FOR 🅰 REASON

Not just these. There are tons more instances where these bottom feeders’ judgments utterly failed. This guy and Barbell are both extremely poor at understanding films. On top of that, he has a documented public history of allegedly posting reviews without even watching the films. Always negative Barbell thrives on negativity, which does more harm than good to the film industry. Ironically, some audiences psychologically assume that low ratings automatically mean genuine reviews. 😂 ❌ No reviewer can make or break or influence a film (including us). What actually matters? Though termed as reviews are individual opinions, Whose early judgments consistently match the eventual market verdict most of the time, and how well they identify what works and doesn’t work in an average film. That’s what makes a credible reviewer. These always-nitpicking, low-rating guys largely cater to people who don’t even watch films in theaters. That audience finds their negativity relatable. Even for films like Ranabaali, dealing with the 1878 famine and British atrocities, these guys expect entertainment and a fast-paced narrative. What a WTH moment! 😂 And about their reach… Some audiences mistake reach for authenticity. X’s & YT recommendation algorithm is open-source, not guesswork. It amplify individuals not websites on their platforms.. but reach has nothing to do with the quality of their judgment. Consistently giving low ratings to attract eyeballs can be another engagement tactic. Nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as audiences can see through it. Negativity isn’t honesty. Its proof of poor judgment.