MovieChat Forums > The Passionate Friends (1949) Discussion > Maltin is wrong on this one

Maltin is wrong on this one

posted 13 years ago by jawebster2000
10 replies | jump to latest

TCM rated this movie as a 3 and a half star, which means it is pretty good, so I DVR'd it. Before I watched the movie, I read Leonard Maltin's review. He gave it only a 2 and a half star. He said it was "predictable". Call me stupid if you want, but I am well into an hour of the movie and I don't know what is going to happen next. Besides agreeing with TCM on this one, I have one thing to say. I think they should make it mandatory that all British movies, shown in the United States, must have close captioning...so we can understand what they are saying!

[–] conway3000 13 years ago

I think this movie was great. Maltin's review is all wet. It was not a bit predictable.

[–] creek_girl 13 years ago

It isn't at all predictable. I have a question about the movie on the boards if anyone wants to take a shot at it.

"Psychos do not explode when sun light hits them, I don't give a *beep* how crazy they are!"

[–] EdgarST 13 years ago

With all due respect, I don't know why people rate so highly Leonard Maltin's opinions. He is a very enthusiastic film buff, who has seen many "movies", who loves Walt Disney's productions, and is quite opinionated. But he is very far from the ranks of a Vincent Canby, Pauline Kael or Andrew Sarris.

[–] revival05 12 years ago

Late reply, and a bit random, but I feel such an urge to agree with you there. In my book, Maltin is notoriously dim. I'm not much for critisizing critics, one has got to respect other people's opinions especially if they are written with some thought which obviously is standard for most major critics, but Maltin seriously seems to be off his head so often its like some kind of running joke. Going through his Movie Guide it's hard to believe he's for real; it's as if he's made an effort to misinterpret every film he's ever seen, or just to write sheer absurdities that come out of the blue. (With exceptions given to canonized classics which he usually just praise without further ado). Even if you agree with him or not, his comments are ofentimes just plain odd.

I haven't seen The Passionate Friends, as I am just now going through all of David Lean's work from start to finish, but I certainly wouldn't go to Maltin for any serious guidance.

[–] Igenlode Wordsmith 12 years ago

I find Maltin pretty reliable as a guide to whether I'm likely to enjoy some unknown film: his tastes apparently run fairly close to mine, which is all one really asks for in a capsule movie guide.

Having said that, I certainly disagree with him on certain films, and this is one of them. (I feel that he is on the whole less reliable as a judge of English productions, which is probably a question of cultural difference.)

~~Igenlode, English to the core

Gather round, lads and lasses, gather round...

[–] Anscules 10 years ago

Those Maltin books are mostly compiled by a staff of about 10-14 different people. They put Maltin's face on the spine and his name in the title because middle America can recognize him as a "movie person." I wrote to him in the nineties irritated with the omission of Inagaki's Samurai Trilogy (when made for TV movies were included) and that was his defense. He has little to do with it.

The note was hand-written and pleasant. I've never really liked him as a critic (he's fine as a historian I guess), but I can't fault the guy when he sends hand-written letters to people (in a timely manner, too) who are irritated with him.

"Rampart: Squad 51."

[–] alisotom 10 years ago

That was nice of him to personally respond to you snd put the blame on someone else, but when he whores himself out by selling his name and reputation to the highest bidder in the pretense of being a "great movie critic", he should also accept the responsibility of a lousy review with his name on it.

[–] NYHeraldTribune 10 years ago

Whether a film is predictable or not seems like a pretty stupid basis to render judgement since the true value of a film lies in how it stands up to repeat viewings and every film only becomes more predictable the more times you watch it.

[–] maestro7PL 9 years ago

This may not be the place for this reply, but seriously, I think Leonard Maltin is one of the most reliable and fair critics when it comes to rating films, even if he does have a panel of critics working with him. By far, the most over-rated critic in America was ROGER EBERT. In his later years, he was completely "off-his-rocker" in his assessment of films. It got to the point that if he liked a film, I would not, and if he hated a film, I found it good. And though I am not a film historian, I see roughly 150 movies a year! He also--sad to say--was NOT a nice man. Not only did he mistreat Gene Siskel when they worked together, but I once wrote him a very cordial E mail, and he replied with a hasty and nasty one-sentence reply. It was incredibly rude! He also is over-praised as a writer. He apparently never learned that only an adverb can modify an adjective. I wish I had a dollar every time he would say or write "... he did a REAL GOOD job of...." This is un-grammatical, as any fourth-grader knows. It should be "REALLY GOOD." I think he was REALLY over-rated!!!!!!!

[–] arisdisc 8 years ago

I'm with most of you on Maltin's opinion. For decades (since the 60's when capsule ratings books first came out), I valued them. As another poster said, more often than not, I completely agreed with his ratings. In fact, many times, while randomly watching a movie, I would guess what his rating would be and later, when pulling out the book, about 80% of time we agreed exactly. Everyone is entitled to make a mistake now and then. While I don't care for his opinions since he jumped into TV (Ebert was the way to go), for many years, his guides were 'my guide'.
On another note, I've never seen this film, so for now, I'll put it on my list.