Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

DAD hits the reference books, with very respectable *** rating from Leonard Maltin


49 replies to this topic

#1 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 29 August 2003 - 05:26 PM

Have bought the new, 2004 edition of Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide. Pleased to see that DAD gets a very respectable *** rating.

Maltin ranks the Bonds as follows (none gets the maximum **** rating, but none is rated lower than ** - seems Maltin is really rather fond of the series):

***1/2: DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, GOLDFINGER, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, OCTOPUSSY

***: THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, LICENCE TO KILL, GOLDENEYE, DIE ANOTHER DAY

**1/2: THUNDERBALL, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, LIVE AND LET DIE, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, TOMORROW NEVER DIES, THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH

**: MOONRAKER, A VIEW TO A KILL

#2 Kristian

Kristian

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Location:West Coast U.S.A.

Posted 29 August 2003 - 05:35 PM

Loomie Baby, if it isn't too long would you transfer the review onto a post? They're usually capsules, right?

Been looking for the book, but being an expat overseas and expecting the amenities/conveniences of the States is like a prostitute waiting for a NYC billionaire to sweep her off her feet and declare his love on her fire escape... (wait a minute....)

Cheers,
K.

#3 Truman-Lodge

Truman-Lodge

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 190 posts

Posted 29 August 2003 - 10:42 PM

*** for TMWTGG?

That's odd. Because I've always thought that TMWTGG is ****.

:)

#4 booyeah_

booyeah_

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 881 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 30 August 2003 - 03:00 AM

Originally posted by Truman-Lodge
*** for TMWTGG?

That's odd.  Because I've always thought that TMWTGG is ****.

:)


I'm assuming you don't mean four stars?

#5 gkgyver

gkgyver

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1891 posts
  • Location:Bamberg, Bavaria

Posted 30 August 2003 - 02:50 PM

**1/2 for Thunderball ?! They must be joking!

Personally, I would introduce Bond to the *-category with DAD...

#6 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 31 August 2003 - 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Kristian

Loomie Baby, if it isn't too long would you transfer the review onto a post?  


Entertaining James Bond outing, in the modern mode: less sophistication, more computer-generated effects. Bond is taken prisoner in Korea, ultimately freed to wage a battle of wits with a megalomaniacal industrialist (Stephens

#7 solitaire

solitaire

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Location:New York City

Posted 01 September 2003 - 05:20 AM

Leonard Maltin seems like a nice enough person.....but he's one of the ****tiest excuses for a film critic in Hollywood. A positive review from him is like my grandmother's seal of approval. DAD is a **** Bond film,and will go down as such in the future......but that's just my opinion;)

#8 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 11:46 AM

Originally posted by solitaire

A positive review from him is like my grandmother's seal of approval.  


Really? So your grandmother likes films like BASIC INSTINCT, DELIVERANCE, 81/2, HEAT, HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, if...., MULHOLLAND DR., PLAY TIME, PULP FICTION, THE ROAD WARRIOR, SANSHO THE BAILIFF, THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE, TRAINSPOTTING and THE WICKER MAN, all of which have positive reviews in Maltin's book?:)

Originally posted by solitaire

DAD is a **** Bond film,and will go down as such in the future......but that's just my opinion;)  


I must say, I'm finding it hard to tell on this thread whether people are using **** to signify a four-star Maltin rating or something else.:)

#9 Kristian

Kristian

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Location:West Coast U.S.A.

Posted 01 September 2003 - 01:53 PM

Thanks, L. Interesting to note that the only other Brosnan Bond to snag *** from Leonard M. is GE.

Good review. At least Lenny is somewhat discriminating. Unlike, say, Roger "pass me another Ho-Ho" Ebert, who seems to give glowing reviews with horrifying abandon (ANACONDA? A thumbs-up? BLAIR WITCH PROJECT? ****?)

#10 mattbowyer

mattbowyer

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1862 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 01 September 2003 - 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Kristian
Thanks, L.  Interesting to note that the only other Brosnan Bond to snag *** from Leonard M. is GE.  

Good review.  At least Lenny is somewhat discriminating.  Unlike, say, Roger "pass me another Ho-Ho" Ebert, who seems to give glowing reviews with horrifying abandon (ANACONDA?  A thumbs-up?  BLAIR WITCH PROJECT?  ****?)


OI! Lay of Rog, he's a living legend and writes beautifully, as opposed to Maltin's synopsis format that any drongo could manage. Every Birthday a cheap relative buys me the latest copy of his book for $10. I have seven sitting in front of me right now.

#11 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 01 September 2003 - 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Kristian

At least Lenny is somewhat discriminating.  Unlike, say, Roger "pass me another Ho-Ho" Ebert, who seems to give glowing reviews with horrifying abandon (ANACONDA?  A thumbs-up?  BLAIR WITCH PROJECT?  ****?)


Right. I like it that Maltin often goes against majority opinion (TAXI DRIVER and BLUE VELVET are rated **, as are FIGHT CLUB and DONNIE DARKO, while BLADE RUNNER and MEMENTO are rated *1/2 - by way of contrast, check out the ***1/2 ratings on OCTOPUSSY and STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME), and that he isn't free and easy with the **** rating (even the likes of STAR WARS, PULP FICTION and THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS are "only" rated ***1/2).

#12 Kristian

Kristian

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Location:West Coast U.S.A.

Posted 01 September 2003 - 02:35 PM

Originally posted by mattbowyer


OI! Lay of Rog, he's a living legend and writes beautifully, as opposed to Maltin's synopsis format that any drongo could manage. Every Birthday a cheap relative buys me the latest copy of his book for $10. I have seven sitting in front of me right now.


True, he is passionate about his reviews, but in my humble opinion, he impresses far too easily.

And don't take for granted your "cheap" relatives. There are worse presents to give a film buff -- as I assume you are -- than the latest Leonard Maltin movie guide. Such as a DVD pak of SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE/YOU'VE GOT MAIL/FRENCH KISS.

Memo to Mom: Not all chicks like chick flicks. Or maybe it's just Meg Ryan I detest....

#13 mattbowyer

mattbowyer

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1862 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 02 September 2003 - 03:02 AM

Fair enough Kristian...the line between Ebert and Maltin is that i go to Maltin to find out the bare bones of a movie (which I can now do better on imdb) and in fact once used it to win two dozen roses on the radio. But if I go to Ebert I know i'll know about the movie as well as reading a witty, informed, extended piece of writing that exists outside the movie. He does indeed have an optimistic slant but I can't bash the eternal optimist.

#14 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 02 September 2003 - 01:16 PM

In all fairness, Maltin may or may not have been responsible for all the reviews in his book. I don't own his, but I know a lot of these books with capsule reviews have some reviews ghostwritten by other writers. I know for a fact Ebert's yearly movie guide is all his stuff. So Maltin may or may not be responsible for his Bond reviews.

I see Solitare's point on Maltin being associated with fluffier types of films. He's a big Disney booster and just seems very mainstream, often showing up on Entertainment Tonight and the like. He even has his own show, which brings up something else.

He co-hosts a film review show called Hot Ticket. I had never seen it, but caught the beginning of an episode this past weekend while channel surfing. There was a subject of the best sequels, which they talked about Back To The Future and Road Warrior films. Then he said something about the granddaddy of all film series and I knew what was coming.

As is expected, he praised Connery big time and also said positive things about DAD and the series in general. His co-host Joyce Kulhawik (spelling) took the flakier route. She said something to the effect that there were 10 Bond films too many. Any she didn't really like Lazenby, or most of Roger Moore's, or the Timothy Daltons or most of the Pierce Brosnans. But she liked DAD. And naturally, she seemed to like Connery based more on attractiveness than anything else as she almost cooed when Maltin mentioned him.

#15 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Turn

In all fairness, Maltin may or may not have been responsible for all the reviews in his book. I don't own his, but I know a lot of these books with capsule reviews have some reviews ghostwritten by other writers. I know for a fact Ebert's yearly movie guide is all his stuff. So Maltin may or may not be responsible for his Bond reviews.


According to its own credits, the book is "edited by Leonard Maltin", with a Managing Editor, an Associate Editor, six Contributing Editors, a Video Editor and three Contributors also on board. Who does what is a mystery to me - it may be that Maltin no longer writes any reviews at all, and simply delegates it all to his subordinates.

Originally posted by Turn

I see Solitare's point on Maltin being associated with fluffier types of films. He's a big Disney booster and just seems very mainstream....


I don't see Maltin as "mainstream" or a fluff-merchant. Sure, most of the films reviewed in his book may be mainstream studio fare, but that's the fault of filmmakers and distributors. Only films that have been distributed in the United States are included, which is why such films as BATTLE ROYALE and ICHI THE KILLER are not reviewed.

Actually, I find Maltin to be a big pusher of non-mainstream films. In the introduction to the new edition of his book, he praises the likes of ONE HOUR PHOTO, SECRETARY, 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE, TALK TO HER, CITY OF GOD, and a number of films I've never heard of. He even has a new section, "Fifty Films That Got Away: Movies You Really Ought to See", in which he plugs flicks like EL NORTE, HOUSE OF GAMES, MATEWAN, ENEMIES: A LOVE STORY, WELCOME TO SARAJEVO, LOVE AND DEATH ON LONG ISLAND, KILL ME LATER and SONGCATCHER.

Maltin also promotes the best of international cinema, as well as throwing his weight behind documentaries - but, again, he does this only when he can, since many fine works are left out of the distribution loop.

So branding Maltin "mainstream" or "my grandmother's critic" is very unfair based on his book and the opinions within.

#16 Kristian

Kristian

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Location:West Coast U.S.A.

Posted 02 September 2003 - 02:49 PM

Originally posted by mattbowyer
He does indeed have an optimistic slant but I can't bash the eternal optimist.


I can. :) I would much rather have a critic that is brutally objective (not that Maltin is) than one who views his movies through rose-colored glasses. Perhaps that explains why Ebert gave CHARLIE'S ANGELS: FULL THROTTLE such high marks.

But that's just me... What do I know... Oooh, doorbell's ringing... Chinese food is here!

Cheers,
K.

#17 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Kristian

I would much rather have a critic that is brutally objective (not that Maltin is) than one who views his movies through rose-colored glasses.  


Hold those chopsticks, Kristian! I think Maltin is objective, if not perhaps brutally objective. He's not afraid to slate or to go against majority opinion. Look at his reviews of critics' sacred cows like BLADE RUNNER, FIGHT CLUB, MEMENTO, DONNIE DARKO....

#18 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 02 September 2003 - 03:06 PM

FIGHT CLUB is vastly overrated. I loved the film until the end when we had a shock/twist/bs ending-not a big payoff like the 'Sixth sense' or 'No way out' ending.It could have been a great film.I hate good movies that emplode at the end. Unforgivable.

#19 Contessa

Contessa

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 145 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 06:29 PM

Yeah, I think some of Ebert's reviews have gotten soft lately, but I still respect how he tries to promote indy films. I caught that atrocious "Hot Ticket" show when they reviewed DAD. I still can't quite figure out what that Joyce Kulhawik was babbling on about (she is definitely the sorriest excuse for a movie reviewer I've ever seen). They gushed over the flick and even said they enjoyed Brosnan's performance, though they gave no explanation for this except that acting against Halle Berry must have honed his thespian skills (!). I don't think Maltin has had a positive thing to say before or since DAD about Brosnan's acting. Personally, he reminds me of a class nerd who really, really, would like to fit in with the "cool group", so he kowtows to popular opinion.

#20 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 02 September 2003 - 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Contessa

I don't think Maltin has had a positive thing to say before or since DAD about Brosnan's acting.  


From his review of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH:

"Brosnan is fine"

Don't forget that they're capsule reviews and space is at a premium. There has to be room for plot information and maybe also trivia, not just comments on people's performances. Personally, I think Brosnan is damn lucky to have got those three words in praise of his turn in TWINE, because I sure as heck don't believe he deserved them.

#21 iceberg

iceberg

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 387 posts

Posted 03 September 2003 - 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Loomis


From his review of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH:

"Brosnan is fine"

Don't forget that they're capsule reviews and space is at a premium. There has to be room for plot information and maybe also trivia, not just comments on people's performances. Personally, I think Brosnan is damn lucky to have got those three words in praise of his turn in TWINE, because I sure as heck don't believe he deserved them.


I'd have to go with Ebert. He always manages to find the good points in the films. And someone above said he looks at thing too positively. Well, it's a better attitude than going in ready to tear a film apart.

#22 MrDraco

MrDraco

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1138 posts

Posted 06 September 2003 - 01:31 AM

The Worlds Not Enough...could have been so great but was so... soo.... i can't find the words to describe it...Brosnan was the only element that worked.

#23 DLibrasnow

DLibrasnow

    Commander

  • Enlisting
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16568 posts
  • Location:Washington D.C.. USA

Posted 06 September 2003 - 01:35 AM

I'm glad to see OHMSS get into the top grouping of movies...

#24 Mourning Becomes Electra

Mourning Becomes Electra

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts

Posted 06 September 2003 - 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Contessa
Yeah, I think some of Ebert's reviews have gotten soft lately, but I still respect how he tries to promote indy films. I caught that atrocious "Hot Ticket" show when they reviewed DAD. I still can't quite figure out what that Joyce Kulhawik was babbling on about (she is definitely the sorriest excuse for a movie reviewer I've ever seen). They gushed over the flick and even said they enjoyed Brosnan's performance, though they gave no explanation for this except that acting against Halle Berry must have honed his thespian skills (!). I don't think Maltin has had a positive thing to say before or since DAD about Brosnan's acting. Personally, he reminds me of a class nerd who really, really, would like to fit in with the "cool group", so he kowtows to popular opinion.


I saw that review too and howled with laughter. If I recall the full statement was to the affect that Brosnan was always fine as Bond but his performance really was at another level in DAD, no doubt brought out by working with an Oscar winning actress like Berry. *snort* Poor Dame Judi Dench, I guess being a mere Best Supporting Actress wasn't good enough. :)

Maltin is a boob while his co-host makes boob look like something to aspire to; their show Hot Tickets is beyond lame as they flash their cards Hot or Not. Yeah there are reviews (or rather conclusions of films) of his I agree with, but then there are reviews by almost anyone I agree with, heck I bet even I and Loomis agree on a movie or two. :) But his overall film criticism is lazy and poor and he's pretty low on my movie critic totem poll.

Even if Ebert is waving his pom poms & wearing his rose color movie loving glasses he more often than not gives me something; even if it's only to tell me yeah the movie is silly as all get out with subpar acting & writing but he went along for the ride because the actress was perky, the sets are colorful, and the movie has an infectious energy. From his reviews I can usually tell if I'll like the film because he's told me something about it, and that something is more important than his conclusion. And while Ebert has a soft spot for a lot of fluff he also does more than his share of writing on and championing of smaller and risker films.

#25 Jmart007

Jmart007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 135 posts

Posted 06 September 2003 - 06:14 AM

I happen to prefer Roger Ebert over Lenoard Maltin.
Ebert= ****
Maltin= *** (those are their ratings on a scale of 0-4, not swears :))

I think I like Ebert better because I haven't seen too many of Maltin's review's. Ebert's are very easy to find over at www.chicagosuntimes.com. His reviews are fun to read, and i'm usually not bored by the second paragraph. However his real "Gems" are the movies he hates. For instance, in his review of Charlie's Angels (which he gave 1/2*) he said, "This movie is like eye candy for the blind". That's a great line.

As for Maltin, his type of views are appropriate for TV, since they're mostly synopsis pieces. I believe that he also still reviews movies for Playboy. Anyways... as for the show Hot Ticket, I only watch it because of Maltin. Joyce Kulhawik (A reviewer for my home state of Massachusetts for WBZ-4) is awful. She is very annoying. I can't really explain why, she just is. The show is a mess, and I rarely watch it, mostly because I never know when its on.

As for Ebert & Roper on the other hand, their show is great. These are two compassionate movie reviewers (unlike only one on Hot Ticket, that obviously being Maltin) who love to mostly debate about how much either one of them either hated it or liked it. In watching their show, I relaize that most of the time I agree with Ebert, however there have been a few exceptions as for when he gave Charlie's Angel's: Full Throttle, a positive but still "Thumbs Down" review. His article rating for the movie was **1/2, which is just on the edge of passing it. I hated that movie. Same can be said for many other movies that I have liked, like the first Charlie's Angels, Shaft (2000) etc. Then there are movies that Roeper likes that I absolutely hate. For instance, The Ring. That was one of the least scariest movies I have ever seen. Oooh watch out of the killer video tape, (Dana Carvey doing George Bush) "It's scary, it's scary". Their show is really fun to watch, especially when they really disagree on a movie.

Ebert & Roper= ***1/2
Hot Ticket= *1/2 (Because of Kulhaywik)
Siskel & Ebert= **** (THE BEST)

Hey, just incase if any of you are curious you can read Roger Ebert's columns at www.chicagosuntimes.com, and you can also listen to audio clips from the show Ebert & Roeper at www.movies.com. By the way, if you click on their picture and, type in a movie reviewed during the Siskel era, you won't hear an audio clip, but you can see if he gave it "Thumbs up" or "Thumbs down". :)

If anyone could give me a link to Maltin's reviews, I would be very interested to read them. Thank you :) .

#26 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 06 September 2003 - 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra

Maltin is a boob while his co-host makes boob look like something to aspire to; their show Hot Tickets is beyond lame as they flash their cards Hot or Not. Yeah there are reviews (or rather conclusions of films) of his I agree with, but then there are reviews by almost anyone I agree with, heck I bet even I and Loomis agree on a movie or two. :) But his overall film criticism is lazy and poor and he's pretty low on my movie critic totem poll.


I've never seen Maltin on TV, so I'm judging him purely by his "Movie & Video Guide", and I don't see that the book's criticism is "lazy and poor".

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra

And while Ebert has a soft spot for a lot of fluff he also does more than his share of writing on and championing of smaller and risker films.


One could say exactly the same thing for Maltin. I don't know what he promotes on his TV show, but he certainly champions smaller and riskier films in his book.

And what, precisely, ought he to do in order to escape being branded "mainstream", a "hack" or whatever? Slate every release from a major studio, every popular film?

No one's yet made any sound arguments to convince me that Maltin is such a joke of a critic. Is it because he doesn't rave about Brosnan the Beautiful, or because he only awarded THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH **1/2?:)

Originally posted by Jmart007

If anyone could give me a link to Maltin's reviews, I would be very interested to read them. Thank you .


His reviews (taken from the "Movie & Video Guide") used to be on the IMDb, in the Awards & Reviews section for a film, but no longer. I don't think he has a website. He seems a wee bit anti-internet, presumably out of a desire to keep his book a bestseller.

#27 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 06 September 2003 - 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Loomis


Is it because he doesn't rave about Brosnan the Beautiful, or because he only awarded THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH **1/2?:)


You're a braver man than I, Loomie

#28 Kingdom Come

Kingdom Come

    Discharged

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3572 posts

Posted 06 September 2003 - 02:26 PM

*Clears throat*

Those that can - DO, those that can't do - TEACH, those that can't do either become critics.

#29 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 06 September 2003 - 02:29 PM

And those that can't criticise...?

Probably "happy", damn them.

#30 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 06 September 2003 - 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Jim

You're a braver man than I, Loomie


Oh, I doubt that, Jim. You're known for having led several daring ops behind enemy lines yourself.:)