the review is spot on.. the camera work was untidy and the movie lost steam after the first half. it doesnt deserve two stars even. wonder how Will Smith decided to do this!
RE:very true..
by Pratibh on Jul 24, 2008 10:45 AM
Looks like somebody doesnt know about the styles of photography.You wudnt expect a still camera in Spider man 3 so why one here.It was a gud movie.Even Lord of the Rings:fellowship of the ring was boring but the parts to come..you have all seen.It was diffrent refreshing movie.Maybe rediff shud invest more money to get better reviewers and the review readers shud have some sense of moviemaking before commenting.
I can not make head or tail of what Raja Sen is trying to say in his review. Rediff folks, did you give him the movie ticket before you published this review? Leave aside the review; his English is pathetic by any standard for a review.
RE:wurst englise
by Demon Hunter on Jul 14, 2008 11:14 AM
lol, u should understand sarcasm dude, heheh u may have learned how to spell but u have a long way to go before u learn similes.
few would agree to the review but is true!!good wrk raja,,,the film falls flat on expectations and the jokes r old n not htat hillarious,,,the movie has earned money only because of will smith acting ,,other wise its a dudder!!!!this film is one of the worst of WILL smiths .
Raja Sen, pls let us know from where u did your schooling.Such a non sense english you use.Guys, i think this raja sen is the most illiterate person in this world or he might be thinking we all are illiterate. Raja Sen, you please go to some sarkari school and learn basic english again
RE:crooked English
by santosh satpathy on Jul 12, 2008 12:09 AM
I dont think there anything wrong with his english per say,but his style belongs to victorian era which makes such painfull reads.And the irony is Raja Insane thinks it augments his prose & enables him to showcase literary talent infront of us hapeless readers.
RE:crooked English
by Aditya on Jul 12, 2008 02:31 AM
He is a crook.. he steals reviews from other sources... this is very similar to By David Germain, Associated Press ....
U did a good job this time. The review was spot on. I am not kidding. U write mixed reviews but this one was just right to me. And ppl, just dont blame Raja Sen reviews bcoz it is Raja Sen's. Do read the review and do watch the movie b4 commenting. Except for a little bit of first half and apart from Will Smith's action (acts with the kids) the movie is a dud.
In the first half you feel like some serious background history is about to unveil and it turns out to be a bull shit. Last half n hour of the movie is painstaking.
RE:good review
by Aditya on Jul 12, 2008 02:32 AM
its a stolen cannibalised review from many other reviews ... mainly David Germains for the Associated Press.
why does raja sen gives review without even watching a movie. Hancock has already made over 100 million dollors in its very first weekend. But it seems that Raja Sen is far more superior then the rest of the world.
RE:RE:Raja Sen review sucks
by sanjoy alexander on Jul 11, 2008 07:56 PM
am not impressed with mr.sen's reviews too...hancock has made $200 million worldwide in a span of around 8 days...but sans Will Smith, the movie is a missed opportunity...an unconventional story of an unpolished, i-dnon't care-what-u-think hero was an excellent concept....but the whole backstory made what could have been an excellent movie...mediocre
RE:RE:RE:Raja Sen review sucks
by sanjoy alexander on Jul 11, 2008 07:59 PM
to add to that...bad movies can make a hell lot of money at times...best example....the over stylised MI-2!! while good movies fail to make that much of a bang...best example...MI-3
RE:Raja Sen review sucks
by Harsha Vardhana on Jul 11, 2008 07:55 PM
Dude, Just because a movie makes more than 100 million bucks, and that too in its first week, doesn't mean that movie is good. Just see where its collections go in the second week, if it dives more that 55/60%, than you can safely assume the money made in first week was purely due to hype.
