Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

News: Director blasts Leonard Maltin for inaccurate review


TopBilled
 Share

Recommended Posts

A user comment on the IMDB for 1970's MOONFIRE is written by the film's director.  He seems particularly upset with Leonard Maltin (which is not surprising since most know Maltin does not write the most accurate or fair-minded reviews).  Here is what Mike Parkhurst had to say:

 

In spite of a good cast, I would rate this film as "fair," but not bad, especially considering the low budget...Leonard Maltin calls this film a "bomb" and describes the plot as a blackmail plot but there was no blackmail plot at all, so we know Maltin never saw it and probably relied on the inaccurate summary of some high school dropout to provide the description.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A user comment on the IMDB for 1970's MOONFIRE is written by the film's director.  He seems particularly upset with Leonard Maltin (which is not surprising since most know Maltin does not write the most accurate or fair-minded reviews).  Here is what Mike Parkhurst had to say:

 

In spite of a good cast, I would rate this film as "fair," but not bad, especially considering the low budget...Leonard Maltin calls this film a "bomb" and describes the plot as a blackmail plot but there was no blackmail plot at all, so we know Maltin never saw it and probably relied on the inaccurate summary of some high school dropout to provide the description.

Leonard Maltin's review of SUSAN AND GOD laments the fact that Crawford is no Gertrude Lawrence, who appeared in the play on Broadway (twice).  Of course, this is highly amusing, since Miss Lawrence last played Susan Trexel on stage in 1943-- seven years before Maltin was born!

 

 

Did Leonard Maltin plss in your cornflakes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's focus on the director.  Is he right to think that Maltin does not watch all the movies he reviews? If so, doesn't that tear away at Maltin's overall credibility?

 

In my opinion, he should only be reviewing films he watches in their entirety. It's not fair to the artists and business people who put valuable resources into their productions.  When a critic publishes an uninformed review, it undermines all of it what went into the picture: the money, time and effort-- and care-- that have been poured into these productions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't seem right in providing a critique for a film one never saw.  I've never seen the film in question, so what business would I have in giving an opinion on it?  IF that's the case, the director has every right to complain.

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't seem right in providing a critique for a film one never saw.  I've never seen the film in question, so what business would I have in giving an opinion on it?  IF that's the case, the director has every right to complain.

 

Sepiatone

Exactly. And even seeing part of the film shouldn't count either.  There are many films that lack excitement in the first half, but slowly pick up-- or at least contain a few noteworthy scenes.  It is the job of a professional critic to watch every single minute of the available footage before rendering any kind of judgment.

 

I wish more directors spoke out against the critics.  But I think some of them are afraid to-- they would rather play nice and hope the critic does as little damage as possible.  In the case of this film, MOONFIRE, enough years had gone by and the director reflected on the experience of making the film and knew in his gut that Maltin is wrong and should be called out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ebert, in his review of MIDNIGHT COWBOY (which he reviewed TWICE--- in 1969 and later in the 1990s), inaccurately stated several details about plot and character in the movie----which leads one to believe that he was not paying close attention or had not seen the entire movie.

 

I think this carelessness happens often with these "pop" critics.

 

The MIDNIGHT COWBOY review (which was posted on this message board) is (I think)  the only Ebert review I have read, but it happens that I am very familiar with MIDNIGHT COWBOY and saw the many inaccurate comments that were made about it in his review. I watched the movie again just last week and confirmed the mistakes in Ebert's review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ebert, in his review of MIDNIGHT COWBOY (which he reviewed TWICE--- in 1969 and later in the 1990s), inaccurately stated several details about plot and character in the movie----which leads one to believe that he was not paying close attention or had not seen the entire movie.

 

I think this carelessness happens often with these "pop" critics.

 

The MIDNIGHT COWBOY review (which was posted on this message board) is (I think)  the only Ebert review I have read, but it happens that I am very familiar with MIDNIGHT COWBOY and saw the many inaccurate comments that were made about it in his review. I watched the movie again just last week and confirmed the mistakes in Ebert's review.

Yes.  I think the phrase 'pop critics' is a good one.  Some of them have a sketchy background in journalism, and ironically do get hired to teach at colleges, but they are not on the level of a thoroughly educated film scholar, like a Molly Haskell, Pauline Kael or Francois Truffaut.  Maltin is definitely one of the 'pop critics.' Ebert was too, but at least he wrote a screenplay that was made into a movie, so I think his writing was a little more infused with an understanding about what it takes to transfer artistic vision on to the screen. Maltin and these others do not have that understanding or empathy-- and quite frankly, it's too easy to criticize (the whole world's a critic).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that Leonard Maltin may have actually been right about the blackmail element in Moonfire:

 

http://every70smovie.blogspot.com/2013/07/moonfire-1970.html

 

Either way, the movie sounds like it is a jumble of ideas that never really gels.

I am curious to see the movie now.  I happened upon this particular title because I was looking up Richard Egan, and I wanted to see what kinds of films he made in the 70s.  MOONFIRE was one of them. The director of MOONFIRE, Mike Parkhurst, seems highly regarded when it comes to the subject matter of the film (about trucking) and is known to appear around the country at trucking conventions.  

 

So maybe the director has a convenient lapse of memory, but I would think he of all people should know what his film was about-- unless there are different edited versions with extra footage added about a blackmail plot. I'm sure Parkhurst was hurting after reading that Maltin had called his film a 'bomb.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's focus on the director.  Is he right to think that Maltin does not watch all the movies he reviews? If so, doesn't that tear away at Maltin's overall credibility?

 

In my opinion, he should only be reviewing films he watches in their entirety. It's not fair to the artists and business people who put valuable resources into their productions.  When a critic publishes an uninformed review, it undermines all of it what went into the picture: the money, time and effort-- and care-- that have been poured into these productions.

 

OK - what about the credibility of a guy who in introducing THE WOLF MAN, tells us that "Claude Rains plays a scientist who is up yo no good"... Should we trust his other intros, is he being fair to those who depend upon his word?

 

Or when he tells us that Marjorie Main had the rare distinction of slapping Bogart in the face every night in the play DEAD END? Yes - so rare because Bogart wasn't in the play.

 

How about when he mistakenly noted that William Keighley directed THE KENNEL MURDER CASE? Or that claim that William Cameron Menzies was better known as a cinematographer?

 

Given the care that went into these productions, they should be given more respect than to be discussed by someone who just tosses any words handed to him, written by some high school drop-out, over the air.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Kael and Haskell were no more film scholars than were Maltin and

Ebert. They were all self-taught film reviewers who went to college

and had a deep interest in film. Some became better known to the

general public than others, but their education was more or less the

same.

 

 

 

Ebert and Maltin were also writing for very different audience than Haskell and Sarris who wrote for the Village Voice back when the VV was hip to read and Kael was writing for the New Yorker- while Ebert was writing for the more populist Chicago Sun Times.

 

They tailored their reviews to their audiences with Haskell, Sarris and Kael writing more for the intellectual, serious film crowd while Ebert's reviews were tailored more for the everyman who enjoyed going to movies. Ebert was able to balance the "everyman" reviews with reviews for the more serious film crowd but it was a juggling act that the other three didn't have to worry as much about.

 

Maltin began writing reviews when he was young (still in high school) and had an interest in old Hollywood. He wrote reviews for TV Guide and Variety allowed him to reach both the populist audience and the more serious film audience. When entertainment reporting became a hot commodity in the late 1970s, he became the film critic for Entertainment Tonight where the audience was more interested in block busters than serious film experiences.

 

Through their tv show, Siskel (who wrote for the competing Chicago newspaper) and Ebert were able to balance their films for their audience, giving them reviews about blockbusters as well as documentaries, foreign films and small gems that the audience might not be aware of .

 

Entertainment Tonight didn't give Maltin that same freedom. But over the years,  Maltin has been instrumental in working behind the scenes with  Disney, Warners and other studios to help preserve and bring out their vault their animated cartoons and in the case of Disney, much of their early tv fare as well as written well regarded books about animation history.

 

But Siskel, Ebert and Maltin took their film writings just as serious as Haskell, Sarris and Kael. In some ways, of them all, Ebert became the one who was able to inhabit both worlds and write about films both big and small while enjoying an appreciative growing audience that encompassed a larger group of disparate film lovers than any of the others.

 

You (the wider you, not the personal one) may not like Ebert, Siskel or Maltin as much as the others, but that shouldn't mean that their contributions to film reviews and serious film writing is any less worthy just because of their reviews appeared in populist newspapers and magazines instead of the Village Voice or the New Yorker.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the point is that none of them are above making errors. I am going to come out of the film critics' closet here and register my dislike for Maltin's reviews. Also, I do have issues with his comments being attached to films in the TCM database. 

 

The biggest problem I have with his reviews, and I would feel this way about anyone who does what he does (so this is not personal) is that I have found a large percentage of his reviews to be unnecessarily negative.  

 

On these boards, we have two choices-- we can gripe about TCM's shortcomings (there are few) or we can point to the more positive aspects of TCM programming. The same goes for individual films and reviews, no matter who is writing them. In every film, even a 'bomb,' there is something positive that can be said. There are plenty of films I do not like overall, but I can still say something nice about a performance, a scene, or some technical aspect of the film.  

 

Personally (and I know others do not always share this sentiment, and Maltin especially does not seem to)-- but I think if we come on to a TCM message board, we are agreeing to promote classic movies and the channel itself, or at least offer helpful, non-vicious constructive criticism when something doesn't tickle our fancy.  

 

When we write a film review, in the same way, it is our duty to promote filmmaking or at least offer helpful feedback. Going out of one's way to write a flippant review, like Maltin does with Veronica Lake's ISN'T IT ROMANTIC?, which annoys me a great deal, is a major disservice to the industry and to the people involved in the creation and enjoyment of motion pictures in the broadest sense.

 

If you do not like a film, skip over it-- do not cover it in a review. Sometimes silence is more powerful than pushing negative energy on to others and preventing them from liking a film that may not actually be too bad. Maltin and some of the others seem to be thought-policing the enjoyment of films, and I definitely do not like it.

 

And I am also struggling with my feelings that Maltin's love of Disney fare seems like an older man trying to have an extended second childhood, but see how negative that sounds-- so I will follow my own advice and positively say that I am glad Maltin is promoting product that children everywhere of all ages may enjoy. See how easy it is to take a mean feeling and elevate it to something that can benefit others? I think Maltin needs to go back and rethink some of his reviews and I think he needs to eliminate the 'bomb' label entirely. Giving a film one star or half a star is sufficient in voicing dislike of a film. Or else, as I said, ignore the film and leave it for others to decide if it should go on a 'do not ever watch' list.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ebert and Maltin were also writing for very different audience than Haskell and Sarris who wrote for the Village Voice back when the VV was hip to read and Kael was writing for the New Yorker- while Ebert was writing for the more populist Chicago Sun Times.

 

They tailored their reviews to their audiences with Haskell, Sarris and Kael writing more for the intellectual, serious film crowd while Ebert's reviews were tailored more for the everyman who enjoyed going to movies. Ebert was able to balance the "everyman" reviews with reviews for the more serious film crowd but it was a juggling act that the other three didn't have to worry as much about.

 

Actually Pauline Kael did not tailor her reviews to the "genteel" New Yorker audience. When she started writing there, many at the magazine were critical of her intimate, passionate and colloquial writing style. In fact Kael once recounted receiving a letter from a New Yorker colleague "suggesting that I was trampling through the pages of the magazine with cowboy boots covered with dung." Kael had many biases and these biases informed her writing, but she was hardly an elitist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thankyou so much for that link!

 

What TCM publishes by Maltin are not reviews - not even "capsule" reviews - they're little more than quips. What this every70smovie site is giving are true capsule reviews - usually 2 or 3 paragraphs - and they're pretty darn good! The movie posters at the top of some reviews are a very nice touch.

 

The 70's is a very special era in cinema and I was not aware of this marvellous site until now.

 

Again, thank you, lz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often disagree strongly with Maltin's opinions and ratings. But, he publishes movie guides meant to cover many films. So, one can hardly expect him to watch them all himself. I doubt he uses HS dropouts to review them, but surely, there are many others doing the viewing.

 

I enjoyed Siskel and Ebert immensely, although I often disagreed with their opinions. Given that they only reviewed reviewed a few films every week, there would be no excuse for them not seeing a movie they reviewed. Possibly Ebert fell asleep while watching Midnight Cowboy, and missed a few bits. That also is not good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is the primary job of film critics to promote movies in general, though they do so

indirectly by writing about something they have an interest in. I believe their job to is give their

judgement on individual movies, whether it be a positive or negative one. It would be rather

bizarre for critics to only write about the movies they like and not write about the ones they

don't. That takes away the whole idea of film criticism. TCM has a different role than a film

critic. It shows movies, mostly from the studio era, without really weighing in on the merits or

demerits of the film. I know it tries to emphasize showing the best films, but let's face it, many

of the films made in all decades are fairly mediocre, so let the buyer beware. I can live with that.

 

I rather like some of Maltin's sarcasm. That may just be my personal taste. I think it is also

a product of the type of very short "reviews" that appear in his movie guides. They have to

make a point rather quickly and in a short space, so they likely lead more to "zingers" than

a multi page review would. But I have no doubt that Maltin loves movies. As with so many

things, it really comes down to one's subjective viewpoint.

By golly, I knew someone would come along and disagree (and that's okay LOL).  But I am gonna disagree right back. :)

 

I do think that a film critic needs to support the movie business, or else it's the proverbial case of biting the hand that feeds you. Every time a negative review circulates it costs Hollywood business. Granted, the industry needs to turn out consistently good entertainment (or at least average to above-average product)-- but in some cases, movies take such a bashing that they are unfairly handicapped at the box office just because a well-known critic has an axe to grind against a certain director or star.

 

If people stopped going to see movies because the critics were keeping them away, there would be less movies to review. So this is a reciprocal relationship. And if a reviewer truly loves movies, then they will find something worth watching in almost any film and encourage others to check it out and judge for themselves. That is the way to do it, without abusing one's position as an influential critic.

 

For this reason, I would never condone sarcasm in a review. Even in a movie that has unfortunately turned out not as well as it could have, the talent involved should not have their work dismissed with a flippant remark.  Why should months (sometimes years) of work on a movie project be casually dismissed because a critic has decided to get witty and throw the whole production under the bus? With reviewing films, there is a responsibility to the public and to the men and women who have labored on set to evaluate it fairly and sincerely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the point is that none of them are above making errors. I am going to come out of the film critics' closet here and register my dislike for Maltin's reviews. Also, I do have issues with his comments being attached to films in the TCM database. 

 

The biggest problem I have with his reviews, and I would feel this way about anyone who does what he does (so this is not personal) is that I have found a large percentage of his reviews to be unnecessarily negative.  

 

On these boards, we have two choices-- we can gripe about TCM's shortcomings (there are few) or we can point to the more positive aspects of TCM programming. The same goes for individual films and reviews, no matter who is writing them. In every film, even a 'bomb,' there is something positive that can be said. There are plenty of films I do not like overall, but I can still say something nice about a performance, a scene, or some technical aspect of the film.  

 

Personally (and I know others do not always share this sentiment, and Maltin especially does not seem to)-- but I think if we come on to a TCM message board, we are agreeing to promote classic movies and the channel itself, or at least offer helpful, non-vicious constructive criticism when something doesn't tickle our fancy.  

 

When we write a film review, in the same way, it is our duty to promote filmmaking or at least offer helpful feedback. Going out of one's way to write a flippant review, like Maltin does with Veronica Lake's ISN'T IT ROMANTIC?, which annoys me a great deal, is a major disservice to the industry and to the people involved in the creation and enjoyment of motion pictures in the broadest sense.

 

If you do not like a film, skip over it-- do not cover it in a review. Sometimes silence is more powerful than pushing negative energy on to others and preventing them from liking a film that may not actually be too bad. Maltin and some of the others seem to be thought-policing the enjoyment of films, and I definitely do not like it.

 

And I am also struggling with my feelings that Maltin's love of Disney fare seems like an older man trying to have an extended second childhood, but see how negative that sounds-- so I will follow my own advice and positively say that I am glad Maltin is promoting product that children everywhere of all ages may enjoy. See how easy it is to take a mean feeling and elevate it to something that can benefit others? I think Maltin needs to go back and rethink some of his reviews and I think he needs to eliminate the 'bomb' label entirely. Giving a film one star or half a star is sufficient in voicing dislike of a film. Or else, as I said, ignore the film and leave it for others to decide if it should go on a 'do not ever watch' list.

Well, the point is that none of them are above making errors.

 

Hmmm....and I thought that the point was that all of these - remember Gene Shalit? - critics are working stiffs who got cushy jobs for whatever reason - remember Hedda Hopper, well we know how she got where she got - and have no more credibility than each and every poster here who has the right to their opinion, but in the end it's an opinion and I will be the final arbiter on a movie, not the critic, and not a poster.

 

Can't anyone use their brain anymore to make their own decisions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the point is that none of them are above making errors.

 

Hmmm....and I thought that the point was that all of these - remember Gene Shalit? - critics are working stiffs who got cushy jobs for whatever reason - remember Hedda Hopper, well we know how she got where she got - and have no more credibility than each and every poster here who has the right to their opinion, but in the end it's an opinion and I will be the final arbiter on a movie, not the critic, and not a poster.

 

Can't anyone use their brain anymore to make their own decisions?

I think Hedda had a gift for using 'gossip' as publicity that made her very useful to the studio execs.  Read the pros and cons into that statement.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of movie-goers do not make their decisions until they read reviews from the Eberts, Maltins and Shalits.  And gosh, wasn't Shalit's skill as a reviewer about as dreadful as his trademark moustache-- but he was at least sweet and somewhat tolerable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And gosh, wasn't Shalit's skill as a reviewer about as dreadful as his trademark moustache-- but he was at least sweet and somewhat tolerable. 

 

Yep, "sweet and somewhat tolerable", and added with JUST the right amount of "good ol' home town folksiness" especially, WILL usually help make for a long career on American television.

 

(...just ask that quack "Doctor" Phil...HE'LL tell ya!!!) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, "sweet and somewhat tolerable", and added with JUST the right amount of "good ol' home town folksiness" especially, WILL usually help make for a long career on American television.

 

(...just ask that quack "Doctor" Phil...HE'LL tell ya!!!) ;)

 

"You're, terrible, Dargo." [paraphrasing the line from MURIEL'S WEDDING]

 

:) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread that at first seemed to be about bashing film critics and how they go about performing their jobs. I agree that in some instances Leonard Maltin’s very short capsule reviews are either way too short, way too negative and just way off base. But he does not review each of the films in his yearly editions. If you look carefully enough at the beginning of each edition there is a listing of the contributing reviewers, many of who are outstanding writers.

So I am guessing that he acts as sort of a editor in chief, who looks over the reviews by his contributing staff and possibly makes changes to those reviews. It is “his” book, I mean his name is on the cover, so I guess he can go in and edit the other reviews from his staff. As far as being a supporter of Hollywood or film making in general, I think that even with negative reviews, there is support already for the film community. Whether the review is positive or negative. Either type of review may present a viable option for some to go and see a particular film, but not many. Any type of exposure in the printed or online media for a new film is a good thing. If it is a bad review, IMHO, that is not going to stop the film from making a zillion dollars.

I think that every time a review is made about a certain film I think it can be said that the film being reviewed is being taken to task IF the review is bad, but to say that every film that is given a negative review is given it hurts Hollywood business. Do you really believe this? This is sort of the same belief about what happens when a Broadway show opens. Now it used to be that whenever a new show did open up on Broadway or off-Broadway and it received a bad review, that review DID have consequences. I think Broadway reviews are done in the same way with a bad review still having dire consequences for a particular play.

But the same can not be said of a film review. I really do not think that movie goers are waiting with baited breath the word of a local or nationally syndicated reviewer of their thoughts about a particular film and that their review is going to have additional sway over whether or not they go and see the film in question.

If this is/was the case then many sophomoric teen films, bad sci-fi films, and many human interest stories would have never been and continue to be produced. Many of my friends who continue to go see films at the theater don’t sit at home each week waiting to read the latest review to allow them to be able to make a decision about a film they want to see even IF the film received a bad review.

In your original post from yesterday at 8:20AM you posted something Mike Parkhurst wrote on IMDB:

“In spite of a good cast, I would rate this film as "fair," but not bad, especially considering the low budget...Leonard Maltin calls this film a "bomb" and describes the plot as a blackmail plot but there was no blackmail plot at all, so we know Maltin never saw it and probably relied on the inaccurate summary of some high school dropout to provide the description.”

Now this is Parkhurst’s opinion about Maltin. Parkhurst has had a very short career in films. He directed this one film, wrote and produced it, and he acted in one other film. He has various credits in five other car/trucker films so as far as I am concerned, if you are going to produce and or direct a film then the least you should do is possibly consider the possibility that someone out there in movie review land may not possibly like what you have done. Parkhurst has every right to be upset, but should he not have a thicker skin?

I think if you were to perform a little research you would find out that Maltin’s movie review book gets updated each year. They add approximately 300 or so films to each new edition. And then many other older films get taken out and placed in his other movie book: Classic Movie Guide which he started in 2005. This is because his main book was getting to busy and filled with older titles and because he did not want his readers to not be able to see the older film reviews started another book. At first it was limited to pre-1960 films. Now it starts with pre-1965 films. The same capsule reviews appear in this book.

You have written that you believe that Malton should watch every film that he reviews. But as is the case with many film review books, the person whose name appears on the book is often an editor or a contributor. That is the case with Malton. I don't know this and it is purely speculation on my part, but maybe you have a problem with the fact that the reviews are often less than stellar and or too short without much depth or too sarcastic for your tastes. Malton is the regular joe of movie reviews. He has a nice little compact book available to the masses and he presents his or the contributing staff's opinions about movies. This is not rocket science and it is really meant I think to be a fast and easily read reference manual of sorts.

As far as your criticism of Roger Ebert is concerned, I have to disagree with you. You have indicated that you think of him a a “pop critic” when in fact the opposite is true. Its amazing how Maltin’s one review of a film could have led you to believe that he is a “pop critic” or at least may not or should not be included with other film critics such as Molly Haskell, or Pauline Kael.

Ever read any of Ebert’s books where his reviews appear in full page synopsis? He was the real deal.

 

After graduating from the University of Illinois in Urbana in 1964, he was accepted as a PhD candidate at the University of Chicago. While attending that school he needed a job and hoping to be hired at the Chicago Daily News because he had sold freelance pieces to them, the editor there sent his name to the city editor at the Chicago Sun-Times. There he was hired and started working in 1966 as a general reporter and feature writer while at the same time trying to earn his PhD. After the film critic departed the Sun-Times in 1967, the Sun-Times editor gave the job to Ebert. However, the workload became too much for Ebert and he left school shortly thereafter.

After writing for several months as a film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, Ebert met film critic Pauline Kael at the New York Film Festival in 1967. After he had sent some of his writing to her she remarked back to him that he had possessed “some of the best film criticism being done in American newspapers today”. This says a lot about Ms. Kael.

Ebert went on to write many film columns for the Sun-Times and then wrote the screenplay to the movie Beyond the Valley of the Dolls in 1970. That film was poorly received at the time but is now generally regarded as a cult classic. Of course we all know him as the partner to Chicago Tribune film critic Gene Siskel on their television program. But I lived in Chicago from 1975 until 2006 and I can say with definitive reasoning and background that Ebert was in a category by himself. I had friends who attended film school and utterly had the greatest respect for Ebert even if they disagreed with his opinions. I never heard anyone of them ever say that he was a "pop critic" or that he was never taken seriously.

 

In the history of the Pulitzers, he was for a very long time the only film critic to have been award a Pulitzer for film criticism until  2003 when film critic Stephen Hunter won the second Pulitzer for film criticism.

I think Ebert was one of the most intelligent critics of our times. His show with Siskel was really one of the first tv shows that took film criticism to a new and different level. For I think the first time, there was a show that discussed films in a way that only film critics would discuss them in their columns and possibly on film school campuses and other areas of studies. I have never once read a review of a movie and then decided NOT to go see or rent a film.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well stated, fx! I especially agree with this quote of yours here...

 

 

 

But the same can not be said of a film review. I really do not think that movie goers are waiting with baited breath the word of a local or nationally syndicated reviewer of their thoughts about a particular film and that their review is going to have additional sway over whether or not they go and see the film in question.

 

...as I can NOT tell you how many times over the past few decades I've heard friends and associates tell me something to the effect of, "I don't trust the critics. If they say a movie is bad, then I know it must be good and I'll probably like it." And of course which is code for, "I don't like 'message movies'. I go to the movies to be entertained".

 

(...and which of course is how it seems most of the so-called "Mainstream" feel about their movie choices)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

judy.jpg

 

Sweet and tolerable........What?

Good ol' hometwon folksiness........Huh?

Successful..........Yep

There's always an exception somewhere.  :rolleyes:

 

C'mon now, Vautrin! SURELY you know that even Middle America sometimes can't get enough of loudmouthed and obnoxious NEW YORKERS!!!

 

(...it's kinda like they're sayin', "Wow! We NEVER see people like THAT in Des Moines! How fascinating!!!")

 

ROFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attacking an "inaccuracy" by the critic may not be the wisest thing to do to make a case for one's movie.

 

The critic is likely to respond "Couldn't be helped - the movie was so insufferably boring, my mind kept wandering".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A user comment on the IMDB for 1970's MOONFIRE is written by the film's director.  He seems particularly upset with Leonard Maltin...Here is what Mike Parkhurst had to say:

 

In spite of a good cast, I would rate this film as "fair," but not bad, especially considering the low budget...Leonard Maltin calls this film a "bomb" and describes the plot as a blackmail plot but there was no blackmail plot at all...

 

I don't see any movie called MOONFIRE in the most recent edition I have of Leonard's "Movie Guide" (2010). Was it added in just the last few years? (Can someone who has the newest edition check to see if it is in there?) Just curious, since I thought that in each new edition, he usually adds only the new releases that came out since the last edition. A movie like this, which appears (to me anyway) to be pretty obscure seems like a unlikely choice to add - unless it had some well-publicized reissue or got some other recent publicity somehow.

Not that I'm really doubting the movie was ever in Leonard's books, but I'd just like to confirm if it was in older editions and dropped in the last few years, or only added since 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...