LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL REVIEW

       A director makes only one film in his life.    Then he breaks it into pieces and makes it again.-   Jean Renoir
"Growing up " is the stage in life that has its own contents of excitements. Not always pleasant and positive, but life does throw at you whatever it can. Sometimes you find it interesting, sometimes you wonder why the hell is it happening to you. To hear and digest that your mother has cancer is not easy. But that may bring a lot of changes to your attitude, your way of life, and your relationship with your family and the people around you. All the things that come across in your life seem to have a purpose behind them, if you wish to agree with the fact. Life is beautiful when you have dinner(made by your mother) with your family, when you fight with your sister, when you go out playing cricket with your friends, when your "dil ki dhadkan" proposes you. But when things alter and you find yourself out of the comfort zone, where there are adjustments, sacrifices, responsibilities and situations where you can do nothing but hope for good....then can you say that "Life is beautiful"? Sekhar Kammula's latest film is about the above, but not entirely.


The film starts with Amala insisting her kids to leave her and move to Hyd.(If you watch a lot of Telugu movies, you can guess that she has some cancer). So, our hero and his two sisters move from their city to the world of Sekhar Kammula, where there are meek middle class people and proud rich people. The rest of the film is about the teenage infatuations, friendships, relationships, hardships, girls dancing in rain, and all other typical Sekhar Kammula stuff. The film is about a bunch of youngsters who live in a colony called "Sunshine colony"(To remind you that it is a happy place). I dont need them to introduce to you if you have seen Happy days.  They are cloned from there. Welcome to the happy happy world of Sekhar Kammula where middle class people are sensible, know the meaning of life, friendship and stuff, whereas the rich are always evil minded, corrupt, deceptive, manipulative and ruthless. They are always seen calling the "poor" guys "B-Phase dogs". That comes a million times. And the rich people in this film seem to have High BP, piles and alarming levels of short temper that makes you pity them most of the time. "Oh Sekhar......we understood that you hate the rich. But you are spoiling your own film with your prejudice". Those characters just look like vessels that carry bad, but never look human. We all know that there is no black and white in this world. Everything is gray. Thats why it seems as if Sekhar has taken his audience for granted. Keeping in mind the amount of maturity the director has displayed in his previous films, its hard to believe that this kind of characterisation came out of Sekhar's mind. And then there is Anjala Javeri who dances whenever it rains and makes expressions as if she had never seen it raining in her life. And there are always a lot of fights between the good(innocent middle class) and the bad(spoilt rich guys). There is a guy who loves a woman(Shriya) older than him, who is a computer geek, who is weak and intelligent. Does it remind you of "Tyson" in Happy Days? Its not your mistake. Oh yes...Shriya has a boyfriend who is so possessive of her. By this time you are completely convinced that this is a remake of Happy Days.

Sekhar started this movie with a noble intention to convey his version of optimism and his nostalgia. But he chose an easy way of doing this by trying to fit this into the template of his previous flick "Happy Days". The film assumes to be the journey of a youngster who suddenly falls out of his comfort zone and has to face the reality of life.(But this "reality" is Sekhar's fantasy after all). He isn't completely mature but has to act mature. He comes across a lot of things like teenage infatuations, ego clashes, aims, responsibilities and of-course love, which will not let him roam above those but pull him to their level and demand a decision from him. And there are several parallel threads in the film that too are dealt with care.( Nag raj-Lakshmi track is quite entertaining.) The film would have been refreshing if the director had chosen to stay true to the concept. But what bothers you is the artificiality that pops up uncomfortably in the film.  Shriya's story almost looks like a fairy tale.  Some of the characters in the film look too scripted and lack an appeal of reality. Do the rich always try to make fun of the poor? I don't think so. And there are cliches that are thrown disgustingly. When Shriya gets out of her car and boards the van of our heroes, you are forced to agree that the good always receive good. Too cinematic to be a Sekhar's film. Sekhar's world has always its share of optimism and positivity. In any other film of his, you can see it glaringly evident. But what saved them from being preachy and boring is their realistic and simplistic portrayal, equipped with down to earth dialogue that made it believable. But here, he too has traded off art for drama. He just sliced off his characters from Happy Days and stitched them here and wanted us to believe its a new film. It seems he planned the begining and the climax and filled the rest of the movie with "his" regular stuff. Not a very good idea Sekhar.

That being said, this is not a bad film. Its worth watching especially for the way the sentiment is worked out. No dramatic dialogues, no melodramatic music...simply as in real world. The Amala track moves you. You cant disagree when the hero says that his mother's cancer and the consequences changed his attitude towards his life. Thats what the film is supposed to portray, but somehow missed its target. The rest of the film wont make you glued to your seat, but it doesnt mean that it makes you fret with boredom. The only problem is that it gives you a feel that you have seen every scene before. You can guess everything. In that case the unfolding should be gripping enough. The film is partially successful in that department.The music is apt, but not haunting. The set is believable. The costumes are true to the characters. The actors  are fine. Kudos to Amala Akkineni. She excelled. The photography in the second half is brilliant. At the end of the movie, it says that All is well and life is beautiful. That seems to be the opinion of Sekhar Kammula. Is it? What is life.....depends on how you view it. And that forms a different philosophical discussion. Let it not be here in this review of this simple film. we can do it somewhere else. 

As a final say, its not great, but not bad. We like you Sekhar for your storytelling. But please tell us a different story each time.

PS:- Anjala Javeri is still stiff and beautiful. Shriya looked gorgeous. It seems Sekhar too is becoming conscious of the fact that girls can be exploited with camera without looking vulgar. I liked Shriya's two big...................................................................................................................eyes. Really yaar. You spoilt mind. I know what you thought. I am not like you. A good boy.

PS 2:- When the scene in which Mahesh Babu appears came, the audience expected the next photo to be Pawan Kalyan's. They began shouting "Power star Power star". But the scene ended with the hero's photo and Pawan kalyan's fans seemed to be disappointed.

SHIRDI SAI REVIEW

The words "God", "Life" and "death" may be the words that we use everyday, but the questions they arise are innumerable. They can throw you mercilessly into frozen philosophical zones where the answer always seduces you but never lends you its warmth. Is there a God who is responsible for all this? It seems to be the right question to ask if you ever meet a man like Shirdi sai baba. Director Ragahvendra Rao introduces you the Godman but never lets his hero get deeper beyond the surface of "Religious tolerance". Here is my complete review of the film.

Being aware of what a philosophical and emotional depths a film can transcend if it is about a man who is conceived a God by two different religions, its hard to appreciate this film. None of the characters around Sai Baba asks him a tough question. Its not very interesting to see a Godman confronted by people who wait for the most ground level logic to be sermonised to fall for any phakir. Even if it is a film, its hard to imagine that people are such dumbos to get convinced with surface level answers and a pinch of Viboothi. When I was half way through the film, I felt like standing and yelling at the screen "Ask Baba tougher questions". For example, the film shows Baba always talking to some imaginary or mysterious people who are invisible to normal devotees. Is it God, with whom he is talking? If he can talk to God  with that much ease and freedom, why should he go for a three day trip to all the "lokams" of Gods? What difference does that make to his devotees? That forms a question right? But when he wakes up, the britisher never asks this question but instead poses a dumb question like "How did you come to life again?"  And again he gets convinced with the simple logic Baba explains. Doesnt he know that the body and the soul are different? Poor man.Am I trying to dig too deep into something that is layer thin? May be. "Shirdi Sai" doesnt aim to be great. It aims to be a safe commercial project, that can pass off as a typical Raghavendra Rao "Bhakti flick". Thats why when Nagarjuna delivers the dialogue "Ee gaali pilichindi, ee nela rammandi, vachanu", no one takes it serious. Audience didnt seem even to bother about why a man who preaches non attachment to earthly things is so much attached to the air and earth of Shirdi. I am tempted everytime a character enters disliking Sai, expecting  the character to have atleast some brains to ask Sai a deeper philosophical question. When Sai Baba says that man can be happy aonly after death, why doesnt Sai Kumar ask "Then what is the purpose of life, if all is a suffering? What is the ultimate fruit that we get by going through all this mess?" Oh my God....Swaroop, you are expecting too much out of a telugu film.

I have nothing about Baba or his devotees. I dont know whether all this story is true or not. My comments are not about Sai Baba. They are about the film. Is it that Baba's life doesnt have enough masala? Christ's life has the epic "Crucifixion" that provides enough drama for a film. But here, no one lifts a hand against Baba. Is it the reason that we find no conflict in this film?. Yes. The director' s sole aim is to just make a film on Sai. Thats it. But he doesnt have the heart or interest to use this as a vehicle to his display of artistry. Thats why this film appears just like a wikipedia article on Sai. No implications, no enlightenment, no philosophy, no drama.When Sai claims to bear the suffering of his nephew, it doesnt look like a divine compassion towards humankind but just as a human emotion towards a relative. Thats why we just dont get the feel that this man has the wisdom of worlds in his head. He looks like just another old man who prefers to use his retirement money for his daughter's marriage instead of his heart surgery. If it is true that man can be happy only after death, why cant Baba let Taatya die? Oh Again I am going too deep? Sorry. Lets talk about the film again.

The review doesnt end if I dont mention Nagarjuna, who has just given a world class performance. He is completely believable and effortlessly likeable. Undoubtedly, he is the one and only actor on Earth who could do this character. The way he suppressed himself and let the character take him over is commendable. His eyes speak  whatever has been missing in the dialogue. I dont know how Sai Baba spoke or walk. If it is not like Nagarjuna, I can bet that Sai Baba was not as divine looking as Nag. He is sure to bag a number of awards and this is one of the best performances of Nag in his career.

Coming to other technicalities, the sets are pathetic for the reason that they shout that it is a film. Keeravani's music tries to drive the Telugus into "Bhakti" mode and I dont know whether its successful or not because I am immune to such tunes. Srikanth also did well. Sai Kumar is OK. The others overacted. Its no use commenting on the taking of a director who has been making films way past his expiry date.

As a final say, this film is for Sai Baba devotees and Nag devotees.

PS:- If you are a Sai devotee, please dont misunderstand me.  My comments are about the film's mediocrity. I state again that I know nothing about Sai Baba.

PS 2:- Beside me, three middle aged women sat to watch the movie. While I am looking at sides, getting bored, they all are in tears watching Nagarjuna's acting in the climax.

JULAYI REVIEW

Scene 1:- Trivikram is thinking in his room about writing a screenplay for his film with Allu Arjun. The story is aleady framed. It should convey a message so direct in the face that the Telugus who according to the film makers have no such thing as brain, can understand. Hours passed, a mug of coffee is consumed, but Trivikram couldn't write even one page of screenplay. Then a flash of idea crossed his mind. He went to his bedroom, came out with CDs of THE DARK KNIGHT, THE ITALIAN JOB  and some other hollywood movies. Ctrl+C, Ctrl +V. A telugu cinema ready.

Scene 2:- The audience while coming out of the theatre are talking with each other. "Trivikram has such an amazing talent that we Telugus should feel proud of"!!!!!!!!!!!

Tired of all this? Okay. Let me review the movie as if it is original.


When the first 15 minutes of the film establish the hero as a super smart macho who can outsmart both the Police and the goons with an ease and intensity that is beyond your imagination, what would you expect from the rest of the film? You would love to put tougher characters and obstacles in his way and watch how he deals with them. Trivikram seems to know this very well, but forgot it midway.

Ravi (Allu Arjun) is a smartass guy who is too lazy even to think of doing a job, and keeps waiting for that one wave of luck that would permanently resign him from middle class life. He has such an IQ that even the Police look like rats before his giantly smartness. In an attempt to earn money the easy way, he runs into a robber Bintu(Sonu Sood), who is as smart as Ravi. Thats where the movie sets high expectations for its audiences, who want to see a Tom and Jerry game between the two. But there arises the problem. Sonu Sood's character may be a perfect match to Bunny, because he presents some challenges to the hero, which could provide a gripping plot. But our hero falls in love, with a brainless heroine who blindly believes whatever he says. There is no challenge there, and hence no interest. Give him a smarter girl, maintain her at a high point and let him woo her. Else, tell us the story of Raviu and Bittu, but why this half baked love story Mr. Trivikram?  Whenever Ileana appeared on screen, I felt that looking at a white wall for 3456789234 hours might be more entertaining. Ileana's character might be suitable for Sanjay Sahu(Pawan Kalyan in Jalsa) but not for Ravi in this story. The love track, which the director thought is damn essential for the film, actually served as a side track that distracted the film's main plot and made the loop holes in the screenplay visible, even to the most common audience. This is the main drawback of the film.

"Wit and humour" combo is what Trivikram is gifted with, and it is evident from every dialogue in the movie. But Trivikram is not a very good narrator here. Especialy in the second half, the dialogue writer overtakes the director and screenplay writer. He divided the film into slices where the hero-villan scene comes after hero-heroine scene and thats how the film goes till the end. The first hour of the movie promises you many things, but all of them are left to the winds by the second half. Trivikram seems to have started the movie with great interest, but midway lost his interest in his characters(or exhausted by the task of driving two supersmart characters with his intelligence and seems to resort to typical Telugu-hero-ideas). He has taken enough cinematic liberties as well. In the climax, the ideas Bunny uses to divert the route of the Container vehicle are in no match to what brilliance he exhibits in the begining of the movie. At one point, the hero's smartness irritates you. I badly wish Trivikram could use atleast 20% of his brain he uses to write dialogue, to etch a gripping screenplay. Except Ileana's irritating expressions and the forced humour, I could recall nothing from the second half. During some of the scenes in second half, you would like to yell at the projector "Enough with this...Show us the climax." Instead of simply terming the film as "mediocrity", I am shooting one by one because, I am dissapointed seeing a potentially entertaining movie ending up just as an average film.It could have become a perfect entertainer (for the Telugus) but distanced itself by its own errors. It is not a bad film, but has paralleled itself with the idea. If I give a 60/100 to the direction department, I give a zero to the screenplay.


Allu Arjun has proved with Vedam that he has a very good actor inside him, and is willing to unleash him on us if the director comes with a suitable character for him. His unnecessary craving for a mass image made him a laughing stock in Varudu and Badrinath, where we even doubted on his acting calibre. This time he has chosen a character that allowed him to enjoy doing it, which helped us enjoy it. Rajendra Prasad is a delight to watch.I dont think Sonu Sood has the slightest difficulty playing the role because he might be used to it by now. Ileana is.......not attractive.

The first 30 minutes of the film is both the strength and weakness of the film. Strength because it is excellent, and weakness because it has set too high expectations, which the rest of the film fell flat trying to achieve. The film has the slickness that we rarely see in Telugu movies, but has been let down by a weak screenplay.

A final say:- Its not a crime to watch. Watch it for Trivikram and Bunny.

PS:- Whenever there is a dialogue from Bunny, the theatre broke into whistles and cries so loud that I had a very tough time following what he is saying. I watched it in Arjun, Kukatpally.

UKODATHARA ULIKKIPADATHARA REVIEW

Have you watched the trailer of this movie? Well then. Dont expect the movie to be as exciting as the trailer, because the trailer is a complete misguiding, misleading and a shameless cover of a lacklustre film that is zero in content. When a movie is full of sets, designer costumes, and looks like high-budget-personified but doesnt have even a single character that is well developed, its not your fault if you sleep in the theatre.

UKUP is a movie that assumes itself to be thrilling and creative. When the desperation of the director to touch every cliche and the self assumed eccentricity of the actor who wants to score a hit with offbeat picture doesnt match, we are doomed to find ourselves sitting helpless in the theatres like this. Well, coming to the story, there is a grandly erected set( Oh..there they have shown all their creativity..What else do you want you greedy man?) that has some ghosts and people who have one thing in common. They dont pay rent. Our hero arrives on a bike, with a hairstyle that is desperate to display his self proclamed negativity(Oh my God...these guys are killing me with creativity) and then the good deeds of this bad boy begin, much to our dismay. With a big sword(Hope its not plastic), he scares the hell out of the comedy less comedians and the audiences as well. Till Balakrishna arrives on scree, its boring. When he takes the movie on his shoulder, its again boring. Somewhere in the middle, we find Suhasini with the same expression we have saw her a zillion times. Manchu Laxmi, except in the climax episode is a matter of jokes, with her getup.

The dialogues are borrowed from the mookie dramas of the 90s. In the second half, the director realises that the only way to complete a socio fantasy picture is to copy something from the previous films in that genre. And then we are served with Sonu Sood plucked away from Arundhati minus his solid characterisation. (Creativity again). The songs that drop out of nowhere do their job(make you more sleepy). And then the climax. The only one thing about the movie that I liked is the fact that it ended.

When the title of the film itself assumes that it is a fairy tale that shocks you at times, and the trailer is shown to be promising, and there is an expectation on the hero, and in the background of a heavy marketing hype, it is the job of the director to design the film to be thrilling enough to make the audiences glued to their seats.  But what happened here? A creative bankrupt director is showered with an efficient starcast and a juicy budget, just to dole out a disgusting and half boiled picture. All cliches and all stereotypes.

Manoj is an actor aho has a fanbase independent of caste and family status. He is reputed to have a good creative choice, and an eccentricity to pick up innovative subjects despite failures. But this time, you cant forgive him. As an actor he needs to realise that a solid script can do more than a tremendous budget and innovative-only-to-hear lines. And Balakrshna is okay in his role as a man that sells clothes......sorry distributes clothes. Than God the set doesnt have a railway track nearby, otherwise they would have planned a "slap your thigh--make train go back" episode.

As a final say, I would advice you not to waste your money on this film, and not to expect any telugu film based on its trailers.

EEGA-THE POWER OF FLY

There is an unsigned contract between the audience and Rajamouli, even before we enter the theatre. "Well, my dear audience, I told you the story of this film even before starting the movie. I showed you what it looks like in the trailer. I too know that a house-fly cannot do all the things that are shown here. This is just the outcome of a funny thought presented in a manner that could excite the telugu audience. So, dont complain that it is out of reality, or an absurd point." Okay Mr. Rajamouli...We got your point.

Eega is a technically brilliant film, to start with. The special effects are of top notch, if you donot watch hollywood films. The story doesnt have any twists or turns. The taking doesnt have any feel to it. But what saves your day is the fact that the film is not boring. Esecially the second half, which is a continuous tom and jerry show. If you can afford to switch off your brain for a while, you can pass the movie. The film starts on a dull note, showing Sudeep's lustful expressions, and a heroine with typical telugu heroine makeup. Till Nani goes off screen, it is like any other telugu romance. Once the fly enters the scene, the CG magic begins. The fly goes on rage, in the second half, getting on the nerves of the villan, and strikes creative heights at places. This is the first film that brought the creative levels of Rajamouli to the full extent. I hated all his earlier films, for their overdose of heroism, gravity defying fight sequences, and one man killing hundreds-kind of ideas. This one is bearable, with its funny line shown seriously.

Rajamouli is always succesful in catching the pulse of the Telugus. They even rated a over sentimental "Chatrapati" as a hit. Then its not a onder that this film, which has genuine creative stuff will get attention. What stands out is the direction and presentation of the movie. But the narration is very flat, which  is the reason for a poor first half. The take off is too simple and plain, that it failed to generate excitement in the audience, as everyone knows whats gonna happen. Though it is successful in making us have multiple creative orgasms, it failed to strike an emotional chord. We dont feel sad when Nani gets killed, or when Samantha turns into tears. There is nothing that the film conveys, except that it is a story well told.
But we cant blame the director for this. A movie should be reviewed on what it has promised and what it has delivered. In that case, Eega is successful.

Its not a small task for a director to visualise a film that almost runs on Graphics, write a power packed screenplay and execute it to the most minute of detail. Rajamouli deserves a standing ovation, for that. But I am quite angry on him, that he has decided to brand the film as a sheer technical experience rather than an emotional story told in a technical manner. End of the day, people liked it. No issues. Eega may not be a perfect film, but far better than most Telugu duds.
GGGGGGGGuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN REVIEW

The obvious question tht arises when a film's title declared itself "amazing" is "Does the film Justify the title?". Honestly, what do we expect out of a Spiderman movie.....or for any super hero flick for that matter? Mind boggling visual effects, breath taking action sequences, charishma oozing stars and a witty presentation, ofcourse backed by a gripping plot and point( as far as the Indian audiences are concerned). The amazing spiderman, appeals to different audiences in different ways. Depends on what you expect before stepping into the theatre. If you felt nauseated with the too-many-villans-make-heroism-stronger-obsessed third part of Sam Raimi's trilogy, then this might come as a relief for you(The action is easy to follow).

Marc Webb's verson of spidey, doesnt go overboard in his display of his superhero powers but stands still to allow the audiences have a look at his emotional side, as Webb throws light on it. Here the audiences would get an insight into why Peter Parker has become what he is. The film intends to end on a sympathetic note towards the superhero, who has traded off his heart, for his responsibilities. Ofcourse the first three movies have visited this zone, but this part emphasises it. We see the same story how Peter is bitten by a spider, how he coped up with the changes in him, how he became a superhero. But the question is, are we really interested to see the same story once again, that too after ten years? Well...The answer is that this time he is different, if you are not. Spidey's point is...It takes pain to be a man who fights crime. It demands your personal life, if you intend to serve the public. I dont feel that this is a new point, atleast for spiderman. Christopher Nolan set a new benchmark, by rebooting The Batman series, by dealing it in a philosophical light. There is a great depth of thought, in the ethical puzzles thrown by the joker. That made The Dark Knight, a dark and gritty, but entertaining superhero tale. But the problem with AMS is that we are still in the THE AVENGERS hangover, where it is proved that we are still in a mood to enjoy Superhero movies that ooze fun and destruction. While the audience are all expecting Spiderman to go on with mad adventures, what he does there on screen is shedding tears and romancing. I dont mean its a mistake, as we know its a reboot.

If we view the film as it is, but not what it could be, then AMS is a well told story, well acted and well directed. Andrew Garfield brought a new charm to spiderman with his talent, but I cant resist the temptation of mentioning the glow brought to screen by the gorgeous Emma Stone. She is amazing. Even the climax is not that of a big bang. It replicates the same old formula what Raimi has set in his earlier trilogy. A scientist, a research, went wrong, turns monster, destruction, fight, good wins over the evil. But it would have provided a great excitement if the Visual effects are stunning. No doubt they are top notch, but just not enough, especially after THE AVENGERS, Marvel's previous superhit.

Finally, THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN serves its purpose. Redefined Peter Parker, set a nice background for a sequel. Watch it in IMAX, coz if you are bored with the film, atleast you could pass time watching the hot chicks immersed in watching the movie.

A REVIEW OF REVIEWS

If you have reminded the scene in which Shiyaji Shindey goes on a rage against reviews in the film NENINTHE, immediately after reading my heading and seeing this image, means you have understood what I am going to say. Dont think I am going to support or oppose Puri's dialogues. Since I too have been writing reviews, in my blog and on FB and a few of my friends decide whether to watch it or not based on my reviews( The highest number of views for my blog are for film reviews), I thought I should explain, on what basis I rate films.

Being a critic (Till the end of this article, I call myself as a critic, irrespective of whether you cry or laugh) is a very easy and tough task at the same time.

Why is it easy?
"In that particular scene where the camel is wounded in the desert, it is dressed with a white color cloth. But it would have been better if the director had chosen a red color cloth". The above comment may seem to have a factual analysis, but what the critic has done there is a dreaming of enhancement of a scene which is a result of the director's imagination. The director has imagined a desert, placed a camel there, created a scene in which it would be wounded and then made a character clean the wound and dress it. It requires a lot of imagination, analysis, convincing, and a lot of back breaking effort to capture his idea in a camera. Whereas for the critic, all is ready made for him to comment on. He doesnt need to understand the director's toil He may have a particular agenda behind it, which sometimes is understood by the audience directly or which may remain in the dark(if the audience doesnt have the level of sensibility/ if the director fails to portray it properly). A film is basically a communication that goes on between the story teller(director) and the audience. Any film maker, while making his film would add whatever the ingredients he can add, hoping that the audience will appreciate the taste besides digesting it. He visualises something in his mind, before presenting it and it will depend on his skill as a technician, whether he delivers what he wants to deliver or not. But the critic is in the dark about what the director wanted to convey. He simply sees the final outcome and comments on it. And the creator cannot argue that commenting on his creation is quite easy and imagining and executing is difficult. When he chose to release a product into public, he should be ready to face the verdict the public passes, whatever it may be. He cannot complain that people doesnt have the level of sensibility he has and that it is their problem if they dont like it. Its rubbish.

Huh....a lot of analysis? But the above lines doesnt mean that the critic is wrong.
 Why it is a tough job?
 Because watching a movie and having an opinion on is not all that is required to be a critic. I thought that films like TRANSFORMERS, XXX, GHOST RIDER etc are good movies, only till I watched great movies like CITIZEN KANE, GODFATHER, TERMINATOR, JAWS,AVATAR, GONE WITH THE WIND, INCEPTION,  KILL BILL, LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, SPIDER MAN 2, MEMENTO, VERTIGO, GOODFELLAS and a lot too more in number to be described here. We develop a taste, when we try different tastes. A normal cinegoer just likes or dislikes a film, based on his level of sensibility, his taste, his mindset, his mood at the time of viewing, his opinions on different things, and also the content of the film. But everytime he likes or dislikes something he may not know why he liked it, and doesnt care either. The critic knows the reason. Because he knows what a good cinema is, and how well it is possible to carve out a good film(being very generic here). Also, review is different from criticism. A review analyses the film to judge whether the film is worth your money or not. Its point of view is from  the consumer's. Whereas a criticism would like to comment on the artistic elements and is more interesting.
On what basis do I rate movies?

I rate a movie based on what it is, but not on what it could be. What it has promised and what it has delivered? is the question on which I give my reviews. The poster, the trailor and the publicity of the movie should made it clear, what the film is supposed to be. Then based on their aspirations, we decide whether it has reached them or not. We cannot compare "Shivaji" with "Shiva" and say that "Shivaji" is unrealistic. "Shivaji" is made, based on the star charishma of Rajinikanth and it met what it has promised. We love to watch "Rajini" as a larger than life hero, and the makers of the film portrayed him in the same light. So, now it would be a blunder if I say that the hollywood has made a zero gravity fight in Inception believable and that Rajini is still flyng with ropes. Here the promises and performances matter. But if Shivaji is publicised to be a realistic portrayal of Indian economic crimes and the solutions, we have to pan it down saying that the solutions are unrealistic and that it is a piece of crap.

Hope you understood my point.