MovieChat Forums > Bunny Lake Is Missing (1966) Discussion > Rating changed in Leonard Maltin Movie G...

Rating changed in Leonard Maltin Movie Guide

posted 14 years ago by fentress
29 replies | jump to latest

I just recently watched this movie. I liked it for its suspense and mind-bending atmosphere. It had some plot holes, but I still liked it. I noticed an interesting thing in the Leonard Maltin Movie Guide. I have a 2009 edition and also have an old 1996 edition lying around the house. Before watching the movie, I looked it up in the 2009 guide and it was given a favorable capsule review. 3 stars (out of 4).

On a different day, I was curious about something and I looked the movie up in the 1996 guide, only because it happened to be handy. In the 1996 version, it was only a 2 star movie. Interesting. I know they change things occasionally if they find out some of the information was in error, but it’s interesting that they changed their opinion of the movie when - as far as I know – there was no lost footage found or any newly edited cut released.

But then I noticed in the unfavorable review that one of the negatives things the review said was that the movie wasted unwarranted time on “homosexuals and oddball characters”. That implies that one would be an oddball character simply because one is homosexual. Nowadays, no self-respecting PC critic would write that!

So I’m guessing that the implied homophobic slant in the original review was enough to flag this movie as being in need of a new review, and the new reviewer happened to like it better. Interesting.

Proof positive I’m spending too much time alone!

[–] preppy-3 14 years ago

Yeah--I caught that too. I haven't seen it in years but I don't remember there being ANY gay characters in the film! It was a slightly homophobic remark but I honestly don't think Maltin meant it that way. His other reviews of movies with gay content are dead on target and unoffensive. For instance he blasts "Cruising" for showing gay bars as being "sick, degrading and ritualistic". All too true. If he had a problem with gay guys he would have probably praised the movie nonstop.

[–] fentress 14 years ago

Interesting that someone else also noticed the change. I saw Bunny Lake pretty recently. I remember there were one or two characters in small parts who were eccentric and somewhat effiminate. One might come away with the impression that they were gay though I don't think it was ever explicitly stated. I don't think Maltin writes all those reviews himself but I agree it probably wasn't intended to be homophobic. It was an easy slip in phrasing. I would guess they were probably concerned with the mere appearance of homophobia.

[–] preppy-3 14 years ago

I agree--I don't think Maltin could have possibly seen all those movies. Also who knows when that original small review was written? As u said it mentions homosexuality but it's never made clear. Also I think it mentioned that the movie was fairly risque...and it isn't! But, in the 1960s it probably was. Maltin might have just "revised" an old review he read and put it in the book. But at least he's changed it now:) I also noticed in his review of "X, Y and Zee" that a love scene between Elizabeth Taylor and Susannah York ranks high in the annals of bad taste...but there isn't one in the movie! It's suggested...not shown. Again, he probably never saw it (BTW don't bother--it's a terrible movie:))

[–] Foot_Freakin_Master 11 years ago

My guess is Maltin has a whole team of people. Many reviews have varying styles of writing, focus, etc.

[–] J. Spurlin 14 years ago

I'm glad you posted this. I looked up the movie in my current guide and was surprised to see the 3-star rating. I had been sure the book rated it lower.

Frankly, I wish it had retained the low estimation of the movie. I rated it low, too—4/10 for IMDb. But the trouble isn't that we spend too much time on the oddball characters—all of whom are more interesting than the tedious leads. The trouble is that the story is contrived from the get-go. I didn't buy anything that was going on. That was partly because Preminger keeps us at a distance from Carol Lynley. We're not drawn into her plight, presumably because we have to suspect she's mad. But the distancing was unnecessary. We also suspect Deborah Kerr is mad in The Innocents, but we're still very much drawn into her world.

Everything after the major plot twist was particularly bad. I didn't believe the surprise, and everything that happens after it is screamingly ridiculous.

...Justin

[–] fentress 14 years ago

Good comments. I liked it a little better than you did. I was okay with everything up until the big twist. I found it genuinely creepy and suspenseful up to that point. But I agree the plot twist was totally out of left field in relation to what we had seen of the characters up to that point. What followed was pretty implausible too. The final sequence where real danger was looming (I'm trying to be discreet for anyone who hasn't seen it) was not orchestrated in any believable manner at all. The child didn't even look frightened.

I have not seen The Innocents. I'll have to try it.

[–] J. Spurlin 14 years ago

I wonder if I'd like the book any better. I was looking forward to the movie because the plot sounded great—sort of like The Lady Vanishes, only with a child. The trouble started for me right away because I didn't buy the performances of either of the two Americans: Carol Lynley or Keir Dullea. Lynley improved a bit, but Dullea got worse (especially at the end, but who could have pulled that off?) The trivia section says that the studio wanted Jane Fonda for the Lynley role. I wish they had gotten their way. Fonda, I'm sure, would have gotten me on the mother's side, instead of keeping me at a disinterested distance.

Check out The Innocents (1961). I had quibbles with it and rated it a churlish 6/10 for the database, but I suspect I'd revise my opinion if I ever saw it again.

...Justin

[–] fentress 14 years ago

Since you posted this, I have watched The Innocents. I liked it rather well. I might watch it again while I have it from Netflix. Often with a movie that has some real meat on its bones, I want to view it a second time to get a better sense of it.

My only minor complaint is that on a gut personal level I dock it a few points for being about the supernatural. I tend to prefer drama that's contained within the parameters of what most people agree to be metaphysically real. But that's just a personal preference with me, not really a comment on the quality of the film.

But as you said, you the viewer are drawn into Deborah Kerr's world. You're not sure what the score is until the end, which is good that it keeps you guessing. I’m not generally a great horror fan, so the fact that it made even me feel genuinely creeped out is a compliment to the movie. The Innocents hangs together as a whole better than Bunny Lake does.

Thanks for the recommendation.

[–] J. Spurlin 14 years ago

My only minor complaint is that on a gut personal level I dock it a few points for being about the supernatural.

I don't think that it is. When Henry James published The Turn of the Screw, most readers took it at face value: as a terrifying ghost story. But then other readers started to notice hints that the governess is an hysteric, who drew the simpleminded housekeeper into believing her nonsense and finally drove her young charge to have a heart attack and die. It seems to me that the filmmakers are very aware of this interpretation and that that's how they are presenting the story as well. I thought they were way too obvious about it, but since many viewers seem to be fooled, I may have thought it was obvious only because I already knew the subtext. When I read The Turn of the Screw, I took it as a straight ghost story, too, until I read the interpretations.

...Justin

[–] fentress 14 years ago

Wow, that's an interesting interpretation of the ending. Having not read the novel, that interpretation would have struck me as theoretically possible but an overly convenient stretch. But since as you say it was a more clear possibility in the novel, that gives another layer of possible meaning to the movie.

I probably will watch the movie another time before sending it back to Netflix, so I look forward to viewing it in the light of what you've just told me.

[–] J. Spurlin 14 years ago

That's interesting that you don't like supernatural tales much. I still have many favorites in that genre—from Nosferatu to The Dead Zone—but as I become more of a skeptic, I grow less able to suspend my disbelief. And I've noticed how rare it is for movies and TV shows to take the skeptic's point of view: imdb.com/list/mfh3u40UMG0/.

...Justin

[–] fentress 14 years ago

Well, maybe I should qualify that a bit. I am a bit on the skeptic side but there are exceptions for me. I do like several super-hero movies. I liked comics as a kid and can take super-heroes as just fun make-believe. At least with super-heroes, I don't know anyone who doesn't take it as fantasy. But with the supernatural, some people really do believe it.

I'm also not totally averse to film that explores religious faith either, though IMO there are few good ones. The Apostle is one of my favorite movies of all time. There's actually nothing in the movie that proselytizes to the viewer that Christian doctrine is metaphysically true. The film only takes you into the life and experience of people who DO believe, and from that perspective I find it interesting. Not for every taste admittedly; if one doesn’t care for Pentecostal preaching and gospel music then they probably won’t like it.

But with ghosts or vampires or such, I've simply never had a time in my life where I allowed for much possibility of such things being real. I'm not totally beyond a fun fantasy scare but it's unusual for me. I have it fixed it so strongly in my mind that such things are pure make-believe, it's a challenge for my imagination to get engaged in anything like that.

**** SPOILERS AHEAD ****

I took a quick look at that site. I'll have to check some of those out. I do like Rosemary's Baby. I always liked that it doesn't explicitly show you much - and you never see the child - so the eerie feeling comes from your imagination. Much more powerful that way. Interesting interpretation that nothing supernatural actually was going on. It strikes me as maybe a bit of a stretch since Mia Farrow does look genuinely horrified at the end when she sees the child, but a non-supernatural interpretation is plausible.

[–] J. Spurlin 14 years ago

I took a quick look at that site.

Actually, that's an IMDb page. IMDb lets us make those lists now. Pretty nice feature.

I've grown from being a believer in various nonsense (though never a committed or passionate one), including religion, to being a skeptic, albeit one who can't completely discard the irrational. The more skeptical I become, the less able I am to accept certain fantasy worlds. Superheroes and Star Wars are one thing. But The X-Files is another. I still enjoy it, but it seems less and less like a harmless fantasy and more like an outright lie. In the world of the TV show, Mulder should be considered the realist, while Scully would be a close-minded idiot. No skeptic in our world has ever seen what she has seen—and yet she still doesn't believe? If the paranormal is true in that world, then Scully is a fool and an idiot—and yet she's never presented that way.

...Justin

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] EdgarST 13 years ago

I believe that what makes "The Innocents" such a good film is that Jack Clayton approached the supernatural aspects under a realistic light. He did not deny the interpretation of the governess (children under the influence of ghosts), but rather assumed it from a more scientific perspective. In an interview he gave, published in "Cinefantastique" when the magazine dedicated an issue to the film in the 1980s, he referred to ghosts as "ectoplasmatic visitations". I cannot remember it now very well, but he admitted that someone in his family (he, his mother or grandmother) had these "visitations". We do not have to believe in them, just admit that some are more receptive to (can see) these as yet unexplained manifestations than we are.

[–] WarpedRecord 13 years ago

Kudos to you for catching the changing reviews between editions. I used to read those guides obsessively before the Internet took over.

Leonard Maltin is basically a figurehead for that guide, so he may or may not have had anything to do with the removal of the references to "homosexuals and oddball characters." Of course, it didn't say "homosexuals and other oddball characters," so it wasn't necessarily an anti-gay slam.

Really, the reference seems clueless because oddball characters seem to be the point of this film. They're there to make everyone a suspect.

As for homosexuals, the landlord with the mellifluous voice may have been stereotyped as one, but he was certainly putting the moves on Ann Lake, so I'm not even sure he was gay. And I didn't notice any other possible gay characters here, so the plural seems a mistake. So rather than out of social sensibilities, maybe they removed the reference for accuracy's sake?

Regardless, the upgrade to 3/4 stars seems more credible than 2/4 stars.

[–] moonspinner55 13 years ago

Take a look at Leonard Maltin's review for the 1967 fashion-&-war satire "The Day the Fish Came Out": "Comedy about homosexuals...combo of Candice Bergen with whips, chains, and leather doesn't work." I have a copy of "Fish" uncut, and there are no whips, there are no chains, this is no leather, and there are absolutely no gratuitously effeminate characters. Someone at Maltin's headquarters has some explaining to do.

[–] WarpedRecord 13 years ago

You're right about that description for "The Day the Fish Came Out." Frankly, I'd be very disappointed after reading that capsule if I expected whips, chains and leather. There seems to be a lot of innuendo and subtext in those review that have nothing to do with the films.

[–] moonspinner55 13 years ago

Amen! I actually tweeted Mr. Maltin about this very matter. Today, I'm still 'following' him but he's no longer following me. Hmmm!

[–] WarpedRecord 13 years ago

Interesting. Did he ever address the tweet, or just stop following you? It sounds like he doesn't want to pursue the issue. Was he following you just because you were following him? (Forgive my Twitter ignorance; I've never used it and am reluctant to set up an account.)

Leonard Maltin is really the figurehead for an umbrella of critics in that guide, but he is answerable to factual errors as long as his name and face are on the cover. Honestly, I find myself using those guides less and less with the convenience of IMDb and the fact that I'm not particularly interested in a lot of recent releases.

Roger Ebert's guides were always better anyway. You can certainly disagree with his opinions, but they seemed much more credible and better edited. Unfortunately, Ebert's guides don't cover as many films. The Video Retriever guide was also good for all the cross-referencing and lists in back. I still keep a handful of those guides under my coffee table, but I don't buy the updates as much anymore.

[–] moonspinner55 13 years ago

Many of my twitter followers (possibly Maltin included) are not there by choice but by proxy. For instance, I might have mentioned his name in a tweet and the next day--boom!--he's on my followers list. Nothing to be flattered about, it's automatic. Maltin has so much twitter traffic, he doesn't who he's actually following until someone addresses him directly on an issue that might make him uncomfortable. The result: Dropped! I had tweeted him a year ago about his review of "The Name of the Rose" (the capsule puts the story in the wrong century). He never addressed the comment, so I'm guessing it got lost in the shuffle or he politely ignored it. But this one about "Day the Fish" must have come through and he probably thought, "Let's get rid of that guy, he's a whiner." I will continue to follow him on twitter (that's possible unless he 'blocks' me). But if I were him, I'd be interested in the thoughts people have, the comments they leave, the faults they spot, etc. I wouldn't drop them because I couldn't be bothered...

[–] WarpedRecord 13 years ago

Thanks for the details. It sounds like Leonard may have a thin skin when it comes to criticism – or rather, correction. I'm sure a lot of folks use Twitter to flame celebrities, but that's the nature of the beast and certainly not the case here.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] capkronos 12 years ago

I think as far as the "homosexual characters" are concerned, he's speaking of Ada Ford and (the unseen) Miss Benton. Both women founded the school together, neither are married, they both live in a flat together above the school (we can assume the two have lived together a very long time) AND a painting of a nude woman is seen on the wall in their flat. It does not specifically state the two women are lesbians, but that's the impression I got. It's pretty much irrelevant to the plot either way.

After seeing this movie a second time it fell a little in my estimation. It's very nicely photographed and has decent performances for the most part, but I couldn't get past the myriad plot holes.

My horror movie blog:
http://thebloodypitofhorror.blogspot.com/

[–] jawebster2000 12 years ago

I keep my 2012 Leonard Maltin Movie Guide book at hand when it comes time to decide whether or not to DVR a TCM movie. I usually trust Maltin, but he gave this movie three stars when, in my opinion, it clearly deserved two stars instead. Some movies improve with age and hindsight which may explain going from two stars in the 1996 edition to three stars in the 2009 edition. I think they made a mistake on this one.

[–] fentress 12 years ago

I generally find Maltin's guide pretty reliable for getting an idea of what broad category of quality a movie might fall into. But once in a great while my opinion is radically different from his. I think he gave only 2 stars to "Mr. and Mrs. Bridge". Admittedly the movie might not be so satisfying by standard entertainment conventions. But if one catches on to what's it's trying to say, it's a very good film. I think Maltin simply didn't get it.

Another movie I really disagreed with him on was "Superman Returns". I believe he gave it 3 stars. I'm a longtime fan of Superman comics from childhood, but I found that movie to be terrible. It was insulting to the Superman tradition, as well as having some very flat acting and zero chemistry among the characters. Just my opinion, but for me 2 stars would be generous.

[–] Mr_Gitts 12 years ago

Couple comments on Maltin's reviews books:

1) I have been buying them for decades and I keep the ones I buy; I have a pristine copy of his first one (1969). Bunny Lake is listed in that one, with the original ** review. I can tell you, he frequently upgrades ratings of some movies (examples off the top of my head: Network, To Kill A Mockingbird, The Wild Bunch, The Unbearable Lightness Of Being, House Of Games...and Lawrence Of Arabia twice in a row!), and downgrades others (Mickey One, Putney Swope, the original Moulin Rouge, many others). He always says in the intros to every edition that they change ratings with a free hand to best represent what they think the latter-day viewer will experience. I am certain this is what happened with Bunny Lake; the homosexual reference, a novelty in 1969, is not worthy of special reference now.

2) I am also certain that Maltin is not squeamish about homosexuality in the slightest. It was his glowing review of the documentary The Times Of Harvey Milk that prompted me to seek it out back in 1984-5 (when it was darned hard to find), and he similarly rated Milk very highly as well, two cite just two of many examples.

You just keep throwing your feathers, mister, before I put you in a hospital.

[–] film-collector 10 years ago

"Politicians, whores and old buildings all become respectable if they live long enough." - John Huston-Chinatown.

In the frozen land of Nador they were forced to eat Robins minstrels. And there was much rejoicing.

[–] liscarkat (18541) 3 years ago

If it said "homosexuals and oddball characters", that's separating them as two distinct things. I don't think Maltin (or whoever wrote the original review) was saying the landlord was odd because of being homosexual (if he even was gay, it's not clear--his behavior could be interpreted as letching on Ann). He was an oddball, independent of his sexuality.