Are producers losing sight of the bigger picture while blaming reviewers for poor box office footfalls?

The tug-of-war between filmmakers and film reviewers has become a recurring theme in the Malayalam film industry. For years, a section of producers and filmmakers have argued that months, even years of hard work can be undone within hours by online reviews. Last week, the debate resurfaced after the producer of ‘Angam Attahasam’ alleged that first-day, first-show reviews had severely damaged the film’s box office prospects.

Producer Anil Kumar G, during a press meet in Kochi, also maintained that a representative of popular YouTube reviewer Aswanth Kok had demanded ₹1 lakh in exchange for a positive review. The allegation sparked a fierce backlash from Kerala’s YouTube reviewer community, including a strongly worded response from Kok himself, who challenged the producer to produce evidence. The controversy has once again reignited an uncomfortable but important question: Are online reviews and so-called ‘review bombing’ really hurting the film industry, or are producers using reviewers as convenient scapegoats for deeper problems?

With Malayalam cinema releasing at least two to three films every week, the debate extends beyond individual reviewers. It raises broader concerns about accountability, audience trust, the influence of social media, and the evolving nature of film criticism.
Last year, the Kerala Film Producers Association announced that only accredited reviewers should be allowed to review films.

The Kerala High Court also directed the Union Ministry to examine possible regulations for online film reviews. Following these developments, police registered cases against seven online reviewers on allegations of extortion.
However, popular YouTuber Unni who rungs Unni Vlogs strongly rejected claims that reviewers accept money in exchange for favourable opinions. “To my knowledge, not a single YouTuber takes money for reviews,” he said. “I do accept payments for trailer reactions like any media house that accepts money for promotional content, but reviews are different. When filmmakers invite us to watch their movies, they know the review will reflect my genuine opinion. They must be prepared for both praise and criticism. My responsibility is to my subscribers and to cinema itself.”

According to him, no serious reviewer would risk losing credibility for a one-time payment. “There is a reason people follow specific reviewers. Every reviewer has a distinct style and audience. Our loyalty is to that audience. Losing their trust would cost far more than any amount a producer could offer. Also, if you look at the average amount from subscriptions that a YouTuber can earn through his loyal subscription base, it is so much higher.”
Unni also dismissed the term ‘review bombing’ as a narrative created by producers unwilling to confront their own failures. “When a film fails, it is easier to blame reviewers than to examine what went wrong. Producers want someone else to take the blame,” he said.

He went further, alleging that some producers view reviewers as obstacles to securing lucrative OTT deals. “They are happy with positive reviews because it helps them. But if they welcome praise, they must also accept criticism,” he argued.
At the same time, he acknowledged that organised degradation campaigns do exist on social media but insisted they should not be confused with professional film reviews. “Negative campaigns usually happen through Facebook comments or coordinated social media activity. As far as I have heard, some online promoters are paid to create positive buzz, and when payments are delayed, they turn against the film. That is very different from a reviewer expressing an opinion.”

Yet producers remain unconvinced. The Kerala Film Chamber and the Kerala Film Producers Association have announced plans to pursue legal action against what they describe as the ‘degrading’ of films. “Reviewers like Kok are taking excessive freedom to destroy a product and undermine a producer’s hard work,” said Sandip Senan, vice-president of the Kerala Film Producers Association. “If they truly believe in their opinions, let them stop chasing subscriptions and revenue. It is unfair that one person profits while another suffers losses.”
Kerala Film Chamber president Anil Kumar echoed those concerns, accusing some YouTubers of revealing spoilers and turning films into objects of ridicule. The associations are now exploring legal avenues and are expected to push for film reviews to be regulated in a manner similar to product reviews.

While Aswanth Kok declined to comment on the latest controversy, film critic Chandrasekhar believes producers themselves contributed to the rise of influencer culture. “For years, production houses benefited from social media influencers because they increased visibility. There is little point complaining now. Audience visibility and film saleability are closely linked, but it is a double-edged sword,” he said.
Chandrasekhar argued that reviewers such as Kok are as much entertainers as critics, and their popularity stems from audience demand. “Whether one likes their style or not, cinema is a public product once it is released. Discussing it falls within the realm of free expression,” he said.
At the same time, he drew a distinction between criticism and mere opinion. “A review should offer insight to both audiences and filmmakers. It should present arguments, comparisons and perspectives that may not have been considered before. Simply declaring a film good or bad is not criticism. It is word-of-mouth publicity. However, if film reviewers are extorting money for giving good reviews, that needs to be curbed, as it is unethical,” he said.

The larger question, however, remains unresolved. If a single review can truly destroy a film, does that indicate excessive influence by reviewers, or do producers need to address the root causes of audience disengagement?