We are in 2025, yet many filmmakers, producers, directors and actors still seem to misunderstand the true purpose of a critical review. Kiran Abbavaram, for instance, came forward for another Q&A, expressing disappointment with K-RAMP reviews.
He noted that multiple times before release, he had clearly stated K-RAMP was a mass film made for B and C centers. Even so, the reviews and ratings shocked him. But he conveniently forgot that he said it’s a film your whole family can enjoy together in theaters numerous times.
If you recall, producer Naga Vamsi said something similar after Mad 2 received mixed reviews. He argued that the Mad 2 was meant to be a simple comedy with youngsters, not a grand spectacle like Baahubali. Yet he felt the reviews and ratings did not align with how he had promoted the film and what he said audiences and reviewers could expect from Mad 2.
Looking at these both cases, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about ‘critic’ reviews. Their argument is this: they believe that by prepping critics before the release, the reviews should reflect that preparation, and low ratings are therefore disappointing them.
But here’s the essential point everyone needs to understand: a critic’s review is not a bargain or a favor, and it should not be influenced -positively or negatively -by how a producer or actor frames the film before its release. It’s fine to set audience expectations, but you cannot “prep” reviewers to deliver a certain rating. Critics evaluate a film based on what it actually delivers and how they personally experience it, not based on promotional statements.
This is a fundamental concept that seems to be widely misunderstood. And this is just one example, there are many other basic misperceptions about how critic reviews work.
