Vimal dared to explore a real story with his first film is brave indeed. Kanchanamala lives on, resting solely on the bank of memories that Moideen left behind. Moideen died in 1982 while recusing people from a capsized boat in Iruvanji river in Kerala. Kanchanamala and Moideen’s story - the tale of a Hindu woman and a Muslim man - shares a similar fate. Culture, religion and society have many a time stood in the way of two hearts aching to be one - think Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet or India’s Salim-Anarkali. I might consider yielding on this issue, though.The most compelling love stories are the most tragic ones. it's one of the top five highest grossing Malayalam films of all time so far. As for listing the box office "record" in the lead, it seems promotional to me, and it's also ephemeral, i.e. Will it be considered the best in 5 years? Who knows.
#Ennu ninte moideen in boston movie
More problematic, we're talking about a recent movie that hasn't yet been seen through the filter of time. When editors cherrypick reviews that are favorable to their POV, then attempt to summarize all critical response based on those carefully selected reviews, that is inappropriate, as demonstrated. 3-4 stars is not "the best", so making a general proclamation like this is grossly irresponsible. Even sites I wouldn't use as reliable sources weren't dazzled: 3/5 stars. And Filmibeat, who we're using as a source for "acclaim!" only gave it 4/5 stars. Or this review from Rediff giving it 3/5 stars. While it is true that some consider it the best, it is equally as true that others do not consider it the best, like this reviewer at Behindwoods who gives it slightly more than 3 stars or this review at Times of India which also gave it 3.5 stars. As to your other points, "considered the best" is vague weasel wording, which I've already explained. I am well aware that there is no reliable Rotten Tomatoes analog for Indian cinema, but I am also aware that one person's opinion about the critical response (especially if limited to one showing) does not make a unimpeachable fact, especially in the promo-heavy world of Indian cinema where we need to be very careful that we're presenting encyclopedic, not promotional content. Malayala Sahityam ( talk) 02:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Before you wrote this, I had already restored some of the critical evaluation, credited to the sources appropriately. We have pages like "List of films considered best" and several films are classified "the best" because some critics or some reputed source have described them so. Two of the reviews also mention the same. Also "being considered as one of the best films" stuff does not only come from a single source. These facts are verified by third party sources and definitely be mentioned in the lead.
Perhaps the most important fact about the film is the audience response it received and the huge collection it garnered in a few days. And how come being one of the highest grossing films be removed from the lead. Filmibeat source does say the film received critical acclaim and also almost all the revews listed in the critical response section testify to that. Then how could we go for such sources to obtain a critical consensus. You should be aware that most Malayalam Films do not have a Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic entry. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC) It is not necessary to use sites like Rotten Tomatoes to establish the fact that the film received critical acclaim.
The last major problem was "It is one of the highest grossing Malayalam films and is considered as one of the best films made in the past few years in Malayalam." The gross content belonged in the box office section, which is where I put it, but ".considered as one of the best films made." is vague POV fluff and constitutes weasel wording. The second reference, which was used to describe audience response, is of no particular value, since we don't care about audience response unless it comes from a statistical analysis, like CinemaScore. Metacritic might describe the response as "average" while Rotten Tomatoes might give it a "Fresh" rating.
For instance, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not always in agreement about aggregated critical response values. We don't use one source's opinion as that improperly elevates their opinion over other sites' opinions. One source, Filmibeat, described the critical response as "acclaim". This is typical, irresponsible editing that is prolific in Indian film articles. In these edits I cleaned out some of the promotional nonsense from the article. This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (marked as Low-importance).
0 kommentar(er)
