Leonard Maltin Thread

[In_Stereo]

MST3K is well-acquainted with this guy; from his two-and-a-half star rating for Laserblast to the three-star (!!!!!) Undead and Gorgo. I've long said he belongs in a straitjacket, and I've noticed too many botched ratings to allow him to continue.

Crimes of Leonard Maltin (according to 2006 Movie Guide):

2 stars: "...overly familiar, artificial situations and a bizarre, scenery chewing performance from [Gary] Oldman..." What movie is this? Click to see.

2 stars: "...this gory, cold-blooded story of sick man's lurid descent into violence is ugly and unredeeming." What movie?

2 stars: "Intriguing but ineffectual... film goes on forever." What movie?

2.5 stars: "...cruel edge [] taints film's enjoyment." What movie?

1.5 stars [!]: "Pretentious pap plays with storytelling conventions and juggles "real time," but adds up to zero..." What crappy movie could this be?

2 stars: For some reason, the only bad thing he says about it is: "...characters' descent into hell is difficult to watch (to say the least)." What movie?

2.5 stars: "... wildly uneven, starting out well and then getting lost-- in the 'story' of a medieval quest... a lot of dry stretches; awfully bloody too. Recommended for fans only." What movie?

The Undead, my friends, is better than all of these movies. Laserblast is either better or just as good.

Anyone still trust Leo's taste in movies?

[Chuck]

Never did trust him.

But at least he's not as bad or pretentious as Michael Medved.

[Detective Mitchell]

Let's not forget his **1/2 review for MITCHELL.

One of his many crimes, to me, is giving TOYS a *1/2. It was a great movie and it's vastly underrated.

[Afgncaap5]

The guy needs more stars in his system. Three just isn't enough to finely tune his responses. You need five stars, minimum.

[In_Stereo]

afgncaap5 said:

The guy needs more stars in his system. Three just isn't enough to finely tune his responses. You need five stars, minimum.

No, he has more than three; it goes up to four (which is why these are so particularly outrageous).

[ijon]

I'm a little dubious about the whole institution of movie reviewing, given how personal the reaction can be. I finally just quit reading my local paper's reviewer in The States.

I like the system scifilm.org uses of rating each movie in terms of "what works," "what doesn't" and overall impression. You don't get a ramchip though . . .

[Broadsword]

I use to like his books actually, I don't agree with much of his reviews but is a good reference book(I used like a bible before the internet). Now I tend to use internet site's like rotten tomatoes that uses hundreds of critics around the country.

[Jack Burton]

Yeah I know the feeling, but don't blame Maltin alone. If you read the fine print, he uses various other reviewers in his books (such as Mike Clark from USA Today). I'm not sure if an individual gives out the ratings or goes by commitee (some reviews mention "us" instead of "I"). It's funny, I don't agree with the reviews a lot of the time, but I DO agree with the Laserblast review oddly enough. I think the funky stop motion aliens are a hoot, and a green faced Kim Milford running around the desert with a space gun strapped to his arm doesn't exactly make for fine cinema, but any movie in which Eddie Deezen gets blown up can't be all that bad...

[Don Quixote]

detectivemitchell said:

One of his many crimes, to me, is giving TOYS a *1/2. It was a great movie and it's vastly underrated.

I'd agree with that. TOYS is a very good and VERY underrated movie. The visual style of the film is just really neat.