🎬 The Critic Crisis in Indian Cinema: How “Samosa Critics” Helped Undermine a National Art Form
- Sajeev Varghese
- Jul 22
- 13 min read
Updated: Aug 4
Once upon a time, Bollywood wasn’t just India’s biggest cultural export — it was a mirror, a movement, and a megaphone.
Its stories stirred the soul.
Its characters became family.
Its songs lit up weddings, protests, and heartbreaks.
But today, what was once a national storyteller has become a national spectacle.
Movies are louder. Marketing is slicker. Budgets are bigger.
And yet, cinema has never felt so… hollow.
The crisis isn’t just on the screen.
It’s in the silence behind it — the silence of those meant to question, challenge, and elevate it.
We’re talking about the critics.
Or rather — the absence of real ones.
For over three decades, Indian film criticism has devolved into a performative side-show:
📣 Hype over honesty.
💰 Box office math over narrative meaning.
🎤 Star power over storytelling craft.
We now live in an industry where critics are mistaken for cheerleaders.
Where trailers are “reviewed” like films, and opening weekend numbers are treated like artistic achievements.
Where voices with influence — Taran Adarsh, Komal Nahta, Rajeev Masand, Anupama Chopra, Sucharita Tyagi, KRK, Sumit Kadel — often echo PR soundbites, not cinematic truth.
They’re not curating cinema.
They’re curating consensus.
Meanwhile, audiences are outgrowing them. They’ve seen the bar set by global critics who understand film as language, culture, and craft. They’ve started spotting the manipulation — in IMDB charts that defy statistical logic, in remakes hyped as revolutions, and in reviews that read like press kits.
And they’re asking:
📉 How did we get here?
🎭 Who let mediocrity define our national art form?
🎬 And what will it take to reset everything?
This analysis is the answer.
It is a cinematic postmortem — and a call to arms.
We’ll explore how Bollywood’s current collapse has been fueled not just by lazy filmmaking, but by a critical culture that refused to evolve. We’ll examine how the very people meant to uphold artistic standards have normalized box office propaganda, glorified “mass entertainers,” and failed to teach audiences how to read a film — let alone hold it accountable.
And most importantly, we’ll show how both critics and audiences must rise — together — to reclaim Indian cinema from the shallows of spectacle, toward the soul of storytelling once again.
Because this is not just about critics failing filmmakers.
It’s about critics failing the nation’s imagination.
And if Indian cinema is to rise again — the rewrite must begin with them.
🎬 The mic is no longer a megaphone for influence. It’s a scalpel for truth.
Let’s start cutting.
🎥 Saiyaara (2025) - When Critics Collide: Nahta’s Nostalgia vs. Prasher’s Pessimism
If you’re confused about Saiyaara’s quality, just watch the reviews back-to-back. Komal Nahta practically hands it a gold-plated trophy before the end credits roll. He’s all-in on the “emotion,” the “mass appeal,” and the “heartfelt story” that apparently melted his critical faculties like ghee on a hot samosa. For him, the loud performances, recycled plot points, and glitter-coated melodrama are somehow “cinema.” But what we’re really witnessing is formula inflation—a shiny-object-here syndrome where glitter is mistaken for gold, and nostalgia is sold in plastic packaging.
On the flip side, Shan Prasher—normally the edgy outlier—calls it a “derivative snoozefest” with “more drone shots than depth.” He’s right about the overload: low-grade VFX masquerading as fantasy, dialogue baazi designed for TikTok cuts, and performances that scream when a whisper would’ve shattered us. But even he stops short of asking the deeper question: Is this story emotionally real? Is this movie about anything more than spectacle and sales?
🎬 Where’s the Story, YRF?
Let’s hold up Saiyaara against the Story-First Certification Pillars—and suddenly, the glitter peels off.
Believability? Shattered by over-the-top acting and plot leaps that require suspension of not just disbelief—but gravity.
Emotionally Engaging? Occasionally, yes—but emotion isn’t earned; it’s flung like confetti.
Intellectually Compelling? Not even close. The script avoids nuance like it’s allergic.
Relevant? Only if you live in a Bollywood bubble.
Meaningful? No lasting questions. No truth unearthed. No mirror held up to the world.
Craft? Direction by volume. Editing by dopamine hit. VFX straight out of a second-tier ad agency reel.
Acting? Flamboyant, not felt. Loud, not layered. Big, not believable.
India doesn’t need another glossy drama soaked in 2000s nostalgia and CGI rain. We need a cinema that’s real. Stories that whisper truth into the noise. Acting that breathes. Dialogue that cuts like glass, not screams like slogans. And filmmakers who know that melodrama isn’t meaning.
The time for spectacle is over. The age of story has begun.
A Gap Analysis Using Understanding Movies
In any thriving film ecosystem, critics function as more than reviewers. They are cultural barometers, aesthetic educators, and narrative translators. Their role is not just to pass judgment but to contextualize cinema — socially, politically, historically, and artistically.
But in Indian cinema, especially Bollywood, criticism has degenerated into number-crunching, PR-driven boosterism, and sycophantic soundbites. "Critics" are often industry analysts in disguise, projecting box office hype instead of engaging with the film as art.
To understand the collapse of criticism — and its ripple effect on filmmaking — we turn to Louis Giannetti’s Understanding Movies, a globally respected guide to the formal, stylistic, and philosophical dimensions of film. This gap analysis will examine how Indian critics fall short of these standards and why this failure has contributed to the erosion of Indian cinema's artistic integrity.
🎥 1. Form vs. Formula
Giannetti’s Principle: Understanding shot composition, lighting, mise-en-scène, editing, and sound design is essential to evaluating a film.
Western Critics:
Break down a film’s use of light (e.g., Chiaroscuro in The Godfather)
Analyze editing rhythms and their emotional impact (Whiplash, Dunkirk)
Discuss mise-en-scène as subtext (e.g., Parasite’s staircases)
Indian Critics (Gap):
Rarely acknowledge formal elements beyond costume or cinematography gloss.
No consistent vocabulary or framework for visual language.
Often, films are reduced to surface commentary, such as “paisa vasool,” “mass entertainer,” or “family drama.”
Impact: Audiences never learn how to see a movie. Filmmakers never get credit for craft. Cinema becomes spectacle, not language.
✍️ 2. Narrative Structure & Genre Deconstruction
Giannetti’s Principle: The study of narrative involves understanding classical structure, genre conventions, and thematic subtext.
Western Critics:
Examine how films break or evolve genre conventions (e.g., Logan as a Western tragedy)
Explore narrative arcs and character psychology (e.g., Joker, Lady Bird)
Indian Critics (Gap):
Use vague, binary terms like “good” vs. “draggy” or “massy” vs. “classy.”
Seldom identify screenwriting flaws in setup/payoff, arcs, conflict, or structure.
Elevate star presence over narrative coherence (e.g., praising Pathaan or Jawan for action scenes, ignoring disjointed storytelling).
Impact: Bad screenwriting goes unchallenged. Repetitive genre tropes are reinforced. Films are reviewed as events, not stories.
🎭 3. Performance Analysis
Giannetti’s Principle: Acting should be assessed based on internalization, transformation, timing, gesture, and subtext.
Western Critics:
Praise subtlety, vulnerability, and range (e.g., Cate Blanchett, Joaquin Phoenix).
Contextualize performances within character arcs and film tone.
Indian Critics (Gap):
Celebrate actors for being themselves (“SRK in full form!”)
Rarely comment on body language, vocal dynamics, or character psychology.
Normalize hamming, self-branding, or over-stylized emotional expression as “iconic.”
Impact: Actors are not held accountable for weak performances. Aspiring actors have no roadmap for craft. Stardom replaces skill.
📈 4. Box Office Obsession vs. Critical Integrity
Giannetti’s Principle: Film criticism is not a financial analysis. It is an exploration of meaning and impact.
Western Critics:
Mention box office trends only to discuss cultural context or audience reception.
Stand apart from the industry — not embedded in it.
Indian Critics (Gap):
Act as glorified studio spokespeople.
Focus headlines on “opening weekend collections,” “Rs. 100 Cr Club,” “advance booking spikes.”
Review tone often shifts depending on proximity to PR machinery.
Impact: Films are judged by how well they market, not how well they mean. Criticism becomes cheerleading.
💼 5. Conflict of Interest & Lack of Independence
Giannetti’s Principle: Critics must maintain ethical distance from those they evaluate.
Western Critics:
Respected critics (e.g., Manohla Dargis, Justin Chang, A.O. Scott) maintain journalistic integrity.
Disclosure of bias or industry ties is standard.
Indian Critics (Gap):
Many critics are insiders, co-hosts, brand collaborators, or entertainment journalists with financial incentives.
“Samosa critics” is not just slang — it’s a system: snacks, perks, previews, access = positivity.
Impact: Credibility collapses. Audiences trust memes more than reviews. Filmmakers get no real feedback loop.
📚 6. Cultural Relevance & Thematic Discourse
Giannetti’s Principle: Film reflects and shapes cultural values. Critics must interpret this relationship.
Western Critics:
Engage deeply with social commentary (e.g., Barbie, Get Out, The Florida Project)
Discuss political subtext, gender, race, class, identity.
Indian Critics (Gap):
Rarely offer cultural critique — or do so only after public backlash.
Often dismiss systemic issues as “just entertainment” (e.g., caste, colorism, sexism).
Appear hesitant to call out propaganda or harmful messaging (The Kashmir Files, Adipurush).
Impact: Cinema’s societal role is neutered. The public discourse is driven by trolls, not thinkers.
🧨 How “Critics” Helped Crash The Industry
Indian critics, by failing to uphold the foundational principles of film analysis, didn’t just mislead audiences — they enabled mediocrity.
They let bad scripts slide.
They overhyped visual noise.
They ignored cultural damage.
And worst of all — they abandoned their duty to educate, challenge, and elevate.
Over time, this erosion of critical standards reshaped Bollywood’s creative culture:
Filmmakers started making movies for opening weekends, not for posterity.
Actors stopped training because charisma was enough.
Studios greenlit clones, confident the “critics” would carry the PR load.
As the West celebrated Roma, Parasite, Everything Everywhere All At Once, and Minari...Bollywood gave us Samrat Prithviraj, Sitaare Zameen Par, Brahmashtra, Pathaan, Jawan, Liger, and Rocky Aur Rani — with glowing reviews.
It wasn’t just bad taste. It was bad criticism, passed off as expertise.
🎬 How a Real Film Critic Dissects a Movie: Beyond Stars, Numbers & Noise
A true film critic doesn’t just rate a film — they read it.
They don’t just watch what’s on the screen.
They ask: Why is it there? How is it shown? And what does it mean?
A real critic doesn’t write for stars, studios, or algorithms.
They write for the story.
For the craft.
For the audience that wants to go deeper.
Here’s how:
✍️ 1. The Story – What’s Being Told?
The first question isn’t who’s in it. It’s what’s it about — and why now?
A true critic begins by evaluating the narrative architecture:
Does the story ask meaningful questions?
Are the stakes earned or manufactured?
Do the character arcs evolve through choices, not coincidences?
They examine how the plot unfolds — not just what happens, but how it’s structured to mean something.
🎭 2. The Screenwriting – Structure, Subtext & Stakes
The critic breaks open the screenplay like a blueprint:
Is the dialogue carrying the weight of character?
Is exposition buried beneath action or awkwardly dumped in monologues?
Are the themes layered in subtext, or screamed in slogans?
They know how to spot a first-act problem disguised as a third-act twist.
They recognize if the midpoint is doing heavy lifting, or if the conflict feels contrived.
They know that storytelling is architecture — not aesthetic.
🎥 3. The Cinematography – Seeing with Intention
A critic trained in film language doesn’t just say “the film looks great.”
They ask:
How does the lighting inform mood?
Is the camera passive or intrusive?
Are the compositions symmetrical to convey order, or chaotic to evoke unrest?
Is the lens wide to alienate, or tight to suffocate?
They read frames like paragraphs — understanding that light, shadow, and space are all part of the storytelling grammar. They are analyzing visual art crafted for the screen.
🧱 4. Mise-en-Scène – The Visual World of the Story
The mise-en-scène is more than set design — it’s the unspoken character in every frame.
A real critic notices:
The symbolic use of color in costumes or set pieces.
The emotional geography of a room.
Whether blocking reflects tension or tenderness.
If props are ornamental or integral.
They decode how the physical space around characters informs who they are — and what they’re about to become.
🌀 5. Movement – Of Camera & Characters
How things move in a frame is a language of its own.
A real critic analyzes:
Camera movement as a psychological signal.
Whether a character’s walk, stillness, or glance reveals more than words.
If rhythm and motion mirror inner conflict or cultural tension.
Because in cinema, movement is meaning. And every step, spin, or stillness tells us what’s at stake.
✂️ 6. Editing – Rhythm, Reveal & Resonance
Editing is where stories are sculpted.
The critic asks:
Is the pacing serving the tension?
Do cuts follow emotional logic or just action rhythm?
Are transitions purposeful — or lazy dissolves masking structural gaps?
They know montage isn't a trick — it's emotional architecture. They observe silence as deeply as speed. They feel where the story breathes — and where it chokes.
🔊 7. Sound Design – The Invisible Storyteller
A critic trained in the art of sound doesn’t just notice the score.
They listen for:
Ambience that builds mood or isolates a character.
Juxtapositions in sound that deepen subtext.
Whether music elevates or manipulates.
If silence is used with courage — not fear.
Because in great films, you feel the story even with your eyes closed.
🎭 8. Acting – Transformation, Truth, Timing
Real critics don’t gush, “She looked stunning!”They ask:
Did the actor disappear into the role?
Were choices internalized or just performed?
Did the chemistry feel earned or engineered?
They notice gesture, breath, stillness. They measure growth over screen time. They demand emotional honesty — not branding.
🎭 9. Drama – Conflict, Catharsis, Composition
Drama is the lifeblood of storytelling. A critic sees whether the film generates authentic conflict — not just obstacles, but moral, psychological, or existential tension.
Do characters confront something real?
Does the resolution transform anyone?
Or was it all just noise without consequence?
Drama isn’t shouting. It’s shattering.
🧠 10. Ideology – What Does the Film Believe?
The critic asks:
What worldview is the film promoting or questioning?
What’s being normalized? Romanticized? Challenged?
Who’s being given voice — and who’s being erased?
Is the film complicit in old myths? Or is it using story to liberate, illuminate, or provoke?
Because every film has a politics — even the ones pretending not to.
🌐 11. Synthesis – What Does It All Mean?
Finally, the critic pulls the lens back.
How does all of it — story, craft, sound, ideology — fuse into one experience?
What does the film leave behind after it ends?
Great criticism answers:
What does this film say about us?
What does it ask from us?
And does it deserve to be remembered?
Because cinema isn’t just entertainment. It’s memory. Myth. Mirror.
🎬 The Bottom Line
Real criticism is not a reaction. It’s an investigation. A decoding of cinematic language and cultural subtext.
It elevates film. Educates the audience. Challenges the industry. And protects the soul of the medium.
Anything less isn’t criticism — it’s marketing.
So to every filmmaker, film student, or future critic:
Study the craft.
Speak the language.
And when the credits roll — write something worth reading.
🎥 Because when cinema is great, criticism must rise to meet it.
🎬 Leap or Linger: How Indian Film Critics Must Evolve — or Step Aside
For far too long, Indian movie criticism has existed inside a bubble — puffed up with celebrity proximity, star-studded soundbites, and box office speculation dressed up as cinematic insight.
But the bubble has burst. The world has changed. And the audience? They’ve grown up.
They’ve seen what real film criticism looks like:
Deep-dive dissections by Mark Kermode.
Cultural analysis by A.O. Scott.
Shot-by-shot breakdowns by Nerdwriter.
Honest, insightful commentary from global YouTubers who’ve never even been to a premiere — but understand story, performance, ideology, and craft.
And back in India? We’re still asking, “First day collection kitni thi?”
🧱 The Gap Is Real — But Not Unbridgeable
This isn’t just a small step critics must take. It’s a leap across a canyon — from influence to integrity, from convenience to craft.
Right now, we have “critics” who:
Parrot studio PR scripts.
Rave about trailers before the first frame is seen.
Drop “reviews” two hours after premieres.
Use terms like “mass masala” and “blockbuster” as if they’re cinematic genres.
But it doesn’t have to stay this way.
🔥 What Critics Must Do — Now. If Indian critics want to matter in this new era, they must:
🎓 Study the craft. Read Understanding Movies, The Protagonist’s Journey, Save the Cat, and more. Know what mise-en-scène means before you praise it.
🧠 Think beyond the frame. Every movie is a product of its time, politics, ideology, and psychology. Read it like a text, not a trade ad.
🎭 Champion the new. Spot rising talent, call out lazy legacy. Stop worshipping surnames. Start celebrating skill.
📚 Be teachers, not influencers. Audiences want to understand why a film works — not just if it made you laugh.
🎙 Hold the line. Say the unpopular thing. Lose the invitation. Keep your credibility.
💥 What Audiences Must Demand — Loudly
This isn’t just on the critics. It’s on us, the audience. Because the critics we tolerate… are the critics we deserve.
If you’re an Indian film lover, here’s what you must demand:
🔍 Depth over drama. Don’t just share reviews. Question them. Why was it rated 4.5 stars? What was the logic?
🚫 Call out bias. Notice who always praises certain banners. Notice who always attacks specific actors. Speak up.
📣 Reward real voices. There are new critics out there — film students, bloggers, podcasters — writing with more clarity and courage than legacy names. Amplify them.
🎥 Expect better. Stop treating "entertaining" as a free pass for lazy writing, cringey dialogue, and sloppy editing. Raise your bar — and your critics will have to reach it.
🚨 The Rewrite Generation Is Here — And It’s Watching
This is not about canceling old critics. It’s about challenging them.To lead, to follow, or to get out of the way.
Because a new wave of filmmakers is already rewriting Indian cinema. They’re training harder. Writing tighter. Shooting braver. Acting deeper.
What they need now… is a critical culture that gets it. That pushes them. That sharpens them. That celebrates them when — and because — they’re great.
So to every critic in India:
🎤 The mic is yours — but this time, earn it.
And to every audience member:
🔥 Demand more. Read smarter. Share better. Speak louder.
Because cinema is only as bold as the criticism that shapes it.
Critics, This Is Your Close-Up — Don't Miss Your Cue
For decades, Indian cinema has stumbled toward irrelevance not just because filmmakers lost their way — but because those who were supposed to hold the compass put it down.
The slow, sad collapse of Bollywood’s artistic credibility wasn’t inevitable. It was enabled.
Enabled by “critics” who mistook marketing decks for meaning.By pundits who projected box office charts instead of narrative flaws.By influencers who hyped mediocrity, dodged hard questions, and disguised brand loyalty as cinematic insight.
And while these “samosa critics” fed the illusion of success, the world moved on — discovering deeper stories, sharper craft, and critics who actually knew the difference between a good scene and a loud one.
But here's the good news: Every collapse is also a clearing. And from that clearing must rise a new generation of critics.
🎤 Critics who know that cinema is a visual language — and study its grammar.
🧠 Critics who understand that storytelling is structure, not sentiment.
🎥 Critics who analyze performance, design, sound, and ideology — not just face value.
💥 Critics who challenge filmmakers to go deeper, because the audience already has.
You don’t need a press badge to become this critic. You need clarity, courage, and craft.
Because today, more than ever, the Indian Film Industry needs critics who don’t chase premieres — but chase truth. Critics who don’t bow to stars — but elevate storytelling. Critics who don’t just critique movies — but help shape the future of Indian cinema itself.
And to the next wave of aspiring critics reading this:
This is your scene one, take one.
Your moment to step in, step up, and say what needs to be said — not for likes or leverage, but for legacy.
Cinema deserves better.
Audiences expect better.
India is ready for better.
So pick up the pen. Watch deeper. Write smarter. Speak braver.
🎬 The rewrite begins with you.
Comments