Reviewing as a weapon of murder
When WANTED was uniformly praised by critics and critics of critics as trash, but one that is enjoyable, I thought there was a graduation in the way films—and more importantly, the genre and ‘intent’ of films— were meant to be looked at and reviewed/analyzed. And then, ALADDIN and LONDON DREAMS came along—unfortunately on the same day—and the conclusion I had arrived at after reading the reviews of WANTED were completely nulled. ALADDIN was trashed by all and sundry. LONDON DREAMS, to quote Mr. Masand of CNN-IBN, needed a ‘reality’ check. Wow, looking for ‘reality’ in a commercial Hindi pot-boiler. Great. What next? The seriousness and narrative of GOODWILL HUNTING in 3 IDIOTS?
I watched ALADDIN on Friday after I consumed a plethora of reviews; majority of them outright negative. Ironically, the reviewer who seemed fair in his analysis was Mr. Masand whom I mentioned earlier apropos LONDON DREAMS! DNA INDIA & MUMBAI MIRROR reviewers have given the movie a single star!! One of the more common concerns have been that Mr. Bachchan has gone over-the-top in his performance as a genie. So what were the reviewers looking for? An under-stated performance merely with his eyes and a display of controlled emotions as in SARKAR? Would that whet your appetite? But then, the same reviewers would then write that the ‘child-like’ ebullience and energy were missing from the performance! Firstly, what do they mean when they say over-the-top? Why are they trying to measure the performance and the movie with the yard-stick of logic?
Please refresh memories and understand that owing to the very nature of the ‘genie’ it has been shot on the small/big screen most of the times in animation form! Doesn’t it imply that the character’s main standing is its animated nature? What would Mr. Robin William’s performance be counted as then? Over and over and over the top? Mr. Bachchan has put in a commendable performance and the pitch of his performance is apt with the mood and pace of the film. His performance is in tandem with the ambience of the visuals. It is a colorful world, and his performance is colorful with a smiling demeanor and exciting persona. His dialogue-delivery has almost minimal variation throughout the film; but that is the emotion that the genie is supposed to display and display most. It is the way that he has interpreted that one-dimension in his performance that is interesting to look at. His performance/antics in the song YOU MAY BE is something not to be missed. In each of his dance steps and his facial expressions in the song, one can feel the effect of ‘first love’ as effectively on his face as much on Mr. Deshmukh’s. In all the reviews that have doomed the film, I haven’t been able to see a single sentence –let alone a paragraph- that describes the movie with a child’s eye. There are many scenes in the movie which might bring out the cynic in an adult; but then they manage to bring out more strongly the child in the adult. This was amply demonstrated in the reaction of the children in the auditorium. As I managed to bring a chuckle onto my face as a reaction to some scenes of buffoonery and magical tricks, I noticed that the children in the audience were clapping and enjoying audibly. I then understood that this is a movie that cannot be enjoyed if you go in with cynicism.
Aladdin is not a great movie. But it is definitely a better movie we have seen when compared to other Hindi films that dealt with such themes. It could have been even better if there were not that many songs in a movie which is essentially a 2 hour movie. Some of the songs did not add any value at all to the proceedings since they were neither shot imaginatively nor were they pleasing to the ears. The special effects are good and the makers do succeed in creating an environment that is contemporary yet something far-away for the audience. The inherent problem with the movie is that the director has chosen to contemporize the story- yet; the ‘contemporary’ story is not something that the audience hasn’t been privy to before. The story of a docile person being bullied and then helped by an external agent to gain confidence has been dealt with many times before. Mr. Ghosh could have been more imaginative in his reworking of the story. But, within the frame-work of the story he has chosen to shoot, he has done well. Giving a single star to a movie like ALADDIN is truly blasphemous. It is a simple story and is clean fun. Reading too much into the movie and then analyzing it with a magnifying glass that is not in wavelength with either the mood or the intent of the film is really irresponsible. If one feels the special effects are below-par, mention it; if the acting is truly deplorable, mention it; if the movie insults even the limited experience and wisdom of the child within and without you, give it a single star and discourage the audience; otherwise, please be careful with what you say. There are people who take the reviews and reviewers seriously.
Coming to LONDON DREAMS, it is again the same issue. Main concerns as pointed out by reviewers; how did Mr. Devgn find food and survive in London after he runs away from the airport? Mr. Masand says there would have been no issue at all if Mr. Devgn had taken Mr. Khan aside and explained to him why performing in Wembley – and alone at that—was important to him and given Mr. Khan’s nature, he would have gladly side-stepped! But then Mr. Masand, there would be no movie too going by your logic. All loose strands are tied in so comfortably! It is not that easy as Mr. Masand makes it out to be. Communication/mis-communication, egos, introvertism, self-doubts, are some of the reasons greatest of stories and mishaps have taken place. The entire story of Othello is woven around a handkerchief; all the varied emotions and communication/lapses of epic proportions occur on account of a handkerchief. Wouldn’t Othello have sorted all the problems out if he had been logical in understanding the ‘situations’ and the ‘paths’ the handkerchief took when changing hands? Mr. Devgn’s character is such that he cannot bring himself to tell Mr. Khan to back out, even if Mr. Khan were inclined to willingly do so.
Agreed, the sight of blondes and brunettes (and surprisingly, very less number of Indians or Pakistanis) weeping over the sights of Mr. Devgn and Mr. Khan singing Hindi songs would be perpendicular to reality. Agreed, Mr. Devgn wearing designer clothes and jeans and dreaming to hit it big in London – but purely on Hindi songs—is far-fetched. But in a movie that is projecting a feel of the epic proportions of music and musicians, does one want the director to focus on how Mr. Devgn wears designer glasses and earns his livelihood? The thing is that Wembley or London is just an instrument used by Mr. Shah to glamorize the film. And yes, that’s the key point. The movie is directed by Mr. Vipul Shah – of WAQT fame! WAQT – that dictionary on melodrama, remember? This is not Mr. Keizlowski or even Mr. Kasarvalli for crying out loud! Maybe the film and the concerts could have been placed in Andheri Sports Complex without any shortcomings to the plot. Agreed. But choosing London is just a gimmick to spruce things up. After all, the ‘western’ hunger in Indians does amount to something substantial, right? That’s why RANG DE BASANTI had to be told through the eyes of a white Londoner; that’s why Mr. Johar decided to shoot KANK in NYC though the story – or lack of it— could have suffered zero casualties even if it were shot in Vikhroli!
Leave these ‘logical’ aspects aside, and LONDON DREAMS is actually a well-shot film laced with good emotional overtures. The ambience of the film is particularly effective. And what is pleasantly surprising is that Mr. Shah has denuded the film of melodramatic excesses that are usually associated with his films. The emotions get high and intense without slipping into melodrama. The whole movie has the look of music and the visual tone is complementary to the life led by musicians. The background score is magnificent and plays a vital role in prepping the audience for the emotional rides and accompanying them on the highs and lows faced by the characters. The climax, however is hurried and seems unconvincing.
The only reason I wrote this piece is because I was a little disturbed by the flippant way in which the movies were being reviewed by renowned critics. When a critic is reviewing, it is fine to have one’s own style of writing; but when analyzing, shouldn’t he/she consider the different audience mind-sets and then break or make the film?
Why the need to murder films for what they do not intend to be and mis-lead the audience? Why paint a picture that was not what the film-maker promised in the first place and then paint the same frame with a damaging single color?
Tags: criticism, Critics
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
London Dreams required suspension of belief to such a great extent that, all the emotional overtures appeared ridiculous. I knew what to expect from Vipul bhai. But he has totally lost his depth in this enterprise. I can count only 2 scenes, where Vipul managed to do what he does best, senti-melodrama-tugging-heart-strings. The first one was the scene when Salman gifts a piano to Ajay. Salman is drunk, and Ajay talks about his dream. The second bieng the airport scene, when the group returns from Paris, and a journo suggests Salman that there are rumours of him bieng drugged by his best friend. Salman outbursts and Vipul delivers his ‘Money shot’ or ‘Cum shot’.
Apart from these scenes Vipul Shah failed miserably in evoking any emotions and also failed to deliver the ‘money shots’. Take the Ajay Devgan’s outburst at Wembley in front of the huge crowd. WTF was that!! Ranting about your jealousies on the stage and then the crowd pelting plastic bottles, because he insults Sallu!! The whole setup of the scene was so phucking ridiculous.
That is why Vipul should stick with simple professions like singers/dancers. Rock band was out of his territory. When the setup is simple I’m sure Vipul will deliver his ‘Cum shots’ without having the worry about G-minor or F-major!!!!
I pretty much agree with you on Aladin.
It was good simple fun, which anyone can enjoy. I really didn’t understand the backlash it recieved from the crowd. The lead cast was hilarious yaar. Sanju Baba delivered! Bacchan Saab delivered! and apna pokerfaced looser R V D delivered too!
Genius was played with the same enthusiasm as we have seen with the pot bellied animated genie. They have retained that spirit amazingly. And unlike Drona Aladin kept the sense of humor and sense of adventure alive till the end. Drona on the other hand was so heavy-handed and it kept hammering the viewer with sappy emotions. Aladin is more lively and has so many gutbustingly funny moments.
At many junctures I felt Sujoy compromised actual scenes with songs. For example the Genius entry song. Genius’s entry among Aladins ‘friends’ followed with some of his antics and jokes and then followed by a song would have been better rather than directly breaking into a song. Then also when it comes to patofy the girl, Sujoy cops out and uses a song directly to get Jacqueline interested in RVD.
But thanks to Vishal Shekhar, once the song was in its 31st sec, I was grooving with the song.
The CGI was pretty decent, not path breaking. But But But. the imaginations with which it is used is super duper!!! Ringmaster’s entry scene, the Genius in Aladins brain scene, The guitar turned frog thingy were amazingly concieved and executed.
So, On the Whole
Aladin is fun. Children from age 6 to 60 will be entertained. 
Oh please. Both movies were trash. I agree critics go overboard but they have largely been on the money in these cases.
A very timely piece. Even I’ve been flabbergasted with the way people are giving Aladin 1 star. It’s almost like they’d preconditioned themselves to dislike it even before release.
The practice of opinion columns in newspapers and portals does not seem to be appropriate. Newspapers and news portals should only report and nothing else. It should be left to the reader to form his own opinions. But media has gradually taken up that role as well. Now it has become the master and trying to become God by writing opinions as if it were the ultimate truth. Reviews of films are part of this tirade.
…
Reviewers and newspapers have nothing at stake. Producers have the right to gather as much as possible from his film, whether good or bad. No one has the right to come in between the person who wants to see the film and the film itself. Therefore film boards would do well to offer film makers an option to delay any kind of discussion/review of a film by 10 days, so as to offer the producer two clear weekends to garner as much as he can. Beyond that any review or discussions becomes just that- a discussion of the movie, rather than a tool to determine the box office fate of the film.
Why not? What about the opinions here in that case? What about 5-10 people plugging movies like Sankat City (just using that as an example) before its release? Aren’t those influencing public opinion as well? This site may have a smaller reach than a mainstream newspaper but it still has some reach. Why not just report that so and so movie is releasing and present a few trailers?
Reviews are a fact of life and good to have too. Reviewers may be good or bad. It is upto people to decide which reviewer’s views / tastes match most with their own and then follow up with watching the movie. After all, when it costs upwards of 1k for a family to watch a movie in a decent theatre, it is only fair that they have some idea what they are in for.
I haven’t seen either ALADIN or LD so won’t comment on them. I also feel that individuals are entitles to their opinions. But there’s one point on which I vehemantly disagree with Aneesh is on needlessly setting films in uSA/UK/Oz etc. I feel put off by films where the story takes place abroad but every single character from liftman to cop to cabbie is Indian ! Doesn’t this reflect poorly on the director’s integrity? Does USA only have whites and Indians? How come no character is Spanish, Chinese, Mid-Eastern, Japanese or African? How come they all know Hindi so well? The first film to irritate me thus was SALAM NAMASTE. Thereafter, I have lost count…
i personally like rajeev masands reviews . they seem fair & to the point . there is no unnecessary bias or preconconcieed notion when he reviews the movies . look at his reviews to Wanted & Agyaat . ramu’s horor flick was unnecessary criticised for one scene even though he made a pretty good movie true to its genre of adventure horor flick & also indulged on human behaviour when they are stranded in such situations . he also tried depicting the age old horror vs religion theme with one character .
that masand gave 3/5 to that movie shows his honesty to his work . except for masand the rest of them are trash & favour certain people & target others .
Is it hightime to have a Tomatometer for apna Hindi Movies…I usually go by the Tomatometer for Hollywood movies.
Collect all these renowned Critics in one place and see how they add up…and then make your Decision..
Can PFC take a lead in this…!
Aneesh,
Good article! You are spot on in saying that movies are being reviewed flippantly by most critics. I have been alarmed by the inconsistency , lack of depth and insight in most , if not all, film critics who write for newspapers in India. I usually read the reviews of Raja Sen, Rajeev Masand , Khalid Mohamed , Nikhat Kazmi and none of them has been consistently good. Masand is probably the most decent critic of the lot.
Regarding ‘Aladin’, I went and saw it despite the reviews and agree with your analysis of it too. I didn’t love the movie though ( I wish I could’ve!). The plus points were the spectacular special effects and CGI, set design and a good performance by Sanjay Dutt. I think the main reason I didn’t “love” the film was because I didn’t “love” the protagonist. Aladin was a boring loser who kept whining about his life without doing anything tangible to improve it. This may be ok in a novel or story where there are several other layers acting upon a reader’s mind but in a film like this, if the protagonist doesn’t evoke any major emotions in me ( humor ,horror , love , affection etc) then as a viewer I am likely to get bored , which in this I did. I still thought the whole movie was a good effort. It proved that the hindi film industry can make movies with special effects and graphics to match or better standards set by Hollywood and I’m proud and happy about this!
Now here is a very interesting titbit. Herd mentality?
http://moifightclub.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/wtf-why-did-anupama-chopra-change-her-aladin-review-rating-from-3-to-2-stars/
Hey I like Raj’s idea of Tomatometer for Hindi movies or some portal like Metacritic that averages out all the relevant reviews.
Talking about ‘Relevant Reviews’ – one could also devise a model, where the reviewers’ performance/accuracy is rated by bringing into account the box-office numbers of all movies reviewed.
E.g. If Khalid Mohammed has always had a grudge against masala potboilers (that go on to do huge business) and a soft-corner for his kind of abstract, meaningless, boring films (that often go down the drain) – Then we could have a negative weight attached to his reviews (Simply indicating that his reviews are found to be negatively correlated to popular tastes).
On the other hand, a high correlation score for any other reviewer (and thus a high weightage) would simply indicate that this dude is most often on the ball with his reviews. He has a pulse of the popular tastes and a good rating from this reviewer is a great testimonial for a good/ paisa vasool movie!
The sum of all such reviews (with their associated weights) would finally lead us to a Meta score or a Tomatometer or PFC Barometer (or any other jazzy sounding term) for a particular movie.
The ultimate objective – To provide the audience with a very rationale and objective feedback of the movie. By normalizing the overt sensibilities of some inherently bitter reviewers, we provide the average movie-goer with the most unbiased rating of movie. A rating which focuses on the genre and intent of the movie rather than dwelling upon its logic, rationale and other mumbo-jumbo.
Sample a PFC Verdict – Going by individual reviewers and box-office trends, this movie is most likely to do well/ looks set to be a blockbuster/ will find niche acceptance/ will be a major loser, etc.
The biggest benefactors would be commercial entertainers like Wanted, London Dreams or Aladin. Movies that were never meant to connect with elite, sophisticated, pseudo-intellectual critics. But were targeted at the lowest common denominator in the Mango people (Aam Junta) – be it kids, or auto drivers, or college students, whatever.
PFC – Being a seasoned market researcher and business analyst, it would be a pleasure for yours Trully to initiate/participate/lead such an initiative. It could be a boon for both the movie-goers and movie-makers, by freeing them from the clutches or influence of all inconsistent, impractical and ruthless critics.
Let Aladin perform or perish. But let it do so in it’s own steam. Allow it the time to find its audience. Let’s stand up and fight against MOVIE INFANTICIDE!! (Think about it – doesn’t this term make sense. By killing and crushing a movie on day zero, aren’t these critics resorting to MOVIE INFANTICIDE?)
Infact, I am very eager to know the views of PFC regulars on such an initiative – An Jo, Deepak Singh, Lee, Oz, Hansal Mehta, Prasanna…looking forward to your thoughts.
PFC is doing that kind with the guerilla review system, where people rate the movie, and give their views on it. And there are some sites, that put up all the reviews from various Indian reviewers on a movie, not exactly RT, but you do hear various opinions.
@ My last comment; pl correct as follows:
For the latest example, you can see how the only decent channel that had remained, NDTV INDIA recently converted itself to join the rest.
Just to remind u Himanshu, that Transformers-2 got a 17% average rating on RT, and is the biggest hit this year so far.
Critics and audiences will always be at variance, and ultimately it depends on YOU, the movie goer, You decide for yourself whether u wanna watch it or not, irrespective of what the critics say. That’s it, no point in getting angtsy over critics and their ratings.
BTW i don’t think KM is biased against the Masala stuff, to best of my knowledge he has given good ratings for OSO, Main Hoon Na, Dostana, and even in the past for movies like Ram Lakhan, Gupt to the best of my memory. Even as of late, he had given a 3 star rating to Dil Bole Hadippa.
Exactly…that’s the kind of Inconsistency, Favoritism, Campism….that I am talking about. If KM had good things to talk about OSO or DBH…there couldn’t be anyone more inconsistent than him.
With movie watching becoming a costly and time-consuming affair, gathering reviews becomes an essential exercise, especially for ‘in-between’ movies like Aladin. Waiting for reviews is a very prevalent phenomenon in today’s times….more so because of the way in which promising banners and movie-makers have let us down in recent times – LOC, Yuvraaj, Kaminey, What’s Your Rashee, etc.
I’ll watch 3 Idiots, Paa and De Dana Dan no matter what….deliberately avoding any reviews to influence my thoughts. I’ll not watch Radio or Kurbaan, coz’ they do not appeal at all. Simple. But for stuff like Ramu’s Rann (dampened by his recent turkeys), I’ll have to check the reviews before venturing out. My decision to watch/not-watch will depend on the reports.
It is here that, to make the reviewers more accountable, we need to come up with a model. A model that maps that reviewers with Box Office scores and serves more as a performance appraisal for them. Let them have something at stake as well.
“Hey, Mr. Raja Sen – with scores of -80%, you have practically zero clue of what works in India. So either start making more sense or continue being exactly the same”….and your readers will start measuring you accordingly “Raja Sen said Bad. Must be Awesome! Let’s Go!”
For me the only reviewer(s) right now who seem fair are Baradwaj Rangan and Rajeev Masand. Both of them review movies on their merits, so they treat a masala flick as a masala flick, a serious one as a serious one, instead of expecting every movie to be a Citizen Kane.
@Himanshu,
I don’t agree that box office success is a measure of good cinema? And for that matter how it can be used to appraise reviewers performance (btw do reviewer need to perform nething???)
Will you agree that Singh is king or Welcome or Bunty bubbly or ……countless others are sensible!!!
How about Aamir, Or Black Friday(Not sure of the box office outcome @ this one though), blue umbrella, socha na tha, Manoram six feet under or neother more appeling but not so sucedssful films!!
Shouldn’t we also extend that to sites such as PFC ? Should we have folks here pulling down movies (often even before the first show) and then cry foul over reviewers doing the same thing ? And, while we are at it, shouldn’t we also ban all posts / articles etc praising movies? Why rob Rs500 off a poor guy by giving him an idea that a movie is better than he may like it?
http://moifightclub.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/wtf-why-did-anupama-chopra-change-her-aladin-review-rating-from-3-to-2-stars/
Now if what is there in the above link is true, its indeed DISGUSTING. You give a rating for a MOVIE, stick to it GODDAMNIT, Good or Bad. As it is the credibility of the Media is going down daily, and it comes to a stage, when none takes them seriously.
If the Indian media doesn’t put itself together, they will lose substantial readers to the blogs. I trust individual blogs more than I trust the news from media
agree ..though would have to say that 2 stars makes her appear a lot saner ;-)
Thanks HIMANSHU, for soliciting my opinion. And, this should reinforce your newfound surprise in believing that people not only read the blogs but, even scroll down through comments
ANEESH, simply a brilliant analysis. Couldn’t have been more timed than this. You may also like to take a look at my last post that would only substantiate this post of yours.
Now before coming to the core of your post/subject, I’ll start with one example. Till nearly two decades back, we had Doordarshan that came with matured, seasoned and often stale news content. We liked the fact in an All India Radio style. Then, soon, need for more was felt and we started missing some excitement. Doordarshan itself launched Metro, which proved to be just another revamped kid of poor DD. The real fun came with satellite channels. They started the trend of BREAKING NEWS. Man, news started to be broken to us in such an aggressive and lucid manner, we fell in love with the new mannerism. Add to it histrionics.
More was required as, by now, we had got used to our hunger for more. Sooner than we could believe, we were actually used to sadism. We took pleasure in watching dramatized acts of rape, murder, treason, fallacy, infidelity — everything on the telly. High TRP of such shows and their advertisement slots prove this more than anything else. The need for sadism was felt in our shows and reality shows. You watch people abusing and slapping others in reality shows, talent hunts and even our poor serials. Then we got some directors in Bollywood who started serving us the bytes of the same reality in films in the manner as if we never knew the dark side of life.
In simple words, our hidden instincts consumed much more than they could produce. We had blood spilled everywhere. It was in our thoughts and we took pleasure in anything and everything that came with negative shades, in the name of “exciting”, “reality”, and “breaking” content. What earlier used to be forte of mediocre channels and publications (the Manohar Kahaniyaan kind of stuff), was embraced by all and sundry in the race. For the latest example, you can see how the only decent channel that had remained, recently concerted itself to join the rest.
So, the time brought us to this point in the history of Indian media where nobody seems to be bothered about selling solutions. Because, everyone was happy buying problems, the writers, reporters and analysts all started selling problems to us. The hue and cry we see now was due long back.
It goes back in history as early as when Amitabh and Shabana acted in (what I call) timeless classic (though not a hit that time) – Main Azad Hoon. Yes, the writers and reporters first need to launch something (information, personality, organization, product) as a breakthrough. They evoke curiosity with this breakthrough and harp on the public interest in their discovery of this breakthrough, thus winning lots of eyeballs, recognition and appreciation. But, you cannot sing the same heroes forever. Once a hero is established, you have to kill the hero. Writers need to do the hero-bashing with their newfound intellect, declaring that the hero is now becoming just another mortal.
So, we have the new jingoism of analysts with knives in their hands when watching a movie before writing. Because, it is now dated, old-fashioned and un-intelligent to write only good about something. How can you prove your intellect if you didn’t find fault in others. Probably good old days are gone when one worked hard and acted smart to outsmart the rest. To sow others in poor light is the new fashion of outsmarting, as far this new trend of Bollywood analysts is concerned.
I’m sorry, if I am talking in the same fashion about them as they’ve started talking about Bollywood.
However, what I’d opine and suggest the critiques and experts is to take a new stand. Actually the old stand.
Wouldn’t they do better if they went to watch a film from the same podium as the Target Audience who the film is made for?
Every film has some basic matrix of target audience, genre, format, and so many other headers under segmentation, over and above the experts’ vantage points of suitability, timing, philosophy, storytelling and the technical criteria. What I mean is that when you go to watch a David Dhawan film, maybe a Priyadarshan’s format may somewhat be comparable. But, a David Dhawan and Hrishikesh Mukherjee cannot be put in the same bracket. For that matter, at times, two different films by the same director cannot be fitted in the same bracket to measure. A Hera Pheri was different from Dhol and, the latest Daddy Cool types cannot be compared together in any case.
Yes, Aladin may have faltered on many criteria. But, if it is entertaining the target audience for who it was meant for, it is alright call it a successful film so much so that even if it is not a hit. We cannot say Aladin’t, just because the so-called and self-proclaimed analysts went overboard and called Amitabh’s performance over-the-top. Amitabh Bachchan has given more number of memorable performances over the decades than the age of most of these “experts”. A genie, in a comic backdrop, has to be over the top. Coming to London Dreams, I believe, in spite of several missing links, it works. It works because it is a simple entertainer of the typical Bollywood masala kind. Simple. Unpretentious. Just as Wanted was. Neither Wanted nor London Dreams may win hearts to be called great or even good films. But, what I like about the makers is that they knew what they wanted to make and for whom. They did their job satisfactorily well. Aladin may be lacking the classy animation as required for a film of this genre. Maybe even the story could have been better. Maybe, even the characterization could have been better. Personally (as I feel), instead of targeting at everyone, the film could have done better to have targeted one segment more than the other. Even to the extent that maybe it deserved only single star.
But, how far will this sadism take these reviewers is the question that faces us today. I am sure, filmdom is more durable than this latest fad of these reviewers who sit with measuring tape and scissor in their hands. Only to come out with some shit. I strongly believe that in the recent past this has harmed films like never before. But as the market is dynamic, this market will soon start outsmarting most of these good-for-nothing sadistic writers. Just like those crime shows have lost relevance on telly. I believe, to analyse and criticize are exactly related as experts and critiques. It’s better to be an expert and analyst than a critique just for the sake of the job. Beware Critiques!!!
Pl correct the concerned line as following:
For the latest example, you can see how the only decent channel that had remained, NDTV INDIA recently converted itself to join the rest.
So what does one do if one does not like a movie? Or if one does not like amitabh’s performance? Not write???
Or write that the “target audience” may like it? Isn’t that the basic purpose of the review? It is not a one size fits all opinion. It is an opinion meant for those readers who have the same tastes / likes / dislikes as the reviewer. Just as the film may have a “target audience”, the reviewer also has a “target audience”. If you are not part of that, you should look elsewhere for an opinion.
A review should be written as a personal opinion and not passed off as a gospel. If you read reviews by Baradwaj Rangan and compare it with the reviews of KM, you will understand what I am trying to say.
But I sincerely believe that the ones to blame the most are the film makers. They have been betraying public trust for so long(by making crappy movies) that the ticket buying public has started consulting reviews before watching a movie. Reviewers are filling a gap created by the film makers themselves.
No one can pass anything off as gospel. Those are obviously opinions and I think we should respect people’s intelligence enough to believe that they understand it is an opinion.
I agree with you that there are good & bad reviewers – and, over time, the good ones will enjoy a more sustained & wider following. If someone is good in terms of understanding cinema, yet not followed widely, then it is possible that he/she does not share the same wavelength as most of the people who comprise the much maligned “target audience”.
Either way, people have a right to read reviews and decide whether those add any value to their decision on which movie to watch. You read reviews before buying cars, laptops, houses and a whole host of other things – why should movies be different?
Most of the critics in the West, benchmark the movies they review against another movie in the same Genre. So Ebert reviews Die Hard, compares it with other action movies and gives it a good rating. The genre classification in India is not as strong, that’s coz, i guess till recently we had nothing close to it. Most of the Indian movies were like a Mish Mash of everything-Comedy, Action, Drama, Romance. And a majority of the critics had this major bias against the Commercial/Masala stuff, not just that even “Middle of the Road” movies like those of Hrishi Da were dismissed outright. It was like the Artsy stuff was great, rest sucked. So every movie they reviewed was benchmarked with the Artsy movies, and naturally it came out as bad.
Which does not make any bit of sense to me. You are reviewing a commercial, masala flick, compare it with other masala flicks. It makes no sense trying to compare a Die Hard/ Raiders of Lost Ark with a Taxi Driver/ All The President’s Men, they are movies of different genres.
“Yes, Aladin may have faltered on many criteria. But, if it is entertaining the target audience for who it was meant for, it is alright call it a successful film so much so that even if it is not a hit.”
Well from what i have heard, even the Target Audience has felt let down by the Movie. Now what, Blame the Target Audience too. The feedback on Aladin was that too much emphasis was given to the Love Story, and less on the fantasy part, which i think is a valid point.
@Deepak Singh,
Sorry to ruin your party, but Main Azad Hoon-was ‘perspired’ from 1941 Hollywood film named- Meet John Doe. Go see THAT timeless classic before you sing any more bhajans for Tinnu Anand’s film. The Film was seminal enough to bring on the identity of a ‘John Doe’ to the American Lexicon.
The ‘problem’ most ‘pseudo intellecutual’ critics have with most current/popular/big-budget watcha-ma-call-it films is thus.
With the new-found access to all kinds of mainstream/niche/kitsch world-cinema, they see a great lack of sincerity in the whole process of film-making as an art form, as a hitherto shiny badge of cultural/national identity that’s now being pedalled for a penny on the streets of London and New Yuck.
At the same time, they are apalled to see middle of the road films that are made abroad make it big commerically/critically/whatever-ally every month. Why shouldn’t they get mad?
If our phones are made in Finland and car technology comes from Germany/Japan-what prevents us from having the same high-expectations from a film that we are expected to pay for?
Film-makers should stop expecting scathing reviews the day they start doing free screenings for the audience in plush multiplexes and hand out pipping hot popcorn worth sixty bucks to boot.
No one’s asking the Chopras and the Johars to descend to the bowels of India’s parched heartlands and make 80s ’style’ ‘art-cinema’
but everyone would everyone would agree that they’re dithering at the other extreme.
Make your big bucks-sure-but how about doing a bit of cinema for cinema’s sake? Art gratia artis?
Shahrukh Khan may shield his face and ape Manoj Kumar till the kingdom come but who can deny the power of popular Indian cinema as a definition of national ethos in the days gone by?
Mere Desh ki dharti kahan gayee?