Cinema Deserves Honest Critics Not Coordinated Negative Campaigns

Movies are an art form—a collaboration of writers, directors, actors, musicians, technicians, and countless other creative professionals working together to tell a story or create an experience.

The writer conceives the story, the director interprets it through a screenplay and visual language, and the producer invests in the director’s vision and conviction.

Filmmaking is ultimately a creative endeavor, shaped by imagination, experience, taste, and artistic freedom.

As audience members, we choose what to watch based on a filmmaker’s previous work, trailers, reviews, or word of mouth.

Naturally, not every film will appeal to every viewer. There are occasional exceptions that achieve broad popularity, but cinema is inherently subjective. Different people connect with different stories, characters, themes, and styles of storytelling.

Reviewers certainly have a role to play in helping audiences make informed choices.

However, criticism should focus on the work itself rather than becoming a vehicle to insult actors, directors, or filmmakers.

Fake reviews—whether excessively positive or unfairly negative—serve neither consumers nor the film industry well.

Even worse are coordinated campaigns designed to malign or sabotage a film’s prospects out of rivalry, favoritism, or personal bias.

A reviewer’s preferences and ideas about filmmaking should not be imposed upon creators. No story is perfectly logical, entirely realistic, or completely true.

The magic of cinema often lies in its ability to explore unique conflicts, perspectives, emotions, and possibilities under one’s own creative liberties

Judging actors, directors, or films solely by box office collections is also a disservice to the art form.

Commercial success matters because filmmaking is a business as well for certain films, but it should not be the only measure of artistic value.

Many films that push the boundaries of storytelling, screenwriting, cinematography, or filmmaking techniques may not become mass-market blockbusters. Yet they enrich cinema by introducing fresh ideas and new creative possibilities.

For example, films like Fargo gained recognition for their originality and distinctive storytelling.

Similarly, I consider Prasthanam one of the strongest stories and screenplays in recent cinema, despite not achieving the commercial scale of major blockbusters.

On the other hand, films such as Independence Day became cultural phenomena by appealing to a broad audience through spectacle and entertainment. Both forms of success have their place in cinema.

There are also films that capitalize on existing social divisions, controversies, or sensational themes.

While such exploitative content may attract audiences and generate revenue, it can sometimes contribute more to polarization than meaningful storytelling.

Nevertheless, every genre and style tends to find its own audience. Reviewers can point out inconsistencies but has to appreciate the craft of film making.

In the end, both artificially inflated praise and coordinated negative campaigns are harmful to consumer and the industry.

Fake positive reviews mislead consumers, while organized efforts to damage a film’s reputation can undermine the livelihoods of hundreds of people who contributed to its creation.

Genuine criticism and honest opinion are essential to artistic discourse. Deliberate misinformation, manipulation, and organized sabotage, however, cross a very different line.

Unless you are trained on these sensibilities one can’t be a righteous person to review films. If it’s not your profession or qualified to write one, leave cinema alone.

Chandrasekhar Rathnakaram, Film Goer in USA