Bollywood Critic 6 feet under ?

I religiously read the reviews of every bollywood release first thing on Friday, most of the times they even influence my decision of ultimately watching on big screen. (So can we term movie Critics as our Money savers/personal financial advisers???)

Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion on everything and there's nothing wrong in it , right? , and so even i decided, why not critique the critiques themselves.

I wrote whatever i felt like as a moviegoer, so please excuse me if you feel something is improper or inaccurate..please take it in good spirit.

Khalid Mohammed (Hindustan Times)

Good : Probably the Bheeshma pithamaha of bollywood critics, Experience is his USP, Hard task master, "no mercy" approach while ripping apart a bad movie. History proves that he likes arty stuff more and its very tough to impress him. So naturally his high rating of a movie means, a dud at box office and high on arty values.

Bad: Biggest problem with him is, he ridicules anything way too soon and i feel like he has a very negative approach in reviewing a piece of work. Even when reviewing a good movie, he always starts with a negative tone and then may be gradually appreciates a bit midway. Some times he goes way to overboard and personal with his comments.

Final Comments: Frankly in my opinion, he should RETIRE now. I think he has seen too many movies where his head is kind of saturated and he is at a stage where nothing impresses him anymore. Its high time he avoids self- indulgent display of his world cinema knowledge while reviewing a bollywood masala flick.

2) Taran Adarsh (INDIAFM.com):

Good : He is quite sincere about his job and that shows in his reviews. He is the face of the popular cinema as far as the critiquing is concerned. He is a true believer of cinema sticking to just entertainment, I guess that's the reason he is the most popular critic among all in the bollywood. His end comments are the high point of his reviews, usually pretty good at predicting the box office fate.

Bad : Too much emphasis on bollywood style entertainment, does not easily accept new style of film making. Recent example being 'Manorama Six feet Under", i think it deserved better treatment from a learned critic like him. Typically loves yashRaj/ Karan kind cinema, nothing wrong with that but also need to be aware of the happenings beyond them.

Final Comments: He is accused of being a trade pundit and not a true critique, i think to get away from that image he needs to stop predicting fate of a movie in his reviews and just stick to critiquing it, and may be separate the prediction part in trade section. He is good at appreciating mass entertainment values and he should continue doing that but also would be better if he even acknowledges the tastes of new audience that is emerging fast these days typically termed as "multiplex audience"

3) Rajeev masand (IBN-CNN):

Good : Probably the most energetic and animated critics we have. Though he looks like a world cinema buff and also seems to be well read on cinema, still he makes sure to critique a bollywood movie on its own merits and doesn't try to dump his sea of cinema knowledge (May be Khalid saab needs to learn some here??).

Bad: Inconsistent with his verdicts , he is in between Khalid and Taran, may be with experience will get better.

4) Raja Sen(Rediff.com):

Good:Pretty detailed reviews, probably one of the few bollywood reviewers who emphasises on the technical aspects of the cinema too.Seems to be passionate and crazy about meaningful cinema.

Bad: Not sounding too harsh, can we call him a self-indulgent idealist?, so will that make him a younger version of Khalid? He is the most inconsistent/unpredictable among all the bollywood critiques , why would u think Rediff most of the times publishes alternate reviews of the same movie that even Raja Sen critiques?.

Final comments: May be he should balance out between his idealist world cinema knowledge and bollywood masala. Please appreciate the tastes of Indian masses too , btw your unprofessional bashing of Krish was uncalled for.

FINALLY to all bollywood movie critiques out their:

Janta Janardhan

PLEASE PLEASE Appreciate the tastes of the Indian Masses, Except for Taran and to an extent Rajeev, all you reviewers simply do not appreciate or acknowledge the tastes of the masses. You trash films like FANAA, PARTNER, NO ENTRY etc; but they become the biggest block busters.

You guys might have done a thesis on Coppola's cinema or u might be a world cinema guru, but realize that all you are reviewing is a bollywood masala movie, which has its own grammar, treat it on its own merits. when half a billion of Indian masses love a bollywood masala flick and make it a blockbuster , who are you guys to question the intelligence of the masses?

I think this is a cultural thing and happens only in India i guess, ridiculing anything POPULAR as low class.

Hollywood ki aisi ki thaisi :

Not only our reviewers but even general Indian public are aware that bollywood still heavily gets inspired by Hollywood, plagiarism is rampant in bollywood is no secret. And our learned critiques like any other responsible moviegoer might be even bothered about this and would be thriving to see more of original creations over a kichdi movie made out of ten Hollywood movies.
My problem though is, why on earth does our Desi critiques end up committing the same mistake themselves? Why do you guys look even at the most original work from Indian cinema as an Hollywood insider? Don't you think its the job of New York Times/Times etc?

Lets say our becahara Indian film maker attempts a original Desi dark comedy..our critiques start out as "This one is a great movie in the dark comedy genre on the lines of "Some Like It Hot". No matter how good or classic videshi work you are comparing it with, it is an insult to ones creativity i think. Take recent 100 desi movie reviews i bet you would find world cinema being mentioned/referred/compared in 90% of them.
Same way take 100 recent American reviews of Hollywood movies, you hardly find even a mention/comaprison of their own cinema when critiquing ones work.
Sincere request "Be a True desi when reviewing a desi movie".


RATING KA KYA CHAKKAR HAI?????

I am always confused with this ratings business.
TARAN GIVES 1 and half rating for recent hindi releases RED, GAURI,
and same rating for even Khoya Khoya chand ????? I think its not fair.

I agree Khoya Khoya chand is no classic but it is miles superior in its intentions, quality of the content, production values or even entertainment values than the 2 above movies i mentioned.

How the hell you club those 2 with this one ??? I am not advocating KKC here but just took as an example.
Taran can u please justify here ? I think things like these make film makers averse towards you critiques.

Here are few suggestions on this..

Why don't you critiques exactly define the parameters you consider for rating?

or may be even good if u breakdown the key elements that makes up a bollywood movie and rate each one of them seperately and then give a overall rating. Then at least we janta would be clear of your intentions and would be more scientic , do u agree?

Entertainment values:
Technical values;
Screenplay:
Choreography:
...VAGAIRA......

And by the way KHALID saab why didn't you rate OM shanti OM ? Daal mein kuch kala hain?.
Not that it makes any difference, anyways khalid saab's minute elite niche loyal readers would not even make a dent at the already mega hit.

Chai peeke abhi vaapas athoo...baaki ka likthaon... jara gaaliyan chodo comment section mein...shukriya...