Leonard Maltin: Schizophrenic

[Vermin Boy]

If you needed any more proof that Leonard Maltin doesn't actually watch any of those movies, check out his 180-degree turn on Evil Dead II. First, is old review, as posted on the IMDb:

"Sequel provides `more of the same' with a similar plot about a cabin in the woods that turns out to be inhabited by evil spirits. Lots of gore and special effects, but at least there's some sense of style and humor. Almost on a par with the original. Followed by ARMY OF DARKNESS. **"

Now, his listing from the 2002 edition:

"After recapping the first film, this inventive sequel takes off in a unique direction, blending horror and humor as no other movie ever has. In that same cabin, Campbell is again (or still) beset by demons, including, memorably, his own posessed hand. Vivid, fast-paced, spectacularly gory, and highly original. Followed by ARMY OF DARKNESS. ***"

Not only has his opinion changed, it's the EXACT OPPOSITE ("more of the same" vs. "a unique direction"). Did Leonard finally see the movie, or did one of his lackeys fix it?

[mb]

Maltin does not write every review -- he just edits them.  Probably found someone else to review it.

[Lee]

Well, Leonard is a dumbass, so who knows. I've offten wondered if he's ever seen the movie he's reviewing. He sure as HELL doesn't know what he's talkin about. Or maybe he's seen the light and sees what a good movie Evil Dead 2 really is.

[Squishy]

The man did an appearance on MST3K (Gorgo) after they spent another episode completely skewering his ass (Warrior of the Lost World or Escape 2000or...? I forget). He either has a very forgiving sense of humor, or just didn't know they were raking his rump a second time.

I'm sure that most film critics or reviewers don't see half the stuff they cover. One columnist, writing about Jet Li, suggested that at the end of The One, "we still really don't know whether the good Li or the evil Li wins"--which is total baloney, even if a sequel is possible. (Ewwww--what, The One Two? Or just 1-2?) Didn't watch a frame of it.

Then, of course, it's hard to tell if some critics are complete idiots, or just paid off. Ebert, however, is almost certainly willing to thumbs-up complete crap if he's paid enough.

[Nathan]

From what I've seen, he uses cheap immigrant labor to write his guidebooks.

Nathan
(No offense to cheap immigrants.)

[John Morgan]

I have noted 3 different types of film critics.

1.The ones paid by the film studio to review their film.  These are the ones they quote in TV spots and newspapers with partial phrases like "It was a roller coaster ride!" or Suspenseful thriller"  (What they don't give you is the rest of the sentence: "It was a roller coaster ride that made me throw up." Or Suspenseful thrill that made me wonder when they were going to let me leave.")

2.The ones that are paid by a newspaper, website, magazine or TV network to review a film.  These are the guys that are hired by the newspaper to review any and all films that are being released.  They may be movie buffs.  They may hate movies.  They may be "new at the job and are trying to fit in."  They may even be good.  The most I have seen are people with journalism degrees who like certain movies but hate others.  They will highly rate any action movie but give a poor grade to tearjerkers.

3.The syndicated or freelance critic.  These are the people who love movies and love to write about them.  These are the Roger Ebert's and Leonard Maltin's out there.  They will write reviews for every movie.  Even those they HAVE NOT SEEN.  Sometimes they only get to watch parts of the film.  Sometimes the review films THAT WILL NEVER MAKE IT TO THE UNITED STATES.


(Andrew may fall into category 3.  He Loves movies and writes about them.  But the major difference with him and the other guys.  Engage such up mode:  He is an honest man who even says that he cannot review ALL movies and he watches those he reviews.   He truly is a great guy. End suck up mode)    

Most papers are starting to go with the syndicated critic now.  It's cheaper to a point. (You don't have to pay a guy benefits.) It looks better to say reviewed by Roger Ebert than to say reviewed by Fred Noname.

[Rombles]

I've long thought that the Maltin book would be better if the reviwer for each movie were identified.... Then you could learn to recognise who has similar tastes to yourself and know when a bomb is really a bomb and when it is dynamite....

[Frannie]

Don't forget about the guys that the studio creates in their marketing departments because no real person would give a good review of their movie.