Okay -- "but" qualifies it as far as the critics having the same opinion or not "but" I've been unable to determine if that's what they mean and still makes me even more puzzled with their rating system.
Well,that´s the Englishmen for you!
That's a strong part of my heritage so I have to agree -- the British can be elitist about subjects when their biases are involved and politics isn't the only one! I don't see these guides as all that objective in their thumbnail reviews or in their ratings system. When there's a databank that finally scans all the critics and rates the film based on the data, we'll get a better idea of what the consensus of opinion is. Cable seems to be using more up-to-date databases for their ratings as I notice differences between their ratings and those in the guides. The guides really aren't for the serious film buff. Halliwell's does come a littler closer but has it's own set of drawbacks, not to have to point out that there's some snob appeal involved there. I'll have to say that Sight and Sound magazine which is linked to the British Academy of Film reviews films in great depth and can be ponderous reading for most people interested in movies. Premier magazine's reviews have improved over the years and it's become somewhat of a bridge between the serious and no-so-serious about film.
I would really recommend to anyone to go to Roger Ebert's site and use the search to find his reviews. It's probably the best archive of reviews on the Internet.
Roger Ebert.com
New gripe..
"The Man Who Wasn´t There" is awarded the same star rating as "Godzilla vs The Smog Monster".
Maltin´s explanation of sorts is that the Coens´s film is too long.
One can presume that the gem from Toho Studios is just the right length for it´s invigorating content.
You're going to find a lot of these conflict of genre ratings -- hardly anyone is going to look up whether they should rent a movie entitled "Godzilla vs the Smog Monster" who would want to rent "The Man Who Wasn't There." The editing of Coen's film does have some problems but I was willing to discount them because I liked the film so much. It was a character study with a plot straight out of vintage film noir and photographed in an effective mix of Italian realism and film noir, with a nuance of German expressionism, "Citizen Kane" and Cocteau. I don't have a current copy but isn't there still a preface that explains how films are rated? It would be interesting to search in MRQI for the Godzilla movie to see what reviews support a high rating in the genre.
Here's a link about the Godzilla film -- I am rather taken aback that the Maltin Guide would give it anymore than one or, at best, two stars within a genre. If that's true, burn the book.
Your comments about "within a genre" I readily accept LW.Problem with this book is that it´s not a specific genre lexicon.It´s a film guide and I´m slowly forming masochistic feelings towards it.
I literally shouted when I read the Godzilla vs.....etc.I don´t own a VCR or DVD player so I don´t "look up" stuff to rent.I look them up for fun and I´m having PLENTY of that.
There was no link showing in your last post.Please try again LW.
Well, then I am puzzled why you own the book as it's aimed primarilly at those who rent movies. It's not meant as the epitome of movie reviews collections. For that, I'd go out and buy Paulene Kaels "10,000 Night at the Movies" or Ebert's collection of reviews. Or, online -- see the links provided in the featured links section of the film forum. Like I said, "got any matches?" In VideoHound, the Godzilla movie your mention gets one "bone" (or one star). Only the American remake gets 2-1/2 and only for the special effects. This is a couple of years old as I don't buy current guides of this kind just to update current movies where one can find reviews online. I'm suspicious that the rating in Maltin's book isn't a typographical error. What does the review say to support the rating and did they rate it high or did they rate "Man Who Wasn't There" low?
LW,it was a Christmas gift!Take it easy on me!!
I´ll get back to tomorrow with answers to your questions.
I know -- I've exchanged every Christmas gift but my Mom's (she needed me to take her shopping so I got to pick out what I wanted!) Consider the book the ugly vase that you only put out when the gifter comes over? I am agreeing with you -- it's not the best guide and hasn't been since the advent of the internet access to a comprehensive file of reviews.
Maltin did not explain why SEVERAL Godzilla films were awarded 2½ stars.
He did say that "The Man Who Wasn´t There" would have been awarded 4*´s if judged solely on the industry´s 2002 output but only got 2½ because of it´s weird turns and length!!
Halliwell,of course,slagged the entire Toho production and did so with wit and style.
I have not read his rating of the Coen Bros. latest.
These guides all have prefaces that explain how they're rating system works and it's almost always an amalgam of the reviewers who participate. Maltin doesn't write every review as I remember. "The Man Who Wasn't There" did get the usual mixed reviews of every Coen Bros. film save "Fargo." You can read some of them if you'd like on MRQE and Metacritic. I think "Man Who Wasn't There" did have some tricky plot contrivances and, as I said before, it was an editing problem. Sometimes directors have problems cutting some footage out of a film because "it looks so great and I'm so great that I can't bear to cut it." The Coen Bros. aren't immune and I don't know if they were using the same editor as in "Fargo" which was suberbly edited. Of course, editors are controlled by directors so the director always becomes a co-editor. Hard to judge what went wrong here. I would still give "Man" three stars as it has it's flaws but they are not by any means obtrusive. I wouldn't doubt that Halliwell's Guide would thrash the Godzilla movies. If you read through they guide, you'll undoubtedly find films they thrash that you like. No guide is a Bible -- it's a subjective system of trying to rate each and every film and only useful as a tool to give a clue whether one wants to watch the film. It takes a lot of work out of looking up a multitude of reviews. Going through the guides to see if you agree with each and every ratings is fun but doesn't really prove anything. Incidentally, how does Halliwell's rate "The Man Who Wasn't There?"
I´ve no idea LW.I don´t have the latest Halliwell guide.
Strange,after reading many very bad critiques of the remake of "Lolita" Mr.Maltin gives it 3½ stars.
He gives the original only 3.
Now I´ve not seen the remake and have no desire to do so but what is it that makes the remake better than the original I wonder?
Maltin's reviewers are not identified and uncredited which produces such anomalies. The Kubrick "Lolita" is entertaining because he made it more satirical and comedic than Nabakov's novel. Kubrick rewrote Nabakov's original script (to the author's dismay) to make it more cinematic. What would one expect with the remake from a director like Adrian Lynn, who gave us "Indecent Proposal," "9-1/2 Weeks" and other screen fodder? It was a decent script which was more literal to the novel but Lynn's lackluster directoral style doesn't excite. Maybe a 2-1/2 star film.
Kenneth Turan's review is on target -- it's available as well as other reviews of the film on
www.imdb.com (external reviews are on the lefthand tree).
LW,the associate editors of the newest guide are indeed mentioned.
One of them obviously has a penchant for Elvis Presley films as some of the late 60´s stuff gets 2½ stars,much to my astonishment.
Honestly,this damn film guide,I can hardly put it down!!
As I remember, there's also something in their about assigning reviews to critics who are receptive to that particular genre. In that way, Maltin figures he is helping those who want to know what to rent within a genre even if it doesn't hold up when comparing the film to "Citizen Kane." A Presley film, true, should end up with no more thant 1-1/2 stars at best if place on that kind of curve.
I´d give "Viva Las Vegas" one star and all of the others zero.
They looked cool though in that sunny bright 60´s way.
How did they do that?Was it the film stock?
Compare for example,"Point Blank" with "Point Break".It´s as if the sun doesn´t shine anymore these days in the movies.
I use Maltin simply because its the only guide that mentions the more obscure films that show up on the only decent free movie channels in my area, Turner Classic Movies, Plex, Flix. I love the Time Out movie guide for longer (but still short) "reviews." It has a good number of films, and the initials of each reviewer are under every film in the guide. It doesn't rate by stars though. It seems to rate Aliens slightly higher than Alien, and has separate reviews for the Blade Runner original and Director's Cut - not a real warm review for the original ("narration and ending seem to be out of a completely different movie"), but the director's cut rated very high.
Thanks lightwizard for the metacritic site, it got swallowed up in my collection of links.
Alien won visual effects oscar as did Aliens (along with sound effects), Weaver nominated only for Aliens, which she lost to Marlee Matlin.
