The Film Critics Guild (FCG), a private group of film reviewers, issued a strong statement this week to condemn the online reactions that followed reviews of the film Dhurandhar.

The Guild said that some critics were subjected to “targeted attacks, harassment, and hate” after posting their opinions on the film. The statement warned that ordinary disagreement had crossed a line and become organised, and it accused unnamed actors of trying to harm the professional standing of reviewers.

The Guild also said the backlash had taken the form of “coordinated abuse”, personal attacks and efforts to “discredit professional integrity”. It added that there were attempts to intimidate critics, influence editorial decisions and pressure publications to change or soften their reviews. The message from the Guild aimed to protect reviewers’ right to express independent opinions without fear of harassment.

Many readers reacted to the Guild’s defence with surprise. Two of the critics who drew the strongest public attention over their Dhurandhar reviews — Anupama Chopra and Sucharita Tyagi — are the very leaders of the Guild. Chopra is the chairperson and Tyagi is the vice chairperson. Because the Guild’s formal protest came after criticism of those two critics, some members of the public said the statement may appear partly meant to protect the Guild’s own leadership rather than only to defend critics in general.

Anupama Chopra, as Chairperson of the FCG, framed the Guild’s response as a defence of editorial freedom and independent criticism. But it was Chopra’s own review of Dhurandhar that set off much of the debate. Viewers and fans accused her review of being politically tinted and dismissive of a film many found earnest and powerful. After a large online backlash, Chopra’s review was taken down from the public view on the platform where it had originally appeared. No full public explanation was issued for that removal, but many on social media read the action as a sign that the review had caused a strong negative reaction.

Sucharita Tyagi, the Guild’s vice chairperson and a critic who calls herself independent, also faced heavy pushback for her sharp review of Dhurandhar. Online conversations highlighted what many saw as a contrast between her critical take on Dhurandhar and the warm praise she has given to other films such as Pathaan. For many viewers, this raised questions about whether personal taste or political leanings shaped her judgments. Critics argued that such inconsistencies weaken the claim of being an unbiased, independent critic.

Because the chairperson and vice chairperson were central to the controversy, many readers saw the Guild’s statement as an effort at reputational defence by leaders under public scrutiny. Some said the statement read less like a pure defence of free expression and more like an attempt to preserve the standing of the Guild’s top officials.

‘Damage Control?’ Netizens call out Sanjiv Goenka for praising Dhurandhar after Anupama Chopra’s review backlash

Dr Sanjiv Goenka, whose media group publishes the outlet where Anupama Chopra works, publicly praised Dhurandhar after watching it. He posted on social media, writing: "Watched #Dhurandhar and loved it. A hard hitting narrative, stellar performances and incredible craft. @RanveerOfficial delivers an authentic and powerful performance. Big kudos to @AdityaDharFilms, @B62Studios, @jiostudios and the entire cast. Special mention to Akshaye Khanna, who continues to win over Gen Z with that undeniable ‘aura.' Also great to see the songs trending as chartbusters. Congratulations to @saregamaglobal. Excited for Part 2."

That message drew sharp reactions online. Political commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra was among those who criticised Goenka’s praise and suggested it looked like an effort to calm the backlash after Chopra’s negative review. Iyer-Mitra posted, "Sanjiv here, owns Hollywood Reporter - of which Anupama Chopra is the Chief Editor. Damage Control?" Many users echoed that view, calling the timing of Goenka’s praise suspicious given the controversy around Chopra’s review.

What Anupama Chopra said about Dhurandhar

In her review on the Hollywood Reporter India YouTube channel, Chopra said: "Directed by Aditya Dhar, who six years ago delivered the blockbuster Uri: The Surgical Strike, this three-hour-thirty-four-minute film is only Part 1, with Part 2 arriving in March. Aditya tactically weaves in real events like the Kandahar hijacking, the 2001 Parliament attack, and 26/11 recordings to push buttons harder, but the mix of fact and flamboyance proves both dangerous and clunky." She added: "Ranveer Singh plays Hamza, an undercover operative who infiltrates Karachi’s Lyari underworld, while a spectacular cast including Sanjay Dutt, Akshaye Khanna, and Sara Arjun fills out a Gotham-like world of gang rivalry, ISI machinations, and extreme violence."

Those precise lines from Chopra’s review were widely quoted in conversations online. Her description made clear that she saw the film’s large scale and its use of real incidents as choices that carried risk. Supporters of the film saw Chopra’s words as overly harsh, while some critics of the film agreed with her point about mixing fact and fiction.

Paresh Rawal’s response

After Chopra’s review drew strong criticism from viewers, actor Paresh Rawal reacted sharply. He replied to her on social media with the line: "Aren't you tired of being Miss Irrelevant?" His comment became part of the wider online debate about whether reviewers should expect such direct pushback from public figures and how far criticism should go.

About Dhurandhar and the cast

Dhurandhar is inspired by real-life events and the criminal networks in Karachi’s Lyari area. The film draws from true incidents as it tells a story focused on India’s efforts against terror in Pakistan. The movie’s cast includes Ranveer Singh, Akshaye Khanna, R. Madhavan, Arjun Rampal, Sara Arjun, Rakesh Bedi, Manav Gohil, Danish Pandor, Saumya Tandon, and Gaurav Gera, among others. The film’s scale, subject matter and use of historical references have been central to both praise and criticism.

The dispute shows how strongly viewers feel about both the film and how critics handle sensitive subjects. The Guild has presented its statement as a defence of critics who face abuse. At the same time, the close involvement of the Guild’s top leaders in the controversy keeps public attention fixed on whether the defence is impartial or partly self-protective. The debate continues across social media and media platforms, with supporters and critics of the film and its reviewers exchanging sharp views.