I'm alright with the subjectivity. I accept it. What I don't get is how saying everyone's opinions and experiences are subjective stops me from questioning the basis of the opinions.
Expectedly, my opinions about reviews have been misconstrued. When I say I form a reasonable unbiased opinion from a bevy of reviews, it doesn't mean that I'm only following the big banner reviews the media or a particular group thrusts at me; instead I'm garnering opinions - positive and negative - from a variety of sources - newspaper reviews, online reviews, people I know, forums. Nor does it mean that I'm absolutely judging the movie as amazing or terrible, in black and white. What it does mean is that, since I can't watch all the movies, it helps portray a picture of what the movie stands for, or will it impact me in any way, without even revealing more of a plot.
I understand the movies are art and therefore, subjective. But then you're cherrypicking with subjectivity here as well. What would be the difference between a critically acclaimed movie and a one which doesn't garner much good reviews? I'd rather have you explain how Alia Bhatt was extraordinary in Highway than abusing subjectivity and closing the argument. As I said before, I
don't consider her to be a terrible actress nor do I consider Highway to be a terrible movie. I just feel that her role wasn't
probably a groundbreaking one, nor breathtaking which-would-blow-my-mind. About SaiSrini, of course I have nothing personal against him and respect him (I have to mention this again and again though, probably out of concern about volatility), what I merely pointed out is a general trend with his reviews and has nothing to do with a single movie.
Fanboyish - being a hindi cinema fanboy than being an indian cinema fan. I hope you understand what I'm supposed to mean. I don't care if it's overdone - it conveys what I want to say.
Didn't imagine I'd have to write so much, seems weird.