Film critic quits after being asked to change rating

Here's the article on Mumbai Mirror controversy - https://m.firstpost.com/bollywood/mumbai-mirror-film-critic-rahul-desai-quits-tanu-weds-manu-returns-rating-furore-2268894.html

Critic quit after the paper changed ratings given to TWMR, after getting reader feedback (aka backlash).

It raised issue of not only media's credibility but also freedom of press.

In past, some sites had "revised" reviews for 3 Idiots, RDB and TZP due to "research" or feedback.

What's your take on this issue? Shouldn't critics be allowed to voice their opinions freely? Why should they write reviews based on reader/fan feedback or keeping public preferences in mind? Isn't it as wrong as writing reviews under influence of stars or filmmakers? Both ways it's biased and not an honest appreciation of the film.

(PS - Nothing against any stars or films. Just started topic after reading the critic's post about quitting job at the publication)

Critics r jokes TBH. None of them is unbiased, they have their likes and dislikes.. and if u top it up with bribes and then BO predictions and then one crtic gives 2 stars and another gives 4 stars.. and they dont even know public mood swings.

Every BW critic is biased .

They should post their own opinions it shouldn't have to correlate with what the public thinks

I have seen reviews being changed or new reviews with more praise being put up just due to "reader feedback".

I don't think it's fair.

It is as bad as buying good reviews by influential producers or stars. No less corrupt.

This critic's rating was upgraded next day without bothering about whether he himself agreed or not.

This is not done. It's also insult to the critic. Editor changes rating but public thinks critic changed it or had to eat his words. Why should he bear this gag on his judgement and expression?

Thats why I m asking for long time that a member who just watched the movie and wanna give his/her review in a topic.. should be allowed. I would read it.. but not 100 pages topics where u get lost.

Originally posted by: atominis

I have seen reviews being changed or new reviews with more praise being put up just due to "reader feedback".

I don't think it's fair.

It is as bad as buying good reviews by influential producers or stars. No less corrupt.

This critic's rating was upgraded next day without bothering about whether he himself agreed or not.

This is not done. It's also insult to the critic. Editor changes rating but public thinks critic changed it or had to eat his words. Why should he bear this gag on his judgement and expression?

Honestly I have stopped trusting reviews. Many times it has happened that a movie is very highly recommended but I find it very unpleasing. So I watch the movie I like the trailer of.

@AllBlacks

Corrupt means giving favourable or bad reviews after accepting bribe or getting call from producer or star.

Or changing reviews suddenly for readership.

Fans and haters online can be biased. But they are not corrupt. They have not done it in lieu of other gains.

To be honest... As a movie it wasn't great at all... What carried the movie was the performances and the dialogues...
Many ppl on the forum also gave 1/5 for the movie story screenplay etc and high scores for dialogues and performances...
If you r going to go by public feedback then it's better to ask only for a public review and not have a critic review...
I went for the morning show on the first day without having read any reviews... I thought the movie was average and quite silly and dragged in several parts... But the performances sparkled as did the dialogues and that carried the movie through...