49 replies to this topic

[Mourning Becomes Electra]

Originally posted by Loomis
[B]

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".  

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?

No but anyone who gives DAF 3 1/2 stars and TMWTGG is immeadiatly suspect. But then I wasn't the one balking about the placement of a favorite film like a certain someone was about TLD.

I have favored critics who's reviews I read regularly and I don't always agree with their conclusions, some I read all the time and rarely agree with their conclusions, but I respect their writing, their insights, their overall approach to film criticism. I don't with Maltin. I'd much rather read Ebert, David Edelstein, Lisa Shwarzbaum, Owen Gleiberman, A.O. Scott, Michael Wilmington, Stephanie Zacharek, Desson Howe etc... On TV I'd much rather watch Ebert or Leah Rozen. As for reading reviews just by those critics that dislike and pan all mainstream films, well if I wanted to do that I'd only read reviews from the Villiage Voice and I don't because their viewpoint and approach is far too extreme for me... for them no film is good unless the is camera shaking and the budget is 2 cents.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra

I wasn't the one balking about the placement of a favorite film like a certain someone was about TLD.  

Yes, well, I'm convinced that that **1/2 rating for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was a typo, and that Maltin meant to give it ***1/2.

Originally posted by Mourning Becomes Electra

I have favored critics who's reviews I read regularly and I don't always agree with their conclusions, some I read all the time and rarely agree with their conclusions, but I respect their writing, their insights, their overall approach to film criticism.  I don't with Maltin.  I'd much rather read Ebert, David Edelstein, Lisa Shwarzbaum, Owen Gleiberman, A.O. Scott, Michael Wilmington, Stephanie Zacharek, Desson Howe etc...  On TV I'd much rather watch Ebert or Leah Rozen.  

The reason I'm defending Maltin so passionately is that I believe his "Movie & Video Guide" is, on the whole, an excellent book. Wasn't it a pioneering work, too? Before Maltin, who was bringing out a reference book every year filled with capsule reviews? It's stood the test of time and does what it sets out to do. For me, the only regularly-updated collection of reviews that comes close is "Halliwell's Film Guide", although I feel that the quality nosedived after Leslie Halliwell's death.

My favourite critic is probably the late Pauline Kael, but as far as I know she never wrote Maltin-style capsule reviews. I'd only judge Maltin against people who write reviews in that format and compile regularly-updated reference works. I feel that to do otherwise would be to compare apples and oranges.

I make no claims for Maltin as TV personality or essayist, since I'm unfamiliar with his work outside the "Movie & Video Guide", but I do believe that when it comes to such collections of capsule reviews he's number one.

[Loomis]

So I've got the new edition of Maltin's Movie Guide, and was pretty staggered to find only a *** rating for CASINO ROYALE. Was both hoping for and expecting ***1/2, but even after a fairly rave review (in which he favourably compares Craig to the hallowed Connery) Maltin ends up giving CR.... the same rating as DIE ANOTHER DAY! I mean, I love DAD, and *** is certainly a respectable score, but CR is several times superior.

Nice to see ***1/2 ratings (pretty much the highest rating Maltin ever gives a new film - **** is reserved for those once-in-a-blue-moon affairs like SCHINDLER'S LIST.... or some extremely obscure documentary that only Maltin and a few others have seen) for two of my favourites of last year, BABEL and BORAT, and I note that PAN'S LABYRINTH (which I haven't seen but plan to) also scores ***1/2. I'd definitely say CR belongs in that camp, though.

BTW, Maltin also indicates that CR is a remake of the 1967 film!

[dinovelvet]

So I've got the new edition of Maltin's Movie Guide, and was pretty staggered to find only a *** rating for CASINO ROYALE. Was both hoping for and expecting ***1/2, but even after a fairly rave review (in which he favourably compares Craig to the hallowed Connery) Maltin ends up giving CR.... the same rating as DIE ANOTHER DAY! I mean, I love DAD, and *** is certainly a respectable score, but CR is several times superior.

Nice to see ***1/2 ratings (pretty much the highest rating Maltin ever gives a new film - **** is reserved for those once-in-a-blue-moon affairs like SCHINDLER'S LIST.... or some extremely obscure documentary that only Maltin and a few others have seen) for two of my favourites of last year, BABEL and BORAT, and I note that PAN'S LABYRINTH (which I haven't seen but plan to) also scores ***1/2. I'd definitely say CR belongs in that camp, though.

BTW, Maltin also indicates that CR is a remake of the 1967 film!

Seems a bit odd, given that in the first post we see DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER and OCTOPUSSY hit the magical 3 and a half level!

[tdalton]

So I've got the new edition of Maltin's Movie Guide, and was pretty staggered to find only a *** rating for CASINO ROYALE. Was both hoping for and expecting ***1/2, but even after a fairly rave review (in which he favourably compares Craig to the hallowed Connery) Maltin ends up giving CR.... the same rating as DIE ANOTHER DAY! I mean, I love DAD, and *** is certainly a respectable score, but CR is several times superior.

Nice to see ***1/2 ratings (pretty much the highest rating Maltin ever gives a new film - **** is reserved for those once-in-a-blue-moon affairs like SCHINDLER'S LIST.... or some extremely obscure documentary that only Maltin and a few others have seen) for two of my favourites of last year, BABEL and BORAT, and I note that PAN'S LABYRINTH (which I haven't seen but plan to) also scores ***1/2. I'd definitely say CR belongs in that camp, though.

BTW, Maltin also indicates that CR is a remake of the 1967 film!

I think that the 3 star rating for CR is a bit too high for that film, but comparatively, a 3 star rating for DAD is about 4 or 5 stars higher than it actually should be, IMO. I can't think of a reason as to why CR and DAD would be ranked together in this ranking, but I think that Maltin has overrated both films, but certainly more so with DAD.

[[dark]]

Are you able to post the entire capsule review, Loomis?

I'd have certainly gone for ***

[Loomis]

Are you able to post the entire capsule review, Loomis?

Sure.

The James Bond franchise goes back to its roots with this installment, which shows how the secret agent got his license to kill and pits him against a banker funding worldwide terrorist groups. A bit overextended, but also refreshingly tough-minded, with some terrific set pieces (including an adrenaline-pumping opening sequence) and a worthy love interest in Green. Best of all, Craig (in his debut as 007) makes for a lean, mean, surprisingly human Bond, so good as to rival even our memories of Sean Connery. Filmed before (as a spoof) in 1967

Maltin gave CASINO ROYALE an even more glowing writeup on his website a few months back, but unfortunately it seems to have been taken down.

Since childhood, one of my movie geek annual pleasures has been to get my hands on the new edition of Maltin at the earliest opportunity and start eagerly looking through it to see his reactions to the releases of the past year. And his verdicts rarely surprise. Sure enough, this year all the films I'd expected him to give ***1/2 duly got ***1/2: "thinking person's" or "worthy" affairs like BABEL, BORAT, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, NOTES ON A SCANDAL, PAN'S LABYRINTH and so on. Awards-bait films, basically.

But given that, with CR, Bond for a brief and probably never-to-be-repeated time was awards-bait, I reckon no Bond film will ever get ***1/2 again (**1/2 or *** seems to be Maltin's unspoken but cast-iron rule for the past couple of decades when it comes to a new 007 flick). If CR, with its ecstatic reviews from just about every critic on earth, and its truckload of Bafta nominations, couldn't do it, then there's no hope. I guess that leaves OCTOPUSSY as the final artistic masterpiece of the Bond series as far as Maltin's concerned.

[Turn]

But are we sure Maltin even wrote this particular review himself. Often these guides have several reviewers aside from the chief reviewer. Or is there an editor that took parts out of the original.

Another thing I've noticed is some critics like Roger Ebert, who is probably the most famous critic in the U.S. if not the world, have differening reviews on their television review shows than their print ones. I can't recall the exact case, but I think he gave GE a decent print review and a less enthusiastic one on his show.

Maltin is the reviewer for a show called Entertainment Tonight and has been since it began in the early '80s, but the only times I've seen him recently have been for reports on things. Sadly, that show focuses more on so-called celebrities such as Paris, Lindsay and Anna Nicole. I can't recall any features from the set of CR, only a few seconds on what it did at the box office.

[DaveBond21]

It is strange, because the actual review write-up sounds better than the *** rating.

[glidrose]

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

He originally gave FOR YOUR EYES ONLY **. Don't have the review before me. Seem to recall the words, "episodic", "unusually fake", "dull". He said the plot was so fuzzy it's forgotten five minutes after the film ends. He praised only the "exciting opening" (his words) and the hilarious Thatcher parody.

QOS, NSNA and CR67 all get **1/2.

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).

Older editions of his guide rate Godfather Part 1 ***1/2. It now gets ****.

Older editions of his guide gave Scorsese's "New York, New York" the dreaded BOMB rating. Said Scorsese has created a cinematic milestone: "the first sick Hollywood musical". It now rates *1/2.

[Loomis]

He originally gave FOR YOUR EYES ONLY **. Don't have the review before me. Seem to recall the words, "episodic", "unusually fake", "dull". He said the plot was so fuzzy it's forgotten five minutes after the film ends. He praised only the "exciting opening" (his words) and the hilarious Thatcher parody.

I think you're confusing this with another critic's review. I don't recall Maltin ever giving FOR YOUR EYES ONLY **, and I've been buying his book every year since the 1980s. And none of the comments you quote rings a bell.

However, I do remember that he gave FOR YOUR EYES only ***1/2 at one point (INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL was also originally a ***1/2 affair in Maltin's book, but was downgraded to *** in the following year's edition).

[Safari Suit]

I used to have a CD-Rom called Cinemania (it was the 95 edition, I believe it was an annual thing for a while) that used Maltin's book as the main basis for its database, and I recall that Maltin's summary for FYEO described it "as the most divisive film among Bond fans...including us" (meaning he and his staff for the guide at that time, I guess). I'm paraphrasing slightly as I'm going from memory but that was very much the gist of it. So it certainly wouldn't have surprised me if FYEO got two stars in his guide at some point.

And now I really want to see New York, New York

[glidrose]

He originally gave FOR YOUR EYES ONLY **. Don't have the review before me. Seem to recall the words, "episodic", "unusually fake", "dull". He said the plot was so fuzzy it's forgotten five minutes after the film ends. He praised only the "exciting opening" (his words) and the hilarious Thatcher parody.

I think you're confusing this with another critic's review. I don't recall Maltin ever giving FOR YOUR EYES ONLY **, and I've been buying his book every year since the 1980s. And none of the comments you quote rings a bell.

Nope. I've been "reading" his book since the 1970's. I assure you the older editions that came out once every two years gave it **.

However, I do remember that he gave FOR YOUR EYES only ***1/2 at one point

You're probably thinking of Steven H. Scheuer's defunct guide. Maltin never gave FYEO ***1/2.

[DaveBond21]

I seem to recall he gave QOS two stars, is that correct?

[jamie00007]

It blows my mind that a professional movie critic whose job is to unobjectively analyze movies could either not notice or chose to ignore DAD's absolutely turgid script, bad acting and piss poor special effects. How can a movie that fails on all of those points be given a passing grade by a critic? It's deservedly "Rotten" on Rotten Tomatoes so at least most other critics got it right.

[Loomis]

I seem to recall he gave QOS two stars, is that correct?

No, two and a half.

It blows my mind that a professional movie critic whose job is to unobjectively analyze movies could either not notice or chose to ignore DAD's absolutely turgid script, bad acting and piss poor special effects. How can a movie that fails on all of those points be given a passing grade by a critic? It's deservedly "Rotten" on Rotten Tomatoes so at least most other critics got it right.

Perhaps he found DIE ANOTHER DAY an entertaining romp, as I did.

[Miles Miservy]

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

DIE ANOTHER DAY sucked b@lls. No glorified review in an overly edited movie book is going to change that. The day of it's opening, even my daughter said, "Well, there's 2 hours of my life that I won't get back." A real shame too, because it COULD have been a really fine film. They just tried WAY too hard and put in too much, to the point of distraction.

Edited by Miles Miservy, 15 December 2011 - 07:11 PM.

[Harmsway]

DIE ANOTHER DAY gets better the further away we get from it. It understands that the appeal of the Bond franchise largely lies in its fondness for the surreal and absurd. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite sustain itself (the climax is all a bit dull), but it's nevertheless far from the worst of the Bond films.

[Jim]

DIE ANOTHER DAY gets better the further away we get from it.

True; some of us need to get to a point where we're so far away we can't see it at all.

[Safari Suit]

It blows my mind that a professional movie critic whose job is to unobjectively analyze movies could either not notice or chose to ignore DAD's absolutely turgid script, bad acting and piss poor special effects. How can a movie that fails on all of those points be given a passing grade by a critic? It's deservedly "Rotten" on Rotten Tomatoes so at least most other critics got it right.

Uh, it's currently 1% away from being rated fresh on their almost entirely arbitrary rating system. If a few more positive reviews get picked up by RT will you have to give up on critics forever?

Plus, form what I remember Maltin isn't entirely complimentary (he definitely mentions the awful effects), but I guess he enjoyed it enough to give it a recommendation.