2519 replies to this topic

[Gobi-1]

I was surprised by the ***1/2 rating myself. I had read that he liked it so I figured it would get *** at the most. I was delighted to see he liked it even more. Although it most be noted his ratings for the Indy movies are really all over the map.

Raiders of the Lost Ark ****
Temple of Doom **
The Last Crusade **1/2
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ***1/2

[Harmsway]

I discovered long ago that Maltin and I are not cinema soul mates, and we have since parted ways.

Same here. Not a fan.

[Loomis]

I was surprised by the ***1/2 rating myself. I had read that he liked it so I figured it would get *** at the most. I was delighted to see he liked it even more. Although it most be noted his ratings for the Indy movies are really all over the map.

Raiders of the Lost Ark ****
Temple of Doom **
The Last Crusade **1/2
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ***1/2

Indeed. And I gather from Maltin's website that he dislikes THE DARK KNIGHT (he writes something like "I had no fun at all watching it"), so I'm expecting it to get **, or - at most - **1/2, in next year's edition. He gives BATMAN BEGINS a healthy ***, BTW.

Seems to me that Maltin disapproves when a franchise attempts to go "dark", e.g. TEMPLE OF DOOM, BOURNE SUPREMACY (**1/2 to INDENTITY's ***1/2) and THE DARK KNIGHT.

[marktmurphy]

By way of comparison to his ratings of other recent action franchise blockbusters, he gives THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, CASINO ROYALE and (somewhat generously) LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD a solid ***, and - utterly, utterly unforgivably - gives ROCKY BALBOA **1/2. I'd say INDY 4 is by some distance the worst of that bunch, but, then again, hey, I guess I'd say that because I'm not Leonard Maltin.

I'd put it third below Bourne and Bond in those five there; it's not a bad film at all. But yeah, his rating seems a bit oddly high.
I thought you utterly despised Die Hard 4?

[Loomis]

Well (as a major fan of the franchise who considers DIE HARD to be as perfect as you consider RAIDERS and, in its way, one of the best films of all time), I was very disappointed when I saw it at the flicks. I appreciated it more on DVD.

Having seen it twice now, I plan at some stage to get round to watching my "uncut" DVD copy, and I'm sure I'll quite enjoy the experience. I guess it's growing on me - at any rate, I don't despise it (in the way that I despise, for instance, T3 - now that one really is an utter washout of a belated sequel).

In the same way, it's also possible that, in the fullness of time, I'll come to see more good things in CRYSTAL SKULL.

[Judo chop]

I was surprised by the ***1/2 rating myself. I had read that he liked it so I figured it would get *** at the most. I was delighted to see he liked it even more. Although it most be noted his ratings for the Indy movies are really all over the map.

Raiders of the Lost Ark ****
Temple of Doom **
The Last Crusade **1/2
Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ***1/2

I guess I don’t see these as being ‘all over the map’ at all.
He’s got Raiders as an absolute four star movie - TRUE.
Then he has CRUSADE and TEMPLE as a significant drop off from Raiders – TRUE.
Then between them, he has CRUSADE slightly better than TEMPLE – TRUE, as the wisest of us would agree.

The only thing about this list that is out of whack is KINGDOM. That score is just plain ridiculous and it’s obvious he’s blinded by nostalgia. Look for him to surreptitiously trim that score down in later editions as his fanatic delusions subside.

(I have no idea if he ever really does that… but he clearly should.)

[Gobi-1]

The only rating I know he has changed is Alien. He gave it **1/2 upon it's original release but after seeing the re-release he gave
it ***1/2. Here's a snippet from Jim Hill Media about this change.

He personally reviews and edits each edition of the book. With a particular eye toward updating entries to reflect how his opinions of particular pictures may have changed over the years.

"Take -- for example -- 'Alien.' When that Ridley Scott film originally came out in 1979, I just didn't care for it. I felt very uncomfortable watching that movie the first time around," he continued. "But I recently had the chance to rewatch 'Alien.' And I have to admit that I found it to be a much more entertaining film than I remembered. Which is why I felt it necessary to revise the description of that movie that I had originally posted in the Guide."

http://jimhillmedia....ard-maltin.aspx

Since I don't always agree with Leonard Maltin I'd buy Mick Martin and Marsha Porter's DVD and Video Guide as a second opinion but I haven't seen an updated version since their 2007 Edition came out in 2006.

[Loomis]

The only rating I know he has changed is Alien. He gave it **1/2 upon it's original release but after seeing the re-release he gave
it ***1/2.

He also changed the rating for UNFORGIVEN. Originally **1/2, it mysteriously changed to *** for the following edition, after its Best Picture win.

[Gobi-1]

By the way the DVD and Movie Guide ratings for Indiana Jones. Using the five star system:

Raiders of the Lost Ark *****
Temple of Doom ****
The Last Crusade ****1/2

[Judo chop]

He also changed the rating for UNFORGIVEN. Originally **1/2, it mysteriously changed to *** for the following edition, after its Best Picture win.

Yeah... so he's almost on target.

Yet another reason why he and I don’t work. Basically, if I check out my top-20 or so films in anybody’s review gallery, and any of them are given a less than stellar rating, I simply don’t trust a guy to know what makes me tick.

Two and a half for Unforgiven!? What in blazes does he want in a western? Like someone said earlier, it sounds like he just has a problem with darker material. Not that dark immediately equals good, but it certainly doesn’t immediately equal bad either. Unlike what my mom and Mr. Maltin seem to think, a movie doesn’t have to make you feel all gooey inside to succeed. What a boring movie world it’d be if it did.

[Loomis]

Like someone said earlier, it sounds like he just has a problem with darker material. Not that dark immediately equals good, but it certainly doesn’t immediately equal bad either. Unlike what my mom and Mr. Maltin seem to think, a movie doesn’t have to make you feel all gooey inside to succeed. What a boring movie world it’d be if it did.

I think you'll enjoy the following article on Maltin and agree with many of its points:

http://www.dareland....lems/maltin.htm

It's extremely telling that he gives Nic Cage's The Family Man 3 1/2 stars but The Shining only 2. The Family Man is about a man with an empty life who finds fulfillment when he realizes there's nothing better than a child and one good woman to love. The Family Man says that heaven on earth is the nuclear family. The Shining is about a man with an empty life BECAUSE he's got a child and one good woman to love. The Shining says that hell on earth is the nuclear family.
That's a message that Maltin can't stand. In this case, he's clearly espousing the message of The Family Man over the message of The Shining, unless he actually thinks that Brett Ratner is a better, more important filmmaker than Stanley Kubrick. He obviously doesn't. Maltin's opinion of The Shining is based upon who he really is. He's being subjective. Naughty naughty.
There's nothing counter-culture about Leonard Maltin. He IS the family man, with a loving wife, loving kids, and a split-level home in the suburbs. He has gone through the change that all parents go through concerning the importance of good family entertainment, films you can watch with your kids, films with values you want to pass on to your offspring. It's not till you're a parent that you can truly realize the genius of Dr. Seuss and Walt Disney. Though he's certainly capable of appreciating the counter-culture (He gives Easy Rider 3 1/2 stars and the Monkee's Head 3 stars), when a film gets TOO pessimistic or anti-establishment, his brain short circuits.

Still, he does sometimes give "dark" its due. HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER is one of the darkest films I know, yet Maltin rightly ('coz it's also brilliant) rewards it with ***1/2. Although I'm amazed that he does so.

But it's highly likely that he'll give THE DARK KNIGHT a lower rating than he gives BATMAN & ROBIN, or, at best, the same one (**1/2). And BATMAN BEGINS isn't even the best Batman outing in his book, but merely level with BATMAN FOREVER (he gives both films ***).

[Harmsway]

How did Maltin rate SWEENEY TODD?

[Loomis]

***.

[Harmsway]

Ah. I guess he isn't too prejudiced against dark, then.

[Judo chop]

That would explain much. I certainly don’t deride the man for preferring wholesome material – that’s his taste - or wanting to feed wholesome material to his family – I’m seeing eye to eye with him on that score. But then is he really qualified to review movies? Not as if that’s the point either. He can certainly go ahead and review movies and make his money. God bless him for that. I wish I was doing the same. I’m just not going to ask HIM if I want to know whether I’LL like a movie or not.

The collective opinions of a few good friends whom you know inside and out is a much more reliable source.

More ammo: Both BLADE RUNNER and TAXI DRIVER get from LM.

[Harmsway]

More ammo: Both BLADE RUNNER and TAXI DRIVER get from LM.

Heresy.

[Loomis]

Still, at least he calls 'em as he sees 'em.

[Safari Suit]

I think he just dislikes it when "darker" material infiltrates "light" entertainment. Lets not forget he is also one of the leading experts on American Animation and wrote perhaps the definitive book on the subject(Of Mice and Magic).

And he is right about Blade Runner. (Ducks)

[Harmsway]

And he is right about Blade Runner. (Ducks)

(throws tomato)

[Safari Suit]

Honestly I don't hate Blade Runnner, but I don't love it either and it frustrates me.

[Judo chop]

Still, at least he calls 'em as he sees 'em.

But he doesn't. Or at least you pointed out some evidence that he may not.

Unforgiven was two-and-a-half stars, and then mysteriously became three stars after it gobbled awards.

So either:

1) He genuinely felt it was 2.5, but when it won awards he reconsidered and gave it another chance. And then realized that he genuinely felt it was 3.0.

or

2) He just padded his score b/c he felt like an idiot after the rest of the critical world raved about one of the great Westerns of all time.

The first possibility is better than the second, but even in the case of the first, he’s not really calling it as he sees it. He’s only calling it as he thinks he sees it, which may or may not be how he actually sees it, which is a pretty weak credential for a movie critic to have on his resume.

Please, if you're going to tout yourself as a 'movie critic', develop a honed eye for these things so you can publish your real opinion the first time, and don't have to wait for a mass of other reviewers' opinons to calibrate your own. (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt with scenario #1. If it's really scenario #2 that occured, then he's just a hack.)

Sorry. Didn't mean to turn this into a Maltin bashing thread. But the guy is just so wrong so often, it baffles me that he continues to print.

[Harmsway]

George Lucas is looking for a relic for INDY V, and dismisses his own claims that Mutt Jones would be moving into the spotlight:

George Lucas interview at MTV

[Judo chop]

George Lucas is looking for a relic for INDY V.

I've got a relic idea for him. How about the Last Good George Lucas Movie?

When the aliens left our universe they tore open a rift, and through it Hitler's ghost escapes back into our world to repossess the body of Mola Ram (whose body has been preserved thanks to extensive contact with the Shakira stones). Hitler builds his army using the Ark and has to adjust his attack according to modern technology burning DVDs and CD along with a whole lot of books.

Indy and son seeking to save the world from the fascist overlord go adventuring in some Peruvian mines for the last copy of the Raiders of the Lost Ark DVD.

[Safari Suit]

I like it! It could be the new Adaptation.

[DamnCoffee]

"Mutt Williams and the Search for Elvis"


Oh dear god!

[Vauxhall]

I'd like to see them tackle Atlantis. A water-based Indy adventure could be fine... unless they attempt any CGI glacial surfing...

[Harmsway]

I'd like to see them tackle Atlantis.

They already did, in a sense, with the video game classic INDIANA JONES AND THE FATE OF ATLANTIS. Lucas has always said that the game handled the concept so well, there's no reason for them to bother tackling it.

[Vauxhall]

I'd like to see them tackle Atlantis.

They already did, in a sense, with the video game classic INDIANA JONES AND THE FATE OF ATLANTIS. Lucas has always said that the game handled the concept so well, there's no reason for them to bother tackling it.

Ah okay, thanks for that H. I didn't know about the video game.

[Judo chop]

I'd like to see them tackle Atlantis.

They already did, in a sense, with the video game classic INDIANA JONES AND THE FATE OF ATLANTIS. Lucas has always said that the game handled the concept so well, there's no reason for them to bother tackling it.

Leaving well enough alone? That doesn't sound like the Lucus I know.

But then again, his objective does seem to be to make films as much like video games as possible, so maybe in his eyes the game already is the ultimate achievement in filmmaking?

(Ok, I'll get off Lucas and Maltin now.)

Too bad, I guess. I like the idea. I think I’d rank Atlantis just below the Ark in the current list of Indy relics. More interesting than the Shankara stones, and more novel than the Aliens or the Grail.

[Harmsway]

Too bad, I guess. I like the idea. I think I’d rank Atlantis just below the Ark in the current list of Indy relics. More interesting than the Shankara stones, and more novel than the Aliens or the Grail.

Well, it is a good idea, mind you, but FATE OF ATLANTIS did handle it so well that using it again would seem, well, redundant. I'm aware that a lot of folks never played it, though, but this is just from the "fan" perspective. Spielberg and Lucas are both huge fans of the game.

And, going somewhat OT, there's a new Indy video game coming out called INDIANA JONES AND THE STAFF OF KINGS, involving the staff of Moses as its key relic. Lucas was apparently involved in the story development.