Rating: 
Summary: Easy manageable size. Reviews are very small.
Review: I also own a stack of other film encyclopedias but for weight and manageability this is the best of the lot. The book is around 2 inches thick - but is the size of a novel and you can hold it in one hand. It is a full resource (with over 18,000 titles!), easy to carry around and has a full listing of directors and cast at the back along with Oscar winners. Overall the reviews are not very good and they are limited to just four of five lines at best. I mostly do not use it for the reviews though. It is more of a "find a director or star that you like and quickly flick through the index and the corresponding works to see what else they have done". For that it is very impressive but if you are looking for in-depth reviews then you should go elsewhere for the more unmanageable volumes and Arnold Schwarzenner to help carry them around for you.
Rating:
Summary: very good but sometimes frustrating
Review: I get this tome every year for Christmas from my hubby because I couldn't live without it! I used to get the Maltin one, but I switched because I like the more complete Porter and Martin way of reviewing--from a big old turkey to five stars and also because of the Oscar guide and complete actor guides in the back. I like to just read this book and mark movies I'd like to watch, which leads to my only two complaints:
1) I wish the foreign films with subtitles were not mixed in with normal American movies--or if they must be, mark them in an obvious way before I get all excited about it--there are plenty of people, like me, who can barely sit through a subtitled film no matter how highly rated.
2) There are TONS of movies not rated at all. Now I know that the point of this book is only movies you can RENT, but when I''m playing with the TV remote and come across a movie, I'd like to be able to look it up and see if it's worth watching. Many times I go through the bother of looking it up only to find that, apparently since it's not in video stores, it's not in the book. Otherwise, the reviews are very good, (though some inexplicably longer than others) sometimes downright funny. Be forewarned, though, ladies...a great chick flick can nearly never get a great rating, but a great shoot 'em up invariably will.
Rating: 
Summary: Sometimes Incorrect
Review: I was all set to title this review "head and shoulders above Maltin's guide, 4,000 more reviews of movies that can actually be purchased" But now I see that statement is not entirely true. Who wouldn't prefer a guide devoted to films you can actually buy instead of wasting space on movies that have never been released on home video, and as such are virtually impossible to find? And all this for a dollar less than Maltin's. But what if Martin/Porter are wrong? So far I've found two movies that haven't been released in the Martin/Porter guide. They are also reviewed in Maltin's guide and correctly identified as unavailable. Plus, there are some films that Martin/Porter don't review, but Maltin does, then again the reverse is true. The main reason I switched is that I have used Maltin's guide since 2001, and all of them with the exception of the 2003 guide have fallen apart in one way or another. The 2001 guide actually split in half. I think that I'll stay with Martin/Porter for at least another year and give them a chance to correct their errors, but getting your hopes up that something is available only to find out that it is not is quite frustrating.
Rating:
Summary: Sometimes Incorrect
Review: I was all set to title this review "head and shoulders above Maltin's guide, 4,000 more reviews of movies that can actually be purchased" But now I see that statement is not entirely true. Who wouldn't prefer a guide devoted to films you can actually buy instead of wasting space on movies that have never been released on home video, and as such are virtually impossible to find? And all this for a dollar less than Maltin's. But what if Martin/Porter are wrong? So far I've found two movies that haven't been released in the Martin/Porter guide. They are also reviewed in Maltin's guide and correctly identified as unavailable. Plus, there are some films that Martin/Porter don't review, but Maltin does, then again the reverse is true. The main reason I switched is that I have used Maltin's guide since 2001, and all of them with the exception of the 2003 guide have fallen apart in one way or another. The 2001 guide actually split in half. I think that I'll stay with Martin/Porter for at least another year and give them a chance to correct their errors, but getting your hopes up that something is available only to find out that it is not is quite frustrating.
Rating: 
Summary: 5 STARS !!!
Review: I've been turning to Martin and Porter for around 14 years now and all I can say is that I eagerly await each year's edition. When I first went looking for a paperback movie guide to keep on my desk, I spent a lot of time checking out the competition and found them all lacking in some area. Leonard (who is quite film savvy) and I just didn't see eye-to-eye at all. If he didn't like a certain genre, those type movies didn't get a fair shake. Many of the others were geared for family viewing (which is fine but I've been there, done that, and have moved on to encompass a wider range of films). The only one that I found to be fair and have the technical info (color or b&w, running time, rating, subtitles, year released, cast, director, etc.) that I was looking for was Video & DVD Guide (VDG - formerly Video Movie Guide [VMG]). I've watched the book's format change (for the better) over the years (I happily don't have to figure out the genre of the movie before looking it up anymore). After reading some of the other reviews of this series over the years, I understand the frustration of not having all of an actor's or director's films listed but if you read the Foreward/Introduction, you'd know that only the available (for rent and/or purchase) titles are covered (at the time of publication). This is why I've kept my old VMG/VDGs for reference. Nobody seems to mind when a book or DVD has an incomplete filmography on an actor or director, so what's the beef?
Rating:
Summary: For All Movie Lovers!!!
Review: If you haven't discovered this gem of a book, please do!! This book is for anyone who loves movies! The reviews are very informative, and it is so easy to look up whatever movie you want information on. I also love the section at the end of the book, that lists cast and director indexes. There is just so much information in this book! It's fun, whenever you have a few extra minutes, to just browse through the book. I have found movie listings of some entertaining movies that I wasn't even aware existed! I always look forward to this time of year, because I know Mick Martin and Marsha Porter will be putting out their newest Dvd & Movie review book!! I did want to also mention, this book is available with larger print, for those who prefer that choice!! If you love movies, you will not be disappointed with this book. So please try it and see!!!!
Rating:
Summary: Good video guide
Review: Martin and Porter rates movies from one star (Turkey) to five stars. In addition to major thearical movies they also include TV Movies. Each review includes a brief description of the movie as well as a list of cast members. They also include an extensive caste and director index. They also include a list of the major academy award winners.
Rating:
Summary: The best, complete, honest, no nonsense movie guide around
Review: Ten years ago, long before Istarted surfing the web, I purchased my first ever copy of what was then called VMG. As I was passionate about movies (and still am), I read every single review there was in the book, and in the end it looked as tattered as hell. I still have my first copy, it's yellow-brownish and torn, and for me symbolizes my great love for this book and for movies. I've leafed through Maltin's guide quite a few times, and the "video and dvd movie guide" is hands down the best there is. Here's why:
Five stars to turkey, a rating system flexible enough for nuiances, and there are also the 1/2 ratings, i.e ***1/2. This allows for great accuracy in reviews, as opposed to the broad strokes which a four star rating sometimes uses. The book is very easy to read, the title is highlighted, the stars are bold and clear (unlike in Maltin's). Not to mention the Turkey! The fabulous cast and director indexes. Today, at the Internet age, you can log on to imdb.com and find complete filmographies, but in the past those indexes taught me a great deal about cast and directors body of work. And it still does. Sometimes I don't feel like opening the computer to find something. This is a no nonsense guide. It's totally unpretentious, it usually shows a movie true worth, without over analizing, without apologies. It is impossible to agree with everything in the book, yet I've seen hundreds of films which appear in this guide, and as far as I'm concerned, it stands at about 90 percent hit, 10 percent miss. So, ten years later, I'm still buying the new editions of this book. It was and still is a great tool for me, and it taught me a great deal about movies. People Magazine was right. This is THE BEST.
Rating:
Summary: Almost As Good As Maltin for Me (Better for Some)
Review: The Martin-Porter DVD and Video Guide looks like a clone of Leonard Maltin's Guide; the two are very similar in appearance. The Martin-Porter guide actually has slightly more reviews than Maltin's. These, however, appear to be at the low end of the ratings spectrum. By contrast, Martin-Porter seems to have significant holes in the top end of that spectrum. In my own fairly large movie library, about 9% of the titles are reviewed in Maltin but not in Martin-Porter, while the converse is true for only a very few films. Martin & Porter review films on a five-star scale, but a "turkey" in their guide is any film with fewer than two stars, while a "bomb" in Maltin's guide is any film with fewer than 1.5 stars. Thus, there is only one more rating category in Martin-Porter than in Maltin. The authors might just as well have stuck with a four-star system and simply used the *1/2 and * logos before shouting "turkey." The Martin-Porter reviews seem to be sometimes lower-brow than those in Maltin's guide. For example, the first two episodes of the "Lord of the Rings" and the first two episodes of "Star Wars" (the prequel series) each receive five stars in Martin-Porter. In Maltin (with a maximum possible rating of four stars), the respective ratings are only ***, ***1/2, ***, and **. At the same time, a serious and challenging film like "Last Tango in Paris" (1972), rated ***1/2 in Maltin and declared to contain one of Brando's greatest performances (this writer agrees), is denounced in Martin-Porter as a "pretentious sex melodrama." These particular ratings may be the litmus test for prospective purchasers of one or the other guide. One confusing aspect of this guide and its ratings is the statement that movies are rated within genres, so that a "B-movie western," to cite the editors' example, is not compared with "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962). But "B-movie" simply means a movie of lower quality than an "A-movie" (like "Lawrence"). What about comparisons with A-movie westerns like "High Noon" (1952), "Shane" (1953) or "The Searchers" (1956), all of which get the highest possible ratings from Maltin without special consideration of genre? Clearly, there is no reason to rate westerns or any other genre by different criteria from those for the dramas. One can find truly excellent films in every genre, which will set the scale for reviews. (Well, maybe not for cannibal movies.) And how does one reconcile the statement that movies are rated within genres with another statement, only a few paragraphs away, that the earlier practice of arranging movies by genre had been abandoned, because so many movies nowadays are of mixed genre? Either I or Mr. Martin and Ms. Porter (probably all three of us) are very confused. On the plus side, the guide gives fuller explanations for the MPAA ratings, which will be helpful to families with young children. The guide also reviews TV series, some going back to the 1950s, which is nice. This is, after all, a video and DVD guide, not just a cinema guide. Also, the descriptions of the films are somewhat longer than Maltin's. There is also a fairly extensive cast and director index. Unfortunately, the film titles are arranged alphabetically rather than chronologically (as in Maltin). For many people (families with young children, people who aren't very adventurous in their movie tastes) this may be the best all-around movie guide. But for completeness, ratings, and for sensible evaluations of movies with an edge, I much prefer Maltin. PROS AND CONS OF DIFFERENT FILM GUIDES: (see also my individual reviews, some still in progress) Halliwell's Film and Video Guide---Pro: very comprehensive (18,000 reviews), excellent extensive filmmaking data (the best there is). Con: 2/3 of films simply dismissed as not worth rating (i.e., no stars). Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide---Pro: very comprehensive (18,000 reviews), excellent ratings (the best there is), well-chosen actor list. Con: limited filmmaking data. Martin & Porter DVD & Video Guide---Pro: MPAA rating details given, reviews TV series, very extensive director and actor lists, competitive with Maltin in comprehensiveness (18,000 reviews). Con: reviews sometimes low-brow, many significant films omitted which appear in Maltin or Halliwell. Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbooks---Pro: Superb, long, penetrating, passionate reviews, many unique extra features as appendices. Con: Not comprehensive film guides (nor were they meant to be). Time Out Film Guide---Pro: Excellent incisive often longer-than-usual capsule reviews, almost as much data as Halliwell. Con: No ratings (some people may regard this as a plus), less comprehensive than Maltin and Halliwell (15,000 reviews), more comprehensive than TLA. TLA Video and DVD Guide---Pro: Long thoughtful reviews, interesting film lists in appendix. Con: Not comprehensive (9000 reviews), many important films omitted, ratings too generous at top of spectrum, many minor errors. Guide Vidéo + DVD (in French)---Pro: Excellent ratings (attempts even to separate the masterpieces from the merely excellent and remarkable). Con: More of a rental and sales catalogue for La Boite Noire in Montreal, Canada, than a film guide, films selected for reviews based on commercial needs of store rather than on quality of film, only about 9000 films reviewed, film discriptions only one line, very limited cast lists, often no critical comment other than rating. (available from amazon.fr) Jean Tulard's "Guide des films" (in French)---Pro: very long descriptions and analyses, sometimes of almost literary quality, (guide is three volumes totaling 3300 pages), good filmmaking data (but not nearly as extensive as Halliwell or Time Out), comprehensive (18,000 reviews), most extensive collection of reviews for non-English-language films, film-title dictionary (original language to French). Con: ratings sometimes idiosyncratic, many minor errors and inconsistencies, comments sometimes overly caustic, expensive, need to know film title in French or original language. (available from amazon.fr)
Rating:
Summary: An excellent guide
Review: The reviews are great in VDG. The best part is the actor and director index in the back of the book. I've never found another guide with this in it.
|
