
Originally Posted by
A Pemberton
Your mention of Halliwells guide brings back memories of the pre internet bible for the film fan,...Im not sure its required reading these days but I stand to be corrected.
May I? I still read the guide a lot. The Internet has far more information, obviously, but the imdb, for example, is full of rambling opinions by people who I don't necessarily trust or have any interest in, while the Halliwell has little synopses and pithy critiques that are more often than not very witty. Even when demonstrably completely wrong. In having to choose just the right verb or adjective, due to space restrictions, the Film Guide and the Who's Who become almost poetic in their use of language. Short, sharp and to the point, even if the point is wrong.
I found this website recently, in which many if the Halliwell reviews are reviewed or commented on ... addictive, as is so much on the Net.
http://www.lesliehalliwell.com/index.html
Anyway, anybody who doesn't have a fairly recent Halliwell's should remedy that situation now, because it is simply a nice thing to have.
The common criticism of Halliwell, as A Pemberton said above, was his simple dislike of modern movies. He reluctantly saw good bits in many modern films, but more often than not he just talked up their bad points and dismissed films recognised now as classics ... But if he was writing the same thing now, he would be regarded as an iconoclast; can you say nothing bad about Aliens or Jaws? Are they really perfect? Is it criminal to accuse Close Encounters of having padding? Or Being There of being overlong? I think he's often right, and I find much of my own opinion echoed in the quote by him below (from the website):
"…of today’s crop I have soon had my fill. Most of them are obscurely told; they tell me things I don’t wish to know, in language I find offensive; and they concern characters whom I would willingly cross the road to avoid. Cheap colour makes them unattractive to look at, and all the old studio crafts, so laboriously learned over a quarter of a century, appear to have been jettisoned in favour of obscenely large budgets which allow the film-maker to wander restlessly around the world crashing real aeroplanes and giving a distorted view of real locations instead of setting his own and the audience’s imaginations to work."