Halliwell's Film and Video Guide, now edited by John Walker, is the single most importance source of information about movies and an essential reference tool for everyone who loves movies. As I work in the film world, I own hundreds of movie reference books. Many are useful but Halliwell's Film Guide is the one I have to keep on my desk at home and at the office. Maltin's paperback guide is good but it does not give as many credits as the Halliwell guide so it is not as useful. And the Halliwell Companion is also hugely helpful as well when one needs to to look up the films of stars and directors. Neither has as much depth as specialized works but no other books have so much information in such handy form. I couldn't live without it, cinematically that is

Halliwell's Companion makes all other film encyclopedias look superficial in comparison. It is essential for all film buffs who like to cross-reference info. The only minor quibble I have is that, as the BBC's film expert for decades, Halliwell naturally places a lot of emphasis on the British film industry -- at times to the point of making it seem as if it were as significant as Hollywood's contribution

Forget the pretentious drivel of the post - deconstructionists. Here is a man who loves films and enjoys telling people about the films he loves best. I cannot believe it is out of print. I was searching for a new copy to replace the one I owned that has fallen apart from reading and re-reading. Halliwell delights in revisiting the classics, but also in highlighting some delightful minor films. I relish Father Brown which I had to go to a midnight showing. I have spent 16 years tracking down all the films in this book and every single one has been a joy. I have six to go and I hope I get to see them all. Halliwell repeated the dose with Halliwell's harvest - an equally enjoyable book. I cannot imagine that anyone who loves films could not enjoy this book. He can be a bit stuffy in his criticism, but this is a quibble for one of the best film books about. Not only does he tell you about the film. He talks about where he saw the film and I loved his story about Gaslight that he saw three times in one day. His mother eventually came to get him out of the theatre only to watch the film herself.

Over the last 20 years (or so) I've sent corrective notes to Leslie Halliwell and the subsequent editor, John Walker. For the premiere film encyclopedia, the Filmgoers Companion still has lots of errors, missing information for supposedly complete filmographies, and many many unlisted film stars, especially from the "transition period" to talkies (Anita Page, etc.). Personally, I think Walker was a very bad choice; he doesn't seem to be "into" the encyclopedic format of this valuable resource.

I would say that this is certainly the flimgoer's encyclepidea to all things related to movies and the people involved in creating them. As far as knowlage about films goes. I would say this is impressive and is recommended to any serious film buffs out there.

If you need a new edition of this work, try Halliwell's Who's Who in the Movies.

This is a great reference for film-lovers. Especially if you enjoy viewing less main-stream films.

I'v just cheked out for THE DROWNING POOL ; again no star , and again ,the reasons why I appreciate STUART ROSENBERG are remarkable the same .(Has he a past, something like that?) Just that he couldn't pass two stars sounds kind of unfair. I will add something , yet : his sensitive aproaching of some kind , makes his movies that LIGHT , so any oter films appears heavy , incoherent or unclear. (inspite of their artistical values , of course )

Gensu2000 seems to think Halliwell's is "as stuffy as a film book can be" and comments on their horrifying undergrading of such groundbreaking cinematic productions as "Evil Dead" and "Braindead". Why surely these great films should be given four stars and placed on marble pedestals! Face it, most horror films are the paramount of lowbrow entertainment. And seemingly lowbrow people like Gensu2000 will enjoy them, as they are intended for that audience. And it's good that they have made a film review book for that type of person, such as the VideoHound book, but Gensu does not have to go around expressing his idiotic opinion. Laymen term the intelligentsia as "stuffy" because they have no understanding of what it is like to be intelligent. Keep quiet, Gensu, and go on watching your primitive ape movies, and reading their glowing reviews in your primitive ape film guide.

Though advertised as a continuation (i.e. 14th Edition)of the "Filmgoers companion" it is only a list of people in the movies. Gone are Halliwell's definitions of movie tradecraft and lists of themes, individual classics and personal notes. A fine actor like Lee J. Cobb gets a single line, while Jayne Mansfield, known more for her off screen antics, gets many more. The quotes from the movie personalities is a nice touch, but when I look up somebodies filmography I do not want to see etc. at the end of an incomplete list.

Leslie Halliwell(1929-1989) was the publisher of this informative and extremely enjoyable reference book on many of the cinema's most influental figures. What sets Halliwell's great book apart from the others is that it includes not only the most famous of today and yesterday's stars/writers/producers/directors, but a great many obscure, but no less important names in the industry as well. Halliwell's book is also unique in that it includes a list of technical terms that are extremely vital in the motion picture industry, as well as a list of popular film series, and a complete list of Academy Award winners. Whether you are looking to be informed or entertained, Halliwell's Who's Who in the Movies serves both purposes well, and is a compulsive read guaranteed to give die-hard film buffs hours and hours of endless reading pleasure. The book, formerly known as The Filmgoer's Companion, is actually a companion piece to an older favorite, Halliwell's Film Guide, also strongly recommended for the serious film buff.

If you were to have only one book on the movies, this would be it. It has almost everything and everyone connected to movies. About the only changes I'd recommend would be larger type and sections on writers, directors, photographers, stunt men, etc.

This is truly one of the finest and most invaluable film guides available on the market today; it is also one of the first of its kind, but the years have been very nice to this perennial favorite which hasn't lost a bit of its spark. The synopsis given for each film is generally brief, but always concise! Of course, you may find yourself in conflict with the reviewer's overall opinion of the film, but let's face it, that's gonna happen sooner or later with any movie guide you buy! Admittedley, Halliwell's book is one of the most aggressively opinionated film guides out there(one can turn pages and pages without spotting a film that rates four, even three stars), but the quips, even the most disparaging of them, are undeniably clever and amusing. Halliwell's Film Guide is also unique in that it often includes a movie's slogan above the title of the film. Yes, Leonard Maltin is one of the country's most knowledgable and rightfully respected film critics of today, but Leslie Halliwell was the great man who pretty much set the standard for the many other movie and video guides out there, including Leonard's. Although Halliwell's guide is pricier than most of the other movie reference books, the payoff is immeasurable, as the book provides page after page and hour after hour of endless reading pleasure. Whether you are looking to be informed or entertained or perhaps both, Halliwell's Film Guide is the book for you! Those who like it will also appreciate Halliwell's Who's Who in the Movies.

"Halliwell's Film & Video Guide" has always been my favorite guide to films since the first edition came out many years ago. The first thing I noticed about Halliwell was that he used the entire 4-star scale in a consistent way. Most other film guides, while they purport to rate movies on a scale of 0 to 4 stars, really just use 2.5 to 4 (with ratings of 0 to 2 all meaning "not recommended" -- but who cares whether a film is rated 1 versus 1.5, if it's not recommended, don't bother). Halliwell's system takes some getting used to, but once you see the value in it (if you give it enough time), the pay-off is worthwhile. And another refreshing aspect is that relatively few films get the highest rating of 4-stars, unlike some critics who give 4-stars to half the films they see, making the rating meaningless.

After Halliwell died, John Walker took over. He almost immediately 'updated' many of Halliwell's ratings (e.g., "Persona," which used to rank a 2-star rating, was upgraded to 4-stars). I agree with most of Walkers updates, though he has a slight tendency to over-rate, in my opinion.

Many film entries are peppered with quotes from other critics, often going against Halliwell's and Walker's assessment and offering an alternate evaluation -- this shows that these gentleman have an open mind.

This is a thoroughly enjoyable, incredibly well-researched book. Worth every penny. But stay with it -- it's a goldmine if you take the time to delve in.

"Halliwell's Film & Video Guide" has always been my favorite guide to films since the first edition came out many years ago. The first thing I noticed about Halliwell was that he used the entire 4-star scale in a consistent way. Most other film guides, while they purport to rate movies on a scale of 0 to 4 stars, really just use 2.5 to 4. It takes some getting used to, but once you see the value in his system (if you give it enough time), the pay-off is worthwhile.

After Halliwell died, John Walker took over. He almost immediately 'updated' many of Halliwell's ratings (e.g., "Persona," which used to rank a 2-star rating, was upgraded to 4-stars). I agree with most of Walkers updates, though he has a slight tendency to over-rate.

This is a thoroughly enjoyable, incredibly well-researched book. Worth every penny. But stay with it -- it's a goldmine if you take the time to delve in. Judging by some of the other reviews I've read here, many people gave up (perhaps too soon).

On the positive side, this is perhaps the most comprehensive of film guides available. Not only do Halliwell and Walker cover most films released on the western market, but they also give more production details than any other similar volume. As a reference work, it is definitely worth having at hand.

The reviews themselves are interesting, though each is limited to one or two sentences, and the opportunity for comment is too often squandered away on petty sarcasms that miss the mark. There are a few inconsistencies apparent. Some films are awarded two or three stars (out of a maximum of 4) with little rationale offered. For example, A Room with a View is alotted 3 stars before being (apparently) dismissed by a description of it as a lacklustre drama that might have been made for TV, but which might be enjoyed by those starved of entertainment. The lamentable 'Independence Day' is given one star, whilst the comparable, yet far superior, Armageddon is awarded none. One of the great British pictures of the 1960s, Billy Liar, is given a well-deserved three stars (so far so good), which then threatens to become almost meaningless when the grossly inferior (though still worthy) British comedy of the same decade, Carry On Up the Khyber, is given the same. Why these inconsistencies? Perhaps the last of those can be explained by the fact that Halliwell himself didn't even think that the Carry On films were decent enough to warrant individual entries, whereas Walker later reneged on his behalf and not only gave them their own reviews, but awarded many of them one or two stars (quite insane, on the whole, given some of the excellent films not even considered worthy of a single star).

The verdict: useful reference book; always interesting to read other people's opinions, but many of the opinions expressed in here are severely off the mark; lastly, I suspect most of the flaws can be attributed to John Walker's editing following Halliwell's death.

This lowers a 5-star recommendation given in an earlier review based on a previous edition of this guide. The latest edition leaves intact Mr. Halliwell's reviews for films before 1965 and these remain invaluable. But Mr. Walker's tampering with later reviews is now extensive and has added only pretentiousness and poor judgment to the product. The work remains exceptional for Golden Age movies; otherwise, caveat emptor.

The previous reviewer from England pretty much hit the nail on the head regarding what has happened to this film guide over the
years. I think it's only reasonable to assume that once Halliwell died someone new, with a different set of criteria would be writing synopsis and reviews for movies. This in itself is not a problem. What is inexcusable is the way the editor who took over (John Walker) went back and changed the ratings on most of the films in the book in order to keep it more aligned with what he sees as the current popular view. So a movie like Blue Velvet which got zero stars in the original now has two stars or Battle of Algiers which had one star now has four stars. Compounding the confusion is the fact that the original synopsis written by Halliwell have NOT been changed. Therefore you can read pans of movies by Halliwell (such as BV) and then see it highly recommended with Walkers star ratings. Hmm.

One thing that wasn't mentioned was the typeface. The older
editions used to be printed on very crisp white paper with dark easily readable typeface. Now it is printed on cheaper paper with microscopic typeface that anyone without very good vision is recommended to purchase a magnifying glass for. While I find it tolerable for looking up a few films it certainly dissuades one from just kicking back and browsing through it for any length of time.

Lastly, all the way through the 1997 edition Halliwell's Guide was always available in a sturdy hardcover edition as well as a paperback. Now paperback is the only option one gets.

This guide gets three stars because it's still a useful book but
it is truly discouraging the way that it has been ruthlessly altered by the new editor to the point that it is a mere shadow of its former self.