The thing with the new age Indian film critics like this author is they have good skill at usage of the English prose, but seem to wield it with very little wisdom, acumen or insight. They are more enamoured with their literary skill than the point they are making (if there is one). Very often it feels like they have written a piece to draw applause than to say anything of substance.
A critic, has to approach a piece of work from an area of empathy or even sympathy. Only then can they get the tone right. Their criticism will then come from a a genuine pov than the smart-alecy tone we see so often today in Indian film criticism. It would do well for this critic to hang this beautiful reminder from the movie Ratatouille, said by one of it's character who is an infamous food critic, Anton Ego:
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."
It doesn't look like a film review, its looking like a expression of a mentally challenged man having Hrithik's phobia...Too biased review and rating is given as if Hrithik is dating Raja Insane's wife...GET LOST YOU MORON...
RAJA SEN GROW UP... CHENNAI EXPRESS WAS THE ULTIMATE HIT FOR HIM , SO IS ALL SHARUKH MOVIES. REDIFF PLEASE STOP PEOPLE LIKE THIS GIVING REVIEWS. SAW THE MOVIE ,. THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE LINE OF TRUTH IN HIS WORDS. I SERIOUSLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT RAJ SEN IS TALKING ABOUT. ITS A VERY GOOD MOVIE , COMPLETE ENTERTAINER , THOUGH IT WAS PREDICTABLE . THE VFX WAS UPTO HOLLYWOOD STANDARDS
I am not a movie fan, neither I read reviews often. But this review irritated me a lot. I don't remember seeing so negative review in my life. Entire text is appearing to be carefully chosen to prove a point or address an agenda. The review is too negative to be true.
The role of the critic is to provide a balanced and honest assessment. It should not be biased, coloured or one-sided. Objective assessment is the critic's job. Not to put forward a pre-conceived notion.
It is true that we will go up the culture-ladder if we have no bad film. However, we will scale a better height if we have no such bad reviews.
Between a bad film and bad review, I will prefer the former. A bad film is at least a creation, there is some creativity. A bad review is nothing but destruction.
Re: is there an agenda behind the review!!!
by kush chatterjee on Nov 01, 2013 01:37 PM
May be the film is really bad. Better to see it first and then review the reviewer. If a bad review is destruction, then a further bad review of that bad review is what? krrishastrous ? :)
Re: is there an agenda behind the review!!!
by ooh scooter on Nov 01, 2013 03:13 PM
The thing with the new age Indian film critics like this author is they have good skill at usage of the English prose, but seem to wield it with very little wisdom, acumen or insight. They are more enamoured with their literary skill than the point they are making (if there is one). Very often it feels like they have written a piece to draw applause than to say anything of substance.
A critic, has to approach a piece of work from an area of empathy or even sympathy. Only then can they get the tone right. Their criticism will then come from a a genuine pov than the smart-alecy tone we see so often today in Indian film criticism. It would do well for this critic to hang this beautiful reminder from the movie Ratatouille, said by one of it's character who is an infamous food critic, Anton Ego:
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."
