@bollyfan I have accepted while giving the example that it is an extreme one at that. I just wanted to point out that meetu in here earlier reviews took an extraordinary effort to NOT give away the small things in the movie. The ideal review for me is one which gives a qualitative, but objective assessment of the different aspects of the movie and as a whole too. I could easily connect with the earlier reviews in this sense. @inketi Let me put the question back to you, have you read my comment? Where does my comment require viewing of the film?
e.g. in the above review, you give away too much information on the characters that the actors are portraying: Nana: Manipulative, krishna-esque (i for one did not know that it was based on chars from Mahabharata.) Ranbir: chameleon-skinned These things may take out the impact of certain events in the story, making it a less enjoyable experience. as an example (just an example): If I am writing a review of the Sixth Sense, and I say Bruce Willis has given a convincing performance as the ghost who doesn't know he's dead (extreme, i know), I may not be surprised at the climax of the movie, right?
If you have been following the decline of Times of India (quality-wise, not quantity - I know its the largest selling English daily in the world blah blah), I feel that your reviews too are undergoing a similar pattern: Rajneeti: less chess more monopoly Kites: Plummets into an abyss Paathshaala: I don't want to go to school Prince: citizens take cover, hide, quick! Blue: In Deep Water I hope you get what I am trying to say here. Aren't some of the movies cheesy enough without the titles you put on your reviews?
One more important thing: The first thing that got me hooked to your reviews was 'wogma'. I hope you remember what it stands for. Just go through some of your earlier reviews, and you'll know what I mean.
@bollyfan I have accepted while giving the example that it is an extreme one at that. I just wanted to point out that meetu in here earlier reviews took an extraordinary effort to NOT give away the small things in the movie. The ideal review for me is one which gives a qualitative, but objective assessment of the different aspects of the movie and as a whole too. I could easily connect with the earlier reviews in this sense.
@inketi Let me put the question back to you, have you read my comment? Where does my comment require viewing of the film?
e.g. in the above review, you give away too much information on the characters that the actors are portraying:
Nana: Manipulative, krishna-esque (i for one did not know that it was based on chars from Mahabharata.)
Ranbir: chameleon-skinned
These things may take out the impact of certain events in the story, making it a less enjoyable experience.
as an example (just an example): If I am writing a review of the Sixth Sense, and I say Bruce Willis has given a convincing performance as the ghost who doesn't know he's dead (extreme, i know), I may not be surprised at the climax of the movie, right?
Meetu,
If you have been following the decline of Times of India (quality-wise, not quantity - I know its the largest selling English daily in the world blah blah), I feel that your reviews too are undergoing a similar pattern:
Rajneeti: less chess more monopoly
Kites: Plummets into an abyss
Paathshaala: I don't want to go to school
Prince: citizens take cover, hide, quick!
Blue: In Deep Water
I hope you get what I am trying to say here. Aren't some of the movies cheesy enough without the titles you put on your reviews?
One more important thing: The first thing that got me hooked to your reviews was 'wogma'. I hope you remember what it stands for. Just go through some of your earlier reviews, and you'll know what I mean.
Oh yes, and it is Corleones!