[Lord Aquaman]

I was reading one of the latest editions of Leonard Maltin's review guide to the movies, and I noticed he gave the 1996 sci-fi adventure "Independence Day" two and a half stars and called it "a spectacularly stupid" film, while giving the 2003 sci-fi flop "The Core" 3 stars and praising its intelligence even though it was one of the stupidest films of 2003 and featured terrible performances. Now ID4 wasn't exactly "Lawrence of Arabia" but it was a hell of a lot better than "The Core".

Then again, Maltin praised Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace with 3 stars, calling it "fun in an old time cliffhanger serial kind of way" but criticizing Episode 2 for its stiffness. Now both episodes 1 and 2 were not particularly good, but how could he call the 1st one "good" and the 2nd one just passable?

The question I ask you - can Maltin be trusted?

[Laura]

Well, first of all, it's not him seeing all those movies-- there aren't enough hours in a day-- it's a team of employees and interns, all of whom have different tastes. So it's not really codified in the way you expect it to be.

Second of all, IIRC, he praises even the most wretched of old (pre-60s) movies and judges newer movies more harshly. I understand why, because in general, older movies that are still watched today have stood the test of time and thus are better than your average blockbuster schlock, and there is some golden age of hollywood greatness that you just don't get today, but still-- some of those movies were pretty shitty.

[Just your average movie goer]

I can't tell for sure because I haven't seen The Core. But the guy is right on the money about Independence Day. I wouldn't have even given that movie half a star.

However, he's absolutely and completely out of his mind in giving Episode I three stars. I have NEVER come across a serious reviewer who liked that film.

[Jordan]

Laura

How could he not have enough time to watch all the movies that come out? Or at least the popular ones that demand reviews. 2-3 movies a day is do-able if you're getting paid.

He's a paid lobbyist.

[Vwing]

Um JYAMG. Go to this site rottentomatoes.com and search for the two Star Wars prequels. You'll be very surprised about the results.

Not to mention that Roger Ebert gave it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars http://rogerebert.su.../905170301/1023.
He did however give Episode II 2 stars.

[Just your average movie goer]

My God. I think... shocked is a better description here than surprised.

Most of the reviews I heard or read for these films, I heard about them and read about them at the times of the films' releases, back when I was in Australia.

Perhaps Australian reviewers are the most reliable.

[azerty]

I just read Ebert's review, and contrary to JYAMG's reaction, I thought it was quite middle of the road. It didn't exactly praise the movie, and it also seems to me as if Ebert isn't exactly a fan of Star wars. He only seems to say that generally Star Ward movies are lightweight entertainment with fun stuff to look at, and this movie fits that criteria. If your question to Ebert is "is this movie what I should expect for a kid's space fanatasy film?" his answer is "mostly". Where is the shock?

I think a reviewer's job is to relate to the public if a movie is generally well crafted or not. Disliking violent Vampire movies is no reason to condemn "Underworld" for example. I saw that new Ray Charles movie not too long ago, and though I wasn't exactly thrilled by it, I could hardly give it a poor review. It was well acted, well shot, well editied, etc. Anybody would have to give it a thumbs up, even if you thought it was a bit long and occasionally slow.

As an aside to "professional critics", I think Titanic recieved more acadamy awads than any film in history (along with Ben Hur.) What does that tell you about taste vs quality?