Do you give a damn what the critics say? - Page 2

to think abt it...guzaarish wasnt really "universally critically acclaimed"...it reciveved mixed reviews...while sum critics praised it...otherz like masand, anupama chopra, raja sen and khalid mohommad thought it wasn't all that gr8.....

The thing is that everyone will have a different opinion. I don't think any two people will think alike. I've seen cases where most of the critics have trashed a film, but many people have turned out liking it. I guess its just personal preference on movie choice.

Btw was Guzaarish really a flop? Everyone in my family loved it. I still haven't seen it yet.

Originally posted by: Cutiepie Rani

The thing is that everyone will have a different opinion. I don't think any two people will think alike. I've seen cases where most of the critics have trashed a film, but many people have turned out liking it. I guess its just personal preference on movie choice.

Btw was Guzaarish really a flop? Everyone in my family loved it. I still haven't seen it yet.

^^guzaarish according to the trade is a DISASTER. and i agree with the result..

Originally posted by: Cutiepie Rani

The thing is that everyone will have a different opinion. I don't think any two people will think alike. I've seen cases where most of the critics have trashed a film, but many people have turned out liking it. I guess its just personal preference on movie choice.

Btw was Guzaarish really a flop? Everyone in my family loved it. I still haven't seen it yet.

well...

If a critic can write a balanced and objective review, then yes. Otherwise no. I have seen many critics praising their favorites to the skies without any full stop, and many bashing the one that they disliked without even pointing out the reasons why they think so. I mean, the entire point of a 'critical' review is to analyze a film objectively leaving your bias behind. A review should be based less on what you liked or disliked and more on what it actually was. There are some films that bore us to death, but I wouldn't like to discard their artistic quality just because I happen to not like them. As such, those critics or their biased reviews don't hold any water for me. Most big-budgeted movies also pay the critics to write good reviews for them (read Taran Adarsh). Also, most critics - especially Indian ones - are awed by anything remotely "different" or anything that goes against the norm; cases in point - KMG (first sci-fi film), Krrish (first superhero film), MNIK (based on an "intellectual" subject), etc. Otherwise I don't see how these works can be considered great piece of art. These films end up receiving the most critical acclaim just for being "different" rather than for their actual content. That said, there are some critics that I trust and feel can write a balanced review.

Btw, Hollywood critics aren't much better either in this respect. I was shocked with some reviews that I read in RT. They seemed far worse than what many of our BW critics write.

Originally posted by: smarie pants

yes but a film becums a hit or flop when majority of the ppl share the same or similar opinions abt the film...not everyone will love or hate a film...there are ppl who hated a critically acclaimed BLACK......and there are ppl who loved the universally trashed tashan......since critics belong to a segment of audience albeit small, their reviews can often be an accurate judgement of how the general audience would respond to a muvie...of course there are cases when they trash a heyy babyy and it goes on to be a blockbuster..but as masand put it on twitter:

The greatest service a critic can be of, is to encourage u to develop an appetite for great films. Ones that are more than just time-pass!

We as an audience are easily satisfied with time-pass muvies or "ok type" muvies...we dunt require each film to be a masterpiece..as long as its mildly entertaining.....hence they end up doing well...but as critics, its their job not to encourage mediocre work, so obviously..their trashing is justified.

I just believe that each individual can judge a movie for themselves. They don't need to rely on critics. That doesn't mean to say that they can't read critic reviews. By all means they should read critic reviews, BUT I don't think they should change their views on a movie solely based on what a few critics have to say. It all comes down to difference of opinions. Some will appreciate and others simply will not. I just tend not to always believe what the critics have to offer, because I can form an opinion of my own after watching the movie. For me I'll watch any film that has a good star cast. I love movies. Sadly I don't always get enough time on my hands to watch them all. But if I like even one actor or actress in the movie, no matter how many negative review the movie may get, I'll still watch it and then form my own opinion on it. Of course I'll still read what critics have to offer on the movie, but just because the majority of them trash the movie doesn't mean that I'll be like ok I'm not watching it. Again it all goes back to what I said earlier...I think we can all form an opinion for ourselves.

also...its wrong to get mixed up between "a trade analyst" and a "critic"...a trade analyst reviews the fate of the film at the box office, and a critic reviews the film as one person's perspective...so when reviews say "this film will do well in X,Y,Z circuits or this film is not for the masses" its not really a review, its a trade report...

Hmm, I think I'm probably on the fence on this. I've read some glowing reviews about horrible films. But honestly, I don't think I hear many bad reviews about a good film. So, yes. I read reviews before spending money to watch a film. If a film has received multiple bad reviews, why would I want to knowingly waste money on it? I can just wait till it comes out on dvd or *cough*pirate*cough* it. If a movie received great reviews, then I'll probably go watch it. Whether I like it or not is up to me but if it turns out to be crap, I know which critic's review to ignore next time.