Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide

[frodawgg]

So, I was in a bookstore yesterday, and I came across film critic Leonard Martin's movie guide for 2009. Well, I opened it to see what review he gave TDK and how many stars he gave it, and it wasn't even in there!

Anyway, so I look up the other Batman movies, and I was surprised (and angered) by what I read. Here's how they pan out:

Batman '66: 2 stars--seems about right
B89: 2.5 stars--what the hell?!
BR: either 2 or 2.5--once again, seems about right
BF: 3--um, i don't think so...
B&R: 2.5--what?!
B:MOTP: 2 or 2.5--should be a 3
BB: 3--not a bad rating, but i would probably give it a 3.5

B89 and B&R rated the same?! are you ****in kiddin me? i would give B89 a 3 (at least), and there is no way in hell B&R should even be close to 2.5. i would say .5 at most. and BF would get 2 at most from me, too.

what the hell is this guy smokin'?

 

[SalaciousVC]

Eh,who really gives a ****

 

[frodawgg]

I don't really, but i'm just wondering where he's coming from...

 

[[A]]

Who's Leonard Martin anyway..?

 

[Franklin Richards]

He's Leonard Maltin's janitor.

 

[[A]]

He's Leonard Maltin's janitor.

I see. And he's probably related to Leonard Mantin as well.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Maltin's good when it comes to giving objective information on something, but his personal opinion holds 0 credibility for me.

Roeper is one of the only professional critics that has approx. my taste in movies.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Critics are like the gum on the bottem of your shoe. You try to ignore them, and you want to get it off, but it's still there annoying the hell out of you.

 

[TMC1982]

So, I was in a bookstore yesterday, and I came across film critic Leonard Martin's movie guide for 2009. Well, I opened it to see what review he gave TDK and how many stars he gave it, and it wasn't even in there!

Anyway, so I look up the other Batman movies, and I was surprised (and angered) by what I read. Here's how they pan out:

Batman '66: 2 stars--seems about right
B89: 2.5 stars--what the hell?!
BR: either 2 or 2.5--once again, seems about right
BF: 3--um, i don't think so...
B&R: 2.5--what?!
B:MOTP: 2 or 2.5--should be a 3
BB: 3--not a bad rating, but i would probably give it a 3.5

B89 and B&R rated the same?! are you ****in kiddin me? i would give B89 a 3 (at least), and there is no way in hell B&R should even be close to 2.5. i would say .5 at most. and BF would get 2 at most from me, too.

what the hell is this guy smokin'?

Leonard Maltin said of "Batman '89" that it's key problem (or something awfully askew according to Maltin) is that the hero (Batman) is far less potent than the villain (Joker).

Maltin called "Batman Returns" a "nasty, nihilistic, nightmare movie" with a "dark, mean-spirited, and often incohorent screenplay". However, he did praise "Batman Returns" for its rich performances, dazzling production values, and occasional cleverness.

"Batman Forever" according to Maltin, is the best of the Burton-Schmuacher era. The movie in his eyes, was really well written even though the "razzle-dazzle" special effects and action sequences became overkill. Maltin also praised Val Kilmer for "making the role of Batman his own" when compared to Michael Keaton.

For "Batman & Robin", Maltin felt that the movie was overlong, too episodic, and the story often didn't make a whole lot of sense. He added that the action sequences were "loud, gargantuan, and ultimately numbing". He also said that George Clooney as Batman was okay but overall, pretty unremarkable (the same goes for Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl).

As for "Batman Begins", only Katie Holmes' performance (which he considers to be awfully "lightweight") was Maltin's main gripe.

 

[Bat Attack]

Leonard Maltin's opinion means **** to me anyway, he can go to hell.

 

[El Payaso]

Anybody amazed at critics making this kind of things to catch attention and be "polemic"? Easiest thing in the world.

 

[signalman]

Here is Leonard Maltin's review of TDK. NO FUN!!!

http://www.leonardmaltin.com/July08Journal.htm

 

[El Payaso]

There you have.

I don't judge him for not liking dark movies, for being too sensitive or anything... everybody can like whatever they want

but for God's sake that man can't be a critic.

You cannot dismiss a movie just because you're too sensitive to enjoy a wonderful performance (like Ledger's Joker) or a perfectly done movie (like TDK).

 

[frodawgg]

well, his opinion's his opinion. But his opininion is WRONG!

 

[TMC1982]

Leonard Maltin's opinion means **** to me anyway, he can go to hell.

Leonard Maltin to me, lost a lot of credibilty as a comic book movie critic when he recomended "Superman Returns" but gave an unfavorable review of "Iron Man".

 

[Sasso]

Who's Leonard Martin anyway..?

A mediocre, but fairly well known film critic.

 

[agentzelda]

Maltin has been around since time immemorial, simply because he's been reviewing movies on TV since he was 17. He's not the sort of critic who seems to have overly sophisticated credentials or expertise; he's just seen a *lot* of movies, and from throughout the history of cinema. And his tastes are quite obvious: he prefers comedy, and clearly sees film chiefly as entertainment rather than art, so that his expectations of "enjoyment" are pretty limited (he has also always preferred movies of the 1930s and 1940s to contemporary fare, and must have started out as the kind of kid who hung out in repertory cinemas showing golden oldies, this being what people did before video and the internet). However, instead of making clear that his preferences cloud his judgement and suggesting that those with other tastes might find a movie well made and be able to appreciate its qualities better than he can, he is the sort of critic who assumes his taste is some sort of generally acceptable standard of taste. I'm always intrigued by how ready people are to dismiss critics who disagree with them but embrace critics who can't write their way out of a wet paper bag as long as they agree with a viewer, but whether they like or dislike something critics ought to be able to write fairly about it, to write well and with style, and to give some consideration to audiences outside their own taste. There's never going to be a "one size fits all" movie. The problem with critics like Maltin and a lot of TV-based critics or producers of yearly guides is that they feel something can be treated fairly in two sentences. As for the exclusion of TDK from his 2009 guide, that would simply be because it went to press in the summer.

 

[CFE]

So, I was in a bookstore yesterday, and I came across film critic Leonard Martin's movie guide for 2009. Well, I opened it to see what review he gave TDK and how many stars he gave it, and it wasn't even in there!

Anyway, so I look up the other Batman movies, and I was surprised (and angered) by what I read. Here's how they pan out:

Batman '66: 2 stars--seems about right
B89: 2.5 stars--what the hell?!
BR: either 2 or 2.5--once again, seems about right
BF: 3--um, i don't think so...
B&R: 2.5--what?!
B:MOTP: 2 or 2.5--should be a 3
BB: 3--not a bad rating, but i would probably give it a 3.5

B89 and B&R rated the same?! are you ****in kiddin me? i would give B89 a 3 (at least), and there is no way in hell B&R should even be close to 2.5. i would say .5 at most. and BF would get 2 at most from me, too.

what the hell is this guy smokin'?

Batman '66: 3
B89: 4
BR: 3.5
BF: 3
B&R: 2.5
B:MOTP: 3.5
BB: 3
TDK: 4

On a scale of 1-5, that's what each theatrical Batman film should get.

And I can't stand people saying "B&R" should get a 0...or .5 "at most."

I'm sorry for not jumping on the bandwagon, but the film isn't THAT horrible. It's certainly not un-watchable.

Is it the least favorable of the series? well naturally yeah...but it's not the worst film ever made. It's not even the worst comic book film ever made. I can watch "B&R" again and again...it's really a fun movie.

Leonard Maltin to me, lost a lot of credibilty as a comic book movie critic when he recomended "Superman Returns" but gave an unfavorable review of "Iron Man".

So the man prefers pathos to bombastic action...there's nothing wrong with that. "Superman Returns" is a very good film.

 

[GlasgowBat]

batman forever as good as Begins?


if you like.......

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

haha who cares, the guy really is a joke!

 

[[A]]

A mediocre, but fairly well known film critic.

It was a silly joke on the typo

 

[CFE]

batman forever as good as Begins?


if you like.......

Compared to "TDK," "Phantasm" and the Burton films? yes.

"Forever" and "Begins" are the two "meh" films in the series, to me anyway.

I'm passionately for the Burton films, "Phantasm" and "TDK" and I'm passionately tolerant of "Batman & Robin."

Those two, more than any of the others, just sort of...sit there...I'm the most indifferent about those two.

 

[El Payaso]

batman forever as good as Begins?


if you like.......

No way. As much as I was dissatisfied with Begins, it is a much better concept than Forever. With Forever everything went camp as the ultimate (and only) solution. With Begins even if some important things didn't quite get off the ground, it was a serious effort with some true respect for the characters (except Scarecrow if you ask me, but still).

 

[redfirebird2008]

There you have.

I don't judge him for not liking dark movies, for being too sensitive or anything... everybody can like whatever they want

but for God's sake that man can't be a critic.

You cannot dismiss a movie just because you're too sensitive to enjoy a wonderful performance (like Ledger's Joker) or a perfectly done movie (like TDK).

Maybe I just have a really dark sense of humor, but I was cracking up at Ledger's Joker throughout the movie. Every little tick/twitch/vocal inflection, etc. was amusing to me. It was a great performance and highly entertaining. I thought he struck the right chord between dark humor and being one hell of a scary mofo.

 

[El Payaso]

Maybe I just have a really dark sense of humor, but I was cracking up at Ledger's Joker throughout the movie. Every little tick/twitch/vocal inflection, etc. was amusing to me. It was a great performance and highly entertaining. I thought he struck the right chord between dark humor and being one hell of a scary mofo.

Ledger's Joker made the abominable likeable. True, the Joker is a character that makes that all the time, but Heat really achieved to portray him perfectly and the weay he makes you laugh with atrocities is just formidable.