(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?

(View entire post here)

Being the editor of a reference book in the Internet age might seem like taking up sheepherding or manufacturing buggy whips. Why bother publishing a book when one can find all the information one needs in a matter of seconds online?

The answer is clear to me, if not to everyone: a lot of that "information" isn't always accurate. What's more, many sources on the Internet allow contributors to add or change material. That leads me to wonder, "Who's in charge here?"

When I make a mistake-and believe me, I do-I have to bear the blame. It's usually one of our readers who spots the boo-boo, but fortunately, I can fix it in the following edition; that's how our Guide has become more accurate with each passing year.

But there's more to a guidebook than a mere listing of facts; I find that it's a matter of selectivity.

For instance, when I saw "Catch a Fire", with Derek Luke and Tim Robbins, I thought I recognized one of the supporting players. Then, when I read the closing credits onscreen, I realized who he was: Marius Weyers, the South African actor who starred in the runaway sensation "The Gods Must Be Crazy" back in 1981. He also had a small but noticeable role in "Blood Diamond". Weyers may not be a star, but he's never stopped working, and while you won't find him listed in most cast lists for these movies, I think he's worthy of noting in our cast list.

(View entire post here)

I'm often asked if I ever change my opinion of a movie. The answer is yes, and over the years I've edited Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide I've rewritten a number of entries, adjusting my ratings in the process.

Let's face it: some movies look better with the perspective of time on their side, and others don't hold up as well as they might. When I first saw Ridley Scott's "Alien" in 1979 I found it upsetting-being a highly squeamish person-and gave it a middling review, even though many other critics praised it. When it was reissued theatrically twenty-five years later I saw it again on a big screen and changed my mind. During those years I'd seen many imitators and ripoffs, and raised my threshold of endurance for ickiness. In that light, "Alien" seemed almost classical in its approach to suspense and scares. I realized I'd been wrong, and I completely revised my review, giving it ***1/2.

There are many factors that can affect the way we view an older film, even one that was made just five to ten years ago. The earth-shattering events of September 11, 2001 changed our worldview, and our ability to accept what was once unthinkable. On a more mundane note, the development of computers and cell phones have altered our daily lives to such a degree that one can hardly find a contemporary movie in which those devices don't play some role.

(View entire post here)

Is The Dark Knight the movie event of the summer? Is it the best Batman film of all time? Or is it an unrelentingly dark, nihilistic tale of our post-9/11 world? That's all a matter of opinion.

As someone who airs his views in public, I learned long ago that everyone has an opinion about movies and most people aren't shy about voicing their disagreements with a professional critic.

That's fine with me, because I understand that every person who watches a movie brings his or her personal history along as baggage. How you view a film has everything to do with who you are, how old you are, how you were raised, where you were raised, what you've experienced in life-and what you haven't. It also has a lot to do with what movies you've seen-and what movies you haven't.

When I embarked upon the first edition of my annual Movie Guide, my editor insisted that I assign a star-rating to each review. I fought the idea, but he said, "People love that kind of shorthand." He was right. And just like the endless pop-culture lists we see nowadays, ratings are meant to inspire debate.