Leonard Maltin 4 stars for recent movies (1 Viewer)

[CraigK]

Rex Reed's Top 10 of 2001

1. In The Bedroom (Todd Field)
2. The Deep End (Scott McGehee and David Siegel)
3. L.I.E. (Michael Cuesta)
4. The Shipping News (Lasse Hallström)
5. Iris (Richard Eyre)
6. Gosford Park (Robert Altman)
7. A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Steven Spielberg)
8. A Beautiful Mind (Ron Howard)
9. The Pledge (Sean Penn)
10.No Man's Land (Danis Tanovic)

To quote TRIUMPH : "This list is good...FOR ME TO POOP ON!"

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Regarding Ebert's rating of "Godfather Part II": there are some brave souls who have professed dislike for the film. Danny Peary (one of my favourite critics, even though I often disagree with him) found the film self-consciously arty and pretentious. He said the major scenes seemed "unreal and calculated for audience response." He also said that several scenes were phony imitations of real life events seen on TV (the senate hearings on organized crime, the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald). I can see where he's coming from even if I think the film is great, so we shouldn't base a critic's value on how much s/he conforms to popular opinion.

As for Pauline Kael's trashing of "Star Wars", that view was not uncommon; the reviews were generally good, but not overwhelmingly so. There were those who said Lucas was bringing about the death of serious intelligent cinema. In a sense, I agree that a lot of its influence has been bad, even if I loved the film itself. Anyway, Kael was not an elitist snob. Rather she was a champion of non-mainstream cinema. She once said a movie-goer needed a liking for great trash since movies were great art so rarely.

 

[RyanPC]

I dislike Maltin's review guide with a passion. In fact, after reading him "diss" so many of my favorite movies, I actually tore the book in half and threw it in the trash!

Now, I love Ebert. He may be too generous at times, but at least he is not "stuffy" like Maltin or Reed. He doesn't try to be too critical, but then again I find myself disagreeing with him quite often-- that is unavoidable with any critic.

Now, I rate my movies on a one-to-five star basis, rather than the more traditional four star rating system. I find it gives more freedom and room to criticize without being too harsh if you liked the movie overall.

 

[SteveGon]

Ebert is also bad at times (***1/2 for THE RUNDOWN, *** for GODFATHER 2!!??

I don't think Ebert is necessarily saying The Rundown is a better movie than The Godfather Part II - that would be comparing apples and oranges. I believe Ebert rates movies on how well they succeed on their own terms. Perhaps TR is a better action movie than GFII is a gangster drama. FWIW, I happen to agree with Ebert's criticisms of GFII.

 

[CraigK]

Okay, consider this analogy:

You get a B on a term paper.

Your friend gets an A on the same paper.

Obviously, the A paper is the better graded paper. If it was a lesser paper, it would have got a lower grade.

So, ***1/2 stars is better than ***, thus, based on the evaluation, THE RUNDOWN is better than GODFATHER, according to Ebert.

Its simple. If he was evaluating on the film's own terms, then rating systems like stars are completely useless!!!

I prefer to use the more simple "thumb up or down".

This way, you don't back yourself into a hole critically.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Actually, I think "thumbs up-thumbs down" is very damaging to film criticism because it's so black and white. Proper criticism needs to take all factors into account. Sometimes films aren't simply good or bad. Ideally, we wouldn't even rely on star ratings, but the papers always want something that's instantly marketable to the audience

 

[RyanPC]

Actually, I think "thumbs up-thumbs down" is very damaging to film criticism because it's so black and white. Proper criticism needs to take all factors into account. Sometimes films aren't simply good or bad. Ideally, we wouldn't even rely on star ratings, but the papers always want something that's instantly marketable to the audience.

I agree with this wholeheartedly and think the star system is a must for any review. The only reason why it works for Ebert and Roeper (and Siskel, for that matter) is because they basically invented it, therefore it is their trademark. It's a bit too simple for my tastes, but it is great for debates.

 

[DaveGR]

I think most critics shouldnt be critics in any way shape or form. They cant rate the great films right,and they cant comprehend anymore what is good and what is not. Its quite sad to see Roger doing such horrible things. Giving The Rundown anything more than 2 and a half stars is insane,These tripe ridden things get good ratings yet modern classics get bashed,,I think of all the critics about 3 are worth a dime. I think Richard Roeper has actually been closer than Roger Ebert,,now dont get me wrong,I still see a review from many critics I cant stand that I totally agree with. and Ebert isnt even the worst critic out there. And Maltin,,Whats he thinking giving Taxi Driver two stars,,thats utterly insane,and shows to me not to trust his reviews if he cant give respect to a classic. Idiocy runs quick in the veins of Critics.

 

[CraigK]

And THE SLOGAN "TWO THUMBS UP" is not a marketable slogan.

If you have a rating system...FINE! But be able to support yourself when you give one film a HIGHER QUANTITATIVE mark than another film. Thus, if you give THE RUNDOWN more stars than THE GODFATHER 2, back your reasons up for why you think its a better film.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

^^^I advocate moving away from rating systems. I think critics should write in-depth pieces on the films they review, rather than rely on the star rating crutch. Of course, publishers will never go for that since it requires *gasp* READING the entire article instead of a nice rating to tell all that we want to know up front.

 

[Bill J]

Anyone have a link to Ebert's Godfather Part II review? His website appears to only have reviews for the first and third films.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Ebert's web site only goes back to 1985. Other movies are only listed if they're on his great movies list.

 

[Walter Kittel]

For the curious a few excerpts from Ebert's Godfather II review from his 1998 video companion...

"The flashbacks give Coppola the greatest difficulty in maintaining his pace and narrative force. The story of Michael, told chronologically and without the other material, would have had really substantial impact, but Coppola prevents our complete involvement by breaking the tension. The flashbacks to New York in the early 1900s have a different, nostalgic tone, and the audience has to keep shifting gears.

"What we're left with, then, are a lot of good scenes and good performances set in the midst of a mass of undisciplined material and handicapped by plot construction that prevents the story from ever really building."

"But Coppola is unable to draw all this together and make it work on the level of simple, absorbing narrative. The stunning text of The Godfather is replaced in Part II with prologues, epilogues, footnotes, and good intentions."

- Walter.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Well, for some reason the edit post feature is missing. I see a typo, and I wanted to be fair and add that Mr. Ebert does offer some praise for Coppola and the film in his review.

"Coppola handles a lot of this material very well. As in the earlier film, he reveals himself as a master of mood, atmosphere, and period. And his exposition is inventive and subtle. The film requires the intelligent participation of the viewer..."

- Walter.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Vincent, you'd be surprised at how many bad reviews of "Blade Runner" are out there. It's a cult classic nowadays, but it's hardly universally loved.

Are they reviewing the original version or director's cut? I absolutely hated the original, and think that the director's cut is one of the greatest movies ever made, so that makes all the difference.

Anyway, I think that star ratings are an absolute waste of time. My current favorite reference book is the Time Out Movie Guide (it's up to 12th edition??) which does not use stars or any other rating.

Ted

 

[TheLongshot]

I think critics should write in-depth pieces on the films they review, rather than rely on the star rating crutch.

The problem with some critics, tho, is that you are left at the end saying, "So, did you like the film or not?" Sometimes, it can be clear, but a lot of times it isn't.

Sometimes, it is good to start off knowing where a critic stands on a movie before reading a review so that you know if it will be useful to you. For example, for films that are getting great buzz, I like to read the negative reviews to try to get the whole view on things.

Jason

 

[Christ Reynolds]

i dont value rex reed's opinion on movies at all. generally, if he doesnt like a movie, chancea are i will. the same goes for another 'critic' whose name eludes me, and whose opinions i absolutely detest.

CJ

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I glanced at Pauline Kael's book one time. And considering what she did to David Lean, I can't stand her.

Other critics on the other hand, I can tolerate, although their condescending tone towards entertainment movies is sickening.

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

I'll never understand why people go so berserk when a popular critic (a) disgrees with them, or (b) disagrees with popular opinion.

I have more respect for a critic who says "Lawrence of Arabia is a terrible movie, and here's why...", providing reasons for their dislike, than for one who simply echoes whatever "everybody else thinks" because to not do so would label them as a "moron" or "having lost it."

According to many in this forum, Ebert has "lost it" about 375 times since daring to -- *gasp* -- give a :star::star: review to Gladiator.

As far as Blade Runner: the movie garnered it's share of lousy reviews upon its initial release, and even time and the (IMHO even worse) 'Director's Cut' hasn't changed many opinions. I like the film, but I can understand the negative reviews about it.

If Pauline Kael's caustic comments hurt David Lean so much that he didn't make a movie for 14 years, then Lean should have grown a bigger pair. And I love the man's films to death.

 

[Zen Butler]

I love Maltin's guide. Yes, I am aware of his :star: 1/2 rating of Blade Runner. Now that review has been in place for some time. I would like to hear his thoughts on the Director's Cut.

On topic: Maltin gave Songcatcher (2000) :star: :star: :star: :star: