Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2017 2:19:06 GMT
Do you think Leonard Maltin is a good movie reviewer ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny-Come-Lately on Dec 3, 2017 2:21:57 GMT
Does he still give turkeys in his movie reviews?
I'm not sure if it was him. I have an old movie guide from 1997, that I thought was his book.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 3, 2017 2:28:04 GMT
Does he still give turkeys in his movie reviews? I'm not sure if it was him. I have an old movie guide from 1997, that I thought was his book. Can't say but I remember Michael Medved having something to do with turkeys. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 3, 2017 2:28:32 GMT
He's okay, although I didn't agree with all of his reviews. I bought his book back in the 1980's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 3, 2017 2:46:51 GMT
He's ok. He's more of a film historian than others like Siskel and Ebert which gives him some extra credibility. I think he specialized in animation.
I had his book but can't remember any reviews offhand that I wildly disagreed with but I am sure there were some.
|
|
Reynard
Sophomore
@reynard
Posts: 762
Likes: 416
 
|
Post by Reynard on Dec 3, 2017 2:49:33 GMT
Haven't read that much from Maltin myself, but I remember how a friend of mine complained that in his older guides Maltin came across as more of an art house kind of guy, always putting down most mainstream stuff and trashier cult movies. Later he seems to have reinvented his shtick and started giving more stars to big budget entertainment and even some trash movies. Now, why should I care about a critic who isn't even honest about his opinions?
Johnny-Come-Lately & politicidal: Medveds were indeed the turkey guys. Maltin gave bombs. I gave up with Maltin's guides after a while since pretty much every small budget cult movie I liked had a bomb next to it. Fucking bomberman, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Dec 3, 2017 3:27:01 GMT
He's a decent reviewer. His 2015 guide was the final print edition. I've still got it.
I bought his guide every other year for tv side readings. It's not that I had to agree with all his reviews to enjoy his work (1.5/4 for Blade Runner & 2/4 The Dark Knight for example), it's much like Ebert that I grew to know & appreciate his baseline.
His only perfect 4/4 review to boggle the mind was Curious Case of Benjamin Button... that film has been lost to the abyss, no one ever talks of it. I thought it was mediocre at best.
Without his guide book, I'd probably think him just another reviewer in the wilderness.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Dec 3, 2017 3:37:32 GMT
Naturally I don't always agree with his opinions, but generally I think he is a fine critic. I've always respected him and thought he did a great job on his annual movie guide book which, sadly, is no more.
However, one thing that annoyed me about his movie guide reviews was his tendency to say a movie is "overlong". I mean it's okay to say that a movie is overlong once in a while because certain movies truly are too long. But it got to the point where Maltin was using that term way, way too often when it wasn't really warranted.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Dec 3, 2017 4:53:25 GMT
I had one of his books as a kid. I don't remember much actual reviewing, but the ratings were more or less agreeable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cooper, the Golden Retriever on Dec 3, 2017 5:07:50 GMT
i think so. I have his early day 1973 partly animation-centric book, the milestone "The Disney Films" (1995 edition), and the 1980 ALL-animation based "Of Mice and Magic" (1987 edition, so it doesn't cover "Who Framed Roger Rabbit","Simpsons","Ren/Stimpy",etc.,etc.). Still both very good, though he tended to shift his opinion on 1941's "Reluctant Dragon" classic animated title cartoon (at the end of the film) in the 1973 edition as "something of a letdown" but did think much better in much later editions, stating his fondness for the "fey" dragon's story (the similiar Ferdinand already being a 1938 Oscar winner and upcoming Fox feature..)
The "Of Mice and Magic" book has one of the bad points I think is wrong, when it comes to the Warner Bros. section---under-estimating poor Robert McKimson, one of the longest running animator/directors (though his first doesn't sappear till 1946, "Daffy Doodles").
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Dec 3, 2017 19:07:05 GMT
I don't read too much of his reviews, but he is an excellent animation historian. I always found his books insightful and entertaining to read, and enjoyed his commentary and interviews on the Walt Disney Treasures DVD series.
|
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Dec 4, 2017 1:13:41 GMT
The first movie book I ever bought (and still have, by the way) in 1974 when I was 11, was Maltin's Movie Comedy Teams. Only much later did I discover that Maltin wrote the book when he was about 20. I also love his book on the Our Gang series. I enjoyed all his movie guides, as whether you agree with his opinions or not, he seems like a reviewer who genuinely enjoys movies
(which is more than I can say for some reviewers, most notably Medved). I've discovered a lot of good, underappreciated movies thanks to Maltin's guides.
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeboy on Dec 4, 2017 1:17:57 GMT
For a few years in the early to mid 90s I bought his book every year. It was an invaluable pre-Internet reference, although the reviews weren't actually very good and the pages used to fall out.
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Dec 4, 2017 2:25:32 GMT
I think nothing about about LM
|
|
|
|
Post by koskiewicz on Dec 4, 2017 2:38:23 GMT
...as a reference, he was OK...beyond that, you are on your own...
|
|
