When I was at school we had a Halliwell book in the reference library and every film I looked up or liked he did not, so I never really bothered with his book(s) again.
Halliwel is middle-brow (semi or pseudo-intellectual), Maltin is mainstream, the spaghettiwestern is cult. Cult is always a response to something, the spaghettiwestern was a response to the vast production of Hollywood westerns that were, for most part, mainstream (some 50s westerns, High Noon and a few Mann films in particular, had a tendency towards middle-brow). Usually cult is closer to mainstream artistically (it’s more inventive and daring, but less sophisticated), and closer to middle-brow ideologically (it’s often more subversive, but less - semi/pseudo - intellectual). I think most people on the forum here have a more artistic (esthetic) approach to the genre, so it’s no wonder that they prefer Maltin to Halliwell.
Personally I feel people should think for themselves, not follow a leader of any kind. But to be able to make a choice, you must know the facts (that is, in this case, the different opinions). Therefore I always advise people to gather as much facts/opinions as possible, so read all those guides. Halliwell is often predictable, occasionally surprising, sometimes irritating, but hardly ever really offensive (you’ll have to turn to french critics for offensive criticism), Maltin is nearly always predictable, hardly ever surprising, but completely inoffensive. They’re both good guys.
oops
No need to be scared off, Stanton. I don’t use words that cannot be found in a dictionary, if you read carefully, you’ll understand everything I say. If not, you can always ask what I mean, I’m not a mystic and don’t try to make things more difficult as they are.
A dictionary is a very useful item for me even after all these years from finishing school !.
I used to work for a firm of solicitors who used to love sending me letters where virtually every other word I had never heard of before.
Personally, I have only ever used Halliwell’s guides for their info on the films (dates, cast, director etc). They are pretty good for that but like all critics, including us, he wrote based on his own opinions and biases. Some you might agree with, some not. Mostly his tastes were pretty ‘classical’ by which I mean more ‘traditional’ I guess. Consequently, although I sometimes agree with his call on some old films, I wouldn’t use him as a rule as to what I might enjoy or not.
Scherp. that was a sophisticated, analytical discerning take on Halliwell and Maltin.
I would broadly agree on the mainstream, high brow, pseudo etc but if you look at 100s
of film reviews in Halliwell’s Books and can contain your anger and revulsion at his bigotry
then you will realise that Halliwell was extremely ignorant, narrow minded / tasteless :’(
All Halliwell “liked” and “approved” of can be summed up as I said before:
Atrocious, pretentious, talky, dull Dramas and pathetic unfunny Comedies
This is why I am so fervent in my views and in fighting mood against dramas/comedies
and I hope other members will speak up and protest whenever a bad/sick critic reviews
in such a biased and unfair manner as Loser Halliwell did.
I am not against all comedy/drama as even in my favourite sadistic revenge SWs the
very occasional odd touch of minor humour is welcome and the “drama” of a cowboy
fighting to avenge his murdered family is very appealing. Very selected humour/drama.
PS. Rev. Danite
A very interesting posting about “pictorial history of westerns 72” a book I have also
and clearly most writers/critics (mainstream) are familiar and prefer the USA western.
I have noticed though that SW/Giallos have risen sharply in popularity/acclaim recently
About sensitivities I think we have all got the message (halliwell and other vile critics)
that we really need to praise and promote SWs and the SW actors on this forum.
Cheers and greetings (though I dont drink alcohol ;)).
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:16, topic:809”]Wittgenstein was a short-tempered homosexual and an inflexible mister know-it-all.
…
But he was the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century.[/quote]
Who’d’ve thought that we could waffle on and get so phenomenally of topic. When I started this thread, there was a sense of possibly misplaced mischief that went a bit wonky. And now we’re all having to go out and get dictionaries and film guides.
Well, I think we might have to add the ‘Introducing…’ series of philosophy books or OUP ‘short introductions’ to our reading list.
Scherp was obviously hoping, amongst all this mayhem and devastation, that he could just make such a preposterous and frankly absurd suggestion that Wittgenstein ‘was the greatest’…!
… And hope to get away with it!
Well I challenge that assumption Scherp. And I have my theory - and it relates to spaghetti westerns as well.
My hombre’ll outshoot and outclass your man anyday! Whad’ya say? Gimme ya best shot with ya ‘Western’ philosophy, amigo. ;D ?
The words are not unusual and the understanding of your text was no problem. Otherwise I have my dictionary always at close range.
I only thought that “oops” could be sort of a clever sounding reply at the moment of reading. He, he that’s all.
What the hell do you mean Stanton? :
Been drinking too much lately? 
Ha, ha, good idea, but no, not at all.
What I meant was… that I not really know what I had meant. It sounded good at that moment.
[quote=“stanton, post:51, topic:809”]Ha, ha, good idea, but no, not at all.
What I meant was… that I not really know what I had meant. It sounded good at that moment.[/quote]
No problem, mein Freund. I was afraid you thought that I was using big, impressive words for no reason at all. I always try to avoid to do so.
@ Reverend
Well, the greatest … who was the greatest, Muhammad Ali? Sugar Ray Robinson? Brown Bomber Joe ? Or good old Henry Cooper - after all he knocked out Cassius before he became Muhammad? Joe Bugner maybe? Yes, it’s Joe: he did some great fights with Bud. He lost them, but only because he was such a nice guy, too nice to knock Bud out. Joe, defenitely Joe.
@ Pictural History of the Western
I’ve got that too, great book.
Oh no Scherp - I’m firmly on the ‘greatest Philosopher of the 20th. century’ ground here. 
Joe Bugner don’t even come into it - I’m talking ‘greatest minds’ - not dubious entries into the sw field. (Buddy goes West, 1981). Wittgenstein wouldn’t stand a chance against my man … yours, rooted as he is in ‘faith in language’ … ;D
Then I’d say Tweedledee&Tweedledum. Only, they’re twoo and 19th centuroo.
I’m laughing, I honestly can’t get the smile off my face … but I havn’t got a clue. I suppose I can only presume that global warming has extended the ‘magic mushroom’ season? ;D ??? ;D
We couldn’t be more off-topic if we had all been on hallucanogens. Maybe this nonsense needs ITS OWN THREAD. As there are ‘philosophical characters’ i.e. the crap one in Yankee; there’s the mad ol’ character from FAFDM who bangs on about trains; I gotta feeling even ‘Morning Glory’ in TRofR has many a word of wisdom to impart and of course Brad from ‘Face to Face’ this could be an area for discussion.
We could even set up your Wittgenstein against my ‘man of mystery’ in a philosophical duel - giving them sw characters?
Madness this way lies? Think about it - pistols at dawn amigo? 
Mushrooming my way through the looking glass, Rev.
(See you tomorrow)
Fidel Castro says that Wittgenstein the campy, irritable philosopher was not a match on
the 20Th century “greatest philosopher”:
KARL MARX Famous works include: “the Communist manifesto”, “capital”.
I will not comment but concentrate on SWs , Giallos , Horror etc.
really? never heard of that guy…
Well I can safely say that he (Marx) never appeared in any SWs or Giallos as leading man ;D
‘I know what you’re thinking about’, said Tweedledum, ‘but it isn’t so, nohow’
‘Contrariwise,’ continued Tweedledee, ‘if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it aint. That’s logic.’