Shud we have CRITICS for the CRITICS?

Ok..the main CRITICS m gonna take in2 account r

At the end of the day, critics are just normal folks with opinions. They might act biased in the first review but their agenda becomes apparent with more reviews. Raja Sen is one such example.

Originally posted by: Ms.Reddy

At the end of the day, critics are just normal folks with opinions. They might act biased in the first review but their agenda becomes apparent with more reviews. Raja Sen is one such example.

I dont trust any of them 😆 KRK is the most reliable critic in my opinion 👍🏼

Dont care much for critics. I usually trust viewer reviews of people whose tastes match with mine.

See how genuine is KRK😎
Kamaal R Khan - KRK ?@kamaalrkhan

Therefore it will be difficult for #Race2 to reach to 100Cr club. But Saif Deepika John n Jacqueline are really looking very very good.

Kamaal R Khan - KRK ?@kamaalrkhan

I m 200% sure tat Directors were having script till interval only before to start film. Kash they would hav done 2nd half equaly gud #Race2

See how genuine is KRK😎
Kamaal R Khan - KRK ?@kamaalrkhan

Therefore it will be difficult for #Race2 to reach to 100Cr club. But Saif Deepika John n Jacqueline are really looking very very good.

Kamaal R Khan - KRK ?@kamaalrkhan

I m 200% sure tat Directors were having script till interval only before to start film. Kash they would hav done 2nd half equaly gud #Race2

Originally posted by: alphabeta_22

who is that..is he good or bad?..dont knw him..

The critics in India don't realize that a movie doesn't necessarily have to be meaningful to be good. The main quota of movies is entertainment. Not every movie can be meaningful, with that powerful impact.

These days critics appreciate only select genres--like serious thrillers, social movies, or political movies. And when they appreciate movies beyond these genres, it's usually biased.

If a HAHK or DDJL released today, the modern critics would tear it apart from the onset.

Also, reviewing a movie as a critique isn't as one-dimensional as these critiques make it appear. A movie such as Ready should be seen in different light as compared to a Kahaani. The audience, the intent, and the dynamics behind these movies are hugely dissimilar, but these critiques consider their "likes/dislikes" to be some sort of a scientific barometer in judging movies and that's where they fail.

Cinema is an art. It's not a science. A performance cannot have any barometer; it's independent and spontaneous in itself. The only thing one needs to understand is how the character relates to the story and the culture depicted in the movie. One cannot draw parallels between two different performances, nor two different movies.

Film-making is an art. It's not logical. It's emotive. It doesn't have any boundaries. It's free. And when somebody tries to tie it down into their own boundary, it loses its essence.

As an aspiring film-maker myself, I can comfortably claim that unless and until you study Film and its history thoroughly alongside other topics such as Sociology, Anthropology, Media, etc, you will forever fail to capture the essence and will only continue to "watching the visuals," as opposed to realizing the motive.