Leonard Maltin's 2011 Movie Guide [Paperback]

(NOTE: The following review is an updated and expanded reworking of my previously posted "Leonard Maltin's 2010 Movie Guide" review. Also, although Mr. Maltin has a team of film critics and editors that help him shape his guide annually, for the sake of expediency I choose to single out Mr. Maltin alone in my critique, as he is the chief reviewer/editor of this book and obviously has final approval over the finished product.)

As anyone familiar with Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide series can tell you, Leonard Maltin's preference for traditionalism in film has always meant that "golden age" films (films produced circa silent era-1965) tend to be somewhat overpraised; the same can be said of his reviews for standard Hollywood "Oscar-bait" dramas, self-consciously quirky "indies" and certain types of foreign films. As a result, it is not unexpected that well-made but problematic films such as "The Reader", "Troy" and "The Blind Side" receive an overly-enthusiastic response by Mr. Maltin.

In spite of this, Mr. Maltin's Movie guide has always been a perennial must-own for me, as it is a true standard bearer for film reference guides, in terms of both its construction and execution: film reviews are smartly written, unpretentious and thoughtful; the book's physical size is convenient; the layout of the book is intuitive; and his passion for (and knowledge of) film comes through loud and clear. However, Mr. Maltin's classicist stodginess is becoming more and more pronounced in his film reviews, and for the first time in twenty years of reading his guides, his biases are starting to grate on me.

It has become obvious to me over time that Mr. Maltin feels uncomfortable (and often clearly states so in his reviews) when certain themes (and particular degrees) of violence, sexuality, darkness and other "vulgarisms" are incorporated into types of "Hollywood escapist fare" (as he puts it). Indeed, Mr. Maltin's taste for cinematic audaciousness seems to be informed by an old-school pre-1960's mindset, a time when adult topics in filmmaking were carefully implied rather than explicitly told, and always framed within a fairly prudish sense of morality (e.g. the bad guys and good guys were clearly defined, screen violence was portrayed theatrically and bloodless, sex was suggestive, children were always portrayed as one-dimensional innocents, and if characters dared to cross certain moral boundaries, they usually did so off-screen and always paid a price for it).

Furthermore, Mr. Maltin's taste in film structure, storytelling and plotting also seem to be highly informed by classicist sensibilities (hence Mr. Maltin's openly admitted disdain for Christopher Nolan films). Mr. Maltin seems to become uneasy and/or confused in his film reviews when well-worn film genres happen to stray outside of their standard niche fields, particularly if they stray into darker-than-usual territory. If a movie does happen to cross Mr. Maltin's classicist film threshold, it stands a good chance of being penalized accordingly (in his review), regardless of (the film's) technical, artistic or historical merit.

Some examples (circa 1975-2010):

- Edgy, challenging cinema gems such as "Blue Velvet" (1986), "Punch-Drunk Love", "The Crazies" (2010), "In The Company Of Men" (1997), "The Dark Knight" (2008), "Videodrome", "Fight Club", "Donnie Darko", "The Prestige" (2006), "Bad Lieutenant" (1992), "Kick-Ass", "Broken Flowers", "Batman Returns" (1992), "Requiem For A Dream" (2000), "Frailty" (2002), "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence", and "Taxi Driver" (1976) all receive only two stars out of four;

- "The Matrix" (1999), "WALL-E", "The Bourne Supremacy" (2004), "Blow Out" (1981), "Short Cuts" (1993), "The Fly" (1986), "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" (1991), "Amadeus", "Narc" (2002), "My Own Private Idaho", "Batman" (1989), "The 40-Year-Old Virgin", "The Big Lebowski", "Heathers", "Spider-Man" (2002), "Minority Report", "Boys Don't Cry" (1999), "Lost Highway" (1997), "Collateral" (2004), "Oldboy", "True Romance" (1993), "12 Monkeys", "Ghost World", "War of The Worlds" (2005), "Inglourious Basterds" (2009), "A Simple Plan" (1998), "High Fidelity" (2000), "Out Of Sight" (1998), "25th Hour" (2002), "The Usual Suspects", "The Limey", "Where The Wild Things Are" (2009), "Before The Devil Knows You're Dead", "Munich" (2005) and "Iron Man" (2008) are all halfheartedly acknowledged with two-and-a-half star review;

- John Carpenter's "The Thing" (1982), Brian DePalma's "Scarface" (1983), "Blade Runner" (1982), "Memento" (2000) and "Sin City" (2005), each highly accomplished and influential films in their own right, are all summarily dismissed with one-and-a-half star critiques;

- Ridley Scott's groundbreaking sci-fi flick "Alien" (1979) was stuck with a mediocre two-and-a-half star review for years, until Mr. Maltin (surprisingly) re-rated it recently as a (now-glowing) three-and-a-half star film; the same goes for Clint Eastwood's grim masterpiece "Unforgiven" (1992), also initially stuck with a tepid two-and-a-half stars until it was (no doubt begrudgingly) changed to three (stars).

On the other hand, Mr. Maltin is generous to a fault when reviewing conventional (i.e. non-threatening) Hollywood mainstream fare that is steeped in so-called traditional Hollywood truisms (e.g., 1930's "matinee" style action-adventure flicks, romantic/screwball comedies, "Hitchcockian"-style suspense, historical drama/epics and old-school style Hollywood musicals and fantasies), and in his reviews will frequently cite such classicist attributes as a prime reason for giving rave reviews of pretty-good films, and overly-favorable reviews for quite a few mediocre films (a favorite line of Mr. Maltin: "In the finest tradition of...").

Some examples (circa 1989-2010):

- Forgettable film mediocrities such as "Alice In Wonderland" (2010), "Superman Returns" (2006), "Johnny Stecchino", "The Blind Side" (2009), "Nine" (2009), "Art School Confidential", "Ghostbusters 2" (1989), "The Proposal (2009)", "Scoop" (2006), "Star Wars - Episode One: The Phantom Menace" (1999), "Twilight" (2008), "Lions For Lambs", "Sex & The City" (2008), "Daredevil", "Then She Found Me" (2007), "Mamma Mia" (2008), "Batman Forever" (1995), "A Night At The Museum" (2006), "He's Just Not That Into You", "Honey, I Blew Up The Kid" (1992), "A Time To Kill" (1996), "National Treasure" (2004), "Everybody's Fine" (2009), "It's Complicated" (2009), "The Terminal" (2004), "Sabrina" (1995), "Zack & Miri Make A Porno", "Ghosts of Mississippi", "Waterworld", "Maid In Manhattan" and "Terminator: Salvation" (2009) all earn substantial three-out-of-four star reviews;

- "Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull" (2008) was originally bestowed a ludicrous three-and-a-half star review until it was later downgraded to a still-generous three stars;

- While the universally acclaimed "The Dark Knight" (2008) gets panned by Mr. Martin with a two star review for being "doomsday dark and palpably real" with a "vivid(ly)...sick" villain, the universally scorned "Batman & Robin" (1997) earns higher praise at two-and-a-half stars for featuring "colorful...lusty...deliciously nasty" villains;

- "The Reader" (2008), "Crash" (2005), "Charlie Wilson's War", "Hidalgo", "Hollywoodland", "Life Is Beautiful", "The Good Shepherd", "I Am Sam", "Troy" (2004) and "The Family Man" (2000), all fair-to-middling films, each receive glowing three-and-a-half star reviews; predictably, a classicist Hollywood fantasy like "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is anointed with a coveted four star review, one of only a handful of recent films to receive one.

Even the (previously interesting) left-field recommendations from Mr. Maltin feel dismally off the mark of late: 2008's "While She Was Out" (two-and-a-half stars) is praised as a "nicely done noir thriller... (that) maintains tension from start to finish", the 2010 rock bio-pic "The Runaways" (three stars) is hailed as "genuine and fresh", while 2008's "Repo! The Genetic Opera" (three stars) is declared an "imaginative, wild ride". Wrong on all counts, Mr. Maltin: "While She Was Out" is a flatly directed cliche-fest devoid of any thrills; "The Runaways" is an inert, hackneyed rock'n'roll biopic that looks great, but lacks anything in the way of story or character development; and "Repo! The Genetic Opera" is a dreadful fourth-rate "midnight movie" wannabe, aimed squarely at people who still find "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" to be cutting edge... all qualify as some of the most tiresome films that I have seen in recent memory. Sadly, even Mr. Maltin's sleeper/cult film recommendations feel musty and out of touch.

For me, a modern perspective is an important factor to take into consideration when choosing a film review guide, particularly if you (like most people) are only going to purchase one. Unfortunately, a sense of square outdatedness permeates throughout "Leonard Maltin's 2011 Movie Guide". Mr. Maltin is clearly squeamish with the darker and edgier themes that have become increasingly prevalent in modern mainstream filmmaking over the past several decades; that fact, coupled with the knowledge of his love affair with bygone film eras, means that those under the age of 40 (or anyone who happens to have edgier-then-mainstream film sensibilities) will wish to take Mr. Maltin's reviews with a grain of salt, as his filmgoing sensibilities lean decidedly towards older mainstream filmgoers and "golden age" film buffs (in fact, for those two specific groups, I would bump up my rating of this guide from that of three stars to four).

In the end, despite all of my caveats, I would still recommend "Leonard Maltin's 2011 Movie Guide" to those in need. The combination of its reasonable price, abundance of informative and articulate reviews (well over 17,000 of them), smart layout and convenient portability (a rare attribute in film guides nowadays) still make this book a solid choice for a film reference guide.

* IMPORTANT NOTE I: If you do decide to pick up this guide, be sure to seek out the (slightly) physically larger, (slightly) more expensive edition of this book, as both are available right here on Amazon.com (you can find it at the top part of this page under the heading "Formats"; choose the more expensive option). Although the content is the same, the larger edition of this guide contains a far more readable font size (than the cheaper edition) without sacrificing portability. Also, the physical binding of the larger edition holds together much more effectively than its smaller, poorly-constructed counterpart. *

** IMPORTANT NOTE II: For old school film buffs and completists, be sure to pick up "Leonard Maltin's Classic Movie Guide", as it contains thousands of reviews for "golden age" films (silent era-1965) both popular and obscure, which were excised from the annual guide due to space limitations. Unlike the annual guide, it does not need to be replaced perennially. **

>>>> OTHER FILM REFERENCE GUIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: For those who don't mind its formidable physical size and lack of a grading system (e.g., no "star" ratings), the "Time Out" film guide series is an exceptional (if occasionally pretentious) perennial film reference guide that feels thoroughly contemporary in its smart critiques and is well worth the time of both casual moviegoers and film buffs alike. <<<<

Nearly all the made for cable/TV movies are GONE! I watch a lot of movies on Netflix and on tape them on TV. I want a Guide to help me know which are worthy watching. Now I get no help on the made for cable/TV movies!!! Some of the movies in this category are exceptional; for example: Grey Gardens(2009), Raisin in the Sun (2008)

I have been reading Leonard Maltin's Movie Guides for years. My 2000 Movie Guide by Maltin needed replacing so I just got the 2001 Movie Guide. I don't mind a separate guide for Classic movies, OK, but what about made for cable/TV movies?

I have used various guides aside my television over the past 30 years to help me ferret through the movie offerings on, first, network television, then cable, and now on the 35 or so premium channels I recieve on Dish Network. Unlike some that use books like this one, I am not a DVD renter and don't use the book to make those choices. I use it to help me understand which may be the best offering on any of the 35 channels I get when I want to relax in my recliner and watch a film.

I have been buying Leonard Maltin's movie guide for about the past decade, deciding it was the better bet among those that are available. The best one I've known was published under Stephen Scheuer Movies on TV and Videocassette, 1993-1994, a critic that got out of the film rating business in the mid-1990s. I preferred his opinions over those I get from this book but have come to conclude Maltin's guide is the most reliable among the books available now including those by Roger Ebert Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2010 and older editions by various people who tried to publish a film review book consistently but couldn't such as this one DVD & Video Guide 2007 (Video and DVD Guide).

Part of the reason Maltin's book perseveres while others fade is his name recognition; another reason, perhaps not so obvious, is the heavy lifting in the book -- watching the movies and writing the reviews -- is done by a team of reviewers and editors. They don't just watch new movies, either. Maltin's crew constantly updates their scores, as they have done with the original Mel Gibson Mad Max, which they gave 2 1/2 stars in the 1980s and later upgraded to a more appropriate 3 1/2 (of 4) stars. You'll note from year to year this is one of the few books that reassesses the grades, meaning they look at movies over time and the contributing authors discuss them with each other.

For 2011, this book got a little smaller -- about an inch shorter and an inch narrower and marginally less thick -- but still carries 1,643 pages of reviews, actor and director listings compared to 1,643 pages for 2010. Most of the better movies from 2009 and Oscar nominees from 2010 (Invictus, District 9 found their way into the book. As has been the trend in recent years, Maltin's book has loaded up on newer films and let go of some older ones, especially less well-known films and those made for TV, to make room for newer movies.

I don't like this trend but I'm sure the publishing company doesn't believe it can sell a 3,000 page book every year, either, so something has to go and it tends to be older, less well known films. That aside, the team concept is one of the reasons I buy this book every few years. Since Steven Scheuer got out of the film book review business, Maltin's has been my TV tray guide to flicks old and new. It may not always speak for you in its content but, if you give it a chance, it'll help you find something worthwhile to watch when you navigate through the mass of listings on your cable or dish providers on-screen display.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 51 reviews  3.7 out of 5 stars