- just take out a few here and there," and Mozart's reply "It is just as long as I require. Which few do you have in mind?"

Considering I have viewed this film over 10 times and never grow tired of it, I would suggest that Mr. Maltin kindly rethink his rating. Amadeus deserves 4 stars, but I would settle for 3 1/2. Also consider that every Kurosawa film ever made, however brilliant, is "fatally overlong" and slow as molasses besides. I have always found Throne of Blood and Seven Samurai overrated, yet greatly admire Stray Dog, Yojimbo, and Ran. I realize I'm in the minority concerning the former two, however, and am willing to learn more about them.

Of interest if you cannot find a movie description in your local TV or video guide.

Some reviews are elucidating, but Maltin's apparent ghost writers are uneven and populist: f'r instance, of a maximum of 4 stars, 'Being There' nets a criminal 2 1/2, while trendy trash such as 'Pulp Fiction' gets 3 1/2. [I find Martin & Porter's 'Video Movie Guide' more reliable, and has an exhaustive cast listing, although not in the review itself.] In books such as these, reviews actually written by the 'author' should be marked as such.

4 stars out of 5 for usefulness, down one for annoyance factor: 3 / 5 for this book so far, but the paper and printing are shockingly cheap so down to 2 stars: I tried complaining to Signet books, but was unable to track their website. Maybe they'll figure it out for its doubtless next edition . . .

Bottom line: read its reviews for plot and participants, not merit.

This book is very good for simple, quick look-up on films when your computer is not availible. I usually prefer to use the internet to look up movie reviews, but Maltin's Guide is nice anyway. There are just some reviews I can't agree on, however...

Wow. He has NO CLUE as to what he's babbling about. None Whatsoever! He rates things poorly and puts them down for absolutely no reason. It's incredible! I didn't realize anyone could possibly be this incompetent in ANY profession. Put simply: He sucks! He really does suck!