Talk:Rani Mukerji/Archive 6

message: Just a friendly reminder, the archived peer review for this article contains a few more suggestions which might help improve it further. The services of Automatic Reviewer might also be useful.
Regards,xC | ☎  16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: There are instances of extremely bad sourcing being employed in this article. To be fair, this is a characteristic of quite a few Bollywood actor bios on Wikipedia. I will correct this when I get a chance and begin serious editing when I get some time, probably next week or slightly afterwards. Ekantik talk 02:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by bad sourcing? Shahid • Talk2me 10:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad sourcing

message: The stuff put back has too many details, this is an article on Rani Mukherjee and not "what roles has Rani done" so the character she plays etc etc is not required for all films, a few should suffice ,a critical review does not need a few lines on her as well as the charachter in every casea mention of the film + the critics comments should suffice. As of now there are too many comments on roles and movies and critics comments. Can we drop some of the insignificant ones ? If one wants to put the details there is always the films page to add on more details. Haphar (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much details

message: I disagree with some of the copyedits:
*Biyar Phool does not deserve a mention as it was just a rather inconsequential song appearance.
*Ghulam is not her first leading role. Raja Ki Aayengi Baraat is.
*She did not "star" in KKHH.
*Mukerji has not been part of several commercially and critically successful films since Black. Most of her film of this period failed, so we'll need a better way to write it. Shahid • Talk2me 21:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by Rahul 

message: 's edits are pure glorification and POV. His version resembles a fansite, with such claims like: "She has often been touted as the best actress of her generation", "She is considered as one of India's most versatile female actors". He/she removed any negative commentary that was there, replacing it with such claims as "she received acclaim for her performances" (in the most unsuccessful period of her career - 1999-2002). Also, he added unreliable sources like bollywoodchaska.com/blog/. Totally unacceptable. Taking a read through WP:POV, WP:NOT, WP:CITE, WP:RS, would help.  Shahid • Talk2me 16:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since she acted in KANK, and till No one killed Jessica, almost all of her films (though few) were commercial failures, and received generally poor reviews by critics. I think this should be mentioned better; There were many people who called an end to her career. I think this should be mentioned. Right now, mostly her good films are mentioned. What say? Yes Michael? •Talk 13:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree, I remember several critics were writing her off. Shahid • Talk2me 13:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Positive
Taran Adarsh: In the role of a spirited and audacious journo, Rani, who smokes non-stop, flings swear words every now and then and who rebuffs being a voiceless spectator when the culprits go scot-free, is simply exceptional.
Rajeev Masand: Rani Mukherjee, despite being saddled with a cliché of a character, is more cinematically engaging, and knows exactly how to command the screen with her presence.
Komal Nahta: Rani Mukerji does a fine job, getting into the skin of the character of the fiesty journalist who has no qualms about speaking her heart out and using swear words at the drop of a hat.
Khalid Mohammed: As the cussing-smoking-know-all media star, Rani Mukherjee, returns to fine form. You can’t take your eyes off her, even in a casual scene in which she informs her father on the phone, that she can look after herself, thank you very much.
Mid-Day: Mukerji is the hero of the film - with the crackling chutzpah and clap-worthy lines. She does to NOKJ what Sunny Deol did to Damini - she brings the screen on fire in the second half.
Negative
Anupama Chopra: For me, the fatal, false note in No One Killed Jessica is Meera, the fictionalised tough-talking reporter played by Rani Mukherjee. Meera is a strong, independent woman who, at least in this version, single-handedly prods the establishment into reviewing the case. So she smokes, swears and has sex.
Seems like overall it was positively received.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywood shollywood (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No One Killed Jessica 

message: Jeetzzz (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please mention what you want changed. Lynch7 17:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Jeetzzz, 23 June 2011 

message: Why is the edit option on the top of the article page not there? Its there in other articles I noticed..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.144.102 (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is protected to new users. Shahid • Talk2me 15:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ranis-film-with-prithviraj-titled-aaiya/851152/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.95.2 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rani's new movie Aiyaa is not mentioned in her page. 

message: The recent edits by anon  are total funcraft.
*First, I was shocked at how he/she blatantly had copied full sentences and phrases from other actresses' pages word for word (including that she is an activist when she is not, including of the Bharat Shah case which has no relevance or mention on this page), which is definitely not done and unacceptable.
*Socondly, everything is unsurprisingly written from a fan's point of view (Just thinking about such phrases as "Mukerji was the new starlet of the nation",
*Original research: Veer Zaara's Saamiya's "mission in life is to pave the path for women's empowerment in Pakistan"
*Many unreliable sources like oneindia.in, bollyspice.com, smashits.com, bollywoodworld.com, glamsham.com, sawfnews.com, india-server.com, newskerala.com, forevermark.com, pinkvilla.com, bollyone.com, whatiexpect.in, hindifilmnews.com... many more.
*Removal of properly sourced controversy without explanation.
*"the physically challenged children of the Helen Keller Institute as they organised a birthday party for her" - how exactly is it considered in any way social activism? How are random appearances on stage at certain parties relevant here? Shahid • Talk2me 09:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by anon 

message: Saathiya
* BBC "As for Rani Mukerjee, she plays the character of a middle class girl with great conviction."
* Variety "Oberoi makes a likable, unnarcissistic Aditya and pairs well with the vivacious, husky-voiced Mukherji, 24, who's at the top of her game as the all-or-nothing Suhani."
* Rediff "Rani Mukherji's role is not as demanding as Vivek Oberoi's. Both of them seem to share a comfortable relationship with each other, which translates well on screen." "He [Shaad Ali] brings out good performances from the actors."
* IndiaFM "Rani Mukherji is efficient. She looks pretty and does her part with conviction."
* Khalid Mohamed: "a sensitively nuanced performance"
Majority Opinion (Result): All of the reviews indicate that Mukerji performed her role well. Furthermore, she won the Filmfare Critics Award for Best Performance as well as received several nominations for Best Actress at various award ceremonies. --Bollywood Dreamz  Talk 03:20, 1 Janaury 2008 (UTC)
Laaga Chunari Mein Daag
*Rediff: "Rani is hardly allowed to flash that smile -- the one that usually works despite the film around it -- as she weeps copious tears and calls herself Natasha, after combating off sleazy call-centre bosses, the kind who keeps 30k in banknotes in his desk drawer."
* BBC "Having cornered the market in destitute characters, Rani Mukerji demonstrates precisely why she is Bollywood's reigning queen with another poignant performance in Pradeep Sarkar's Laaga Chunari Mein Daag."
* NDTV "Rani Mukherjee is luminous as the cheerful small town girl who becomes a hollow shell of herself."
* Times of India "Actually, you don’t mind because the film solely belongs to Rani and Konkona, truly an empowered sibling show. Forgive the regressive tone all you feminists and modern males, watch the film merely for its performances."
* Businessofcinema "Rani does justice to her role and never falters whether as a simpleton from Benaras or as a sophisticated girl. She slips into these characters with ease and panache."
* TIMESNOW.tv "The cast is good, especially Rani Mukherji who has perfected the haunted sadness look."
* Indian Express "Rani holds the film together, even if her part, both as the ingénue and the hooker, doesn’t have freshness."
* IndiaFM "Rani excels yet again. It's a pleasure watching her in an author-backed role yet again."
* Full Hyderabad "Mukherjee gets to bite her teeth into the lead role, and though she does not disappoint, she doesn’t rise above her usual weepy, serious self for the most part."
* IBN Live "It's left to Rani Mukherjee eventually, to pump credibility into what is undoubtedly one of her worst written roles yet. And although Rani does perform competently, it's sadly not enough to save this tragic film from its doomed fate."
Majority Opinion (Result): All of the reviews indicate that Mukerji performed her role well despite criticizing the movie. Most of them indicate that her performance was good despite the flaws in the movie's script. --Bollywood Dreamz  Talk 03:47, 1 Janaury 2008 (UTC)
*(My take on the reviews): Some reviews praise her, some don't praise her, some are moderate, Rediff criticises. Yes, most of them say she did well. The result is: generally well-received. Shahid • Talk2me 10:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: Rani received a Filmfare nomination for this movie. Its not even mentioned..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.95.34 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in her filmography table. --Commander (Ping Me) 11:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega 

message: The article says,
 Bunty Aur Babli, surfaced as one of the biggest hits of the year.[25] The film, though successful at the box office, opened to mixed
 reviews, and so did Mukerji's performance, with one critic writing, "Rani has done a great job most of the time, though she does
 tend to go a little over the top in the crying scenes.[26] Nevertheless, Mukerji received Best Actress nominations from the IIFA
Awards and Filmfare Awards.
She received award nominations(losing out to herself in another movie, eventually) and most critics loved her performance. It was a box office hit too. The remarks written here are both unfair and arbitrary. It should be written in a better manner.
:I should be removing your message, as you are a sock, but anyway, there's nothing wrong with it (though I'm not the one who added it) and it is generally a positive comment. This is not a fansite, and this is something you will have to understand (I actually did not elaborate on Dil Bole Hadippa because there was little positivity). No one is against her. See for example the case of Saathiya, many critics were positive (though not gushing), so we would never mention this review by the Hindu. But if Rahul (Bollywood Dreamz) added it, I'm sure he knew what he did. I don't mind making another analysis about BAB, I'll do it tomorrow if I can, but I can't see the validity of the complant. Before that, I'd rather find a better review for Saathiya. Shahid • Talk2me 19:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I'll make an analysis later. And no one is trashing her. The award is mentioned, and the review is generally quite positive. And please stop posting here because you are a sock, if you don't want it to be protected as well. Shahid • Talk2me 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bunty Aur Babli 

message: The name of the movie 'Reema Kagti's Untitled Project' has been officially declared to be Talaash. Please update the name of the movie. The same can be verified at this link.
--Catchuec2 (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thank you. Shahid • Talk2me 13:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

text: She changed it.  I think that is in the article, no? BollyJeff || talk 11:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Year	Category	Film	Result
1999	Best Supporting Actress	Kuch Kuch Hota Hai	Won
2001	Har Dil Jo Pyar Karega	Nominated[13]
2003	Best Actress	Saathiya	Nominated [14]
Best Actress (Critics' Choice)	Saathiya	Won [15]
2004	Best Actress	Chalte Chalte	Nominated [16]
2005	Hum Tum	Won [17]
Best Supporting Actress	Yuva	Won [18]
Veer-Zaara	Nominated[19]
2006	Best Actress	Black	Won[20]
Bunty Aur Babli	Nominated[21]
Best Actress (Critics' Choice)	Black	Won[22]
2007	Best Actress	KANK	Nominated[23]
2008	Laaga Chunari Mein Daag	Nominated[24]
Best Supporting Actress	Saawariya	Nominated[24]
2012	Best Supporting Actress	No One Killed Jessica	Nominated[25]
She has received 15 filmfare nominations, not 13.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.95.54 (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Critics' awards are given without prior nominations, so these two do not count. Shahid • Talk2me 18:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect fact int the article 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Rani mukerji being human.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mukerji TIFF09.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Rani Mukerji at the Durga Puja.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 173.238.210.45 (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 10 February 2014 

message: The awards need to be in the Notes Segment so people can easily see which performance of hers got the most recognition and hence opt to watch that movie. That's what wikipedia is good for. It's an encyclopedia for easy referral. And those awards there can validate easily which performance of hers is good to watch rather than reading her whole career article. I know I wouldn't read all that much. Plus, it's done already and it looks organized. And other actresses as well as Aishwarya Rai has it like that. No need to debate this. If you really want to create problems, then I can make a whole separate page for Filmography but that's just troublesome. I would much rather have it on one page. Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumbin14 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's against policy for Bollywood actors. Only National and Filmfare Awards go there. Rai's filmography page breaks that policy, and will be changed as soon as I get time. No other Bollywood actor or actress has such a format. --krimuk  90 02:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  All the awards should be listed next to her Films 

message: Now that she is married to Aditya Chopra, should not the wiki be renamed(moved) to Rani Chopra or Rani Mukerji Chopra? Inviting Discussions. Please share your opinion, before we take final decision. Thanks. Quartzd (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No. A woman need not change her birth name when she gets married. Only if Mukerji legally changes her last name, then we reflect it here. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

text: They have got married. May be some people was not invited. Lol  Daan0001 (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's not an issue over going in for a name change. —Vensatry  (Ping)  17:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I totally agree on that. If she annouces that she is changing her name then we can do the same. Otherwise it's no. I was only making a point that she is MARRIED now. Daan0001 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright :) —Vensatry  (Ping)  18:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Rani Mukerji Chopra? 

message: The Rani Mukerji article says that Biyer Phool released in 1992, but I think that is a wrong information. She started her career with 17 so it has to be 1996.
* http://idiva.com/news-entertainment/rani-mukerji-i-wont-deny-im-in-love/10254
This interview says that her father turned Aa Gale Lag Jaa down in 1994, because he taught that his daughter is too young. 
If somebody watched Biyer Phool already they can see that Rani Mukerji does not look like 14. The problem is that I couldn't find a reliable source, which says 1996 just this article from Spuul
* https://spuul.com/stars/95-rani-mukerji
And this article says that she shot for Raja Ki Aayegi Baaraat at first and then for Biyer Phool, but Biyer Phool released before RKAB.
* http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080404/jsp/entertainment/story_9095682.jsp
And that is why I think that the movie released in 1996 and not in 1992 although many other articles write the opposite. I assume that they copied that from Wikipedia or from other websites, because there is no article older than 2010 that writes 1992.--Shwayze (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll be following what the reliable sources say, per WP: RS. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *http://www.newsaajtak.in/cinema-world/list-of-indian-actresses/page/indrani-haldar
Here it is.--Shwayze (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's likely to be 1996. Different videos of the film/songs therein are mentioning 1996 as the release year.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biyer Phool 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rani Mukerji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130505065654/http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/film/cannes-celebrates-100-years-of-indian-cinema to http://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/film/cannes-celebrates-100-years-of-indian-cinema
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The user  is persistently removing Mukerji's birthday from the article claiming that is unsourced, when it is sourced in the appropriate section. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, you're right, it's sourced further down. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, please. Next time you call an editor with over 28k+ edits a "disruptive editor", see the reason for their revert. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I didn't read your edit summary carefully enough. A typo in your edit summary threw me: "It's not sourced." But the rest of your summary pointed to the section below. It won't happen again. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday 

message: According to Gogerly Liz's 21st Century Lives: Bollywood Stars, Mukerji was born in Calcutta and not Mumbai. Should i change it? --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticing this now. Her birth place is inconsistently reported. This slideshow indicates she was born in Mumbai. (Granted, I'm not a fan of using slideshows as references.) This source indicates she was born in Kolkata (which, as you've noted, would be correctly indicated as Calcutta). Barring some other authoritative source appearing, I'd probably lean toward Calcutta for present. I couldn't verify the Gogerly source, but take your word for it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, it is regarding this change. The accompanying sources do not mention anything about the subjects birth place (the book source mentions Kajol's birth place being 'Bombay' instead). Seems like Rani Mukheji's birth_place is contentious as can be seen in the above discussion between  and . Would you replace it with a better source? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting because I'm watching some of her stuff in order to further update and add to her article. In an interview with Mayank Shekhar, which can be found online (see here) she says she was "born and brought up in Juhu". So that should be the source (added - already there, refname moved). Shahid • Talk2me 14:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth place 

message: For your observation, Krimuk2.0. I find the recent changes to the article to be not very constructive, although I do appreciate User:Sssaaraa's willingness to contribute to the article. The issues standing:
*Kajol's bibliography section has been copy-pasted entirely onto this article although most sources do not have relevance here and some do not even mention Mukerji.
*Among the online sources added, I see examples such as blurtit.com, abhisays.com - non-RS.
*MOS issues, overlinking, overquoting (some quotes by random journalists with gushing praise which might be justified but should be put into context, otherwise it would just be WP:UNDUE).
*The new section: Public image, is imo unnecessary because it's just a list of listings and not really an in-depth overview of her public image like on the other pages mentioned by the adding contributor. Mukerji has never nurtured much a public image and if I'm not mistaken has been mostly a rather private person. Moreover, one of the paragraphs starts with "Mukerji is also known as a sex symbol and is among the most attractive" - "attractive" has been mentioned before on the article, and sex symbol - well, I think Mukerji is a stunning woman and very underrated when it comes to her looks and sex appeal, personally speaking of course, but I highly doubt she has ever been a sex symbol.
I just do not have time to go over everything, filter out the bad and keep the good stuff. I do appreciate the efforts, but I think such major changes made to an FA should be done more delicately and with proper discussion. Shahid • Talk2me 13:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO for now. I see so many issues. Look at this edit for example: they have added this BOI ref which describes Bombay Talkies as a flop, but the editor has made-up the title "Bombay Talkies succeeds at Box Office" with a made-up author name "Shekar". I really don't understand what they were trying to achieve here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Hello Sir Krimuk2.0, Mukerji is considered in the media as one of the most popular actresses of Indian cinema. I feel we should add more in Intro, either genre of her filmography or her diverse and strong women roles or something like that.
For Eg: In the case of Kajol, Priety Zinta, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Urmila Matondkar and her other contemporaries  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40D0:103A:441:6CF3:129B:C598:4D29 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro mentions her versatility and her being among the highest-paid in her prime. Shahid • Talk2me 12:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Considering that the film did well and even got her a recent award (of no respected credit or credibility, to be honest), I've been trying to balance the negative review on the page but all the reviews I've found are really very negative: NDTV, Film Companion, First Post, HT, The Hindu, Rediff, The Guardian, ToI, The Indian Express. There isn't a single review which is firmly positive or doesn't accuse her of going overboard. It's almost unpleasant to read them and I don't get why they're all so harsh on her performance, which IMO is nothing great but nowhere as bad as they say.
The problem is with how it all appears on the page, and I can't think of a good way to sum it up on the article as it looks peculiar to mention a negative review, then mention the film's good box-office performance and top it all with the award she got for it (that too, a critics' award ironically). There's some sort of a logical gap that could confuse uninvolved readers.
The solution I propose in order to bridge this gap could be saying that critics agreed that she was let down by the script and was criticised for overacting, but some critics agreed her performance grew better in the second half. I'm basing this on the following:
*Times of India: "The actress who has the potential to be effortless on camera, goes theatrical and excessive. Her high-decibel fight for justice clutters the first half with more noise, less grief. However, she gets the tone of her character right in the second half when the silence leaves you more room to think and feel. Rani becomes Sagarika Chakraborty gradually and is effective once she lets her eyes speak volumes."
*The Hindu: "Rani’s performance looks jarring in the beginning as she tries a little too hard to execute the stereotype of a Bengali housewife in an alien milieu... A tremendous actor , Rani has not been able to tone down the melodramatic instincts of her pre-OTT performances. However, as the narrative progresses, she gets the pulse of Debika right and she starts speaking to us."
* Saibal Chatterjee says, "Rani Mukerji, a performer of proven ability, is let down by the writing. She struggles to hit the right notes. She shifts back and forth between the rattled and the raucous. As a result, the essence of the character never quite comes through." But then he adds, "When the 135-minute drama, about an hour and half in, settles into a somewhat more controlled rhythm, Mukerji gets into her stride."
What do you think, @User:Krimuk2.0? Maybe you know of other reviews which I haven't seen? Shahid • Talk2me 00:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, there it is, from the film's article page: a positive review by India Today (which in itself is tremendously exaggerated if compared to the others). We could say the following then: "The film was poorly received by critics, who found Mukerji overly melodramatic, although some reviewers noted her growing impetus in latter portions." Then we keep the existing review on the page and add the one by India Today? (something like, "Zinia Bandyopadhyay of India Today, however, considered it as one of her best performances"). I'm not sure how fair or right it would be that one review against the sea of criticism, but it might be the only way to contextualise the prose. Shahid • Talk2me 01:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's a sea of negative reviews, so I don't think we should make it seem otherwise. The current version seems most objectively appropriate to me -- negative review, followed by sleeper hit success and her award win. I don't really think we need to contextualise it any more than that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Krimuk2.0: I see, and I appreciate your quest for fairness. Even without adding that single positive review, I would still add a sort of summary before the review on how the film was received, as well as the general reception to Mukerji's performance, to make it flow better (something like what I offer above ala "The film was poorly received by critics, who found Mukerji overly melodramatic, although some reviewers noted her growing impetus in latter portions."). Good talking to you, as always. Shahid • Talk2me 10:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Please go ahead and summarise it that way. I always trust your judgement. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mrs. Chatterjee vs Norway