history of reviews

Posted by sadt66 on November 15, 2004 at 14:24:06:

in the old days there were't many reviewers, people didn't know if a film was good or bad until they watched it, people just went to see the film, then later film reviewers started coming (((((and the whole point of this was so that people could read the review of a film and decide upon the verdict of the film from the review, whether or not to go see the film))))) some people followed the reviews heavily, and decided totally upon the review of a film by a reviewer whether or not to go see a film. this was the faith of some people in reviewers

today reviewing films is popular, i always used to read reviews of film before watching them, i was one of the people who "followed the reviews heavily", and decided purely on the verdict of the film by the reviewer, whether or not to see a film. on of the most respected reviewers today is taran adarsh, i heard a lot about him, and after i read a few of his reviews for the first time, i was floored, "i was like what a great reviewer" w=he is not biased at all, especially his review of devdas- he gave it a 1 1/2*(out of 5 stars) rating which was bad, and i didn't like the film, every other review of devdas that i read the reviewer said that devdas was brilliant, adarsh's review of devdas really won me over, and i really looked forward to reading his film reviews every friday. but i remember last year he gave 2 bad films(chalte chalte, and main prem ki deewani hoon) a really good review(both 3 1/2*-that's the same rating he gave to Munnabhai) and i just ignored them, beacause after watching both films i obviously realized that both the reviews were wrong, but i was just like- well no reviewer is perfect, but then he gave other bad films a really good review like: masti-3 1/2*, main hoon na-4* and after reading the main hoon na review realized he was biased, he favored most big films, and shahrukh films, and he gave them a really good review- and he(like other reviewers) did this because he knows that his reviews are followed heavily-and that people will decide to watch or not watch a film, based upon his reviews, which affects the opening of a film, so he started using his reviewer job the wrong way, (he is supposed to give reviews so that people could read his review and decide upon the verdict of the film from his review, whether or not to go see the film), i remember after reading MHN's review i really wanted to go see the film, and i almost did, but thankfully i was late, and ended up watching the film on dvd, and after watching the film i was like, adarsh is stupid he made the film out to be brilliant, and it turned out to be crap, thank god i didnt waste money to watch it in a theather after reading MHN's review i lost all my respect for adarsh, he still continued to give big-bad films a great review he gave: lakshya-2 1/2* garv-2 1/2* mujshe shaadi karoge- 4* and others

now he just gave veer-zaara a 4 1/2* rating out of 5, which by reading the review i realizzed it was biased--he made it obvious- which i once again realized-before even watching the film, that it was a biased review, and that adarsh supports srk films and most other big films-whether they are good or bad and most websites are biased-to big films and this because: reviewers know that their reviews will change the opening of a film, thats how films like MHN, lakshya, and MSK, got some of the best openings ever, due to great reviews but soon all this- giving big films and srk films a brilliant review- is going to start catching up with the people, some people like me-have aldready realized that reviewers are biased when it comes to big films, and some are yet to

so in the end it is like the same way it was many years ago, when there were no reviews -since i cant count on reviews- i just decide myself whether or not to go see a film myself, because reviewers cant be trusted now adays

i am sorry for this really long article, but it is not even 1/5 as long as aakash gandhi's super long, totally biased review of veer-zaara

Replies: