Indian Movie Review Aggregators

I am a big fan of Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB. Rotten Tomatoes offers you an average rating of new releases based on weighted ratings by movie critics in the business. You can rest assured that any movie garnering less than 50% on the Tomatometer is not worth your time at least in the theater. IMDB on the other hand is more of a compendium of movies with user ratings and fun discussions in the forums. The Trivia and Goofs are my favorite topics in any movie page.

Both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB is heavily tilted toward Hollywood movies although the latter has records for all movies, including Bollywood. There are only a handful of Bollywood/Indian movie critics which is surprising given the number of movies we churn out and even among those critics, the reputable ones (like Roger Ebert kinds) are even rare [1]. I do my little movie review thing on this blog but it is merely a reflection of my uneducated personal taste. In spite of low number of movie critics, I have always felt that there is a demand for movie reviews aggregators which give you a quick snapshot of movie ratings. Coincidentally two such sites popped up at around the same time and both are impressive efforts.

Review-Schview

Review Schview

Designed and managed by Chugs, the resident web designer for Indian blogs (including DesiPundit) has created this ultra-simplistic reviews aggregator for latest releases. He collates ratings from 28 movie critics and averages their ratings. He uses a scale of 1- 100 and translates five-star ratings and descriptions to arrive at his score. The movie critics include ones from official newspapers and dedicated movie bloggers (WOGMA, Passion for Cinema, etc.).

As he tells us in his FAQ and disclaimer, he started this site for fun, is not comprehensive, and doesn’t use any weighting mechanism for reputable critics (says, he is bad at Math). An impressive effort that gives you a quick score of the movie reviews presented in a simple design inspired by Josef Müller Brockmann. Since it is a personal venture, I’m not sure how long it will last considering Chugs currently hosts it on a sub-domain of his personal design site instead of a dedicated domain. I understand that reading reviews every week and updating the site can get tiresome especially if he is plans to do it on his own but I hope this site lasts longer than I expect it to.

ReviewGang

ReviewGang

ReviewGang also started as a fun project (most cool sites do) by Manu. Compared to Chug’s site, this meta-review site is more comprehensive and even uses weighting to adjust ratings by notable movie critics. In addition to presenting an aggregated score of movie critics on a 10-star scale, it also allows users to create profiles and rate (and review) movies displayed via a separate Viewer’s Rating. I exchanged couple of emails with Manu and he intends to create an Indian version of IMDB while promising to stay away from junk gossip content as seen on Zoom TV even if it costs him pageviews.

Currently, you can also see movie trailers of upcoming releases in addition to reading movie synopsis and reviews (direct links for full reviews are provided). ReviewGang presents movie reviewers in three distinct categories – Critics, Editors, and Users. If you run a movie blog and review movies regularly, you can be promoted from a user to an editor. As a user, you can also continue rating and reviewing movies on the site and accumulate points and be promoted to an Editor if you amass 250 points. I’m not sure if Editor ratings are included among the Critics ratings or the Viewers ratings.

The easy and quick access to movie reviews by critics, editors, and users is great. So is the access to movie trailers that we often have to Google for. The FAQ could be better with detailed explanation of the process and backend mechanisms for transparency sake. I wonder if enabling comments on user reviews would generate meaningful discussion or should a separate forum like on IMDB exist purely for throwing around random ideas about the movie (goofs, trivia, or maybe even gossip). As I have cautioned Manu via email, he better beware of ‘feature creep’ as he works toward making ReviewGang into an IMDB for India.

Both sites are impressive in terms of design and content. Although ReviewGang by admission seeks to be more comprehensive, I’m not sure Review-Schview intends to go down that path ever. Chugs and Manu could even collaborate and pool their resources toward a even better site. Or maybe the competition will keep both on their toes. As these sites get popular, they may have to guard against fraud, especially on ReviewGang since it incorporates a user feature. I hope to see both these sites maintain their dead-simple interface and yet offer more.

Footnotes:
  1. Everyone will agree that Baradwaj Rangan is one of those rare movie critics who can boast of a solid reputation in the blogosphere []

Related Posts

  1. Is that a name of a movie?
  2. Rendezvous with Patrix
  3. Movies

  • http://www.suyogdeshpande.net/blog/ Supremus

    I trust Baradwaj Rangan most of the time, but off late I find his reviews getting ambiguous and preachy…but still he’s well and above everyone else.

  • http://www.ipatrix.com Patrix

    @Supremus: I know that he was reluctant to put stars or points ratings on his movies until he was compelled by his employer. So he tags them under categories now. But I read his reviews more for the experience and the subtext than for knowing if the movie is good or not. Reading them after I watch a movie often gives me a better understanding.

  • http://www.reviewgang.com Manu

    Thanks patrix :). Editor reviews are counted for user ratings only. I’m a bad copy writer and summarising something isn’t my strong suit. Hence the sparse FAQ. Will improve it :)

    Both “comments on user reviews” and “forums” are possibilities. But without a large user base it will not be very useful. So unless the site is a viral hit, it is not coming soon :)

  • http://www.ipatrix.com Patrix

    @Manu: Thanks for the clarification. Writing up the FAQ should not be too hard. Check out Chug’s FAQ. And you could use the questions I asked in the emails to start off.

    And yes, I agree about the comments and forums. Comments aren’t always useful. See Rediff :)

  • http://www.reviewgang.com Manu

    Managing rediff style comments is the sole reason I have segregated users into Editors and Non-Editors. Since I may not be able to moderate everything, having editors mean that at least some of the user generated content will be of high quality.

    Though a lot over it, this was the easiest to implement. Might bring in more levels at a later point of time.

  • http://www.ipatrix.com Patrix

    @Manu: Trust me, fewer the levels, the better it is. Three is perfect :)

  • http://wogma.com meetu

    Have you seen this http://wogma.com/movies/teho/ ? An individual film looks like this http://wogma.com/movie/my-name-is-khan-teho/

    Still working on the design, but wogma has a collection of reviews for 250 films now.

  • http://www.ipatrix.com Patrix

    @meetu: Thanks. I didn’t realize you had such a feature. But take a look at the two sites above. They present the same information much succinctly and clearly. You seem to have all the data, history, and experience. All you need is a great designer who will present it beautifully and we have a third alternative :)

  • http://chugsdesigns.com/reviewschview/ chugs

    thanks for the mention.
    i would love to do something on the lines of a rotten tomatoes but like you have said…it is a lot of work just for reviews themselves. plus i’ll need help for the other stuff.
    i was actually hoping that meetu would turn her site into something more comprehensive cos her site has the right ingredients. meetu?
    i actually watch every hindi movie that gets released here and end up reading 4-5 reviews of each of them. there sure are others who collate reviews but i found most lacking in one way or the other…either they aren’t on time with the reviews or they have too few sources or too obscure ones. so i tried to set those right and just extend my ‘movie-watching-review-reading’ routine a little bit more with the site.
    at the moment i am just trying to do one thing and do it well. get the reviews out on time and give a broad overview on how a movie has been received by the critics.
    regarding weighted reviews, i think they work only because you don’t know what the weightage is like. if on my site i gave more weightage to taran adarsh than khalid mohammed, you probably will stop trusting the numbers and if it was the other way around somebody else would give up on the site :)
    and yes…the site is here to stay. dedicated domain coming soon.

  • http://www.ipatrix.com Patrix

    @chugs: It seems that Meetu is already doing something like you suggested but as I told her, she needs a designer *hint hint*

    I couldn’t agree more about doing just one thing and doing it well. And on that grounds, your site does it well.

    The weighting issue is not to differentiate between two near-equal critics but probably using parameters like readership hence more influence. A TOI critic influences more people than a small-town newspaper with limited circulation. As long as the weighting is done based on quantifiable factors not random opinion, it can be useful.

    Glad to know you are an avid movie watcher and will keep this site going. Looking forward to the dedicated domain.

    One thing I should have mentioned in the text was the demand for a smartphone app that presents the information on your site. It would be darn useful when you are outside the box office deciding which movie to go after you don’t get tickets to the one you came for.

  • http://www.reviewgang.com Manu

    @patrix @meetu I have been telling meetu the same thing. Great content, but needs better design. She has tonnes of content just waiting to be showcased well. I wouldn’t have started reviewgang if wogma was better designed because my main focus was external reviews. Since the site’s focus has expanded we can all happily co-exist together.

    @chugs: Only the overall critic ratings are weighted. Users can still see the original rating. Agree that if i publish the weightage some users may not like it. Love your site. Great design. My only cribs are 1: you have a rating scale of 100 which makes it harder to compare ratings 2: assigning of ratings to reviews which haven’t published ratings.

    Regarding (1) it is my personal experience that when give two ratings like 65 and 75 it is harder for me to distinguish between then rather than a 6 and 7 or even 6.5 and 7

    Good luck :) I don’t know how you manage to aggregate so many reviews, I’m finding even my current (smaller) list difficult :)

  • http://www.ipatrix.com Patrix

    @Manu: I don’t know but I rather prefer the 1-100 scale. I can compare 67 to 75 much better than 6.7 to 7.5, if that makes sense. And yes, as chugs mentioned, it would be great to see how exactly you weight your critics [I hope you aren't including the personal weight of the critics :)]

    Meetu can probably incorporate most of your feature and present it visually but I have always seen her as an independent blog critic so if her website is also doing this, it might amount to doing too much and thus diluting what she does best – review movies. Why waste time reading and collating other reviews? But I’ll let her decide on what she should and should not do :)

    I love that all the people mentioned in the post joined in the discussion. Now if we could get Baradwaj and Jai Arjun to join in…

  • http://www.reviewgang.com Manu

    @Patrix: Regarding the ratings – Personal preferences I guess. But I had read somewhere that 1-5 is easier than 1-10 which is easier than 1-100 to compare. I need to dig that research out

    • http://www.ipatrix.com Patrix

      Sure, 1-5 is better than 1-10 but I was talking about when you start aggregating rating and average them out. Use of decimals is still not preferred compared to round numbers.

  • http://chugsdesigns.com/reviewschview/ chugs

    meetu’s site – i suppose both of us started our sites because her site didn’t evolve as much as it should/could have.
    she can do both aggregation and independent reviews. readers coming for aggregated content will spill onto her own reviews and those coming for her reviews will find the aggregated reviews useful. its a win-win.

    rating – once u have a substantial number of reviews on the site it becomes harder to differentiate them on the basis of a 0-5 or 0-10 rating. a 1-100 scale offers better spacing. which is why metacritic and rotten tomatoes use it.

    weightage – i don’t prefer it because it introduces a personal preference. influence is hard to quantify. reading TOI doesn’t necessarily mean being influenced by nikhat kazmi’s review. purported influence. purported weightage.

    no. of reviews/critics – unless you have a good enough number i don’t think it will be representative (statistically too). i know there aren’t 25-30 good critics but we have to make do with what we have.

    smartphone app – increasing my work :)

  • http://wogma.com meetu

    Hi all,

    Manu, that you wouldn’t have started reviewgang had wogma TEHO section been designed better is a huge compliment for wogma’s content.

    Chugs, how i wish wogma could afford you :)

    Patrix, the whole point of having an external review section on wogma (TEHO) is that wogma should be a one-stop shop for hindi movie reviews. My opinion is only one view. There are others who agree-disagree and the readers should know.

    I don’t like weighted average because it means one person’s view is more important. That is not true in movie watching. For a particular genre of films one reviewer works better than other. Also, my choice of reviewer (like film) will be very different from yours or the third person.

    Thanks for this lovely discussion.