The short films of the 1930's,40's and 50's have never been given a proper documentation in books during the 1950's or 60's.Many film historians and writers dismissed the shorts as minor filler for the class a pictures.But Leonard Maltin gives us all another look at this forgotten genre'and he shows us all how great the movie shorts were.In his book:"The Great Movie Shorts"(Now rereleased under it's new title:"Selected Short Subjects!)Maltin reveals the unique talents of such brilliant performers as Al Jolson,Rose Marie,Eddie Cantor etc.As they recreated their classic stage performances in the Warner Bros. and Paramount film shorts.That were shot in Brooklyn and Astoria,Queens NYC.He also shows us the early film dramas of the 30's and the beloved film comedies of such well known performers as L&H,"The Little Rascals",Clark And McCollough,"The Three Stooges",Thelma Todd/Zasu Pitts/Patsy Kelly,George Burns and Gracie Allen and "Joe McDoakes"(George O'Hanlon..Best remembered by tv cartoons fans as the voice of the voice of "George Jetson").He also shows us other film series that have been neglected:Leon Errol , Edger Kennedy and Andy Clyde and what lead to the decline of Movie shorts (the cause of the death of the movie shorts was the advent of tv) and how tv saved the old movie shorts.When they were rerunned on local and network affilliated tv shows(More often than not..The old movie comedies and musical movie shorts were screened on kids tv shows).The book also features a filmography of the series and photos from the series.For those fans of this forgotten genre'..This book is a chance to revist a part of our happy times at the local bijou..For those persons..who have never experienced what it was like to see these films(In the movie theaters..not on tv)This is their chance to learn about the good old days.When Filmgoers first experienced seeing:L&H,"The Three Stooges"or even:Babe Ruth performing in a movie short.Bravo Lenny! Kevin S.Butler.

The omissions of important directors like Kubrick (who was alive at the time) and Spielberg are too obvious since Gray went to the trouble to include pop-horror icons like Roger Corman and Wes Craven. Sure, we want an eclectic mix but come on! Another irritant is that some photos try too hard to be "artsy," so much so that we can't even see their darn faces! What's the point of including a photo then? Besides these factors, the book is one of those cheap "printed-on" hardcovers, with no dust jacket. I suppose there are interesting anecdotes to be had but so far -- a terrible first impression.

You really have to see this book to appreciate it. The photos and essays make unusual but apt matches. My only regret is the smallish size of the book--because of the quality of the photographs it really should have been an oversized coffee-table volume

What a wonderful book, with amazing, original and creative photos. Great reference for students too!!

If you followed the advice of Leonard Maltin's 2003 movie guide, choosing only to view movies the book scores three stars or higher, you would miss the following movies: Memento, AI, Donnie Darko, Ghost World, Run Lola Run, The Royal Tenenbaums, Bottle Rocket, The Fight Club, The Man Who Wasn't There, Boys Don't Cry, et al. Oh yes, and who can forget the slams of Blade Runner and Taxi Driver?

The guide does a decent job with older films (except does an outdated chestnut like W.C. Field's The Bank Dick really deserve four stars--even with its moment of blatant racism and fairly large number of failed jokes?).

However, when Maltin's guide calls the exciting and innovative Run Lola Run (two and a half stars) "wearying", misses the point of Spielberg's will-be-reassessed-in-the-future AI, and praises almost every aspect of The Man Who Wasn't There but slams it for having those usual Coen Brothers twists, you know it's time for Maltin to hire some new critics to tackle the more inventive new releases.

What's disturbing about Maltin's guide is it punishes a movie for being bold or different (look at its ** review of the haunting psychological study Donnie Darko, which is [URL's]Top 250 films of all time).

Even more frustrating is many of the guide's contributors seem to miss the point of the films they are reviewing. Watch Ghost World, and then read the capsule, and then ask yourself "did we see the same movie?". Ghost World is a sad, beautifully acted look at cynical outsiders, but the guide complains that you cannot care about such characters--I know many viewers who did care and loved the award winning film. Watch The Royal Tenenbaums and then see if you agree with the capsule's complaint that nothing happens.

As a reference tool for older films, the guide has some uses. But it's time to bring some fresh new talent to the project.

Until then, this movie lover will be consulting [URL] or [URL].

I love Leonard Maltin's movie guide. I had a 1998 edition, which was probably one of the most thumbed books in my house, and finally rewarded myself to upgrading to the latest, 2003 version. What inevitably happens is this: I go to look up one film, and on the way, flicking through the pages, see another. That makes me think of a third which I then start to look for, but then I see a fourth... and before you know it, and hour has passed and I've completely forgotten which movie it was I was looking up in the first place. A very organic way of reading, and thoroughly, personally recommended as a way of passing the time waiting for your two-year old son to fall asleep!

This is a terrific resource: Maltin and his team of editors have a huge knowledge of the history of cinema, and the small amount of text which is afforded to each entry (by necessity - there are something like 14,000 movies reviewed - is unfailingly to the point - curt, in many cases - and gives a very good flavour of the reviewer's view of the movie.

The reviews, and star ratings, are very tough indeed, and in no sense does Maltin concede to public (or fashionable) opinion: if he doesn't like a film, no matter how well regarded it may be, he'll mark it down. Blade Runner, for example, gets just two stars our of four, while Memento, in my view a fantastic film and one which I've never heard a bad word said against, avoids the dreaded "BOMB" rating by just half a star. While often times you may not agree with this rating, you do have to respect Maltin's integrity.

There are one or two items I would mention (although, as Maltin would say, why carp?) which probably add up to imperfections, but which don't rob the book of my five stars:

In terms of its judgments, Maltin is guilty of the "They Don't Make Them Like They Used To" complex: there is a rather pompous introduction which says as much, and I have not been able to locate one film released since 1998 which has been awarded the full four stars. On the other hand, the top rating is liberally thrown about for films made in the forties or before: Adam's Rib: ever heard of that? Me neither. It may be true that there is a lot of commercial rubbish around now, but no more so than there ever was, and I think Maltin should be courageous enough to say at the time of release (rather than waiting for a film to pass the test of time) to pronounce a film a four star effort.

In much the same vein, Maltin seems to be no great fan of comedy. Having looked through all the greatest comedy films I could think of, only two have been awarded four stars, and both of those by the Marx Brothers: Duck Soup and A Night At The Opera (oh, and Adam's Rib is a comedy too, apparently). I think there is some cinema snobbery going on here. Films should be judged according to their genre, and the fact that none of Zucker & Abrahams, Monty Python, the Coen Brothers, or Rob Reiner has had any of their comedies credited as four star movies is a little telling.

A couple of nit-picks: I think a star system of up to five would give a little more room for flexibility in ratings, and I don't understand why TV Movies aren't subjected to the same regime (again, I think this is a little cinema snobbery: TV Movies, apparently, can only be "average", "above average" or "below average".)

Lastly, the indexing is pretty meagre: If you can't remember the titled of the movie, then unless it starred a major league actor, you are staring at one big haystack in which to find your needle. I guess space prevents anything more, but I would have thought an index of Directors wouldn't have hurt - or indeed a list of all four star (and BOMB) movies. In fact would be great to be able to get this book on CD-ROM so you could search on any name (or, indeed, sort by rating!)

I've been a regular buyer of MALTIN's book for many years.I usually buy it after my old copy wears out.I remember when LEONARD's only competitor was STEVEN SCHEUER who also had an annual guide.Nowadays,books of this type are legion.It is hard to put on the market a book like this for many reasons:taste is such a personnal thing;everyone's opinion can match a film critics most of the time.I admire MALTIN for persisting every year with a new édition.You may contest some of his reviews,but this guy sincerly love movies and wants you to do the same if possible.Imagine the time you save by skipping the bad movies.Thanks LEONARD.Keep on coming back to us and don't forget the FRENCH movies.

This book speaks volumes if the reader takes the time to peruse the text. However, as a quick reference it is somewhat cumbersome. Also, the star rating system often does little justice to movies which started or define a genre, those with substance over style, and to movies that have inspired other screen works. Two and one-half to three stars appear too frequently for these types of movies.

Maltin's guide is not bad. I refer to the 1998 paperback Issue. It contains 19.000 reviews of film or TV movies. I think it is a must.But the editor/author, ie Maltin has nothing to say about choice or verdict. Choice is evidently films known to the USA audience. Verdict is not easy to understand: **** is top, BOMB is bottom. Grade 1 is ****, grade 2 is ***½, grade 3 is ***,et cetera. What does a certain grade signify? Maltin has nothing to say.What more: A room with a view, Elvira Madigan, Goodfather III are all rated ***, the same as Gentlemen prefer Blondes. I have just seen MM in Gentlemen prefer Blondes, and it is a charming movie. But to compare it to the others is a major fault, I think. I suggest 1) Skip all B/W movies but the very best,as Metropolis. 2) Give data on audience 3) Make a much better index. Of course You could make a B/W supplement - even including B-movies of Ronald Reagan or John Wayne. And you might even include a list of the James Bond movies. Hollywood or USA,

Unimpressed with this "mostly sizzle, no steak" book. For example, in his 1999 edition Kris Kristofferson isn't listed. Have found several movies unlisted. I avoid this reference guide. Prefer "Video Movie Guide" by Martin

Actually I wanna review all of the Movie and Video Guides from 1994 until 1997. I think Leonard Maltin's enclopedia is the best, but still I miss a CD, instead of floppy disks. The way the book has been split up in sections is really great and it is easy to find just the title you need to find. The ratings are great and most of the time I agree. Hope you'll keep up the good work Mr. Maltin. Nobody does it better than you.

Jack Kinney, like many great Disney animators, did the real work while old Walt got his name on the screen. He could have used this book as a tell-all slam against Disney, but decided to instead to draw a loving picture of his work for the Mouse. And "draw" in the right word--Kinney realized that he was no writer, so the book is packed full of his rough, humorous sketches of his fellow animators from the 30's to the 50's.

The latter half of the book is the saddest, with Kinney on his own trying to make cartoons during the Dark Ages of animation (the 1960's). Still, his love for the art kept him going.

If you want a small experience of the golden age of animation, without all the technical details, then this book is for you.

While joining the studio in 1931, Kinney served as storyman, animator, and director on scores of projects, including eleven animated features.

Rarely has a studio insider given the public a first-hand glimpse into the humor (and at times, exasperation; even with the boss!) found in the working relationships that existed over the years. Kinney fills his book with dozens of stories, many of which still produce a chuckle even half a century later.

In the final pages, students of animation history will find particular interest in the dozens of brief biographical sketches of the other Disney artists and studio personnel who worked along side of Kinney during his 27 years at the Walt Disney Studios.

When I first saw this book on the shelf, I was very happy. I have been an avid movie-goer and movie-lover for years, and the only other Movie Encyclopedia I had was several years old. Unfortunately, when I got this book home I realized that MANY names were misssing. For example, Pamelyn Ferdin who was in a Clint Eastwood movie called "The Beguiled" in 1971. It seems there is no consistency regarding who he includes in this book, and who is left out. It should be ALL or nothing.

Initially about a year ago I made the mistake of following the other reviews which panned the book, and did not buy it. I then gradually realized that some of my favorite short bios on IMDB.com were excerpted from Maltin's Encyclopedia. Of course at that point I bought it. There are few, if any, other volumes that quickly give you the sum-up and low-down on 2,000 movie industry people. To say the book has errors and omissions is to me ridiculous...a perfect book would cost a few thousand dollars. Meanwhile, IMDB.com is available as a backstop for searching out hundreds of thousands of details, which wouldn't fit in a reasonably sized volume anyway. Generally speaking, I've gone wrong far more often in rejecting something based on a review or an opinion about a book, movie, etc., than in consuming something recommended -- you can always bail out if a recommender was wrong.

Leonard has done a great job on this. Tasty tidbits on the stars of yesterday and today. I have only one complaint, there are many of the old stars he did not include. Too bad.

I've been buying Leonard Maltin's movie guide for twenty years, and, as always, I find it to be an essential reference. But I'm beginning to see its limitations as well. Somebody, perhahps Maltin himself, needs to come out with a companion volume that treats the vast library of TV movies that rarely get any play on the networks anymore but which hold fond memories for me (few are represented in the present volume, and previous entries for TV movies are missing). As it is, there are over 20,000 titles here, and, while I don't always agree with Maltin's ratings, I always appreciate his critical acumen. One quibble: every year since he began indexing "stars" in the back (I miss the director's index, by the way) I've been expecting him to add the name of Keanu Reeves. It's a curious omission. I can tell from the reviews of his films that Maltin generally likes Reeves, so this doesn't appear to be a deliberate slight. Edward Norton is there, and so is Matt Damon. Why not Reeves? [I just bought the new edition, and guess who's in the index? Thanks for listening, Leonard!]

For years, "Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide" has been a staple in my library. For quick and easy reference, this volume puts the facts you need at your fingertips, including availability, formats, ratings and capsule reviews that include director, stars, running time and date of release, for over 20,000 movies. There is also an "Index of Stars," which, though fairly limited (due to space, no doubt) is valuable nonetheless, especially when you need "facts fast." Even the most astute movie buff will encounter the "When was that movie made?" or "Who was in that film besides-" questions from time to time. With this handy guide, you simply flip through the alphabetical listings, and you have your answer in no time. Included,as well, are "Also known as" titles and many cross-references. An interesting addition this year is the "100 Must-See Films of the 20th Century" list, which, as Maltin notes, is to be considered merely a starting point for the comprehensive viewing of truly significant movies. All in all, "The Maltin," (as I like to call it) contains the most helpful information, and is the easiest to use reference guide I have read. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes to watch, talk, collect and think about movies.

Maltin rocks. He gives the best capsule reviews in the world. Pithy, brief, colorful. Time and again I've seen a movie and thought, "Wow, he hit the nail on the head."

Merely because he points out a film's weaknesses as well as his strengths is no reason to hate him. I like a reviewer who is hard to impress; high praise SHOULD be reserved for greatness.

Here's the meat of his commentary on FORREST GUMP: "Either you accept Hanks in this part and go with the movie's seriocomic sense of whimsy, or you don't (we didn't) -- but either way it's a long journey, filled with digitized imagery that puts Forrest Gump into a wide variety of backdrops and real-life events." That seems both thoughtful and accurate. And he's right: it's a 2.5 star movie, not a 4 star movie.

Maltin is the best movie guide reviewer we have. Buy this book.

i have never looked through this book,but i bet it's just as bad as his movie guide book.

Leonard Maltin and his partners again provide a good resource for movie selection for kids. This time, they get it about 85% right. I found myself reminded of several movies I had forgotten about but which my kids (daughter 7, son 4) might like: "Singin' in the Rain", "James & the Giant Peach", and "Li'l Abner." And, I learned about good movies I had not known about, such as "Korczak", for older children, and "Billy Rose's Jumbo" (with Doris Day).

Maltin overlooks a recent straight-to-video Miramax movie my kids love. "The Thief & the Cobbler" features the voices of Vincent Price as the rhyming villain, Jonathan Winters as the persistent thief, Matthew Broderick as the charming cobbler and Jennifer Beals as the spunky Princess. The animation is startling, the story is great and the running ruminations of Jonathan Winters hilarious. I also notice that Maltin does not include Mary Martin's "Peter Pan" or the remake of "Mighty Joe Young."

Each film has a note as to how it will play with young children and another note for older children. "Babe," for instance, is "VG" for young children and "VG" for older children. Maltin seems to measure these scores on a variety of points, including themes of sexuality, or violence, or boredom. He is especially alert to how frightening movies can be, and will comment about difficult parts. He also understands that children and adults view the same movie differently. "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure " is boring or insipid but for kids it is "VG/VG." "Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang" is understood to be a weak "Poppins" imitation, but some kids like it anyway ("VG/NG"). Most of the newer "Batman" films get a direct "no" for young children. "A Patch of Blue" gets a "no" for young children and "VG" for older children. I would want Maltin to distinguish or alert us to other, more subtle problems with certain movies and the lessons and scenes our children will take away from them. Young children, especially, live in a world in which bad behavior is punished and good behavior is rewarded, but many movies do not care about that. In "Pocahontas" ("VG/VG") there is no clear good guy/bad guy division, which was quite disturbing to my kids. For "Dumbo" ("VG/VG"), which Maltin correctly describes as sweet and sad, he notes the scene in which Mother is locked up as a Mad Elephant, but does not recognize the depth of the lesson in this to very young children, that a mother's protections are punished and that Mother can be taken away and the baby left alone. Elsewhere, Maltin has listed "Dumbo" on his "best 10 for children" list. For "Oliver!" ("VG/VG") Maltin makes a point of noting the darker side of the movie, in the physical brutality of Bill against Nancy. I would argue that the beatings overshadow the benefit of the rest of the film for children under 9. In "Grease" ("OK/VG"), the good guys can be mean to their girls, and casually smoke cigarettes. My daughter could not resolve those paradoxes and found it too difficult to work through them and enjoy the story. Maltin does not mention these but does note the problem message, of the heroine getting her man by "trashing'' herself. "Annie" points out the potential terror and confusion for young viewers but still rates it "VG" for young children (and "OK" for older kids).

Today children will watch a video a dozen times (or fifty), and we parents need help to pick through the lessons they are learning. Maltin provides some help and is alert to many of the pitfalls. In the end our own presence is needed to answer questions -- and ask the questions for them, where they are unable to pick apart their confusion. As Maltin reminds in his introduction, "every film is made better when you talk about it with your kids."

A well organized calendar, that's filled with hundreds of movies and stuff about 'em. But the films in it arn't so great, or well known. A good choice for movie buffs, but not for film-illiterates like me.