|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Another problem with him is that he basically rates too many movies as being "overlong" (basically, any movie that tries to develop the story further than the original plot, or that tries to be complex, or sometimes if the film is longer than the standard 90 minutes), something he depicts as negative. Furthermore, he has problems with blood, gore, and violence in films, which makes him substract points as well. I do admit that there are times when the gore and violence are pointless, but other times they are entertaining; he doesn't get that. In fact, sometimes he gets shocked by movies that are only slightly violent and depicts them as carnage fests (e.g: he said that the tame and mostly bloodless horror flick Fade to Black was too violent!). Finally, Maltin seems to have problems understanding complex, abstract, or surreal films most of the times.
P.M.-
He gives the Kenneth Branagh "Hamlet" only three stars,criticizing Branagh's
performance as being "over the top" at times (so what? - most Hamlets are)
and the cameo appearances as not being entirely successful. The Olivier
"Hamlet" (containing a brilliant Olivier performance and intensely atmospheric
photography,but many unnecessary cuts -- such as
the omission of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and a bland supporting
cast in comparison to Branagh's) gets four stars, having been made in 1948.
(On the other hand, I agree with Maltin's review of Olivier's "Henry V",
"Richard III", and "Othello".) I would have given Branagh's "Hamlet"
at least three and a half, if not four stars.
Another example -- the 1935 "A Midsummer Night's Dream" has a hauntingly
beautiful storybook atmosphere and musical score, but has its share of
mediocre to awful performances thrown in with the great ones. Maltin
himself notes this, and gives this version an unusually low (for him) three
stars . Then, although he mentions that the new (1999) Kevin
Kline-Michelle Pfieffer version is well-acted and should please fans
of the play, he nevertheless gives it only two and a half stars - perhaps
so it won't outrate the 1935 version.
He is sometimes maddeningly inconsistent. You would think that a movie historian like Maltin would be bowled over by the fact that the 1936 version of "Show Boat" was personally worked on by Kern and Hammerstein -- its original creators -- features many of the original creative staff (including some of its original cast) and is a stunningly good movie musical, especially in comparison to the bland 1951 Technicolor remake. Yet Maltin gives this 1936 masterpiece only three stars! But wait -- worse is to come. In early editions of his movie guide, he gave the 1951 version two-and-a-half stars, which makes sense if you give the '36 version three, but he has since revised his opinion and given the '51 version three stars, without upgrading the rating to three-and-a-half or four stars on the '36 version.
His ratings on classical music films are mostly awful ---- very high ones for the Zeffirelli-Verdi-Domingo "Otello" (1986) and dismal ones for the 1984 "Carmen" and the recent "The Red Violin" -- the most lowbrow review of this beautiful film I've read.
Albert Sanchez Moreno