Post #4 - Leonard Maltin’s 2009 Movie Guide and Leonard Maltin’s Classic Movie Guide, by Leonard Maltin:

(View entire post here)

I'm often asked how we determine the ratings that appear in my annual Movie Guide. We give **** to the best of the best, and make our way down the ladder half-a-star at a time; below *1/2 we use the term BOMB. (There are some readers who tell me they deliberately try to see as many BOMBs as possible; to each his own!)

Those ratings aren't based on any quantifiable measurement; they represent a gut reaction to the movie in question.
Even so, a problem does arise. If I've seen a movie in a theater or at a press screening at the height of anticipation over its release, I'm likely to have a different response than someone who watches it months, or even years, later on a laptop during an airplane ride, or on an iPhone while commuting to work in half-hour increments.

Not long ago, I visited someone in the hospital and along with him, got involved in a movie I'd seen before that was playing on the TV set in his room. It was interrupted by commercials and snipped to save time (and avoid four-letter words), but it entertained us both and helped to pass the time. I know I was much more judgmental when I saw the film the first time around in a theater.

Does that mean we should cut every movie some slack because eventually it will become "fodder" for a less demanding (and more grateful) audience down the road than the one that greets it on its theatrical debut?

I believe that some standards should be maintained, and the movie as it first appears in theaters-the one that demands ten dollars or more to be seen-should be held accountable to some commonly-accepted measurement of quality.

But wait-there's more. Many filmmakers now re-edit their movies for DVD release, proclaiming that they prefer these "Director's Cuts" to the versions that played in theaters. I'm wary of getting trapped on that slippery slope; how many times should a person review a movie, and how can we be sure which version is being shown?

Some films are changed for creative reasons, from Walter Hill's "The Warriors" to Peter Jackson's "The Frighteners"; others are merely repackaged in an attempt to sell more DVDs. In our book we acknowledge alternate versions, but I'm still not prepared to discount the integrity of the original theatrical release. For instance, I prefer "Apocalypse Now" and "The Exorcist" the way I first saw them. Even though Francis Ford Coppola and William Friedkin have encouraged their distributors to withdraw the originals in favor of their revised editions, I stand by my opinions-and I know I'm not alone.

Some of these dilemmas aren't easily resolved, but they do keep things from getting dull... especially when you're editing a reference book that's trying to stay relevant year after year.

View more information on Leonard Maltin's 2009 Movie Guide

Leonard Maltin, movies, cinema, films, movie reviews, entertainment, books, Penguin Books