Video Movie Guide 1999

Rating:
Summary: A big disappointment
Review: I *was* going to buy Halliwell's or Leonard Maltin's book, but the reviews on Video Movie Guide 2001 were so good I changed my mind. Yes, I agree with Mick Martin more often than I agree with Leonard Maltin. However, the book misses an awful lot of movies. Three weeks ago, on a sick-in-bed weekend, with nothing to do other than watch movies on cable, I hit the book full force. Over half of what I looked for wasn't there. I fully understand that no book can have everything, but come on! Less than half? Please. I immediately ordered Halliwell's and am now in movie heaven. It has a lot more hits than Martin and is infinitely more entertaining to read. Until 2000 I'd always used Leonard Maltin's books. Didn't always agree with the guy, but almost everything I looked for was in the book and after my experience with Martin, this was clearly not something I should have taken for granted.

Rating:
Summary: Only one format complaint.....
Review: Although the ratings and info are still there (echoing earlier editions,) this text is less pleasant to use because its literal dimensions are just too darn small. I guess the publishers decided it was more important to fit it in the supermarket/kiosk book racks that it was to provide larger, legible pages. As such, I'm still using my '97 version (unless we need info on more recent titles.) Bummer.

Rating:
Summary: 5 STARS !!!
Review: I've been turning to Martin and Porter for around 12 years now and all I can say is that I eagerly await each new year's edition of the Video Movie Guide (VMG). When I first went looking for a paperback movie guide, I spent a lot of time checking out the competition and found them all lacking in some area. Leonard and I just didn't see eye-to-eye at all. If he didn't like a certain genre, those type of 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 wide 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 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 film before looking it up anymore). After reading some of the other reviews, I understand the frustration of not having all of an actor's films listed but if you read the Forward/Introduction to VMG you'd know that only available (for rent and/or purchase) titles are covered. This is why I've purchased a couple of older VMGs to add to my collection 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: Smaller and getting worse but not a bad guide.
Review: Video Movie Guide 2001 keeps on cramming more and more movies into a beefy little book. How do they keep adding more reviews to the book without making it grow any bigger? Simple, they trim reviews of past movies, and unless a movie is a huge hit or hot out of the theater success onto VHS or DVD, it will warrant bigger write ups over previous movies released at the same time which sometimes can get a rather paltry write up. Some bad movies get a one line or 8 word review with no good explanation as to why it is bad IE (Yeah Poice Academy 5 probably is bad but why? They don't explain it well.) Or as an example to how reviews get trimmed to accomodate room for the new additions, an earliar edition of the book compares the movie Mullholland Falls as being a later day Chinatown. Someone might be interested in that! Even with all of these flaws and gradual slag offs in quality, Video Movie Guide 2001 still remains an adequete guide to help in that rental/movie buying decision.

Rating:
Summary: Best of the 2 biggies
Review: I've owned this book over the years and Leonard Maltin's over the years. All the others aren't as good as these 2 (Blockbuster, Halliwell, etc). Both Maltin's and this one use the word "Brilliant" way too much. Every 5 star movie has someone's "brilliant" performance or direction, it seems. Maltin's is worse in this regard. Other than this, here are the reasons I prefer this one over Leonard Maltin: 1. Maltin spends too much ink on writing to the movie expert instead of the average joe:, ie; "Look for Joe Schmuck in a cameo..." or "this movie was done 3 times before ...." I don't care about this stuff. I just want a review. Mick Martin does it too, but not as much. 2. Maltin uses only 4 stars instead of 5. Five makes more sense. 3. Maltin only has a very limited number of movie stars and the movies they've acted in at the back of the book. Mick Martin's is much more comprehensive. 4. My tastes correspond more to Martin's book than Leonard Maltin's. For example, compare "Home Alone" in the 2 books. Maltin says it's too violent and he's not too favorable. Martin agrees with the rest of the nation in loving it. This is indicative of the difference between most of the reviews--at least of the movies I've seen.

Rating:
Summary: A MOVIE DICTIONARY
Review: WITH 1582 PAGES OF MOVIE REVIEWS AND MOVIE RELATED MATERIAL, THERE IS NO WAY ONE WILL AGREE WITH EVERYTHING. HOWEVER, I OFTEN REFER TO THIS GUIDE FOR MANY REASONS. IT'S LIKE A TOOL MORE THAN A BOOK. WHERE ALOT OF SIMILAR GUIDES DON'T OFFER AS MUCH, ONE EXAMPLE IS: EVEN IF AN ACTOR ONLY HAS 1 OR 2 MOVIES, THEY ARE STILL LISTED IN THE CAST INDEX. THIS IS NOT FOUND IN MOST OTHER REVIEW GUIDES. ALOT OF READERS WONDER WHY ALOT OF THE REVIEWS ARE SHORT. IT IS SIMPLE. EACH YEAR WHEN THE NEW BOOK IS PRINTED, OLDER REVIEWS HAVE TO BE EDITED TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE HUNDREDS OF NEW LISTINGS. HOW FAT DO YOU THINK A BOOK CAN GET? THE TRUTH IS THIS GUIDE DOES HAVE MORE MOVIES THAN ANY OTHER. I'VE READ ALL THE OTHER GUIDES (EBERT, MALTIN, BONES ect.). BOTTOM LINE: WELL WORTH THE MONEY. EVEN IF IT'S NOT W/O IT'S FLAWS.

Rating:
Summary: My son's favorite
Review: The Martin, Porter video guides are the only ones my video watching son will use. We've bought others, but these seem to be the most concise and easy to use as a reference for video viewing.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but less user-friendly than it used to be
Review: The Video Movie Guide is useful, but it should be more user-friendly. For example, past editions marked the actor and director indices clearly ON EVERY PAGE. Now if you want to find a director or actor you have to thumb around the back of the book with no way of knowing whether you're in the director or actor section. It's very frustrating. I'd also like to see them bring back the appendices listing four and five star movies. On the plus side, it's great that the authors have finally done away with the silly genre categories.

Rating:
Summary: Better Than Horrid "Maltin", But Misses Some Movies.
Review: I agreed with theses people much more than terrible Leonard Maltin, ... They gave movies I enjoy pretty good reveiws. Note: Maltin thinks Friday The 13th deserves 1/2 stars. They think it deserves three. I agree. It's not a terrific movie, but it still isn't complete junk. I liked Betsy Palmer. Anyway, Maltin just hates everything, these people seem to try hard to find something good about the movie before calling it awful. Although, the cover shows a shot for American Beauty, but it's not actually in here. And, some of their reveiws are WAY to short. Like, for example, Ghoulies. They said in their reveiw "Gruesome. Rated PG-13 for Violence and Sexuality." What a helpful reveiw, NOT! I, myself, don't beleive in criticts, I just watch a movie and decide whether or not I like it. You should, too. ...

Rating:
Summary: superficial reviews
Review: I recommend Maltin's guide over this one. The reviews are infinitely better written and more entertaining to read. These ones sometimes give no information at all about films (sometimes none whatsoever -- check POLICE ACADEMY 5), and always give new films absurdly long reviews. Maltin always writes more or less the same amounts for every entry. Also, the reviews sound like they're written by amateurs, not critics or film historians. They are written lazily and quickly, I'm sure. They are also often inaccurate. Who could ever state that POLTERGEIST is better than RAGING BULL? Well, these people do. They also think ERNEST GOES TO JAIL is a "comic gem". Better than THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY. That should be more than enough to suggest you should to stick with Maltin and forget about this sloppy guide.