Movie Review Form: Fill & Download for Free

Roger Ebert got a lot of things, in my opinion, wrong. I still think he was the greatest film critic of his age, for three reasons:He admitted when he was wrong. Both he and Gene Siskel gave Blade Runner a “thumbs down” on Sneak Previews, although they both admitted it had good points. Later, Ebert admitted that he had been “too hard” in his initial reviews, and even later called it a “classic”.He pitched his reviews based on what he perceived the intent was, and how well the film achieved that intent. Siskel chided him once for giving thumbs up to one of the Benji movies while giving thumbs down to Full Metal Jacket, but his reasoning was sound: if you go in looking for a cute kids move, Benji delivers, but if you go in looking for a Kubrick masterpiece Full Metal Jacket, in his opinion, didn’t.Even if I disagreed with a particular movie review of his, they were always informative enough to let me form my own opinion. You don’t have to be a member of a “cult of Ebert” to realize that he was a man who understood cinema, its place in the world of art, and the value of the arts to the world in general.

Warning : Spoilers AheadNo matter if you are a superstar, or you have such stardom, in the end Story is what matters. Your story should be good otherwise film will not run.First half Review :Film starts in Meerut UP, Bhauaa Singh a 38 year old dwarf is a carefree guy living his life on his father's money and blaming his father. He is a fan of bollywood actress babita kumari (Katrina). He is looking for girls on shadi. Com where he sees Afiya’s (Anushka) photo and goes to meet her but he finds out that she is having physical disorder. Afiya is a scientist bdw and Bhauaa and afiya meet in a school where afiya mocks him. Bhauaa feels insulted and goes to meet her again and tries to make fun of her disabilities in front of media but it backfires. Bhauaa goes to meet afiya again and she takes him lightly but he decides to make her fall for him. He succeeds, he sings song for her and they make love. Afiya decides to marry him but Bhauaa is not ready to get married. Meanwhile he meets babita in Meerut, follows her car, she was drunk and stops the car and kisses Bhauaa Singh.Bhauaa fills a dance competition form whose winner would be getting a chance to meet babita. Bhauaa and Afiya’s marriage day comes and he runs away from marriage, goes to participate in dance and guess what, he wins again remo dsouza and ganesh acahrya in final, he meets babita in party and she asks him to accompany him on her shoot. He tries to get close with babita but she throws him out.Second half :After getting insulted Bhauaa Singh flies to America with his friend, he goes to afiya where he finds that he has a daughter. He tries to convince afiya to get married to him but she doesn't agree.Now comes the irrelevant, illogical turn, NSAR are planning to send someone to space to find out if humans can survive on another planet. Now Bhauaa Singh applies for the post and goes through experiment for 6 months and now he is ready to go into space. Afiya decided to get married to Madhavan, Bhauaa Singh is ready to go into space and now afiya runs out of her marriage with Madhavan comes to see Bhauaa before departure. She says she will wait for him but there is no guarantee that he will come back. He goes into space, his spaceship gets lost, Afiya’s marriage is cancelled, nobody knows where he went in space and after 15 years he lands in sea. He is still 38 years old now.THE END.Edit 1: The movie takes you to a Journey of Bhauaa Singh but leaves you nowhere in the end. I felt like what am I doing sitting in hall when it ended, there's nothing to write about climax, story ends nowhere. Srk character is shown as someone who runs away from commitment, first he makes the girl fall in love with him, she gets pregnant but he runs away from marriage for someone (Babita) who is way beyond his league. She insults him so much then he again goes after afiya and what he does when he sees her after 1 year is he sings a pathetic song. What the hell! Tumne us ladki ko 1 saal pehle shadi ke din chhodke bhage the Aur ab ek gaana gao ge to wo maan jayegi???And there is his 6 months training in NSAR, he is 10th pass, does nothing for good but everyone thinks that he is eligible for Mars mission. He does gym, swimming, running, high jump, and so many irrelevant things in his training which didn't make sense.Last words : Srk, Anushka, Katrina have done full justice to their roles but Story, screenplay, and Direction are very bad. It's 2018 and movies won't sell on actor's name now, public wants good stories. Don't know why Srk chose this script. If you want to watch it, watch it for SRK. I am a fan of him but at the same time very disappointed with this movie.

[sigh]There’s bias. And then there’s perspective.Before we answer this question, we need to point out that it’s become increasingly common for people to characterise the latter as the former.‘Bias’ used to mean ‘a prejudice for one side rather than another’. It’s increasingly used to mean ‘expressing an opinion which I happen to disagree with’.The obsession with bias has been growing over the last few years, and I’m going to be boldly controversial (not) and say that it has something to do with the obsession with fake news. (I’m going to get to movie reviewing in a second, please bear with me.)Fake news does not necessarily mean ‘news which has been conclusively demonstrated to be false to the satisfaction of all those who have looked into the matter’, but is much more commonly used to mean ‘news that I reject because it says things that I do not agree with, do not wish to be true, have been told are not true, and therefore I believe to be not true’. The people who use it to mean that are also the ones who have called for the ‘return’ of news which was free from ‘bias’, as if the news has ever been reported in such a way as to be completely objective. (It hasn’t, but that’s an answer for another time.)So now we are also, apparently, asking for a movie review to be written without ‘bias’.In other words, a movie review which will not present anything which anyone could possibly object to, but which will somehow still convey the impression that the movie is or is not worth watching.Perhaps this is the desperate appeal of persons who feel like they lack the tools to argue with stuff that they don’t agree with, and so want to pass through life untroubled by material which provokes a reaction in them. Or maybe not.The first trouble is, people differ.Not all of us like the same things.The second trouble is, some people think that they are always right.In other words, that it is not my opinion that, e.g. Ted Nugent is the most rockingest, fleet-fingered, balls-to-the-wall guitar hero in music history—it is quite simply a fact. Or, conversely, that it is not my opinion that Ted Nugent is the most flatulent, self-inflated, overrated, can’t-play-for-shit, all-mouth-and-no-trousers lead guitarist in rock history—it is quite simply a fact. (I cleave to the latter point of view, but it is merely my opinion.)When people call for a movie review ‘without bias’, what are they asking for, really?A movie review that they simply agree with, which presents itself as self-evidently true?Or a movie review which is like Ron Swanson in Parks and Recreations’s TV commercial for his building company?‘Hire Very Good Building Company for your construction needs. Or do not. I am not a beggar.’It would be a less rich and interesting world if movie reviews didn’t even attempt to advance strong arguments, for fear of being accused of ‘bias’.A bad movie review is simply a lazy description of the reviewer’s state of mind and cultural prejudices. (Donald Clarke of the Irish Times is a chronic recidivist, in this respect. I never miss an opportunity to advise people not to read him.)A good movie review advances an argument about the movie, and addresses unspoken questions about it: Why was this movie made? Should it have been? Is this the movie you think they meant to make? Is it enjoyable and if so, how? If not, why not?If Ron Swanson were to review a movie entirely without bias, the way he makes a TV commercial for his own business, it would be like this:This movie was made by these people. It is X minutes long. It is about these characters and events. You may like it or you may not. I do not presume to know what your taste in cinema is like. Go and see it, or do not. I am not your movie expert.To which it’s fair to answer Well, yes, you are, Ron—we’re paying you to review the movie. If you don’t want to offer your opinion, give up the job for someone who does.A good movie reviewer isn’t afraid of stating an opinion and declaring it to be that: an opinion. James Agee loved silent comedy and said so, at a time when silent comedy was deeply unpopular. Bosley Crowther hated New Hollywood and movie violence, and loved European directors. Pauline Kael was the anti-Crowther, impatient with anything she regarded as pretensions to high art. David Thomson adores Howard Hawks, is suspicious of John Ford and can’t stand Richard Donner. Anthony Lane loves to unload the full force of his gift for satirical comedy on any film he regards as an expensive waste of time and money.All of these critics make you want to argue with them. (Bosley Crowther was wrong about ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ and it basically killed his career, but he was still good about the people he admired.) A good movie review should make you want to argue with it.The kind of argument that it advances is like the first move in a fencing match: a stylised form of combat, which invites the opponent to respond using the same rules.Unfortunately, in a highly divided culture, there are people who think that the fencer is not trying to fence, but trying to start a fight; and their response is to throw a fist, or to demand that the movie review be ‘without bias’.Which is like asking that it be without content.