Needs to get back on track
|
As someone who has been buying and devouring Halliwell's since the first edition back in 1977, I find it disappointing to see Walker requesting that his name is removed from the credits - almost as disappointing as the disdain with which the publishers increasingly treat this once great movie bible. The two elements that set Halliwell's apart from the rest are the star rating system and the use of italics to denote outstanding performance. In the latest edition, the former is ill-used and the latter is dispensed with altogether.
Yes, Leslie Halliwell was a reactionary old grump who hated pretty much everything post 1969, but that was part of his charm, bless 'im. History has shown that he unfairly undervalued much of the 70s/80s output and John Walker's revisions were pretty welcome after Halliwell's untimely death. As an example, it was Walker who converted the superb 'Southern Comfort' from 0-star to 4-star rating, thus restoring some sanity. Like Halliwell, Walker's reviews were sharp and pithy and, other than the aforementioned sensible revisions, he tried to keep the spirit of Halliwell alive. The new reviewer is far more verbose and some of his decisions are questionable but I guess that's his prerogative.
Unfortunately, the biggest problem is that recent editions have tinkered with the format feverishly and taken away much of what made this guide something to be eagerly anticipated each year. The silly introduction of coloured film titles, the unhelpful addition of character names after each actor's name and the italicisation of the review section to distinguish it from the plot paragraph are all gimmicks too far. None have added any real value - quite the opposite.
But, above all, italicisation to reward outstanding performances by actors or creators is something that defines Halliwell's. With the 2008 edition, it appears even that sacred cow can be put out to pasture.
After thirty years, it could be time to find a new guide.
|
|
real signs of improvement
|
|
I think Halliwell's is gradually starting to move with the times. Having had the latest edition now for a fortnight, I like the slightly longer reviews for the more important new films. The new editor writes well enough, and he even has a sense of humour which was never evident in this guide before. His introduction is sound, and he gives the impression of having seen every film he writes about. My reservation about the volume is the opinions expressed by the great Halliwell himself, many of which seem dismissive, reactionary or just plain out of date. He under-valued so many significant films from the 70s and 80s.
|
|
|
Misleading reviews and descriptions. Needs a total re-write
|
Each listing includes title, year, abbreviated credits, the film's plot in one sentence, and a review of the film in one sentence.
You should see this before you buy it and make your own mind up.
As a basic listing book it is fine . It contains thousands of entries. But other basic information is welcome. For example, how much did the film cost on the balance sheet? Notable facts like that.
As a film guide [i.e. what it claims to be] it is thoroughly apalling and needs a thorough rewrite. The italicised reviews and the plot summaries are so misleading they are sometimes wrong. The original review of Jaws (1976) is typical. Try to read this slowly: `...despite genuinely suspenseful and frightening sequences, it is a slackly narrated and sometimes flatly handled thriller with an over-abundance of dialogue and, when it finally appears, a pretty unconvincing monster.' What does it mean to 'slackly' narrate a film? The authors can't tell you what they mean either cos it doesn't make any sense! How is it possible to 'flatly handle' a film? As opposed to do what? The pretentious criticism of films throughout the book, shoved down your throat, is off putting.
It does not seem to do what I thought it would, which is enlighten readers and give an insight into the 'construction' of each film listed. That is my definition of a good film guide, so I was very disappointed.
It should speak in plain English and not be so pretentious. Throughout Halliwell's there is overembellished language. It appears the authors merely want to be provacative for their own reputational gain, but they merely baffle and confuse readers with their comments which are almost always off the point and shoved down your throat.
Of course, some like having loads of dumb puerile comments shoved down your throat in a somewhat patronising way. But the approach is totally unecessary. The author should consult the Radio Times Film Guide to see one way how Halliwell's could be bettered.
In short, "totally absurd, poorly contrived, hilariously overwritten".
|
|
The juries still out on this one.
|
As a massive fan of the Halliwell's Film, Video and DVD Guide series, when I saw the slap-dash black sticker bearing David Gritten's name hastily stuck over former editor John Walker's name, I opened it with a certain sense of trepidation. Upon reading the introduction I was somewhat nonplused to see Babel and The Last King of Scotland cited as movies of the year, two films that I had found somewhat disappointing; yet pleasantly suprised to see Children Of Men and The Departed get a mention. As I turned to the back pages to see the three and four star films listed alphabetically my bemusement grew. Seeing The Good Shepherd amongst the three star films was the biggest shock, as this was a film that, although interesting and well shot, was in dire need of better editing and more suitable casting. Other suprise recipients of the three star award include Meet the Robinsons and The Host, perfectly good films on their own terms, but of great historical significance? I think not. While some films were rightly lauded: The Lives of Others is deservedly awarded the sole four star rating, and Pan's Labyrinth, Little Miss Sunshine and Volver all get the three stars that they merit; some of the most remarkable films of the year get sadly overlooked: Apocalypto, 28 Weeks Later and Zodiac share only two stars amonsts them. Further to this, Gritten has failed to honour stand-out performances by representing the actors name in italics.
Yet despite these criticisms, I feel that Gritten has managed to retain in some measure the essence of what makes Halliwell's a superior film guide. The list of noteworthy movies of the year is characteristically short, the intoduction is interesting and relevant and the reviews, although not always as pithy, are informative and well written. To his credit Gritten justifies the length of some reviews in the introduction and I feel the lengthier reviews for notable movies may well prove a notable addition to the guide.
A final word on John Walker. While it was apparent that his tastes were becomming slightly broader in the last two editions, with the suprise three star awarding of Peter Jackson's King Kong, and over-generous revisions of Leslie Halliwell's reviews; he was for the most part consistent and reliable in his assessment of the numerous films reviewed and for this reason he will be sorely missed by lovers of the guide. It remains to seen whether or not the new look guide is in safe hands, but lovers of the old guide will be hoping that a "Johnn Walker's Film Guide" won't be too far away.
|
|
|
Orange?
|
|
I usually update my Halliwell's film guide every two years. Haven't seen the 2007 edition but I hope the 2008 edition hasn't persisted with the orange lettering for the film titles! Ever tried reading entries in a subdued, film viewing, evening light? Near impossible. Is there a better guide out there though?
|
|
|
United States | 
United Kingdom | 
Canada