Having said all that, does it mean that just because a movie has been made, it should deserve our unanimous acclaim? Obviously NO! Over 80% movies end up as flops, which is a verdict by the people who have seen that it is not recommended. A layman's movie review will be through word-of-mouth, which is very powerful in this age of superconnectivity between the people. When the movie is reviewed in the media, though, the review itself is open to debates and discussions.
As a side-track, lemme just say my two cents about blog-reviewing: In the blogs, it is a tricky thing. If a blogger rubbishes a movie and someone refutes it, the blogger, IMHO, has to provide a 'suitable' explanation. Now, how 'suitable' the response is, depends on the personality and mood of the blogger in question. Some reviewers are arrogant - they simply say 'this is my blog, I can write whatever I wish, you agree to what I say or if not just shut your mouth and leave'. I would say that, if it is the prerogative of the blogger on his post, the same can be said about an open 'Comments' section. Of course the blogger has the right to moderate/edit/delete the comments, but they cant question a commenter 'how dare you oppose my review?'
Another etiquette about reviewing is to do so without any spoilers, or to put a warning note if any spoiler is present. Sometimes it is unavoidable to discuss an aspect of the movie without the mention of an important scene. Also, a good review is one which highlights the strengths and weaknesses of a movie quite explicitly. Watching different genres of movies made in different parts of the world and at different periods, and analyzing the movies would help the reviewing a lot. Moreover, it is better to have an idea of the intelligence level of the director white sitting to watch a movie or to review one. That would prevent one from over-analyzing it or missing the director's touch. Much of my thoughts arose during the discussion in the previous post. ;)
Now, when a person as experienced as Suhasini chooses to review a film, that review itself deserves a review. An example is from her last week's review of Naan kadavul. I honestly dont know if she reads the blogs, including this, but I found a lot of specific terms that were discussed here in my post and the comments thereof. After praising the movie like there is no end, she said that the movie is not without its flaws, but pointing out at the flaws would prevent the good film-makers from creating 'such good' movies in the future. That remark took me by surprise totally. I felt that she was better off not mentioning about the presence of flaws rather than simply mentioning and not explaining what they are.
My philosophy is very simple: While watching it, I see if I like the movie or not. If the movie in its entirety or in parts doesnt appeal to me, I put it down in words as to why I didn't like it. Like every human, I am biased towards certain people. That bias might make me to watch it in the first place, or to interpret some things in a particular way. Whatever it be, I welcome any criticism for my review. Only I dont want it to be vague like someone in the previous review commented, but to be more specific to the details.